1998

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > 1998

199814-06-2020 04:44
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Can we discover the truth.Is the Earth cooling slightly since 1998.I know we can not take a snapshot and have a global average but towns and cities can keep accurate records and show a trend.Don Eastbrook made this claim based on the recordings at East Anglia.I need input as I am leading with this at my CCLA meeting.If this is true the whole climate debate is over as the claim is the CO2 warms and that affects the climate duncan61
14-06-2020 05:10
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote: Can we discover the truth. You never get to know is 100% certainty. The margin of error we are give is: Explained here https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-precision.php "Scientists, statisticians and mathematicians have several terms for this concept, such as "precision", "margin of error" or "confidence interval"." The default is 95% which is twice the standard error in statistics. Example here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201407 "The margin of error associated with this temperature is ±0.23°F (0.13°C)." So they are claiming a margin of error of +/-0.13C (note that there are reputable scientists that dispute this, notably Pat Franks) The NOAA data does not show cooling since 1998 globally: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/5/1998-2020?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1880&endtrendyear=2020 It shows a 0.38C increase. "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
14-06-2020 05:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	duncan61 wrote: but towns and cities can keep accurate records and show a trend. Nope. Weather is random. There is no such thing as a "trend" in random events. Verify for yourself. Start flipping a coin. Record all results. Let me know when there is a pattern such that you can predict what is going to come next. Pattern implies a relationship. Random implies no relationship. They are mutually exclusive. Weather is random. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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
14-06-2020 07:03
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Take a local reading in the same place every hour divide by 24 and you have an average for that day.If done over 10 years it will at least give an indication of that particular spot.Don Eastman solves the why NASA NOAA data is different from the rest because they use homogenised data.They mix the pure data with data that is altered and will happily admit it like its O.K.
14-06-2020 09:03
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	duncan61 wrote: Take a local reading in the same place every hour divide by 24 and you have an average for that day. How useful do you imagine a 12-point average of one point on earth will be? duncan61 wrote: If done over 10 years it will at least give an indication of that particular spot. That's equivalent to saying that we can put in effort over ten years and have data that is just as useless as if we had done nothing at all, ever. You are going about this backwards. Here are the steps you should be taking in the following order: 1: decide what question you are trying to answer 2: decide to the margin of error within which you need your answer to fall 3: use statistics to develop a data capture plan that will result in achieving #2 4: collect the data according to the plan generated in #3 5. compute your answer using the methods of #2 and the data from #4 6: publish your findings, i.e. the raw data and your conclusions thereof duncan61 wrote:Don Eastman solves the why NASA NOAA data is different from the rest because they use homogenised data.They mix the pure data with data that is altered and will happily admit it like its O.K. Screwing with the raw data or simply not publishing the raw data gets your conclusions discarded. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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

14-06-2020 11:53
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote: Take a local reading in the same place every hour divide by 24 and you have an average for that day... Anytime someone tells you "You can't know at all" or "you can know with perfect precision" regarding anything we measure directly you know you're talking to someone ignorant and/or dishonest. The question is if you can know to a useable margin of error for your purpose. I admit I don't understand the science well enough to critique the margin of error that the IPCC is claiming but it's certainly possible they have it done properly. IBdaMann wrote:...not publishing the raw data gets your conclusions discarded. "raw data" having never been defined or provided by IBD for anything. This is just the ITN/IBD ploy to disqualify everything. I do think it's very relevant to consider that IBD is also the one saying that Covid-19 is a total hoax. "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 14-06-2020 12:45
14-06-2020 17:56
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	We all know that there are many clever, and misleading ways to use words. Numbers are just another language, and the same manipulation exist in math. The margin of error for an entire data set, is the least accurate component. Temperature measurements started being recorded in 1898. I don't the actual margin back then, say it's +/- 1 degree. We have more accurate means of measuring temperature now. As long as we include the temperatures from 1898, the margin of error remains +/- 1 degree. Mathematically, you can attempt to compensate, which is misleading. For global warming, +/- one degree is very significant.
14-06-2020 21:23
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	HarveyH55 wrote: We all know that there are many clever, and misleading ways to use words. Numbers are just another language, and the same manipulation exist in math. The margin of error for an entire data set, is the least accurate component. Temperature measurements started being recorded in 1898. I don't the actual margin back then, say it's +/- 1 degree. We have more accurate means of measuring temperature now. As long as we include the temperatures from 1898, the margin of error remains +/- 1 degree. Mathematically, you can attempt to compensate, which is misleading. For global warming, +/- one degree is very significant. For any given point, we can be very accurate with a temperature. For any given volume, we cannot be accurate without multiple measurements. To get the margin of error for the earth to within +/-20degC you would need many hundreds of millions of calibrated, synchronized and evenly spaced thermometers at many elevations within the atmosphere, including over all the ocean. To get within +/-1 degree celsius you would need to shut down air traffic and essentially fill the atmosphere with evenly spaced, synchronized balloons. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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
14-06-2020 21:45
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	tgoebbles wrote: Anytime someone tells you "You can't know at all" or "you can know with perfect precision" regarding anything we measure directly you know you're talking to someone ignorant and/or dishonest. Anytime someone tells you that you can be certain of the temperature of a volume with just one measure taken hours ago is scientifically illiterate, mathematically incompetent and likely supports BLM's charter to loot, lynch and kill with impunity. tgoebbles wrote: The question is if you can know to a useable margin of error for your purpose. Anytime someone attempts to lull you into believing that you can "know" the temperature of a volume by just being happy with whatever value anyone tells you, is one step away from asking you if you have heard the "Good News" of Wikipedia and if you would be free for Sunday services down at the local BLM headquarters. tgoebbles wrote:I admit I don't understand the science well enough to critique the margin of error that the IPCC is claiming but it's certainly possible they have it done properly. You are scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent, yet that does not prevent you from unabashedly pretending to be a cross between Einstein, Carl Gauss and the Director of NIST. tgoebbles wrote: "raw data" having never been defined or provided by IBD for anything. tgoebbles claims that "raw data" has never been defined. What a GENIUS. This one is dripping with dishonesty because I checked and yes, even Wikipedia has a somewhat passable description that would preclude the stupid questions and comments tgoebbles is making. Imagine if he were to actually research from an authoritative source! tgoebbles wrote: I do think it's very relevant to consider that IBD is also the one saying that Covid-19 is a total hoax. I think it's very relevant to consider that tgoebbles remains unable to rebut any argument I have made but instead always attempts to change the subject. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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
15-06-2020 00:16
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: ...For global warming, +/- one degree is very significant. ...To get the margin of error for the earth to within +/-20degC you would need many hundreds of millions of calibrated, synchronized and evenly spaced thermometers at many elevations ... Well said Harvey. So IBD are you still pretending we measure anything other than the ground level temp? How did you do your math above? Is its millions not billions or thousands or trillions? +/-20? Not +/-2000 or ×/-2? Edited on 15-06-2020 00:58
15-06-2020 00:53
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	HarveyH55 wrote: We all know that there are many clever, and misleading ways to use words. Numbers are just another language, and the same manipulation exist in math. The margin of error for an entire data set, is the least accurate component. Temperature measurements started being recorded in 1898. I don't the actual margin back then, say it's +/- 1 degree. We have more accurate means of measuring temperature now. As long as we include the temperatures from 1898, the margin of error remains +/- 1 degree. Mathematically, you can attempt to compensate, which is misleading. For global warming, +/- one degree is very significant. Actually, the amount of vegetation that has decomposed over the centuries would give a good approximation of the weather. There's simply less in colder years. Tree rings are also another indicator. These things would allow for a statistical analysis. An example is if you monitored the temperature outside of the metropolitan area of every capital city in the world, whether it's state or country, you'd have a good idea what's going on globally. And you could also separate the northern hemisphere from the southern hemisphere. But you reject something like that as meaningless. That really doesn't leave any room for discussion.
15-06-2020 01:05
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	James___ wrote: Tree rings are also another indicator. Also tree lines. How far north a species survives indicates how the temperature changed over the centuries. ITN likes to claim you can't use a proxy measurement. Even a thermometer is a proxy. Electrical conductivity, the expansion of mercury, or some other value is determined which is correlated with temperature, but which is not temperature/thermal energy.
15-06-2020 02:39
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote: Tree rings are also another indicator. Also tree lines. How far north a species survives indicates how the temperature changed over the centuries. Proxy measurement dismissed. tmiddles wrote: ITN likes to claim you can't use a proxy measurement. He's correct. tmiddles wrote: Even a thermometer is a proxy. Electrical conductivity, the expansion of mercury, or some other value is determined which is correlated with temperature, but which is not temperature/thermal energy. Already addressed. Edited on 15-06-2020 02:39
15-06-2020 02:40
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: ...For global warming, +/- one degree is very significant. ...To get the margin of error for the earth to within +/-20degC you would need many hundreds of millions of calibrated, synchronized and evenly spaced thermometers at many elevations ... Well said Harvey. So IBD are you still pretending we measure anything other than the ground level temp? How did you do your math above? Is its millions not billions or thousands or trillions? +/-20? Not +/-2000 or ×/-2? gobble gobble... gobble. Done piddling, tpiddle?
15-06-2020 03:45
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	tgoebbles wrote: So IBD are you still pretending we measure anything other than the ground level temp? Hey Genius, I have some bad news for you. You have to measure the entirety of the atmosphere if you plan on trying to show Global Warming. If you aren't planning on trying to show Global Warming then there's no point in exerting the Herculean effort to measure the temperature of the earth, even if it's just for the bottom of the atmosphere. Let me guess, you don't understand why that is. [hint: I knew you didn't] tgoebbles wrote: How did you do your math above? Is its millions not billions or thousands or trillions? +/-20? Not +/-2000 or ×/-2? This is an extremely stupid question for a mathematically incompetent person to ask. If I were to explain it to you, you aren't smart enough to understand it, much less be able to convince anyone that I am WRONG! As I see it, you only have two options: 1) trust me, or 2) do the math yourself ... and get it WRONG! So actually you only have one option, but I keep option #2 open for the immense entertainment potential of you trying to do math when you can't just copy-paste it out of Wikipedia. Too funny! To any rational person the explanation borders on obvious and intuitive. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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

15-06-2020 10:11
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: You have to measure the entirety of the atmosphere if you plan on trying to show Global Warming. I thought you said "Global Warming" had no definition? As you clearly are operating based on one now please share it. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: How did you do your math above? ... ...If I were to explain it to you, you aren't smart enough to understand it, ... I don't know how to do the math myself but as you have please share how you did it. I would think you'd be proud and want to share how you solved such a formidable problem.
15-06-2020 16:29
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	tgoebbles wrote: I thought you said "Global Warming" had no definition? As you clearly are operating based on one now please share it. I thought you said "Global Warming" was real. If you are now admitting that it isn't then we're done. Thank you. tgoebbles wrote: I don't know how to do the math myself There is no "the" in this case. You don't know how to do math. Period. If you really want me to explain statistical math to you then you need to first learn and understand "standard deviation" which you can do on your own. Once you have that basis then we can actually carry on a conversation. Until then, you are just a mathematically incompetent moron who is drooling on his shoe as he babbles and I don't want to get any on mine. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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
15-06-2020 17:04
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	James___ wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: We all know that there are many clever, and misleading ways to use words. Numbers are just another language, and the same manipulation exist in math. The margin of error for an entire data set, is the least accurate component. Temperature measurements started being recorded in 1898. I don't the actual margin back then, say it's +/- 1 degree. We have more accurate means of measuring temperature now. As long as we include the temperatures from 1898, the margin of error remains +/- 1 degree. Mathematically, you can attempt to compensate, which is misleading. For global warming, +/- one degree is very significant. Actually, the amount of vegetation that has decomposed over the centuries would give a good approximation of the weather. There's simply less in colder years. Tree rings are also another indicator. These things would allow for a statistical analysis. An example is if you monitored the temperature outside of the metropolitan area of every capital city in the world, whether it's state or country, you'd have a good idea what's going on globally. And you could also separate the northern hemisphere from the southern hemisphere. But you reject something like that as meaningless. That really doesn't leave any room for discussion. There are several factors that influence the growth, destruction and decay. No way to derive climate change temperature data, other than speculation. Warmer weather might mean more growth, but also more bacterial activity to decompose, not to mention other hungry critters. Width of annual tree rings are believe to show how productive that year was for the tree. It doesn't really tell which conditions reduced growth during some periods. Again, speculation, not to mention a huge margin of error. People tend to settle, and build their cities in areas that are tolerable, and provide for their need. Not many people settle on living with polar bears and penguins, so fewer colder climate data points. Most people prefer warmer climates. 80% of the earth's surface is water, which is tough to build a city on as well. Not many data points coming off the lakes, seas, or oceans. There is actual only a very small sample, of actual measurements, over a short span of time, relative to the climate change issue. The very small change being marketed as a crisis, falls with in a very wide margin of error, since the data is made up of speculation, mostly. The same data could be used to sell anything you wanted it to.
15-06-2020 17:27
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You have to measure the entirety of the atmosphere if you plan on trying to show Global Warming. I thought you said "Global Warming" had no definition? As you clearly are operating based on one now please share it. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: How did you do your math above? ... ...If I were to explain it to you, you aren't smart enough to understand it, ... I don't know how to do the math myself but as you have please share how you did it. I would think you'd be proud and want to share how you solved such a formidable problem. Global Warming is real!!! It's a cult, with all kinds of mind-numbing rituals and languages to learn and practice. These things are designed strengthen faith in the cult. All I had to do to figure it out, was realize that the bulk of the work is based on speculation. You have to have faith, that the people making these guesses, actually believe what they are saying is absolutely true and accurate. Many, admit that it's only a remote possibility, and just their best guess. The cult ignores that, and sells it as established fact, rather than wild speculation. It's really quite simple. Just pick up a free copy of the IPCC Bible (assessment report), and start going through it objectively. The only question you need, is whether what is claimed, requires you to accept each part on faith, or can be observed, tested, measured. Speculation is faith. You will also note, that the don't seem to have a lot of faith and conviction in their own findings. 'Could', 'might', 'may' are used quite a bit. All the math and models, are based on things that can't be known, to and degree of accuracy. No where near what would be needed, to support the warming claims. The margin of error is huge, so the claims don't violate any rules used in math or science, but it's shady.
15-06-2020 17:37
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You have to measure the entirety of the atmosphere if you plan on trying to show Global Warming. I thought you said "Global Warming" had no definition? I've only ever come across ONE valid definition of the term "Global Warming". That definition can be found here: The Manual All other definition attempts, including your own attempts, have resulted in circular definitions (thus they have all been discarded on sight). tmiddles wrote: As you clearly are operating based on one now please share it. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: How did you do your math above? ... ...If I were to explain it to you, you aren't smart enough to understand it, ... I don't know how to do the math myself but as you have please share how you did it. I would think you'd be proud and want to share how you solved such a formidable problem. You're too stoooooopid to understand, ipiddle... Oh, I almost forgot... this is yet another RQAA.
15-06-2020 23:27
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: I thought you said "Global Warming" had no definition? As you clearly are operating based on one now please share it. I thought you said "Global Warming" was real. If you are now admitting that it isn't then we're done. Thank you. Yes and I've given you my definition: An increase in the annual mean temp of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere. What is your definition? gfm7175 wrote: I've only ever come across ONE valid definition of the term "Global Warming". So do you find that my definition is "invalid" GFM? If so why? IBdaMann wrote:...you are just a mathematically incompetent... But you aren't right? So post your solution. HarveyH55 wrote:No way to derive climate change temperature data, other than speculation. What about for just Denver Harvey? Do you believe we can determine and follow the changes in the temp of a single city? Edited on 15-06-2020 23:30
16-06-2020 00:16
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: I thought you said "Global Warming" had no definition? As you clearly are operating based on one now please share it. I thought you said "Global Warming" was real. If you are now admitting that it isn't then we're done. Thank you. Yes and I've given you my definition: An increase in the annual mean temp of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere. RAAA. tmiddles wrote: What is your definition? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: I've only ever come across ONE valid definition of the term "Global Warming". So do you find that my definition is "invalid" GFM? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: If so why? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...you are just a mathematically incompetent... But you aren't right? So post your solution. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:No way to derive climate change temperature data, other than speculation. What about for just Denver Harvey? Do you believe we can determine and follow the changes in the temp of a single city? RQAA. We've been through all of this content SO many times...
16-06-2020 02:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: I thought you said "Global Warming" had no definition? As you clearly are operating based on one now please share it. I thought you said "Global Warming" was real. If you are now admitting that it isn't then we're done. Thank you. Yes and I've given you my definition: An increase in the annual mean temp of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere. Circular definition. You can't define 'global warming' as 'global warming'. It is also not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or it's surface. tmiddles wrote: What is your definition? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: I've only ever come across ONE valid definition of the term "Global Warming". So do you find that my definition is "invalid" GFM? If so why? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...you are just a mathematically incompetent... But you aren't right? So post your solution. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:No way to derive climate change temperature data, other than speculation. What about for just Denver Harvey? Do you believe we can determine and follow the changes in the temp of a single city? RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate 1998: