BREAKING NEWS! April 2020 - 2nd Warmest April on record.

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > BREAKING NEWS! April 2020 - 2nd Warmest April on record.

Page 1 of 3

BREAKING NEWS! April 2020 - 2nd Warmest April on record.16-05-2020 06:06
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	Despite the ENSO cycle being in its neutral phase - April 2020 has taken the silver medal in the global warming race, second only to April 2016 (the height of the recent very strong El Nino). That makes 424 consecutive months (35+ years) with temperature above their 20th century average. 2020 on pace to be the 2nd warmest year on record making 7 years in a row for the 7 hottest years See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3iHrMBjPi8
16-05-2020 06:32
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Mate this is the problem how do they get this impossible to get information and look at the amounts.o this and that.It means nothing
16-05-2020 08:21
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	duncan61 wrote: Mate this is the problem how do they get this impossible to get information and look at the amounts.o this and that.It means nothing I don't mind posting it again: Too funny! G - U - L - L - I - B - L - E From The MANUAL Unprecedented: adjective Per the Global Warming lexicon, whenever an ordinary or otherwise non-exceptional event occurs that some Climate Scientist wishes to imply requires a Settled Science explanation, the event is characterized as "unprecedented." Of the Instrument Record: prepositional phrase In the Global Warming mythology, being pronounced a superlative "of the instrument record" is a religious honor, akin to a title of sainthood, bestown upon an ordinary or otherwise non-exceptional weather event that becomes interesting trivia for having broken some obscure record. Ever since 2002, the narrative hasn't changed because warmizombies aren't smart enough to catch on: Every year, the previous year is proclaimed to be the hottest year "of the instrument record." Every year is always "on track" to be the hottest year "of the instrument record." The hottest seven years "of the instrument record" have always occurred within the last eleven years. Every month, the previous month is proclaimed to be the hottest [Jan/Feb/Mar/Apr/etc..] "of the instrument record." Every month is always "on track" to be the hottest [Jan/Feb/Mar/Apr/etc..] "of the instrument record." The hottest seven [Jan/Feb/Mar/Apr/etc..] "of the instrument record" have always occurred over the last eleven years. Every day a heat record is broken somewhere proving that Global Warming is real and active in our lives. Every day a cold record is broken somewhere proving that you're too stupid to know the difference between weather and Climate. Memories are chock full of much milder summers and unbearably cold winters. Perceptions are clear about the current unbearably hot nature of summers and the need for air conditioning even in winters. ... and all of the above is exclaimed as though it's all completely credible, ... nay, ... obvious. ... all we need now from DRKTS is ... DRKTS wrote: 2020 is already on a similar pace. You do not disappoint! Thank you. Duncan, I'm going to ask a favor of you. Press DRKTS for the temperatures of those 424 consecutive months and for the 20th century average. Tell him that he can use his assertions to blow a wallaby unless he tells you exactly what those temperatures are. After all, how can anyone know that they are the "warmer" or "colder" than some "20th century average" without knowing what those temperatures are, right? Don't let him browbeat you with crap. You're an Australian, mate. Australians don't take this kind of chit from any bloke. Make him give you the list of those temperatures. And when he can't give you that list, and he starts making really lame excuses, I want to see how a true Australian handles that situation. Do your country proud. . 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 Edited on 16-05-2020 08:23
16-05-2020 10:20
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I have just done a bit of gardening and for the first time I have noticed the grape vine is wilting and dropping its leaves.I doubt it is absorbing CO2 this time of year and in spring it will need a lot to grow that massive canopy again.Walking from the bus I go over a hill and I can see the city and surrounding suburbs.There are trees everywhere in a lot of places you cant see the houses for the trees with the hills in the background.Once you go over the range there is nothing for 2600 kms.This forum has made me consider these things
16-05-2020 11:29
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	DRKTS wrote: That makes 424 consecutive months (35+ years) with temperature above their 20th century average. DRKTS the problem I have with this is that describing it in a More/Less/Equal format does not work because we are not coming out of a history of level, unchanging temperatures. 424 months is a 35 year span. Take a look: Now you can see that last 35 years do make a good run up 1/2 a degree Celscius accepting the government numbers. But take a look at 1910 to 1945, also 35 years, and also a 1/2 degree jump. I think it's commonly accepted that while anthropocentric global warming may have been occurring in the early 1900s it would be a small fraction of what has occured in the last 50 years. So if CO2 is causing the increase what's up with 1910 to 1945? You'll notice they do NOT correlate in that period int he graph above. Also we had an ice age about 12,000 years ago so you could have said "hottest day on record" quite a few times since then. I think describing temperature change as a standard deviation makes more sense but really it's just a messy business to use "hottest ever" at all.

16-05-2020 15:02
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	tmiddles wrote: DRKTS wrote: That makes 424 consecutive months (35+ years) with temperature above their 20th century average. DRKTS the problem I have with this is that describing it in a More/Less/Equal format does not work because we are not coming out of a history of level, unchanging temperatures. 424 months is a 35 year span. Take a look: Now you can see that last 35 years do make a good run up 1/2 a degree Celscius accepting the government numbers. But take a look at 1910 to 1945, also 35 years, and also a 1/2 degree jump. I think it's commonly accepted that while anthropocentric global warming may have been occurring in the early 1900s it would be a small fraction of what has occurred in the last 50 years. So if CO2 is causing the increase what's up with 1910 to 1945? You'll notice they do NOT correlate in that period in the graph above. Also we had an ice age about 12,000 years ago so you could have said "hottest day on record" quite a few times since then. I think describing temperature change as a standard deviation makes more sense but really it's just a messy business to use "hottest ever" at all. First you need to understand that a lot of the noise on this signal is due to other weather phenomena - especially El Nino/La Nina plus large volcanic eruptions. It is possible to calibrate those out. See Figure 5 of Foster and Rahmdorf (2011) at https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf GHGs are not the only cause of changes in global average temperatures. Aerosols can cause either warming (soot) or cooling (SO2) depending on their nature. The run-up of temperatures over the last 50 years is over 1C not 0.5C according to your own graph. P.S., You should use annual figures not those for a single month - June. In early 1940s there was a prolonged strong el nino. So you are measuring from the nadir of a cool period (1910) to the peak of an El nino so over estimating the jump from 1910 to 1945. Then we had WWII with lots of aerosols and then there was the post war boom - lots more aerosols which suppressed the CO2 effect. When the Clean Air acts were passed by most industrialized countries the aerosol emission rates dropped so from the mid 70's until now the upward trend in global temperatures is largely due to just the GHGs modulated a little by aerosols. Nothing else can explain that jump and especially why we have had the 7 warmest years in a row in the last 7 years. PS they are not just government figures, many universities do similar analyses and get the same result. I would particularly point out Berkeley Earth which I consider the gold standard as it does not use the processed data. They get a similar result as NOAA, NASA, UK Met, Japan Met, and WMO - and they were being paid to do the analysis by the Koch brothers (until they published their results - when the Koch's withdrew funding immediately!)
16-05-2020 22:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	DRKTS wrote: Despite the ENSO cycle being in its neutral phase - April 2020 has taken the silver medal in the global warming race, second only to April 2016 (the height of the recent very strong El Nino). That makes 424 consecutive months (35+ years) with temperature above their 20th century average. 2020 on pace to be the 2nd warmest year on record making 7 years in a row for the 7 hottest years See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3iHrMBjPi8 It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Define 'global warming'. 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 Edited on 16-05-2020 22:20
16-05-2020 22:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 4f...25g...25a...25g...25l...25g... No argument presented. Math errors. Comparison of random numbers vs random numbers. 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
16-05-2020 22:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	DRKTS wrote:...deleted Mantras 25g...25a...16c...20d...25g...25a...22a...25g...20j...4f...37a...37c...39a...5... No arguments presented. Bulverism. 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
17-05-2020 02:31
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	DRKTS wrote PS they are not just government figures, many universities do similar analyses and get the same result. I would particularly point out Berkeley Earth which I consider the gold standard as it does not use the processed data. They get a similar result as NOAA, NASA, UK Met, Japan Met, and WMO - and they were being paid to do the analysis by the Koch brothers (until they published their results - when the Koch's withdrew funding immediately!) My understanding of this comment is you can buy any result you wish/need.Fortunately my take on the present day situation after the Paris accord is all the governments of the world have gone cold on the whole plan of turning off the power.It is going to take some time to bounce back from the flu thing that happened and because the Australian Government wishes for answers to the flu thing.The ambassador from China is threatening to cut imports of beef and coal from Australia and we dont care because plenty of other countries wish to have our very pure coal and excellent beef products.Our navy is moving to the South China sea in support of the good ol USA.Its on boys.If we are still here this time next year it will be the glowing in the dark you will be worried about not .03 degree of something
17-05-2020 10:00
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	duncan61 wrote: My understanding of this comment is you can buy any result you wish/need. Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Yes, that is exactly how it works. Contractors and think tanks will do whatever you want for the price they charge. Organizations only spend money on things they want. The way it works is that organizations take large sums of cash and tell contractors that they can have that money if they provide a "study" concluding whatever they want concluded. Contractors and think tanks have only one response: "When can we get started?" Study: noun A report that comports to justify a predetermined conclusion by pretending the conclusion was never predetermined. Five Reasons God Exists and Three Reasons It Makes a Difference. Justification of Wife Beating in Rural Bangladesh Genetic analysis of hair samples attributed to yeti, bigfoot and other anomalous primates ... so take all the "studies" for Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect and append them to this list. . 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 Edited on 17-05-2020 10:00
17-05-2020 11:36
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	DRKTS wrote: GHGs are not the only cause of changes in global average temperatures. As well as the forces that cause the ice ages. I believe Milankovitch cycles are considered to be the player there. But that's my point. You first need to determine what you expect the temperature to be without AGW. Now if temperatures had been falling or flat for 500 years and now were rising it would be very clean and clear. Unfortunately that's not the case so a claim of "highest temp ever" isn't a good one. Doesn't take anything away from whatever is really going on its just not a good standard. Sort of like saying a movie had the highest box office gross ever without factoring in inflation. DRKTS wrote:The run-up of temperatures over the last 50 years is over 1C not 0.5C I was talking 35 years but true. And over the last 75 years only 0.5 again, over the last 100 1.4 but over the last 140 only 1. You see my point I hope. Complexity doesn't mean we give up just that we set aside pretending it's simple. DRKTS wrote:In early 1940s there was a prolonged strong el nino. ...Then we had WWII with lots of aerosols and then there was the post war boom - lots more aerosols which suppressed the CO2 effect. Sounds interesting you have a good source on that? I mean it I'd like to know more. What I don't see you factoring in are whatever caused undulations in the past 12000 years. Can't all be El Ninos right? DRKTS wrote:Nothing else can explain that jump and especially why we have had the 7 warmest years in a row in the last 7 years. Well again there is whatever causes the Earth to cycle through ice ages and that assumes we're rock solid on El Nino explaining the heat wave in the 1930s: But again this is a can of worms that comes along with claiming "hottest year on record" when that's just a messy metric. Into the Night wrote: It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Define 'global warming'. 'global warming' is an increase in the mean annual temperature of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere. And ITN you should really start saying Denver up front and save people time in figuring out what you mean: gfm7175 wrote: I have no clue what the temperature of my house is. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver. He's absolutely correct.... IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote: My understanding of this comment is you can buy any result you wish/need. Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! IBD's thesis seems to be simply that NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN and the conspiracy is endless. However! IBD has even admitted he does not allege fraud/deception/bribery in the Venus temperature measurements and yet, inexplicably, he refuses to debate them even given a 300C margin of error! https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s720.php#post_53762 68 days with no reply Oh and of course ITN gave up long ago. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
17-05-2020 12:09
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	DRKTS wrote: Despite the ENSO cycle being in its neutral phase - April 2020 has taken the silver medal in the global warming race, second only to April 2016 (the height of the recent very strong El Nino). That makes 424 consecutive months (35+ years) with temperature above their 20th century average. 2020 on pace to be the 2nd warmest year on record making 7 years in a row for the 7 hottest years See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3iHrMBjPi8 The sea temperature at Scarborough beach is 22.3 C at Rottnest that you can see from the coast it is 24.6C at 30 metres deep it is 14.8C this is all within eyesight of the coast.To believe this data you have posted above you would have to believe that it is possible to know the individual temperature of every litre of water in every part of every ocean on the planet including the dead sea and red sea duncan61 Edited on 17-05-2020 12:15
17-05-2020 12:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	tmiddles wrote: DRKTS wrote: GHGs are not the only cause of changes in global average temperatures. As well as the forces that cause the ice ages. Nope. Wrong and wrong. Proximity to the sun is the only factor. Looking at charts representing fabricated data doesn't change anything. There is no quantity of fabricated data that becomes sufficient to transform reality, I'm sorry. We have some wonderful consolation prizes for you on your way out. Thank you for playing. . 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
17-05-2020 12:19
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:As well as the forces that cause the ice ages. Nope... Proximity to the sun is the only factor. Milankovitch cycles are dealing with proximity to the sun IBD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles And is proximity to the Sun the only factor determining the temperature on Venus? Edited on 17-05-2020 12:20

17-05-2020 12:24
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	And to make it more interesting in 2 months the sea temperature of Scarborough beach will go down to 17C
17-05-2020 12:26
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	duncan61 wrote: And to make it more interesting in 2 months the sea temperature of Scarborough beach will go down to 17C Will that cause coral dry-cleaning? . 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
17-05-2020 14:01
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:As well as the forces that cause the ice ages. Nope... Proximity to the sun is the only factor. Milankovitch cycles are dealing with proximity to the sun IBD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles And is proximity to the Sun the only factor determining the temperature on Venus? No, Earth's temperature is changed on the macro level to veer from ice ages to interglacials by 3 main factors: 1. The parameters of Earth's orbit (eccentricity, precession, obliquity) 2. Albedo changes 3. Changes in the composition of the atmosphere. These act sequentially (in that order) and it is their combination that leads to the 5-10C difference in the average temperature of the Earth that is the difference between an ice age and an interglacial. No single one of these factors can explain the overall temperature change, however the bulk of the temperature change happens after the GHGs increase. These and other factors can change Earth's climate acting alone or in combination on timescales of months to billions of years. For example, plate tectonics, natural cycles (sun, ENSO, NAO, etc.), volcanic eruptions, mountain building and erosion, change in ocean currents and salinity, effects of fauna and flora evolution. Venus has a near circular orbit and weird rotation. So the thing that creates Venus' high temperatures is oddly nothing to to with distance from the Sun. It is closer to the Sun than Earth so receives more radiation at the top of its atmosphere but its albedo is much higher than Earth's so overall it gets about the same amount of energy input as the Earth's climate system does. The difference is that it is shrouded in a dense layer of CO2 that traps the heat. So factors #1 and #2 above do not play a role in determining Venus' temperature, only #3.
17-05-2020 14:07
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: DRKTS wrote: GHGs are not the only cause of changes in global average temperatures. As well as the forces that cause the ice ages. Nope. Wrong and wrong. Proximity to the sun is the only factor. Looking at charts representing fabricated data doesn't change anything. There is no quantity of fabricated data that becomes sufficient to transform reality, I'm sorry. We have some wonderful consolation prizes for you on your way out. Thank you for playing. . Ever hear of whistling in the dark? It does not make reality go away. A series of unsubstantiated assertions does not win an argument, in fact it loses it. You are not even whistling in tune, just loudly. Suggest you learn the rules of debate and get some practice in before playing next time. You'll still lose, but it may not be such a rout.
17-05-2020 22:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	tmiddles wrote: DRKTS wrote: GHGs are not the only cause of changes in global average temperatures. As well as the forces that cause the ice ages. I believe Milankovitch cycles are considered to be the player there. But that's my point. You first need to determine what you expect the temperature to be without AGW. Now if temperatures had been falling or flat for 500 years and now were rising it would be very clean and clear. Unfortunately that's not the case so a claim of "highest temp ever" isn't a good one. Doesn't take anything away from whatever is really going on its just not a good standard. Sort of like saying a movie had the highest box office gross ever without factoring in inflation. Temperature scales don't inflate. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Mantras 25g...25l...25c...25d...25e...25f... tmiddles wrote: DRKTS wrote:The run-up of temperatures over the last 50 years is over 1C not 0.5C I was talking 35 years but true. And over the last 75 years only 0.5 again, over the last 100 1.4 but over the last 140 only 1. You see my point I hope. Complexity doesn't mean we give up just that we set aside pretending it's simple. Mantras 25g...25c...25d...25e...25f...11... tmiddles wrote: DRKTS wrote:In early 1940s there was a prolonged strong el nino. ...Then we had WWII with lots of aerosols and then there was the post war boom - lots more aerosols which suppressed the CO2 effect. Sounds interesting you have a good source on that? I mean it I'd like to know more. Mantra 20a1... tmiddles wrote: What I don't see you factoring in are whatever caused undulations in the past 12000 years. Can't all be El Ninos right? Mantra 20e2...25g...39a...31... tmiddles wrote: DRKTS wrote:Nothing else can explain that jump and especially why we have had the 7 warmest years in a row in the last 7 years. Well again there is whatever causes the Earth to cycle through ice ages and that assumes we're rock solid on El Nino explaining the heat wave in the 1930s: But again this is a can of worms that comes along with claiming "hottest year on record" when that's just a messy metric. Mantra 25g...25c...25d...25e...20e2...9a...31... tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Define 'global warming'. 'global warming' is an increase in the mean annual temperature of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere. Circular definition. You cannot define a word with itself. Mantra 22a. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the surface of the Earth. Mantras 25g...25c...25d...25e...39a...39g... tmiddles wrote: And ITN you should really start saying Denver up front and save people time in figuring out what you mean: It is not possible to measure the temperature of Denver. Mantras 25g...25c...25d...25e...39g... tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote: My understanding of this comment is you can buy any result you wish/need. Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! IBD's thesis seems to be simply that NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN and the conspiracy is endless. Lie. Mantras 30...25c...25d...25e...29... tmiddles wrote: However! IBD has even admitted he does not allege fraud/deception/bribery in the Venus temperature measurements and yet, inexplicably, he refuses to debate them even given a 300C margin of error! It is not possible to measure the temperature of Venus. Mantras 25g...25c...25d...25e... tmiddles wrote: Oh and of course ITN gave up long ago. No, that would be YOU. You are still evading. You have not yet demonstrated a colder object heating a warmer one. Mantras 17... No arguments presented. Denial of statistical mathematics. Denial of science. 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
17-05-2020 22:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 30...4b...4a...29...25g...25c...25d...25e... No argument presented. False authority fallacy. Denial of mathematics. 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
17-05-2020 22:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	DRKTS wrote: No, Earth's temperature is changed on the macro level to veer from ice ages to interglacials by 3 main factors: 1. The parameters of Earth's orbit (eccentricity, precession, obliquity) 2. Albedo changes 3. Changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Changes in eccentricity, or precession do not change the temperature of the Earth. The obliquity of Earth's orbit does not change. Even if it did, it would not change the temperature of Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Base rate fallacy. The composition of the atmosphere does not change the temperature of the Earth. Mantras 20e2...20a1...20b2...20f...20o...20s...20u...25g...25a...25b...39a... DRKTS wrote: These act sequentially (in that order) and it is their combination that leads to the 5-10C difference in the average temperature of the Earth that is the difference between an ice age and an interglacial. Mantras 20s...25g...31... DRKTS wrote: No single one of these factors can explain the overall temperature change, however the bulk of the temperature change happens after the GHGs increase. It is not possible for any gas or vapor to warm the Earth. Mantras 31...25g...20a1...20b2...39a... DRKTS wrote: These and other factors can change Earth's climate acting alone or in combination on timescales of months to billions of years. Define 'climate change'. Mantras 22b...31...39m... DRKTS wrote: For example, plate tectonics, natural cycles (sun, ENSO, NAO, etc.), volcanic eruptions, mountain building and erosion, change in ocean currents and salinity, effects of fauna and flora evolution. Mantra 39m... DRKTS wrote: Venus has a near circular orbit and weird rotation. So the thing that creates Venus' high temperatures is oddly nothing to to with distance from the Sun. It is closer to the Sun than Earth so receives more radiation at the top of its atmosphere but its albedo is much higher than Earth's so overall it gets about the same amount of energy input as the Earth's climate system does. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The emissivity of Venus is unknown. No gas or vapor can warm a planet. Mantras 20h...20g...20e2...20a2...25g... DRKTS wrote: The difference is that it is shrouded in a dense layer of CO2 that traps the heat. It is not possible to trap heat. Mantras 20a2...20b...10b... DRKTS wrote: So factors #1 and #2 above do not play a role in determining Venus' temperature, only #3. Mantras 39m...39h...39c...39o... No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. Use of buzzwords. Use of false equivalencies. 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
17-05-2020 23:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	DRKTS wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: DRKTS wrote: GHGs are not the only cause of changes in global average temperatures. As well as the forces that cause the ice ages. Nope. Wrong and wrong. Proximity to the sun is the only factor. Looking at charts representing fabricated data doesn't change anything. There is no quantity of fabricated data that becomes sufficient to transform reality, I'm sorry. We have some wonderful consolation prizes for you on your way out. Thank you for playing. . Ever hear of whistling in the dark? It does not make reality go away. Define 'reality'. Mantra 5...10d...23... DRKTS wrote: A series of unsubstantiated assertions does not win an argument, in fact it loses it. Mantra 17. You are describing yourself again. DRKTS wrote: You are not even whistling in tune, just loudly. Mantra 17. You are describing yourself again. DRKTS wrote: Suggest you learn the rules of debate and get some practice in before playing next time. There are no 'rules of debate'. Just the rules of the forum, established and maintained by the forum owner. Mantra 4d... DRKTS wrote: You'll still lose, but it may not be such a rout. Mantra 7. No argument presented. Buzzword fallacies. False authority fallacies. Inversion fallacies. 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 Edited on 17-05-2020 23:04
17-05-2020 23:13
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	Into the Night wrote: DRKTS wrote: Despite the ENSO cycle being in its neutral phase - April 2020 has taken the silver medal in the global warming race, second only to April 2016 (the height of the recent very strong El Nino). That makes 424 consecutive months (35+ years) with temperature above their 20th century average. 2020 on pace to be the 2nd warmest year on record making 7 years in a row for the 7 hottest years See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3iHrMBjPi8 It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Define 'global warming'. Yet experienced and knowledgeable scientists do it every month with a degree of consistency from group to group and from method to method that says it is possible. How do they do it? Look up the papers where they describe the methodology. I have measured the temperature of the Sun from 150M km away with an accuracy of a few degrees. I did that when I was at school at the age of 15. Since then my research group even measured the interior temperature of the Sun from about 1/3 the radius deep out to high in to the corona. How do we solar physicists do it - same answer - get educated.
17-05-2020 23:18
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: DRKTS wrote: GHGs are not the only cause of changes in global average temperatures. As well as the forces that cause the ice ages. I believe Milankovitch cycles are considered to be the player there. But that's my point. You first need to determine what you expect the temperature to be without AGW. Now if temperatures had been falling or flat for 500 years and now were rising it would be very clean and clear. Unfortunately that's not the case so a claim of "highest temp ever" isn't a good one. Doesn't take anything away from whatever is really going on its just not a good standard. Sort of like saying a movie had the highest box office gross ever without factoring in inflation. Temperature scales don't inflate. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Mantras 25g...25l...25c...25d...25e...25f... tmiddles wrote: DRKTS wrote:The run-up of temperatures over the last 50 years is over 1C not 0.5C I was talking 35 years but true. And over the last 75 years only 0.5 again, over the last 100 1.4 but over the last 140 only 1. You see my point I hope. Complexity doesn't mean we give up just that we set aside pretending it's simple. Mantras 25g...25c...25d...25e...25f...11... tmiddles wrote: DRKTS wrote:In early 1940s there was a prolonged strong el nino. ...Then we had WWII with lots of aerosols and then there was the post war boom - lots more aerosols which suppressed the CO2 effect. Sounds interesting you have a good source on that? I mean it I'd like to know more. Mantra 20a1... tmiddles wrote: What I don't see you factoring in are whatever caused undulations in the past 12000 years. Can't all be El Ninos right? Mantra 20e2...25g...39a...31... tmiddles wrote: DRKTS wrote:Nothing else can explain that jump and especially why we have had the 7 warmest years in a row in the last 7 years. Well again there is whatever causes the Earth to cycle through ice ages and that assumes we're rock solid on El Nino explaining the heat wave in the 1930s: But again this is a can of worms that comes along with claiming "hottest year on record" when that's just a messy metric. Mantra 25g...25c...25d...25e...20e2...9a...31... tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Define 'global warming'. 'global warming' is an increase in the mean annual temperature of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere. Circular definition. You cannot define a word with itself. Mantra 22a. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the surface of the Earth. Mantras 25g...25c...25d...25e...39a...39g... tmiddles wrote: And ITN you should really start saying Denver up front and save people time in figuring out what you mean: It is not possible to measure the temperature of Denver. Mantras 25g...25c...25d...25e...39g... tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote: My understanding of this comment is you can buy any result you wish/need. Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! IBD's thesis seems to be simply that NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN and the conspiracy is endless. Lie. Mantras 30...25c...25d...25e...29... tmiddles wrote: However! IBD has even admitted he does not allege fraud/deception/bribery in the Venus temperature measurements and yet, inexplicably, he refuses to debate them even given a 300C margin of error! It is not possible to measure the temperature of Venus. Mantras 25g...25c...25d...25e... tmiddles wrote: Oh and of course ITN gave up long ago. No, that would be YOU. You are still evading. You have not yet demonstrated a colder object heating a warmer one. Mantras 17... No arguments presented. Denial of statistical mathematics. Denial of science. RQAA. You like to refer to these mantras - I have no idea what you are talking about. But cling to them if you dont have any real counter arguments - I realize they are your security blanket. You should probably stop sucking your thumb though.
17-05-2020 23:20
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	tmiddles wrote:And is proximity to the Sun the only factor determining the temperature on Venus? Excellent! You want to engage in another discussion focusing on your mathematical incompetence, specifically your inability to distinguish variables from constants. So let's begin. What factors in any temperature on Venus do you believe are variables? . 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
17-05-2020 23:33
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	The Mantras confused me too but there is a place you can have a look.How hot is the sun.just curious.You are taking it all too serious and are starting to get personal and insult other posters.What keeps a smile on my dial is the fact you have not convinced Boris and Trump and they are not going to do stuff all about your faith.Its good Obama has moved on because he fell for it and he is a cool dude
17-05-2020 23:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	DRKTS wrote: You like to refer to these mantras - I have no idea what you are talking about. That's a simple matter to fix. When you read responses on Climate-Debate, keep THIS SITE open in a separate tab for reference. Then you'll do just fine. You'll see and understand all the egregious errors that you keep repeating. Well, I can't guarantee that you'll understand fully, but at least you'll have a clue. . 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
18-05-2020 01:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	duncan61 wrote: The Mantras confused me too but there is a place you can have a look.How hot is the sun.just curious.You are taking it all too serious and are starting to get personal and insult other posters.What keeps a smile on my dial is the fact you have not convinced Boris and Trump and they are not going to do stuff all about your faith.Its good Obama has moved on because he fell for it and he is a cool dude The mantras I number are each based on a logical fallacy. Fallacies are errors in logic, similar to math error in mathematics. Both math and logic are closed functional systems. The temperature of the Sun is unknown. It is possible, using Wien's law, to get an idea of the temperature of the photosphere to +- several thousands of degrees. This technique does not work on reflective bodies at all, such as Earth or Venus. 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
18-05-2020 02:07
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	DRKTS wrote:3 main factors:1. orbit 2. Albedo 3. atmosphere...these act sequentially it could even be that 2 and 3 are just a result of 1 right? Earth gets close to the sun and warms, this melts the ice, make the planet less reflective and CO2 is released from the warmer oceans. I mean I don't know but just checking my understanding with yours. DRKTS wrote: Venus ... is shrouded in a dense layer of CO2 that traps the heat. Certainly but it's an interesting question to what degree it's the greenhouse gas attributes and to what degree it's the sheer mass of the atmosphere. VernerHornung one of the most brilliant people we've had on this forum pointed out that Mars actually has more greenhouse gases than the Earth but less of a greenhouse effect. The atmosphere is far less massive. Check it out: I computed each square meter of Mars has 170 kg of CO2 versus 4 kg on Earth. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Define 'global warming'. 'global warming' is an increase in the mean annual temperature of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere. Circular definition. You cannot define a word with itself. So "Core Body Temperature" is the temperature of a bodies internal organs. Is that also a circular definition? How about an example of something that's not? What nonsense that a definition would not include what is being defined. Into the Night wrote:You have not yet demonstrated a colder object heating a warmer one. Why would I as I've never said they do. Those are your words ITN. I've said, consistently, that radiance from a cooler body can be absorbed by a warmer one. I don't use the word "heat" or "heating". Into the Night wrote:Changes in eccentricity, or precession do not change the temperature of the Earth. Of course it does. Closer is warmer, Farther is cooler. Into the Night wrote:The composition of the atmosphere does not change the temperature of the Earth. What about the temperature within the Earth? The temperature deep into Earth at the bottom of it's atmosphere. Into the Night wrote:It is not possible for any gas or vapor to warm the Earth. You love to play word games. Define "Earth" in that sentence. Into the Night wrote:It is not possible to trap heat. and is it possible to trap thermal energy? Yes, yes it is. Into the Night wrote:Define 'reality'. don't bother DRKTS ITN will joust with the dictionary all day if you indulge him. He just trys to duck any debate. "reality" is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. DRKTS wrote: Into the Night wrote: It is not possible to measure the temperature ... Yet experienced and knowledgeable scientists do it every month ITN has never given an example of the temperature of ANYTHING being measurable. It's his attempt to disqualify all discussion of anything. He has denied the temperature of skin, Denver, the human body, you name it. IBdaMann wrote: What factors in any temperature on Venus do you believe are variables? I'm not sure. Is it important? I'd be very interested to know what you have to say on the subject. duncan61 wrote:How hot is the sun.just curious. Into the Night wrote: The temperature of the Sun is unknown. ITN doesn't think the temperature of anything can be known. He is wrong. So the Sun has a temperature at it's outer edge we would call it's surface temperature, the last molecules that radiate out into space, and that temp is ~ 5778K or 5505C But what matters to us is what we get from the sun. So an easy way to imagine the math on that is if you inflated the sun to being so big it was touching the earth, and you took the energy it had and spread it out, diluted it, to match that new size, the temperature would be about 116C I think.link http://burro.case.edu/Academics/Astr221/SolarSys/equiltemp.html IBdaMann wrote:keep THIS SITE open in a separate tab for reference. DRKTS note that IBD likes to pretend this is a reference or 3rd party but it's just his private site. I consider this practice to be deceptive but he seems to enjoy it. Also be aware ITN loves to spout mantras but never responds to a rebuttal on one. Not really a "debater". "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 18-05-2020 02:09

18-05-2020 03:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	tmiddles wrote: DRKTS wrote:3 main factors:1. orbit 2. Albedo 3. atmosphere...these act sequentially it could even be that 2 and 3 are just a result of 1 right? Earth gets close to the sun and warms, this melts the ice, make the planet less reflective and CO2 is released from the warmer oceans. I mean I don't know but just checking my understanding with yours. Mantras 25g...25j...20f...6...29... tmiddles wrote: DRKTS wrote: Venus ... is shrouded in a dense layer of CO2 that traps the heat. Certainly but it's an interesting question to what degree it's the greenhouse gas attributes and to what degree it's the sheer mass of the atmosphere. It is not possible to trap heat. Mantras 20a1...29...22a...33b... tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung one of the most brilliant people we've had on this forum pointed out that Mars actually has more greenhouse gases than the Earth but less of a greenhouse effect. The atmosphere is far less massive. Check it out: I computed each square meter of Mars has 170 kg of CO2 versus 4 kg on Earth. Mantra 16b...22g...20e3...20n...20o... tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Define 'global warming'. 'global warming' is an increase in the mean annual temperature of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere. Circular definition. You cannot define a word with itself. So "Core Body Temperature" is the temperature of a bodies internal organs. Is that also a circular definition? Mantra 15...16b... tmiddles wrote: How about an example of something that's not? What nonsense that a definition would not include what is being defined. Mantra 29 tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:You have not yet demonstrated a colder object heating a warmer one. Why would I as I've never said they do. Those are your words ITN. Lie. tmiddles wrote: I've said, consistently, that radiance from a cooler body can be absorbed by a warmer one. I don't use the word "heat" or "heating". Lie. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Changes in eccentricity, or precession do not change the temperature of the Earth. Of course it does. Closer is warmer, Farther is cooler. Mantra 20f....25a... tmiddles wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote:The composition of the atmosphere does not change the temperature of the Earth. What about the temperature within the Earth? The temperature deep into Earth at the bottom of it's atmosphere. Mantra 29. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:It is not possible for any gas or vapor to warm the Earth. You love to play word games. Define "Earth" in that sentence. Mantra 30...17...29... tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:It is not possible to trap heat. and is it possible to trap thermal energy? Yes, yes it is. No, it is not. Mantra 20a1...9b...29... tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Define 'reality'. don't bother DRKTS ITN will joust with the dictionary all day if you indulge him. He just trys to duck any debate. "reality" is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Circular definition. Mantras 30...17...4d...17...22...31...39g...39m... tmiddles wrote: DRKTS wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote: It is not possible to measure the temperature ... Yet experienced and knowledgeable scientists do it every month ITN has never given an example of the temperature of ANYTHING being measurable. Lie. Mantras 30...29... tmiddles wrote: It's his attempt to disqualify all discussion of anything. Lie. Mantras 30...29... tmiddles wrote: He has denied the temperature of skin, Denver, the human body, you name it. The temperature of all of these is unknown. Mantras 25c...25d...25e...25g...9a...20i... tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: What factors in any temperature on Venus do you believe are variables? I'm not sure. Is it important? I'd be very interested to know what you have to say on the subject. Evasion. Answer the question. tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:How hot is the sun.just curious. Into the Night wrote: The temperature of the Sun is unknown. ITN doesn't think the temperature of anything can be known. Lie. Mantras 30...29... tmiddles wrote: He is wrong. So the Sun has a temperature at it's outer edge we would call it's surface temperature, the last molecules that radiate out into space, and that temp is ~ 5778K or 5505C Mantras 25g...25c...25d...25e...20x... tmiddles wrote: But what matters to us is what we get from the sun. So an easy way to imagine the math on that is if you inflated the sun to being so big it was touching the earth, and you took the energy it had and spread it out, diluted it, to match that new size, the temperature would be about 116C I think. Mantras 20o...25f...25g... tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:keep THIS SITE open in a separate tab for reference. DRKTS note that IBD likes to pretend this is a reference or 3rd party but it's just his private site. That site is where I keep my numbered mantra list for public reference. I am the authority of that list. Mantras 5...23a...35a...39k... tmiddles wrote: I consider this practice to be deceptive but he seems to enjoy it. I am the authoritative of that list. Bulverism fallacy. Mantra 5. tmiddles wrote: Also be aware ITN loves to spout mantras but never responds to a rebuttal on one. Mantras have no rebuttals. Each one is based on a fallacy. Mantras 5...8...39p... tmiddles wrote: Not really a "debater". You are not debating. Mantra 17. No arguments presented. Denial of authoritative reference. Denial of mathematics. Denial of logic. 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
18-05-2020 08:14
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:Denial of authoritative reference. What could you POSSIBLY mean by that. You haven't provided a reference on this board since the Mauna Loa CO2 data in you Data Mine. If you mean IBDs website with your private list you have lost it. It's not a "reference" when you are talking and it's more of your talking. Presenting it as such is just dishonest.
18-05-2020 10:25
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: What factors in any temperature on Venus do you believe are variables? I'm not sure. Is it important? I'd be very interested to know what you have to say on the subject. Absolutely it is important. The word "factor" means one thing mathematically and another thing in coloquial speech when discussing nature, and this is an area in which an unscrupulous person bent on dishonesty would target to sow confusion. Mathematically, every term that is multiplied/divided is a "factor" ... whether it be a variable or a constant. When discussing nature, we only discuss independent variables as "factors" and do not consider constants. We treat the sun as having a constant output for purposes of discussion (which is standard for simplifying things in light of random fluctuations) The earth has its constant of emissivity. The universe has its Stefan-Boltzmann constant. These are mathematical factors in equations, but the only independent variable, and thus the only "factor" in the earth's temperature is the distance to the sun. So there's the correct answer for you ... unless you believe there are some other dependent variables. Do you? tmiddles wrote: ITN doesn't think the temperature of anything can be known. He doesn't think that. You dishonestly claim that because he doesn't buy your claims of omniscience. tmiddles wrote: So the Sun has a temperature at it's outer edge It takes a special kind of stupid to claim the sun has any sort of defined outer edge. You haven't given this any thought, have you? tmiddles wrote: we would call it's surface temperature, the last molecules that radiate out into space, Which molecule is that? How do you know its temperature? Omniscience? Are you saying that there was a last and final molecule that "radiated" out into space? Are molecules "radiated" by the sun? I'm sorry, ... dismissed. You are welcome to explain this incoherence. tmiddles wrote: But what matters to us is what we get from the sun. So an easy way to imagine the math on that is if you inflated the sun to being so big it was touching the earth, and you took the energy it had and spread it out, diluted it, to match that new size, the temperature would be about 116C I think. 1) You are referring to the inverse square law. You divide by the distance squared to calculate how much to "dilute" the radiance from the sun. 2) The radiance has no temperature. Only when radiance is absorbed is there temperature. Anything not absorbed does not become thermal energy and does not contribute to the temperature of the body. This requires you to know the emissivity of the earth in order to know how much the incident solar radiance contributes to the earth's temperature. You do not know the earth's emissivity therefore you don't know how much temperature. You could calculate the upper limit by pretending the earth's emissivity is 1.0, but you wouldn't have any idea how close that is to the actual value, i.e. it would not serve as an "estimate" of any usable value. tmiddles wrote: DRKTS note that IBD likes to pretend this is a reference or 3rd party I never once said that. Of course I consider your practice of misrepresenting my position to be deceptive, but you seem to enjoy it. You seem to pretend that science is subjective and that it somehow differs from person to person, ... because you view science as a competing religion that is incompatible with your most profound Global Warming beliefs. Ergo, you claim that if it resides on my site as a reference then I must be pawning off my beliefs as someone else's who is, what, more credible? Science doesn't change from person to person, site to site. tmiddles wrote: Also be aware ITN loves to spout mantras but never responds to a rebuttal on one. Fallacies cannot be defended. They must be corrected or discarded. Every question you have asked about your fallacies has been answered. You nonetheless pout when your fallacies and contradictions are not simply accepted and your "omniscience" dismissed. . 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 Edited on 18-05-2020 10:29
18-05-2020 12:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...lie...5...5...29... No argument presented. Denial of authoritative reference. Bulverism. 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
18-05-2020 16:34
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	tmiddles wrote: If you mean IBDs website with your private list you have lost it. It's not a "reference" when you are talking and it's more of your talking. Presenting it as such is just dishonest. It appears that you are trying to legitimize the notion that any science can be denied if I offer a quick reference page for it. Can I presume that you deny Ohm's law? . 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
19-05-2020 04:45
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: It appears that you are trying to legitimize the notion that any science can be denied if I offer a quick reference page for it. It is first of all a waste of everyone's time to have something you'd like to say on a separate website when you could just post it here. Secondly to call it a "reference", the "manual", and present it as though it were not your own private writing is just deceptive. I think ITN is even trying to claim it's an "authoritative" reference now. Your site is no different than your posts. It's your writing, no more and no less. You guys never cite anything so there are not citations to consider.
19-05-2020 05:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: It appears that you are trying to legitimize the notion that any science can be denied if I offer a quick reference page for it. It is first of all a waste of everyone's time to have something you'd like to say on a separate website when you could just post it here. It has been posted here. Mantra 29. tmiddles wrote: Secondly to call it a "reference", the "manual", and present it as though it were not your own private writing is just deceptive. He didn't write all of it. Much was contributed by other members on other forums. It did start here, though. See the Wordsmith thread. IBdaMann does take credit for the portions he contributed. He's never denied that. He is the authoritative reference for those portions. and, as far as I'm concerned, the authoritative reference for the work as a whole since his was the beginning and end of it. tmiddles wrote: I think ITN is even trying to claim it's an "authoritative" reference now. I am the authoritative reference for the numbered Mantra list. I created it. tmiddles wrote: Your site is no different than your posts. It's your writing, no more and no less. Each Mantra is based on a fallacy. If you don't like getting called on them, stop making them. tmiddles wrote: You guys never cite anything so there are not citations to consider. Lie. Mantra 29. No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of authority reference. 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 Edited on 19-05-2020 05:43
19-05-2020 05:46
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: I am the authoritative reference for the numbered Mantra list. That simply means you are an authoritative reference on your own statements. That is true without your saying it. It is deceptive to describe it as you two do. To use a "Reference" is to provide (a book or article) with citations of sources of information. is not at all what you or IBD are doing. You are play acting at actually citing something (which you both almost never do) when all you are doing is citing yourself.
19-05-2020 06:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: I am the authoritative reference for the numbered Mantra list. That simply means you are an authoritative reference on your own statements. That is true without your saying it. I am the authoritative reference of the Mantra list and all I write. You keep denying it, then you say this. Paradox. tmiddles wrote: It is deceptive to describe it as you two do. Paradox. tmiddles wrote: To use a "Reference" is to provide (a book or article) with citations of sources of information. Mantra 4d. There is no restriction on the form of a reference. tmiddles wrote: is not at all what you or IBD are doing. You are play acting at actually citing something (which you both almost never do) when all you are doing is citing yourself. I am the authoritative reference of all I write. I can reference myself. IBdaMann is the authoritative reference of all he writes. I can reference his material as written by him. It doesn't matter if it's on a different website. Mantra 5...39p... No arguments presented. RQAA. Invalid proof. 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
19-05-2020 18:29
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: It appears that you are trying to legitimize the notion that any science can be denied if I offer a quick reference page for it. It is first of all a waste of everyone's time to have something you'd like to say on a separate website when you could just post it here. He posts stuff on here all the time. He also has a separate website where he posts stuff. It takes me seconds to open up his website. Your point? tmiddles wrote: Secondly to call it a "reference", It IS a reference. tmiddles wrote: the "manual", It IS a manual. tmiddles wrote: and present it as though it were not your own private writing is just deceptive. It is not just his own private writing. tmiddles wrote: I think ITN is even trying to claim it's an "authoritative" reference now. You sure love to misrepresent/confuse damn near everything, don't you? ITN claimed that he is the authoritative reference of his numbered mantra list, which happens to be publicly presented on IBD's website. ITN is correct. He came up with the mantra list, basing it on logical fallacies. He is the authoritative reference regarding that list. tmiddles wrote: Your site is no different than your posts. It's your writing, no more and no less. You can look at the Laws of Thermodynamics for yourself, you can look at Planck's Law for yourself, you can look at the Communist Manifesto for yourself, etc. etc... IBD's website happens to be one location where you can find such things. tmiddles wrote: You guys never cite anything so there are not citations to consider. Lie.

Page 1 of 3

Join the debate BREAKING NEWS! April 2020 - 2nd Warmest April on record.:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Breaking News. Liberal turd Dianne Feinstein croaked and as such I will mourn in my	0	30-09-2023 02:00
Breaking News- Please call 843-963-3600, if you have seen our crashed F35 Lego jet	2	19-09-2023 14:52
fox news	35	16-09-2023 13:27
BREAKING NEWS Vaccinated Jill Xiden gets covid for second time	0	05-09-2023 05:37
The retards at FOX news claim 74 year old rapist teacher faces 600 years behind bars	0	04-08-2023 23:48