2014 was definitely the hottest year on record
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
That`s exactly what I did, I saw stars then.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I don't think there were any comets going by when the shot was taken. You are making shit up again.
Also, I don't see the Lost in Space saucer. I'm pretty sure it was somewhere nearby when they took that photo.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Ok, so a real pic revels there actually is stars out there. I knew it.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
It entirely depends on the camera you use to take the picture man...
Some capture stars, some don't
That ^^^ is a CG image of the Earth
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
I don`t know what a CG image is so I`ll find another one, OK ? I really don`t wanna go up there and take one.
Dog`s not doing a good job convincing me a global temperature is achievable or with one, it`s relevance to the next 10,000 year future. I kinda agree with Heckler about not being able to achieve an average global temperature. But not for the same reasons cuz I can`t type that shit out. I can not see it happening simply because of the Seasons that Earth goes through.
Soon I`m gonna hit dog from the side with the increased nighttime thunderstorm bell/red button. Don`t tell him though, those are results which tell a more accurate story than theories. That`s one of the things you will see much more of when global warming is gonna bite you. It can`t be avoided.
Gets complicated from there with the new Ozone generating and the wound trying to heal vs how much it has bled out. We as people might not live through something like that.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Is this one cool ?
I got a cheap screen from like 8 years ago.
I got a cheap screen from like 8 years ago.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
CG = computer graphic or computer generated and not a photograph. A computer generated graphic is exactly that -- whatever the programmer wants to show. A CG is a great metaphor for the kind of propaganda put out by the oil company's hired guns to confuse people like you.
I was careful to post a real photograph as evidence. I was being careful to show facts not fiction. The stars weren't in the image because the camera had to stop light down due to the relative brightness of the earth.
That said, I don't think I'm going to convince you of anything. I'm using you as a test subject to learn more about science deniers.
This was a good post from you. You are digging for information -- good. One suggestion is to go back and check on whether Mars has an atmosphere or not. You say it has none. Are you sure about that?
Again, the photo didn't show stars because they were too dim for the camera setting. The earth was too bright and the camera was stopped down.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here (shown in bold text). Would you care to try again?
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Another, computer generated image
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I guess that computer generated images are truthier than real ones.How the hell can you not tell a real image of the Earth from a fake one?
Real:
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
I got nothing on you paddy when it comes to photography online.
And dog, it wasn`t so hard to show me why there are no stars, and the eyes, need to work too. I don`t have issue with that anymore,
I got a better argument that global average temperature is not attainable. If all that math comes through and get`s an attainable average, it`ll be average of the day.
But no dog, I can`t prove "no atmosphere" on Mars, in fact the image of Earth from Mars shows it`s more likely it does but not the same as ours.
Science thinks that equal exposer is equal absorption. I disagree.
Science thinks the poles are a result of defused sunlight. I think it`s because of refrigeration from Astronomical night.
Science thinks the slight out of round doesn`t matter much. I think it does.
Science thinks it can achieve a global average temperature. I think you can`t.
Science says water boils at 212 degrees(f), that`s where I learned it from.
Simmon says OddBall shut up now,....OK.
And dog, it wasn`t so hard to show me why there are no stars, and the eyes, need to work too. I don`t have issue with that anymore,
I got a better argument that global average temperature is not attainable. If all that math comes through and get`s an attainable average, it`ll be average of the day.
But no dog, I can`t prove "no atmosphere" on Mars, in fact the image of Earth from Mars shows it`s more likely it does but not the same as ours.
Science thinks that equal exposer is equal absorption. I disagree.
Science thinks the poles are a result of defused sunlight. I think it`s because of refrigeration from Astronomical night.
Science thinks the slight out of round doesn`t matter much. I think it does.
Science thinks it can achieve a global average temperature. I think you can`t.
Science says water boils at 212 degrees(f), that`s where I learned it from.
Simmon says OddBall shut up now,....OK.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
If I take the daily average of every day of the year, add them up, then divide by 365 days, I will get an average temperature for that year
Do you disagree with this?
What is "astronomical night"?
The slightly off exact sphere shape of the earth where it's wider at the equator makes the angle of the sunlight at the polls slightly higher, makes temps slightly lower, not significantly enough to really make much of a difference since it's such a small measurement in context
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
If I take the daily average of every day of the year, add them up, then divide by 365 days, I will get an average temperature for that year
Do you disagree with this?
What is "astronomical night"?
The slightly off exact sphere shape of the earth where it's wider at the equator makes the angle of the sunlight at the polls slightly higher, makes temps slightly lower, not significantly enough to really make much of a difference since it's such a small measurement in context
The daily average where?
Yes, I agree with it. (Graph of sun/earth no moon) But if you draw in the rotation, coldest at the poles 30degrees, when earth is left of the sun, now switch it and see those poles getting more direct than when left of it. Prolly get more like the 45degree. (How do you put that little circle up on degrees ?)
Astronomical (means huge, or long time/prolonged.) night. Because of the minor out of round adds to that.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Rather than just spout what you think, some background with references will lend you credibility. I could just say "I believe the earth is getting warmer because of human activity". But we both know, blanket statements without back-up information don't convince anybody. As it is, you've made some valid points and quite a few invalid ones. But you haven't said anything convincing.
Let's start with what an average is. Any of these metrics are used to express an average. Which metric is best depends on the type of data in the data set.
Mean: The sum of a set of data divided by the number of data points in the data set. For example, in the following data set: (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), the mean is equal to the sum (15) divided by the count of data (5) the mean is therefore equal to 3.
Median: The number at which half the data are smaller and half the data are larger.
Mode: The most common result in grouped data
The average surface temperature of the earth is the mean of all surface temperature readings. As you point out, temperature varies greatly depending on time of day, location of the measurement, day of year, local weather at that time and so forth. The reason why all these numbers are converted into a single mean is because the mean value varies less than any single value.
An example of a mean average that might be closer to your pocket book, is gas mileage of a car. It varies depending on a number of variables too. If you record gas mileage after each fill up, you would see quite a bit of individual variation. So, how do you know if one car will save you more money than another car? Compare average gas mileage. A car with higher average gas mileage will over time cost less in gas when driving the same route as a car with lower gas mileage.
As with average gas mileage of a car, which allows us to compare different makes and models for gas efficiency, the average surface temperature of the earth allows us to compare one year to another.
The average surface temperature of the earth has been climbing quickly over the past thirty years.
Forget about the carbon dioxide line on the graph and just pay attention to the bars that show annual average temperature. It's consistently hotter today than it was 30 or more years ago. If the earth wasn't warmer today than 30 years ago, we might still see variation up and down but we would not consistently see this kind of pattern where the temperature never returns to that of earlier years.
Any collection of data can be converted into a mean average. What's matters is whether or not the mean average of the data is useful. With gas mileage, the average gas mileage is useful to compare different cars and to monitor one's own car. When gas mileage goes down for your car, given the same driving conditions its usually a red flag that something is wrong with the engine or some other part of the car. Maybe tire pressure needs to be checked. When global temperatures consistently rise, its a sign that something is driving this change.
If you can agree that average surface temperature can be useful to detect a change in conditions of the earth's warming and cooling mechanisms then we can proceed to discussing whether or not that signal showing an increase in carbon dioxide might be important.
Last edited:
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Who needs credibility to say the world is on an axis ?
Who needs credibility to say the poles are dark for moths at a time because of it ?
Who needs credibility to say that the poles get 24 daylight too ?
Who needs credibility to say when you loose heat, it cools ?
Who needs credibility to say when it`s dark you lose heat faster than in heated daylight ?
Who needs credibility to say land holds heat ?
Who needs credibility to say air over water is cooler than air over land ?
The line shows it goes up any way I see it. The only question with meaning would be, Has it always been down to up ?
I refuse to acknowledge that a hundred and twenty something years is even a tick on a geological time clock.
It is safe to say it started out down.
Who needs credibility to say the poles are dark for moths at a time because of it ?
Who needs credibility to say that the poles get 24 daylight too ?
Who needs credibility to say when you loose heat, it cools ?
Who needs credibility to say when it`s dark you lose heat faster than in heated daylight ?
Who needs credibility to say land holds heat ?
Who needs credibility to say air over water is cooler than air over land ?
The line shows it goes up any way I see it. The only question with meaning would be, Has it always been down to up ?
I refuse to acknowledge that a hundred and twenty something years is even a tick on a geological time clock.
It is safe to say it started out down.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Why is the graph so wicked far away from supporting ice ?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I put numbers by your statements for the purposes of discussion.1) Who needs credibility to say the world is on an axis ?
2) Who needs credibility to say the poles are dark for moths at a time because of it ?
3) Who needs credibility to say that the poles get 24 daylight too ?
4) Who needs credibility to say when you loose heat, it cools ?
5) Who needs credibility to say when it`s dark you lose heat faster than in heated daylight ?
6) Who needs credibility to say land holds heat ?
7) Who needs credibility to say air over water is cooler than air over land ?
The line shows it goes up any way I see it. The only question with meaning would be, Has it always been down to up ?
9) I refuse to acknowledge that a hundred and twenty something years is even a tick on a geological time clock.
It is safe to say it started out down.
Your credibility was in question regarding In your previous post, you made some sweeping statements that were much broader than the ones in this reply. You also added the words "I believe" to these statements. You didn't explain your earlier sweeping statements. I was questioning their credibility and still do. The statements shown in this reply are much more on point and based upon facts rather than what you "believed". The facts you state are verifiable and more credible but some of your statements of fact are simply wrong. To wit:
Statement 4 is interesting. Your statement is also sometimes right and sometimes wrong. Water, when heated up doesn't always change temperature. When adding heat to solid water (ice), temperature goes up until the ice starts to melt. At that point, heat goes into the phase transition between ice and water without temperature changing. Also when water starts to boil, heat goes into water as it changes from liquid to gas but the temperature doesn't change. This is actually an important variable in how the earth surface and air temperatures change.
Statement 6 is correct. Every bit of matter stores heat energy. The amount stored is related to heat capacity of that bit of matter. Land has a lower heat capacity than water. The heat capacity of ocean water is about 4 times that of air. Heat always moves from high areas of heat to low areas of heat or more correctly put, thermal energy. This is important when we move to statement 7.
Statement 7 regarding air temperature over water always being cooler than over land: Are you saying that air over Antarctica's land mass in winter (average -49 C) is always warmer than air over nearby open water or over the ice sheet covering ocean water? This is false. Also, the relationship between air temperature over water and air temperature over land can change depending on time of day. During the day the air over land can be hotter than air over a nearby lake. At night it is quite possible that the air over that same land can be cooler than the air over that same lake. For example a nearby glacier can cool the surrounding air quite a bit. I don't understand what point you are trying to make but your statement is sometimes false and therefore has no credibility.
Statement 9, regarding the history of global surface temperature, it seems you are now agreeing that average global surface temperature can be used to compare one year to another.
Do you agree that average global surface temperature can be used to compare one year to another? That's the only agreement that I'm looking for right now.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
And that presents an extremely good question. Is each temperature center added together to create this 'average'? And if so, are the temperature centers equidistant from each other regardless of terrain, population density, urbanization, etc? Or are the temperature centers more closely aligned with more densely populated areas?
You can take an average of anything but it could be completely meaningless.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Science puts they "think, and believe" so why can`t I ?
To wit:
Statement 4, is interesting because it`s about losing heat, you came at me with adding heat. While I understand your reply, it doesn`t address what statement 4 is about.
Statement 6 has everything to do with currents. Water has currents within and above, Land has currents above but not within. That`s why land will always be warmer than over water. Small bodies of water can be overwhelmed by the breeze pushing warmer air over it. (variables)
Yes, should the land in Antarctica be exposed and not buried under frozen water,...it will be warmer than over the open water. Unless that land mass is so tiny that it is overwhelmed by air movement. (currents) The refrigeration effect wouldn`t be possible or at least it would be insufficient. The axis prevents that land from becoming exposed. (unlike the egg that is strait up and down in my cartoon)
Statement 9 , If you show me a graph like that, I can only conclude that average global temperatures say it started out down, goes up, and can not go down. If left of 1880 goes up and down, and right of 2016 goes up and down, you`ve purposely selected a section to fit your needs. That`s why I said I refuse to believe 120 something years is not even a tick on a geological clock.
No I do not believe you can use a global average surface temperature for conclusive evidence by comparing years to years.