Wall - you are now below the minimum level at which cany kind of sensible discussion is possible.
Good! I've been trying to sink to your subterranean level for weeks now. Glad to see I have finally found your absurdly low level.
Have you noticed what shows up on your browser as it is loading an environment thread from this forum. I can tell just by the "transferring data from sceptikalscience.com" who has been posting the same usual garbage over and over again...it`s always the same crowd. They read nothing but the same agw freak.org blogs and copy/paste it in here.
Especially these stupid "average temperature" graphs that look like the sales predictions of "Solyndra" & other con artists, when they go public.
Not a single one of these idiots would be able to figure out what the average temperature for Canada would be for today:
And the same goes for "climatologists"
As if anyone could get a
valid "global average" with a spatial distribution like that:
So unless one of these "experts" can tell me what the true &
statistically correct average temperature for Canada is today from the map above they should shut the **** up debating with us who`s average is correct.
Just to show how wrong the picture can be..
The map above has the area I`m in represented with -9 C. It`s been all day -15 and it was -17C this morning. There are 102 stations in the warmer (southern) half on this map, ranging from +8 to -14 C and only 42 for the northern landmass, ranging from -12 to -31C.
Applying an arithmetic average for a data set like that is a stupid as stating what the average cross section of a pyramid or a sphere is..or applying the same sampling method as for population demographics.
Assume for a moment that the spatial distribution would be equal and 3.3 million square miles in Canada are at +1C and the other 3.3 million square miles are at -31 C. A "climatologist" would say that the "average temperature for Canada is -15 C. An engineer or any other real scientist scientist would not even bother doing that, but express it in an entirely different yet valid format and dimension...namely what the total thermal energy of a specified dry air mass would be, say up to 1000 feet a.g.l. would be at standard pressure for the entire system.
That`s how it`s done for everything else in science and engineering, no matter if it`s a large non-homogenous closed system or a large open one for example specifying the yield of a thermo-nuclear device.
Only a climatology moron would say the "average temperature in the Hiroshima Prefects and surrounding area was"....x degrees C after downtown Hiroshima got nuked....and if Oppenheimer would have asked such a moron how the bomb yield worked out.
Climatologists are idiots when it comes to physics!
When physicists talk about that "space" is at 2.7 deg Kelvin they are
not talking about
temperature but the
energy level that the
2.7 deg background radiation in outer space represents.
The CMBR has a thermal
black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057 K,.
[3] The
spectral density peaks in the
microwave range of frequencies. However spectral density can be defined either as (a) dEν/dν (as in
Planck's law) or as (b) dEλ/dλ (as in
Wien's displacement law), where Eν is the
total energy at all frequencies up to and including ν, and Eλ is the total energy at all wave lengths up to and including λ.
Of course "Saigon" is not obligated to figure out the Canadian average (intelligence) physics puzzle,...after 2 similar simple questions that overtaxed his mental capacity he put me on his "ignore list". But as I said his "ignore list" also includes Math, Physics and Chemistry books and that`s his problem, not mine.
One could in fact derive the approximate total thermal energy in a 1000 foot layer over Canada and then eqaute that to a degree Kelvin ENERGY Content, representing a scientifically correct dimension and average..and I assure all who are reading this that this value would be nowhere near the equivalent "average temperature" that climatologists "compute" the same way simple run of the mill unemployment or income statistical average calculations are done.
@Westwall
I hope You have a good trip to St.Petersburg....and hope you "don`t have to call Ralph over the radio"....(Do you refer like that to the barf-bags too or is that only mil-jargon?).. It`s a ***** when you are a pilot and ride as a passenger...isn`t it ? You are acutely aware of all the adjustments they make on final approach, especially how poorly some passenger "sched" pilots handle a crosswind. They crab it to the last possible moment and hope the tires don`t get peeled off the rims. Almost none know how to do a proper side-slip any more, cross controlling ailerons and rudder. I makes me feel very uncomfortable when I notice how many basic skills they have lost since we got "fly by wire" with computer over-ride.
