|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 24, 2019 14:06:16 GMT
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. Can you really not see the inconsistency in believing the temperature of the "planet" is known to within one degree and yet no one is certain where the next storm will form?
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 24, 2019 15:11:52 GMT
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. Can you really not see the inconsistency in believing the temperature of the "planet" is known to within one degree and yet no one is certain where the next storm will form? No, this inconsistency exists only in your head and is a product of your ignorance and attachment to ideology. There's no science going on there.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 24, 2019 17:03:38 GMT
Can you really not see the inconsistency in believing the temperature of the "planet" is known to within one degree and yet no one is certain where the next storm will form? No, this inconsistency exists only in your head and is a product of your ignorance and attachment to ideology. There's no science going on there. It would be helpful if the count and location of any thermometers were in anyone's head.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 24, 2019 18:23:29 GMT
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. Can you really not see the inconsistency in believing the temperature of the "planet" is known to within one degree and yet no one is certain where the next storm will form? Nope, because there is no inconsistency. Your reasoning like saying it is impossible to know the average temperature of San Francisco or that that average is lower than Bangkok's, because we don't know if or when it will rain in San Francisco next month.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 24, 2019 23:15:44 GMT
Can you really not see the inconsistency in believing the temperature of the "planet" is known to within one degree and yet no one is certain where the next storm will form? Nope, because there is no inconsistency. Your reasoning like saying it is impossible to know the average temperature of San Francisco or that that average is lower than Bangkok's, because we don't know if or when it will rain in San Francisco next month. Most weather predicting depends on very roughly identifying existing air masses and roughly identifying their existing conditions as compared to surrounding air masses. It is only "news" to the areas in the apparent path of the air masses. That's how there is any predicting at all. Predicting what the jet stream will do next or how it will change the game is not dependable. See weather rock
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 24, 2019 23:28:00 GMT
Nope, because there is no inconsistency. Your reasoning like saying it is impossible to know the average temperature of San Francisco or that that average is lower than Bangkok's, because we don't know if or when it will rain in San Francisco next month. Most weather predicting depends on very roughly identifying existing air masses and roughly identifying their existing conditions as compared to surrounding air masses. It is only "news" to the areas in the apparent path of the air masses. That's how there is any predicting at all. Predicting what the jet stream will do next or how it will change the game is not dependable. See weather rock Statistics on temperatures on earth over time and compared on static and consistent weather recording stations all over the globe and in comparable times and dates in the season are TOTALLY different to the constant change of emerging weather systems in real time for the purposed of predictions. The former are of historical record. The latter is happening on an emerging and variable basis in recent and real time. They are not comparable AT ALL.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 24, 2019 23:33:43 GMT
Most weather predicting depends on very roughly identifying existing air masses and roughly identifying their existing conditions as compared to surrounding air masses. It is only "news" to the areas in the apparent path of the air masses. That's how there is any predicting at all. Predicting what the jet stream will do next or how it will change the game is not dependable. See weather rockStatistics on temperatures on earth over time and compared on static and consistent weather recording stations all over the globe and in comparable times and dates in the season are TOTALLY different to the constant change of emerging weather systems in real time for the purposed of predictions. The former are of historical record. The latter is happening on an emerging and variable basis in recent and real time. They are not comparable AT ALL. How many and where? My opponents here seem to have no idea whence their confidence.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 24, 2019 23:33:44 GMT
Nope, because there is no inconsistency. Your reasoning like saying it is impossible to know the average temperature of San Francisco or that that average is lower than Bangkok's, because we don't know if or when it will rain in San Francisco next month. Most weather predicting depends on very roughly identifying existing air masses and roughly identifying their existing conditions as compared to surrounding air masses. It is only "news" to the areas in the apparent path of the air masses. That's how there is any predicting at all. Predicting what the jet stream will do next or how it will change the game is not dependable. See weather rock Ah, no longer want to talk about measuring average temperatures?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 24, 2019 23:45:38 GMT
Most weather predicting depends on very roughly identifying existing air masses and roughly identifying their existing conditions as compared to surrounding air masses. It is only "news" to the areas in the apparent path of the air masses. That's how there is any predicting at all. Predicting what the jet stream will do next or how it will change the game is not dependable. See weather rockAh, no longer want to talk about measuring average temperatures? An oversimplified concept of the "planet" suited to a simple mind is going to seem something that can have a measurable "average" temperature. In the much larger, more complicated reality there are too many places for temperature variations to hide. A common mistake made by amateurs is to confuse statistical analysis with actual science. When laboratory measurements are not possible, when the elimination of contributing factors is not possible, amateurs think statistical analysis can find meaningful answers anyway because the data beyond reach will likely cancel out. Another common mistake is to assume that if several sources get the same answer it must be right. Not so, the several sources might employ the same wrong approach.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 24, 2019 23:45:38 GMT
Statistics on temperatures on earth over time and compared on static and consistent weather recording stations all over the globe and in comparable times and dates in the season are TOTALLY different to the constant change of emerging weather systems in real time for the purposed of predictions. The former are of historical record. The latter is happening on an emerging and variable basis in recent and real time. They are not comparable AT ALL. How many and where? My opponents here seem to have no idea whence their confidence. I could rudely say 'Let me google that for you' because the information is readily available on the internet, however you don't like links and you require that people tell you things in their own words which you then refute out of hand. Anyway:
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 24, 2019 23:52:43 GMT
How many and where? My opponents here seem to have no idea whence their confidence. I could rudely say 'Let me google that for you' because the information is readily available on the internet, however you don't like links and you require that people tell you things in their own words which you then refute out of hand. Anyway: I hope you're having fun because you certainly are not promoting science. 1,200 stations are not enough to determine the average temperature of Rhode Island much less the planet. As long as you've been here you've never been able to distinguish statistical analysis from actual science. They are not the same thing as I have been saying just as long.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 24, 2019 23:58:43 GMT
I could rudely say 'Let me google that for you' because the information is readily available on the internet, however you don't like links and you require that people tell you things in their own words which you then refute out of hand. Anyway: I hope you're having fun because you certainly are not promoting science. 1,200 stations are not enough to determine the average temperature of Rhode Island much less the planet. As long as you've been here you've never been able to distinguish statistical analysis from actual science. They are not the same thing as I have been saying just as long. You know this how?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 25, 2019 0:11:37 GMT
I could rudely say 'Let me google that for you' because the information is readily available on the internet, however you don't like links and you require that people tell you things in their own words which you then refute out of hand. Anyway: I hope you're having fun because you certainly are not promoting science. 1,200 stations are not enough to determine the average temperature of Rhode Island much less the planet. As long as you've been here you've never been able to distinguish statistical analysis from actual science. They are not the same thing as I have been saying just as long. Here is a more accurate explanation of how it is done...Other things than the 1200 weather stations are involved, and the statistics is complex. It is also done by many agencies and countries. www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 25, 2019 0:30:46 GMT
I hope you're having fun because you certainly are not promoting science. 1,200 stations are not enough to determine the average temperature of Rhode Island much less the planet. As long as you've been here you've never been able to distinguish statistical analysis from actual science. They are not the same thing as I have been saying just as long. You know this how? Rhode Island has large quantities of vegetation, some much taller, a coastline, large quantities of pavement, large numbers of buildings heating the cold or cooling the heat, and much more. I would not say the human contribution to the average temperature is insignificant, but I would say it is not easily measured. Consider rain. In condensing it releases heat at the higher altitudes, but how much? When the TV reports how many inches of rain fell, that is only a very rough estimate because rain is sporadic.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 25, 2019 0:55:22 GMT
Ah, no longer want to talk about measuring average temperatures? An oversimplified concept of the "planet" suited to a simple mind is going to seem something that can have a measurable "average" temperature. In the much larger, more complicated reality there are too many places for temperature variations to hide. A common mistake made by amateurs is to confuse statistical analysis with actual science. When laboratory measurements are not possible, when the elimination of contributing factors is not possible, amateurs think statistical analysis can find meaningful answers anyway because the data beyond reach will likely cancel out. Another common mistake is to assume that if several sources get the same answer it must be right. Not so, the several sources might employ the same wrong approach. Ah, dance step number 2. Claim that the Earth is too big and complicated to have an average temperature! I see only you making elementary errors, in this case a mathematical one.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 25, 2019 9:08:02 GMT
An oversimplified concept of the "planet" suited to a simple mind is going to seem something that can have a measurable "average" temperature. In the much larger, more complicated reality there are too many places for temperature variations to hide. A common mistake made by amateurs is to confuse statistical analysis with actual science. When laboratory measurements are not possible, when the elimination of contributing factors is not possible, amateurs think statistical analysis can find meaningful answers anyway because the data beyond reach will likely cancel out. Another common mistake is to assume that if several sources get the same answer it must be right. Not so, the several sources might employ the same wrong approach. Ah, dance step number 2. Claim that the Earth is too big and complicated to have an average temperature! I see only you making elementary errors, in this case a mathematical one. I know the difference between statistical analysis and actual science having made good grades in both in college, now it's time you learned the difference. The Latin term ceteris paribus meaning "other things the same" distinguishes actual science, which holds all other factors the same in order to accurately measure what is caused by some factor in question. Statistical analysis is often used to make guesses where laboratory manipulation and elimination of factors is not possible, such as in human populations at large or the entire planet. With so many different factors going on there is no meaning to measurements, and no understanding of causes, and no ability to predict anything or draw some formula. In a few cases the guesses have more value than others depending on the size of the numbers and the relative quality of the survey. A term you probably did learn in school and should remember is "precision" and what level of precision is possible in various conditions.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 25, 2019 14:15:57 GMT
Ah, dance step number 2. Claim that the Earth is too big and complicated to have an average temperature! I see only you making elementary errors, in this case a mathematical one. I know the difference between statistical analysis and actual science having made good grades in both in college, now it's time you learned the difference. The Latin term ceteris paribus meaning "other things the same" distinguishes actual science, which holds all other factors the same in order to accurately measure what is caused by some factor in question. Statistical analysis is often used to make guesses where laboratory manipulation and elimination of factors is not possible, such as in human populations at large or the entire planet. With so many different factors going on there is no meaning to measurements, and no understanding of causes, and no ability to predict anything or draw some formula. In a few cases the guesses have more value than others depending on the size of the numbers and the relative quality of the survey. A term you probably did learn in school and should remember is "precision" and what level of precision is possible in various conditions. You sure like trotting out your pet Latin phrase as though it makes you look like a respected authority. I've seen it make its appearance dozens of times in the last few months. Unfortunately it doesn't add any substance to your argument as you keep making erroneous assertions (such as the average temperature of the earth is undefined), which I point out, and then you spin a reply with non-sequiturs, changes of subject and a dash of "ceteris paribus". Your first sentence is rather awkward as it compares statistical analysis and "actual science", suggesting that the former is perhaps illegitimate science, when in fact the former is a branch of mathematics. How were your math grades in college? From what I've seen of your mathematical understanding here, I wouldn't expect they were very good at all.
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Mar 25, 2019 19:52:40 GMT
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'.) True enough, though there are different types of glaciers.
But when the pressure builds, it forms into solid ice and becomes plastic (sort of liquid ice). That's when a glacier gets it's characteristic blue colour. It's also how glaciers to move.
When it reaches a certain even rain will increase a glaciers size. The rain sinks into the snow on top of a glacier and gets trapped inside it, and freezes.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 27, 2019 20:11:46 GMT
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. Thank you for your opinions. Why have you stopped answering questions?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 27, 2019 21:30:53 GMT
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.Thank you for your opinions. Why have you stopped answering questions? It must be most difficult and tiring to have to pull stuff out of your arse on such a constant basis, based upon nothing much at all. Personally I like that all glaciers originate in the north and how this completely rules out all the glaciers in the southern hemisphere. Mind you Planet Arlon doesn't believe in anything he can't see, so if they don't have glaciers in the streets of Richmond Virginia, apparently they don't exist.( Remember he has never seen a heart transplant so they don't happen) Fortunately I just got back from New Zealand and saw glaciers with my very own eyes...or should I say remnants of glaciers as they have receded startlingly in the last very recent history. e.g. www.franzjosefglacier.com/about-us/blog/watch-2-years-of-glacier-retreat-in-15-seconds/"Based on past variations, scientists expect that Franz Josef Glacier will retreat 5 km and lose 38% of its mass by 2100 in a mid-range scenario of warming.[12]" Wiki
|
|