SR wrote:" Are you really still sooking over being picked to pieces with your Covid numbers?"

Sorry SR, but logically one can't sook over something that didn't happen.

"The scientists involved do it themselves naming different wattage levels cold, warm and hot."

Yes but they don't try to pretend that things that are 'cold' can be independently and minutely compared, as you attempt to do. Let me put it in terms you might understand. Women's shirt sizes are a proxy for temperature - short = warm, long = cold etc. But you can't look at two dresses that might be .005cm different in length and determine that the temperature changed by .037K. That's effectively what you tried to do. Bonkers? Yep. Very SR? Hell yes.

"Is this little bit of nit picking the best you are going to contribute here? "

Well I guess you missed the first and major part of my post. Well it did contain numbers so I guess you got lost.

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

Mate, you really do need to give up winging it.

Who else but you would take a fully quantitative measurement and try and equate it to womens shirt sizes.

Trying to disassociate the heat transfer rate from temperature is just laughable and if that is really all you have then as I said it is a very piss poor effort.

I even linked to the data set. They aren't just graded as cold, warm or hot but are distinct values. The lower the number the cooler it is. Why is that so difficult for you?

Look mate, I don't mind seeing the usual deflections from you but this is something else. Grab something from left field without thinking and then desperately try and defend it? You used to be able to do better than that.

SR wrote:" They aren't just graded as cold, warm or hot but are distinct values. The lower the number the cooler it is. "

That's not at all what the data says. It broadly places numbers into cold,warm groups but doesn't try to equate specific POWER values with specific TEMPERATURE values which was your mistaken claim.

We've now reached the point where I cannot be sure if it is too hard for SR to understand his error, or too hard for him to accept his error.

Either way, it too hard for me to continue to deal with moronic innumeracy of this magnitude.

Dear mhaze,

Lol. Typical. You paint yourself in a corner then decide to jump out the window.

This is a direct quote from the article:

“We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”

And:

“Thermosphere Climate Index” (TCI)–a number expressed in Watts that tells how much heat NO molecules are dumping into space. During Solar Maximum, TCI is high (“Hot”); during Solar Minimum, it is low (“Cold”).

This is a direct measurement of the infrared glow or heat being emitted from the NO molecules. Why are you running from this?

As a replacement for physically sticking a bloody thermometer in the thermosphere this is an excellent, quantifiable measurement of relative temperature. Higher wattage means higher temperatures full stop.

Really mate, if you have any further issues you need to take them up with the authors but I feel they have made it pretty simple even for a layman like yourself.

Yes SR, the data they use is a proxy for temperature. But it isn't temperature - its a proxy. Yell out if I'm going too fast for you.

You said a value for POWER (2.05e+10W) is temperature. (" the temperature in question would have had to drop below that set on Feb 13th 2009 of 2.05e+10W.").

But its not temperature, its a value for POWER. They are similar but they aren't the same. Just like your thinking is similar to logical but not the same.

Last year we were debating those that claim the Earth is getting hotter; this year the facts seem to suggest the Earth is cooling. Where is Al Gore, Tim Flanary and Gretta on this?