2016 Global Temperatures

[JC-CT]

On 1/19/2017 at 0:38 PM, BillT said:

is it possible you rebut anything i wrote? your LYING personal comments are not science and violate the rules here........point out any error please?  and basic stats = i could flip ten time and have 5 heads and 5 tails being exactly 50/50 then i could keep on flipping and NEVER get back to 50/50, it will always be close but may never be exact just like your silly claim that more data points makes the error margin smaller more flips of the coin do NOT alter the odds and adding MORE ERRORS to the data cant make it more accurate(lessen the margin of error). note how i address your claims and not YOU the person.....and so far you have not addressed any of the 100% valid points i have made....you personal insults and telling me to close my account are NOT a discussion, NOT civil, and certainly not science in any way......btw i made an A is 2 different stats courses in college.....i also know something said long ago there are 3 kinds of liars, liars, damned liars and STATS!

Ok, fair enough on your points about attacking the person and not the posts. Your posts are terrible, but I'm sure you are a fine person.

 

On 1/18/2017 at 1:21 PM, BillT said:

wow, you accuse me of being in an alternate universe with the bizarre claim the many MORE ERRORS make the margin of error smaller because of "errors cancelling each other out", in the REAL world the errors could also MULTIPLY the error and NOT cancel out anything they could all be in the same direction.

I think enough has been said to show this as invalid. They wouldn't be all in the same direction unless there is a systemic reason why they would be, and the greater the sample size, the greater the odds that both the direction and magnitude of errors to either the warm or cold side would cancel each other out.

[friedmators]

On 1/15/2017 at 4:41 PM, BillT said:

i do appreciate the civility in this discussion, but my opinion remains the pressure at the opening INCREASES the moment you make the aperture a tiny bit smaller maintaining the same flow rate out because of that pressure increase.........we differ in that your side is saying the pressure doesnt increase until the water inside the tank gets deeper.......it doesnt happen that way in a real life water hose, the hose has constant input and outflow(same amount entering one end and exiting the other), then you squeeze it a bit and clearly the water is under MORE pressure because of the altered aperture, it idoesnt wait for any build up in the hose, it immediately squirts the water further and faster.....again thanks to all posters for the civility.

if you can't see the difference between a tank with head pressure and a water system with upstream pressure regulators I am afraid this conversation is probably pointless.

[BillT]

2 minutes ago, friedmators said:

if you can't see the difference between a tank with head pressure and a water system with upstream pressure regulators I am afraid this conversation is probably pointless.

strange since a clearly do understand the difference......are you claiming just picking a number that 35 ppsi is different than 35 ppsi if the pressure comes from a tank rather than a faucet??????  the source of the pressure is irrelevant to the impacts of it.......

[BillT]

13 minutes ago, JC-CT said:

Ok, fair enough on your points about attacking the person and not the posts. Your posts are terrible, but I'm sure you are a fine person.

 

I think enough has been said to show this as invalid. They wouldn't be all in the same direction unless there is a systemic reason why they would be, and the greater the sample size, the greater the odds that both the direction and magnitude of errors to either the warm or cold side would cancel each other out.

"could" i never said the errors are in the same direction i DID say they "could" be.......ALSO the climate record of actual data was altered and pre 1940 or so the adjustments were all COOLER than the reading and since about 1970 they have all been WARMER than the actual readings.....in actual science you are correct but this is not about actual science this is about political manipulation of DATA.

[JC-CT]

Just now, BillT said:

"could" i never said the errors are in the same direction i DID say they "could" be.......

They could be, yes, I can't dispute that odds are not zero. But, just like the odds of flipping heads one hundred times in one hundred coin flips is astronomically less than flipping heads once on one coin flip, so too do the odds of the direction of error in temperature readings, sans a systemic measuring error, decrease as you increase the sample of temperature readings. So unless you have evidence of such systemic measuring error, and mind you that since we are looking in comparison, that error has to be of larger magnitude in earlier dates than in later ones, there is no basis to claim that a larger sample size increases the margin of error. The opposite is true, and it's not debatable.

[friedmators]

9 minutes ago, BillT said:

strange since a clearly do understand the difference......are you claiming just picking a number that 35 ppsi is different than 35 ppsi if the pressure comes from a tank rather than a faucet??????  the source of the pressure is irrelevant to the impacts of it.......

Yes.  The source matters when arguing whether the pressure effects are felt immediately.

[BillT]

1 minute ago, JC-CT said:

They could be, yes, I can't dispute that odds are not zero. But, just like the odds of flipping heads one hundred times in one hundred coin flips is astronomically less than flipping heads once on one coin flip, so too do the odds of the direction of error in temperature readings, sans a systemic measuring error, decrease as you increase the sample of temperature readings. So unless you have evidence of such systemic measuring error, and mind you that since we are looking in comparison, that error has to be of larger magnitude in earlier dates than in later ones, there is no basis to claim that a larger sample size increases the margin of error. The opposite is true, and it's not debatable.

it IS debatable because your claim is merely having more data points decreases the margin of error automatically.....my POINT is adding many more FAULTY data points increases the margin of error, in real science using real data you are correct a larger valid sample decreases the margin of error but as i pointed out adding more faulty data does the opposite.

[BillT]

2 minutes ago, friedmators said:

Yes.  The source matters when arguing whether the pressure effects are felt immediately.

how so please???   how does the SAME continued pressure change?

[JC-CT]

5 minutes ago, BillT said:

it IS debatable because your claim is merely having more data points decreases the margin of error automatically.....my POINT is adding many more FAULTY data points increases the margin of error, in real science using real data you are correct a larger valid sample decreases the margin of error but as i pointed out adding more faulty data does the opposite.

Unless for a systemic reason the errors are all in the same direction, you are incorrect. Increasing the sample size will decrease the margin of error, period.

If you are trying to argue that a sample comprised of data points with a high error rate is going to have a larger margin of error than a sample of equal size comprised of data points with a low error rate, I would agree with that, but I see no evidence that you are trying to make that point. And regardless, increase the size of either sample and guess what happens to the margin of error...

[BillT]

2 minutes ago, JC-CT said:

Unless for a systemic reason the errors are all in the same direction, you are incorrect. Increasing the sample size will decrease the margin of error, period.

If you are trying to argue that a sample comprised of data points with a high error rate is going to have a larger margin of error than a sample of equal size comprised of data points with a low error rate, I would agree with that, but I see no evidence that you are trying to make that point. And regardless, increase the size of either sample and guess what happens to the margin of error...

since that IS the point i made i cant help that you are unable to comprehend that reality......i clearly said valid data lowers the margin of error when more valid data in added BUT when you add more INvalid data the opposite happens...." in real science using real data you are correct a larger valid sample decreases the margin of error but as i pointed out adding more faulty data does the opposite. " those are my words that you just agreed with above.

[JC-CT]

9 minutes ago, BillT said:

since that IS the point i made i cant help that you are unable to comprehend that reality......i clearly said valid data lowers the margin of error when more valid data in added BUT when you add more INvalid data the opposite happens...." in real science using real data you are correct a larger valid sample decreases the margin of error but as i pointed out adding more faulty data does the opposite. " those are my words that you just agreed with above.

Nope. I said that even in the high-error-rate sample population, increasing the sample size will decrease the margin of error. Even if they have errors. This is stuff you could provide to yourself in a spreadsheet.

Maybe you are confusing an average with the sum of the total magnitude of a population?

[friedmators]

20 minutes ago, BillT said:

how so please???   how does the SAME continued pressure change?

OK.  I may have jumped into this prematurely without reading far enough back.  The pressure at depth in a tank open to the atmosphere is determined strictly from the height of the water in that tank.  The size of the hole has no bearing on pressure before the hole.  The flow rate out of the tank in response to that pressure is what changes and it will change drastically based on the size of the hole.  Like Mallow implied before, halving a hole diameter would need, depending on initial conditions, a square or cube of the height level in the tank to achieve the same flow rates.

[BillT]

2 minutes ago, friedmators said:

OK.  I may have jumped into this prematurely without reading far enough back.  The pressure at depth in a tank open to the atmosphere is determined strictly from the height of the water in that tank.  The size of the hole has no bearing on pressure before the hole.  The flow rate out of the tank in response to that pressure is what changes and it will change drastically based on the size of the hole.  Like Mallow implied before, halving a hole diameter would need, depending on initial conditions, a square or cube of the height level in the tank to achieve the same flow rates.

TY for taking the time to read back and reply.......this experiment is being used as an analogy for our atmosphere and the energy input and output as impacted by human released co2.......so we CANT halve the hole we can only close it by an almost imperceptible amount .....also the tank has a constant INPUT.......

[JC-CT]

1 hour ago, BillT said:

TY for taking the time to read back and reply.......this experiment is being used as an analogy for our atmosphere and the energy input and output as impacted by human released co2.......so we CANT halve the hole we can only close it by an almost imperceptible amount .....also the tank has a constant INPUT.......

Yeah? So does earth, it's called the sun. Just like the tap.

Your hose analogy doesn't work well because you are comparing a tiny amount of water coming out of your hose to a huge amount of water pressure generated by water towers and water pumps on a scale to provide an entire city with consistent water pressure despite the tiny little decreases all throughout the system caused by people using their faucets. So yeah, the equilibrium happens very quickly, but there is just a tiny, tiny, tiny amount more water sitting up in that water tower because you stuck your thumb over half of your garden hose.

[BillT]

22 minutes ago, JC-CT said:

Yeah? So does earth, it's called the sun. Just like the tap.

Your hose analogy doesn't work well because you are comparing a tiny amount of water coming out of your hose to a huge amount of water pressure generated by water towers and water pumps on a scale to provide an entire city with consistent water pressure despite the tiny little decreases all throughout the system caused by people using their faucets. So yeah, the equilibrium happens very quickly, but there is just a tiny, tiny, tiny amount more water sitting up in that water tower because you stuck your thumb over half of your garden hose.

never said half.......did say a TINY almost imperceptible closing......

[JC-CT]

Just now, BillT said:

never said half.......did say a TINY almost imperceptible closing......

To use your analogy, a tiny imperceptible closing of a garden house would cause a tiny imperceptible change in the velocity of the water exiting the hose, after causing a tiny imperceptible increase in the water level of the water tower (or, to be a realist, the pumps wouldn't have to work as hard for a fraction of a second).

[BillT]

20 minutes ago, JC-CT said:

To use your analogy, a tiny imperceptible closing of a garden house would cause a tiny imperceptible change in the velocity of the water exiting the hose, after causing a tiny imperceptible increase in the water level of the water tower (or, to be a realist, the pumps wouldn't have to work as hard for a fraction of a second).

got no problem with that......since that is about the same time co2 holds a small portion of an ir wave......much less than ONE second

[JC-CT]

1 minute ago, BillT said:

got no problem with that......since that is about the same time co2 holds a small portion of an ir wave......much less than ONE second

Someone else can answer that, I don't claim to know how long a molecule of co2 holds an infrared wave. I'm not sure it matters, since it is re-emitting them in all directions including back towards earth.

[BillT]

21 minutes ago, JC-CT said:

Someone else can answer that, I don't claim to know how long a molecule of co2 holds an infrared wave. I'm not sure it matters, since it is re-emitting them in all directions including back towards earth.

actually it releases them with NO force applied no "direction" is imparted.......and since the rest of the IR waves are headed to space dont see any reason for those bits impacted by co2 to reverse course and head back to earth.

[JC-CT]

2 hours ago, BillT said:

actually it releases them with NO force applied no "direction" is imparted.......and since the rest of the IR waves are headed to space dont see any reason for those bits impacted by co2 to reverse course and head back to earth.

Nevermind dude

[CaWx]

5 hours ago, BillT said:

actually it releases them with NO force applied no "direction" is imparted.......and since the rest of the IR waves are headed to space dont see any reason for those bits impacted by co2 to reverse course and head back to earth.

Yes the IR waves are radiating back out towards space, but the CO2 molecules will absorb and reradiate in all directions, which means yes, some energy gets redirected back towards the surface of the Earth aka green house effect. More CO2, the more energy is redirected back towards Earth, thus increasing temps. Why is this so hard? Curious, have you ever taken any radiative physics/thermodynamics courses?  

[BillT]

10 hours ago, CaWx said:

Yes the IR waves are radiating back out towards space, but the CO2 molecules will absorb and reradiate in all directions, which means yes, some energy gets redirected back towards the surface of the Earth aka green house effect. More CO2, the more energy is redirected back towards Earth, thus increasing temps. Why is this so hard? Curious, have you ever taken any radiative physics/thermodynamics courses?  

"redirected back to the surface"??? what force does co2 possess to DIRECT the ir wave?   the co2 releases the new ir wave in NO DIRECTION, with NO force or PUSH sending it anywhere.

[csnavywx]

On 1/21/2017 at 9:52 AM, BillT said:

"redirected back to the surface"??? what force does co2 possess to DIRECT the ir wave?   the co2 releases the new ir wave in NO DIRECTION, with NO force or PUSH sending it anywhere.

Okay, I think I see where your mental block is on this issue now. The "IR wave" you refer to is actually infrared photons. These photons don't act like normal large-scale matter (the stuff you can see). They're not a physical object to be "redirected". In the most simple interaction: When an infrared photon strikes a molecule like CO2, it is absorbed. When it does so, it excites the molecule and causes it to vibrate. A (very) short time later, this excess energy is released in a random direction as an infrared photon. The key here is RANDOM. Some of those will escape to space, but some will return towards the Earth. If you add more molecules that can absorb those infrared photons, then more of these photons will be re-emitted towards the Earth and keep it warmer than it otherwise would be.

If you want to see what the net effect of that looks like:

 

 

 

Notice that you still see the flame when he puts CO2 into the tube, but it's considerably fainter. That's because fewer photons are escaping to the other side of the tube over time.

[csnavywx]

On 1/20/2017 at 5:22 PM, BillT said:

actually it releases them with NO force applied no "direction" is imparted.......and since the rest of the IR waves are headed to space dont see any reason for those bits impacted by co2 to reverse course and head back to earth.

It doesn't "hold" them. In the simplest terms: Those photons cease to exist after being absorbed. When the particle returns to its base state, it creates and emits a photon. My quantum mechanics is a bit rusty, but if I remember correctly, it more or less does the following:

Strangely, the photon is created from nothing. It literally pops into being out of the quantum vacuum. Angular momentum from the emitting particle is transferred to the photon (thus there IS a force applied to this new photon), but since an atom can be in a number of different states at the same time (quantum superposition), the direction of emission is essentially random.

Of course, I'm only dealing with one atom and one photon, which isn't the best way to think about it, because in a room full of air for instance, all of those molecules are going to have a random orientation and there will be countless collisions and emission/absorption events going on at any one slice of time. It's better and more constructive to talk about it in terms of probability. Adding CO2 (or another gas capable of absorbing infrared) reduces the probability of a photon making it into space in a given amount of time, effectively "trapping" it.

[BillT]

1 hour ago, csnavywx said:

Okay, I think I see where your mental block is on this issue now. The "IR wave" you refer to is actually infrared photons. These photons don't act like normal large-scale matter (the stuff you can see). They're not a physical object to be "redirected". In the most simple interaction: When an infrared photon strikes a molecule like CO2, it is absorbed. When it does so, it excites the molecule and causes it to vibrate. A (very) short time later, this excess energy is released in a random direction as an infrared photon. The key here is RANDOM. Some of those will escape to space, but some will return towards the Earth. If you add more molecules that can absorb those infrared photons, then more of these photons will be re-emitted towards the Earth and keep it warmer than it otherwise would be.

If you want to see what the net effect of that looks like:

 

 

 

Notice that you still see the flame when he puts CO2 into the tube, but it's considerably fainter. That's because fewer photons are escaping to the other side of the tube over time.

NONSENSE a thinking person can see the atmosphere is NOT even remotely akin to that tube full of co2.......what happened there is the SPEED of the photons was altered and the photons are NOT HEAT, they are energy that when hitting other things excite them generating heat....IF the silly experiment were true the earth would have been a cinder long ago because that is a claim that ALL of the heat gets trapped inside that tube.

also you still have NOT addresses why ALL the rest of the IR waves move towards space naturally, yet some impacted by co2 REVERSE that natural flow......it DOESNT as i have posted the new photon is released with NO force and NI direction so it returns to its natural movement away from earth, to send it back to earth REQUIRES some force be imparted upon it.........

[csnavywx]

2 hours ago, BillT said:

NONSENSE a thinking person can see the atmosphere is NOT even remotely akin to that tube full of co2.......what happened there is the SPEED of the photons was altered and the photons are NOT HEAT, they are energy that when hitting other things excite them generating heat....IF the silly experiment were true the earth would have been a cinder long ago because that is a claim that ALL of the heat gets trapped inside that tube.

also you still have NOT addresses why ALL the rest of the IR waves move towards space naturally, yet some impacted by co2 REVERSE that natural flow......it DOESNT as i have posted the new photon is released with NO force and NI direction so it returns to its natural movement away from earth, to send it back to earth REQUIRES some force be imparted upon it.........

Whew, alright. I'm going to try and break down your statement:

First off, a photon always travels at c. Always. c might change depending on the medium, but that is literally irrelevant here. There's no accumulation of photons solely because of speed changes through a medium. The only way to dim the electromagnetic radiation getting to the camera lens is by absorbing, scattering and/or reflecting it.

Second, yes, photons are not heat. No, the experiment is not showing that all of the heat gets trapped in the tube. Some of those make it through, some are emitted out the sides of the tube (where the camera isn't pointed), some are emitted back towards the candle. The more CO2 is in between the candle and the camera, the greater this effect.

Third, and probably most importantly -- I'm going to address the bolded underlined portion. This is not the way it works. You're viewing it like some kind of river that has a natural one way direction. Space has a temperature (about 3.5K) and Earth has a temperature (about 289K). This means they both emit electromagnetic radiation. It's a two-way street here. The Earth emits a lot more radiation than it receives from space at night, so the net flux is towards space. However, it's important to remember that all EMR emitted in this interaction is randomly directed from a surface. It's just that there's a LOT more of it that can potentially escape from Earth via random walk than can be gained from space. (The amount they emit is based on Stephan-Boltzmann's law. The wavelength is based on temperature of the emitting body). I addressed how photon emission works in the previous post (and it most definitely does get its momentum from the emitting particle).

 

 

[csnavywx]

https://scied.ucar.edu/molecular-vibration-modes