| 08-08-2017 02:45 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Into the Night wrote:
Ah yes...the old "it's too complicated to understand" fallacy. No, the science that your religion is violating is very simple to understand, if one only takes the time to study it for a bit.
nfuse an already confuse public about a complicated subject.
Let's start at the beginning:
What exactly IS 'global warming'? Can you define it without resorting to circular definitions or turning to 'greenhouse effect' with just circles back around to the 'global warming' definition?
How about 'climate change'? Can you define it without using circular definitions?
Something you should consider:
What is warming? From when to when? Why are those moments so important, and why are any other moments NOT important?
How do you define the 'climate' of the Earth? There is no prevailing weather for the Earth. How do you describe a 'change' without using starting and ending points in time? Why are those moments important?
Parrot, it's complicated but not too complicated to understand for someone with an above average intellect and an interest in knowing the truth. I'm thinking you lack in both areas, which is why you go around repeating things you read somewhere else.
Global Warming - When the earth goes through a period of warming, marked by each decade being warmer than the previous.
Climate Change - When the earth leaves one steady state average temperature and begins to either get warmer or cooler as decades progress.
The Climate of the Earth is generally given as an average temperature of the planet for a given year. Everyone says today our high was x and our low was y. Someone back at the office determines the average temperature for that day, and enters the information into his giant computer. After doing that for a year, he drags all that data out and averages it. He then tells the world what the average temperature was, and compares it to last years data. This brings out the Skeptics, who first under-analyze the data, and then begin to over-analyze it, before dismissing the data altogether as being useless, since we don't know how hot it was 250 years ago.
You are mistaken about the data I used to produce my graph. The average temperature of the planet influences the average temperature of the arctic regions, and is reflected in the average temperature of the arctic regions. We can therefore use arctic ice core data to reconstruct a climate history of the planet, including the average temperature. That's a known fact, and is not really worth arguing about. But I was curious about why you said I had no data. The Climate Models output isn't data. It's simply a calculation whose output can be compared to actual data, for comparison.
Then it occurred to me [again] that I talking to a complete idiot, who doesn't understand science, because it makes his head hurt. All those darn numbers and things going different which ways. Why can't we all just lay back, burn a fatty, and figure this here thing out? The only thing that is required is for the idiots to shut up for a while, and let the more knowledgeable exchange thoughts, without all the idiot banter?
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 08-08-2017 22:02 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21599) |
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ah yes...the old "it's too complicated to understand" fallacy. No, the science that your religion is violating is very simple to understand, if one only takes the time to study it for a bit.
nfuse an already confuse public about a complicated subject.
Let's start at the beginning:
What exactly IS 'global warming'? Can you define it without resorting to circular definitions or turning to 'greenhouse effect' with just circles back around to the 'global warming' definition?
How about 'climate change'? Can you define it without using circular definitions?
Something you should consider:
What is warming? From when to when? Why are those moments so important, and why are any other moments NOT important?
How do you define the 'climate' of the Earth? There is no prevailing weather for the Earth. How do you describe a 'change' without using starting and ending points in time? Why are those moments important?
Parrot, it's complicated
Nope. It's not. Anyone can understand this if they want to learn the math and a couple of theories of science that are involved.
GreenMan wrote:
but not too complicated to understand for someone with an above average intellect and an interest in knowing the truth.
Correct. It's not. You don't even need above average intellect.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking you lack in both areas, which is why you go around repeating things you read somewhere else.
You keep saying this. Where do you think I am quoting from?
GreenMan wrote:
Global Warming - When the earth goes through a period of warming, marked by each decade being warmer than the previous.
Circular definition. Try again.
GreenMan wrote:
Climate Change - When the earth leaves one steady state average temperature and begins to either get warmer or cooler as decades progress.
Earth has never been in a steady state. Day/night cycles and seasonal cycles constantly produce changes. Circular definition. Try again.
GreenMan wrote:
The Climate of the Earth is generally given as an average temperature of the planet for a given year.
That is not a climate. That is the average temperature of the Earth for a given year (which is data you don't have).
GreenMan wrote:
Everyone says today our high was x and our low was y.
Every weather station does this, correct.
GreenMan wrote:
Someone back at the office determines the average temperature for that day, and enters the information into his giant computer.
Not quite. The computer does this automatically.
GreenMan wrote:
After doing that for a year, he drags all that data out and averages it.
The computer does this automatically also.
GreenMan wrote:
He then tells the world what the average temperature was,
Which is the average temperature for that weather station's thermometer bulb only. It says nothing about a point even a mile away.
GreenMan wrote:
and compares it to last years data.
Also done automatically by the computer these days.
GreenMan wrote:
This brings out the Skeptics, who first under-analyze the data, and then begin to over-analyze it, before dismissing the data altogether as being useless, since we don't know how hot it was 250 years ago.
Contextomy. That is not my argument. My argument is that you don't have sufficient information to determine the temperature of the entire Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
You are mistaken about the data I used to produce my graph.
Not at all. You are manufacturing data.
GreenMan wrote:
The average temperature of the planet influences the average temperature of the arctic regions, and is reflected in the average temperature of the arctic regions.
You don't know the average temperature of any region, including any arctic one.
GreenMan wrote:
We can therefore use arctic ice core data to reconstruct a climate history of the planet,
Non-sequitur. Ice cores are not thermometers. They don't show a climate history of even the location the ice core was extracted from.
GreenMan wrote:
including the average temperature.
They do not show that either. Ice is not a thermometer.
GreenMan wrote:
That's a known fact, and is not really worth arguing about.
Not a fact. An argument. Learn what a 'fact' is and why. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth.
GreenMan wrote:
But I was curious about why you said I had no data.
Because you don't.
GreenMan wrote:
The Climate Models output isn't data.
Correct.
GreenMan wrote:
It's simply a calculation whose output can be compared to actual data, for comparison.
You have no data to compare against.
GreenMan wrote:
Then it occurred to me [again] that I talking to a complete idiot, who doesn't understand science, because it makes his head hurt.
This isn't about science. It's about math.
GreenMan wrote:
All those darn numbers and things going different which ways.
They really confuse you, don't they? Too bad you don't understand statistical math. You probably don't even understand probability math or random number math.
GreenMan wrote:
Why can't we all just lay back, burn a fatty, and figure this here thing out?
You don't have the tools at your disposal. You don't know the math.
GreenMan wrote:
The only thing that is required is for the idiots to shut up for a while, and let the more knowledgeable exchange thoughts, without all the idiot banter?
Exchanging thoughts is what forums are all about, dummy. None of it changes the math.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-08-2017 23:36 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ah yes...the old "it's too complicated to understand" fallacy. No, the science that your religion is violating is very simple to understand, if one only takes the time to study it for a bit.
nfuse an already confuse public about a complicated subject.
Let's start at the beginning:
What exactly IS 'global warming'? Can you define it without resorting to circular definitions or turning to 'greenhouse effect' with just circles back around to the 'global warming' definition?
How about 'climate change'? Can you define it without using circular definitions?
Something you should consider:
What is warming? From when to when? Why are those moments so important, and why are any other moments NOT important?
How do you define the 'climate' of the Earth? There is no prevailing weather for the Earth. How do you describe a 'change' without using starting and ending points in time? Why are those moments important?
Parrot, it's complicated but not too complicated to understand for someone with an above average intellect and an interest in knowing the truth. I'm thinking you lack in both areas, which is why you go around repeating things you read somewhere else.
Global Warming - When the earth goes through a period of warming, marked by each decade being warmer than the previous.
Climate Change - When the earth leaves one steady state average temperature and begins to either get warmer or cooler as decades progress.
The Climate of the Earth is generally given as an average temperature of the planet for a given year. Everyone says today our high was x and our low was y. Someone back at the office determines the average temperature for that day, and enters the information into his giant computer. After doing that for a year, he drags all that data out and averages it. He then tells the world what the average temperature was, and compares it to last years data. This brings out the Skeptics, who first under-analyze the data, and then begin to over-analyze it, before dismissing the data altogether as being useless, since we don't know how hot it was 250 years ago.
You are mistaken about the data I used to produce my graph. The average temperature of the planet influences the average temperature of the arctic regions, and is reflected in the average temperature of the arctic regions. We can therefore use arctic ice core data to reconstruct a climate history of the planet, including the average temperature. That's a known fact, and is not really worth arguing about. But I was curious about why you said I had no data. The Climate Models output isn't data. It's simply a calculation whose output can be compared to actual data, for comparison.
Then it occurred to me [again] that I talking to a complete idiot, who doesn't understand science, because it makes his head hurt. All those darn numbers and things going different which ways. Why can't we all just lay back, burn a fatty, and figure this here thing out? The only thing that is required is for the idiots to shut up for a while, and let the more knowledgeable exchange thoughts, without all the idiot banter?
Sorry, but if its an intelligent exchange of thoughts you're interested in, I'm afraid you're in the wrong place. A total lack of moderation means that idiot banter is the order of the day here.
If I were you, I'd take my model to a forum populated by rational folk who are able to offer constructive criticism. Google is your friend. |
| 08-08-2017 23:49 |
James_★★★★★
(2238) |
Into the Night wrote:
Something you should consider:
What is warming? From when to when? Why are those moments so important, and why are any other moments NOT important?
This is simple. I thought you knew it. As I explained to litesong when there is an ice age in the northern hemisphere the southern hemisphere warms. What is over looked is the amount of atmospheric gases that are displaced. This matters because the temperature swing in the northern hemisphere is about twice that of the southern hemisphere.
This excludes CO2 as being the primary cause. CO2 can still be an energizer and increase the normal variability of climate changes. Climates are usually associated with vegetation that grows in it. Cacti usually refer to an arid, dry type of climate while permafrost is usually associated with a polar climate.
Rather simple, right ? Right ! And with permafrost the trees will be taller and thinner because they won't grow much during the summer, lack of favorable growing conditions.
Also many plants that are tropical will not grow or do well in a temperate climate. This is just too basic.
Ice core samples do reveal a lot about past weather but what we are supposed to be concerned with today is how industrialization and urbanization is changing the weather. This also includes Russia, Iran, etc. drying up lakes and fresh water aquifers being depleted in countries like the U.S. as well as in other parts of the world.
Myself I think CO2 has been a distraction and too little other research has been pursued to have a better over all understanding of what is actually happening. But that's just my opinion and I am only one person.
@litesong, just mentioning, waste heat, smog, ground water depletion, etc. are all AGW if they are causing the weather to change. |
| 09-08-2017 00:08 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
Surface Detail wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ah yes...the old "it's too complicated to understand" fallacy. No, the science that your religion is violating is very simple to understand, if one only takes the time to study it for a bit.
nfuse an already confuse public about a complicated subject.
Let's start at the beginning:
What exactly IS 'global warming'? Can you define it without resorting to circular definitions or turning to 'greenhouse effect' with just circles back around to the 'global warming' definition?
How about 'climate change'? Can you define it without using circular definitions?
Something you should consider:
What is warming? From when to when? Why are those moments so important, and why are any other moments NOT important?
How do you define the 'climate' of the Earth? There is no prevailing weather for the Earth. How do you describe a 'change' without using starting and ending points in time? Why are those moments important?
Parrot, it's complicated but not too complicated to understand for someone with an above average intellect and an interest in knowing the truth. I'm thinking you lack in both areas, which is why you go around repeating things you read somewhere else.
Global Warming - When the earth goes through a period of warming, marked by each decade being warmer than the previous.
Climate Change - When the earth leaves one steady state average temperature and begins to either get warmer or cooler as decades progress.
The Climate of the Earth is generally given as an average temperature of the planet for a given year. Everyone says today our high was x and our low was y. Someone back at the office determines the average temperature for that day, and enters the information into his giant computer. After doing that for a year, he drags all that data out and averages it. He then tells the world what the average temperature was, and compares it to last years data. This brings out the Skeptics, who first under-analyze the data, and then begin to over-analyze it, before dismissing the data altogether as being useless, since we don't know how hot it was 250 years ago.
You are mistaken about the data I used to produce my graph. The average temperature of the planet influences the average temperature of the arctic regions, and is reflected in the average temperature of the arctic regions. We can therefore use arctic ice core data to reconstruct a climate history of the planet, including the average temperature. That's a known fact, and is not really worth arguing about. But I was curious about why you said I had no data. The Climate Models output isn't data. It's simply a calculation whose output can be compared to actual data, for comparison.
Then it occurred to me [again] that I talking to a complete idiot, who doesn't understand science, because it makes his head hurt. All those darn numbers and things going different which ways. Why can't we all just lay back, burn a fatty, and figure this here thing out? The only thing that is required is for the idiots to shut up for a while, and let the more knowledgeable exchange thoughts, without all the idiot banter?
Sorry, but if its an intelligent exchange of thoughts you're interested in, I'm afraid you're in the wrong place. A total lack of moderation means that idiot banter is the order of the day here.
There actually IS some moderation here. Just not the kind YOU want.
Surface Detail wrote:
If I were you, I'd take my model to a forum populated by rational folk who are able to offer constructive criticism.
In other words, you are counseling him to take his discussions to the baby pool. The deep end is no place to have them.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
|
| 09-08-2017 00:47 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ah yes...the old "it's too complicated to understand" fallacy. No, the science that your religion is violating is very simple to understand, if one only takes the time to study it for a bit.
nfuse an already confuse public about a complicated subject.
Let's start at the beginning:
What exactly IS 'global warming'? Can you define it without resorting to circular definitions or turning to 'greenhouse effect' with just circles back around to the 'global warming' definition?
How about 'climate change'? Can you define it without using circular definitions?
Something you should consider:
What is warming? From when to when? Why are those moments so important, and why are any other moments NOT important?
How do you define the 'climate' of the Earth? There is no prevailing weather for the Earth. How do you describe a 'change' without using starting and ending points in time? Why are those moments important?
Parrot, it's complicated but not too complicated to understand for someone with an above average intellect and an interest in knowing the truth. I'm thinking you lack in both areas, which is why you go around repeating things you read somewhere else.
Global Warming - When the earth goes through a period of warming, marked by each decade being warmer than the previous.
Climate Change - When the earth leaves one steady state average temperature and begins to either get warmer or cooler as decades progress.
The Climate of the Earth is generally given as an average temperature of the planet for a given year. Everyone says today our high was x and our low was y. Someone back at the office determines the average temperature for that day, and enters the information into his giant computer. After doing that for a year, he drags all that data out and averages it. He then tells the world what the average temperature was, and compares it to last years data. This brings out the Skeptics, who first under-analyze the data, and then begin to over-analyze it, before dismissing the data altogether as being useless, since we don't know how hot it was 250 years ago.
You are mistaken about the data I used to produce my graph. The average temperature of the planet influences the average temperature of the arctic regions, and is reflected in the average temperature of the arctic regions. We can therefore use arctic ice core data to reconstruct a climate history of the planet, including the average temperature. That's a known fact, and is not really worth arguing about. But I was curious about why you said I had no data. The Climate Models output isn't data. It's simply a calculation whose output can be compared to actual data, for comparison.
Then it occurred to me [again] that I talking to a complete idiot, who doesn't understand science, because it makes his head hurt. All those darn numbers and things going different which ways. Why can't we all just lay back, burn a fatty, and figure this here thing out? The only thing that is required is for the idiots to shut up for a while, and let the more knowledgeable exchange thoughts, without all the idiot banter?
Sorry, but if its an intelligent exchange of thoughts you're interested in, I'm afraid you're in the wrong place. A total lack of moderation means that idiot banter is the order of the day here.
There actually IS some moderation here. Just not the kind YOU want.
Surface Detail wrote:
If I were you, I'd take my model to a forum populated by rational folk who are able to offer constructive criticism.
In other words, you are counseling him to take his discussions to the baby pool. The deep end is no place to have them.
LOL at your belief that the shit-slinging on this forum is in any way "deep". |
| 09-08-2017 01:21 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ah yes...the old "it's too complicated to understand" fallacy. No, the science that your religion is violating is very simple to understand, if one only takes the time to study it for a bit.
nfuse an already confuse public about a complicated subject.
Let's start at the beginning:
What exactly IS 'global warming'? Can you define it without resorting to circular definitions or turning to 'greenhouse effect' with just circles back around to the 'global warming' definition?
How about 'climate change'? Can you define it without using circular definitions?
Something you should consider:
What is warming? From when to when? Why are those moments so important, and why are any other moments NOT important?
How do you define the 'climate' of the Earth? There is no prevailing weather for the Earth. How do you describe a 'change' without using starting and ending points in time? Why are those moments important?
Parrot, it's complicated but not too complicated to understand for someone with an above average intellect and an interest in knowing the truth. I'm thinking you lack in both areas, which is why you go around repeating things you read somewhere else.
Global Warming - When the earth goes through a period of warming, marked by each decade being warmer than the previous.
Climate Change - When the earth leaves one steady state average temperature and begins to either get warmer or cooler as decades progress.
The Climate of the Earth is generally given as an average temperature of the planet for a given year. Everyone says today our high was x and our low was y. Someone back at the office determines the average temperature for that day, and enters the information into his giant computer. After doing that for a year, he drags all that data out and averages it. He then tells the world what the average temperature was, and compares it to last years data. This brings out the Skeptics, who first under-analyze the data, and then begin to over-analyze it, before dismissing the data altogether as being useless, since we don't know how hot it was 250 years ago.
You are mistaken about the data I used to produce my graph. The average temperature of the planet influences the average temperature of the arctic regions, and is reflected in the average temperature of the arctic regions. We can therefore use arctic ice core data to reconstruct a climate history of the planet, including the average temperature. That's a known fact, and is not really worth arguing about. But I was curious about why you said I had no data. The Climate Models output isn't data. It's simply a calculation whose output can be compared to actual data, for comparison.
Then it occurred to me [again] that I talking to a complete idiot, who doesn't understand science, because it makes his head hurt. All those darn numbers and things going different which ways. Why can't we all just lay back, burn a fatty, and figure this here thing out? The only thing that is required is for the idiots to shut up for a while, and let the more knowledgeable exchange thoughts, without all the idiot banter?
Sorry, but if its an intelligent exchange of thoughts you're interested in, I'm afraid you're in the wrong place. A total lack of moderation means that idiot banter is the order of the day here.
There actually IS some moderation here. Just not the kind YOU want.
Surface Detail wrote:
If I were you, I'd take my model to a forum populated by rational folk who are able to offer constructive criticism.
In other words, you are counseling him to take his discussions to the baby pool. The deep end is no place to have them.
LOL at your belief that the shit-slinging on this forum is in any way "deep".
The shit slinging isn't even an argument. Arguments are presented here though. It's too bad all you can see is shit.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |