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

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > All Governments & Organizations Are Making A Critical Basic Mistake About Climate Change Global Warmi > Page 3

Page 3 of 3

02-02-2020 03:08
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	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. If you have a theory of your own, please present it. Also, this has nothing to do with our climate. What you're claiming is that if a gluon and how it behaves is hypothetical, then how can we program a computer which is also science. How could we possibly communicate using satellites which is also based on science which is falsifiable. 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.
02-02-2020 05:29
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	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"? . 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
02-02-2020 05:55
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	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"? . This is sad. The 3 Stooges did this routine decades ago because then it was called humor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E33qzW4Qvr8
02-02-2020 08:39
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	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. 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. So it's annual as I said, because Earth has an annual cycle of seasons. You provide no argument as to how I have defined global warming as global warming. I don't see what you mean. 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. Into the Night wrote: A temperature is not a range. It is a single value. No a temperature measurement is a single value. It is a measurement of matter that has a range of temperatures. 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. 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. Into the Night wrote: Define 'useful'. serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect.
02-02-2020 09:04
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: It is a measurement of matter that has a range of temperatures. Absolutely not. It is a measure of temperature of the matter at one dimensionless point. 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. So your example is dismissed. The temperature is of that point of the tongue and only that point of the tonge, regardless of what the doctor may be trying to ascertain. You should try to keep living things out of your examples; they don't work out well. . 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

02-02-2020 12:41
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: ... a measure of temperature of the matter at one dimensionless point. . a contact thermometer does not have a dimensionless probe. Also it only provides the change in volume of the thermometers mercury, the change in electrical resistance of the probe or some other indirect indicator. IBdaMann wrote: ....regardless of what the doctor may be trying to ascertain. . and are doctors able to ascertain any useful information? What about a motherboard ascertaining a cpu's temp? Or how about you give an example of useful temperature measurement.
02-02-2020 20:22
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: ... and are doctors able to ascertain any useful information? Thank you. We have arrived at the end of this discussion. Yes, doctors might be able to deduce information that is something other than some organ's temperature or the body's temperature. The only temperature the doctor knows is the temperature of that point of the tongue. The doctor's speculation about the rest of the body is not knowledge thereof ... it is speculation which could very well be greatly mistaken. tmiddles wrote: What about a motherboard ascertaining a cpu's temp? This is an entirely different case. 1. It is not a iving thing 2. It is essentially an area and not a volume 3. It is a very, very small one at that The temperature on one point of a chip won't differ much from the temperature on another point of the same chip. That statistical math that you don't want to touch covers the concept of standard deviation which, if you were to master it, would go a long way to nipping a lot of your questions in the bud. tmiddles wrote: Or how about you give an example of useful temperature measurement. The temperature of a CPU on a motherboard. The temperature in the center of a pot roast is useful. Why have you shifted goalposts from pretending to be omniscient about temperatures to pretending you are talking about "usefulness" of specific measures? I hope you didn't think I wouldn't notice. . 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
03-02-2020 01:12
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: We have arrived at the end of this discussion. What discussion? You mean the game of dodge ball? IBdaMann wrote:....doctors might Doctors are real. They are out there doctoring as we speak. Doctor stuff is pretty high on the list of social/governmental/mandated/useful/worldwide/newstory/crisis/science stuff so a very relevant subject area. 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. And we arrive at the moment of put up or dodge. Are doctors useless in this endeavor? Should their work, their advice, and their research be dismissed? 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 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.
03-02-2020 03:31
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: Are doctors useless in this endeavor? Your entire post is dismissed. It is based on your dishonest pivot away from your stupid claim of omniscience to assuming that I am somehow asserting that things are "useless." I'll consider this your bogus assignment for the day and that your king tipped again. . 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
03-02-2020 05:24
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Are doctors useless in this endeavor? ... that I am somehow asserting that things are "useless." . You and ITN constantly assert that various attempts to ascertain temperature have no value. With the flu pandemic issue doctors taking temperatures of patience being useful is certainly a relatable example. Im trying to get a positive example in your view to contrast with the negative examples.
03-02-2020 15:58
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: You and ITN constantly assert that various attempts to ascertain temperature have no value. Are you telling me that you do not understand the difference between declaring something impossible and declaring something useless? Are you telling me that to the best 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? Let's nail this down right now. I think we may have found the source of your problems. . 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
03-02-2020 20:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21586)	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. Fallacy fallacy. Inversion fallacy. James___ wrote: If you have a theory of your own, please present it. Void argument fallacy. James___ wrote: Also, this has nothing to do with our climate. Nobody said it did. James___ wrote: What you're claiming is that if a gluon and how it behaves is hypothetical, Nope. Try reading the post again. James___ wrote: then how can we program a computer which is also science. Nope. Programming a computer is not science. James___ wrote: How could we possibly communicate using satellites which is also based on science which is falsifiable. Communicating with a satellite is not science either. 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. Void argument fallacy. Redefinition fallacies (engineering<->science, writing<->science, communication<->science). 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
03-02-2020 20:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21586)	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"? . It is one thing for say, a Christian to simply say he believes in Jesus Christ, and that He is who He says He is (namely, the Son of God). It is quite another to attempt to prove it. It is one thing to say you believe there is no god or gods. It is quite another to attempt to prove it. It is one thing to say you believe in 'global warming' (whatever that definition turns out to be!). It is quite another to attempt to prove it. The circular argument in and of itself is not a fallacy. Attempting to prove one or conduct a proof using one is the fallacy. 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
03-02-2020 20:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21586)	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. RFAF. RQAA. Try English. It works better. You've used Liberal for so long your have forgotten English. tmiddles wrote: What do you mean by unambiguous? How is my definition "open to more than one interpretation" by me? Try English. It works better. 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. Seasons do not warm the Earth. Answer the questions put to you. tmiddles wrote: You provide no argument as to how I have defined global warming as global warming. Yes I have. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: I don't see what you mean. Try English. It works better. 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. You don't agree because you deny mathematics in favor of your religion. 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. You obviously do not understand English anymore. tmiddles wrote: It is a measurement of matter that has a range of temperatures. No. A single temperature is not a range of temperatures. Paradox. You are being irrational. 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. Nope. He is only interested with tongue temperature. 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. I don't have to be. You are not a doctor either. Irrelevance fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Define 'useful'. serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect. Contextomy fallacy. You obviously do not want to define what you consider 'useful' and would evade the question. This subtopic discarded. 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
04-02-2020 11:41
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	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.

04-02-2020 17:30
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	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. Your question has already been answered. I just skimmed up a little bit and found a few examples of useful temperature measurements that IBdaMann provided you with... It wasn't that hard to do, really...
04-02-2020 17:50
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: It's much easier to analyze something that works well. Your wording is stupid. Taking a temperature with a thermometer works well for a dimensionless point. 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. . 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
04-02-2020 20:19
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	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?
04-02-2020 21:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21586)	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. 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
04-02-2020 21:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21586)	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? 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
04-02-2020 22:07
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	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. tmiddles wrote:Or a Climate? The global climate does not exist, for one, and a regular climate, of which there are millions on the planet, are not unambiguously defined. 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. 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. 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. tmiddles wrote: Also what range of temperature would the post roast (that object, that body) have? Eventually zero. By the way, instead of writing "range of temperatures" (plural) you wrote "range of temperature" (singular). I'm just curious, is this because you still believe that a temperature is somehow not a dimensionless numerical value but rather is, in fact, a "range"? tmiddles wrote: Just try to put a dimensionless point of pot roast on someones plate. I do every time. It just happens to have additional pot roast attached to it. tmiddles wrote: But we agree it works well in the pot roast? I might be going out on a limb here but I believe you will find widespread agreement that certain thermometers work very well in a pot roast. Am I mistaken? . 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
05-02-2020 02:40
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	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. This is a manufactured conclusion on your part not supported by anything. You have dodged the question of if doctors are able to determine a human's temperature with any use-able accuracy. A Cpu is performing work that is not factored in to evaluating it's temperature so that is an unknown from a measurement perspective. A pot roast, steaming, dripping fat, as it is subjected to an external heat source, also has plenty of unknowns. IF it were too difficult to measure the temperature of living things that would be well documented as it's such a critical part of modern life. IBdaMann wrote: The global climate does not exist, In order to say that you'd need to have a definition for "climate". You know mine what is yours? 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. 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. 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. 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, ...
05-02-2020 05:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21586)	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... It is known. It is in the datasheets of the CPU. It is what engineers use to design the cooling systems for them. 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. You are still conflating what is known with what is useful. You completely ignored his argument. 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. 1) Measuring the temperature of anything is not possible. 2) Measuring the temperature of anything is possible. Which is it, dude? 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... Now that you have denied another one of your own arguments, what does any of this have to do with the temperature of the Earth (or Denver, or Venus, or Mars, or the Moon)? How is it that you can know the temperature of a pot roast to a useful degree, but you can't know the temperature of Earth to a useful degree? This is where your illiteracy in mathematics get you into trouble. 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
05-02-2020 06:18
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: This is a manufactured conclusion on your part not supported by anything. All conclusions are "manufactured." Mine are derived by the criteria I specify. This is where you get to explain how life is somehow not complex. tmiddles wrote: You have dodged the question of if doctors are able to determine a human's temperature with any use-able accuracy. You are refusing to accept that doctors, in the cases you identify, are not measuring the patient's temperature but are speculating, and mileage varies between patients for which doctors cannot account. Doctors take a temperature under the tongue for its convenience and quickness, not because of accuracy, and it is only considered a wag for other parts of the body and is not a substitue for anything going into a diagnosis. How do you not know this? How do you not know the difference between "useful" and "known"? 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? tmiddles wrote: A pot roast, steaming, dripping fat, as it is subjected to an external heat source, also has plenty of unknowns. There's only one unknown of consequence, i.e. the temperature at the center. We know the temperature at the surface. In fact, this is a direct parallel to your argument about thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer. You might as well claim that the moment the cold pot roast is put into the pre-heated oven that the outer surface is being cooked/heated in part by the hot oven and in part by the cool center. IBdaMann wrote: The global climate does not exist, In order to say that you'd need to have a definition for "climate". You know mine what is yours? [/quote] The global climate or The Climate is the spiritual soul of the earth according to the Climate Change religion. 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. You tried to shift goalposts there. Slick move! Artillery is useful and effective despite the commander not knowing specifically where they will land, ergo it is still desired. 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. Nope. They cannot. 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. You are mistaken. The human body has so many unknows that the General Surgery Certifying Exam is very difficult. 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, ... This curiosity on your part should be causing you to reevaluate your whole thermal energy "net flow" argument if it is actually genuine. If you know a pot roast's outer surface temperature and you know the temperature at the center, yes, you can estimate the temperature for any point in the pot roast to within an acceptable margin of error. . 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
05-02-2020 06:28
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	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. 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. To claim this fact makes a temperature unknowable it to disqualify all knowledge of the temperature of anything. Now it's your turn.
05-02-2020 06:53
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: Determining temperature must always include calculation or at least assumption. You are totally mistaken on everything you wrote. A temperature measurement is instantaneous and is for a dimensionless point. It is not a calculation. 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. Achieving almost any non-zero margin of error would be a simple matter of doing the math, i.e. integrate the temperature calculation function (which can be derived from the conduction equation with the known coefficient of heat transfer) over the volume of the roast based on the center temperature. . 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
05-02-2020 07:12
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	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. A meant the temperature of an object. 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! So to check a few points: 1 - The Pot Roast will have different temperatures at different points. There is a "range" of temperatures based on location. 2 - There is a margin of error in measuring which is basically how wrong you might be about the true temperature.
05-02-2020 07:45
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote:1 - The Pot Roast will have different temperatures at different points. There is a "range" of temperatures based on location. The temperature function has a range of values corresponding to a domain of points. No dimensionless point in the pot roast has a range of temperatures, i.e. no temperature is a range. tmiddles wrote: 2 - There is a margin of error in measuring which is basically how wrong you might be about the true temperature. "Margin of error" does not apply to measurements; it applies to statistical calculations. What does apply to the pot roast temperature measurements is the tolerance of the sensor (thermometer) which will tell you how much any given measurement could be "off." However, you are correct that "margin of error" does come into play when calculating the overall average temperature because there is error that is induced by inaccuracies and differenes in the pot roast's coefficient of heat transfer which are themselves integrated as well ... and that must be factored into the overall margin of error. So yes, exactly. . 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
05-02-2020 08:31
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	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. 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. 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." yes usually by research. You just made that up out of thin air. No valid data sets, nothing to back it up at all. 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. 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. 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? All you have with the reading the Motherboard gives you is a proxy. It's not possible to directly measure the temp of all molecules in the CPU. No technology like that exists. 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. So youre just saying the Earth's soul doesn't exist. Nothing to do with temperature at 2M above ground.
05-02-2020 16:41
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	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. Yes, but we have a minimum volume for which we can measure a temperature. We cannot peer into a molecule to see its temperature. If we have a traditional thermometer then we cannot get smaller than the bulb on the thermometer and this is forthwith accounted in the thermomter's tolerance rating. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:All conclusions are "manufactured." yes usually by research. Nope. Always by epiphany. 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? 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. 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. He does not. You operate under the mistaken impression that everybody has your level of omniscience and that unknown things are, in fact, "what we know." How do we get over this hump? For all the time that we have been discussing your declarations of omniscience you have not backed off from this position. You do not get to fill in gaps in what is known by declaring your fabrications as "what we know" ... and this includes Venus. You pretend that so much more of Venus is known than is actually known. I realize that you find it extremely rude to point out the utter misplacement of your faith in all the warmizombie fabrications that litter the internet. 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:It's not possible to directly measure the temp of all molecules in the CPU. No technology like that exists. ... and you are going to answer your own question when you learn some statistical math. This is an easy one. tmiddles wrote: So youre just saying the Earth's soul doesn't exist. Nope. I am NOT saying that the earth's soul exists. . 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

05-02-2020 17:29
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	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? OK good. No and if I had I stand corrected. 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. I believe my example could be a doctor determining a patient is not dead due to hypothermia. 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. for the purposes of our discusion any margin of error qualifies the data collected as significant. I dont care if its 450C 400C 300C or even 200C in reality, it still begs the same questions. 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. you'd agree a mercury thermometer is a proxy for the temp of soup?
05-02-2020 20:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21586)	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. Measurements don't need a calculation or an 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. Temperature is a single value. tmiddles wrote: To claim this fact makes a temperature unknowable it to disqualify all knowledge of the temperature of anything. Irrational. Which is it, dude? 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
05-02-2020 20:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21586)	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... No counterpoint presented. No arguments presented. 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
05-02-2020 20:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21586)	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. Temperature is the average internal kinetic energy of molecules. It is always a single value. 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. This is Mantra 6. You are clearly offering to 'work through the math' with no intention of ever doing so. 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... Try English. It works better. 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
05-02-2020 20:52
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: you'd agree a mercury thermometer is a proxy for the temp of soup? I do not agree. Science predicts nature and is represented as [cause] -> [effect] Science models restrict the effects on the thermometer to thermal energy causes. Ergo, measuring the temperature of the soup by inserting the thermometer is a direct measure of the soup, not a proxy measure. As long as you are grouping ALL of those particular molecules under the umbrella label of "the soup" then it is a direct measure of the soup. . 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
05-02-2020 20:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21586)	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. Lie tmiddles wrote: I believe my example could be a doctor determining a patient is not dead due to hypothermia. The body starts cooling at death. It is in hypothermia. A doctor does not need to take the temperature of a dead person. They're DEAD. tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantra 23...27...10 (measurement<->proxy)... You continue to deny statistical mathematics. You continue to attempt to redefine words. 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
05-02-2020 23:31
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	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.
06-02-2020 00:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21586)	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??!? 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
06-02-2020 02:09
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	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??!? I make mistakes all the time ITN.

Page 3 of 3

Join the debate All Governments & Organizations Are Making A Critical Basic Mistake About Climate Change Global Warmi:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Basic Mistakes in Math, Just an FYI, 2 x 2 ≠ 4.	0	27-01-2024 19:01
IbdaMann physics mistake	55	11-12-2023 14:01
The Technology Team & Some Entities Was, Are Preventing The Messiah To Save The World	17	02-08-2023 06:23
QUANTUM COMPUTING ON A COMMODORE 64 IN 200 LINES OF BASIC	3	05-07-2023 18:48
Climate change keeps making wildfires and smoke worse	5	03-07-2023 03:40