There is no global temperature!
consensually challenged
http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf
There is no global temperature. The reasons lie in the properties of the
equation of state governing local thermodynamic equilibrium, and the
implications cannot be avoided by substituting statistics for physics.
Since temperature is an intensive variable, the total temperature is
meaningless in terms of the system being measured, and hence any one simple
average has no necessary meaning.
Neither does temperature have a constant proportional relationship with
energy or other extensive thermodynamic properties.
Averages of the Earth’s temperature field are thus devoid of a physical
context which would indicate how they are to be interpreted, or what meaning
can be attached to changes in their levels, up or down. Statistics cannot
stand in as a replacement for the missing physics because data alone are
context-free. Assuming a context only leads to paradoxes such as
simultaneous warming and cooling in the same system based on arbitrary
choice in some free parameter. Considering even a restrictive class of
admissible coordinate transformations yields families of averaging rules
that likewise generate opposite trends in the same data, and by implication
indicating contradictory rankings of years in terms of warmth.
The physics provides no guidance as to which interpretation of the data is
warranted.
Since arbitrary indexes are being used to measure a physically non-existent
quantity, it is not surprising that different formulae yield different
results with no apparent way to select among them.
The purpose of this paper was to explain the fundamental meaninglessness of
so-called global temperature data. The problem can be (and has been) happily
ignored in the name of the empirical study of climate. But nature is not
obliged to respect our statistical conventions and conceptual shortcuts.
Debates over the levels and trends in so-called global temperatures will
continue interminably, as will disputes over the significance of these
things for the human experience of climate, until some physical basis is
established for the meaningful measurement of climate variables, if indeed
that is even possible.
It may happen that one particular average will one day prove to stand out
with some special physical significance. However, that is not so today. The
burden rests with those who calculate these statistics to prove their logic
and value in terms of the governing dynamical equations, let alone the
wider, less technical, contexts in which they are commonly encountered.
Exxon Polluters
Joe Fischer
<ell...@msn.com> wrote:
>For the science is settled group, don't look now but your slip is showing.
>
>http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf
>
>There is no global temperature. The reasons lie in the properties of the
>equation of state governing local thermodynamic equilibrium, and the
>implications cannot be avoided by substituting statistics for physics.
>[snip]
Here is one of 384000 hits that gives good reasons
why a global temperature is meaningless;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm
If crackpot Joe Fischer knows this, why are
real scientists placing any credence in the concept.
Joe Fischer
Exxon Creams on Hanson
> If crackpot Joe Fischer knows this, why are
> real scientists placing any credence in the concept.
>
> Joe Fischer
Crackpot Joe Fischer, ignore.
Phil Hays
> There is no global temperature. The reasons lie in the properties of the
> equation of state governing local thermodynamic equilibrium, and the
> implications cannot be avoided by substituting statistics for physics.
>
> Since temperature is an intensive variable, the total temperature is
> meaningless in terms of the system being measured, and hence any one
> simple average has no necessary meaning.
There is a pool in Yellowstone National Park with an average temperature
of 203F. The coolest temperature is about 195F.
Does this average mean anything?
--
Phil Hays
Roger Coppock
shoveling the manure from the bottom of the sack.
I haven't heard this obvious lie in almost two years.
This telling of the lie has a lot of technical jargon.
It probably traps the ignorant faster with all those
big words.
I wonder if I could use the same line on the IRS?
"There is no total income," I'd say. It wouldn't
have a chance, though. IRS auditors have two whole
brain cells. That's twice as many as a fossil fool,
and any other jerk who's never seen the inside of a
science book.
kdt...@yahoo.com
It may mean something. But the math you guys use of an energy from
Boltzman Stefan and an average temperature is clearly invalid. The
average of the energies of of a collection of temperatures is not the
same as the energy of the average temperature. So that means your
initial calculation of 255K which is rasied 33C by grenhouse gase is
invalid through and through. But since you can't do math and have no
interests in learning, you persist with your fraud.
To raise the temperature an average of 33C requires an average energy
rise much more than the 63% rise of energy that this is at 255K.
Absolutely impossible that this is true no matter how many inept
scholarians may believe this or repeat it as true.
You guys obviously cannot understand the concept of equilibrium
either. To say that 4 or 7Wm-2 is recieved greater than what is
radiated from the earth is absolute nonsense. This would be a quantity
of heat to raise the temperature of the atmosphere one degreeC in 17
days. Or to raise the top 3.2 meters of the ocean 1degC in 17 days.
But this would require some ability to do math and understanding of
physics and heat capacity to understand, huh. Instead of the
interminable twisting of science and physics to fit the end conclusion
you have decided in your superstition/religion.
Deatherage
H2-PV Fast Track to Energy Security
> > There is a pool in Yellowstone National Park with an average temperature
> > of 203F. The coolest temperature is about 195F.
>
> > Does this average mean anything?
>
> > --
> > Phil Hays
>
> initial calculation of 255K which is rasied 33C by grenhouse gase is
> scholarians may believe this or repeat it as true.
> interminable twisting of science and physics to fit the end conclusion
> you have decided in your superstition/religion.
>
> Deatherage
Crackpot, Ignore. There is no Keith Death-Rag
Bill Ward
Roger, I think you'd be more convincing if you addressed the actual issue,
rather than a strawman. As it is, by avoiding discussion of the
original link:
http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf
you sound like a desperate man calling names, spewing insults, and trying
to change the subject. It doesn't help your case. Try to stay focused on
specific points.
For example: Do you agree that temperature is an intensive variable? If
you have some reason to believe it is not, please elucidate. Maybe we can
raise the signal to noise ratio a bit by taking it a step at a time.
Regards,
Bill Ward
xnic...@hotmail.com
The paper is utter trash. Using their methodology, there would be no
way of determing whether Venus was hotter than the Earth.
It's the irrationalist road to lunacy.
Joe Fischer
<bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:34:29 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:
>> Gee! The fossil fools are desperate. They're shoveling the manure from
>> the bottom of the sack.
>>
>> I haven't heard this obvious lie in almost two years. This telling of the
>> lie has a lot of technical jargon. It probably traps the ignorant faster
>> with all those big words.
>
>Roger, I think you'd be more convincing if you addressed the actual issue,
>rather than a strawman. As it is, by avoiding discussion of the
>original link:
>
>http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf
Please don't put Roger in a bind, he would
have a hard time explaining to his kid if he were
to give an inch.
Joe Fischer
Joe Fischer
>The paper is utter trash. Using their methodology, there would be no
>way of determing whether Venus was hotter than the Earth.
>It's the irrationalist road to lunacy.
Venus is closer to the sun, a lot closer, would
that give them a clue?
Temperature is not related to energy in a simple
way, and where there is evaporation of water, enormous
quantities of energy are required, and all that energy is
converted to heat high in the air.
Evaporating a pound of water is the same as
lowering the temperature 1000 pounds of water one
degree F. And that same water at 30,000 feet will
reflect sunlight back into space, providing even more
cooling yet.
Water is the buffer to extreme temperatures,
and whatever the local temperature is, water is a
self regulating temperature controller.
Joe Fischer
Citizen Bob
<j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
>Temperature is not related to energy in a simple way
Actually it is, in equilibrium systems. It's called the Equipartition
of Energy. Each degree of freedom contributes 1/2 kT to the total
energy.
However, the global climate system is far from being in equilibrium.
--
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)!
Primary Cause of Global Warming!
The DHMO Institute
Houston, Texas
consensually challenged
is hotter than earth but not as hot as the sun, but cannot tell the absolute
temperature of Earth. Please read the paper to correct your ignorance on
the subject.
<xnic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174120765....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
xnic...@hotmail.com
"There is no global temperature"
Therefore, there is no global temperature on Venus either.
Therefore, there is no valid way of making a scientific comparison of
the temperature of Venus and Earth.
What a waste of time!
Bill Ward
Sorry if I didn't make it clear. I'm not convinced by rhetoric, insults,
strawmen, or unsupported opinion. I might be interested in what your
opinion is based on, if you can explain it. Since you didn't respond to
my simple question, I'm forced to assume you don't know squat about the
actual issue, and are cheerleading instead of playing the game. Play or
pass.
xnic...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think the onus is on you to explain what follows from their
conclusions:
How can you make any scientific judgment of whether Venus is warmer
than Earth?
consensually challenged
There are no common values when discussing the temperature of one body in
space to another, however, when trying to determine global temperature
within one body there are many sets of data that overlap. Furthermore, due
to equilibrium, when a relative warmer air packet meets a cooler one than
both air packets change, with the warmer packet getting relatively cooler,
but also the cooler packet gets relatively warmer. So, the temperature
arrived at is constant but the path that both air packets took to get there
are obviously opposite. The question raised by this paper is if the use of
statistics brings you two separate trends, then how do you choose which
trend is applicable? By the use of Physics. And since their is no
underlying Physics in the global warming debate, in regards to this
question, than the statistics are meaningless.
<xnic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174141367....@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Bill Ward
>>On 17 Mar, 13:46, "consensually challenged" <ell...@msn.com> wrote:
>> actually if you read the paper they tell you exactly why you can tell
>> venus is hotter than earth but not as hot as the sun, but cannot tell
>> the absolute temperature of Earth. Please read the paper to correct
>> your ignorance on the subject
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 07:22:47 -0700, xnichols wrote:
> Actually, I have read the paper and the conclusion they reach is: -
>
> "There is no global temperature"
But do you understand _why_ there is no global temperature? Is it your
contention that temperature is _not_ an intensive variable?
>
> Therefore, there is no global temperature on Venus either. Therefore,
> there is no valid way of making a scientific comparison of the
> temperature of Venus and Earth.
Strawman arguments automatically lose, especially when they're top-posted.
>
> What a waste of time!
Beginning to look that way.
Bill Ward
Bill Ward
Google for "strawman argument" and get back to me.
Roger Coppock
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:34:29 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:
> > Gee! The fossil fools are desperate. They're shoveling the manure from
> > the bottom of the sack.
>
> > I haven't heard this obvious lie in almost two years. This telling of the
> > lie has a lot of technical jargon. It probably traps the ignorant faster
> > with all those big words.
>
> > I wonder if I could use the same line on the IRS? "There is no total
> > income," I'd say. It wouldn't have a chance, though. IRS auditors have
> > two whole brain cells. That's twice as many as a fossil fool, and any
> > other jerk who's never seen the inside of a science book.
>
> Roger, I think you'd be more convincing if you addressed the actual issue,
> rather than a strawman. As it is, by avoiding discussion of the
> original link:
>
> http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf
>
flawed reasoning one couldn't rely on a thermostat to
regulate a HVAC system.
THIS SO-CALLED PAPER IS THE STRAWMAN. Discussion of it
would be like talking to turds instead of flushing them
down the toilet.
Roger Coppock
If you have a ball, I'll play. This so-called 'paper' is the
old sneak play. Nothing, nothing whatsoever, is gained by
discussing phantoms.
Joe Fischer
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 06:06:47 -0500, Joe Fischer
><j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
>>Temperature is not related to energy in a simple way
>
>Actually it is, in equilibrium systems. It's called the Equipartition
>of Energy. Each degree of freedom contributes 1/2 kT to the total
>energy.
I think the application of that is restricted to energy
systems involving dynamics. Systems that are affected
more by evaporation of water, and to a much lesser
extent, freezing or melting of water are too complex
to model meaningfully.
>However, the global climate system is far from being in equilibrium.
So why mention Equipartition of Energy then? :-)
If actual measured temperatures higher than
I have experienced start to show up, I will get very
concerned, until then I will just do what I can to reduce
energy usage and oil usage.
Joe Fischer
Citizen Bob
<bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>But do you understand _why_ there is no global temperature? Is it your
>contention that temperature is _not_ an intensive variable?
Temperature is defined in thermodynamics only for an equilibrium
system.
Citizen Bob
wrote:
>> http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf
>The paper is pseudo-science junk.
State your credentials so we can assess whether you have the ability
to make that assessment.
Then provide counter arguments showing how the article is junk.
Until you do that, you are just trolling.
xnic...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, you quoted the wrong section of the paper in reply to my
question, which makes me wonder whether you really followed it.
They do actually discuss the issue of the sun vs pluto, but in a
statistical and completely un-physical way.
They claim you can compare different sets with respect to temperature,
but you can't measure the cooling or warming within the sets at any
instant because it depends on the thermodynamic interactions of the
data cells the method of averaging chosen.
So what? The issue is what is the figure all these values converge
to.
We make such predictions all the time - very dependable ones about the
seasons. That summer will be warmer than winter for instance. You
can't use the anomalous values of any one place or time to deny this.
If you did that you would be violating physical explanations in favour
of statistical sophistry.
If you don't include any physical theory of the climate system in your
calculations you will end up with absurd statements which everyday
experience invalidates all the time.
It's not a simply a question of the exchange of heat-energy between
the earth and space.
There is a continual energy input into the system from the sun.
The issues are:
(i) To what extent is the experimentally proven increase in the Co2
composition of the atmosphere causing infra-red energy to radiate back
into the lower atmosphere causing it to warm in proportion.
(ii) To what extent is this also warming the oceans, leading to their
reduced capacity to absorb Co2, thereby increasing the atmospheric
levels further.
There are clear-cut scientific predictions on this which you simply
can't answer.
You we're quite prepared to accept the notion of a global temperature
when you when it suited your argument that changes in the sun were
driving up the earth's temperature. Now it has been shown to you that
none of these can explain the rising globally recorded temperatures
since 1970, you are resorting to questioning "global" and "average"
and "temperature".
Eric Swanson
There are some obvious flaws with their analysys. The graph at the end which
shows "r" averages (fig 2) doesn't appear to be area weighted, thus, the high
latitude time series count equally with the ones near the equator. Then, they
claim to be using data from the GISS time series, which is in degrees Celsius,
while their earlier equations should rely on absolute temperature, i.e.,
degrees Kelvin. Using degrees C, a location with a negative monthly
temperature would appear to give a negative trend for warming at "r" values
above 1, AIUI. Anyway, what's the point of using "r" greater than 4 or less
than 0? Is there any physical reasoning behind such choices? But what do I
know, I'm not an expert at statistics, like Essex and McKitrick claim to be....
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Ward
OK. Your position is pretty clear. I guess I was suffering from the
delusion that you might be a reasonable person. Won't happen again.
H2-PV Fast Track to Energy Security
There's no lowering the noise when shills refuse to throw out debunked
arguments and resurrect them over and over. Then they just earn the
title crackpot and get ignored ever after.
H2-PV Fast Track to Energy Security
> On 17 Mar 2007 01:39:25 -0700, xnich...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >The paper is utter trash. Using their methodology, there would be no
> >way of determing whether Venus was hotter than the Earth.
> >It's the irrationalist road to lunacy.
>
> Venus is closer to the sun, a lot closer, would
> that give them a clue?
Mercury is closer to the sun and colder than Venus, so it is not a
clue to the braindead crackpots to stop trying this scam.
>
> Joe Fischer
H2-PV Fast Track to Energy Security
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 12:54:12 GMT, s...@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) wrote:
> >On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 06:06:47 -0500, Joe Fischer
> ><j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
> >>Temperature is not related to energy in a simple way
>
> >Actually it is, in equilibrium systems. It's called the Equipartition
> >of Energy. Each degree of freedom contributes 1/2 kT to the total
> >energy.
>
> Joe Fischer
Crackpot Joe Fischer, ignore.
H2-PV Fast Track to Energy Security
On Mar 17, 5:46 am, "consensually challenged" <ell...@msn.com> wrote:
> actually if you read the paper they tell you exactly why you can tell venus
> is hotter than earth but not as hot as the sun, but cannot tell the absolute
> temperature of Earth. Please read the paper to correct your ignorance on
> the subject.
Crackpot , ignore.
H2-PV Fast Track to Energy Security
On Mar 17, 7:34 am, "consensually challenged" <ell...@msn.com> wrote:
> trend is applicable? By the use of Physics. And since their is no
> underlying Physics in the global warming debate, in regards to this
> question, than the statistics are meaningless.
Crackpot , ignore.
H2-PV Fast Track to Energy Security
On Mar 17, 9:40 am, s...@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) wrote:
> Temperature is defined in thermodynamics only for an equilibrium
> system.
Crackpot Citizen Bob, Ignore.
H2-PV Fast Track to Energy Security
> Please don't put Roger in a bind, he would
> have a hard time explaining to his kid if he were
> to give an inch.
>
> Joe Fischer
Crackpot Joe Fischer, ignore.
H2-PV Fast Track to Energy Security
H2-PV Fast Track to Energy Security
> > The paper is pseudo-science junk. Using its seriously flawed reasoning
> > one couldn't rely on a thermostat to regulate a HVAC system.
>
> > THIS SO-CALLED PAPER IS THE STRAWMAN. Discussion of it would be like
> > talking to turds instead of flushing them down the toilet.
>
> OK. Your position is pretty clear. I guess I was suffering from the
> delusion that you might be a reasonable person. Won't happen again.
Crackpot Bill Ward, Ignore.
Bill Ward
Thanks for a rational response, Eric. I'm not a statistics expert either,
but I think they may have been giving an example of the logical
inconsistencies resulting from using a meaningless statistic. But
assuming for the sake of argument that there is some fatal flaw in the
example, how does that affect their conclusions based on the earlier
analysis?
Their basic point that temperature is an intensive variable which cannot
be meaningfully averaged seems unassailable. Any attempt to reduce a
complex non-equilibrium system like Earth's climate to a single number
seems fraught with peril to me. Is it too much to expect the people who
are doing so to mathematically support their assumptions?
Do you agree that temperature is an intensive variable?
Regards,
Bill Ward
Bill Ward
Someone is confused here. Please show me where I quoted a section of the
paper to you.
You have enlarged your strawman, but still haven't answered my question.
I believe you may be confusing me with someone else.
Bill Ward
Bill Ward
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:39:24 GMT, Bill Ward
> <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>But do you understand _why_ there is no global temperature? Is it your
>>contention that temperature is _not_ an intensive variable?
>
> Temperature is defined in thermodynamics only for an equilibrium system.
Finally! Give the man a seegar.
Exxon Liars & Thieves
> seems fraught with peril to me. Is it too much to expect the people who
> are doing so to mathematically support their assumptions?
>
> Do you agree that temperature is an intensive variable?
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill Ward
Read the literature, not usenet.
Crackpot Bill Ward, Ignore.
Bill Ward
wrote:
Glad to see you're finally catching on. Maybe you'll stop now.
Eric Swanson
>
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:13:50 +0000, Eric Swanson wrote:
>
>> In article <1174148248....@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>> rcop...@adnc.com says...
>>>
>>>On Mar 17, 12:35 am, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:34:29 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:
>>>> > Gee! The fossil fools are desperate. They're shoveling the manure
>>>> > from the bottom of the sack.
>>>>
>>>> > I haven't heard this obvious lie in almost two years. This telling
>>>> > of the lie has a lot of technical jargon. It probably traps the
>>>> > ignorant faster with all those big words.
>>>> http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf
Climate is an artificial concept. It may be called the statistics of
weather. Temperature as we measure it is one of those weather variables
which has a long history of measurement and applying statistical analysis
to temperature records is one measure of climate. The problem with AGW
is that the warming at any one location is small compared to the larger
variation which naturally occurs. Thus, averaging over a large area,
such as a hemisphere or the entire Earth gives a reduction in variation
such that the trends become more apparent. It's done because it works.
>Do you agree that temperature is an intensive variable?
I suppose it is, but that doesn't preclude simple averaging. The fact
that the averages at a location or for larger areas tend to follow
very strict seasonal bounds suggests to me that temperature does have
a valid meaning. You don't see 100 F in mid-winter and you don't see
0 F in mid summer at temperate latitudes. In the tropics at sea level,
32 F is very unlikely, as is true for 100 F at the poles.
Citizen Bob
<Energy....@HydrogenFREEDOM.info> wrote:
>Crackpot Citizen Bob, Ignore.
>Crackpot Citizen Bob, Ignore.
Crackpot H2-PV Fast Track to Energy Security, Ignore.
Fucking leftist perverts.
FOAD!
Mass Killer COALition
> Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)!
> Primary Cause of Global Warming!
H2O vapor is not a PRIMARY cause. It is a follower, an effect.
Mass Killer COALition
I'll stop calling you a crackpot when you stop being one.
Crackpot Bill Ward, Ignore.
consensually challenged
compared with other averaging techniques. Since there is no physical
equation for temperature in a non-equilibrium setting there is no valid
reason to choose or to not choose any one method for arriving at an average.
"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote in message
news:ethjki$vst$1...@news04.infoave.net...
Joe Fischer
<Energy....@HydrogenFREEDOM.info> wrote:
Mercury is too small to have much of an atmosphere,
but it still gets hot during daylight.
http://www.spa3.k12.sc.us/WebQuests/New%20Planet%20WebQuest/mercury.html
Your association of CO2 as some kind of magic
warming agent is distorted, water vapor could create at
least the same conditions.
Joe Fischer
kdt...@yahoo.com
> No one is precluding simple averaging, just questioning why it is chosen as
> compared with other averaging techniques. Since there is no physical
> equation for temperature in a non-equilibrium setting there is no valid
> reason to choose or to not choose any one method for arriving at an average
You are right that means for determining average temperatures are
subjective and generally cultured for the desired result. Computer
models for temperature only read out what is programed in.
The averages for temperature and solar insolation are invalid for
AGW's averaging of energy which is a fouth power to temperature. This
is a total joke, that their intitial theory is so invalid, and they
cannot quantify the effect of existing GHG's. They don't care. They
rely on their consensus for moral support in the lack of any valid
mathematics.
hahahahahahahahah
Temperature can be defined by the properties of a gas.
Temperature is directly proportional to pressure or volume.
P/V = nRT
This means that combined effect of the velocities of the gas molecules
on the sides of a vessel increases directly proportional to
temperature. From this Boltzman developed his constant kT, which is
the mean kinetic energy of the molecules of a gas and when multiplied
by Avagadros number, is RT.
A gas also has a heat capacity. If a radiation field is introduced to
a gas, the gas absorbs a specific quantity of this energy in order to
attain the kinetic energy of the motions of the molecules. The
molecules also absorb kinetic energy as the rotation of the molecules.
If the heat source is removed, this kinetic energy is lost as
radiation by the gas, and the molecular motions are lost. This is in
maintaining the law of the conservation of energy. The heat capacity
of a monatomic gas is 3/2R at constant volume and 5/2R at expanding
volume. This energy that is absorbed, is the kinetic energy for the
motions of the molecules.
Solids absorb kinetic energy as vibrations of the molecules and have
generally the heat capacity of 3R or about 26 Joules per mol per deg.
But temperature is better defined as the energy density of the
radiation field in a specific volume. This density was quantified by
Stefan, Boltzman and Planck. A substance must be within this density
of radiation field for the kinetic energy of it's motions of it's heat
capacity to be maintained.
According to Planck's law, the statistics of probability define the
distribution. The probablities for the electron oscillator to be in
any given energy state and to emit a photon of that energy is defined
by his law for an equilibrium state. The density of energy field
determines the highest probability of the energy of the electron
oscillator and most common energy of a photon for temperature as,,
hvmax = 4.96kT.
The density of the solar energy at earth's distance produces a
temperature of 394K or 121C. This is evident in the temperatures of
the moon with the sun at zenith. This temperature is 123C and the
average temperature of the lit side of the moon is 107C. It is the
density of this energy of the radiation that develops a temperature
more than it is the 'equilibrium' developed of this quantity
Deatherage
Why DON'T You Want Energy Security?
Bill Ward
If the average has no physical meaning, it would seem to, or at the very
least require some mathematical support showing the maximum error that
could be introduced by the pseudo-averaging operation.
> The fact
> that the averages at a location or for larger areas tend to follow very
> strict seasonal bounds suggests to me that temperature does have a valid
> meaning. You don't see 100 F in mid-winter and you don't see 0 F in mid
> summer at temperate latitudes. In the tropics at sea level, 32 F is
> very unlikely, as is true for 100 F at the poles.
The paper confirms that temperature data sets can be compared as long as
the ranges don't overlap. If they do overlap, inconsistencies can
theoretically arise. Not being much of a statistician, I don't know the
dataset conditions that would make that a practical problem. But simply
trying to dismiss the issue without showing the math behind it immediately
raises red flags for me. The burden of proof would seem to lie with those
stretching statistics by using meaningless averages. Honest researchers
are eager to uncover and explain perceived weaknesses in their
methodology, they don't squeal like stuck pigs when questions are raised.
Thanks for your comment.
Regards,
Bill Ward
http://Hanson-Turd.Exxon-Turds.info
> theoretically arise. Not being much of a statistician, I don't know the
> dataset conditions that would make that a practical problem. But simply
> trying to dismiss the issue without showing the math behind it immediately
>
> Bill Ward
Crackpot Bill Ward, Ignore.
Citizen Bob
<Mass.Killer...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
>> Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)!
>> Primary Cause of Global Warming!
>H2O vapor is not a PRIMARY cause. It is a follower, an effect.
H2O is a primary greenhouse gas.
CO2 is miniscule in comparison.
--
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)!
Primary Cause of Global Warming!
The DHMO Institute
Houston, Texas
Citizen Bob
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
>averaging over a large area,
>such as a hemisphere or the entire Earth gives a reduction in variation
>such that the trends become more apparent. It's done because it works.
Pontification.
The fact is that it doesn't work.
Citizen Bob
<ell...@msn.com> wrote:
>No one is precluding simple averaging, just questioning why it is chosen as
>compared with other averaging techniques. Since there is no physical
>equation for temperature in a non-equilibrium setting there is no valid
>reason to choose or to not choose any one method for arriving at an average.
Temperature is not defined for non-equilibrium systems.
Citizen Bob
>Temperature is directly proportional to pressure or volume.
>P/V = nRT
That's valid only for a so-called Ideal Gases, like monotonic gases.
Ignore the Exxon Crackpot Brigade
> On 17 Mar 2007 13:59:11 -0700, "Mass Killer COALition"
>
> >> Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)!
> >> Primary Cause of Global Warming!
> >H2O vapor is not a PRIMARY cause. It is a follower, an effect.
>
> H2O is a primary greenhouse gas.
>
> CO2 is miniscule in comparison.
Ozone is even more minisucle than either but it is critically
important -- a life-or-death matter that it neither increase nor
decrease too much.
There are 5000 molecules of CO2 for every 1 molecule of ozone, and
there used to be only 4000 CO2 for every 1 ozone.
Eric Gisse
[...]
I find it amusing that you basically say the same exact blurb about
thermodynamics every time.
It is as if all you know about thermo is from an introductory physics
course....
Paul Hyett
wrote :
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:38:32 GMT, "consensually challenged"
><ell...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>No one is precluding simple averaging, just questioning why it is chosen as
>>compared with other averaging techniques. Since there is no physical
>>equation for temperature in a non-equilibrium setting there is no valid
>>reason to choose or to not choose any one method for arriving at an average.
>
>Temperature is not defined for non-equilibrium systems.
I understand what you mean, but without quantitative data how could we
even begin to address climate change, natural or man-made?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Invasion of the Crackpots
> In alt.global-warming on Sun, 18 Mar 2007, Citizen Bob <s...@uce.gov>
> wrote :
>
> >On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:38:32 GMT, "consensually challenged"
> >Temperature is not defined for non-equilibrium systems.
>
> I understand what you mean, but without quantitative data how could we
> even begin to address climate change, natural or man-made?
> --
> Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Crackpot Paul Hyett, not everybody is as dumb as you are.
Citizen Bob
>I find it amusing that you basically say the same exact blurb about
>thermodynamics every time.
What exact blurb are you referring to?
>It is as if all you know about thermo is from an introductory physics
>course....
I have a Ph.D. in Physics from a top American university and over a
dozen articles of original research in quantum mechanics, both
theoretical and experimental, in mainstream refereed physics journals
like Physical Review, Review of Scientific Instruments, Physics
Letters, etc. plus abstracts in the Bulletin of the American Physical
Society for presentations at APS meetings.
I want you to tell me the temperature of Earth at this moment. How
would you do it? Assume that you have accurate thermometry everywhere
you want and you can make instantaneous readings of each temperature
with high accuracy.
1) How do you know if the measurement you make actually represents the
thermodynamic temperature for that locale?
2) How do you plan on constructing the single value for the
temperature I am asking for, namely the temperature of Earth at this
moment?
To show you how screwed up this all is, consider the current temps for
the various reporting stations scattered all over the Houston Metro
area.
Houston Intercontinental Airport 55F
Houston Hobby Airport 58F
Houston Hooks Memorial Airport 54F
Houston Ellington Air Force Base 59F
Pearland Regional Airport 58F
Houston Hull Field Airport 58F
Galveston Scholes Airport 62F
All of these are in the Houston Metropolitan Area, which is a 6
country area about 100 miles in diameter (yes, Houston does sprall).
Taking these readings we get an arithmetic mean of 57.7F. The standard
deviaton (std dev) is 2.6F using the sample method (dividing by N-1
instead of N). So our temp is
T = 57.7F +/- 2.6F
If temps are distributed according to the Normal Distribution, there
is a 95% chance that the actual temp falls into a region of +/- 2 std
dev, which means the temperature of the Houston Metro Area with 95%
confidence is somewhere between:
T = 62.9F to 52.2F
Notice that this range includes all the data above, so it appears to
be a good estimate.
Also notice that the ecosystem of Houston Metro Area is not in
equilibrium, otherwise the fluctuations in temp would only be due to
measurement imprecision. Modern measurement instruments can do far
better than +/- 2.6F.
So, you tell me which temp I should use when calculating the warming
or cooling of Metro Houston over time? If I use averages like the AGW
loons use, and I come up with 1F temp rise, do you now see how absurd
that figure is, both theoretically and experimentally? I can't justify
taking averages of temps in a data series where the individual temps
have such wide fluctuations as this example illustrates.
Put another way, the temp arrived at by this kind of experiment is
meaningless in terms of thermodynamics. Indeed when the TV weather
forecaster tells you that the current temp is 70F, you know it's just
an approximation. You will very likely get a different reading from
your backyard weather station.
1) Temp measurements like those have no thermodynamic significance in
non-equilibrium systems, and therefore cannot be used in thermodynamic
models. They are just a fiction created by TV weather forecasters.
2) The models that the AGW loons propose are hoaxes, just like the
models proposed by the Club of Rome and by the Cold Fusion advocates
of years past.
3) Temp has no meaning if the measurements fluctuate widely from one
measurement to the next over the region of interest.
4) Warming/cooling by small amounts (as claimed by AGW loons) is much
smaller than the fluctuations in temperature measurements (which are
not valid for thermodynamic calculations to begin with) and has no
meaning because Earth's ecosystem is not an equilibrium system. In
case anyone noticed, there is a huge difference between the alleged
temps of the poles vs the equator. That's about as non-equilibrium as
it gets.
How's that for introductory physics.
--
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)!
Primary Cause of Global Warming!
The DHMO Institute
Houston, Texas
Citizen Bob
wrote:
>>Temperature is not defined for non-equilibrium systems.
>I understand what you mean, but without quantitative data how could we
>even begin to address climate change, natural or man-made?
You can't.
That's the whole point of that article:
http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf
Bill Habr
"Citizen Bob" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:45fd4ef2....@news-server.houston.rr.com...
Temperature:
1) Bodies in thermal equilibrium with each other have the same temperature. In
gaseous fluid dynamics, temperature represents molecular kinetic energy, which
is then consistent with the equation of state and with definitions of pressure
as the average force of molecular impacts and density as the total mass of
molecules in a volume. For an ideal gas, temperature is the ratio of internal
energy to the specific heat capacity at constant volume.
2) The property of an object that determines heat flow when that object is
placed in thermal contact with another object.
3) The property of an object measured by a thermometer.
1 and 2 would be used by physicists and some other scientists.
3 would be used by everyone else.
;-)
Eric Swanson
>
>The density of the solar energy at earth's distance produces a
>temperature of 394K or 121C.
Your repeated posting of this claim is actually an assumption of
the surface radiant properties, i.e., the emissivity, of a body in
free space. Differences in shape and emissivity vs. temperature
will produce different equilibrium temperatures. Your claim is thus
meaningless.
>.....This is evident in the temperatures of
>the moon with the sun at zenith. This temperature is 123C and the
>average temperature of the lit side of the moon is 107C. It is the
>density of this energy of the radiation that develops a temperature
>more than it is the 'equilibrium' developed of this quantity
But, mankind doesn't live on the moon and the Earth's energy flows are
vastly different than that of the Moon, where there is no atmosphere.
Joe Fischer
>In alt.global-warming Citizen Bob <sp...@uce.gov> wrote :
I can't afford to address it, you can't afford to address
it, the government can't afford to address it, business can't
afford to address it, and it should be illegal to sell carbon
credits in North America.
Joe Fischer
Bill Ward
And properly, until temperatures are added. The result is as meaningless
as the sum of phone numbers.
Eric Swanson
>
>On 17 Mar 2007 22:17:43 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I find it amusing that you basically say the same exact blurb about
>>thermodynamics every time.
>
>What exact blurb are you referring to?
>
>>It is as if all you know about thermo is from an introductory physics
>>course....
>
>I have a Ph.D. in Physics from a top American university and over a
>dozen articles of original research in quantum mechanics, both
>theoretical and experimental, in mainstream refereed physics journals
>like Physical Review, Review of Scientific Instruments, Physics
>Letters, etc. plus abstracts in the Bulletin of the American Physical
>Society for presentations at APS meetings.
Since you are such an accomplished guy, maybe you should identify yourself.
All your web site is full of boasts about use of guns, natural law, guns
defending freedom, etc, yet, you are not willing to put your life where
your "mouth" is, sockhead.
>I want you to tell me the temperature of Earth at this moment. How
>would you do it? Assume that you have accurate thermometry everywhere
>you want and you can make instantaneous readings of each temperature
>with high accuracy.
What about the satellite data, Mister Wizzard?
>1) How do you know if the measurement you make actually represents the
>thermodynamic temperature for that locale?
>
>2) How do you plan on constructing the single value for the
>temperature I am asking for, namely the temperature of Earth at this
>moment?
What about the satellite data, Mister Wizzard?
>To show you how screwed up this all is, consider the current temps for
>the various reporting stations scattered all over the Houston Metro
>area.
>
>Houston Intercontinental Airport 55F
>Houston Hobby Airport 58F
>Houston Hooks Memorial Airport 54F
>Houston Ellington Air Force Base 59F
>Pearland Regional Airport 58F
>Houston Hull Field Airport 58F
>Galveston Scholes Airport 62F
>
>All of these are in the Houston Metropolitan Area, which is a 6
>country area about 100 miles in diameter (yes, Houston does sprall).
>
>Taking these readings we get an arithmetic mean of 57.7F. The standard
>deviaton (std dev) is 2.6F using the sample method (dividing by N-1
>instead of N). So our temp is
>
>T = 57.7F +/- 2.6F
>
>If temps are distributed according to the Normal Distribution, there
>is a 95% chance that the actual temp falls into a region of +/- 2 std
>dev, which means the temperature of the Houston Metro Area with 95%
>confidence is somewhere between:
>
>T = 62.9F to 52.2F
Your claims are completely off. Certainly, there is local variation due
to local factors, like rain storms and frontal passages. Now, do the
same calculation using daily maximum and minimum temperatures, like the
pros do. And, include only sites which use WMO qualified instruments and
enclosures, with instruments calibrated using the appropriate standard.
Then, compare the monthly averages of these data. How much variation
do you end up with on a larger scale, say for the whole State of Texas?
hanson
ahahaha... your "Ban" is going to make a lot of little green
idiots in sci.enviro & alt.GW very very unhappy; in particular
the crankdealer there who is going to scream shortly & shrill:
"Crank ignore"... while he's guzzling his 4th bottle of Nightrain
and having another premonition and preparing for his final
residence under Forest Lawn after he gets out of his basement
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/21b72828229da0a0
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/6ab1baf9ab204bd4
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Crackpot Zombie Hordes
Record.
On Mar 18, 11:43 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> ahahaha... So you, "Awe Shit", must have already checked that out
> for yourself then. Is your time for RIP that near?. Well go and guzzle
> another bottle of Nightrain while you still can. You can't take it with
> Lodo, is your redirecting your tripe to "alt.fuck" a nu FU to "Awe Shit"?
> ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs and guzzle anothe bottle of Nightrain.
hanson
<Crackpot.Zo...@Exxon-Turds.info> cried.
Why? See his reasons here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/21b72828229da0a0
hanson
Invasion of the Crackpots
Yes, we got it!
http://ScienceCop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheSunBetrayed
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheCarbonWar
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Cartel+Solar+Patents
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
beavith
ask her about big hurricanes spawning monstrous H2O CO2 IR lasers.
she's a hoot!
Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring
Better yet, ask to see the pictures:
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Bebinca/Bebinca_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Bebinca/ioke_bebinca_compare.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Bebinca_to_Alaska/Bebinca_to_Alaska2.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Bebinca_into_Alaska//Bebinca_into_Alaska2.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_5/IOKE_into_Arctic.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_5/Shanshan_Tornadoes.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Arctic_Ice_Melt.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Mystery_Solved/Ice_Mystery_Solved.html
http://h2-pv.us/1/temp_sep_06/IOKE_IR_Funktops.html
http://h2-pv.us/1/temp_sep_06/IR_WEUS.html
Citizen Bob
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
>>Houston Intercontinental Airport 55F
>>Houston Hobby Airport 58F
>>Houston Hooks Memorial Airport 54F
>>Houston Ellington Air Force Base 59F
>>Pearland Regional Airport 58F
>>Houston Hull Field Airport 58F
>>Galveston Scholes Airport 62F
>include only sites which use WMO qualified instruments and
>enclosures, with instruments calibrated using the appropriate standard.
You need to learn how to read.
Eric Swanson
says...
>
>On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:34:40 +0000 (UTC), swa...@NoScrewingAround.net
>(Eric Swanson) wrote:
>
>>>Houston Intercontinental Airport 55F
>>>Houston Hobby Airport 58F
>>>Houston Hooks Memorial Airport 54F
>>>Houston Ellington Air Force Base 59F
>>>Pearland Regional Airport 58F
>>>Houston Hull Field Airport 58F
>>>Galveston Scholes Airport 62F
>
>>include only sites which use WMO qualified instruments and
>>enclosures, with instruments calibrated using the appropriate standard.
>
>You need to learn how to read.
Lack of reply to issues raised is noted .
Continued unwillingness to accept responsibility also noted.
Lloyd
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:39:24 GMT, Bill Ward
>
> <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >But do you understand _why_ there is no global temperature? Is it your
> >contention that temperature is _not_ an intensive variable?
>
> Temperature is defined in thermodynamics only for an equilibrium
> system.
>
Uh, so if I'm heating water, it has no temperature?
Temperature is defined by objects at equilibrium (the so-called zeroth
law), but you can measure temperature of anything once you've defined
it.
Citizen Bob
>> Temperature is defined in thermodynamics only for an equilibrium
>> system.
>Uh, so if I'm heating water, it has no temperature?
>Temperature is defined by objects at equilibrium (the so-called zeroth
>law), but you can measure temperature of anything once you've defined
>it.
You can define anything you want. But you can't use non-equilibrium
temperature measurements for standard thermodynamic calculations.
You can tell someone that the next gas station is "down the road a
piece" and he will likely find it. But you can't tell that to a
cartographer and expect a decent map to result.
As one poster pointed out, the averages being touted by AGW loons are
no better than the average of a bunch of telephone numbers.
Robert Grumbine
Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:39:25 -0700, xnichols wrote:
>
>> On 17 Mar, 07:35, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:34:29 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:
>>> > Gee! The fossil fools are desperate. They're shoveling the manure
>>> > from the bottom of the sack.
>>>
>>> > I haven't heard this obvious lie in almost two years. This telling of
>>> > the lie has a lot of technical jargon. It probably traps the ignorant
>>> > faster with all those big words.
>>>
>>> > I wonder if I could use the same line on the IRS? "There is no total
>>> > income," I'd say. It wouldn't have a chance, though. IRS auditors
>>> > have two whole brain cells. That's twice as many as a fossil fool,
>>> > and any other jerk who's never seen the inside of a science book.
>>>
>>> Roger, I think you'd be more convincing if you addressed the actual
>>> issue, rather than a strawman. As it is, by avoiding discussion of the
>>> original link:
>>>
>>> http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf
trimmage
>> The paper is utter trash. Using their methodology, there would be no
>> way of determing whether Venus was hotter than the Earth. It's the
>> irrationalist road to lunacy.
>
>Sorry if I didn't make it clear. I'm not convinced by rhetoric, insults,
>strawmen, or unsupported opinion. I might be interested in what your
>opinion is based on, if you can explain it. Since you didn't respond to
>my simple question, I'm forced to assume you don't know squat about the
>actual issue, and are cheerleading instead of playing the game. Play or
>pass.
Section 3.2 Range overlap and ranking fields.
"In the case of range overlap, we cannot guarantee that there are no zeros
in Eq. (11) and therefore there can be rank order catastrophes, which means
that the ranking of temperature fields as 'warmer' or 'cooler' is fundamentally
problematic."
Parts of the Venusian atmosphere are cooler than parts of the earth's,
so there is range overlap, and their catastrophe applies. According to
this paper, it is indeed not possible to decide whether Venus or the Earth
is warmer.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Eric Gisse
> On 17 Mar 2007 22:17:43 -0700, "EricGisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I find it amusing that you basically say the same exact blurb about
> >thermodynamics every time.
>
> What exact blurb are you referring to?
[...]
Not you. Death-rage.
Take a careful look at his arguments over the course of time. You will
notice a theme.
Bill Ward
> On Mar 17, 1:40 pm, s...@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:39:24 GMT, Bill Ward
>>
>> <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >But do you understand _why_ there is no global temperature? Is it your
>> >contention that temperature is _not_ an intensive variable?
>>
>> Temperature is defined in thermodynamics only for an equilibrium system.
>>
>>
> Uh, so if I'm heating water, it has no temperature?
The water doesn't - it's out of equilibrium.
The thermometer does, if it's at equilibrium.
I could type it in all caps, if that would help.
>
> Temperature is defined by objects at equilibrium (the so-called zeroth
> law), but you can measure temperature of anything once you've defined it.
As long as you don't require it to mean anything.
Lloyd, I'm beginning to think you really are doing the best you can.
The thought is really sad.
Bill Ward
That's the point. It depends on where you look and what you mean. The
math is clear.
Robert Grumbine
trimmage
You certainly reacted awfully emotionally to someone making a correct
statement of fact derived from a paper you wanted people to read.
'the math is clear' is one of those interesting statements, mostly
for how many things get hidden behind it without regard for what the
math can and can't say about nature. It is perfectly clear from
quantum mechanics that we don't know (exactly) where any particles are
in the universe. Nevertheless, you won't get far pleading quantum
indeterminacy to get out of a parking ticket.
So let's look some more at what their paper really has
to say, and how this corresponds to anything useful or
sensible.
One of the better-known features of climate is that there
are seasons. In mid and high latitudes, winter is colder than
summer. But ... according to this paper, there is no winter,
no summer, and one is not colder than the other. Range argument
again. According to the authors, we could only conclude that
winter was colder than summer if every temperature during winter
were colder than every temperature during summer (put quotes
around those season names, since by the authors' argument, they
don't exist). Nor could we speak of daytime being warmer than
nighttime.
Similarly, one of the common understandings is that the poles
are colder than the tropics. But the range argument says that
we can't know that either. (Some parts of the tropical atmosphere
are colder than some parts of the polar atmosphere.)
Now consider a system of 'parts' (maybe that means 'the volume around a
set of thermometers in my house', or the globe, or semi-isolated boxes
with thermometers). Let's take the boxes, and, for that matter, make
them isolated. Measure the temperature of their contents. They span
a range of, say, 190 to 320 K. Now heat each box for a while (a few
degrees worth) and let them come back to complete thermodynamic
equilibrium. Each box will be warmer (we'll measure just how much,
of course).
According, however, to the range argument, we could _not_
say that the system comprised by those boxes -- _every one_ of
which was warmer than before -- had warmed.
So, is it useful or sensible to adopt definitions which tell
you that there are no seasons, winter is not colder than summer
(in mid and high latitudes), day is not warmer than night, and
that a system which is warmer in every single area has not,
in fact, warmed? I don't think so. The last example shows
their definitions to be pathological, and the others show it
at best to be intellectual nihilism.
Be that as it may, it's interesting to see (both on sci.environment
and a brief tour of the net) how the paper is being taken. If
one does consider it a useful way to look at climate, then what
it says is that you can say _nothing_ about global climate (at
least insofar as temperature and related variables are part of
climate).
But that's not how it's being taken. Almost universally, it is
with cries of 'See, climate isn't warming!!!' Can't say that
either. You can say _nothing_ about warming or cooling of the
globe, according to that paper's approach. You can _never_ say
_anything_ about global warming or cooling -- unless and until the
temperatures change by so much that absolutely every part of the
atmosphere (climate system -- ocean and others are part of the
deal too) is warmer (or colder) at one time than absolutely every
part of the system at another time.
If people want to be intellectual nihilists, I wish they'd
at least do it honestly.
Eric Swanson
>
>In article <pan.2007.03.19....@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>,
>Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:20:05 +0000, Robert Grumbine wrote:
>>
>>> In article <pan.2007.03.17....@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill
>>> Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:39:25 -0700, xnichols wrote:
>
>trimmage
>>>>> The paper is utter trash. Using their methodology, there would be no
>>>>> way of determing whether Venus was hotter than the Earth. It's the
>>>>> irrationalist road to lunacy.
[cut]
> Be that as it may, it's interesting to see (both on sci.environment
>and a brief tour of the net) how the paper is being taken. If
>one does consider it a useful way to look at climate, then what
>it says is that you can say _nothing_ about global climate (at
>least insofar as temperature and related variables are part of
>climate).
>
> But that's not how it's being taken. Almost universally, it is
>with cries of 'See, climate isn't warming!!!' Can't say that
>either. You can say _nothing_ about warming or cooling of the
>globe, according to that paper's approach. You can _never_ say
>_anything_ about global warming or cooling -- unless and until the
>temperatures change by so much that absolutely every part of the
>atmosphere (climate system -- ocean and others are part of the
>deal too) is warmer (or colder) at one time than absolutely every
>part of the system at another time.
>
> If people want to be intellectual nihilists, I wish they'd
>at least do it honestly.
You may have missed my post on this subject a while back.
Take a look at their example in Figure 2, where they give a graph trends
calculated using various averaging techniques. The data is from GISS, which
is in degrees C. In the text, they discuss these as also being in degrees C,
but the graph is labled degrees K. I think they used the degrees C values in
their calculations, which likely gives incorrect answers from a thermodynamic
point of view as the absolute temperature in degrees K should have been used.
Perhaps that's the reason they find negative trends at higher values of "r"
in their averages. I think tht shows that these "statisticians" don't
understand thermodynamics (or temperature either). The use of such averages
is not based on any physical reasoning, thus their conclusions are hopelessly
flawed.
Exxon Liars & Thieves
> In article <12vvrnumq7p4...@corp.supernews.com>, b...@radix.net says...
>
>
>
> >In article <pan.2007.03.19.18.22.13.135...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>,
> >Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:20:05 +0000, Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
Getting to the truth and inserting disinformation for pay are two very
different goals.
Exxon Liars & Thieves
Exxon Liars & Thieves
> That's the point. It depends on where you look and what you mean. The
> math is clear.
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
xnic...@hotmail.com
> In article <pan.2007.03.19.18.22.13.135...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>,
>
> >On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:20:05 +0000, Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
> Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
> evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for this. You put it very well and spent more time answering
it than I would have.
It's really an example of the old Zeno's Paradox argument applied to
measuring climate.
Using their approach I would be unable to say whether the temperature
where I live today was hotter or colder than yesterday's, unless I
divided each 24 hour period that the measurements were taken into the
Planck time! It's certainly had a wide range of variability,
starting off with a blizzard and now bright sunshine, flowers in full
bloom and trees in bud.
Besides the official temperature records, there are thousands of
private weather stations measuring temperatures at 10 minute intervals
and averaging them on a daily, weekly and monthly basis using computer
software. There are numerous observational records of natural
changes, including bird nesting, egg laying and migration patterns and
there is the world-wide evidence of glacier and permafrost melting.
All of which confirms the conclusions of the IPCC 4th Assessment:
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from
observations of increases in
global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow
and ice, and rising global
average sea level"
hanson
aka Lodo-Lion, the <Exxon-Turd> wrote in
message news:1174403297....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Getting to the truth and inserting disinformation for pay are two very
> different goals.
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/05ca224ca8d207e2
ahahaha....
hanson
aka Lodo-Lion, the <Exxon-Turd> wrote in
> On Mar 19, 9:57 am, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> The thought is really sad.
>
> Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
> Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
> Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/05ca224ca8d207e2
ahahaha....
hanson
aka Lodo-Lion, the <Exxon-Turd> wrote in
> On Mar 19, 10:09 am, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> That's the point. It depends on where you look and what you mean. The
>> math is clear.
>
> Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
> Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
> Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
>
Night of the Living Crackpots
Night of the Living Crackpots
Night of the Living Crackpots
xnic...@hotmail.com
xnic...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don't change the thread title please. The argument stands for itself.
hanson
in his "Nightmare as a Living Crackpot" who is
<Croacking in his pot under Exxon-Turds>
ahahahaha....
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/05ca224ca8d207e2
hanson
hanson
Invasion of the Crackpots
Arguing is WHAT THEY WANT! It demonstrates to the dumb blondes and old
drunk voter blocks that the science is NOT SETTLED YET!.
The casual visitor must see at a glance that this is NOT a science
debate but just a junior high food fight! The more gobbeldygook
technobabble there is the MORE THEY WIN THE ARGUMENT, which is sowing
doubts that the science is not settled.
Exxon didn't pay $16 million to WIN, they paid to CONFUSE.