|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 18, 2019 22:18:42 GMT
Critical necessary data would include how many measurements, which you can plainly see is not given. Covering 197 million square miles would take quite many. 197 million thermometers perchance? The average human adult has about 2 million square mm of skin, so it must take that many thermometers to be sure if a patient has a fever. When you were in first and perhaps second elementary grades at school you were probably shown sketches of a number of items, probably four, and asked to mark which one item did not belong in the group. There might be a barn, a house, a well, and a tree. Or there might be a tree, a bush, a flower and a dog. The test was to determine your ability to recognize traits that things have in common or not. You seem to be comparing a human body to the planet Earth as though taking the temperature of one is anything like taking the temperature of the other. It is certainly a very different thing. It is called a false analogy, and yours is especially false. A meaningful temperature of the human body is easy to obtain in a variety of ways. It by no means follows that it will be as easy to take a meaningful temperature of the planet.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 18, 2019 23:19:31 GMT
197 million thermometers perchance? The average human adult has about 2 million square mm of skin, so it must take that many thermometers to be sure if a patient has a fever. When you were in first and perhaps second elementary grades at school you were probably shown sketches of a number of items, probably four, and asked to mark which one item did not belong in the group. There might be a barn, a house, a well, and a tree. Or there might be a tree, a bush, a flower and a dog. The test was to determine your ability to recognize traits that things have in common or not. You seem to be comparing a human body to the planet Earth as though taking the temperature of one is anything like taking the temperature of the other. It is certainly a very different thing. It is called a false analogy, and yours is especially false. A meaningful temperature of the human body is easy to obtain in a variety of ways. It by no means follows that it will be as easy to take a meaningful temperature of the planet. Nonsense. Measuring the temperature (or more precisely the average surface temperature) of the Earth is only more difficult than measuring that of a human body because of the huge difference in the sizes involved, but that's also the case with determining the mass of the Earth, which is a quantity that you seem to be more comfortable with.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 18, 2019 23:40:37 GMT
When you were in first and perhaps second elementary grades at school you were probably shown sketches of a number of items, probably four, and asked to mark which one item did not belong in the group. There might be a barn, a house, a well, and a tree. Or there might be a tree, a bush, a flower and a dog. The test was to determine your ability to recognize traits that things have in common or not. You seem to be comparing a human body to the planet Earth as though taking the temperature of one is anything like taking the temperature of the other. It is certainly a very different thing. It is called a false analogy, and yours is especially false. A meaningful temperature of the human body is easy to obtain in a variety of ways. It by no means follows that it will be as easy to take a meaningful temperature of the planet. Nonsense. Measuring the temperature (or more precisely the average surface temperature) of the Earth is only more difficult than measuring that of a human body because of the huge difference in the sizes involved, but that's also the case with determining the mass of the Earth, which is a quantity that you seem to be more comfortable with. I'm sure I already agreed that measuring the temperature of the planet is possible in theory. I'm also sure I welcomed your report on how many data points you believe that would take. I'm also sure you have not reported yet how many data points were used. I assume that means you could not find it online. Guess then. How many data points do you believe could obtain one degree of precision? The weight of the Earth has been explained in mathematical terms. It is not a precise measurement. Actually the precision obtained by Henry Cavendish in 1798 was significantly improved upon by much later modern laboratories, and yet even now the estimate of the value of G is not very precise.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 18, 2019 23:51:32 GMT
Nonsense. Measuring the temperature (or more precisely the average surface temperature) of the Earth is only more difficult than measuring that of a human body because of the huge difference in the sizes involved, but that's also the case with determining the mass of the Earth, which is a quantity that you seem to be more comfortable with. I'm sure I already agreed that measuring the temperature of the planet is possible in theory. I'm also sure I welcomed your report on how many data points you believe that would take. I'm also sure you have not reported yet how many data points were used. I assume that means you could not find it online. Guess then. How many data points do you believe could obtain one degree of precision? The weight of the Earth has been explained in mathematical terms. It is not a precise measurement. Actually the precision obtained by Henry Cavendish in 1798 was significantly improved upon by much later modern laboratories, and yet even now the estimate of the value of G is not very precise. ...in hindsight, I think it is a case of you in your Dunning Kruger mode of 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'!
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 19, 2019 0:10:26 GMT
Nonsense. Measuring the temperature (or more precisely the average surface temperature) of the Earth is only more difficult than measuring that of a human body because of the huge difference in the sizes involved, but that's also the case with determining the mass of the Earth, which is a quantity that you seem to be more comfortable with. I'm sure I already agreed that measuring the temperature of the planet is possible in theory. I'm also sure I welcomed your report on how many data points you believe that would take. I'm also sure you have not reported yet how many data points were used. I assume that means you could not find it online. Guess then. How many data points do you believe could obtain one degree of precision? The weight of the Earth has been explained in mathematical terms. It is not a precise measurement. Actually the precision obtained by Henry Cavendish in 1798 was significantly improved upon by much later modern laboratories, and yet even now the estimate of the value of G is not very precise. Why don't you tell me how many data points you think are necessary? In any case the question of global warming is a matter of making repeated measurements over time. Do you think modern weather prediction is able to forecast a rainstorm at some city several days from now without sampling the earth globally at numerous locations for temperature and other weather parameters? As for the mass of the Earth and G, the values are known with sufficient precision for interplanetary space missions to navigate quite successfully billions of kilometers to precise rendevous points with only minor course corrections.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 19, 2019 20:15:55 GMT
It might be warming, but the evidence is below certainty OK, I've stripped out the padding, leaving your key statement. So then: let's take one particular topic with your assertion in mind. If global temperature rise is not a certainty can you offer another, more likely cause, for the widescale retreat of glaciers and some of the icecaps, which has accelerated in recent years?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 19, 2019 22:31:54 GMT
It might be warming, but the evidence is below certainty OK, I've stripped out the padding, leaving your key statement. So then: let's take one particular topic with your assertion in mind. If global temperature rise is not a certainty can you offer another, more likely cause, for the widescale retreat of glaciers and some of the icecaps, which has accelerated in recent years? Again with the insufficient data, no I don't have any data on that, and therefore can't, and here's a surprise won't, speculate. As a wild guess I might say fewer clouds in the area of the glacier due to overall cooling of the planet. The "jet stream" is the back wash from air buildup caused by the drag of the Earth's rotation and can have a very erratic path, covering or not various glaciers.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 19, 2019 23:23:42 GMT
I'm sure I already agreed that measuring the temperature of the planet is possible in theory. I'm also sure I welcomed your report on how many data points you believe that would take. I'm also sure you have not reported yet how many data points were used. I assume that means you could not find it online. Guess then. How many data points do you believe could obtain one degree of precision? The weight of the Earth has been explained in mathematical terms. It is not a precise measurement. Actually the precision obtained by Henry Cavendish in 1798 was significantly improved upon by much later modern laboratories, and yet even now the estimate of the value of G is not very precise. Why don't you tell me how many data points you think are necessary? In any case the question of global warming is a matter of making repeated measurements over time. Do you think modern weather prediction is able to forecast a rainstorm at some city several days from now without sampling the earth globally at numerous locations for temperature and other weather parameters? As for the mass of the Earth and G, the values are known with sufficient precision for interplanetary space missions to navigate quite successfully billions of kilometers to precise rendevous points with only minor course corrections. The first thing to recognize in estimating the heat energy content of the "air" near the surface of the Earth is that there is a significant exchange of heat with the water, the ground, and the air at much higher levels. Therefore you need to measure the temperature of large bodies of water at various depths, the ground at various depths, and the temperature at various heights above ground or sea level. I could suggest a very large number of thermometers such as one every 200 feet in the air in any direction, every 20 feet in the water down to 100 feet and then every 100 feet down to 300 feet, and every 2 feet in the ground down to below the water table. That of course is not practical. It might be possible to eliminate some of those if they always get the same readings as nearby thermometers.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 19, 2019 23:42:20 GMT
Why don't you tell me how many data points you think are necessary? In any case the question of global warming is a matter of making repeated measurements over time. Do you think modern weather prediction is able to forecast a rainstorm at some city several days from now without sampling the earth globally at numerous locations for temperature and other weather parameters? As for the mass of the Earth and G, the values are known with sufficient precision for interplanetary space missions to navigate quite successfully billions of kilometers to precise rendevous points with only minor course corrections. The first thing to recognize in estimating the heat energy content of the "air" near the surface of the Earth is that there is a significant exchange of heat with the water, the ground, and the air at much higher levels. Therefore you need to measure the temperature of large bodies of water at various depths, the ground at various depths, and the temperature at various heights above ground or sea level. I could suggest a very large number of thermometers such as one every 200 feet in the air in any direction, every 20 feet in the water down to 100 feet and then every 100 feet down to 300 feet, and every 2 feet in the ground down to below the water table. That of course is not practical. It might be possible to eliminate some of those if they always get the same readings as nearby thermometers. I think the data collection done with existing sensors, which is able to predict high category hurricanes days in advance at a point in time when they're mere tropical depressions, is more than sufficient to make reasonably accurate determinations of average global temperatures. The advances in weather prediction in recent decades is clear evidence of the soundness of weather science that even a layman can appreciate. You grossly overestimate how much data is needed for the purpose. Once again, by analogy it would be like thinking a doctor would need to measure body temperature over every square inch of body skin to determine if a patient has a fever.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 20, 2019 0:03:29 GMT
OK, I've stripped out the padding, leaving your key statement. So then: let's take one particular topic with your assertion in mind. If global temperature rise is not a certainty can you offer another, more likely cause, for the widescale retreat of glaciers and some of the icecaps, which has accelerated in recent years? Again with the insufficient data, no I don't have any data on that, and therefore can't, and here's a surprise won't, speculate. As a wild guess I might say fewer clouds in the area of the glacier due to overall cooling of the planet. The "jet stream" is the back wash from air buildup caused by the drag of the Earth's rotation and can have a very erratic path, covering or not various glaciers. So overall cooling of the planet would make ice.. melt? You are right about it being a wild guess. For doesn't a clear sky typically reduce surface temperatures? Just a reminder of the scale of the effect: since 1980, glacier retreat has become increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existences of many of the remaining glaciers are threatened. In locations such as the Andes of South America and Himalayas in Asia, the demise of glaciers in these regions has the potential to affect water supplies in those areas. Since 1979, winter Arctic ice extent has decreased about 4.2 percent per decade; since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice per year (while yes, the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 km2) of ice per year so the effect on the poles is not uniform) In September 2012, sea ice reached its smallest size ever. In August 2013, Arctic sea ice extent averaged 6.09m km2, which represents 1.13 million km2 below the 1981–2010 average for that month.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 20, 2019 0:36:53 GMT
The first thing to recognize in estimating the heat energy content of the "air" near the surface of the Earth is that there is a significant exchange of heat with the water, the ground, and the air at much higher levels. Therefore you need to measure the temperature of large bodies of water at various depths, the ground at various depths, and the temperature at various heights above ground or sea level. I could suggest a very large number of thermometers such as one every 200 feet in the air in any direction, every 20 feet in the water down to 100 feet and then every 100 feet down to 300 feet, and every 2 feet in the ground down to below the water table. That of course is not practical. It might be possible to eliminate some of those if they always get the same readings as nearby thermometers. I think the data collection done with existing sensors, which is able to predict high category hurricanes days in advance at a point in time when they're mere tropical depressions, is more than sufficient to make reasonably accurate determinations of average global temperatures. The advances in weather prediction in recent decades is clear evidence of the soundness of weather science that even a layman can appreciate. You grossly overestimate how much data is needed for the purpose. Once again, by analogy it would be like thinking a doctor would need to measure body temperature over every square inch of body skin to determine if a patient has a fever. By predicting "hurricanes" days in advance what do you mean? Do you mean before it is a tropical storm or after? Don't you really mean they can guess approximately when and where it will make landfall, but only after it has headed that way for days? I'm fairly certain they have very little clue where a tropical storm is going weeks in advance. I don't care how many times you repeat the human body / planet analogy, I know that it is false. It is not just false, it is totally, ridiculously false. It doesn't just miss, it shuns. Yes, I did select a rather large number of thermometers, but at least I did address locations you have never considered.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 20, 2019 0:47:09 GMT
Again with the insufficient data, no I don't have any data on that, and therefore can't, and here's a surprise won't, speculate. As a wild guess I might say fewer clouds in the area of the glacier due to overall cooling of the planet. The "jet stream" is the back wash from air buildup caused by the drag of the Earth's rotation and can have a very erratic path, covering or not various glaciers. So overall cooling of the planet would make ice.. melt? You are right about it being a wild guess. For doesn't a clear sky typically reduce surface temperatures? Just a reminder of the scale of the effect: since 1980, glacier retreat has become increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existences of many of the remaining glaciers are threatened. In locations such as the Andes of South America and Himalayas in Asia, the demise of glaciers in these regions has the potential to affect water supplies in those areas. Since 1979, winter Arctic ice extent has decreased about 4.2 percent per decade; since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice per year (while yes, the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 km2) of ice per year so the effect on the poles is not uniform) In September 2012, sea ice reached its smallest size ever. In August 2013, Arctic sea ice extent averaged 6.09m km2, which represents 1.13 million km2 below the 1981–2010 average for that month. A clear sky can reduce temperatures if the ground temperature is already warm enough and it is night. Clouds have no "heating" effect, they might hold existing heat in during the night though. If the ground doesn't get very warm during the day there won't be much to hold in at night, will there? Glaciers are produced by moisture in the air in the north. If there is less moisture in the air going north the glacier will shrink without a change in global temperature. HTH
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 20, 2019 0:50:41 GMT
I think the data collection done with existing sensors, which is able to predict high category hurricanes days in advance at a point in time when they're mere tropical depressions, is more than sufficient to make reasonably accurate determinations of average global temperatures. The advances in weather prediction in recent decades is clear evidence of the soundness of weather science that even a layman can appreciate. You grossly overestimate how much data is needed for the purpose. Once again, by analogy it would be like thinking a doctor would need to measure body temperature over every square inch of body skin to determine if a patient has a fever. By predicting "hurricanes" days in advance what do you mean? Do you mean before it is a tropical storm or after? Don't you really mean they can guess approximately when and where it will make landfall, but only after it has headed that way for days? I'm fairly certain they have very little clue where a tropical storm is going weeks in advance. I don't care how many times you repeat the human body / planet analogy, I know that it is false. It is not just false, it is totally, ridiculously false. It doesn't just miss, it shuns. Yes, I did select a rather large number of thermometers, but at least I did address locations you have never considered. Natural weather phenomena such as hurricanes and cyclones present a constant challenge to the science of meteorology which is the victim of so many instantly changing variables . That meteorologists can predict to a great degree of certainty the paths of weather events, is laudable and saves many lives each year. For you to dismiss the amazing technological and scientific advances I this field that ow uses satellite and other technologies such as water temperature differentials in their research is disingenuous and frankly as stupid as you usually are.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 20, 2019 17:57:09 GMT
So overall cooling of the planet would make ice.. melt? You are right about it being a wild guess. For doesn't a clear sky typically reduce surface temperatures? Just a reminder of the scale of the effect: since 1980, glacier retreat has become increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existences of many of the remaining glaciers are threatened. In locations such as the Andes of South America and Himalayas in Asia, the demise of glaciers in these regions has the potential to affect water supplies in those areas. Since 1979, winter Arctic ice extent has decreased about 4.2 percent per decade; since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice per year (while yes, the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 km2) of ice per year so the effect on the poles is not uniform) In September 2012, sea ice reached its smallest size ever. In August 2013, Arctic sea ice extent averaged 6.09m km2, which represents 1.13 million km2 below the 1981–2010 average for that month. A clear sky can reduce temperatures if the ground temperature is already warm enough and it is night. Clouds have no "heating" effect, they might hold existing heat in during the night though. If the ground doesn't get very warm during the day there won't be much to hold in at night, will there? I am glad we agree that a lack of cloud cover means ground temperatures cooling more quickly at night. Why did you initially say fewer clouds in the area of the glacier due to overall cooling of the planet would work on glaciers and icecaps negatively? Have you abandoned that wild guess now? Well more precisely, glaciers begin to form when snow remains in the same area year-round, where enough snow accumulates to transform into ice. Each year, new layers of snow bury and compress the previous layers. This compression forces the snow to re-crystallize, forming grains similar in size and shape to grains of sugar. (They also exist away from ' the north'.) But didn't you, in a message or two, refer to the cooling of the planet (i.e. a change in global temperature)? To which proposed cause does your 'wild guess' apply now? Can you think of any other reason why glaciers and ice caps might shrink or melt all over the globe apart from 'lack of cloud cover'? What do you think the most likely outcome on sea levels would be of more water being released into the oceans?
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 20, 2019 18:53:19 GMT
I think the data collection done with existing sensors, which is able to predict high category hurricanes days in advance at a point in time when they're mere tropical depressions, is more than sufficient to make reasonably accurate determinations of average global temperatures. The advances in weather prediction in recent decades is clear evidence of the soundness of weather science that even a layman can appreciate. You grossly overestimate how much data is needed for the purpose. Once again, by analogy it would be like thinking a doctor would need to measure body temperature over every square inch of body skin to determine if a patient has a fever. By predicting "hurricanes" days in advance what do you mean? Do you mean before it is a tropical storm or after? Don't you really mean they can guess approximately when and where it will make landfall, but only after it has headed that way for days? I'm fairly certain they have very little clue where a tropical storm is going weeks in advance. I don't care how many times you repeat the human body / planet analogy, I know that it is false. It is not just false, it is totally, ridiculously false. It doesn't just miss, it shuns. Yes, I did select a rather large number of thermometers, but at least I did address locations you have never considered. You got one thing right: they can't predict weather beyond about ten days. But that's a consequence not of measurement imprecision but of the nature of chaotic systems such as weather. Everything else is wrong or, in the case of the second half or your last sentence, completely groundless.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 21, 2019 21:14:35 GMT
So overall cooling of the planet would make ice.. melt? You are right about it being a wild guess. For doesn't a clear sky typically reduce surface temperatures? Just a reminder of the scale of the effect: since 1980, glacier retreat has become increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existences of many of the remaining glaciers are threatened. In locations such as the Andes of South America and Himalayas in Asia, the demise of glaciers in these regions has the potential to affect water supplies in those areas. Since 1979, winter Arctic ice extent has decreased about 4.2 percent per decade; since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice per year (while yes, the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 km2) of ice per year so the effect on the poles is not uniform) In September 2012, sea ice reached its smallest size ever. In August 2013, Arctic sea ice extent averaged 6.09m km2, which represents 1.13 million km2 below the 1981–2010 average for that month. A clear sky can reduce temperatures if the ground temperature is already warm enough and it is night. Clouds have no "heating" effect, they might hold existing heat in during the night though. If the ground doesn't get very warm during the day there won't be much to hold in at night, will there? Glaciers are produced by moisture in the air in the north. If there is less moisture in the air going north the glacier will shrink without a change in global temperature. HTH Hey Planet Arlon Here is an article about the graphic evidence of the melting and retreat of the glaciers in the Himalayas as a result of global warming and climate change. www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/melting-glaciers-reveal-everest-bodies/ar-BBV2KsL?ocid=spartandhpWhat YOU said about glaciers is total bullshit!
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 23, 2019 19:22:00 GMT
A clear sky can reduce temperatures if the ground temperature is already warm enough and it is night. Clouds have no "heating" effect, they might hold existing heat in during the night though. If the ground doesn't get very warm during the day there won't be much to hold in at night, will there? Glaciers are produced by moisture in the air in the north. If there is less moisture in the air going north the glacier will shrink without a change in global temperature. HTH Hey Planet Arlon Here is an article about the graphic evidence of the melting and retreat of the glaciers in the Himalayas as a result of global warming and climate change. www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/melting-glaciers-reveal-everest-bodies/ar-BBV2KsL?ocid=spartandhpWhat YOU said about glaciers is total bullshit! There's no point of offering up scientific substantiation to Arlon since he doesn't accept widely accepted and established science which is inconvenient and doesn't offer anything back more than opinion. The only way he can be reduced is by the socratic method, question and answer. But even then, as we see here, he will just abandon a thread.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Mar 23, 2019 20:30:04 GMT
You need to purchase a Dropa Stone player.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 24, 2019 13:45:43 GMT
A clear sky can reduce temperatures if the ground temperature is already warm enough and it is night. Clouds have no "heating" effect, they might hold existing heat in during the night though. If the ground doesn't get very warm during the day there won't be much to hold in at night, will there? I am glad we agree that a lack of cloud cover means ground temperatures cooling more quickly at night. Why did you initially say fewer clouds in the area of the glacier due to overall cooling of the planet would work on glaciers and icecaps negatively? Have you abandoned that wild guess now? Well more precisely, glaciers begin to form when snow remains in the same area year-round, where enough snow accumulates to transform into ice. Each year, new layers of snow bury and compress the previous layers. This compression forces the snow to re-crystallize, forming grains similar in size and shape to grains of sugar. (They also exist away from ' the north'.) But didn't you, in a message or two, refer to the cooling of the planet (i.e. a change in global temperature)? To which proposed cause does your 'wild guess' apply now? Can you think of any other reason why glaciers and ice caps might shrink or melt all over the globe apart from 'lack of cloud cover'? What do you think the most likely outcome on sea levels would be of more water being released into the oceans? Now you have almost caught up with me where I was at the outset, saying there is insufficient data to conclude the temperature of the "planet" is any warmer or cooler. Congratulations. A reduction in the size of glaciers might occur a number of different ways depending on the content and path of the jet stream, which can be erratic. Although a lack of cloud cover at night might preserve remaining glacial content, any content removed to the atmosphere during the day by sunlight might not return to the glacier if it is carried away by winds. The extent to which it can preserve itself might not be worth mentioning, but I just did anyway. Assuming it always happens that moisture is removed, it does require replenishment of glaciers in order for them to stay the same size, and they originate in the far north. The primary cause of a failure to replenish would be a lack of moisture in the air, which is supplied mostly by the lower latitudes because of the difference in sun angle there.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 24, 2019 14:02:38 GMT
A clear sky can reduce temperatures if the ground temperature is already warm enough and it is night. Clouds have no "heating" effect, they might hold existing heat in during the night though. If the ground doesn't get very warm during the day there won't be much to hold in at night, will there? Glaciers are produced by moisture in the air in the north. If there is less moisture in the air going north the glacier will shrink without a change in global temperature. HTH Hey Planet Arlon Here is an article about the graphic evidence of the melting and retreat of the glaciers in the Himalayas as a result of global warming and climate change. www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/melting-glaciers-reveal-everest-bodies/ar-BBV2KsL?ocid=spartandhpWhat YOU said about glaciers is total bullshit! You just had it explained to you how ice in the polar regions might be reduced by a cooler planet putting less moisture in the air in the lower latitudes where most moisture is put in the air. Although little moisture is put in the air in the polar regions, some is and that is easily carried away. How much of a leap is it to understand how regions at very high altitudes (mountains) might similarly lose ice?
|
|