On another subject, the cosmic background radiation is indeed from atomic (or better sub-atomic)movement; it’s just that it happened 15-20 billion years ago and is now red shifted to about 3 K. You folks can quibble about whether it’s “space” which has the temperature, but when you can’t identify where particular photons came from, it makes sense to call it “space”. To be more precise, the photons call the cosmic background radiation are those which escaped being recycled in the original ball of fire of the big bang. Once the subatomic particles condensed into atoms, they were transparent to most radiation and it just continued moving through space up to the present day. Occasional photons will collide with condensed matter (like the earth) and be absorbed. More photons of the same energy level will be emitted, but the vast majority simply continue.

Of course, I’m oversimplifying as I’m implying that individual, localized photons exist when it’s actually a field which is present.

]]> Well I suppose we need to get down to specifics. How do you a think Mean temperature is

recorded for a Day?

Are you kidding?

What the heck — I’ll play along:

1. The accuracy of the 179lb is equal to the scale’s accuracy today

2. The trend estimate has a variance that depends on the scale’s variance and depends on the time scale. If the trend is from day 0 to day 14600 (40 years in days), then the variance in the average trend is:

v.trend = (v.day0 + v.day14600) / sqrt(14600),

where v.day0 is the variance 40 years ago and v.day14600 is the variance today.

If the trend is based on yearly averages, then

v.trend ~ [(v.day0 + v.day14600) / sqrt(365)] / sqrt(40),

where v.day0 / 365 approximates the variance for a yearly average

which is the same as the daily trend variance.

3. The accuracy of the 140lb is equal to the scale’s accuracy 20 years ago

4. See #2

—–

Now it’s your turn. Many posts ago you said:

Do you want to argue that Temperatures are taken from independant and identically distributed random variables?

Let’s leave our poor wives alone and get back to that… 🙂

]]>No, Ive not the potential to erase posts from a site that isnt mine. Im sorry for being so cryptic. I referred to your posts at my page on annual energy budget.

]]>The CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) depends on the photons density, which is 400 cm^-3 at this moment in space-time. This density is larger than the cosmic mean density of photons emitted by the stars. Thus the temperature of the universe is the same at any observed point. The dipoles observed in the cosmic temperature are due to the Doppler Effect caused by the movements of our galaxy. As the universe expands, the density of photons decreases because the conservation of the number of photons. I know Dr. Manuel will not agree with me on this issue. However, we have not other plain and valid explanation for the multiple polarities in the CMB.

]]>Nasif, I’m confused. What do you mean “erased”? Do you have that power on this blog? If so, why did you erase it?

]]>There is a background radiation coming *through* space. But plugging this radiation into Plancks equation only yields an “effective” temperature, since the source of this radiation is not atomic movement. Never said anything about entropy or black holes, so I guess your just ranting. Temperature is an attribute of mass, and space by definition is massless.

Well Your approach is basically the Jones approach. ( his paper is on hadobs somewhere)

I have a bunch of issues with it. Let me collect my thoughts and then write something up

properly.

But lets look at it this way.

Suppose you wife was 100lbs when you married her.

And every day since she has been on a yo yo diet. take 5lbs off put 8 on, take 3 off put 10 on

And every day she weighs herself once day, so 365 measurements per year. and every year she

gains ( on a net basis ) 2 lbs or so. so after 40 years of married and nearly 1500 measurements

she steps on the scale and the scale reads 179 lbs.

1. How accurate is the 179lb reading?

2. How accurate is your trend estimate?

3. How accurate was the 140lb reading 20 years ago?

4. How accurate was the trend estimate 20 years ago.