climate change
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
(res can't figure out why the network of temp stations and satellite monitors didn't notice an airplane )
Barbarian suggests:
If you thought about it for a minute, I'm sure you could figure it out. Or I could explain it to you. Think.
(res shrugs)
That's why I told you, as I offered to do. It is O.K. if you don't know.
Barbarian observes:
It's not as hard as you think. An aircraft over the ocean isn't detectable by temperature.
Yep. The buoys aren't made to to that. They wouldn't respond to the essentially unmeasurable difference in radiant energy of a plane passed over. Nor would climate satellites, which scan wide areas of ocean.
By using an entirely different sensor. If you're really interested, start another thread, and I'll see if I can explain that.
Neither satellite monitors nor buoys would detect it. And except for the occasional sampling done by vessels, that's how ocean surface temperature is recorded.
That's why they call it "Surface temperature." I thought you knew.
Many thousands. I don't think anyone really knows how many, given the many agencies using them.
Because they scan wide areas and don't have a resolution down to a few meters.
Hence, the temperature-sensing system was completely unable to track a single aircraft over the ocean. It's like expecting a thermometer to measure the speed of your car.
Might be interesting. Show us that one.
You were the one who couldn't figure out why a buoy measuring surface temperature wouldn't track an airplane. Just saying.
The only hygrometers I know about detect changes in humidity. I occasionally had to use a sling hygrometer when I was first doing loss control for an insurance company. But that wouldn't track and airplane, either. But a sling hygrometer, unlike some others, can actually record temperature, even if if wouldn't track an airplane.
Barbarian observes:
See, it wasn't that hard to figure out.
Simple, yes. Pretty dumb, that sort of instrument to detect aircraft. You're actually playing Simplicio to my Sagredo.
Just pointing out that the fundamental error in supposing such a system could detect an aircraft.
I'm just trying to explain it in a way you can understand. And looking up stuff to help you learn about it.
I'm a very patient guy. Even when you shift your story when you realized what a dumb idea it was, I thought it was worth explaining. And we're used to you doing that. It's an inherent aspect of your dishonesty
Did I write "bouys?" Um, no, I didn't. It's "buoys." Many thousands. I doubt if anyone actually has a complete list:
http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_weather_buoys_are_there_in_the_world
Generally, they are transmitting data in real time. Pretty much like the weather station on your patio. There may be more primitive ones that store data instead, but not many, I would think.
What do you mean by "specs?" How big they are? How high they are? Spectrum analyzed? How they're powered? What?
Barbarian suggests:
If you thought about it for a minute, I'm sure you could figure it out. Or I could explain it to you. Think.
(res shrugs)
That's why I told you, as I offered to do. It is O.K. if you don't know.
Barbarian observes:
It's not as hard as you think. An aircraft over the ocean isn't detectable by temperature.
Yep. The buoys aren't made to to that. They wouldn't respond to the essentially unmeasurable difference in radiant energy of a plane passed over. Nor would climate satellites, which scan wide areas of ocean.
By using an entirely different sensor. If you're really interested, start another thread, and I'll see if I can explain that.
Neither satellite monitors nor buoys would detect it. And except for the occasional sampling done by vessels, that's how ocean surface temperature is recorded.
That's why they call it "Surface temperature." I thought you knew.
Many thousands. I don't think anyone really knows how many, given the many agencies using them.
Because they scan wide areas and don't have a resolution down to a few meters.
Hence, the temperature-sensing system was completely unable to track a single aircraft over the ocean. It's like expecting a thermometer to measure the speed of your car.
Might be interesting. Show us that one.
You were the one who couldn't figure out why a buoy measuring surface temperature wouldn't track an airplane. Just saying.
The only hygrometers I know about detect changes in humidity. I occasionally had to use a sling hygrometer when I was first doing loss control for an insurance company. But that wouldn't track and airplane, either. But a sling hygrometer, unlike some others, can actually record temperature, even if if wouldn't track an airplane.
Barbarian observes:
See, it wasn't that hard to figure out.
Simple, yes. Pretty dumb, that sort of instrument to detect aircraft. You're actually playing Simplicio to my Sagredo.
Just pointing out that the fundamental error in supposing such a system could detect an aircraft.
I'm just trying to explain it in a way you can understand. And looking up stuff to help you learn about it.
I'm a very patient guy. Even when you shift your story when you realized what a dumb idea it was, I thought it was worth explaining. And we're used to you doing that. It's an inherent aspect of your dishonesty
Did I write "bouys?" Um, no, I didn't. It's "buoys." Many thousands. I doubt if anyone actually has a complete list:
http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_weather_buoys_are_there_in_the_world
Generally, they are transmitting data in real time. Pretty much like the weather station on your patio. There may be more primitive ones that store data instead, but not many, I would think.
What do you mean by "specs?" How big they are? How high they are? Spectrum analyzed? How they're powered? What?
So with the "why can't you track an airplane with a thermometer?" question resolved, there's some serious science that hadn't been given much attention:
More heat is ending up the the oceans, relative to heating on land. It was always true that oceans (water has a much higher specific heat than rock) absorbed most of the warming, but the trend is accelerating. So what? So the models didn't predict this. And one of the effects is to undercut the massive ice shelves in Antarctica, which are degrading at an increasing rate. If the trend continues, the shelves will collapse (as some have already done).
So what? So the shelves, if they collapse, would add about 4 meters to sea levels in a few hundred years. Not "water world" by any means, but not good for a lot of metropolitian areas, much of which would go underwater.
Here's a place where you can see what much less (1 to 10 feet) of rise would do in various places:
http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/heat_content2000m.jpg
More heat is ending up the the oceans, relative to heating on land. It was always true that oceans (water has a much higher specific heat than rock) absorbed most of the warming, but the trend is accelerating. So what? So the models didn't predict this. And one of the effects is to undercut the massive ice shelves in Antarctica, which are degrading at an increasing rate. If the trend continues, the shelves will collapse (as some have already done).
So what? So the shelves, if they collapse, would add about 4 meters to sea levels in a few hundred years. Not "water world" by any means, but not good for a lot of metropolitian areas, much of which would go underwater.
Here's a place where you can see what much less (1 to 10 feet) of rise would do in various places:
http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/heat_content2000m.jpg
now you're just making up stuff?
is there any reason you expect people to take you seriously here, or is this all just part of your comedy act?
Barbarian observes:
So with the "why can't you track an airplane with a thermometer?" question resolved, there's some serious science that hadn't been given much attention:
Nope. Just have a little fun with your foolishness. As I said, if you had given it a little thought, you'd realize why ocean temp sensors couldn't track an airplane.
Most people can tell the difference between scientific discourse, and making a little fun of you.
It's tough to do good comedy. But I'll let you in on a secret: it's a lot easier, if there's some fool trying to heckle. My best nights were when there was a guy like you in the crowd.
And yeah, I need to cut you loose (as several people have suggested) but I couldn't resist one more for old time's sake. May God give you His peace.
So with the "why can't you track an airplane with a thermometer?" question resolved, there's some serious science that hadn't been given much attention:
Nope. Just have a little fun with your foolishness. As I said, if you had given it a little thought, you'd realize why ocean temp sensors couldn't track an airplane.
Most people can tell the difference between scientific discourse, and making a little fun of you.
It's tough to do good comedy. But I'll let you in on a secret: it's a lot easier, if there's some fool trying to heckle. My best nights were when there was a guy like you in the crowd.
And yeah, I need to cut you loose (as several people have suggested) but I couldn't resist one more for old time's sake. May God give you His peace.
res asks a simple question:
gcthomas steps up to the plate and make a valiant effort:
while barbie wiffs:
don't know your background gc, but i'm educated, trained and worked for pay as a scientist - iow, i'm a professional scientist
barbie, otoh, is a professional educator (as am i, also)
there's a big difference between being a scientist and being a science teacher
teachers are trained to present accepted knowledge
scientists are trained to question data sets, study the methods and assumptions behind claims, and look for discrepancies in data and conclusions
for example, relying on "a host of stations" and "nobody really knows how many" buoys to estimate the surface temperature of 361 million square kilometers of ocean
barbie offered "thousands" (which isn't a term you'd find in a scientific paper, btw :chuckle: ), so let's take a look at that
one thousand buoys would be one data point for each 361,000 square kilometers - that's about half the surface area of texas
seems like a pretty thin data set, unless you're assuming complete mixing and uniform temperature distribution
but of course, you can't assume complete mixing and uniform temperature distribution
gcthomas steps up to the plate and make a valiant effort:
while barbie wiffs:
don't know your background gc, but i'm educated, trained and worked for pay as a scientist - iow, i'm a professional scientist
barbie, otoh, is a professional educator (as am i, also)
there's a big difference between being a scientist and being a science teacher
teachers are trained to present accepted knowledge
scientists are trained to question data sets, study the methods and assumptions behind claims, and look for discrepancies in data and conclusions
for example, relying on "a host of stations" and "nobody really knows how many" buoys to estimate the surface temperature of 361 million square kilometers of ocean
barbie offered "thousands" (which isn't a term you'd find in a scientific paper, btw :chuckle: ), so let's take a look at that
one thousand buoys would be one data point for each 361,000 square kilometers - that's about half the surface area of texas
seems like a pretty thin data set, unless you're assuming complete mixing and uniform temperature distribution
but of course, you can't assume complete mixing and uniform temperature distribution
A "professional scientist" who is puzzled that temperature buoys can't track aircraft? Don't think so. And we're still waiting for your method of measuring the speed of an auto with a thermometer. On the other hand, I actually did work as a professional scientist, doing IH and Ergonomics, and being licensed to do it.
barbie, otoh, is a professional educator (as am i, also)
Yep. A real scientist would know that ocean buoys can't track aircraft.
That is accepted knowledge, res. So you have no excuse.
Yep. The scientists actually compiling the data use many, many such stations. And there are a good number of different agencies, most of whom will share data with each other. There's no magic number, though. The actual number is determined by statisticans who figure out how many sampling points are needed to get a mathematically valid result. And yes, a "real scientists" would have known that.
Yep. Some agencies, don't share data, so it's doubtful if anyone really knows.
A quick search in one database turned up 18,864 hits. You don't know much about the literature, either. And yet you're a "professional scientist."
Here's where you can learn about it:
http://www.buoyweather.com/info.jsp?id=52952
Pick a section of ocean and check out how many of them there are in there. (but only for those agencies sharing data)
Surprise.
NOAA drifter array:
http://www.hollandamericablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/buoy-map00012.jpg
Last edited:
I figure the day's wasted if I don't learn something new. And res, we've both been clowns.
The difference is, I was trying to get people to laugh. And I got paid for it.
Last edited:
you're a retard
I have a hygrometer. Not sure how you could use it to track an aircraft from a distance though.
What's your field of study?
The pixels of the surface temperature maps put out by NOAA appear to be approximately the size of the nation of Uruguay. If you wanted to detect an aircraft, you'd need something a lot higher resolution. The GOES satellites are down to about 1-km, but even at that resolution, finding a plane in that area seems implausible. How do you propose to do it?
not an airliner
to determine the speed of a car
think wind chill
bs in chemistry (heavy concentration on instrumental analysis), ms in an applied field of chemistry, but i'm doing a reboot and reentering the field of medicine, a path i turned from twenty years ago when my boys were little - hope to take it to the phd level
i'd have to know a lot more about the remote sensing devices they're using - whether they're focused or broad spectrum (depthwise)
either way, it would seem possible with continous reads (if they read continously) to discern the deviation caused by the thermal output of a jet engine in a 1 km swath, especially in an area like the south indian ocean where there's not a lot of air or maritime traffic
according to the faa, contrails can grow to several kilometers in width
it would have been interesting to have a real discussion about this with barbie, but that's not why he's here :idunno:
gcthomas
New member
As was obvious from the map in the post, the data shown was on a 5° grid. There are around a thousand 5° cells to cover the world's oceans, so that matches the thousand buoys you picked. However, there are many thousands of buoys, so there would be multiple measurements for every cell. Plus there are the island stations and volunteer ships carrying mobile weather stations.
Not at all. You've not done a lot of numerical modelling, have you? Why would you assume 'uniform'? There are plenty of algorithms to pick from which very closely match the actual distributions.
No, you can't. That's why no-one does.
Forgive me for asking, but you don't write like any working scientist I have read - have you been in science long?
gcthomas
New member
not an airliner
to determine the speed of a car
think wind chill
Wind chill? There is no wind chill on a thermometer. :hammer:
gcthomas
New member
Ahh. I get it now - you've Resurrected.
not an airliner
to determine the speed of a car
think wind chill
The movement of the air chills the hygrometer faster, which changes the dew point. I could see how you could infer the speed from that, depending on the type of hygrometer. But you'd need to know the static temperature too, I think.
Interesting.
Given that they're largely intended to measure the temperature of the planet, I would assume that they are designed just for the spectra that are likely to be emitted at surface temperature ranges. A jet engine is quite a bit hotter than that.
But I don't really know the answer to that.
That depends on a lot of things, though. For one thing, there needs to be enough humidity in the air where they are flying and cold enough temperatures. And ultimately, the question is whether you can detect the heat produced burning the amount of jet fuel over the distance traveled, and differentiate it from the background. I'm not sure the contrails help you much.
But you'd have to ask someone a lot more knowledgeable than me.
I think at this point, people mostly assume you're trolling.
Yep. Years ago, when he was Koban, he was actually capable of rational discourse. Then something really bad happened to him. I keep hoping he'll make it back, but...
gcthomas
New member
It was the trolling style that gave him away. :sherlock:
A sling hygrometer depends on swinging wet-bulb and dry-bulb thermometers at the end of a sling to enhance evaporation, and then compare the temperatures of the two thermometers on a scale.
The idea is to remove the wet-bulb thermometer from the saturated air around it, to facilitate evaporation. You keep moving it into air that's not saturated. The problem for res, is that the effect of additional speed is neither linear, nor very predictable.
There is also a rise in temperature due to the impact of the air on the bulb, which further complicates things.
Not a very good way to measure speed.
The idea is to remove the wet-bulb thermometer from the saturated air around it, to facilitate evaporation. You keep moving it into air that's not saturated. The problem for res, is that the effect of additional speed is neither linear, nor very predictable.
There is also a rise in temperature due to the impact of the air on the bulb, which further complicates things.
Not a very good way to measure speed.