I miss my good friend Spot
| I miss my good friend Spot11-03-2018 06:33 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2935) |
Oh where is Spot? I do hope he has been lurking here. See, last summer before he split, me and him had a little argument. See, he tried to blame the severe decrease in the Adelie Penguin population on Global warming. I called the story a bunch of hooey and he was understandably very upset with me, because he cares greatly for the antarctic creatures and he thinks I don't. So, I am so excited for him to see this heartwarming story. 1.5 million Adelie Penguins have just been discovered in a "super colony" located in the Danger Islands! Can you believe it?? Drone video proof!!! https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/05/science/adelie-penguins-supercolony-antarctica.html Edited on 11-03-2018 06:34 |
| 12-03-2018 22:30 | |
| Wake★★★★★ (4034) |
GasGuzzler wrote: My memory of him was that he wasn't very well educated in science but he would DISCUSS it which is more than we are seeing today. You and a couple others are willing to look things up and discuss them rationally. James seems to have gone off the deepend and litebrain was came from the shallow end of the gene pool to begin with. nightmare would be OK if he could get it through his head that all energy is electromagnetic and hence could be described roughly as "light". This means that you can measure any wavelength or group of wavelengths and describe the heat energy in that object from that. He doesn't quite get how his sacred Stefan-Boltzmann law works since his view of it is outgoing and not incoming. While looking at one of those youTube videos while a Nobel physicist was talking about AGW he said the exact words nightmare has been using: "there aren't enough thermometers in the world". THAT is one of the things that nightmare has been caught on. Sure there aren't enough thermometers in the world but not precisely for the reasons that nightmare thinks. In order to produce a Mean Global Temperature via direct measurements with thermometers you have to have them FAIRLY common and in enough locations around the world to get your readings over a 24 hour day. Let us propose that you take your readings in open countryside every 100 square miles. Would this produce a completely accurate Mean Global Temperature? Of course not. But it would give you a reproducible dataset. If the world had two years in a row that had the same average temperatures you could tell by these datasets that such was the case. They wouldn't even have to be identical because the uncertainty is so much larger than the actual measurements themselves. These errors coming from direct measurements do not propagate. But this does give you a measure of MGT that is usable in research. And now that we have satellite spectometry we effectively have direct measurement of temperatures to the square meters if necessary. Again, this is effected by atmospheric conditions but the dataset gives us usable, reproducible data. Without the lying from the environmentalists we would have a far more effective hold on climate than we presently have. Because of their manufactured data and under continuous assault of the knowledgeable by the unknowledgeable, the True Believers, science has been held back a half century. nightmare asks "what is climate". Good question; but he doesn't quite make it to understanding that any description of climate has to contain "this is what it was and this is what it is." This is not a "circular description". And the closest definition would be "a temperature chart on a 30 year rolling average." I suppose I shouldn't threaten him. That is anger talking when he cannot concentrate even on what he is saying. I punched a kid in the nose in the 6th grade. No great hurt but I spent the rest of my life, save in war, always remembering the look on that kids face when he took a lung at me to come up short. I don't remember it very clearly but I have the idea I goaded him into it because he called me names. He was white. Anyway I have never purposely started a fight since then. I only finished them usually with dispatch and as little damage as possible. Everyone does stupid things and you wouldn't want to have someone living the rest of his life with the inability to use arms or legs because they did one of those stupid things. That's the damn Catholic in me showing. You miss Spot. I am more concerned with every month of so we have some jackass sign on and write "Please help me prove that there is man-made global warming by filling out this on-line questionnaire." Science has been damaged enough by people who don't know what science is and misrepresent it as irrational numbers from a social media site. |
| 13-03-2018 05:25 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21600) |
Wake wrote: WRONG. Thermal energy is not electromagnetic energy. Kinetic energy is not electromagnetic energy. Chemical energy is not electromagnetic energy. Nuclear energy is not electromagnetic energy. Potential energy is not electromagnetic energy. Wake wrote: WRONG. Heat is not energy. You can't describe the thermal energy by looking at any wavelength emitted either. Wake wrote: It is both. It is YOU that tries to change or deny or even ignore the law. Wake wrote: He's right. Wake wrote: Not 'caught' on it. YOU just deny the mathematics. Wake wrote: How many official thermometers are in the world? How many 100 years ago? Wake wrote: Math error. Selection by opportunity. Failure to select by randN independent of influencing factors. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. Wake wrote: Nope. It's meaningless. You are still committing the same math errors here. Wake wrote: Nope. Math error. Wake wrote: Statistical math does not use 'propagation'. Wake wrote: WRONG. Math error. See above. Wake wrote: WRONG. Satellites are not capable of measuring temperature. They measure light. It is not possible to measure the emissivity of the Earth. Wake wrote: Among many other factors, including the wide spectrum of light emitted by the Sun. Wake wrote: WRONG. Math error. Wake wrote: There is no such thing as a 'global' climate. There is no such thing as a 'global' weather. Wake wrote: Just like YOU ARE DOING. Wake wrote: Science is progressing just fine, thank you very much. Only the faithful of the Church of Global Warming is living in the dark ages. That includes sects like yours. Wake wrote: Don't need to ask that. Climate is 'weather over a long time'. Wake wrote: 'a long time' is an unspecified value. How do you describe change in something that is unquantifiable? Wake wrote: Correct. A void argument instead. Wake wrote: Why 30 years? What is significant about 30 years? What temperature chart? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Wake wrote: Probably a good idea. Too bad you keep doing so. Wake wrote: There is no excuse, dude. Wake wrote: Is this your big worry? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Wake wrote: Like you? 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 |
| 13-03-2018 17:59 | |
| Wake★★★★★ (4034) |
Into the Night wrote: It really is impossible to prevent you from acting the nitwit isn't it. Thermal energy isn't a radiated energy unless it's level rises to the radiation point. At this time it is becomes and electro-magnetic energy with a frequency. Falling rain became that BECAUSE OF THE ENERGY EMITTED BY THE SUN. So the energy derived from a dam was put there via radiated energy. Without radiated energy there would BE no energy in those materials that you seem to believe have magical properties because they are warm - apparently for no reason at all. "You can't describe the thermal energy by looking at any wavelength emitted either." Then how do you detect electro-magnetic energy? You do not understand the Stefan-Boltzmann law and from the sound of it you do not care to ever do so. Please do not talk to me of mathematics since you don't know anything about even simple math. You just finished in another string of mis-defining statistical analysis after me working on you to try it for months. Statistics is not a difficult subject and if you cannot do that perhaps you should go hide your head instead of talking about math. In the late 1800's there were 10's of thousands as every single seaport and every major city and almost all farming communities around the globe had them and kept continuous records. What is going on in your mind that they would keep sea level records from the civil war but not temperature? By the way - your running from a counter-argument by making your "randU" and such statements show just that. That you do not have any way of countering an argument and hence simply discount it. "Statistical math does not use 'propagation'."????? "In statistics, propagation of uncertainty (or propagation of error) is the effect of variables' uncertainties (or errors, more specifically random errors) on the uncertainty of a function based on them. When the variables are the values of experimental measurements they have uncertainties due to measurement limitations (e.g., instrument precision) which propagate to the combination of variables in the function." Is there absolutely anything you know about? Exactly what is wrong with you? I have an idea - say "randU" and impress us all. Let me explain something to you since you do not seem to understand anything: Almost the same amount of energy applied to the earth each day MUST be emitted from our Earth. Or else the body will heat to the point where sufficient radiation occurs to make it so. The insulation of the Earth or any other planet is what controls the temperature of the surface in order for it to achieve the level high enough to emit that energy. Mercury achieves a level so high that it emits almost the entire 700 degree K daytime temperature within a quarter of a nightime revolution (44 days) down to 98 degrees K. Venus with its super-thick insulation layer of atmosphere goes from reaches 470K despite it getting only half of the energy levels of Mercury with a low very near that of the hot side BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE THAT HOT TO GET RID OF THE HEAT. Oh, wait - its your contention that we can't tell the temperature of other planets because we need thermometers there. The ONLY way to get rid of the heat on a planet is to RADIATE it into outer space. Since it is radiation you can tell it's temperature by its frequency. Can you explain why you cannot accept even basic physics? Why is this something you don't know? Is this some sort of concept so difficult that you simply cannot grasp it? Power in = Power out? And then we get "why 30 years". Because that is what is chosen as an arbitrary term. In case you missed it the world of science is BASED on arbitrary terms. C is the arbitrarily 100 degrees between the freezing point and the boiling point of water. Why wasn't it sodium bicarbonate? One meter was ARBITRARILY originally defined in 1793 as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole. Since they did not know the true distance from the equator to the North Pole why would they use that? Then it was a pole used as an international standard. In 1960, the meter was redefined in terms of a certain number of wavelengths of a certain emission line of krypton-86. Now it is the distance that light travels in 1/299,792,458th of a second. The number of hours in a day, the number of minutes in an hour and the number of seconds in a minute are arbitrary. The number of days in a week are arbitrary. Is there some special reason that a second should be 1/86,400th of a day? But according to you these are all "randU" and they are NOT science because they are not "falsifiable". You are not on these groups to learn anything or to discuss anything and pass on information. You are here to do one thing - to attempt to show everyone how bright you are despite not understanding anything about science. You are so low down you can't even accept an apology. I suggest you find a group of people that believe in AGW to harass. Whatever you think you're selling here no one but litebrain is buying. Yeah, I know - to you the simple statement of facts is "argument of stone". |
| 13-03-2018 22:11 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21600) |
I see it's time you decided to vent your spleen again and spew your weird 'science'.Wake wrote: Thermal energy isn't radiated energy...ever. There is no 'radiation point' for thermal energy. Wake wrote: Thermal energy has no frequency. The only way thermal energy can become electromagnetic energy is by conversion (which takes place in all materials above absolute zero). Such conversion cools the material. Wake wrote: So? Non-sequitur. Wake wrote: So? Are you going somewhere with this? Wake wrote: They are warm because those materials absorbed electromagnetic energy, converting it to thermal energy. Wake wrote: No, you can't describe the thermal energy by looking at any wavelength emitted. A material that is emitting electromagnetic energy can emit on any frequency the material can absorb light on. All materials put out a range of frequencies due to Planck radiance. Wake wrote: You seem to be ignoring it completely, or changing it to incorporate a 'triggering' level. Wake wrote: Go learn statistics, stupid. It is not a difficult subject, but you have to know random number mathematics and probability mathematics to understand any of it. Wake wrote: I assume you mean thermometers. Okay...let's use that figure...say 50,000 thermometers. The Earth's surface is 197 million square miles. Assuming thermometers are uniformly spaced, this means there is ONE thermometer for every 3940 square miles of the Earth's surface. Let's ignore the instrument tolerance and assume the thermometers are dead accurate. This means that if the thermometers were uniformly spaced, the nearest thermometer to any other thermometer is 63 miles away. To calculate margin of error, you need the possible temperature variance per mile. This is known as the temperature gradient. Gradients as high as 20 deg F /mile have been observed fairly commonly. This means the reading on any thermometer as representative of it's square area it covers is accurate to +-1200 deg F, or in other words greater than the entire range of temperatures found on the surface of the Earth...which means...YOU'RE GUESSING. Except thermometers aren't uniformly placed. They are grouped in cities and where roads reach them so they can be serviced. Statistical analysis can only use raw data. It cannot used cooked data because the analysis hasn't been run yet. Selection can only be done by randN. That means you can pick a point only once, not twice, not 1.5 times, not 0.4 times...ONCE. Location grouping and location are influencing factors. They must be eliminated. Thermometers MUST be uniformly spaced. Time is an influencing factor. Storms move. The Earth is spinning. Seasons change. It also must be eliminated. Thermometers MUST be read simultaneously. Not a problem with today's networks, but in 1850? Wake wrote: It's not possible to measure the level of the sea either. You have no usable reference point. Wake wrote: Go learn random number mathematics. Then you will know what randU, randR, and randN mean. Wake wrote: Nope. Wake wrote: Instrument tolerance is assumed to be zero for the purposes of my example. That factor is eliminated from my example, simply by assumption. Wake wrote: Nothing. I have a wide range of interests. Wake wrote: All this statement shows is that you don't know anything about random number mathematics. This will make learning anything about probability much harder for you, and learning anything about statistical math correspondingly harder for you. Wake wrote: Agreed. Wake wrote: Agreed. Wake wrote: Earth does not have insulation. Neither does any other planet. Wake wrote: There is no 'trigger point'. Radiance is always occurring, even during the daytime. Wake wrote: There is no trigger point. Wake wrote: That is correct. I am willing to work with your assumed temperatures for this purpose though. Wake wrote: Nope. You can't tell by the frequency. Wake wrote: You are not discussing basic physics. You are trying to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law, one method of denying it. Wake wrote: I agree. Power in = power out. The only thing that can change that is the output of the Sun changing. Wake wrote: What is significant about 30 years? Wake wrote: Not really. Wake wrote: Water is more common a substance. Defining a temperature scale isn't science. Wake wrote: They DID know the distance by the use of sextants and quadrants. Again, defining a scale isn't science. Wake wrote: Actually, a bar. That bar is still buried in the brickwork at Greenwich. You should go see it sometime. Wake wrote: More accurate than the bar, Wake wrote: Defined by the old zodiac. 24 hours means the Earth spins a nice even 15 degrees per hour. Again, defining a scale is not science. Wake wrote: Nope. They actually mean something. Go study circles and discover what a 'degree' means. Wake wrote: Defined by the Bible, not science. The names we use come from Norse and Greek mythology. Wake wrote: Yes. Go study circles. Wake wrote: Buzzword fallacy. You are just throwing random words out there to try to denigrate them. Defining a scale is not science. It is not random numbers. There is a purpose for every scale and for the units it uses. The stories behind certain scales are quite entertaining. Etymology is another of my hobbies. Wake wrote: You are not discussing science. You are just ranting. Wake wrote: You never apologized. An apology doesn't mean anything when it is hollow. Wake wrote: Too late. Already found them. Wake wrote: Litebeer isn't here. He never bought anything I said either. Have you been altering your memory with something? Wake wrote: Obviously you don't know any logic either, or even what a 'fact' is. More buzzword fallacy. 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 |
| 13-03-2018 22:26 | |
| Wake★★★★★ (4034) |
Thanks for making my points. I especially liked your reaction to a quote directly from a math textbook: "deleted holy link". As the very first person I have put on "ignore" you should be happy. I didn't even do that with litebrain since one out of a thousand posting of his he would write like a human being. |
| 13-03-2018 23:25 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21600) |
Wake wrote: I don't care where it came from. Textbooks are not a Holy Reference. Some are good, most are horrible. Wake wrote: Good job 'ignoring' me, dude! LOL Wake wrote: Working your way into another anger management problem? First dehumanize your target. 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 |
Join the debate I miss my good friend Spot:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Why exactly is strip mining for coal bad, yet strip mining for Lithium is good | 9 | 23-12-2023 00:11 |
| All Sides, Beings, Entities No Matter "Evil" Or "Good" Are Receiving Their Final Chan | 0 | 14-07-2023 07:52 |
| Is homework good or bad for students? | 6 | 26-11-2022 05:12 |
| But Global Warming is Good for Us, isn't it? | 59 | 22-06-2022 04:12 |
| The Big Tech Companies Make The China Great Internet Firewall Look Like A Good Angel | 7 | 02-12-2021 08:05 |