Remember me
▼ Content

100,000 year cycles



Page 2 of 3<123>
11-03-2020 20:58
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(907)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
What you should have done is to have clarified of what exactly ... instead of asking him a question without context. .


I have clarified my question

No you haven't. CO2 levels of what? Temperature of what?

tmiddles wrote:
and it is what does he consider a good example to clarify his calling in this case ice core data RandU ect.

Separate topic. You sure love bouncing all over the place, don't you?

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Why are you trying to analyze randU numbers as if they were accurate measurements?
This is written as though gfm expects I know what he means by "accurate measurements". I don't. Let's have an example to clear that up.

What is unclear or problematic about that?

You have always refused the same question but I've never gotten an explanation as to why.

Separate topic. FOCUS.
11-03-2020 21:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3245)
gfm7175 wrote:
No you haven't. CO2 levels of what? Temperature of what?

So I should guess randomly as to what you consider reliable?

OK

CO2 levels as presented by ITN
From something called the "The Data Mine"
Into the Night wrote:


Data collection began...Included to get this out of the way up front.


And how about the temperature of your home as determined by your thermostat (assuming you have one).

But again the purpose of my question is how you are distinguishing good data from bad data.

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
and it is what does he consider a good example to clarify his calling in this case ice core data RandU ect.

Separate topic. You sure love bouncing all over the place, don't you?.
you were just calling BS on this entire topic based on your standard for BS. How an I "bouncing around" following up on that?
Edited on 11-03-2020 21:13
11-03-2020 21:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12769)
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]keepit wrote:
IBDM,
Are you saying CO2 doesn't block IR radiation?

You're absolutely correct in that CO2 absorbs IR. This means the radiance is destroyed and becomes thermal energy. That's a block.]/quote]
That is not a block. CO2 also radiates.
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
The radiance is then re-emitted by the CO2 in all directions.

So in the long run the exact same amount of IR will be coming through the CO2 as would be the case if no CO2 where in the way to begin with.

So a portion of the radiance that we started with was destroyed. It was blocked. The radiance coming out of the CO2 cloud now is from the CO2.

And no that's not the same as transmission of thermal energy or electrical energy. The radiance is destroyed, a different form of energy results, thermal energy, that is then lost as radiance is emitted.]/quote]
So you are in the same paradox as last time. Which is it, dude?
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
Denying this would be like saying solar panels don't block Sun light, because I have a lamp on in my house.
]/quote]
Solar panels DO block the sun. Notice the shadow beneath them.


The Parrot Killer
11-03-2020 21:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12769)
keepit wrote:
Tmid,
One thing you didn't mention in your last post is that of the incoming IR, half is absorbed by the co2 and half gets through to the earth. Of that half, (now 25% of the original), it is reemitted but it is then absorbed by the co2 and the remaining escapes back out to space. In summary 50% of incoming IR gets thru to earth and of the outgoing, 50% of it gets back out to space.

Math error. You are dividing the same thing twice by 2 and calling them equal.

You are making up numbers too.

Mantras 25g...25a.


The Parrot Killer
11-03-2020 21:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12769)
HarveyH55 wrote:
keepit wrote:
Tmid,
One thing you didn't mention in your last post is that of the incoming IR, half is absorbed by the co2 and half gets through to the earth. Of that half, (now 25% of the original), it is reemitted but it is then absorbed by the co2 and the remaining escapes back out to space. In summary 50% of incoming IR gets thru to earth and of the outgoing, 50% of it gets back out to space.


But, you forget CO2 only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, not much, and it's a huge planet. There are a lot of of gases and vapors, in much larger concentrations. There is conduction, and convection. The Norwegian Jet Stream, carrying cold arctic air down from the north.

The earth's atmosphere is considerably more dynamic, and complex, than a jar full of CO2 in a lab.


Irrelevant. CO2 has absolutely NO capability to warm the Earth, using IR emitted from Earth's surface.


The Parrot Killer
11-03-2020 21:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12769)
keepit wrote:
Harvey,
As i see it, and i'm not an expert, the .04% is enough to hold back 1/2 of the IR getting to it, in either direction. That's just the way it is.
Also, regardless of the complexities of the atmosphere, the co2 percentage distributes itself evenly and does what it does.


Mantras 25g.

CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.


The Parrot Killer
11-03-2020 21:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12769)
keepit wrote:
gfm/ITN,
You're the one that misinterprets so many things.

Two does not equal one. Math error.
keepit wrote:
Just trying to get you to put your credibility where your mouth is, so to speak

Mantra 36e.


The Parrot Killer
11-03-2020 21:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12769)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 20p...25g...25c...2...29...29...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
11-03-2020 22:44
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(907)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
No you haven't. CO2 levels of what? Temperature of what?

So I should guess randomly as to what you consider reliable?

You're jumping way ahead of yourself. We're not talking about reliability of anything yet... We're still stuck on specifying the content of your initial question.

CO2 levels of what, specifically? Temperature of what, specifically?

tmiddles wrote:
OK

CO2 levels as presented by ITN
From something called the "The Data Mine"
[quote]Into the Night wrote:


Data collection began...Included to get this out of the way up front.

Okay, so are you asking about CO2 levels at the Mauna Loa Observatory? If so, what about them?

tmiddles wrote:
And how about the temperature of your home as determined by your thermostat (assuming you have one).

Okay, so are you asking about the temperature of the location of my home thermostat? If so, what about it?

tmiddles wrote:
But again the purpose of my question is how you are distinguishing good data from bad data.

Data that adheres to logic, math, and science vs "data" that rejects some or all of those things.

For example, I could keep an excel spreadsheet of hourly readings (taken at 12:00am, 1:00am, 2:00am, etc.) of the temperature reading of my home thermostat that is set at 66degF.

Now, what could I claim from this data? I could claim that at 2:00am, the temperature at the location of the thermostat was 66degF. I could claim that at 12:00pm, the temperature at the location of the thermostat was 70degF. What can't I claim from this data?? I can't claim that the temperature of my house at 2:00am was 66degF. I can't claim that the temperature at the location of the thermostat at 2:16am was 66degF.

Let's say that I also have a second thermometer in my bedroom that I follow an identical protocol on recording the readings thereof. What can I claim from this data? I can claim that the temp of the bedroom thermometer at 2:00am was 58degF. I could also claim that (at 2:00am) the average of those two thermometers (why I would care to know this, idk...) was 62degF. What can't I claim from this data? I can't claim that the temperature of my house at 2:00am was 62degF.

Let's now say that I happen to take the measurements of the bedroom located thermometer at different times than I do with the thermostat. What can I claim from that data? I can claim that at 2:00am, the thermostat was 66degF, and at 2:15am, the thermometer was 59degF. What can't I claim from that data? I can't claim that the temperature of my house at 2:00am was 62.5degF.

tmiddles wrote:
you were just calling BS on this entire topic based on your standard for BS. How an I "bouncing around" following up on that?

Because you are not following a single line of thought. You're bouncing around to other things without answering my questions and following through with that conversation first before moving on to other things.
Edited on 11-03-2020 22:50
11-03-2020 23:26
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3245)
gfm7175 wrote:...We're not talking about reliability of anything yet...
????

We have:
gfm7175 wrote:
keepit wrote:
Looking closely at them it ...
Why are you trying to analyze randU numbers as if they were accurate measurements?
keepit wrote:Some say that graph proves ....
Again, why are you trying to analyze randU numbers as if they were accurate measurements?
You are not required to believe something to be true just because it is presented on a pretty looking chart/graph.

I would call that simply questioning the reliability of something. Yeah.

gfm7175 wrote:Okay, so are you asking about CO2 levels at the Mauna Loa Observatory? If so, what about them?
Do you agree with this statement about them (link):
Into the Night wrote:... reliable and verifiable data.

But really this is a silly game of you asking me what you think about things so you can say yes or no. How about YOU let me know what YOU think?

gfm7175 wrote:...my home thermostat? If so, what about it?
Is it RandU? Is it Reliable? Can you "Know" or "Have Confidence" in anything based upon it? Or again, how about YOU speak for yourself and not ask me what you think.

gfm7175 wrote:....I can't claim that the temperature of my house...I can't claim that the temperature at the location...I can't claim that the temperature of my house...I can't claim that the temperature of my house.
So in your example you can can't claim what the temperature is in your house based on an example, but how about an example where you CAN claim what the temperature of your house is? All you said you COULD do was write numbers down and call it a day. But those measurements would NOT be BS or RandU or useless right?

And ITN's Moana Loa numbers are good too?
12-03-2020 02:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12769)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 16c...25g...16c...29...29...29...29...29...17...25c...29...29...29...
And ITN's Moana Loa numbers are good too?


Not my numbers. These numbers are published by Mauna Loa observatory. They are cooked data. RQAA.

No arguments presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
12-03-2020 03:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3245)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...And ITN's Moana Loa numbers are good too?


Not my numbers. These numbers are published by Mauna Loa observatory. They are cooked data.....
Then why did you use it to make your arguments and call it:

"reliable and verifiable data."-ITN

"I have already presented the data from Mauna Loa. This is the form and support I would expect of any data. Use that as a 'form guide' if you wish, remembering the rules I set up."-ITN

"I have examined charts...As far as I have been able to determine, there is no effective correlation between the two at all."-ITN Why examine cooked data???

"You might also note that a lot of data that conformed to the rules has been presented other than the individual station data. The Mauna Loa data, for example, has been presented in a form that completely follows the rules set up for the data mine." -ITN Sure sounds like it's a model to me.

Oh but wait, you're saying Muana Loa is not a good data source but that other thing is. What was that other thing ITN? The data you actually find reliable? I can't remember. because you claim nothing is reliable since the Data Mine, nothing at all ~~~~NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN!!!

Except! You sure did know this stuff didn't you ITN:
Into the Night wrote:In the case of Venus, that atmosphere has almost no hydrogen in it at all.
Into the Night wrote:The Venusian atmosphere is almost all CO2.
Into the Night wrote:The surface pressure is 90 times the surface pressure on Earth.
Into the Night wrote:...the high temperatures of Venus.
from the DATA MINE

I believe the official mantra is the SHAMELESS HYPOCRITE Fallacy.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
12-03-2020 04:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12769)
tmiddles wrote:deleted Mantras 29...29...29...10 (reliable<->valid)...10 (rules<->model)...29...29...29...29...29...7...1...


No arguments presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
12-03-2020 04:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3245)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:... mantra is the SHAMELESS HYPOCRITE Fallacy.
....No arguments presented. RQAA.
Don't you wish!
12-03-2020 06:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12769)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]tmiddles wrote:... mantra is the SHAMELESS HYPOCRITE Fallacy.
....No arguments presented. RQAA.
...deleted Mantra 7...22...

No arguments presented.


The Parrot Killer
12-03-2020 17:07
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(907)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:...We're not talking about reliability of anything yet...
????

We have:
gfm7175 wrote:
keepit wrote:
Looking closely at them it ...
Why are you trying to analyze randU numbers as if they were accurate measurements?
keepit wrote:Some say that graph proves ....
Again, why are you trying to analyze randU numbers as if they were accurate measurements?
You are not required to believe something to be true just because it is presented on a pretty looking chart/graph.

I would call that simply questioning the reliability of something. Yeah.

Contextomy Fallacy.

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:Okay, so are you asking about CO2 levels at the Mauna Loa Observatory? If so, what about them?
Do you agree with this statement about them (link):

The link is just showing me the page, not the comment that you wish for me to look at.

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:... reliable and verifiable data.

But really this is a silly game of you asking me what you think about things so you can say yes or no. How about YOU let me know what YOU think?

RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:...my home thermostat? If so, what about it?
Is it RandU? Is it Reliable? Can you "Know" or "Have Confidence" in anything based upon it? Or again, how about YOU speak for yourself and not ask me what you think.

This has already been addressed in my last post.

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:....I can't claim that the temperature of my house...I can't claim that the temperature at the location...I can't claim that the temperature of my house...I can't claim that the temperature of my house.
So in your example you can can't claim what the temperature is in your house based on an example, but how about an example where you CAN claim what the temperature of your house is? All you said you COULD do was write numbers down and call it a day. But those measurements would NOT be BS or RandU or useless right?

This has already been explained to you as well. Even a house has numerous issues with attempting to come up with a "temperature of the whole house".

My house has an attic, a stone floored/walled basement, as well as a crawlspace, so we'd have to agree upon what the boundaries are that we would call "house". It also has an "upstairs" and a "downstairs" (more floor is carpeted than is not, but plenty of the floor inside isn't carpeted). It's a very old house (what used to be a small farm), so let's just say that (even more-so than most modern houses) there is a very high temperature variance within the house (depending upon where you are standing inside of it and what time of day it is and what time of year it is). Also, some rooms are very windowed and the sun shines into them very well, and other rooms are less windowed (and have shades that remain closed) so those rooms don't get much, if any, sunlight.

At times during the Winter, it can approach 78degF at my thermometer's location inside of the room with my fireplace burning, while my bedroom (where the thermometer is located) can approach a chilly 58degF or less. That's already at least a 20degF possible temperature variance right there.

There are areas of the house where I could literally take a step or two and it would be significantly warmer/cooler than where I was standing previously. Even within the living room, where there are two thermometers (one on the wall on one side of the room and one on the wall on the other side of the room), the temperature between the two thermometers has been observed to vary as much as 5degF.

tmiddles wrote:
And ITN's Moana Loa numbers are good too?

Those are not ITN's numbers. Those numbers belong to Mauna Loa Observatory.
Edited on 12-03-2020 17:24
13-03-2020 03:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3245)
gfm7175 wrote:
Contextomy Fallacy.
That was THIS very thread gfm. It goes like this:
GFM: That data is unreliable
Tmiddles: What do you mean by unreliable?
GFM: Woah, we're not talking about reliability!
Tmiddles: You just were
GFM: Contextonomy Fallacy

I think it's the DODGE THE DEBATE Fallacy.

gfm7175 wrote:The link is just showing me the page, not the comment that you wish for me to look at.
tmiddles wrote:Do you agree with this statement about them
Into the Night wrote:... reliable and verifiable data.
Right there. I highlighted it in RED so you can see it now. That is a quote from ITN. Do you agree with him?

gfm7175 wrote:....Even a house has numerous issues with attempting to come up with a "temperature of the whole house".
Sure, the real world has complexity. Are you saying you can make no determinations about the temperature of your whole house with any confidence? I thought not being able to know the temperature of Denver was funny but not knowing the temperature of your own house takes the cake. As it is you've said nothing about what conclusions you could be confident of, only what you have doubts about.

Science is applied effectively and is incredibly useful with or without your participation.

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
And ITN's Moana Loa numbers are good too?

Those are not ITN's numbers. Those numbers belong to Mauna Loa Observatory.
Yeah and he considered them reliable. Do you?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
13-03-2020 16:15
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(907)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Contextomy Fallacy.
That was THIS very thread gfm. It goes like this:
GFM: That data is unreliable
Tmiddles: What do you mean by unreliable?
GFM: Woah, we're not talking about reliability!
Tmiddles: You just were
GFM: Contextonomy Fallacy

I think it's the DODGE THE DEBATE Fallacy.

Not how the conversation went.

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:The link is just showing me the page, not the comment that you wish for me to look at.
tmiddles wrote:Do you agree with this statement about them
Into the Night wrote:... reliable and verifiable data.
Right there. I highlighted it in RED so you can see it now. That is a quote from ITN. Do you agree with him?

About what? You've provided me with an incomplete quote with no context. You sure love playing games, don't you?

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:....Even a house has numerous issues with attempting to come up with a "temperature of the whole house".
Sure, the real world has complexity. Are you saying you can make no determinations about the temperature of your whole house with any confidence? I thought not being able to know the temperature of Denver was funny but not knowing the temperature of your own house takes the cake. As it is you've said nothing about what conclusions you could be confident of, only what you have doubts about.

Science is applied effectively and is incredibly useful with or without your participation.

Yes, I'm saying that I have no clue what the temperature of my house is. I only know the temperature of four specific spots within my house. Of those four spots, I have observed variances of up to 20degF (during the Winter months).

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
And ITN's Moana Loa numbers are good too?

Those are not ITN's numbers. Those numbers belong to Mauna Loa Observatory.
Yeah and he considered them reliable. Do you?

Lie. He never said they were reliable numbers. He's regularly said that they are cooked numbers since there aren't data spikes whenever the nearby volcano erupts.
13-03-2020 18:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12769)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 30...25c...16b...4c...29...4c...29...25c...11...25c...29...25c...29...30...20m...20j...4c...25c...29...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
13-03-2020 19:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12769)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted TMSb8...TMSb5...


No argument presented. RQAA.

New sequence noticed. documented here:

Sequence B:
1) argues a violation of physics
2) when challenged, Turns to vague scenario or misquoting as a 'proof'.
3) when challenged, repeats the 'proof' ad nauseum.
4) drags the 'proof' up again in an unrelated conversation as 'proof'
of the bulverism.
5) In a 'daddy said no, so I'll ask mommy' routine, individually seeks
confirmation of his 'proof' to justify bulverism.
6) When challenged, assigns bogus positions to people and attacks on
that basis.
7) Turns to proving by dropping names.
8) When challenged, claims the challenger is dodging.
8) Includes any new challenger to his bulverism.


The Parrot Killer
13-03-2020 20:49
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(907)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...deleted TMSb8...TMSb5...


No argument presented. RQAA.

New sequence noticed. documented here:

Sequence B:
1) argues a violation of physics
2) when challenged, Turns to vague scenario or misquoting as a 'proof'.
3) when challenged, repeats the 'proof' ad nauseum.
4) drags the 'proof' up again in an unrelated conversation as 'proof'
of the bulverism.
5) In a 'daddy said no, so I'll ask mommy' routine, individually seeks
confirmation of his 'proof' to justify bulverism.
6) When challenged, assigns bogus positions to people and attacks on
that basis.
7) Turns to proving by dropping names.
8) When challenged, claims the challenger is dodging.
9) Includes any new challenger to his bulverism.


**peer reviews the documentation of the new sequence, corrects the accidentally repeated "8" by changing it into a "9", and hereby approves the documentation of the new sequence**

Edited on 13-03-2020 20:51
13-03-2020 21:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12769)
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...deleted TMSb8...TMSb5...


No argument presented. RQAA.

New sequence noticed. documented here:

Sequence B:
1) argues a violation of physics
2) when challenged, Turns to vague scenario or misquoting as a 'proof'.
3) when challenged, repeats the 'proof' ad nauseum.
4) drags the 'proof' up again in an unrelated conversation as 'proof'
of the bulverism.
5) In a 'daddy said no, so I'll ask mommy' routine, individually seeks
confirmation of his 'proof' to justify bulverism.
6) When challenged, assigns bogus positions to people and attacks on
that basis.
7) Turns to proving by dropping names.
8) When challenged, claims the challenger is dodging.
9) Includes any new challenger to his bulverism.


**peer reviews the documentation of the new sequence, corrects the accidentally repeated "8" by changing it into a "9", and hereby approves the documentation of the new sequence**

Thanks for catching that. Corrected.


The Parrot Killer
13-03-2020 23:57
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3245)
gfm7175 wrote:
GFM: Contextonomy Fallacy....
Not how the conversation went.
So why did you say contextonomy?

gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:... reliable and verifiable data.

About what?
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
And ITN's Moana Loa numbers are good too?
Lie. He never said they were reliable numbers. He's regularly said that they are cooked numbers ....
Not in the DATA MINE he didn't. He has since certainly. But let him speak for himself (it's a pretty short thread, just 8 pages so review yourself. I linked but OK here you go:

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...data can appear in chart form, BUT it must be valid RAW data for the purposes of statistical math. It also has NOTHING to do with the problems of measuring the temperature of Venus.
Source: Venera 8: Measurements of Temperature,
So you posted this in the Data Mine 4 years ago, excerpts below.
Into the Night wrote:
Data collection began in 1958....

IBD accepted the data as useful/valid/legit as it was presented.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I have already presented the data from Mauna Loa. This is the form and support I would expect of any data....
...I was wondering if you had any suggestion on acquiring global humidity and atmospheric water vapor data...

ITN you go on to use the data in your arguments and conclusions:
Into the Night wrote:
trafn wrote:...2. To you, how does this data impact questions concerning GHG's...
I also posted another set of data (...does not allow me to post the actual plots...) concerning the temperature ...near Seattle...I see no correlation with the temperatures in Seattle to the increase of carbon dioxide. I have examined charts...As far as I have been able to determine, there is no effective correlation between the two at all.
Into the Night wrote:
climate scientist wrote:...Just because you do not see a correlation ...does not mean that they are not linked.
Actually, yes it does. It exactly means they are not linked.

IBD posted some data and you certainly sound as though you are referring back to your own Moana Loa data as "reliable and verifiable data"..
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
For example:...data...
10/21/2300Z 82.926°N 85.428°W -24.1°C 1001.7mb...
10/21/2200Z 82.926°N 85.428°W -23.7°C 1001.6mb
....Thank you for providing another source of reliable and verifiable data.

You indicate that the government has collected "reilable data":.
Into the Night wrote:Reliable data goes back to 1944 when we first started flying aircraft into hurricanes.

You use this data you consider reliable to make arguments again:
Into the Night wrote:As you can see, by any measure, hurricane activity seems to have NO correlation with either CO2 concentration, temperature...

You make a claim very similar to my own here, in insisting that data is available so let's proceed with a debate:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
What is the source of your data?

IBdaMann wrote:
My source is terrible. If you don't accept it, I'll understand. I grabbed the first datums I encountered.

Surface Detail wrote:
Just provide a link to the source of your data, please.

You have the data in both Atlantic and Pacific basins. You no longer have an excuse to evade the conversation. Stop calling people names and proceed with your discussion.....You have been EVADING a sensible conversation by ...demanding data to be formatted in a particular way...Start having a discussion about the meaning of the data you have!

At no point do you seem to lose confidence in the Moana Loa chart, saying toward the end of the thread:
Into the Night wrote:
You might also note that a lot of data that conformed to the rules has been presented other than the individual station data. The Mauna Loa data, for example, has been presented in a form that completely follows the rules set up for the data mine.

ITN Never once says anything negative about the Mauna Loa data int he Data Mine. He uses it to make his arguments and presents it as a model.

gfm7175 wrote:
Yes, I'm saying that I have no clue what the temperature of my house is.
I appreciate the direct answer. OK I am thinking that this is worthy of a real topic of it's own (but one well supported, and I'm incapable of doing that at the moment). I think I see your point and it's legitimate. So let's table it for now and I'll get back to you on this. I personally don't know how the statistical math is applied to measurements to have a clue so I have to learn that first but it'll be fun.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
14-03-2020 00:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12769)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...8...4c...lie...29...4c...30...25c...29...6...29...TMSb6...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 14-03-2020 00:06
14-03-2020 00:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3245)
Into the Night wrote:
Sequence B:
1) argues a violation of physics
2) when challenged, Turns to vague scenario or misquoting as a 'proof'.
How is saying RQAA a challenge? Your refuse to debate me at all ITN.

I have proven that YOU have argued violations of Physics here:
ITN misapplies the 1st LTD
And here:
VENUS also disproves an assertion relied on heavily here by ITN/IBD: PL/SB
You have had no response and no rebuttal.

But most astoundingly you've had no "challenge" or response to your total hypocrisy here:
ITN making numerous factual statements about VENUS when it suited his own arguments
14-03-2020 00:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3245)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...8...4c...lie...29...4c...30...25c...29...6...29...TMSb6...


No argument presented. RQAA.


"8) When challenged, claims the challenger is dodging."

So do you think you just "challenged" me? Is RQAA a challenge in your view?

Your string of numbers in incomprehensible and I've tried to respond to them int he past. You simply ignore what I post with "RQAA"
14-03-2020 00:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12769)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted TMSb8...Mantras 7...TMSb4...29...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
14-03-2020 00:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12769)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 2...lie...29..


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
14-03-2020 00:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12769)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 17...TMSb3...29...7...16c...4c...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
14-03-2020 00:22
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3245)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...I've tried to respond to them int he past. You simply ignore what I post with "RQAA"
...lie.
I have to assuming you're calling that statement a lie. So here is one example of many:

From: 2nd Law:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantra 4b...22...25f...33...20a2...

No response argument. Evasion. No argument presented.

My response to you as I looked up each mantra you cited:
tmiddles wrote:
IBD has no response to my post I think?

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted
Mantra 4b:https://politiplex.freeforums.net/post/134 (I've added your comments from the other thread.)
22: Void Argument :
No clue what you mean when you say this ITN. Ironically it is a "void argument".

25f:Math Error,Contrivance as Proof :
Are you implying that it's not possible to do a problem on paper? If you are take it up with IBD it was his scenario I solved for.

33:Erroneously Declaring a Theory to be Science :
I defintely did not say anything was "science" at any point. Totally baseless

20a2:Science Denial, Violation of Thermodynamics :
Now see here is where you need to actually make an argument. Assuming you're correct without supporting your position is simply to dodge the debate.
No response argument. Evasion. No argument presented...Lie.
* You presented a contrived example as a proof.
So the first scenario is IBD's, not mine. And there is nothing wrong with a hypothetical example. Are you willing to debate the thermodynamics of dead bodies? You better bet I can get data on that from real crimes.
* You are also still ignoring the different between electromagnetic energy and thermal energy. They are different.
No I'm not. When EM is absorbed it's converted to thermal. How am I confusing things?
* You are also still assuming all photons are the same. They are not.
So what. A perfect black body absorbs everything and a known emissivity allows you to calculate the percentage absorbed. Right?
* You are also assuming that a photon must be absorbed. They do not.
See the answer above. Of course with emissivities <1 some photons are reflected.
* You are still ignoring the difference between temperature and thermal energy. They are different.
How am I? How does that apply here?
* You are still ignoring quantum physics. No atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has.
See here you are assuming your position is correct without debating. I'm not sure what you mean by that exactly but are you saying my calculations are wrong? Did I get the wrong results in terms of the change in thermal energy?
* There is no such thing as 'net heat'.
How about you actually debate this issue with me? I never say "net heat" only you say that. You and IBD love to play that game.

ITN: Do you or do you not disagree with the following:
"Radiance from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer one"

ITN: Are you willing to debate, with calculations, the thermal energy changes for a dead human body in a room?

Your response back:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBD has no response to my post I think?
...deleted Mantras 2...29...17...15...17...25f...lie...29...4b...When EM is absorbed it's converted to thermal.
...deleted Mantra 29...20b...2...25f...10 (calculation<->statement)...lie...29...20a2...29...25f...6...

No argument presented. RQAA.

That is incomprehesible ITN.
14-03-2020 01:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12769)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 2...17...29...

No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
14-03-2020 07:19
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(907)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
GFM: Contextonomy Fallacy....
Not how the conversation went.
So why did you say contextonomy?

I didn't. Look at the convo again.

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:... reliable and verifiable data.

About what?
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
And ITN's Moana Loa numbers are good too?
Lie. He never said they were reliable numbers. He's regularly said that they are cooked numbers ....
Not in the DATA MINE he didn't. He has since certainly. But let him speak for himself (it's a pretty short thread, just 8 pages so review yourself. I linked but OK here you go:

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...data can appear in chart form, BUT it must be valid RAW data for the purposes of statistical math. It also has NOTHING to do with the problems of measuring the temperature of Venus.
Source: Venera 8: Measurements of Temperature,
So you posted this in the Data Mine 4 years ago, excerpts below.
Into the Night wrote:
Data collection began in 1958....

IBD accepted the data as useful/valid/legit as it was presented.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I have already presented the data from Mauna Loa. This is the form and support I would expect of any data....
...I was wondering if you had any suggestion on acquiring global humidity and atmospheric water vapor data...

ITN you go on to use the data in your arguments and conclusions:
Into the Night wrote:
trafn wrote:...2. To you, how does this data impact questions concerning GHG's...
I also posted another set of data (...does not allow me to post the actual plots...) concerning the temperature ...near Seattle...I see no correlation with the temperatures in Seattle to the increase of carbon dioxide. I have examined charts...As far as I have been able to determine, there is no effective correlation between the two at all.
Into the Night wrote:
climate scientist wrote:...Just because you do not see a correlation ...does not mean that they are not linked.
Actually, yes it does. It exactly means they are not linked.

IBD posted some data and you certainly sound as though you are referring back to your own Moana Loa data as "reliable and verifiable data"..
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
For example:...data...
10/21/2300Z 82.926°N 85.428°W -24.1°C 1001.7mb...
10/21/2200Z 82.926°N 85.428°W -23.7°C 1001.6mb
....Thank you for providing another source of reliable and verifiable data.

You indicate that the government has collected "reilable data":.
Into the Night wrote:Reliable data goes back to 1944 when we first started flying aircraft into hurricanes.

You use this data you consider reliable to make arguments again:
Into the Night wrote:As you can see, by any measure, hurricane activity seems to have NO correlation with either CO2 concentration, temperature...

You make a claim very similar to my own here, in insisting that data is available so let's proceed with a debate:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
What is the source of your data?

IBdaMann wrote:
My source is terrible. If you don't accept it, I'll understand. I grabbed the first datums I encountered.

Surface Detail wrote:
Just provide a link to the source of your data, please.

You have the data in both Atlantic and Pacific basins. You no longer have an excuse to evade the conversation. Stop calling people names and proceed with your discussion.....You have been EVADING a sensible conversation by ...demanding data to be formatted in a particular way...Start having a discussion about the meaning of the data you have!

At no point do you seem to lose confidence in the Moana Loa chart, saying toward the end of the thread:
Into the Night wrote:
You might also note that a lot of data that conformed to the rules has been presented other than the individual station data. The Mauna Loa data, for example, has been presented in a form that completely follows the rules set up for the data mine.

ITN Never once says anything negative about the Mauna Loa data int he Data Mine. He uses it to make his arguments and presents it as a model.

More lies, mantras, and TMS's, as already specified by ITN.

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Yes, I'm saying that I have no clue what the temperature of my house is.
I appreciate the direct answer. OK I am thinking that this is worthy of a real topic of it's own (but one well supported, and I'm incapable of doing that at the moment). I think I see your point and it's legitimate. So let's table it for now and I'll get back to you on this. I personally don't know how the statistical math is applied to measurements to have a clue so I have to learn that first but it'll be fun.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN

I don't believe you.
14-03-2020 10:54
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3245)
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So why did you say contextonomy?
I didn't. Look at the convo again.
Look gfm, if you don't want to debate no one can force you to.
gfm7175 wrote:
Contextomy Fallacy.

gfm7175 wrote:More lies, mantras, and TMS's, as already specified by ITN.
Yes, like that, you can just choose not to have a rebuttal. All of my quotes of ITN are exact and I've linked to the source. He has no response to it but then how could he. (and no, there is no "mantra" that can explain that away).

gfm7175 wrote:I don't believe you.
Oh it's even simpler than that. I'm your enemy. You, ITN, and IBD don't have a position, you have a side, and this is combat for you I get that. Ironically that guarantee's your defeat. Because if you can't admit you are wrong you will always be lost.

gfm7175 wrote:
I have no clue what the temperature of my house is.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
He's absolutely correct....

Those are of course rather incredible statements that get to the core of claiming:
NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN!!!
Which is the sword and shield for your little army. So yeah that's coming up soon. We'll dismantle that and I don't care if you put up a fight or not. It doesn't matter.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 14-03-2020 11:16
14-03-2020 19:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12769)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted TMSb9...TMSb4...


No arguments presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
14-03-2020 22:12
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(907)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So why did you say contextonomy?
I didn't. Look at the convo again.
Look gfm, if you don't want to debate no one can force you to.

I'm right here. I'm not going anywhere.

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Contextomy Fallacy.

Yup, that's what I said.

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:More lies, mantras, and TMS's, as already specified by ITN.
Yes, like that, you can just choose not to have a rebuttal.

It quite literally IS a rebuttal... you are woefully illiterate in logic.

tmiddles wrote:
All of my quotes of ITN are exact and I've linked to the source.

I bet that liberal political ads work wonders on you...

tmiddles wrote:
He has no response to it but then how could he. (and no, there is no "mantra" that can explain that away).

He's answered you already.

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:I don't believe you.
Oh it's even simpler than that.

Do tell...

tmiddles wrote:
I'm your enemy.

WAR!!! Huh!!! Good God. What is it good for, absolutely nothing. Sorry, broke out in song there for a second.

tmiddles wrote:
You, ITN, and IBD don't have a position,

Ignoring our positions does not make them go away.

tmiddles wrote:
you have a side,

So do you.

tmiddles wrote:
and this is combat for you I get that.

Nah, it's just discussion on an online forum.

tmiddles wrote:
Ironically that guarantee's your defeat.

The word 'guarantees' is not possessive, nor is it a contraction. It does not require an apostrophe before the 's'.

tmiddles wrote:
Because if you can't admit you are wrong you will always be lost.

Inversion Fallacy.

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
I have no clue what the temperature of my house is.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
He's absolutely correct....

Those are of course rather incredible statements that get to the core of claiming:
NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN!!!

Here, you are improperly extending specific individual things into being "everything". As noted earlier, your logic literacy sucks balls.

tmiddles wrote:
Which is the sword and shield for your little army.

Nah, just another logical fallacy on your part.

tmiddles wrote:
So yeah that's coming up soon. We'll dismantle that and I don't care if you put up a fight or not. It doesn't matter.

I can't wait to intellectually rape you in that thread as well.
Edited on 14-03-2020 22:17
15-03-2020 05:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3245)
gfm7175 wrote:
Contextomy Fallacy...that's what I said.
Why?

gfm7175 wrote:
It quite literally IS a rebuttal...
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
He has no response to it but then how could he. (and no, there is no "mantra" that can explain that
away).
He's answered you already.
Ah you guys just love that one. Pretending you could prove me wrong but just can't be bothered to quote something nonexistent.
I have attempted to follow up with ITN but he's not having it:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...deleted
RQAA.
I asked you and IBD a question ITN. Why don't you answer it.
RQAA

gfm7175 wrote:
Ignoring our positions does not make them go away.
And what posts have I ignored? IBD loves to play that game too "I'm still waiting..." and I always respond to be ignored myself. So please point out anything I've ignored.

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
you have a side,
So do you.
I agree. I find it troubling as described here: The echo chamber

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
I have no clue what the temperature of my house is.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
He's absolutely correct....
Those are of course rather incredible statements that get to the core of claiming:NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN!!!

Here, you are improperly extending specific individual things into being "everything". As noted earlier, your logic literacy sucks balls.
No I am not claiming that you, ITN or IBD have said "Nothing Can Be Known" I am accusing you three of having that end game. Very much like Jim Crowe laws meant that black men would not be voting. The examiners weren't going to admit that, but that was the end result. The strongest evidence to support me here is that currently, according to you three, nothing is known. Which is insane.

I have exposed that in in 2015 ITN made numerous factual assertions about VENUS, Mauna Loa and other things which he has yet to clarify. It is most certainly not a RQAA, Repeated Question Already Answered in his posts directed at me.

gfm7175 wrote:I can't wait to intellectually rape you in that thread as well.

Wow! You really sound like you'd take real pleasure in proving me wrong. So gfm, I'm gonna guess that while you've claimed ITN responded to the question below, that you just can't be bothered to prove it:
tmiddles wrote:At no point do you seem to lose confidence in the Moana Loa chart, saying toward the end of the thread:
Into the Night wrote:
You might also note that a lot of data that conformed to the rules has been presented other than the individual station data. The Mauna Loa data, for example, has been presented in a form that completely follows the rules set up for the data mine.
ITN Never once says anything negative about the Mauna Loa data int he Data Mine. He uses it to make his arguments and presents it as a model
This is your post in the "Data Mine":
gfm7175 wrote:...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.
So where oh where is it cleared up that ITN was presenting a Mauna Loa chart that was worthless garbage as a model to follow? Doesn't hat seem odd to you? But then your position is pretty unclear at this point.

Let me guess....RQAA?


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
15-03-2020 19:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12769)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...29...8...30...TMSb8...lie...29...lie...24...16b...paradox...17...29...lie...29...34...29...29...29...

Let me guess....RQAA?


No argument presented. And yes, RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
15-03-2020 20:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3245)
Into the Night wrote:
29...29...8...30...TMSb8...lie...29...lie...24...16b...


1854307721
4993142862
...lie..
5781590500
8850257751
6296529061
9897385484
...bulverism...
6605708917
0956556922
...ITSQR...
7979927345
0901939068

QQRA
Edited on 15-03-2020 20:52
15-03-2020 21:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12769)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 27...

No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer
15-03-2020 21:42
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3245)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...deleted...
...deleted...
No argument presented.
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate 100,000 year cycles:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
80 year moving average data8813-05-2020 01:32
East EU temperatures skyrocketed since last year203-02-2020 19:14
Next year will the first year since lord knows when CO2 is more than 400 ppm all year at Moana Loa305-11-2019 18:15
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Year Long, Arctic Climate Change Study... How 'Green'?121-09-2019 03:46
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact