Climate Change And Covid19

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Climate Change And Covid19 > Page 2

Page 2 of 3

25-04-2020 12:19
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Welcome to the forum JayCardinal.The IBDM may have the manners of a squirt worm but you can not deny most of his comments.I say most because I found this comment to be the first I could query IBDM There is no such thing as a weather "pattern." Weather is random, i.e. without relationships for correlation or causation to anything, precluding any "patterns." You can't have patterns among random events. We are in Autumn and it is cooler and raining soon it will be winter and will be quite cold and rain a lot with storms from the south then spring will come and there will be lazy days of blue skies with around 20 degree days which will get longer by a minute or 2 a day then the furnace of summer will begin again.That is a weather pattern.Canada is very seasonal.Wriggle out of that ya coolerzombie LOL
25-04-2020 12:36
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I have been in Perth and Freemantle. Do you remember me? I was on an aircraft carrier that was said to have nuclear weapons on it. I heard all about it in Freemantle but not in Perth. You can check online. My ship ported at sea of the coast of Australia. We used LSTs to get to Freemantle. Needless to say, it was an experience. The link is what I would say suggests that my ship did not have nuclear weapons on it as some Australians (in Freemantle) believed. Never heard a word about it in Perth. Again James I have no idea how that is on topic.My query is the claim made by Attenborough and other presenters that if the local temperature goes up all this big percentage of animals and bugs will die.Nothing is that sensitive.
25-04-2020 16:16
JayCardinal ☆☆☆☆☆ (10)	Duncan thank you for the support much appreciated, from one Canadian to another. What do you think it would take in terms of a super computer that could accurately model weather within a certain timeframe? Lets say, accuracy of 99% or better within 30 days. Is this even possible with current technology? Could we make an AI smart enough to map all of the minute variables related to weather? Could we re purpose a "system of satellites much like the movie GeoStorm to closely monitor different aspects of the atmosphere? All things I wonder about. If we redirected the war machines of the world toward a common goal like this what could we accomplish? Another great example would be to map the hundreds of thousands of extraterrestrial objects that pose a significant threat to our planet. We really need to focus more of our attention on these common problems that humanity shares, insteading of bickering like children and drawing lines in the sand.
25-04-2020 22:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	duncan61 wrote: Trust me JayCardinal that is ITN being extremely polite.It is up to you to decide for yourself what is real as I have been doing for at least a year.I am of the belief that there is no manmade warming and we have no control over the weather.I hope you dig deep and find the truth as I set out to do and ignore situations where the proponents attack the author to make a point. And yet you can't explain existence. Kind of why I don't spend too much time on your mantras. Everything would become about religion.James---- There is a lot of conflicting information is Ice melting is it not? Sea levels are my big deal and I have been shown pretty little charts that show all sorts of stuff however the scientist who held the chair for The IPCC regarding sea levels claims it is not happening and resigned over the issue.Apparently 3 scientists studying sea level are in Austria!!.The anti CO2 brigade make all sorts of claims of mass destruction but none of them ever come true.As I have said before if the extreme events predicted come true I will be the first to cry its not fair and run for the hills I appreciate your complements. Thank you. 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
25-04-2020 22:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	JayCardinal wrote: I don't need to be specific. I am stimulating conversation. You are not having a conversation. You are not making any arguments. JayCardinal wrote: And just to make everyone aware I am not arguing in favor of anything. True. You are not making any arguments at all. JayCardinal wrote: I simply want to hear from people who are more knowledgeable than I am. Fair enough. Stay tuned to the forum, go study physics, mathematics, logic, and philosophy. JayCardinal wrote: Okay so to answer some of these points. I will where I can. JayCardinal wrote: 1) I am not arguing that our influence is either harmful, or not. I am simply arguing that it is measurable Define 'influence'. What are you measuring? JayCardinal wrote: 2)All the variables may be vague. But in totality, could they all equate to a difference of any significance? A variable that is 'vague' is not defined. There is no equation. All equations use defined variables. JayCardinal wrote: 3)Accomplish what? The measuring of the full scope of human influence on our environment (specifically, I suppose Global Warming and its relation to change in weather patterns... IF one exists) Define 'human influence'. Define 'global warming'. There is no such thing as a 'weather pattern' in anything but subjective terms. JayCardinal wrote: 4)Try what? Try to accurately measure human impact on our environment in its entirety in relation to how we influence weather patterns and the average temperature of the globe, or if there is any LOCAL change in temperature/weather due to human influence Define 'impact'. Define 'environment in its entirety'. Define 'influence'. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not even possible to measure the temperature of a city. Temperatures you see in weather reports are the temperature observed as the weather station. It has little relationship with temperatures even a mile away, since temperature can easily vary by as much as 20 deg F per mile. JayCardinal wrote: 5)Carbon dioxide is not the only carbon based molecule that is ejected into the atmosphere during a volcanic euption. I am speaking of course in generalities. Cabon dioxide, carbon monoxide, carbon soot, carbonate minerals within the lava, diamonds etc. All Carbon. All C... Carbon is not carbon dioxide. It has very different properties. Carbonates are part of molecule, they are not a thing in their own right. Carbon in the form of coal or in the form of diamonds have very different properties. Carbon monoxide is not carbon dioxide and has very different properties. Compositional error fallacy. Particulates fall out of the air pretty fast. Some just from their own weight (such as lava's "Pelee's Tears"), while others are washed out by rainfall (or simply gravity over time). JayCardinal wrote: 6)Carbon dioxide and other carbon emissions are "said" to have the so-called "Greenhouse Gas Effect" within our atmosphere. How much truth to that is there? None. It is not possible for any gas or vapor to warm the Earth. JayCardinal wrote: who knows. None. We know. The 1st law of thermodynamics does not allow for the creation of energy out of nothing. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not allow for a colder gas, such as CO2 in the atmosphere, to warm the already warmer surface of the Earth. The Stefan-Boltzmann law (and Planck's laws) do not allow for light to be trapped. Neither is it possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat. JayCardinal wrote: But I know for sure there are more ways to increase the temperature of the earth than moving it closer to the sun. That is 100% bull-ish if Ive ever heard it sir Nope. The only way is to increase the output of the Sun, or to move the Earth closer to the Sun. JayCardinal wrote: 7)I dont think I should have to define terms to you, the definitions of words and terms are readily available on Google. Google is useless without a subject or an url. The only word that Google defines is 'Google'. Void argument fallacy. JayCardinal wrote: 8)Someone in an earlier post tried to claim that because humanity only occupies a small space on the surface of the earth that we couldnt POSSIBLY have that great of an influence on our environment. So I dug into a bit. Sorry? Fine. I'll drop it here as a void argument. JayCardinal wrote: 9)I am not advocating removing human beings, the question I am trying to pose is how drastically different would weather/temperature be around the globe if humanity was not a part of the equation? There is no equation. You have not yet defined one. Weather would still be the same. We would have rain, clear days, snow, thunderstorms, wind, warm and cold fronts, clouds, etc. JayCardinal wrote: 10)I would say we are the dominant species on the planet. Ergo = planet conquered. We are not the dominant species on the planet, not by a long shot. Bacteria are, followed by fungi, plants, and insects. JayCardinal wrote: 11)I didnt say humanity was made up of radio waves. Neither did I. Pay attention. JayCardinal wrote: I said our sphere of influence extends far into outer space in the form of radio waves. Giving a large scale example of a "sphere of influence" to give perspective Our radio waves are light...and pretty dim light at that (probably quite undetectable at Alpha-Centauri, out closest star other than our own). Our own Sun, a rather ordinary star, puts out much more light than we do, and is visible from Alpha Centauri. JayCardinal wrote: 12)I am not saying consequences are all bad. Things happen consequently as a result of other things. Period. Whether they are good or bad is a matter of perspective. Whats good for us may be bad for an ant. Whats good for the earth may be bad for us. Perspective. You have not defined anything. Void argument fallacy. Buzzword 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

25-04-2020 23:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	JayCardinal wrote: That is a very elegant and humble argument. One that I am fully open to entertaining. That then also begs the question, IS there a way to predict these things accurately? Understand them better. Knowing your enemy is half the battle. You can predict the areas where they are likely, that's all. It is not possible to predict where an individual tornado will strike, or how long it will remain in contact with the ground. Tornados (and hurricanes) are like the vortex you find when a bathtub, sink, or toilet drains. The only difference is that they are upside down, made of air instead of water, and the location of the 'drain' is unknown. In other words, tornadoes suck, quite literally. Rising air is pretty much a requirement in any storm, not just tornadoes. Air is unevenly heated by different kinds of surfaces on the surface of the Earth. Warm air and cold air don't mix very well, so that warm air rises in pockets, just like a hot air balloon. As it does, any moisture that is in it may condense out, forming clouds, and if thick enough, rain or snow. If air is rising rapidly and has a lot of moisture (such as common along the southern coast in the afternoon), or is cooled by bumping into cooler air from the north (common in the plains States), then you get intense rain, and quite possibly thunderstorms. If the air is rising violently enough, you get vortices that form: tornadoes. You can study this sort of thing when you learn fluid dynamics (a part of physics). 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
25-04-2020 23:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	JayCardinal wrote: I am referring to things like driving around, moving and heating air with the friction of vehicles travelling around, planes and their effect etc. Doesn't create energy out of nothing. Friction does heat air, but so does the Sun or the Earth providing the fuel for that vehicle. In other words, all you are seeing is the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy, then to thermal energy, which is simply dissipated into space. The potential energy came from the Sun in the first place, through radiance, and powers the chemistry of photosynthesis, or from the Earth, as internal pressures convert carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide into oil and natural gas. Both forms of energy come from nuclear reactions. Fission, in the case of the Earth (at the Earth's core), and fusion, in the case of the Sun. JayCardinal wrote: Also, does the expansion of asphalt increase the local temperature at all? Define 'local temperature'. Why is asphalt expanding? JayCardinal wrote: Do some buildings, power plants or other types of industrial settings increase local temperature? Define 'local temperature'. Why would a building become warmer? JayCardinal wrote: Can chemical companies dumping waste products into the environment have any effect? Define 'waste products'. Define 'environment'. The entire world is made up of chemicals. 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
25-04-2020 23:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	JayCardinal wrote: Reducing the evil CO2, to prevent global warming, is dangerous, and a little silly. We are pretty sure there are ice ages, and inter-glacial periods. We are enjoying an interglacial period, with a big long winter coming, eventually. Fortunately, beyond my lifetime. But, why would anyone want to speed up the cooling to come? CO2, is literally a trace gas in the atmosphere, even with the alarming levels of pollution, we a suppose to be dumping. CO2 is essential to all life, plants love the stuff, and produce the most basic food, everything else need to survive. All life is based on carbon molecules. We don't get carbon from eating coal, or drinking oil, nor does anything else. Plants bring in carbon from the environment, by breathing in CO2, and converting through photosynthesis. Plants are the only source of dietary carbon. Messing with CO2, is messing with our only source of food. Well what if the balance is very delicate.[/quote] Void question. Define 'balance of what', and what you consider 'delicate'. JayCardinal wrote: What if the over production of CO2 can actually be bad for plants? Plants use CO2 and water to create carbohydrates...food. Plants are quite capable of withstanding much higher concentrations of carbon dioxide than we are. To create that much carbon dioxide, you will need additional mass to do it. Where is that mass coming from? JayCardinal wrote: The same way breathing too much oxygen can be poisonous to us. To create that much oxygen, you need additional mass to do it. Where is that mass coming from? 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
25-04-2020 23:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	JayCardinal wrote: IBdaMann wrote: JayCardinal wrote: 1) I am not arguing that our influence is either harmful, or not. I am simply arguing that it is measurable Until you explain HOW it is measurable, you are not arguing that it is measurable; you are merely informing us of your speculation that it might be measurable. I'm sure any argument that you have of "it's" measurability would actually be of interest. [hint: first you will need to unambiguously define whatever it is that you will be arguing is measurable] JayCardinal wrote: 2)All the variables may be vague. But in totality, could they all equate to a difference of any significance? The undefined is always of zero significance, of zero impact and of zero concern. JayCardinal wrote: 3)Accomplish what? The measuring of the full scope of human influence on our environment (specifically, I suppose Global Warming and its relation to change in weather patterns... IF one exists) There is no such thing as a weather "pattern." Weather is random, i.e. without relationships for correlation or causation to anything, precluding any "patterns." Try this: Start flipping a coin. Flip it many times and annotate the "patterns." Gather boatloads of data on the "patterns" that you discern. Then notice that no one cares about your research because there are no relationships to glean. Your work is not repeatable. You can't have patterns among random events. JayCardinal wrote: 4)Try what? Try to accurately measure human impact on our environment in its entirety in relation to how we influence weather patterns and the average temperature of the globe, or if there is any LOCAL change in temperature/weather due to human influence What do you consider to be "impact"? What might you be trying to express if you were to remove "weather patterns"? What do you consider to be "accurate", i.e. what margin of error? What units of measure apply to "impact"? What units of measure apply to "influence"? What distinguishes human influence from other influence? Do you care about direct human influence only or do you include indirect as well? What comprises our "environment" in its entirety? Aside from these trivial quibbles I'm sure we could think of something. JayCardinal wrote: 5)Carbon dioxide is not the only carbon based molecule that is ejected into the atmosphere during a volcanic euption. Why do we care? It seems less relevant and less interesting than a baby shower. JayCardinal wrote: 6)Carbon dioxide and other carbon emissions are "said" to have the so-called "Greenhouse Gas Effect" within our atmosphere. Only by scientifically illiterate warmizombie zealots who deny physics. There is no truth to it outside religious belief. JayCardinal wrote:. But I know for sure there are more ways to increase the temperature of the earth than moving it closer to the sun. Nope. You don't know that because it's not true. The only way to sustain an increase in the average temperature of the earth to any discernible extent for any amount of time is to increase the power received from its heat source, which is the sun. Presuming a constant power output of the sun, the only way to increase the power received by the earth is to either move the earth closer to the sun or to move the sun closer to the earth. So let's address your certainty that there are other ways to sustain an increase to earth's average global temperature by noting that you suck at physics, right? Yep, that's where your problem is. We can point to all the times you let someone else do your thinking for you and you were told that humans are increasing the earth's temperature, ... and you NEVER once questioned what you were being told to believe. As a result, you mindlessly regurgitated stupid and embarrassing shit that makes you look like a moron. I trust that we have now covered this point sufficiently. JayCardinal wrote: 7)I dont think I should have to define terms to you, the definitions of words and terms are readily available on Google. Nope. You need to define them unambiguously or your arguments are summarily dismissed. Define them or we move on to something else. JayCardinal wrote: 9)I am not advocating removing human beings, the question I am trying to pose is how drastically different would weather/temperature be around the globe if humanity was not a part of the equation? If you remove that which has no impact, nothing changes. JayCardinal wrote: 10)I would say we are the dominant species on the planet. Ergo = planet conquered. I'm guessing that any sentient hyperthermophile would disagree, and they don't affect the weather either. JayCardinal wrote: 11)I didnt say humanity was made up of radio waves. I said our sphere of influence extends far into outer space in the form of radio waves. Giving a large scale example of a "sphere of influence" to give perspective Define "influence." Are you talking about the Zynethians on Segzen II who intercepted our radio chatter and are now imposing carbon taxes planet-wide ... even though Segzen II has only silicon-based life forms? JayCardinal wrote: 12)I am not saying consequences are all bad. Oh please, please, please ... tell me that you are arguing "externalities." I'm just looking for a convenient segue into Marxism. JayCardinal wrote: Things happen consequently as a result of other things. Period. I'm thinking Nobel Prize for you. JayCardinal wrote:Whether they are good or bad is a matter of perspective. Whats good for us may be bad for an ant. Whats good for the earth may be bad for us. Perspective. What do you imagine is bad for planet earth? Are you saying that perhaps humans eating beef might be bad for the cow? . You know, I am getting the feeling that you feel you are superior to everyone, and that if I were in front of you I would not only want to kick you in the head, but would do so with vigor, repeatedly. Now it's come down to insults and threats. No argument presented. A typical fundamentalist response when confronted with arguments he cannot counter. A typical liberal response as well. Liberals are often fundamentalists in one religion or another. The Church of Global Warming, the Church of Green, the Church of Fear, and the Church of Karl Marx are no exceptions. 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
25-04-2020 23:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	JayCardinal wrote: Duncan thank you for the support much appreciated, from one Canadian to another. What do you think it would take in terms of a super computer that could accurately model weather within a certain timeframe? What are you modelling? Weather is a subjective term. It has no single quantity. JayCardinal wrote: Lets say, accuracy of 99% or better within 30 days. How would you determine accuracy? By measuring something that is not possible to measure? If you COULD measure it, what do you need the computer for? Weather 'modelling' in computers are programs. If there is no basis (and there isn't), they are nothing more than random number generators of type randU. What they produce is useless. It isn't data. JayCardinal wrote: Is this even possible with current technology? No. JayCardinal wrote: Could we make an AI smart enough to map all of the minute variables related to weather? There is really no such thing as 'artificial intelligence'. This is a science fiction and newspaper term. Computers have no more 'intelligence' than your average washing machine timer. They are sequencing machines, nothing more. A program can appear to have 'artificial intelligence', but it is fakery. It is a parlor trick. Chess programs, for example can win chess games even against chess masters, but that is by pre-playing the game far ahead of what your average human can do, then choosing the move it considers the best probability of winning the game. In other words, just very fast sequencing. There is no intelligence there at all. JayCardinal wrote: Could we re purpose a "system of satellites much like the movie GeoStorm to closely monitor different aspects of the atmosphere? Hollywood routinely discards physics in their movies. It's so bad that a couple of special effects guys built an entire show around their fakery, called Mythbusters. Do not use the movies as your source of learning physics. Hollywood routinely features airplanes that explode if they touch the ground at anything besides a paved runway, even when out of fuel (they don't); guns with no recoil or that shoot sixteen billion bullets without reloading; weather disaster movies that routinely suspend the laws of thermodynamics; science fiction movies that routinely suspend relativity, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of fluid dynamics, Newton's laws of motion and his F=mA equation, and even Newton's law of gravity (F=-G(m1m2)/r^2). The often suspend or ignore the ideal gas laws, or the conservation of energy law. They are story tellers. They tell of magick, of armies (sometimes hidden) fighting wars, of disasters that are not possible, of 'technology' that is really just magick in another form, and of protagonists and antagonists at each other's throats. They are not physics. They deny physics. They are not math. They deny math. It's how they make a story exciting. JayCardinal wrote: All things I wonder about. If we redirected the war machines of the world toward a common goal like this what could we accomplish? A tank makes a lousy satellite. An aircraft carrier makes a lousy satellite. Bombs are lousy at measuring the temperature at a weather station. Then again, what do you about people and nations that want to come take over the your country and put you into slavery? JayCardinal wrote: Another great example would be to map the hundreds of thousands of extraterrestrial objects that pose a significant threat to our planet. You have to see them first. Feel free to develop instruments to do that. BTW, tanks make a lousy telescope. JayCardinal wrote: We really need to focus more of our attention on these common problems that humanity shares, insteading of bickering like children and drawing lines in the sand. Those lines are called 'borders'. They are there to give your country a place to be. They are there to protect people like you from the influence of others, with different borders, to enslave you. Yes, there is evil in the world. Deal with it. Turning your back on it does not make it go away. 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
26-04-2020 00:40
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: Weather is a subjective term. Weather is a well defined objective term including temperature. Climate issues generally focus on temperature. Any defined group of molecules have a mean temperature over a sepecified time frame. The ground level of Earth's annual temperature mean is the reference point here. While someone can question the accuracy of our ability to know that value it does exist. Also to claim we have no clue is absurd. Currently the estimate is 14C Into the Night wrote: It has no single quantity. Temperature is always an average. Always. If you'd like a bit of context on what you are dealing with here JayCardinal: 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.... Also more hilarity in my sig, So why the foolishness you may wonder? These clowns are interested in ending this debate, period. That is winning for them. To frustrate, convelute and destroy any exploration of the issue. Because if you can't win you can just try not to lose. "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
26-04-2020 01:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Weather is a well defined objective term including temperature. What is the unit of 'weather'? How much is the weather right now? tmiddles wrote: Climate issues generally focus on temperature. Temperature is not weather. Temperature is the average thermal energy in a substance. tmiddles wrote: Any defined group of molecules have a mean temperature Redundant. You obviously don't know what 'temperature' means.[/quote] tmiddles wrote: over a sepecified time frame. Time is not a part of temperature and is not related to it at all. Mantras 25k. tmiddles wrote: The ground level of Earth's annual temperature mean is the reference point here. Void reference point. Use of redundant wording. The temperature of Earth is unknown. Attempted use of reference point as unit of measurement. Mantras 25a...25k. tmiddles wrote: While someone can question the accuracy of our ability to know that value it does exist. Also to claim we have no clue is absurd. Mantra 15...25g...25c... tmiddles wrote: Currently the estimate is 14C Argument from randU fallacy. The temperature of Earth is unknown. Mantra 25g. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: It has no single quantity. Temperature is always an average. Always. Contextomy fallacy. Mantra 15...16c. tmiddles wrote: If you'd like a bit of context on what you are dealing with here JayCardinal: ...deleted TMSb4...TMSb5...Mantra 7... No argument presented. 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
26-04-2020 03:10
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: What is the unit of 'weather'? How much is the weather right now? Weather includes temperature, humidity/precipitation, wind speed and air pressure. https://www.yourdictionary.com/weather "Weather is described in terms of variable conditions such as temperature, humidity, wind velocity, precipitation, and barometric pressure. ... in the troposphere, or lower atmosphere" Still confused? I can see it now: "Wow nice airplane ITN, what are the specs?" ITN "What is a spec? What is a unit of specification!?" "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 26-04-2020 03:12
26-04-2020 03:22
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: I can see it now - ITN: "What is a spec? What is a unit of specification!?" I can see it now - Snake Oil Salesman: "tmiddles, would you like to buy this $27 Million airplane? I assure you it has great specs." tmiddles: Well, I guess so. "Specs" is a well-defined term that includes everything that interests me, so sure. . 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
26-04-2020 03:49
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	duncan61 wrote:That is a weather pattern.Canada is very seasonal. It's not a weather pattern. It's an earth-orbit pattern. You can use that pattern to predict where the earth will be in its orbit at any given time. You cannot use an earth-orbit pattern to predict the weather at any given time because it is not a weather pattern. There are no patterns in random events. If you believe there are, use the "weather pattern" of your choice to predict next year's weather (temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, precipitation, atmospheric pressure, etc.) with certainty for exactly one year from time of prediction. Then we'll apply that same principle to accurately predict coin flips, die rolls, poker hands, etc... . 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

26-04-2020 03:54
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	When I do plumbing work I have architectural drawings which are the real deal.Hydraulic drawings that are where a consultant recommends the pipework should go.And specifications which is the fixture list of what will actually be going in the building.The specs of Tmiddles aeroplane is it has a 25,000 HP turbo fan engine and if it flys thats all I need to get outa dodge JayCardinal I live in Perth Western Australia and am aware that Canada is very seasonal as I have relatives there.I know some people think Australia is not a real place and is full of giant hopping mice and unicorns
26-04-2020 04:04
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: I can see it now - ITN: "What is a spec? What is a unit of specification!?" I can see it now - Snake Oil Salesman: "tmiddles, would you like to buy this $27 Million airplane? I assure you it has great specs." tmiddles: Well, I guess so. "Specs" is a well-defined term that includes everything that interests me, so sure. you do realize you have essential restated that "specifications" do not exist along with "weather". The clown act goes on. IBdaMann wrote: ...use the "weather pattern" of your choice to predict next year's weather (temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, precipitation, atmospheric pressure, etc.) with certainty. Here Duncan you have the key bit, the most odious of the brain farts from IBD: The INFINITE PRECISION REQUIREMENT If you don't know something with infinite precision you don't know it at all according to him. As with GFM saying he has NO CLUE what the temperature of his own house is. There is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS a range for temperature. While a human pencil may, roughly, reduce a single instruments recording to a single value, what is being measured fluctuates over time and from molecule to molecule. I can tell you with confidence that next year, 2021, the winter in Denver in Dec Jan will have daytime highs roughly 10C lower than in July August. Note that IBD has rejected debating based on a 300C marin of error for Venus. Lame "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 26-04-2020 04:18
26-04-2020 05:11
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	IBDM you do agree there are seasons and do you have an understanding that the seasons are no longer lining up with the months on the calender.Summer here was dec-feb now it is jan-march and April is the beginning of Autumn.Do you have a better terminology than weather patterns.
26-04-2020 08:39
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	duncan61 wrote: IBDM you do agree there are seasons and do you have an understanding that the seasons are no longer lining up with the months on the calender.Summer here was dec-feb now it is jan-march and April is the beginning of Autumn.Do you have a better terminology than weather patterns. I've never known the season to be predictable. Then don't always start/finish on the same day every year, nor the last the same number of months every year. In the fall, farmers need to be concerned about the first frost, and make sure crops are harvested before that happens. They don't want to harvest too soon, since that's it, they need to sell what they've got, before it spoils. Still in the fields, they have a little more time. At the beginning of spring, they want to get crops planted, soon as possible. A late freeze destroys young plants quick and easy. Seed cost money, as well as the labor of planting. They can't go by the calendar, and historical records aren't much better.
26-04-2020 09:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	duncan61 wrote: IBDM you do agree there are seasons Seasons are arbitrary and artificial notional constructs created by humans. There is no such thing as a "season" in nature. Yes, I recognize that humans use the word "season" to denote a generalized concept. No, I do not recognize there being anything that you can point to in nature that is a "season." Pick which answer you like best. duncan61 wrote: and do you have an understanding that the seasons are no longer lining up with the months on the calender. Do you understand that the seasons align EXACTLY as we humans define them? duncan61 wrote:Do you have a better terminology than weather patterns. Sure: "range of possibilities" That would be the correct mathematical term. If you were to roll a six-sided die then you can only get one result of a range of six possibilities. The probability of any result is 1 in 6. If you alter the six-sided die to have the numbers 4,5,6,7,8 and 9 then your probabilities are the same but your range of possibilities are now different. If you start rolling a ten-sided die then both the probabilities and the range of possibilities change. As the earth orbits the sun (well, the barycenter) the range of possibilities for the same probability curve changes. . 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
26-04-2020 09:12
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote:...farmers need to be concerned about the first frost, and make sure crops are harvested before that happens....They can't go by the calendar, and historical records aren't much better. So you're claiming Harvey that a farmer has "no clue" when the first frost will be? That the calendar and historical records are totally useless? You said they cannot use the calendar and that historical records aren't much better which would mean they basically cannot use those? You seem to loosely align yourself with the NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN crowd here. IBdaMann wrote: Do you understand that the seasons align EXACTLY as we humans define them? This is also true of Time in IBDeze Duncan. There is no 1pm, not really, it's a human notion. Just remember that according to these clowns nothing can be known. Nothing at all. Want proof? They even disavow what little they put on the table:no data is valid for IBD "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 26-04-2020 09:18
26-04-2020 11:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: What is the unit of 'weather'? How much is the weather right now? Weather includes temperature, humidity/precipitation, wind speed and air pressure. These are not weather. They are temperature, humidity, precipitation (which is not humidity), wind speed, and air pressure. Weather is a subjective term describing combinations of phenomena. tmiddles wrote: https://www.yourdictionary.com/weather "Weather is described in terms of variable conditions such as temperature, humidity, wind velocity, precipitation, and barometric pressure. ... in the troposphere, or lower atmosphere" Dictionaries do not define words. Mantra 4b. tmiddles wrote: Still confused? No. You are. tmiddles wrote: I can see it now: "Wow nice airplane ITN, what are the specs?" ITN "What is a spec? What is a unit of specification!?" Aircraft specs are specific for each and every aircraft built. Indeed, they must be documented for the pilot of that aircraft. It includes the stall speed, maneuvering speed, speed limitations on various configurations of equipment (such as landing gear or flaps extended), maximum speeds, weight and balance information, endurance, maximum operating altitudes, and useful load of the aircraft. Weather is not specifications. 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
26-04-2020 12:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	duncan61 wrote: When I do plumbing work I have architectural drawings which are the real deal.Hydraulic drawings that are where a consultant recommends the pipework should go.And specifications which is the fixture list of what will actually be going in the building.The specs of Tmiddles aeroplane is it has a 25,000 HP turbo fan engine and if it flys thats all I need to get outa dodge JayCardinal I live in Perth Western Australia and am aware that Canada is very seasonal as I have relatives there.I know some people think Australia is not a real place and is full of giant hopping mice and unicorns Heh. You do need considerably more specs information for an aircraft than just it's engine type. Fortunately, your pilot hopefully knows what those are (at least the important ones, such as Vso, Vne, Vm, Vx, Vy, the weight and balance, the endurance, and of course the maximum altitude the aircraft can handle. Both Canada and Australia have seasons. They do not have weather 'patterns', but do have warmer or cooler temperatures due to the duration and azimuth of the Sun in the sky. The Sun moving from east to west across the sky produces a prevailing wind from the uneven heating. Places with water nearby tend to be more humid. Areas where mountains block prevailing winds containing moisture from that water tend to be less humid as well as areas some distance from large bodies of water. Any 'pattern' to the weather is due to the geography of the region. The weather itself, however, is quite random. There is no real pattern. The locations of storms and their intensity is actually a true randR number generator (same type of number as rolling a die). 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
26-04-2020 12:46
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: Just remember that according to these clowns nothing can be known. Nothing at all. I wonder if those in the forum recognize when you are projecting heavily. Attached image:
26-04-2020 12:46
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	All I care about is does it have a big donk so I can go fast.
26-04-2020 13:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: I can see it now - ITN: "What is a spec? What is a unit of specification!?" I can see it now - Snake Oil Salesman: "tmiddles, would you like to buy this $27 Million airplane? I assure you it has great specs." tmiddles: Well, I guess so. "Specs" is a well-defined term that includes everything that interests me, so sure. you do realize you have essential restated that "specifications" do not exist along with "weather". The clown act goes on. Weather does not have specifications. False equivalence fallacy. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: ...use the "weather pattern" of your choice to predict next year's weather (temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, precipitation, atmospheric pressure, etc.) with certainty. Here Duncan you have the key bit, the most odious of the brain farts from IBD: The INFINITE PRECISION REQUIREMENT Probability math is not about precision, and it's not capable or predicting anything. tmiddles wrote: If you don't know something with infinite precision you don't know it at all according to him. As with GFM saying he has NO CLUE what the temperature of his own house is. Mantra 25c. tmiddles wrote: There is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS a range for temperature. Temperature has no range. Mantra 25j. tmiddles wrote: While a human pencil may, roughly, reduce a single instruments recording to a single value, what is being measured fluctuates over time and from molecule to molecule. Temperature is a single value. Mantra 25j. tmiddles wrote: I can tell you with confidence that next year, 2021, the winter in Denver in Dec Jan will have daytime highs roughly 10C lower than in July August. Maybe, maybe not. You are guessing. tmiddles wrote: Note that IBD has rejected debating based on a 300C marin of error for Venus. Lame Mantra 25g...25f...29. 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
26-04-2020 13:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	duncan61 wrote: IBDM you do agree there are seasons and do you have an understanding that the seasons are no longer lining up with the months on the calender.Summer here was dec-feb now it is jan-march and April is the beginning of Autumn.Do you have a better terminology than weather patterns. Summer is defined as the moment of summer solstice to the moment of autumnal equinox. These dates don't change any more than within a range of three days. These dates are always in the same month. Thus, summer in the Northern hemisphere is from Jun-Sep. This is also Australia's winter. Summer in Australia is always from Dec to March. March is always the beginning of autumn in Australia. 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
26-04-2020 13:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	HarveyH55 wrote: duncan61 wrote: IBDM you do agree there are seasons and do you have an understanding that the seasons are no longer lining up with the months on the calender.Summer here was dec-feb now it is jan-march and April is the beginning of Autumn.Do you have a better terminology than weather patterns. I've never known the season to be predictable. Then don't always start/finish on the same day every year, nor the last the same number of months every year. In the fall, farmers need to be concerned about the first frost, and make sure crops are harvested before that happens. They don't want to harvest too soon, since that's it, they need to sell what they've got, before it spoils. Still in the fields, they have a little more time. At the beginning of spring, they want to get crops planted, soon as possible. A late freeze destroys young plants quick and easy. Seed cost money, as well as the labor of planting. They can't go by the calendar, and historical records aren't much better. They start and stop on the same months every year. They are designated as: Spring: from Spring equinox to summer solstice. Summer: from summer solstice to autumnal equinox. Autumn: from autumnal equinox to winter solstice. Winter: from winter solstice to spring equinox. They are not determined by weather, or frost, or melt, or rainfall that plants need. 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
26-04-2020 13:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:...farmers need to be concerned about the first frost, and make sure crops are harvested before that happens....They can't go by the calendar, and historical records aren't much better. So you're claiming Harvey that a farmer has "no clue" when the first frost will be? That the calendar and historical records are totally useless? You said they cannot use the calendar and that historical records aren't much better which would mean they basically cannot use those? You seem to loosely align yourself with the NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN crowd here. IBdaMann wrote: Do you understand that the seasons align EXACTLY as we humans define them? This is also true of Time in IBDeze Duncan. There is no 1pm, not really, it's a human notion. Just remember that according to these clowns nothing can be known. Nothing at all. Again, you deny mathematics (Mantras 25f...25g...25j) You cannot predict anything with probability math. 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
26-04-2020 14:17
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: These are not weather. They are temperature, humidity, precipitation (which is not humidity), wind speed, and air pressure. Weather is a subjective term describing combinations of phenomena. So you are defining the word for all of us ITN? Because that's not what "weather" means to me. "weather" like the word "specifications" or "measurements" or "dimensions" is a categorical term that includes multiple variables. Do you dispute that my definition of "weather" is more prevalent among users of the English language than yours? Prove it. The dictionary backs me up (and that's a popularity contest for word meaning).

26-04-2020 19:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: These are not weather. They are temperature, humidity, precipitation (which is not humidity), wind speed, and air pressure. Weather is a subjective term describing combinations of phenomena. So you are defining the word for all of us ITN? Because that's not what "weather" means to me. "weather" like the word "specifications" or "measurements" or "dimensions" is a categorical term that includes multiple variables. Weather is not a specification. A specification is not a measurement. Mantra 10. tmiddles wrote: Do you dispute that my definition of "weather" is more prevalent among users of the English language than yours? Prove it. Mantra 31...29. tmiddles wrote: The dictionary backs me up (and that's a popularity contest for word meaning). Dictionaries don't define words. They are not a popularity contest either. Mantras 10...4b...29. No argument presented. 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
27-04-2020 04:36
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: Dictionaries don't define words. They are not a popularity contest either. Where pray tell did you get your definition of "weather" ITN? Come to think of ot what IS your definition of "weather"? You've really just said it's not as the dictionary and everyone I've communicated wirh define it.
27-04-2020 23:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Dictionaries don't define words. They are not a popularity contest either. Where pray tell did you get your definition of "weather" ITN? Come to think of ot what IS your definition of "weather"? You've really just said it's not as the dictionary and everyone I've communicated wirh define it. 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
28-04-2020 06:45
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:RQAA Nope you never did. You've criticized and corrected other people's definition of weather, but you've never disclosed how you arrived at your definition (or what it is exactly). Edited on 28-04-2020 06:46
28-04-2020 17:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:RQAA Nope you never did. You've criticized and corrected other people's definition of weather, but you've never disclosed how you arrived at your definition (or what it is exactly). 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
28-04-2020 17:04
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:RQAA Nope you never did. You've criticized and corrected other people's definition of weather, but you've never disclosed how you arrived at your definition (or what it is exactly). Yes he has. He has precisely distinguished between what "weather" is and what "climate" is numerous times on here over the years.
28-04-2020 18:12
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: Yes he has. He has precisely distinguished between what "weather" is and what "climate" is numerous times on here over the years. He has only said what it isnt not what it is. Again this would only be his personal definition but he has never defined it as far as I know. How do you define it gfm?
28-04-2020 19:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 30...lie...29...lie...29... No argument presented. 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
30-04-2020 10:37
Nobi ☆☆☆☆☆ (29)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:RQAA Nope you never did. You've criticized and corrected other people's definition of weather, but you've never disclosed how you arrived at your definition (or what it is exactly). I think he did. Into the Night wrote:Weather is simply the combination of temperature, humidity, cloud cover, wind speed and direction, precipitation, and barometric pressure at a particular moment and in a particular location. Weather is not quantifiable, but it is made up of quantifiable elements. Edited on 30-04-2020 10:44
30-04-2020 17:09
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	^^^^^^^^^^ There you have it, tmiddles. Nobi was kind enough to do your homework for you.

Page 2 of 3

Join the debate Climate Change And Covid19:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Cell phones are now blamed for covid19?	19	13-11-2021 22:41
covid19 prevalence	34	27-11-2020 03:20
Covid19	228	18-11-2020 01:50
Covid19's future	13	10-07-2020 02:08
Covid19 "modeling"	30	04-04-2020 00:07