| Lies on Top of Lies07-08-2017 03:18 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Governments all over the globe are destroying data in an attempt to "prove" global warming:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjqTxziiY9A |
| 07-08-2017 09:28 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21599) |
Wake wrote:
Governments all over the globe are destroying data in an attempt to "prove" global warming:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjqTxziiY9A
I sometimes wonder if it's more a matter of manufacturing data vs destroying what little data is there.
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 |
| 07-08-2017 10:13 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Governments all over the globe are destroying data in an attempt to "prove" global warming:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjqTxziiY9A
I sometimes wonder if it's more a matter of manufacturing data vs destroying what little data is there.
They don't have to destroy anything, to know how much it has warmed. Satellite Data, which Skeptics love to tout, clearly shows a 0.16C/decade rise in temperature since satellite data has been available [1979]. It would be great to have an accurate temperature record as far back as possible, so they do occasionally tweak the data previously gathered, to account for errors. Every time they do, some Skeptic jumps up and hollers foul, as if they have been wronged somehow. But as you can see from the "much more accurate satellite measurements," we are warming, and we are warming at an alarming rate.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Attached image:
 |
| 07-08-2017 10:17 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
It's just another nut-job who doesn't understand what data homogenisation means and why it is necessary. No data are "destroyed". |
| 07-08-2017 17:19 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
It's just another nut-job who doesn't understand what data homogenisation means and why it is necessary. No data are "destroyed".
Of course ANYTHING to destroy real science.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444668/whistle-blower-scientist-exposes-shoddy-climate-science-noaa
You are nothing less than a criminal and should be treated as one. |
|
| 07-08-2017 17:34 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
[b]Wake wrote: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444668/whistle-blower-scientist-exposes-shoddy-climate-science-noaa
Dr. Bates' toted tidings are only lifted by right wing flash flops. |
| 07-08-2017 17:36 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It's just another nut-job who doesn't understand what data homogenisation means and why it is necessary. No data are "destroyed".
Of course ANYTHING to destroy real science.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444668/whistle-blower-scientist-exposes-shoddy-climate-science-noaa
You are nothing less than a criminal and should be treated as one.
Once again you prove what a gullible old fool you are.
You do realise that the National Review article was simply quoting the British Daily Mail, a gutter rag that is well-known here for fabrication and exaggeration. The scientist in question (John Bates) stated long ago that he was completely misrepresented by the Daily Mail and clarified that he was in no way disputing the quality or accuracy of the data. |
| 07-08-2017 17:58 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Governments all over the globe are destroying data in an attempt to "prove" global warming:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjqTxziiY9A
I sometimes wonder if it's more a matter of manufacturing data vs destroying what little data is there.
They don't have to destroy anything, to know how much it has warmed. Satellite Data, which Skeptics love to tout, clearly shows a 0.16C/decade rise in temperature since satellite data has been available [1979]. It would be great to have an accurate temperature record as far back as possible, so they do occasionally tweak the data previously gathered, to account for errors. Every time they do, some Skeptic jumps up and hollers foul, as if they have been wronged somehow. But as you can see from the "much more accurate satellite measurements," we are warming, and we are warming at an alarming rate.
Hey stupid - that satellite data shows that we are not warming. You haven't the capacity to even read the articles that chart appeared in do you? That article showed that the temperature curves released by NASA to the public are sheer lies - your kind of people.
The rise in temperatures near the end of that chart are NOTHING more than the usual chaotic weather events. This year will be colder than the last entries in that and it is likely that we will have another four or five years colder still.
Alarming? You don't have the mental capacity for anything but getting alarmed at data that shows that nothing is occurring. |
| 07-08-2017 19:59 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Governments all over the globe are destroying data in an attempt to "prove" global warming:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjqTxziiY9A
I sometimes wonder if it's more a matter of manufacturing data vs destroying what little data is there.
They don't have to destroy anything, to know how much it has warmed.
True. They do have to manufacture data though.
GreenMan wrote:
Satellite Data,
Ah yes...the Holy Satellite Data...we will not discuss what a satellite is and is not capable of doing for a moment.
GreenMan wrote:
which Skeptics love to tout,
It is YOU that loves to tout it. Mostly because you don't understand satellites and what they are and are not capable of.
GreenMan wrote:
clearly shows a 0.16C/decade rise in temperature since satellite data has been available [1979].
Point one: Satellites are not able to measure temperature. They measure light.
To get any idea of temperature, a satellite examines infrared light coming from the Earth. The trouble is, that it is not possible to determine the temperature in this way. The emissivity of the Earth is not known. It is a measured value, but it is not possible to determine it for Earth, due to the method of measuring it, which requires accurately knowing the temperature of the Earth to begin with.
Satellites used for this purpose are useful for looking at relative differences in temperature across the surface of the Earth and even in parts of it's atmosphere, but it is not capable of measuring absolute values for temperature. All it can really do is describe whether a region is warmer or colder than another.
GreenMan wrote:
It would be great to have an accurate temperature record as far back as possible,
It would be great to have an accurate temperature record at all.
GreenMan wrote:
so they do occasionally tweak the data previously gathered, to account for errors.
'Tweaking' the data does not correct for errors. It introduces error and bias. Tweaking is not allowed in the world statistical analysis. You MUST use the raw data (if you had any).
GreenMan wrote:
Every time they do, some Skeptic jumps up and hollers foul,
They should. A math error is a math error.
GreenMan wrote:
as if they have been wronged somehow.
Stay out of Las Vegas. That's a town built on bad math. They are very good at taking advantage of people like you that fall for it.
GreenMan wrote:
But as you can see from the "much more accurate satellite measurements," we are warming, and we are warming at an alarming rate.
Satellites are not more accurate. They are not even able to measure temperature at all. They measure light. If you want an accurate temperature reading at the surface, use a thermometer.
If you want an accurate temperature reading of the Earth, use a hell of a lot more thermometers than exist in the world, uniformly place them, read them simultaneously, and perform a properly conducted statistical analysis on them.
Selection of data MUST be by randN, independent of any aspect of the data itself (such as positional grouping or time). Every summary MUST produce the margin of error value, which comes from comparing the possible variance against a paired randR.
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 |
| 07-08-2017 20:27 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:Satellites are not more accurate. They are not even able to measure temperature at all. They measure light. If you want an accurate temperature reading at the surface, use a thermometer.
If you want an accurate temperature reading of the Earth, use a hell of a lot more thermometers than exist in the world, uniformly place them, read them simultaneously, and perform a properly conducted statistical analysis on them.
Selection of data MUST be by randN, independent of any aspect of the data itself (such as positional grouping or time). Every summary MUST produce the margin of error value, which comes from comparing the possible variance against a paired randR.
If you are going to criticize others try and learn some science yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
The SURFACE temperature of the Earth that escapes via IR radiation and the known amount of energy that the Sun radiates upon the Earth is the story and not your belief that it is all random numbers that satellites are incapable of dealing with.
It is getting tiresome explaining to you again and again how the thermal energy of the Earth get's to the Stratosphere in order to be radiated off. Perhaps it would be better if you simply went down to your nearest community college and took a science course. |
| 07-08-2017 20:28 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
Surface Detail wrote:
It's just another nut-job who doesn't understand what data homogenisation means and why it is necessary. No data are "destroyed".
Modification of raw data is destroying data.
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 |
| 07-08-2017 20:33 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
It's just another nut-job who doesn't understand what data homogenisation means and why it is necessary. No data are "destroyed".
There you go from the man who doesn't understand algebra - he is telling us all about statistics. |
| 07-08-2017 20:40 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Satellites are not more accurate. They are not even able to measure temperature at all. They measure light. If you want an accurate temperature reading at the surface, use a thermometer.
If you want an accurate temperature reading of the Earth, use a hell of a lot more thermometers than exist in the world, uniformly place them, read them simultaneously, and perform a properly conducted statistical analysis on them.
Selection of data MUST be by randN, independent of any aspect of the data itself (such as positional grouping or time). Every summary MUST produce the margin of error value, which comes from comparing the possible variance against a paired randR.
If you are going to criticize others try and learn some science yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
The SURFACE temperature of the Earth that escapes via IR radiation and the known amount of energy that the Sun radiates upon the Earth is the story
Temperature does not 'escape'.
The energy leaving the Earth is the same as the energy absorbed by the Earth. That's not even a story. It's just the law of energy conservation in action.
Wake wrote:
and not your belief that it is all random numbers that satellites are incapable of dealing with.
I never claimed satellites produce random numbers. Misinterpreting what the satellite is capable of, though, IS effectively generating random numbers (of the randU form).
Wake wrote:
It is getting tiresome explaining to you again and again how the thermal energy of the Earth get's to the Stratosphere in order to be radiated off.
Good. That means you are getting tire of saying the same wrong stuff over and over.\
Most radiance comes from the surface of the Earth. That's according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Thermal energy does not have to move up to the stratosphere (not capitalized) to become part of the Earth's radiance.
Wake wrote:
Perhaps it would be better if you simply went down to your nearest community college and took a science course.
Perhaps it would help if you looked at the Stefan-Boltzmann equation again and considered how much warmer the surface of the Earth is compared to the stratosphere (particularly the lower stratosphere!).
You might also want to consider the amount of matter on the surface of the Earth compared to the stratosphere.
Making your usual string of insults is just making your argument weaker, since insults are not an argument.
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 |
| 07-08-2017 22:08 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote: Making your usual string of insults is just making your argument weaker, since insults are not an argument.
Suggesting that you take some actual science classes is an insult is it? You don't need to know science to talk about it?
Virtually everything you write demonstrates an almost entire lack of understanding of the world around you. What you should be proud of is that I think you intelligent enough to profit from a science class. |
| 07-08-2017 22:10 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It's just another nut-job who doesn't understand what data homogenisation means and why it is necessary. No data are "destroyed".
There you go from the man who doesn't understand algebra - he is telling us all about statistics.
WTF are you blathering about now? What makes you think I don't understand algebra? Are you confusing me with ITN again? |
|
| 07-08-2017 22:21 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It's just another nut-job who doesn't understand what data homogenisation means and why it is necessary. No data are "destroyed".
Modification of raw data is destroying data.
The raw data is always kept intact. But it is essential to perform analyses using data points that are comparable. In the case of temperature readings, this means using adjusted historic readings that take account of the different circumstances under which that were taken. For example, it would make no sense to directly compare readings taken at 12pm with readings taken at 2pm. This process is called data homogenisation and is an essential part of data analysis. |
| 07-08-2017 22:32 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It's just another nut-job who doesn't understand what data homogenisation means and why it is necessary. No data are "destroyed".
Modification of raw data is destroying data.
The raw data is always kept intact. But it is essential to perform analyses using data points that are comparable. In the case of temperature readings, this means using adjusted historic readings that take account of the different circumstances under which that were taken. For example, it would make no sense to directly compare readings taken at 12pm with readings taken at 2pm. This process is called data homogenisation and is an essential part of data analysis.
Are you EVER going to know what you're talking about? |
| 07-08-2017 22:36 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It's just another nut-job who doesn't understand what data homogenisation means and why it is necessary. No data are "destroyed".
There you go from the man who doesn't understand algebra - he is telling us all about statistics.
WTF are you blathering about now? What makes you think I don't understand algebra? Are you confusing me with ITN again?
Aren't you the one telling us all that you have a PhD in Physics?
You still haven't explained to us how neurologists and biologists could know anything about climate change. You seem to be avoiding that like the plague. I can certainly understand why. |
| 07-08-2017 22:38 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It's just another nut-job who doesn't understand what data homogenisation means and why it is necessary. No data are "destroyed".
There you go from the man who doesn't understand algebra - he is telling us all about statistics.
WTF are you blathering about now? What makes you think I don't understand algebra? Are you confusing me with ITN again?
Aren't you the one telling us all that you have a PhD in Physics?
You still haven't explained to us how neurologists and biologists could know anything about climate change. You seem to be avoiding that like the plague. I can certainly understand why.
Why do you keep claimed that I've said things that I haven't? Why don't you try reading what I write instead of listening to the voices in your head? |
| 07-08-2017 22:48 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It's just another nut-job who doesn't understand what data homogenisation means and why it is necessary. No data are "destroyed".
There you go from the man who doesn't understand algebra - he is telling us all about statistics.
WTF are you blathering about now? What makes you think I don't understand algebra? Are you confusing me with ITN again?
Aren't you the one telling us all that you have a PhD in Physics?
You still haven't explained to us how neurologists and biologists could know anything about climate change. You seem to be avoiding that like the plague. I can certainly understand why.
Why do you keep claimed that I've said things that I haven't? Why don't you try reading what I write instead of listening to the voices in your head?
So you're telling us that you don't have a PhD in physics? |
| 07-08-2017 22:50 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It's just another nut-job who doesn't understand what data homogenisation means and why it is necessary. No data are "destroyed".
There you go from the man who doesn't understand algebra - he is telling us all about statistics.
WTF are you blathering about now? What makes you think I don't understand algebra? Are you confusing me with ITN again?
Aren't you the one telling us all that you have a PhD in Physics?
You still haven't explained to us how neurologists and biologists could know anything about climate change. You seem to be avoiding that like the plague. I can certainly understand why.
Why do you keep claimed that I've said things that I haven't? Why don't you try reading what I write instead of listening to the voices in your head?
So you're telling us that you don't have a PhD in physics?
Try again, bozo. |
| 07-08-2017 22:54 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It's just another nut-job who doesn't understand what data homogenisation means and why it is necessary. No data are "destroyed".
There you go from the man who doesn't understand algebra - he is telling us all about statistics.
WTF are you blathering about now? What makes you think I don't understand algebra? Are you confusing me with ITN again?
Aren't you the one telling us all that you have a PhD in Physics?
You still haven't explained to us how neurologists and biologists could know anything about climate change. You seem to be avoiding that like the plague. I can certainly understand why.
Why do you keep claimed that I've said things that I haven't? Why don't you try reading what I write instead of listening to the voices in your head?
So you're telling us that you don't have a PhD in physics?
Try again, bozo.
Interesting that you seem to dodge direct questions.
Such as your previous claims to have a PhD in physics and why you won't answer what a pack of neurologists and biologists would know about climate science. |
| 07-08-2017 22:57 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It's just another nut-job who doesn't understand what data homogenisation means and why it is necessary. No data are "destroyed".
There you go from the man who doesn't understand algebra - he is telling us all about statistics.
WTF are you blathering about now? What makes you think I don't understand algebra? Are you confusing me with ITN again?
Aren't you the one telling us all that you have a PhD in Physics?
You still haven't explained to us how neurologists and biologists could know anything about climate change. You seem to be avoiding that like the plague. I can certainly understand why.
Why do you keep claimed that I've said things that I haven't? Why don't you try reading what I write instead of listening to the voices in your head?
So you're telling us that you don't have a PhD in physics?
Try again, bozo.
Interesting that you seem to dodge direct questions.
Such as your previous claims to have a PhD in physics and why you won't answer what a pack of neurologists and biologists would know about climate science.
Look back through the thread, you fool. I have never claimed that neurologists and biologists would know about climate science. That's the voices in your head again. |
| 07-08-2017 23:03 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Making your usual string of insults is just making your argument weaker, since insults are not an argument.
Suggesting that you take some actual science classes is an insult is it? You don't need to know science to talk about it?
Yup. It is just another way of calling someone uneducated and stupid.
Wake wrote:
Virtually everything you write demonstrates an almost entire lack of understanding of the world around you.
There. You did it again. Bulverism is a fallacy dude.
Wake wrote:
What you should be proud of is that I think you intelligent enough to profit from a science class.
I see no reason to waste my money on an indoctrination center. I reject the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Karl Marx. That's all my local community college teaches anymore.
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
Edited on 07-08-2017 23:04 |
| 07-08-2017 23:06 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It's just another nut-job who doesn't understand what data homogenisation means and why it is necessary. No data are "destroyed".
There you go from the man who doesn't understand algebra - he is telling us all about statistics.
WTF are you blathering about now? What makes you think I don't understand algebra? Are you confusing me with ITN again?
I think you understand algebra very well. The part you have difficulty with is statistical analysis, probability math, and random number 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 |
| 07-08-2017 23:13 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It's just another nut-job who doesn't understand what data homogenisation means and why it is necessary. No data are "destroyed".
Modification of raw data is destroying data.
The raw data is always kept intact.
I wish that were so. Unfortunately, it's not in many cases.
Surface Detail wrote:
But it is essential to perform analyses using data points that are comparable.
Agreed. Selection MUST by independent of any aspect of the data itself.
Surface Detail wrote:
In the case of temperature readings, this means using adjusted historic readings that take account of the different circumstances under which that were taken.
WRONG. You cannot use 'adjusted' data! That is a math error in statistics.
Surface Detail wrote:
For example, it would make no sense to directly compare readings taken at 12pm with readings taken at 2pm.
It is not possible to compare them at all. Time affects the data. The effects of time must be eliminated from the selection process. That means all readings must be simultaneous.
Surface Detail wrote:
This process is called data homogenisation
This process introduces error and bias. It is a math error to use such data, which is no longer data.
Surface Detail wrote:
and is an essential part of data analysis.
WRONG. Raw data is ALWAYS used. You are NOT allowed to adjust any data in statistics.
You have an even bigger problem. There is not enough data to even 'adjust' or 'correct' for. You have nowhere near enough thermometers in the world to produce an acceptable margin of error.
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 |
| 07-08-2017 23:22 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It's just another nut-job who doesn't understand what data homogenisation means and why it is necessary. No data are "destroyed".
Modification of raw data is destroying data.
The raw data is always kept intact.
I wish that were so. Unfortunately, it's not in many cases.
Surface Detail wrote:
But it is essential to perform analyses using data points that are comparable.
Agreed. Selection MUST by independent of any aspect of the data itself.
Surface Detail wrote:
In the case of temperature readings, this means using adjusted historic readings that take account of the different circumstances under which that were taken.
WRONG. You cannot use 'adjusted' data! That is a math error in statistics.
Surface Detail wrote:
For example, it would make no sense to directly compare readings taken at 12pm with readings taken at 2pm.
It is not possible to compare them at all. Time affects the data. The effects of time must be eliminated from the selection process. That means all readings must be simultaneous.
Surface Detail wrote:
This process is called data homogenisation
This process introduces error and bias. It is a math error to use such data, which is no longer data.
Surface Detail wrote:
and is an essential part of data analysis.
WRONG. Raw data is ALWAYS used. You are NOT allowed to adjust any data in statistics.
You have an even bigger problem. There is not enough data to even 'adjust' or 'correct' for. You have nowhere near enough thermometers in the world to produce an acceptable margin of error.
You are talking complete nonsense, ITN. You are making utterly ludicrous claims that are completely at odds with both common sense and accepted statistical methods. Why do you keep repeating this crap? |
| 07-08-2017 23:59 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It's just another nut-job who doesn't understand what data homogenisation means and why it is necessary. No data are "destroyed".
Modification of raw data is destroying data.
The raw data is always kept intact.
I wish that were so. Unfortunately, it's not in many cases.
Surface Detail wrote:
But it is essential to perform analyses using data points that are comparable.
Agreed. Selection MUST by independent of any aspect of the data itself.
Surface Detail wrote:
In the case of temperature readings, this means using adjusted historic readings that take account of the different circumstances under which that were taken.
WRONG. You cannot use 'adjusted' data! That is a math error in statistics.
Surface Detail wrote:
For example, it would make no sense to directly compare readings taken at 12pm with readings taken at 2pm.
It is not possible to compare them at all. Time affects the data. The effects of time must be eliminated from the selection process. That means all readings must be simultaneous.
Surface Detail wrote:
This process is called data homogenisation
This process introduces error and bias. It is a math error to use such data, which is no longer data.
Surface Detail wrote:
and is an essential part of data analysis.
WRONG. Raw data is ALWAYS used. You are NOT allowed to adjust any data in statistics.
You have an even bigger problem. There is not enough data to even 'adjust' or 'correct' for. You have nowhere near enough thermometers in the world to produce an acceptable margin of error.
You are talking complete nonsense, ITN. You are making utterly ludicrous claims that are completely at odds with both common sense and accepted statistical methods. Why do you keep repeating this crap?
Because what you call "accepted statistical methods" isn't. It isn't even statistical math at all.
Attempting to justify math errors and calling it a 'statistical method' isn't going to work.
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 00:19 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote: There. You did it again. Bulverism is a fallacy dude.
Wake wrote:
What you should be proud of is that I think you intelligent enough to profit from a science class.
I see no reason to waste my money on an indoctrination center.
Now this is more like it. Learning science is "indoctrination" and you prefer to use words invented by a fiction writer. |
| 08-08-2017 00:25 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: There. You did it again. Bulverism is a fallacy dude.
Wake wrote:
What you should be proud of is that I think you intelligent enough to profit from a science class.
I see no reason to waste my money on an indoctrination center.
Now this is more like it. Learning science is "indoctrination" and you prefer to use words invented by a fiction writer.
The local community college here doesn't teach science. They teach the doctrine of the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Karl Marx.
You seem to be trying to justify this for some reason.
The word 'bulverism' was indeed coined by a fiction writer. It refers to a real fallacy (which is a breakdown in formal logic). In this case, the rejection of an argument solely due to the source of that argument, not from the argument itself.
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 00:31 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Wake wrote:
Hey stupid - that satellite data shows that we are not warming. You haven't the capacity to even read the articles that chart appeared in do you? That article showed that the temperature curves released by NASA to the public are sheer lies - your kind of people.
The rise in temperatures near the end of that chart are NOTHING more than the usual chaotic weather events. This year will be colder than the last entries in that and it is likely that we will have another four or five years colder still.
Alarming? You don't have the mental capacity for anything but getting alarmed at data that shows that nothing is occurring.
Wow, someone who just crawled out of that basket of deplorables called me stupid. I'm honored.
It's not clear to me how someone can look at the graph I posted and say that it shows no warming, when there is a clear upward warming trend that actually increases the last decade to almost .3C, from the overal .16C rise since the beginning of data. No wonder people hate you so much. It's because you have no shame or sense of responsibility.
As a matter of fact, there was no article tied to that chart. It was from a NOAA site that is just presenting data without putting any kind of skew on it. But you must have saw the same chart on a Skeptic [Deplorable] site, that tried to use reverse data comprehension to argue that there has been no warming over the last 20 years. [reverse data comprehension - ignore the actual data and just say it means whatever you want, because those you are talking to are dumb as a rock and can't read the chart]. The "Global Warming Hiatis" hoax was playing on 1998 being the warm year at the beginning, which wasn't exceeded until we had another El Nino year, which we were having in 1998. The data is easier to see, if you block out 1998, and 2016 if you want. Then you can see the trend. Just start at either the high or low peaks, then draw a straight line to the high or low peaks at the other end of the chart. Then count how much the temperature has changed in a 10 year period, and you will know what the trend is. It's very close to 0.2C for the last decade.
What do you base your futurecast on? Do you use a crystal ball, tea leaves, animal bones, or some other magic? It's obvious that you don't use logic, because if you did use logic, you would know that there should be a 0.1C rise over the next 5 years. I'm thinking it might pick up some steam in the coming years though, because our oceans are warming. It should gradually start to warm quicker and quicker, as our ice caps melt and our oceans warm. But we will probably all be dead by then, of old age if nothing else.
I attached the graph to this post also, so you wouldn't have to scroll back up to see what an idiot you are.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Attached image:
 |
| 08-08-2017 00:45 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Governments all over the globe are destroying data in an attempt to "prove" global warming:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjqTxziiY9A
I sometimes wonder if it's more a matter of manufacturing data vs destroying what little data is there.
They don't have to destroy anything, to know how much it has warmed.
True. They do have to manufacture data though.
GreenMan wrote:
Satellite Data,
Ah yes...the Holy Satellite Data...we will not discuss what a satellite is and is not capable of doing for a moment.
GreenMan wrote:
which Skeptics love to tout,
It is YOU that loves to tout it. Mostly because you don't understand satellites and what they are and are not capable of.
GreenMan wrote:
clearly shows a 0.16C/decade rise in temperature since satellite data has been available [1979].
Point one: Satellites are not able to measure temperature. They measure light.
To get any idea of temperature, a satellite examines infrared light coming from the Earth. The trouble is, that it is not possible to determine the temperature in this way. The emissivity of the Earth is not known. It is a measured value, but it is not possible to determine it for Earth, due to the method of measuring it, which requires accurately knowing the temperature of the Earth to begin with.
Satellites used for this purpose are useful for looking at relative differences in temperature across the surface of the Earth and even in parts of it's atmosphere, but it is not capable of measuring absolute values for temperature. All it can really do is describe whether a region is warmer or colder than another.
GreenMan wrote:
It would be great to have an accurate temperature record as far back as possible,
It would be great to have an accurate temperature record at all.
GreenMan wrote:
so they do occasionally tweak the data previously gathered, to account for errors.
'Tweaking' the data does not correct for errors. It introduces error and bias. Tweaking is not allowed in the world statistical analysis. You MUST use the raw data (if you had any).
GreenMan wrote:
Every time they do, some Skeptic jumps up and hollers foul,
They should. A math error is a math error.
GreenMan wrote:
as if they have been wronged somehow.
Stay out of Las Vegas. That's a town built on bad math. They are very good at taking advantage of people like you that fall for it.
GreenMan wrote:
But as you can see from the "much more accurate satellite measurements," we are warming, and we are warming at an alarming rate.
Satellites are not more accurate. They are not even able to measure temperature at all. They measure light. If you want an accurate temperature reading at the surface, use a thermometer.
If you want an accurate temperature reading of the Earth, use a hell of a lot more thermometers than exist in the world, uniformly place them, read them simultaneously, and perform a properly conducted statistical analysis on them.
Selection of data MUST be by randN, independent of any aspect of the data itself (such as positional grouping or time). Every summary MUST produce the margin of error value, which comes from comparing the possible variance against a paired randR.
You know what, douche bag? You are the most pompous idiot that I've ever come across. And you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. You are just repeating something someone else told you, that you never really thought about. Of course, that is what Parrots do, and you are definitely killing their reputation.
Perhaps those scientists that produce the data for those graphs didn't get your memo about satellites not being able to measure the temperature of the planet, and went and did it anyway. Perhaps you should resend it, so they will stop trying to use our satellites for purposes they were not intended to be used for.
But anyway, thanks for the laugh, you bogus piece of dung.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 08-08-2017 00:51 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It's just another nut-job who doesn't understand what data homogenisation means and why it is necessary. No data are "destroyed".
Modification of raw data is destroying data.
Parrot you must be a complete idiot. Do you really thing they erase the raw data when they apply their fudge factor? It's not necessary to do that nowadays. They have computers, with giant spreadsheets built in. They can just insert another column for the fudge factor data, and leave the original data alone.
Would you act so stupid if you personally knew the other people in this forum/
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 08-08-2017 02:35 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It's just another nut-job who doesn't understand what data homogenisation means and why it is necessary. No data are "destroyed".
Modification of raw data is destroying data.
Parrot you must be a complete idiot. Do you really thing they erase the raw data when they apply their fudge factor? It's not necessary to do that nowadays. They have computers, with giant spreadsheets built in. They can just insert another column for the fudge factor data, and leave the original data alone.
Would you act so stupid if you personally knew the other people in this forum/
They could - but they didn't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjqTxziiY9A |
| 08-08-2017 21:23 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Governments all over the globe are destroying data in an attempt to "prove" global warming:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjqTxziiY9A
I sometimes wonder if it's more a matter of manufacturing data vs destroying what little data is there.
They don't have to destroy anything, to know how much it has warmed.
True. They do have to manufacture data though.
GreenMan wrote:
Satellite Data,
Ah yes...the Holy Satellite Data...we will not discuss what a satellite is and is not capable of doing for a moment.
GreenMan wrote:
which Skeptics love to tout,
It is YOU that loves to tout it. Mostly because you don't understand satellites and what they are and are not capable of.
GreenMan wrote:
clearly shows a 0.16C/decade rise in temperature since satellite data has been available [1979].
Point one: Satellites are not able to measure temperature. They measure light.
To get any idea of temperature, a satellite examines infrared light coming from the Earth. The trouble is, that it is not possible to determine the temperature in this way. The emissivity of the Earth is not known. It is a measured value, but it is not possible to determine it for Earth, due to the method of measuring it, which requires accurately knowing the temperature of the Earth to begin with.
Satellites used for this purpose are useful for looking at relative differences in temperature across the surface of the Earth and even in parts of it's atmosphere, but it is not capable of measuring absolute values for temperature. All it can really do is describe whether a region is warmer or colder than another.
GreenMan wrote:
It would be great to have an accurate temperature record as far back as possible,
It would be great to have an accurate temperature record at all.
GreenMan wrote:
so they do occasionally tweak the data previously gathered, to account for errors.
'Tweaking' the data does not correct for errors. It introduces error and bias. Tweaking is not allowed in the world statistical analysis. You MUST use the raw data (if you had any).
GreenMan wrote:
Every time they do, some Skeptic jumps up and hollers foul,
They should. A math error is a math error.
GreenMan wrote:
as if they have been wronged somehow.
Stay out of Las Vegas. That's a town built on bad math. They are very good at taking advantage of people like you that fall for it.
GreenMan wrote:
But as you can see from the "much more accurate satellite measurements," we are warming, and we are warming at an alarming rate.
Satellites are not more accurate. They are not even able to measure temperature at all. They measure light. If you want an accurate temperature reading at the surface, use a thermometer.
If you want an accurate temperature reading of the Earth, use a hell of a lot more thermometers than exist in the world, uniformly place them, read them simultaneously, and perform a properly conducted statistical analysis on them.
Selection of data MUST be by randN, independent of any aspect of the data itself (such as positional grouping or time). Every summary MUST produce the margin of error value, which comes from comparing the possible variance against a paired randR.
You know what, douche bag? You are the most pompous idiot that I've ever come across. And you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. You are just repeating something someone else told you, that you never really thought about. Of course, that is what Parrots do, and you are definitely killing their reputation.
Still confused I see.
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps those scientists that produce the data for those graphs didn't get your memo about satellites not being able to measure the temperature of the planet,
Scientists didn't produce that graph. A government organization did.
GreenMan wrote:
and went and did it anyway.
Satellites cannot measure temperature. They can only measure light.
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps you should resend it, so they will stop trying to use our satellites for purposes they were not intended to be used for.
Perhaps you should stop referring to government agencies as 'scientists'.
GreenMan wrote:
But anyway, thanks for the laugh, you bogus piece of dung.
Still trying to rely on insults, eh? I find it amazing that someone feels this somehow helps their argument.
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 21:26 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It's just another nut-job who doesn't understand what data homogenisation means and why it is necessary. No data are "destroyed".
Modification of raw data is destroying data.
Parrot you must be a complete idiot. Do you really thing they erase the raw data when they apply their fudge factor?
It has been done, yes.
GreenMan wrote:
It's not necessary to do that nowadays.
It is not necessary at all, unless one is trying to hide something.
GreenMan wrote:
They have computers, with giant spreadsheets built in.
Which changes nothing.
GreenMan wrote:
They can just insert another column for the fudge factor data, and leave the original data alone.
They could, but they don't.
GreenMan wrote:
Would you act so stupid if you personally knew the other people in this forum/
Loaded question.
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 12:21 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Governments all over the globe are destroying data in an attempt to "prove" global warming:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjqTxziiY9A
I sometimes wonder if it's more a matter of manufacturing data vs destroying what little data is there.
They don't have to destroy anything, to know how much it has warmed.
True. They do have to manufacture data though.
GreenMan wrote:
Satellite Data,
Ah yes...the Holy Satellite Data...we will not discuss what a satellite is and is not capable of doing for a moment.
GreenMan wrote:
which Skeptics love to tout,
It is YOU that loves to tout it. Mostly because you don't understand satellites and what they are and are not capable of.
GreenMan wrote:
clearly shows a 0.16C/decade rise in temperature since satellite data has been available [1979].
Point one: Satellites are not able to measure temperature. They measure light.
To get any idea of temperature, a satellite examines infrared light coming from the Earth. The trouble is, that it is not possible to determine the temperature in this way. The emissivity of the Earth is not known. It is a measured value, but it is not possible to determine it for Earth, due to the method of measuring it, which requires accurately knowing the temperature of the Earth to begin with.
Satellites used for this purpose are useful for looking at relative differences in temperature across the surface of the Earth and even in parts of it's atmosphere, but it is not capable of measuring absolute values for temperature. All it can really do is describe whether a region is warmer or colder than another.
GreenMan wrote:
It would be great to have an accurate temperature record as far back as possible,
It would be great to have an accurate temperature record at all.
GreenMan wrote:
so they do occasionally tweak the data previously gathered, to account for errors.
'Tweaking' the data does not correct for errors. It introduces error and bias. Tweaking is not allowed in the world statistical analysis. You MUST use the raw data (if you had any).
GreenMan wrote:
Every time they do, some Skeptic jumps up and hollers foul,
They should. A math error is a math error.
GreenMan wrote:
as if they have been wronged somehow.
Stay out of Las Vegas. That's a town built on bad math. They are very good at taking advantage of people like you that fall for it.
GreenMan wrote:
But as you can see from the "much more accurate satellite measurements," we are warming, and we are warming at an alarming rate.
Satellites are not more accurate. They are not even able to measure temperature at all. They measure light. If you want an accurate temperature reading at the surface, use a thermometer.
If you want an accurate temperature reading of the Earth, use a hell of a lot more thermometers than exist in the world, uniformly place them, read them simultaneously, and perform a properly conducted statistical analysis on them.
Selection of data MUST be by randN, independent of any aspect of the data itself (such as positional grouping or time). Every summary MUST produce the margin of error value, which comes from comparing the possible variance against a paired randR.
You know what, douche bag? You are the most pompous idiot that I've ever come across. And you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. You are just repeating something someone else told you, that you never really thought about. Of course, that is what Parrots do, and you are definitely killing their reputation.
Still confused I see.
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps those scientists that produce the data for those graphs didn't get your memo about satellites not being able to measure the temperature of the planet,
Scientists didn't produce that graph. A government organization did.
GreenMan wrote:
and went and did it anyway.
Satellites cannot measure temperature. They can only measure light.
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps you should resend it, so they will stop trying to use our satellites for purposes they were not intended to be used for.
Perhaps you should stop referring to government agencies as 'scientists'.
GreenMan wrote:
But anyway, thanks for the laugh, you bogus piece of dung.
Still trying to rely on insults, eh? I find it amazing that someone feels this somehow helps their argument.
Parrot Fondler, your only recourse appears to be that of simply saying stupid things [stupid things = things that don't make sense to a rational person], like "Scientists didn't produce that graph. A government organization did." or "Satellites cannot measure temperature. They can only measure light.," and my favorite, "Still trying to rely on insults, eh? I find it amazing that someone feels this somehow helps their argument." Is that really all you've got? You sound like my ex ole lady, bitching because I called her a bitch. My response to her was, "If you don't like being called a bitch, simply stop acting like one." The same goes for you. If you don't like being called a "bogus piece of dung," then stop acting like one. Trying to shame someone into not calling you appropriate names isn't going to work.
And your other comments are totally ludicrous. Some scientist who worked for a government organisation produced that chart, since organisations are groups of people who work together for a common goal. Someone from within that organisation did the actual work. But I will give you an opportunity to explain why you felt it necessary to point that out. I'm eager to see if there was some deep meaning behind such an astute observation.
And your other comment about satellites just measuring light is even more bizarre. You sound like my stupid cousin, who thinks something he knows outweighs every other piece of information in the galaxy, and therefore trumps any argument. He keeps repeating that one fact, regardless of whether or not it's relevant to the matter at hand. Ok, so what if Satellites can only measure light? I don't know. And I also don't know how they use light to determine temperature, but they apparently do, because they routinely publish average global temperature from satellite data. I'm sure if they were just creating misleading data, then some wannabe hero skeptic would have already pointed that out. No one needs a moron like you to keep repeating that it can't be done. So why don't you just ignore my posts in the future? You bogus piece of dung.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 09-08-2017 18:23 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
GreenMan wrote: And your other comment about satellites just measuring light is even more bizarre. You sound like my stupid cousin, who thinks something he knows outweighs every other piece of information in the galaxy, and therefore trumps any argument. He keeps repeating that one fact, regardless of whether or not it's relevant to the matter at hand. Ok, so what if Satellites can only measure light? I don't know. And I also don't know how they use light to determine temperature, but they apparently do, because they routinely publish average global temperature from satellite data. I'm sure if they were just creating misleading data, then some wannabe hero skeptic would have already pointed that out. No one needs a moron like you to keep repeating that it can't be done. So why don't you just ignore my posts in the future? You bogus piece of dung.
You don't know the relationship between "light" and temperature? So much for your claim to be ANY kind of engineer. No wonder you were blaming a "dying world" on "Big Oil". |
| 09-08-2017 20:29 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Governments all over the globe are destroying data in an attempt to "prove" global warming:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjqTxziiY9A
I sometimes wonder if it's more a matter of manufacturing data vs destroying what little data is there.
They don't have to destroy anything, to know how much it has warmed.
True. They do have to manufacture data though.
GreenMan wrote:
Satellite Data,
Ah yes...the Holy Satellite Data...we will not discuss what a satellite is and is not capable of doing for a moment.
GreenMan wrote:
which Skeptics love to tout,
It is YOU that loves to tout it. Mostly because you don't understand satellites and what they are and are not capable of.
GreenMan wrote:
clearly shows a 0.16C/decade rise in temperature since satellite data has been available [1979].
Point one: Satellites are not able to measure temperature. They measure light.
To get any idea of temperature, a satellite examines infrared light coming from the Earth. The trouble is, that it is not possible to determine the temperature in this way. The emissivity of the Earth is not known. It is a measured value, but it is not possible to determine it for Earth, due to the method of measuring it, which requires accurately knowing the temperature of the Earth to begin with.
Satellites used for this purpose are useful for looking at relative differences in temperature across the surface of the Earth and even in parts of it's atmosphere, but it is not capable of measuring absolute values for temperature. All it can really do is describe whether a region is warmer or colder than another.
GreenMan wrote:
It would be great to have an accurate temperature record as far back as possible,
It would be great to have an accurate temperature record at all.
GreenMan wrote:
so they do occasionally tweak the data previously gathered, to account for errors.
'Tweaking' the data does not correct for errors. It introduces error and bias. Tweaking is not allowed in the world statistical analysis. You MUST use the raw data (if you had any).
GreenMan wrote:
Every time they do, some Skeptic jumps up and hollers foul,
They should. A math error is a math error.
GreenMan wrote:
as if they have been wronged somehow.
Stay out of Las Vegas. That's a town built on bad math. They are very good at taking advantage of people like you that fall for it.
GreenMan wrote:
But as you can see from the "much more accurate satellite measurements," we are warming, and we are warming at an alarming rate.
Satellites are not more accurate. They are not even able to measure temperature at all. They measure light. If you want an accurate temperature reading at the surface, use a thermometer.
If you want an accurate temperature reading of the Earth, use a hell of a lot more thermometers than exist in the world, uniformly place them, read them simultaneously, and perform a properly conducted statistical analysis on them.
Selection of data MUST be by randN, independent of any aspect of the data itself (such as positional grouping or time). Every summary MUST produce the margin of error value, which comes from comparing the possible variance against a paired randR.
You know what, douche bag? You are the most pompous idiot that I've ever come across. And you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. You are just repeating something someone else told you, that you never really thought about. Of course, that is what Parrots do, and you are definitely killing their reputation.
Still confused I see.
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps those scientists that produce the data for those graphs didn't get your memo about satellites not being able to measure the temperature of the planet,
Scientists didn't produce that graph. A government organization did.
GreenMan wrote:
and went and did it anyway.
Satellites cannot measure temperature. They can only measure light.
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps you should resend it, so they will stop trying to use our satellites for purposes they were not intended to be used for.
Perhaps you should stop referring to government agencies as 'scientists'.
GreenMan wrote:
But anyway, thanks for the laugh, you bogus piece of dung.
Still trying to rely on insults, eh? I find it amazing that someone feels this somehow helps their argument.
Parrot Fondler, your only recourse appears to be that of simply saying stupid things [stupid things = things that don't make sense to a rational person], like "Scientists didn't produce that graph. A government organization did." or "Satellites cannot measure temperature. They can only measure light.," and my favorite, "Still trying to rely on insults, eh? I find it amazing that someone feels this somehow helps their argument." Is that really all you've got? You sound like my ex ole lady, bitching because I called her a bitch.
Insults are not an argument. They are a fallacy. They are a way to vent your emotion, but that's all. Frankly, I would tend to side with your ex.
GreenMan wrote:
My response to her was, "If you don't like being called a bitch, simply stop acting like one." The same goes for you. If you don't like being called a "bogus piece of dung," then stop acting like one. Trying to shame someone into not calling you appropriate names isn't going to work.
Trying to make an argument out of insulting people is not an argument.
GreenMan wrote:
And your other comments are totally ludicrous. Some scientist who worked for a government organisation produced that chart, since organisations are groups of people who work together for a common goal.
And what is the goal of government? Any government? They don't make a profit, since their revenue is based on taxes. So what is the success metric of government or a government organization?
It is to expand and grow.
How best to do that? Find a way to justify a budget for themselves. Create a problem to 'solve', and never solve it.
GreenMan wrote:
Someone from within that organisation did the actual work.
Obviously.
GreenMan wrote:
But I will give you an opportunity to explain why you felt it necessary to point that out. I'm eager to see if there was some deep meaning behind such an astute observation.
You are trying to build a straw man.
GreenMan wrote:
And your other comment about satellites just measuring light is even more bizarre.
That's all they can measure.
GreenMan wrote:
You sound like my stupid cousin, who thinks something he knows outweighs every other piece of information in the galaxy, and therefore trumps any argument. He keeps repeating that one fact, regardless of whether or not it's relevant to the matter at hand. Ok, so what if Satellites can only measure light? I don't know.
Sounds like your cousin is more intelligent than you. I suggest you take a deep naval gazing moment and try to figure out why your cousin and ex have trouble with your attitude.
GreenMan wrote:
And I also don't know how they use light to determine temperature, but they apparently do,
The basic idea is by use of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This law relates temperature of a substance to the amount of light it gives off. The equation is:
radiance (in power per square area) = boltzmann constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4
The Boltzmann constant is a universal constant of nature (a constant that essentially converts the equation into our units of measure).
Emissivity is how well a substance emits or absorbs light, expressed as a percentage. A 100% emissivity is an ideal value of a perfectly black (absorbs all light impinging on it) body. This does not exist in nature. 0% is an ideal value of a perfectly white (absorbs no light impinging on it) body. This also does not exist in nature. Actual bodies have and emissivity somewhere between (gray bodies). All frequencies of light are counted for emissivity and combined. This is a measured value.
Temperature is the average kinetic energy of molecules. This is usually expressed on the Kelvin scale.
By using algebra, it would seem that you can calculate a temperature knowing the amount of light being received. This is only true if:
1) the emissivity doesn't change
2) the emissivity is known.
3) no other light is considered, such as reflected light, ambient light, etc. All substances above absolute zero give off light, including the spacecraft itself.
We don't know the emissivity of Earth. It is not possible to determine it because of the way it must be measured, which requires knowing accurately the temperature of the Earth in the first place.
GreenMan wrote:
because they routinely publish average global temperature from satellite data.
No, they don't.
What these satellites are good for is looking at relative temperature differences over a geographic area (the path of the satellite at that moment) in a very course manner. This makes them useful for watching weather activity. It is not capable of providing an absolute temperature, which is what you need if you are going to try to measure temperature over time.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm sure if they were just creating misleading data, then some wannabe hero skeptic would have already pointed that out.
The government creates misleading 'data'. This is quite normal for governments. They do this all the time to justify some program of theirs.
GreenMan wrote:
No one needs a moron like you to keep repeating that it can't be done.
Actually, that would only be you that doesn't 'need' this, according to you.
GreenMan wrote:
So why don't you just ignore my posts in the future?
Not gonna happen.
GreenMan wrote:
You bogus piece of dung.
Back to insulting people again.
You seem to have some real anger issues. Some of this is the result of your belief in the Church of Global Warming, some of this is your own personality problems.
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 20:32 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: And your other comment about satellites just measuring light is even more bizarre. You sound like my stupid cousin, who thinks something he knows outweighs every other piece of information in the galaxy, and therefore trumps any argument. He keeps repeating that one fact, regardless of whether or not it's relevant to the matter at hand. Ok, so what if Satellites can only measure light? I don't know. And I also don't know how they use light to determine temperature, but they apparently do, because they routinely publish average global temperature from satellite data. I'm sure if they were just creating misleading data, then some wannabe hero skeptic would have already pointed that out. No one needs a moron like you to keep repeating that it can't be done. So why don't you just ignore my posts in the future? You bogus piece of dung.
You don't know the relationship between "light" and temperature? So much for your claim to be ANY kind of engineer. No wonder you were blaming a "dying world" on "Big Oil".
Like I have said before, credentials claimed here really mean nothing. There is always someone that doesn't believe you and there is no way to prove your credentials. Depending on them to make your case is actually a fallacy.
I have informed him of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and how it is used by satellites to measure relative temperatures. We'll see what he does with it.
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 |