Remember me
▼ Content

The Data Mine



Page 7 of 7<<<567
19-03-2019 18:23
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(150)
James___ wrote:
It's funny how you, itn and notDaMann can ignore fact as not data.

Not what a fact is, James... A fact is not a universal truth, nor is it a proof. A fact, rather, is assumed predicate... It is predicate that is agreed upon by all conversing parties. Facts are meant to speed up conversation... A predicate doesn't even have to be true in order for it to be accepted as a fact...

James___ wrote:
Seattle has recorded rising sea levels for over 100 years.

What reference point is being used? Is it a valid reference point??

James___ wrote:
It's funny how someone like itn who lives around Seattle can say that the people in Seattle are wrong. They can't measure water levels. Yet they want people to accept what they say.
You guys sound just like the IPCC. That is so funny it's sad

ITN's location of residence has no effect on whether sea levels can be measured or not...
19-03-2019 18:29
Wake
★★★★★
(3946)
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
NotDaMann,
Your clever use of logic isn't working.

It's clever, but it isn't working??? If that were so, then it wasn't clever, now was it??

James___ wrote:
The 3 of you seem to be denying that there was a Medieval Warm Period or a Little Ice Age.

What if I was?

James___ wrote:
This is a serious failure of being able to accept reality.

Define 'reality'... You seem to be using the term without knowing what it means...

James___ wrote:
It's funny but the 3 of you use modern technology like the internet

We sure do!!

James___ wrote:
yet say science is a religion.

Wrong. YOU are the one conflating religion with science... Inversion Fallacy.



It seems this is all that you, itn and NotDaMann know. Everybody that I know except for you and your friends accept that we went from a Medieval Warm Period to a Little Ice Age and now it's warming again.
That's not what the climate debate is about, if it's warming yet as I keep mentioning ad nauseum it's about "if" man is influencing climate change and if so, by how much?
Reality requires us to understand natural climate change first. At the present moment we don't. This is why I've mentioned taking ice core samples from the sides/faces of advancing glaciers. They might find that it's "new" ice deposited since the Medieval Warm Period. That hasn't been done yet.
This prevents us from understanding if what we are experiencing can be attributed to a natural cycle. This would suggest a feedback mechanism that they've yet to consider.
With me, I'll be stupid and illogical and say that once we can understand natural climate variation then we can start consider if man is influencing it.
I know it's stupid but then it is my own opinion.


James - that isn't the way a glacier works. The "new ice" comes from snow on the top of the glacier back at it's origin and it is older snow advancing. Because the glacier over millenia has scrubbed the glacier path both smooth and clean, there is no way to get carbon dating to ascertain the age at any point along the glacier.

What we do know is that the glaciers DID retreat quite a ways and have been advancing again since around 2012.

The satellite temperature records also show that we are in nothing more than a chaotic uptick in the weather soon to be in the other direction.

Tony Heller has been publishing a lot of videos showing the falsification that various sources have been making to the historic records. Just recently we saw them saying that the mid-west is suffering from "Record Flooding" yet in 1937 this same area had flooding 80 feet above flood stage.

Heller wrote a search engine that goes through newspaper records of which we have 300 years at least. And whenever we are seeing "record temperatures at xxx" he can refer them to the actual newspapers in that area mostly from the 1930's which was EASILY that hottest time on record.

There isn't the slightest chance we can ever know what the real climate is doing as long as the actual records are being falsified by NASA, NOAA and almost an entire group of so-called "scientists" who make their living off of research grants on these subjects and a government that can obtain more and ever more power by frightening the masses.
19-03-2019 18:32
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(150)
James___ wrote:
NotDaMann,
Your clever use of logic isn't working.

It's clever, but it isn't working??? If that were so, then it wasn't clever, now was it??

James___ wrote:
The 3 of you seem to be denying that there was a Medieval Warm Period or a Little Ice Age.

What if I was?

James___ wrote:
This is a serious failure of being able to accept reality.

Define 'reality'... You seem to be using the term without knowing what it means...

James___ wrote:
It's funny but the 3 of you use modern technology like the internet

We sure do!!

James___ wrote:
yet say science is a religion.

Wrong. YOU are the one conflating religion with science... Inversion Fallacy.
19-03-2019 18:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7102)
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James?? Being incoherent again??? Say it ain't so!!!!

You know James, sometimes you can use LESS words, yet convey MORE meaning with those words...



It's funny how you, itn and notDaMann can ignore fact as not data. Seattle has recorded rising sea levels for over 100 years.
It's funny how someone like itn who lives around Seattle can say that the people in Seattle are wrong. They can't measure water levels. Yet they want people to accept what they say.
You guys sound just like the IPCC. That is so funny it's sad


This is the Data Mine. Please see rules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 of the first article. At this point, your data is not acceptable here.


The Parrot Killer
19-03-2019 18:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7102)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
quoting the IPCC; in the future, scientists should strive to communicate certainty,


See, NotDaMann? I provide the source of material. It's funny how people like you, ITN, etc. can post with "certainty" yet ignore the primary argument that skeptics use, that talk of CO2 and Global Warming started at the end of the Little Ice Age.

James___, help me out here. You totally lost me. I know you are trying to express something wondrous because I see words that you have typed ... but your post seems to be running interference on itself.

Could I get you to rewrite your point in English. I really didn't latch onto anything coherent.

James___ wrote: I mean you guys say that no warming or climate change happens.

Nope. That's not what I say.

1. Warming happens. The sun does that per Stefan-Boltzmann.
2. Cooling happens. The earth cools per Stefan-Boltzmann.
3. I don't know what you mean when you use "climate" in a seemingly logically contradictory manner.

James___ wrote: A complete denial of what has actually been observed. This means that you belong to the Church of Logic which is communism. Those who think they are, smarter, better, etc. based on the belief that their idea is true and correct and omits any religious belief is simply The Communist Manifesto.

Nope.

A bit of advice for you. You can write less and exert less effort and still get away with being wrong.

James___ wrote: After all, many in here claim there is a Church of Global Warming because a belief in God is bad.

I have not seen these claims. Could you provide some links?

James___ wrote: It's interesting but this forum might be about educating people how logic supports communism. maybe that's why GFM and ITN created it. This then makes them the creators and their logic cannot be falsified.

So it is your contention that Into the Night has been striving all along to render his logic unfalsifiable?

James___ wrote: I owe you an apology ITN. I thought you were a Native American that was unhappy but now just believe that you are a communist and when we accept you logic then we can accept your rule.

@ Into the Night - forgive me for not having noticed before. What is thy bidding?


NotDaMann,
Your clever use of logic isn't working. The 3 of you seem to be denying that there was a Medieval Warm Period or a Little Ice Age.
This is a serious failure of being able to accept reality. It's funny but the 3 of you use modern technology like the internet yet say science is a religion.


This is the Data Mine. Please see rules 1,2,3,4,5, and 8.


The Parrot Killer
19-03-2019 18:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7102)
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
It's funny how you, itn and notDaMann can ignore fact as not data.

Not what a fact is, James... A fact is not a universal truth, nor is it a proof. A fact, rather, is assumed predicate... It is predicate that is agreed upon by all conversing parties. Facts are meant to speed up conversation... A predicate doesn't even have to be true in order for it to be accepted as a fact...

James___ wrote:
Seattle has recorded rising sea levels for over 100 years.

What reference point is being used? Is it a valid reference point??

James___ wrote:
It's funny how someone like itn who lives around Seattle can say that the people in Seattle are wrong. They can't measure water levels. Yet they want people to accept what they say.
You guys sound just like the IPCC. That is so funny it's sad


ITN's location of residence has no effect on whether sea levels can be measured or not...

His data is not acceptable according to rules 1,2,3,4,5, and 8 as set forth in the first article of the Data Mine.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 19-03-2019 19:00
19-03-2019 19:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7102)
gfm7175 wrote:
Define 'reality'... You seem to be using the term without knowing what it means...


I should start a separate thread for this. The Data Mine is designated ONLY to present data according to the rules laid out in the first article, not to discuss the meanings of words.


The Parrot Killer
19-03-2019 19:09
James___
★★★★☆
(1030)
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
NotDaMann,
Your clever use of logic isn't working.

It's clever, but it isn't working??? If that were so, then it wasn't clever, now was it??

James___ wrote:
The 3 of you seem to be denying that there was a Medieval Warm Period or a Little Ice Age.

What if I was?

James___ wrote:
This is a serious failure of being able to accept reality.

Define 'reality'... You seem to be using the term without knowing what it means...

James___ wrote:
It's funny but the 3 of you use modern technology like the internet

We sure do!!

James___ wrote:
yet say science is a religion.

Wrong. YOU are the one conflating religion with science... Inversion Fallacy.



It seems this is all that you, itn and NotDaMann know. Everybody that I know except for you and your friends accept that we went from a Medieval Warm Period to a Little Ice Age and now it's warming again.
That's not what the climate debate is about, if it's warming yet as I keep mentioning ad nauseum it's about "if" man is influencing climate change and if so, by how much?
Reality requires us to understand natural climate change first. At the present moment we don't. This is why I've mentioned taking ice core samples from the sides/faces of advancing glaciers. They might find that it's "new" ice deposited since the Medieval Warm Period. That hasn't been done yet.
This prevents us from understanding if what we are experiencing can be attributed to a natural cycle. This would suggest a feedback mechanism that they've yet to consider.
With me, I'll be stupid and illogical and say that once we can understand natural climate variation then we can start consider if man is influencing it.
I know it's stupid but then it is my own opinion.
19-03-2019 19:14
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(150)
Into the Night wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Define 'reality'... You seem to be using the term without knowing what it means...


I should start a separate thread for this. The Data Mine is designated ONLY to present data according to the rules laid out in the first article, not to discuss the meanings of words.


Yeah, it's a separate thought... I haven't looked through all the pages, but I'd wager that there hasnt been any acceptable data presented from the global warming proponent side of the debate...
19-03-2019 19:29
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3411)
James___ wrote: it's about "if" man is influencing climate change and if so, by how much?


Nope, that's not what it's about.

If I were to ask you "To what extent do you believe mankind is influencing the diet of the man in the moon? ... a LOT? ... a LITTLE?" You might respond "There is no man in the moon."

Well, there is no "Climate Change."

James___ wrote: Reality requires us to understand natural climate change first.

Not really, considering there is no "Climate Change."

May I ask why you believe in Global Climate?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-03-2019 19:41
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3411)
Wake wrote: James - that isn't the way a glacier works. The "new ice" comes from snow on the top of the glacier back at it's origin and it is older snow advancing. Because the glacier over millenia has scrubbed the glacier path both smooth and clean, there is no way to get carbon dating to ascertain the age at any point along the glacier.

Credit where it's due. Wake, you're spot on.

In glaciers, as in any ice, age is measured in layers.

Wake wrote: What we do know is that the glaciers DID retreat quite a ways and have been advancing again since around 2012.

Some glaciers advanced and some retreated. As some die others are born.

Wake wrote: The satellite temperature records also show that we are in nothing more than a chaotic uptick in the weather soon to be in the other direction.

Did you just make the claim that past random occurrences forecast future random events? Did you?

Wake wrote: There isn't the slightest chance we can ever know what the real climate is doing as long as the actual records are being falsified by NASA, NOAA and almost an entire group of so-called "scientists" who make their living off of research grants on these subjects and a government that can obtain more and ever more power by frightening the masses.

How about the possibility that we can never know what the real Climate is doing because there is no real Climate, i.e. it is just a religious myth?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-03-2019 20:32
James___
★★★★☆
(1030)
IBdaMann wrote:

Credit where it's due. Wake, you're spot on.

In glaciers, as in any ice, age is measured in layers.




That's right NotDaMann, that is the way they measure the age of ice in a glacier. That's why I suggested they try taking an ice core from the face of the glacier. So when I was right about how they measure the age of ice, you didn't give me credit for knowing that. Why? You say that science can't define climate or climate change yet they use the age of ice to help determine that.
Kind of why discussing anything with you guys is circular in nature. In the Navy we called it a cluster fück. If they measured it from the glacier's face then they might find out something.
If we consider the Cascade Mountain range in Washington state, how do the clouds rise above the mountain? By it raining in western Washington. Why it rains less in eastern Washington.
They might find the same thing holds true for glaciers. It seems all you guys want to do is to say some one is wrong. That's not debating anything.
19-03-2019 21:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7102)
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
NotDaMann,
Your clever use of logic isn't working.

It's clever, but it isn't working??? If that were so, then it wasn't clever, now was it??

James___ wrote:
The 3 of you seem to be denying that there was a Medieval Warm Period or a Little Ice Age.

What if I was?

James___ wrote:
This is a serious failure of being able to accept reality.

Define 'reality'... You seem to be using the term without knowing what it means...

James___ wrote:
It's funny but the 3 of you use modern technology like the internet

We sure do!!

James___ wrote:
yet say science is a religion.

Wrong. YOU are the one conflating religion with science... Inversion Fallacy.



It seems this is all that you, itn and NotDaMann know. Everybody that I know except for you and your friends accept that we went from a Medieval Warm Period to a Little Ice Age and now it's warming again.

This is the Data Mine. To make such a claim, you must apply the rules set out in the first post of this thread, else it is summarily dismissed. See Rules 1,2,3,4,5, and 8.
James___ wrote:
That's not what the climate debate is about, if it's warming yet as I keep mentioning ad nauseum it's about "if" man is influencing climate change and if so, by how much?

Feel free to post data according to the rules set forth here in the Data Mine.
James___ wrote:
Reality requires us to understand natural climate change first.
At the present moment we don't.

These are undefined phrases. You might try visiting the Word Smithy thread to define 'climate change' or 'natural climate change'.
James___ wrote:
This is why I've mentioned taking ice core samples from the sides/faces of advancing glaciers.
Mentioning it doesn't mean anything in the Data Mine. The data itself is required.
James___ wrote:
They might find that it's "new" ice deposited since the Medieval Warm Period.
Speculation means nothing in the Data Mine.
James___ wrote:
That hasn't been done yet.
So you admit that you have no data whatsoever on this subject.
James___ wrote:
I know it's stupid but then it is my own opinion.

Your opinion counts here IF and only if you have the data presented according to the rules set forth in the first article of the Data Mine.


The Parrot Killer
19-03-2019 21:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7102)
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Define 'reality'... You seem to be using the term without knowing what it means...


I should start a separate thread for this. The Data Mine is designated ONLY to present data according to the rules laid out in the first article, not to discuss the meanings of words.


Yeah, it's a separate thought... I haven't looked through all the pages, but I'd wager that there hasnt been any acceptable data presented from the global warming proponent side of the debate...

Haven't seen it yet. Someone might surprise us someday, though.


The Parrot Killer
19-03-2019 21:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7102)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
NotDaMann,
Your clever use of logic isn't working.

It's clever, but it isn't working??? If that were so, then it wasn't clever, now was it??

James___ wrote:
The 3 of you seem to be denying that there was a Medieval Warm Period or a Little Ice Age.

What if I was?

James___ wrote:
This is a serious failure of being able to accept reality.

Define 'reality'... You seem to be using the term without knowing what it means...

James___ wrote:
It's funny but the 3 of you use modern technology like the internet

We sure do!!

James___ wrote:
yet say science is a religion.

Wrong. YOU are the one conflating religion with science... Inversion Fallacy.



It seems this is all that you, itn and NotDaMann know. Everybody that I know except for you and your friends accept that we went from a Medieval Warm Period to a Little Ice Age and now it's warming again.
That's not what the climate debate is about, if it's warming yet as I keep mentioning ad nauseum it's about "if" man is influencing climate change and if so, by how much?
Reality requires us to understand natural climate change first. At the present moment we don't. This is why I've mentioned taking ice core samples from the sides/faces of advancing glaciers. They might find that it's "new" ice deposited since the Medieval Warm Period. That hasn't been done yet.
This prevents us from understanding if what we are experiencing can be attributed to a natural cycle. This would suggest a feedback mechanism that they've yet to consider.
With me, I'll be stupid and illogical and say that once we can understand natural climate variation then we can start consider if man is influencing it.
I know it's stupid but then it is my own opinion.


James - that isn't the way a glacier works. The "new ice" comes from snow on the top of the glacier back at it's origin and it is older snow advancing. Because the glacier over millenia has scrubbed the glacier path both smooth and clean, there is no way to get carbon dating to ascertain the age at any point along the glacier.

What we do know is that the glaciers DID retreat quite a ways and have been advancing again since around 2012.

This is the Data Mine. Do you have data for this claim? Please present it according to the rules set out in the first article of this thread.
Wake wrote:
The satellite temperature records also show that we are in nothing more than a chaotic uptick in the weather soon to be in the other direction.
Math error. Attempted use of a summary to predict the future. The summary itself is unspecified. Define 'weather uptick' (preferably in the Word Smithy) and how it has a direction..
Wake wrote:
Tony Heller has been publishing a lot of videos showing the falsification that various sources have been making to the historic records. Just recently we saw them saying that the mid-west is suffering from "Record Flooding" yet in 1937 this same area had flooding 80 feet above flood stage.
Please present your data. All data claimed in this paragraphs summarily dismissed until you do.


The Parrot Killer
19-03-2019 21:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7102)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

Credit where it's due. Wake, you're spot on.

In glaciers, as in any ice, age is measured in layers.




That's right NotDaMann, that is the way they measure the age of ice in a glacier. That's why I suggested they try taking an ice core from the face of the glacier. So when I was right about how they measure the age of ice, you didn't give me credit for knowing that. Why? You say that science can't define climate or climate change yet they use the age of ice to help determine that.
Kind of why discussing anything with you guys is circular in nature. In the Navy we called it a cluster fück. If they measured it from the glacier's face then they might find out something.
If we consider the Cascade Mountain range in Washington state, how do the clouds rise above the mountain? By it raining in western Washington. Why it rains less in eastern Washington.
They might find the same thing holds true for glaciers. It seems all you guys want to do is to say some one is wrong. That's not debating anything.


You are just speculating. That means nothing in the Data Mine.


The Parrot Killer
20-03-2019 00:22
Wake
★★★★★
(3946)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: James - that isn't the way a glacier works. The "new ice" comes from snow on the top of the glacier back at it's origin and it is older snow advancing. Because the glacier over millenia has scrubbed the glacier path both smooth and clean, there is no way to get carbon dating to ascertain the age at any point along the glacier.

Credit where it's due. Wake, you're spot on.

In glaciers, as in any ice, age is measured in layers.

Wake wrote: What we do know is that the glaciers DID retreat quite a ways and have been advancing again since around 2012.

Some glaciers advanced and some retreated. As some die others are born.

Wake wrote: The satellite temperature records also show that we are in nothing more than a chaotic uptick in the weather soon to be in the other direction.

Did you just make the claim that past random occurrences forecast future random events? Did you?

Wake wrote: There isn't the slightest chance we can ever know what the real climate is doing as long as the actual records are being falsified by NASA, NOAA and almost an entire group of so-called "scientists" who make their living off of research grants on these subjects and a government that can obtain more and ever more power by frightening the masses.

How about the possibility that we can never know what the real Climate is doing because there is no real Climate, i.e. it is just a religious myth?


The climate isn't totally random. You can adjudge quite a bit using Milankovitch and solar cycles. So they are not totally random and you can observe many things using Ice Core and fossilized plant matter.

If you found a dinosaur fossil with signs that it bore fur what would it tell you?
20-03-2019 00:28
Wake
★★★★★
(3946)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

Credit where it's due. Wake, you're spot on.

In glaciers, as in any ice, age is measured in layers.




That's right NotDaMann, that is the way they measure the age of ice in a glacier. That's why I suggested they try taking an ice core from the face of the glacier. So when I was right about how they measure the age of ice, you didn't give me credit for knowing that. Why? You say that science can't define climate or climate change yet they use the age of ice to help determine that.
Kind of why discussing anything with you guys is circular in nature. In the Navy we called it a cluster fück. If they measured it from the glacier's face then they might find out something.
If we consider the Cascade Mountain range in Washington state, how do the clouds rise above the mountain? By it raining in western Washington. Why it rains less in eastern Washington.
They might find the same thing holds true for glaciers. It seems all you guys want to do is to say some one is wrong. That's not debating anything.


You can't measure age of a short term glacier. As I noted, they grow from the top down and if they haven't been in existence or have been melted and reformed many times you have to use other means. Remember that the top ice is that which melts the first but there is also the problem of expanding and retreating which grinds away the bottom layers.

The Russians used Antarctic and Siberian glacier ice cores that have been around forever.
20-03-2019 00:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7102)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: James - that isn't the way a glacier works. The "new ice" comes from snow on the top of the glacier back at it's origin and it is older snow advancing. Because the glacier over millenia has scrubbed the glacier path both smooth and clean, there is no way to get carbon dating to ascertain the age at any point along the glacier.

Credit where it's due. Wake, you're spot on.

In glaciers, as in any ice, age is measured in layers.

Wake wrote: What we do know is that the glaciers DID retreat quite a ways and have been advancing again since around 2012.

Some glaciers advanced and some retreated. As some die others are born.

Wake wrote: The satellite temperature records also show that we are in nothing more than a chaotic uptick in the weather soon to be in the other direction.

Did you just make the claim that past random occurrences forecast future random events? Did you?

Wake wrote: There isn't the slightest chance we can ever know what the real climate is doing as long as the actual records are being falsified by NASA, NOAA and almost an entire group of so-called "scientists" who make their living off of research grants on these subjects and a government that can obtain more and ever more power by frightening the masses.

How about the possibility that we can never know what the real Climate is doing because there is no real Climate, i.e. it is just a religious myth?


The climate isn't totally random. You can adjudge quite a bit using Milankovitch and solar cycles. So they are not totally random and you can observe many things using Ice Core and fossilized plant matter.

If you found a dinosaur fossil with signs that it bore fur what would it tell you?

That it wasn't a dinosaur.

An ice core can at best tell you what happened at the site of the ice core. It can't tell you anything else.

A plant fossil only tells a plant existed there (whether it grew there is another story).


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-03-2019 00:33
20-03-2019 03:26
James___
★★★★☆
(1030)
IBdaMann wrote:

I never said that science cannot define Climate or Climate Change. I said that science HAS NOT defined either Climate or Climate Change.




And this requirement of yours is what gives you in control, puts you in charge.
I saw yours and isn't's thread. All either of you or gfm wants to do is to debate the definition of words. That's a waste of my time. Yet all 3 of you are hung up on those words like you guys know something that nobody else knows. Have at it boys.
20-03-2019 04:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3411)
James___ wrote: That's right NotDaMann, that is the way they measure the age of ice in a glacier.

That's exactly what I said.

James___ wrote: That's why I suggested they try taking an ice core from the face of the glacier. So when I was right about how they measure the age of ice, you didn't give me credit for knowing that.

OK, I'll give you credit. Thanks for pointing out my oversight.

James___ wrote: You say that science can't define climate or climate change yet they use the age of ice to help determine that.

I never said that science cannot define Climate or Climate Change. I said that science HAS NOT defined either Climate or Climate Change.

Please notice that you STILL have not provided any science to support your argument.

You know, that's worth repeating.

Please notice that you STILL have not provided any science to support your argument.

Also, you seem to be implying that Climate is an ice core; that measuring an ice core is measuring Climate. Is that your understanding? ... that Climate is an ice core?

James___ wrote: In the Navy we called it a cluster fück.

That's funny, that's what we called the Navy!


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-03-2019 04:31
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3411)
Wake wrote:You can't measure age of a short term glacier.

Yes you can. In fact, most glaciers are only a couple of centuries deep, if that, due to the ice flow. Yes there are some that are older and some that are much older, but there is nothing about only having a small number of years of ice that prevents it from being measured.

Wake wrote: As I noted, they grow from the top down ...

Nope. Snow/Ice accumulates on the top, not on the bottom.

Wake wrote: The Russians used Antarctic and Siberian glacier ice cores that have been around forever.

They have over 400K years of data from the Vostok core.

How do you suppose all those years of ice were there if they melted back when they were on top?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-03-2019 13:06
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3411)
Arctic Temperature Data | Specific Bouys | Hardware Specs
20-03-2019 13:07
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(150)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

I never said that science cannot define Climate or Climate Change. I said that science HAS NOT defined either Climate or Climate Change.




And this requirement of yours is what gives you in control, puts you in charge.
I saw yours and isn't's thread. All either of you or gfm wants to do is to debate the definition of words. That's a waste of my time. Yet all 3 of you are hung up on those words like you guys know something that nobody else knows. Have at it boys.


Yes, I need an acceptable definition to work under... If the definition of a word is not agreed upon, then we are just talking past each other... we need to be clear that we are talking about the same thing...
20-03-2019 13:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3411)
gfm7175 wrote: Yes, I need an acceptable definition to work under... If the definition of a word is not agreed upon, then we are just talking past each other... we need to be clear that we are talking about the same thing...

Your point is valid.

Your position is reasonable.

No one is even remotely contesting the definitions posted in this thread and the other. What does that tell you? Yes, that they are spot on.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Edited on 20-03-2019 13:13
20-03-2019 13:29
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(150)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: Yes, I need an acceptable definition to work under... If the definition of a word is not agreed upon, then we are just talking past each other... we need to be clear that we are talking about the same thing...

Your point is valid.

Your position is reasonable.

No one is even remotely contesting the definitions posted in this thread and the other. What does that tell you? Yes, that they are spot on.
and here in the data mine, we're still waiting for acceptable data to be presented from the church of global warming... from what I gather, it hasn't happened yet.
20-03-2019 14:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3411)
gfm7175 wrote: Yes, that they are spot on.
and here in the data mine, we're still waiting for acceptable data to be presented from the church of global warming... from what I gather, it hasn't happened yet.[/quote]
I posted some interesting Arctic temperature data you might like, a few posts up. There's a program, or programme, of temperature buoys that allows us to get Arctic temperatures and to pinpoint their exact locations. When someone tells you that Global Warming is "cooking the polar ice caps" then you can see some actual temperatures and, if you are so inclined, you can research the engineering tolerances of the equipment and adjust, in your own mind, for the margin of error.

Enjoy.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-03-2019 16:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3411)
James___ wrote: Now all you have to do is graph it so it's usable data.

Absolutely not. Graphs are strictly unusable as data. Raw data is what is wanted so that *you* can make whatever graphs you want and I can make whatever charts I want, etc...

I admit that the data are not as convenient as I would want, but I can select the buoy I want and check its temperature data, either surface temperature (Ts) or air tmperature (Ta) provided it was measured.

James___ wrote: I understand this is a game so you can fück with people.

I did use this data to phükc with litesong back in the good ol' days. His thing was the Arctic ice all melting away because Global Warming wasn't hiding at the bottom of the ocean; apparently it has hiding in the polar vortex and FORCING Arctic air down to the US from the N-pole. So the the Global Warming explanation for colder temperatures in the US was the sweltering temperatures cooking the Arctic where presumably nobody would be able to check actual temperatures. Aaaah, litesong and the good ol' days.

James___ wrote: In a sense global warming might not matter.

I think all religions matter, at least to their worshipers.

James___ wrote: After all., in a couple of hundred years it could start cooling again.

It hasn't finished cooling yet but sure, it could continue in a bicentennial.

James___ wrote: Technology will be more advanced so that might not matter. Look at where we were technologically only 100 years ago. No reason to think technological innovation will slow.

Agreed. Tech is popular today. 100 years ago it sunk like the Titanic!


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-03-2019 16:16
James___
★★★★☆
(1030)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: Yes, that they are spot on.
and here in the data mine, we're still waiting for acceptable data to be presented from the church of global warming... from what I gather, it hasn't happened yet.

I posted some interesting Arctic temperature data you might like, a few posts up. There's a program, or programme, of temperature buoys that allows us to get Arctic temperatures and to pinpoint their exact locations. When someone tells you that Global Warming is "cooking the polar ice caps" then you can see some actual temperatures and, if you are so inclined, you can research the engineering tolerances of the equipment and adjust, in your own mind, for the margin of error.

Enjoy.[/quote]


Now all you have to do is graph it so it's usable data. Raw data can be considered as random numbers. Make it so the numbers have meaning.
I understand this is a game so you can fück with people. In a sense global warming might not matter. After all., in a couple of hundred years it could start cooling again. Technology will be more advanced so that might not matter.
Look at where we were technologically only 100 years ago. No reason to think technological innovation will slow.
20-03-2019 20:11
James___
★★★★☆
(1030)
IBdaMann wrote:


James___ wrote: Technology will be more advanced so that might not matter. Look at where we were technologically only 100 years ago. No reason to think technological innovation will slow.

Agreed. Tech is popular today. 100 years ago it sunk like the Titanic!


A Titanic null hypothesis to be logical. The Titanic was sunk by a Super Moon that caused earthquakes in Greenland. In the 1920's scientists started monitoring earthquakes around Greenland for the first time because the Arctic started warming. Nature lovers (whale watchers) noticed that the White whale migrated north towards the Hudson Bay because it LOVES cold Arctic waters.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/03/120306-titanic-supermoon-moon-science-iceberg-sky-sink/

p.s., earthquakes would've caused excessive calving of glaciers on Greenland's west coast where the Labrador Current took them south into the sea lanes.

Back to meaningless data;
1698; First steam engine patented
1791; First gas turbine patented
1800; Volta invents the battery
1838; First telegraph message sent
1879; Edison invents the light bulb
1888; Tesla invents AC generator
1903; Powered flight was realized by the Wright Bros.
1920; First radio broadcast was made
1941; colour TV invented
1945; First atomic bomb detonated
1947; First transistor invented
1952; First hydrogen bomb detonated
1956; First video recorder
1958; First video game invented (it was pong) https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200810/physicshistory.cfm
1959; First satellite
1967; First floppy disk drive invented
1971; First single micro processor chip invented
1971; First personal computer invented
1973: mobile phone invented
1992; First smart phone

Just look at what we've turned a few basic inventions into. It's just that all of them allowed for so many other things. Yet for years I've had people tell me, If I can't find the answer in a book then it's just not possible. Yet if anyone looks at the lists of firsts, they know what came next.
By the way, why do glaciers melt from the sides First or First their sides calve off?
Interesting thought. When glaciers slide because they will melt from the bottom first, does that generate more heat? The Earth itself in the Arctic will be warmer than the atmosphere.
In Iceland, most glacier melt is from volcanoes under the glaciers and not because of Global Warming. The Greenland Sea abyss is warming at a faster rate than probably any other place on our planet.
But how to interpret data? Does it even matter? It seems that in the end that technology will dictate our lives. It's everywhere today.
20-03-2019 20:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7102)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


James___ wrote: Technology will be more advanced so that might not matter. Look at where we were technologically only 100 years ago. No reason to think technological innovation will slow.

Agreed. Tech is popular today. 100 years ago it sunk like the Titanic!


...deleted Holy Link...
A Titanic null hypothesis to be logical. The Titanic was sunk by a Super Moon that caused earthquakes in Greenland.

Super Moons don't cause earthquakes. The Moon wasn't even full at the time of the disaster. It was on the last sliver of the last quarter. The Moon was already waning when the Titanic left port. Perigee for the Moon occurs once each month. Also, there were three other ships making the voyage through the same area at the time. They didn't hit icebergs. Iceberg activity was about normal for that time of the year.

The other bit about this idiot story from the National Geographic is that Earth was at perihelion on the day of the sinking. It wasn't. Perihelion occurs in January, not in April. It doesn't cause earthquakes either.
James___ wrote:
In the 1920's scientists started monitoring earthquakes around Greenland for the first time because the Arctic started warming.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of 'the Arctic'.
James___ wrote:
Nature lovers (whale watchers) noticed that the White whale migrated north towards the Hudson Bay because it LOVES cold Arctic waters.

Normal migration for the Beluga whale (also known as the 'white' whale).
James___ wrote:
p.s., earthquakes would've caused excessive calving of glaciers on Greenland's west coast where the Labrador Current took them south into the sea lanes.
No known earthquakes in the area. Iceberg activity was about normal for that time of year.
James___ wrote:
Back to meaningless data;
...deleted meaningless data...
...deleted nonsense...
By the way, why do glaciers melt from the sides First or First their sides calve off?

They don't.
James___ wrote:
Interesting thought. When glaciers slide because they will melt from the bottom first, does that generate more heat?

Unknown. Science actually doesn't know what causes water to melt when you put pressure on it like that.
James___ wrote:
The Earth itself in the Arctic will be warmer than the atmosphere.

It generally is. That's true pretty much everywhere, not just the Arctic.
...deleted meaningless data...
James___ wrote:
The Greenland Sea abyss is warming at a faster rate than probably any other place on our planet.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of ocean or sea. Define 'warming'.
James___ wrote:
But how to interpret data? Does it even matter?
Yes, it does. That's what the whole branch of philosophy known as Phenomenology is all about.
James___ wrote:
It seems that in the end that technology will dictate our lives. It's everywhere today.

That's a problem? Certainly not anything new!


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-03-2019 20:33
20-03-2019 22:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7102)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Super Moons don't cause earthquakes. The Moon wasn't even full at the time of the disaster. It was on the last sliver of the last quarter. The Moon was already waning when the Titanic left port. Perigee for the Moon occurs once each month. Also, there were three other ships making the voyage through the same area at the time. They didn't hit icebergs. Iceberg activity was about normal for that time of the year.



You're right isn't. The Moon can't cause earthquakes. Why any fool knows it's 230,000 miles from the Earth. I am glad someone in here understands Newton's Theory Of Gravity; F = G(M1, M2/r^2) https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/8c6ee5510ba3c7d6664775c0e76b53e72468303a
There is simply nothing in science that even begins to suggest that the Moon or the Earth could influence the other. Logic clearly states, 230,000 miles is simply to great of a distance for a long distance relationship.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/earthquakes-why-do-they-happen-moon-tidal-stress-nature-research-evidence-japan-a7239896.html


Read very carefully what I said. Super Moons don't cause earthquakes. Whether the Moon can cause earthquakes is unknown. I consider it unlikely, since the effect on the land moves the land together.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-03-2019 22:30
20-03-2019 22:47
James___
★★★★☆
(1030)
Into the Night wrote:

Super Moons don't cause earthquakes. The Moon wasn't even full at the time of the disaster. It was on the last sliver of the last quarter. The Moon was already waning when the Titanic left port. Perigee for the Moon occurs once each month. Also, there were three other ships making the voyage through the same area at the time. They didn't hit icebergs. Iceberg activity was about normal for that time of the year.



You're right isn't. The Moon can't cause earthquakes. Why any fool knows it's 230,000 miles from the Earth. I am glad someone in here understands Newton's Theory Of Gravity; F = G(M1, M2/r^2) https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/8c6ee5510ba3c7d6664775c0e76b53e72468303a
There is simply nothing in science that even begins to suggest that the Moon or the Earth could influence the other. Logic clearly states, 230,000 miles is simply to great of a distance for a long distance relationship.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/earthquakes-why-do-they-happen-moon-tidal-stress-nature-research-evidence-japan-a7239896.html
Edited on 20-03-2019 22:48
21-03-2019 15:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3411)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Super Moons don't cause earthquakes. The Moon wasn't even full at the time of the disaster. It was on the last sliver of the last quarter. The Moon was already waning when the Titanic left port. Perigee for the Moon occurs once each month. Also, there were three other ships making the voyage through the same area at the time. They didn't hit icebergs. Iceberg activity was about normal for that time of the year.



You're right isn't. The Moon can't cause earthquakes. Why any fool knows it's 230,000 miles from the Earth. I am glad someone in here understands Newton's Theory Of Gravity; F = G(M1, M2/r^2) https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/8c6ee5510ba3c7d6664775c0e76b53e72468303a
There is simply nothing in science that even begins to suggest that the Moon or the Earth could influence the other. Logic clearly states, 230,000 miles is simply to great of a distance for a long distance relationship.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/earthquakes-why-do-they-happen-moon-tidal-stress-nature-research-evidence-japan-a7239896.html

Maybe it's a teleconnection! We can't rule that out, at least from what I gather from this publication.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-03-2019 17:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7102)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Super Moons don't cause earthquakes. The Moon wasn't even full at the time of the disaster. It was on the last sliver of the last quarter. The Moon was already waning when the Titanic left port. Perigee for the Moon occurs once each month. Also, there were three other ships making the voyage through the same area at the time. They didn't hit icebergs. Iceberg activity was about normal for that time of the year.



You're right isn't. The Moon can't cause earthquakes. Why any fool knows it's 230,000 miles from the Earth. I am glad someone in here understands Newton's Theory Of Gravity; F = G(M1, M2/r^2) https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/8c6ee5510ba3c7d6664775c0e76b53e72468303a
There is simply nothing in science that even begins to suggest that the Moon or the Earth could influence the other. Logic clearly states, 230,000 miles is simply to great of a distance for a long distance relationship.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/earthquakes-why-do-they-happen-moon-tidal-stress-nature-research-evidence-japan-a7239896.html

Maybe it's a teleconnection! We can't rule that out, at least from what I gather from this publication.

Since that word does seem to refer to anything the Church of Global Warming wants to connect together over distance, perhaps so.


The Parrot Killer
Page 7 of 7<<<567





Join the debate The Data Mine:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Satellite confirms key NASA temperature data: The planet is warming — and fast019-04-2019 15:37
Serious question, is there any data on how many people that believe in AGW106-01-2019 21:35
Headed For A New Ice Age? Latest Data Says Yes!1505-05-2018 03:44
Ideas of Mine3611-02-2018 21:41
TEMPERATURE DATA released for 20171127-01-2018 23:56
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact