All Governments & Organizations Are Making A Critical Basic Mistake About Climate Change Global Warmi

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: And how would one test if there is some kind of particle that is indivisible, the way Democritus described it?

It would require some thought.

Clearly, dividing one of Democritus' atmoms renders his theory FALSE and would require modifications be made. However, the existing model would serve as a good deal of cognitive support upon which said revisions would be made. Genetics is one of those examples in which the model(s) continue to be improved regardless of whether the theory that originally pointed people in the right direction is accepted or rejected. Frankly, I remember being taught Democritus' model as a young child, with the purpose of getting me to think about the subject, to get me to think about walls, for example, not as walls but as a composition of countless things that I could not see. I remember my "light bulb moment" when the teacher (a Catholic nun) told us kids to blow in each others faces and asked us why we could feel something.

Getting back to your question ... you have a great example for building science. There is no "how we know." We simply postulate what appears to be the case, e.g. gluons cannot be subdivided. That theory will stand until ... someone demonstrates a subdivided gluon. Basically there's no way for us to "know" until we do. So we operate under assumptions until such a point that our assumptions are shown to be FALSE.



.

And this gets back to what science is. We can have a theory that a gluon isn't divisible, but is that science? Is it possible to build a test to try to destroy that theory?

I submit that the theory that a gluon isn't divisible is a religion. Arguments extend from this initial circular argument. A circular argument it must remain, until one can devise a way to test it. Saying the test is that we haven't done it yet is an argument of ignorance fallacy.

It is much more sensible to take the position that we simply do not know...that there is NO theory of science about the question.

Into the Night wrote:Attempting to prove a circular argument is what a fundamentalist does.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Attempting to prove a circular argument is what a fundamentalist does.

How do you tell the difference between someone who is simply stating one of his assumptions and someone who is "proving a circular argument"?


.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
The speaker does not actually think there were a million people and is using literally to mean extremely.

Irrelevant. The use of the phrase itself the fallacy (redefinition fallacy (literal<->proof).

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: [When I say: "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" my definition is that these identify Earth's annual mean temperature increasing at ground level (world wide and specifically 2 meters above the ground/water). ] But you recognize the definition is coherent? ...

...What is needed is an [i]unambiguous definition ...

What do you mean by unambiguous? How is my definition "open to more than one interpretation" by me?

This was an attempt to define 'global warming'.
From when to when? What makes these two points in time significant? What makes any other two points in time not significant?
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. How are you getting any reading over any two points in time? You cannot define 'global warming' as 'global warming'. The phrase remains undefined. You cannot define any word or phrase with itself.

Into the Night wrote:
A temperature is not a range. It is a single value.

Into the Night wrote:
Define 'useful'.

tmiddles wrote: It is a measurement of matter that has a range of temperatures.

tmiddles wrote: For example: A doctor puts a thermometer under your tounge and determines the temperature of the skin cells there that make contact with the probe. He doesn't care about your tongue really, more about your internal organs, but as the two correlate he's able to use this measurement to get a sense of it your range of temperatures throughout your body are normal.

IBdaMann wrote:
... a measure of temperature of the matter at one dimensionless point. .

IBdaMann wrote:
....regardless of what the doctor may be trying to ascertain.
.

tmiddles wrote: ... and are doctors able to ascertain any useful information?

tmiddles wrote: What about a motherboard ascertaining a cpu's temp?

tmiddles wrote: Or how about you give an example of useful temperature measurement.

IBdaMann wrote: We have arrived at the end of this discussion.

IBdaMann wrote:....doctors might

IBdaMann wrote:...The doctor's speculation about the rest of the body is not knowledge thereof ... it is speculation which could very well be greatly mistaken.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: ...a cpu's temp?

... not a iving thing...
The temperature on one point of a chip won't differ much from the temperature on another point of the same chip

tmiddles wrote: Are doctors useless in this endeavor?

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: Are doctors useless in this endeavor?

... that I am somehow asserting that things are "useless."
.

tmiddles wrote: You and ITN constantly assert that various attempts to ascertain temperature have no value.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: And how would one test if there is some kind of particle that is indivisible, the way Democritus described it?

It would require some thought.

Clearly, dividing one of Democritus' atmoms renders his theory FALSE and would require modifications be made. However, the existing model would serve as a good deal of cognitive support upon which said revisions would be made. Genetics is one of those examples in which the model(s) continue to be improved regardless of whether the theory that originally pointed people in the right direction is accepted or rejected. Frankly, I remember being taught Democritus' model as a young child, with the purpose of getting me to think about the subject, to get me to think about walls, for example, not as walls but as a composition of countless things that I could not see. I remember my "light bulb moment" when the teacher (a Catholic nun) told us kids to blow in each others faces and asked us why we could feel something.

Getting back to your question ... you have a great example for building science. There is no "how we know." We simply postulate what appears to be the case, e.g. gluons cannot be subdivided. That theory will stand until ... someone demonstrates a subdivided gluon. Basically there's no way for us to "know" until we do. So we operate under assumptions until such a point that our assumptions are shown to be FALSE.



.

And this gets back to what science is. We can have a theory that a gluon isn't divisible, but is that science? Is it possible to build a test to try to destroy that theory?

I submit that the theory that a gluon isn't divisible is a religion. Arguments extend from this initial circular argument. A circular argument it must remain, until one can devise a way to test it. Saying the test is that we haven't done it yet is an argument of ignorance fallacy.

It is much more sensible to take the position that we simply do not know...that there is NO theory of science about the question.

You're creating the circular argument.

James___ wrote:
If you have a theory of your own, please present it.

James___ wrote:
Also, this has nothing to do with our climate.

James___ wrote:
What you're claiming is that if a gluon and how it behaves is hypothetical,

James___ wrote:
then how can we program a computer which is also science.

James___ wrote:
How could we possibly communicate using satellites which is also based on science which is falsifiable.

James___ wrote:
It seems ITN that you accept science that you use while rejecting science that you have no use for. At the end of the day all this makes you is a hypocrite.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Attempting to prove a circular argument is what a fundamentalist does.

How do you tell the difference between someone who is simply stating one of his assumptions and someone who is "proving a circular argument"?


.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
The speaker does not actually think there were a million people and is using literally to mean extremely.

Irrelevant. The use of the phrase itself the fallacy (redefinition fallacy (literal<->proof).

I don't know what you're saying as you use a private language you refuse to define. I tried looking up "redefinition fallacy" and the popular definitions wouldn't make sense here. I encourage you to put a glossary together for you personal definitions where they depart from what is popular. As it is I simply don't know what you are saying.

tmiddles wrote:
What do you mean by unambiguous? How is my definition "open to more than one interpretation" by me?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
This was an attempt to define 'global warming'.
From when to when? What makes these two points in time significant? What makes any other two points in time not significant?
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. How are you getting any reading over any two points in time? You cannot define 'global warming' as 'global warming'. The phrase remains undefined. You cannot define any word or phrase with itself.

So it's annual as I said, because Earth has an annual cycle of seasons.

tmiddles wrote:
You provide no argument as to how I have defined global warming as global warming.

tmiddles wrote:
I don't see what you mean.

tmiddles wrote:
Whether or not it's possible in anyone's view to successfully get the information needed to analyze something does not prevent it from being defined as a subject matter. You an I don't agree as the whether we can measure the Earth's temperature but that is a separate question from whether or not "The Earth's temperature" can be defined unambiguously.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
A temperature is not a range. It is a single value.

No a temperature measurement is a single value.

tmiddles wrote:
It is a measurement of matter that has a range of temperatures.

tmiddles wrote:
For example: A doctor puts a thermometer under your tounge and determines the temperature of the skin cells there that make contact with the probe. He doesn't care about your tongue really, more about your internal organs, but as the two correlate he's able to use this measurement to get a sense of it your range of temperatures throughout your body are normal.

tmiddles wrote:
You might say it's not possible to know anything about the temperature of a human body. But this would be one reason it's good you're not a doctor.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Define 'useful'.

serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect.

IBdaMann wrote:.... of your understanding that I have been declaring an average global temperature as something that would be useless as opposed to being something that is impossible?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:.... of your understanding that I have been declaring an average global temperature as something that would be useless as opposed to being something that is impossible?

I'm not talking about the temperature of Earth being a postive example from you at all. Why would I you dispute that. I'm asking you and anyone here what a good example of usefully measuring temperature is.

It's much easier to analyze something that works well.

tmiddles wrote: It's much easier to analyze something that works well.

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
I'm asking you and anyone here what a good example of usefully measuring temperature is.

Your question has already been answered.

IBdaMann wrote:
The temperature of a CPU on a motherboard.
The temperature in the center of a pot roast is useful.

tmiddles wrote:
1.- A CPU is dynamic with it's activity correlating to it's temperature, that activity modulating. So how is it any different than a living thing? Or a Climate?
2.- "differ much". Could you give a definition of "much" that is not ambiguous? Isn't that entirely based on what you, the measurer, want? The margin that is acceptable to you?
I think you're basically saying "This works for my purposes". A doctor would say the same about a thermometer under the tongue.

Yet that doesn't make the list with pot roast and CPU?

Also the center of the pot roast is only one small area (you might say dimensionless point) so how, presuming that we are concerned with the temp being high enough to kill bacteria, can you be confident that the temp in other areas is high enough? Why does that work for you? Also what range of temperature would the post roast (that object, that body) have?

I'll tell you one thing about pot roasts: They can be delicious and a satisfying meal. Just try to put a dimensionless point of pot roast on someones plate.

IBdaMann wrote:
Your entire post is dismissed.

IBdaMann wrote:
Pretending that a temperature measure of a dimensionless point is actually an accurate measure for the temperature of a large aerospace volume ... does not work well.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:.... of your understanding that I have been declaring an average global temperature as something that would be useless as opposed to being something that is impossible?

I'm not talking about the temperature of Earth being a postive example from you at all. Why would I you dispute that. I'm asking you and anyone here what a good example of usefully measuring temperature is.

It's much easier to analyze something that works well.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
I'm asking you and anyone here what a good example of usefully measuring temperature is.

Your question has already been answered.

Do I need to add that I'd like to talk about them and why they are succesful where other temp measurements fail?
Of course IBD provided:

IBdaMann wrote:
The temperature of a CPU on a motherboard.
The temperature in the center of a pot roast is useful.

I asked about them:

tmiddles wrote:
1.- A CPU is dynamic with it's activity correlating to it's temperature, that activity modulating. So how is it any different than a living thing? Or a Climate?
2.- "differ much". Could you give a definition of "much" that is not ambiguous? Isn't that entirely based on what you, the measurer, want? The margin that is acceptable to you?
I think you're basically saying "This works for my purposes". A doctor would say the same about a thermometer under the tongue.

Yet that doesn't make the list with pot roast and CPU?

Also the center of the pot roast is only one small area (you might say dimensionless point) so how, presuming that we are concerned with the temp being high enough to kill bacteria, can you be confident that the temp in other areas is high enough? Why does that work for you? Also what range of temperature would the post roast (that object, that body) have?

I'll tell you one thing about pot roasts: They can be delicious and a satisfying meal. Just try to put a dimensionless point of pot roast on someones plate.

But you all ran away:

IBdaMann wrote:
Your entire post is dismissed.

Do you agree those are useful and want to discuss them gfm? I can't force you to debate.

The general idea is the right way and wrong way examples clarify the issue.

IBdaMann wrote:
Pretending that a temperature measure of a dimensionless point is actually an accurate measure for the temperature of a large aerospace volume ... does not work well.

But we agree it works well in the pot roast?

tmiddles wrote: So how is it any different than a living thing?

tmiddles wrote:Or a Climate?

tmiddles wrote: I think you're basically saying "This works for my purposes". A doctor would say the same about a thermometer under the tongue.

tmiddles wrote: ... so how, presuming that we are concerned with the temp being high enough to kill bacteria, can you be confident that the temp in other areas is high enough?

tmiddles wrote: Also what range of temperature would the post roast (that object, that body) have?

tmiddles wrote: Just try to put a dimensionless point of pot roast on someones plate.

tmiddles wrote: But we agree it works well in the pot roast?

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: So how is it any different than a living thing?

A living thing is far too complex with far too many unknowns. The CPU does not have those unknowns, i.e. we have working models for every aspect.

IBdaMann wrote:
The global climate does not exist,

IBdaMann wrote:
You are still conflating "what is known" with "what is useful." You can ask an artillery commander how his munitions can be useful even if he doesn't know exactly where they will land.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: ... so how, presuming that we are concerned with the temp being high enough to kill bacteria, can you be confident that the temp in other areas is high enough?

Experience, combined with the volume being very small.

IBdaMann wrote:...you will find widespread agreement that certain thermometers work very well in a pot roast.
Am I mistaken?

tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras lie...27...
A Cpu is performing work that is not factored in to evaluating it's temperature so that is an unknown from a measurement perspective.
...deleted Mantras 11...27...27...

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
You are still conflating "what is known" with "what is useful." You can ask an artillery commander how his munitions can be useful even if he doesn't know exactly where they will land.

They are not useful if they don't land as desired. Good example.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: ... so how, presuming that we are concerned with the temp being high enough to kill bacteria, can you be confident that the temp in other areas is high enough?

Experience, combined with the volume being very small.

My point precisely. Doctors, being professionals with experience, are able to determine the temperature of a patient based on the temperature under the tongue. You should accept their work, based on experience, just as you accept your own pot roasting.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...you will find widespread agreement that certain thermometers work very well in a pot roast.
Am I mistaken?

You are correct. You will also find it is widely agreed that the temperature of a human body does not actually have too many unknowns, it consistent and easily determined with certain thermometers.

...deleted Mantra 27...

tmiddles wrote: This is a manufactured conclusion on your part not supported by anything.

tmiddles wrote: You have dodged the question of if doctors are able to determine a human's temperature with any use-able accuracy.

tmiddles wrote: A Cpu is performing work that is not factored in to evaluating it's temperature so that is an unknown from a measurement perspective.

tmiddles wrote: A pot roast, steaming, dripping fat, as it is subjected to an external heat source, also has plenty of unknowns.

IBdaMann wrote: The global climate does not exist,

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
You are still conflating "what is known" with "what is useful." You can ask an artillery commander how his munitions can be useful even if he doesn't know exactly where they will land.

They are not useful if they don't land as desired. Good example.

tmiddles wrote: My point precisely. Doctors, being professionals with experience, are able to determine the temperature of a patient based on the temperature under the tongue.

tmiddles wrote:You will also find it is widely agreed that the temperature of a human body does not actually have too many unknowns, it consistent and easily determined with certain thermometers.

tmiddles wrote:However I'm still wondering about one thing from your perspective:Why is it you are confident, when taking a measurement from the center, that you know anything about the temperature in the rest of the pot roast? Couldn't it be anything? -40C, 500C, ...

Into the Night wrote:
1) Measuring the temperature of anything is not possible.
2) Measuring the temperature of anything is possible.
Which is it, dude?

tmiddles wrote: Determining temperature must always include calculation or at least assumption.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: Determining temperature must always include calculation or at least assumption.

.
A temperature measurement is instantaneous and is for a dimensionless point. It is not a calculation.

IBdaMann wrote:
If you wish to claim a temperature for a volume you must define the volume and specify the target margin of error. You must then provide a valid dataset that supports a temperature value within the stated target margin of error.

For a pot roast at any given time, a valid datset would include the shape/dimensions of the pot roast, the pot roast's coefficient of heat transfer, the oven's fixed temperature and the pot roast's center temperature.

tmiddles wrote:1 - The Pot Roast will have different temperatures at different points. There is a "range" of temperatures based on location.

tmiddles wrote: 2 - There is a margin of error in measuring which is basically how wrong you might be about the true temperature.

IBdaMann wrote:
The temperature function has a range of values corresponding to a domain of points.

IBdaMann wrote:... "margin of error" does come into play when calculating the overall average temperature ...differenes in the pot roast's coefficient of heat transfer ...

IBdaMann wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
A living thing is far too complex with far too many unknowns.

tmiddles wrote: This is a manufactured conclusion on your part not supported by anything.

All conclusions are "manufactured."

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: A Cpu is performing work that is not factored in to evaluating it's temperature so that is an unknown from a measurement perspective.

Only the measurement is needed to know its current temperature. How do you not know this?

IBdaMann wrote:

IBdaMann wrote: The global climate does not exist,

tmiddles wrote: In order to say that you'd need to have a definition for "climate". You know mine what is yours?

The global climate or The Climate is the spiritual soul of the earth according to the Climate Change religion.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
The temperature function has a range of values corresponding to a domain of points.

So yes there different temperatures throughout the pot roast.

Could you let me know if you agree this is always the case for an object composed of multiple molecules. I don't see how it could not be.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:All conclusions are "manufactured."

yes usually by research.

tmiddles wrote: But the key point is to pretend we know nothing about the temperature of a living thing defies the nature of knowing temperature about an object at all, which is not a "yes" or "no" proposition but a "range" and "margin" one.

tmiddles wrote: I might say I don't know the skin temperature of this person well. As they're temp under the tounge is in the normal range their skin temp is between 80F and 100F. Or whatever a doctor would determine based on experience.

tmiddles wrote: All you have with the reading the Motherboard gives you is a proxy.

tmiddles wrote:It's not possible to directly measure the temp of all molecules in the CPU. No technology like that exists.

tmiddles wrote: So youre just saying the Earth's soul doesn't exist.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: But the key point is to pretend we know nothing about the temperature of a living thing defies the nature of knowing temperature about an object at all, which is not a "yes" or "no" proposition but a "range" and "margin" one.

Yes, this would be an entirely bogus position for someone to have.

Wait, are you assigning this position to me?

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:... their skin temp is between 80F and 100F.

Let's cut to the chase. You are under the mistaken impression that providing a doctor a temperature under a tongue that he knows the temperature of a small tumor in the liver.

IBdaMann wrote:
... your fabrications as "what we know" ... and this includes Venus. You pretend that so much more of Venus is known than is actually known.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: All you have with the reading the Motherboard gives you is a proxy.

Learn what a proxy is. Nothing is a proxy for itself. It is itself.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
1) Measuring the temperature of anything is not possible.
2) Measuring the temperature of anything is possible.
Which is it, dude?

A question for you!

Determining temperature must always include calculation or at least assumption.

tmiddles wrote:
Whether it's a block of steel on a hot plate in the lab, the ground level of Venus, a pot roast or a human being, there will always be a range of temperature readings you could obtain depending on where and when you collect them.

tmiddles wrote:
To claim this fact makes a temperature unknowable it to disqualify all knowledge of the temperature of anything.

tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantra 10...

IBdaMann wrote:
If you wish to claim a temperature for a volume you must define the volume and specify the target margin of error. You must then provide a valid dataset that supports a temperature value within the stated target margin of error.

For a pot roast at any given time, a valid datset would include the shape/dimensions of the pot roast, the pot roast's coefficient of heat transfer, the oven's fixed temperature and the pot roast's center temperature.

Nice very clear!

...deleted Mantra 3...10 (single value<->range)...10 (tolerance<->margin of error)...27...

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
The temperature function has a range of values corresponding to a domain of points.

So yes there different temperatures throughout the pot roast.

Could you let me know if you agree this is always the case for an object composed of multiple molecules. I don't see how it could not be.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:... "margin of error" does come into play when calculating the overall average temperature ...differenes in the pot roast's coefficient of heat transfer ...

That's what I meant by calculation. Pat Franks talks mainly about this margin for global temp being an issue.

tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 10 (data<->research)...5...4...23...15...10 (single value<->range)...10 (tolerance<->margin of error)...11...23...4...10 (average<->total)...23...16...

tmiddles wrote: you'd agree a mercury thermometer is a proxy for the temp of soup?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:... their skin temp is between 80F and 100F.

Let's cut to the chase. You are under the mistaken impression that providing a doctor a temperature under a tongue that he knows the temperature of a small tumor in the liver.

I said nothing of the sort.

tmiddles wrote:
I believe my example could be a doctor determining a patient is not dead due to hypothermia.

tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantra 23...27...10 (measurement<->proxy)...

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: you'd agree a mercury thermometer is a proxy for the temp of soup?

I do not agree.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: you'd agree a mercury thermometer is a proxy for the temp of soup?

I do not agree.

Ok it doesn't seem important.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: you'd agree a mercury thermometer is a proxy for the temp of soup?

I do not agree.

Ok it doesn't seem important.

Then why did you bring it up??!?