Empirical Evidence for Man-made Global Warming

The 2nd law of thermodynamics. Newton's laws. The 1st law of thermodynamics. The Stefan-Boltzmann law. RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Technology is the implementation of science to control nature.

So the Covid-19 activity/effort for example is "technology" in IBDese not "Science" I got that right?

tmiddles wrote:
Is that your definition too ITN?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: Outstanding! So "shape our world" how is it employed in doing that? Let's have an example of something actually happening.

You are posting on the internet.

OK so the microprocessor is a good example of __________ shaping our world? (would that be "science" or "technology" for you guys?, I seriously don't care which word).

tmiddles wrote:

DRKTS wrote:...engineering, the application of scientific principles to every day life to create new technologies.

Well they don't have to be new. And I think for the purposes of all discussion here it should be acknowledged that not everyone earns an A+ on the work they do.

Someone can have really terrible/lame/ineffective technology or engineering.

But if someone wants to call the Paris Accords a work of engineering I have no problem with that.

DRKTS wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Hi DRKTS.SkS is a forum called Skeptical science that I came across when looking for forums on climate change and its only my opinion but it seems to be the Headquarters for people who believe this AGW/CC stuff.If you post material agreeing to the problem it gets debated and everyone gets a little more scared.If you ask a few questions like I did like where is the sea going up you will get all the fact sheets/data but if you question the data you get moderated and blocked like I did.I can feel your frustration that we are not accepting your view but imagine my frustration if you all send us back to the dark ages for no good reason like it seems you want to.Do not inflict your insanity on me.leave it alone

Thanks for the clarification on SKS. I am familiar with them because they have some good graphics but I did not know you can post comments there. I checked it out and its true. However I note lots of questions, negative comments and counter arguments there. In some cases heated even debate debate. So I am not sure why they blocked you but it does not seem to be for simply asking questions about the data.

I am not inflicting "my insanity" on your or anyone else. I am providing information (data and observations) to fuel a debate. The insanity I see is people denying the facts and introducing red herrings (e.g., redefining words, misquoting people, making up strawman arguments, and introducing religion or politics) rather than discussing the interpretation of the data with an open mind (see some of the posts above).

DRKTS wrote:

The 2nd law of thermodynamics. Newton's laws. The 1st law of thermodynamics. The Stefan-Boltzmann law. RQAA.

You seem to have heard about these things, now I suggest you learn what they mean. Then we can start a discussion.

DRKTS wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Hi DRKTS.SkS is a forum called Skeptical science that I came across when looking for forums on climate change and its only my opinion but it seems to be the Headquarters for people who believe this AGW/CC stuff.If you post material agreeing to the problem it gets debated and everyone gets a little more scared.If you ask a few questions like I did like where is the sea going up you will get all the fact sheets/data but if you question the data you get moderated and blocked like I did.I can feel your frustration that we are not accepting your view but imagine my frustration if you all send us back to the dark ages for no good reason like it seems you want to.Do not inflict your insanity on me.leave it alone

Thanks for the clarification on SKS. I am familiar with them because they have some good graphics but I did not know you can post comments there. I checked it out and its true. However I note lots of questions, negative comments and counter arguments there. In some cases heated even debate debate. So I am not sure why they blocked you but it does not seem to be for simply asking questions about the data.

I am not inflicting "my insanity" on your or anyone else. I am providing information (data and observations) to fuel a debate. The insanity I see is people denying the facts and introducing red herrings (e.g., redefining words, misquoting people, making up strawman arguments, and introducing religion or politics) rather than discussing the interpretation of the data with an open mind (see some of the posts above).

DRKTS wrote:

The 2nd law of thermodynamics. Newton's laws. The 1st law of thermodynamics. The Stefan-Boltzmann law. RQAA.

You seem to have heard about these things, now I suggest you learn what they mean. Then we can start a discussion.

duncan61 wrote:

DRKTS wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Hi DRKTS.SkS is a forum called Skeptical science that I came across when looking for forums on climate change and its only my opinion but it seems to be the Headquarters for people who believe this AGW/CC stuff.If you post material agreeing to the problem it gets debated and everyone gets a little more scared.If you ask a few questions like I did like where is the sea going up you will get all the fact sheets/data but if you question the data you get moderated and blocked like I did.I can feel your frustration that we are not accepting your view but imagine my frustration if you all send us back to the dark ages for no good reason like it seems you want to.Do not inflict your insanity on me.leave it alone

Thanks for the clarification on SKS. I am familiar with them because they have some good graphics but I did not know you can post comments there. I checked it out and its true. However I note lots of questions, negative comments and counter arguments there. In some cases heated even debate debate. So I am not sure why they blocked you but it does not seem to be for simply asking questions about the data.

I am not inflicting "my insanity" on your or anyone else. I am providing information (data and observations) to fuel a debate. The insanity I see is people denying the facts and introducing red herrings (e.g., redefining words, misquoting people, making up strawman arguments, and introducing religion or politics) rather than discussing the interpretation of the data with an open mind (see some of the posts above).

Its the data that I question.I have to go with ITN and IBDM that the average global temperature can not be known and all the terminolgy used by alarmists are possibly and maybe.Every time a line is drawn in the sand like Ascot race course will be flooded by 2010 does not happen.The Swan river it sits on has a very small tidal influence and the level is exactly where it was when I was a 12 year old boy scout doing a regatta in 1973.My point is there are claims we are past the tipping point and all this baloney yet the sea is still where it was 50 years ago.When is this stuff going to actualy start happening.If you as a Solar physicist,read some dude what looks at the sun.LOL can demonstrate/explain how the temperature can be averaged globaly I will believe you.Then we can look at is it changing?Then we can look at is it good or bad?

duncan61 wrote:I have to go with ITN and IBDM that the average global temperature can not be known

Into the Night wrote:... the publication of not only the raw data, ....

duncan61 wrote:
I will list the things that fail the AGW/CC as a menber of the human race on Earth

.Mauna Loa.I have seen the documentry where it is admitted the data was altered
.Sea levels will rise and flood places.Again when is this going to happen
.How can averages be taken on something that is constantly shifting.Temperature CO2 etc
.In the 50 or so documentries I have recently watched it is very common for the Scientist to freely admit that the data is altered to allow for other factors example the Satellite is further from the Earth at the time/There was cloud cover so we adjusted it.Even I as a plumbing contractor I have to go are you for real you cant do that but the Scientist glibly states it like its normal
.This is the big one.I am in construction and traditionaly get up around 6am have a coffee and chug of to work I dated an office lady and her routine was roll in about 8.30-9.00 send someone for coffee and cake have a smoke read the paper chat to her friends and then sort out some stuff.The funded research scientists doing all this global testing can not come back from their tour and say its all good nothing is happening as next year they will not be asked to go.No more coffee and cakes for you.You have to get a real job
.This is my own take on NASA.January 28, 1986; 34 years ago Space Shuttle Challenger blew up just as the camera panned on the mother of the school teacher who was on board and the whole world watched as she realised no one was going to survive.The shuttle program came to an end how are NASA going to get funding.Start telling the government that the Earth is in trouble and we need to research outer space.There is a lot more transparency now and we all have access to information we all know you have to keep things from the public and send out what the public need to hear in their best interests.AGW/CC is just the right vehicle

tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 7...22e...25f...25k...20d...39g...39j...39m...29...7...25c...25d...25e...

duncan61 wrote:
Do you think you can know the temperature of the interior of your own home?
yes of course I can put a thermometer a metre up and measure every room and get an average.There is no wind rain or snow present or clouds

Into the Night wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Do you think you can know the temperature of the interior of your own home?
yes of course I can put a thermometer a metre up and measure every room and get an average.There is no wind rain or snow present or clouds

Not good enough. A thermometer in a room may not react to sunlight on a rug, or the temperature variances in the room itself, such as cooler temperatures being nearer the window than the door to the room. The window might even be open, allowing outside temperatures to affect the room more easily than if the window is closed. The condition of the drapery and even how well it absorbs sunlight and is converted to thermal energy can make a difference. Temperature varies with height in the room as well, and with any proximity to a heat source, such as a heat vent or baseboard heater. Rooms vary in size as well. Also, remember the hallway is a 'room' for such a measurement attempt.

So a lot depends on where you put your thermometer in the room, doesn't it? And, if that's true, how many thermometers do you need for a room? And, for a 2nd finish, how does that predict any future temperature reading? It doesn't. Indeed, how is it related to any other temperature readings you take? Would not the temperature of your home vary whether windows get close or opened, doors? The position of the Sun in the sky? Nighttime? Whether your heating system is functioning properly or not?

All you really know is the temperature at the bulb of the thermometer. To assume the temperature of anything else, you must first declare the sources and rates of variance. These are used to calculate the margin of error for the temperature of each room, and for the temperature of the entire house.

Because what you are describing here is a statistical summary.

DRKTS wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Do you think you can know the temperature of the interior of your own home?
yes of course I can put a thermometer a metre up and measure every room and get an average.There is no wind rain or snow present or clouds

Not good enough. A thermometer in a room may not react to sunlight on a rug, or the temperature variances in the room itself, such as cooler temperatures being nearer the window than the door to the room. The window might even be open, allowing outside temperatures to affect the room more easily than if the window is closed. The condition of the drapery and even how well it absorbs sunlight and is converted to thermal energy can make a difference. Temperature varies with height in the room as well, and with any proximity to a heat source, such as a heat vent or baseboard heater. Rooms vary in size as well. Also, remember the hallway is a 'room' for such a measurement attempt.

So a lot depends on where you put your thermometer in the room, doesn't it? And, if that's true, how many thermometers do you need for a room? And, for a 2nd finish, how does that predict any future temperature reading? It doesn't. Indeed, how is it related to any other temperature readings you take? Would not the temperature of your home vary whether windows get close or opened, doors? The position of the Sun in the sky? Nighttime? Whether your heating system is functioning properly or not?

All you really know is the temperature at the bulb of the thermometer. To assume the temperature of anything else, you must first declare the sources and rates of variance. These are used to calculate the margin of error for the temperature of each room, and for the temperature of the entire house.

Because what you are describing here is a statistical summary.

So if your thermometer in the room on day 1 says its 16C and the next day it says its 20C, you can tell it was hotter on day 2.

duncan61 wrote:
Do you think you can know the temperature of the interior of your own home?
yes of course I can put a thermometer a metre up and measure every room and get an average.There is no wind rain or snow present or clouds

duncan61 wrote:
Do you think you can know the temperature of the interior of your own home?
yes of course I can put a thermometer a metre up and measure every room and get an average.There is no wind rain or snow present or clouds

tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...29...31...25c...25d...25e...25g...25j..

Into the Night wrote:

DRKTS wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Do you think you can know the temperature of the interior of your own home?
yes of course I can put a thermometer a metre up and measure every room and get an average.There is no wind rain or snow present or clouds

Not good enough. A thermometer in a room may not react to sunlight on a rug, or the temperature variances in the room itself, such as cooler temperatures being nearer the window than the door to the room. The window might even be open, allowing outside temperatures to affect the room more easily than if the window is closed. The condition of the drapery and even how well it absorbs sunlight and is converted to thermal energy can make a difference. Temperature varies with height in the room as well, and with any proximity to a heat source, such as a heat vent or baseboard heater. Rooms vary in size as well. Also, remember the hallway is a 'room' for such a measurement attempt.

So a lot depends on where you put your thermometer in the room, doesn't it? And, if that's true, how many thermometers do you need for a room? And, for a 2nd finish, how does that predict any future temperature reading? It doesn't. Indeed, how is it related to any other temperature readings you take? Would not the temperature of your home vary whether windows get close or opened, doors? The position of the Sun in the sky? Nighttime? Whether your heating system is functioning properly or not?

All you really know is the temperature at the bulb of the thermometer. To assume the temperature of anything else, you must first declare the sources and rates of variance. These are used to calculate the margin of error for the temperature of each room, and for the temperature of the entire house.

Because what you are describing here is a statistical summary.

So if your thermometer in the room on day 1 says its 16C and the next day it says its 20C, you can tell it was hotter on day 2.

Not really. This forms a base rate fallacy. You have to be able to measure a temperature in the first place to compare two temperatures. All you know is that the bulb of the thermometer is hotter. It still doesn't say anything more about the room due to the variances in the room.

DRKTS wrote: Silly pedantic argument. Same room, same thermometer, same location.

DRKTS wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

DRKTS wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Do you think you can know the temperature of the interior of your own home?
yes of course I can put a thermometer a metre up and measure every room and get an average.There is no wind rain or snow present or clouds

Not good enough. A thermometer in a room may not react to sunlight on a rug, or the temperature variances in the room itself, such as cooler temperatures being nearer the window than the door to the room. The window might even be open, allowing outside temperatures to affect the room more easily than if the window is closed. The condition of the drapery and even how well it absorbs sunlight and is converted to thermal energy can make a difference. Temperature varies with height in the room as well, and with any proximity to a heat source, such as a heat vent or baseboard heater. Rooms vary in size as well. Also, remember the hallway is a 'room' for such a measurement attempt.

So a lot depends on where you put your thermometer in the room, doesn't it? And, if that's true, how many thermometers do you need for a room? And, for a 2nd finish, how does that predict any future temperature reading? It doesn't. Indeed, how is it related to any other temperature readings you take? Would not the temperature of your home vary whether windows get close or opened, doors? The position of the Sun in the sky? Nighttime? Whether your heating system is functioning properly or not?

All you really know is the temperature at the bulb of the thermometer. To assume the temperature of anything else, you must first declare the sources and rates of variance. These are used to calculate the margin of error for the temperature of each room, and for the temperature of the entire house.

Because what you are describing here is a statistical summary.

So if your thermometer in the room on day 1 says its 16C and the next day it says its 20C, you can tell it was hotter on day 2.

Not really. This forms a base rate fallacy. You have to be able to measure a temperature in the first place to compare two temperatures. All you know is that the bulb of the thermometer is hotter. It still doesn't say anything more about the room due to the variances in the room.

Silly pedantic argument. Same room, same thermometer, same location. Day 2 is warmer than day 1. If this were not the case your thermostat would not work. How many times ahs you A/C kicked in to make it cooler when it should be have tried to hear the room. Never happened to me.

IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles has been trying to make the case...

IBdaMann wrote:
The correct answer is that you can certainly know the temperature of the interior of your home ... to a certain margin of error. This is key.

IBdaMann wrote: ...always make mention of whether you would be comfortable with the margin of error ...

duncan61 wrote:
it keeps saying this Invalid attachment filename or filesize.

duncan61 wrote:...so you are right ITN and I first thought you were full of it but I now know there is no actual temperature it is all variable ...

tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...36e...30...25c...4a...25c...16c...29...25j...11...20b...25l...10 (tolerance<->margin of error)...25j...25j...30...4a...25j...4a...4a...25j...25l...

tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 25l...25j...25j...16b...25j...25l...25c...25d...25e...

IBdaMann wrote:

DRKTS wrote: Silly pedantic argument. Same room, same thermometer, same location.

Let's take this S-L-O-W-L-Y because I've seen rock formations that are quicker on the uptake than you are.

Spatially, we generally think of nature in three orthogonal dimensions, and this would be the domain of "volume."

We generally refer to "area" as being of two orthogonal dimensions.

One dimension is of a line, or is "linear."

A point in space is dimensionless ... that means there aren't any dimensions.

Let me know if I'm going too fast.

You are confusing a dimensionless point of temperature measure with a three-dimensional volume. So what I recommend is that you do a little reading and become a little more familiar with how differing numbers of dimensions are really different things altogether and how you really can't be conflating them and expect to formulate rational concepts or logical arguments.

After you grasp that concept a bit more firmly we can discuss "statistics" and "margin of error." You won't get anywhere unless you understand how those are required to provide valid answers.

... and maybe try ginseng for the mental sluggishness.

.

DRKTS wrote: I can be pedantic too:

DRKTS wrote: A temperature measurement is 4 dimensional - the temperature at a particular location (3 dimensions) and time (1 dimension).

DRKTS wrote: Your point of view isolates that space-time point from the rest of the room but the thermometer is not a closed system

DRKTS wrote: - it is linked energetically by conduction, radiation, and convection to the conditions in the rest of the room.

DRKTS wrote:This little diversion does not affect 1 single point of the 42 I initially listed and is the point of the thread.

DRKTS wrote: So far not a single scientifically based arguments against any one of them.

tmiddles wrote: ITN especially LOVES to say you can never know the temperature of anything

tmiddles wrote:

duncan61 wrote:I have to go with ITN and IBDM that the average global temperature can not be known

Do you think you can know the temperature of the interior of your own home?

DRKTS wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

DRKTS wrote: Silly pedantic argument. Same room, same thermometer, same location.

Let's take this S-L-O-W-L-Y because I've seen rock formations that are quicker on the uptake than you are.

Spatially, we generally think of nature in three orthogonal dimensions, and this would be the domain of "volume."

We generally refer to "area" as being of two orthogonal dimensions.

One dimension is of a line, or is "linear."

A point in space is dimensionless ... that means there aren't any dimensions.

Let me know if I'm going too fast.

You are confusing a dimensionless point of temperature measure with a three-dimensional volume. So what I recommend is that you do a little reading and become a little more familiar with how differing numbers of dimensions are really different things altogether and how you really can't be conflating them and expect to formulate rational concepts or logical arguments.

After you grasp that concept a bit more firmly we can discuss "statistics" and "margin of error." You won't get anywhere unless you understand how those are required to provide valid answers.

... and maybe try ginseng for the mental sluggishness.

.

I can be pedantic too: A temperature measurement is 4 dimensional - the temperature at a particular location (3 dimensions) and time (1 dimension).

Your point of view isolates that space-time point from the rest of the room but the thermometer is not a closed system

DRKTS wrote:
- it is linked energetically by conduction, radiation, and convection to the conditions in the rest of the room.

DRKTS wrote:
Thus its reading is a measure of all the integral conditions throughout the room.

DRKTS wrote:
Thus day 2 is still warmer than day 1.

I did I go too fast for you?

DRKTS wrote:
This little diversion does not affect 1 single point of the 42 I initially listed and is the point of the thread.

DRKTS wrote:
So far not a single scientifically based arguments against any one of them.

DRKTS wrote:
Patiently waiting for you to choose your best one and argue it with verifiable data from a reputable source.

DRKTS wrote:
Not holding my breath.

IBdaMann wrote:

DRKTS wrote: I can be pedantic too:

Apparently not. You don't know what the word means. Try again.

DRKTS wrote: A temperature measurement is 4 dimensional - the temperature at a particular location (3 dimensions) and time (1 dimension).

Only when multiple measurements are taken, Mr. Brilliant ... and I specified just a single temperature measure, as denoted in English by the indefinite article "a". Are you asking for some grammar lessons, Mr. Rhodes Scholar?

DRKTS wrote: Your point of view isolates that space-time point from the rest of the room but the thermometer is not a closed system

Once again, lay off the terms you don't understand, or are you asking for help on that too?

DRKTS wrote: - it is linked energetically by conduction, radiation, and convection to the conditions in the rest of the room.

Did Mr. Illuminance suddenly realize that there are many Cause-Effects occurring? I'll give you a clue: you don't serve anyone's interests by directing everyone's attention to an endless list of things without any point.

DRKTS wrote:This little diversion does not affect 1 single point of the 42 I initially listed and is the point of the thread.

You didn't list any points. You recited 42 Global Warming prayers. We get it. You are devoted to your faith. Great. Your euphoria from preaching the Good Word of Climate unfortunately does not suffice for "a point."

DRKTS wrote: So far not a single scientifically based arguments against any one of them.

There is no such thing as a scientific refutation of a prayer. What are you expecting?

I am patiently waiting for you to explain why any rational person should believe your religion. So far you haven't been forthcoming with any reasons, perhaps because you don't really believe it yourself.

.

DRKTS wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

DRKTS wrote: I can be pedantic too:

Apparently not. You don't know what the word means. Try again.

DRKTS wrote: A temperature measurement is 4 dimensional - the temperature at a particular location (3 dimensions) and time (1 dimension).

Only when multiple measurements are taken, Mr. Brilliant ... and I specified just a single temperature measure, as denoted in English by the indefinite article "a". Are you asking for some grammar lessons, Mr. Rhodes Scholar?

DRKTS wrote: Your point of view isolates that space-time point from the rest of the room but the thermometer is not a closed system

Once again, lay off the terms you don't understand, or are you asking for help on that too?

DRKTS wrote: - it is linked energetically by conduction, radiation, and convection to the conditions in the rest of the room.

Did Mr. Illuminance suddenly realize that there are many Cause-Effects occurring? I'll give you a clue: you don't serve anyone's interests by directing everyone's attention to an endless list of things without any point.

DRKTS wrote:This little diversion does not affect 1 single point of the 42 I initially listed and is the point of the thread.

You didn't list any points. You recited 42 Global Warming prayers. We get it. You are devoted to your faith. Great. Your euphoria from preaching the Good Word of Climate unfortunately does not suffice for "a point."

DRKTS wrote: So far not a single scientifically based arguments against any one of them.

There is no such thing as a scientific refutation of a prayer. What are you expecting?

I am patiently waiting for you to explain why any rational person should believe your religion. So far you haven't been forthcoming with any reasons, perhaps because you don't really believe it yourself.

.

No useful content - OK to ignore

IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night does not hold the position that temperature cannot be known.

IBdaMann wrote: It is tmiddles who insists that he knows temperatures that he doesn't know. tmiddles never discusses margin of error

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Let's talk about your data point. It is not for the bottom of Venus' atmosphere.

No it's not one point. It's the "number provided by the experts" for the entire ground level of Venus based on the total of the research done. A 200 degree margin of error should easily compensate for the level of accuracy.

Do you or do you not accept the +/- 200 degree margin of error?

Let's put "margin of error" on hold for the moment and let's discuss the raw data first. What raw data do we have?

IBdaMann wrote:...tmiddles...claims that Into the Night's position is that "nothing can be known."