Remember me
▼ Content

Climate change questionnaire



Page 2 of 3<123>
15-11-2019 22:53
Dom_Hayes_420
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
TomF1 wrote:
Dom_Hayes_420 wrote:

15-11-2019 23:13
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
HarveyH55 wrote:
https://www.wftv.com/amp/news/local/taxpayers-will-be-responsible-when-florida-s-springs-run-dry/1008282478
Taxpayers will be responsible for bill when Florida's springs run dry
By: Christopher Heath
Posted: Nov 13, 2019 04:53 PM EST
Updated: Nov 14, 2019 05:16 AM EST


Video
ORLANDO, Fla. - Florida gives its water away for free to residents and companies who then bottle it and sell it to the highest bidder.

Taxpayers are then left to foot the bill to replace it.

Channel 9's investigative reporter Christopher Heath discovered when the springs run dry, taxpayers fork over millions to repair the damage.

"We made an investment in the well because we wanted to make our landscaping nice," said Don Phillips, a resident in Lake County.

Phillips has a direct source for inexpensive water, a backyard well.

"A lot of us put wells in when the water started going up," Phillips said.

Florida's water is a public resource by law, meaning it exists for residents to use it for free.

Private companies and private individuals get Florida's free water and sell it for a profit.

Dr. Bob Knight is the executive director of the Florida Springs Institute.

Over the years, Knight's watched as companies from Nestle to Niagara have tapped into the water supply to turn a profit.

"That's a good deal if you can get it. That's a very good deal but it's a bad deal for the people of Florida," Knight said. "Even Silver Springs, Florida's first tourist attraction is not immune from pumping, just feet from where I'm standing, water is pumped out. The water then travels about a quarter-mile to this tower where the trucks line up to take the water away."

"We treat it like it's infinite, and it's not. It's a fixed amount that we get each year," Knight said.

When the springs are taxed from the withdrawals, taxpayers will be responsible.

In 2018, the Legislature set aside $50 million for springs restoration

"The water bottling companies are profiting off the free water that the public is giving them," Knight said.

In the northeast part of Central Florida, covered by the Saint John's river water management district, five companies have permits totaling 800 million gallons a year.

While that is just a small fraction of total usage, it is still, water that is given away, to be sold.

Channel 9 reached out to various water companies but did not hear back.

Some states, like Connecticut and Maine, collect fees for bottle water.

A decade ago, Florida considered a similar fee structure, but that idea failed and has not been brought back.



People exploit natural resources all the time, for profit...



And your tax dollars are helping to subsidize a business whose investors profit.
BTW, I will be having surgery at your expense as well. It won't allow me to work but since you're paying for it, I can live with it.
You make this too easy Harvey. Corporations and a disabled Veteran will have it better because of tax payers like you.
And to be an ass hole about this, Thanks for helping to pay for the surgery I will be having. I might actually be able to have a Christmas dinner this year.
16-11-2019 01:29
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
TomF1 wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
TomF1 wrote:
TomFines wrote:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc8-cJbJ3jrcyxYDFGY71I_OIx5W0RW1So1bkUPDEYaM4omUA/viewform?usp=sf_link-

This is a link to my survey that I have created as part of my A-Level Geography coursework, I would be very grateful if you could complete it honestly and truthfully, it will only take you 5 minutes.

Thank you.

Global warming is the long-term rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system.

So 'global warming' is defined as 'global warming'. Circular definition. Try again.
TomF1 wrote:
It is a major aspect of climate change, and has been demonstrated by direct temperature measurements and by measurements of various effects of the warming.

Define 'climate change'. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Assigning 'effects' to an undefined phrase is just religion.
TomF1 wrote:
[1][2] The terms global warming and climate change are often used interchangeably.[3]

So their synonyms? How do you define 'climate change' using an undefined phrase 'global warming'? When is this warming? From when to when? Why are those two times significant? Why are any other two times not significant? How are you measuring the temperature of the Earth? We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.
TomF1 wrote:
However, speaking more accurately, global warming denotes the mainly human-caused increase in global surface temperatures and its projected continuation,

The surface temperatures of Earth are unknown. How can you project what you do not know? Define 'global warming'.
TomF1 wrote:
[4] but climate change includes both global warming and its effects,

Circular definitions. You can't define 'climate change' as <undefined> and its <undefined effects>. This is called a buzzword fallacy.
TomF1 wrote:
such as changes in precipitation.

Precipitation changes all the time. It's one aspect of what we call 'weather'.
TomF1 wrote:
[5] While there have been prehistoric periods of global warming,

Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'. You still have not managed to define either phrase.
TomF1 wrote:
[6] many observed changes since the mid-20th century have been unprecedented over decades to millennia.[1][7]

Undefined time frame. Decades to millennia?? Define 'unprecedented. Who was observing the entire Earth of weather a thousand years ago??
TomF1 wrote:
The effects of global warming include rising sea levels,

What rising sea levels? We built an airport during WW2 in the Maldives, a spit of sand out in the Pacific Ocean. They are still there. The ocean hasn't consumed them? It's not possible to measure a global sea level. There is no valid reference point. Land moves, you see. It even has a tide like the oceans.
TomF1 wrote:
regional changes in precipitation,

Define 'regional'. How big is this 'region'? What is so different from 'weather'? How are you measuring precipitation in this 'region'? It's only possible to measure precipitation in a 1 inch square rain gauge.
TomF1 wrote:
more frequent extreme weather events such as heat waves,

Define 'heat wave'. What do consider a 'heat wave', quantitatively? How are you measuring them? Who was measuring them 1000 years ago?
TomF1 wrote:
and expansion of deserts.

Deserts aren't expanding. They occur in the same place as always and for the same reason.
TomF1 wrote:
[13] Ocean acidification

Ocean water is alkaline. It is not possible to acidify an alkaline. See acid-base chemistry.
TomF1 wrote:
is also caused by greenhouse gas emissions

Define 'greenhouse gas'. Describe the 'greenhouse effect' without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
TomF1 wrote:
and is commonly grouped with these effects even though it is not driven by temperature.

What 'effects'?? You haven't defined 'climate change' or 'global warming' yet!
TomF1 wrote:
Surface temperature increases are greatest in the Arctic,

No one is measuring the temperature of the Arctic. There are not enough thermometers there.
TomF1 wrote:
which has contributed to the retreat of glaciers,

What about the advancing ones?
TomF1 wrote:
permafrost,

Permafrost melts on the surface anyway every summer. It's the underlying soil that stays cold, and it isn't melting.
TomF1 wrote:
and sea ice.

The winter Arctic ice extent has been growing the last few years. In 2014, the Antarctic winter ice extent was the largest ever recorded. These go up and down as part of normal variance.
TomF1 wrote:
Overall, higher temperatures bring more rain and snowfall,

How is 'higher temperature', and 'rain and snowfall' being measured. I will call this argument 1.
TomF1 wrote:
but for some regions droughts and wildfires increase instead.

Define 'drought'. The only reason wildfire is increasing in California is because ecologists prevent anyone from removing brush and dead wood like they used to. I will call this argument 2.

You are now locked in paradox. You are now attempting to assign conflicting 'effects' to the same 'cause' (whatever those 'effects' actually are, or whatever that 'cause' actually is).

Arguing both sides of a paradox is irrational. You must clear the paradox by choosing 1 or 2. It can't be both!
TomF1 wrote:
[14] Climate change threatens to diminish crop yields,

We grow more food than ever. What is diminished? Define 'climate change'.
TomF1 wrote:
harming food security,

We grow more food than ever. There is no such thing as 'food security'.
TomF1 wrote:
and rising sea levels may flood coastal infrastructure and force the abandonment of many coastal cities.[15]

The only cities flooding are those on sinking land or silting up river deltas. It is not possible to measure global sea level. There is no valid reference point.
TomF1 wrote:
Environmental impacts include the extinction or relocation of many species as their ecosystems change,

Which ones? Define 'ecosystem change'. Define how this relates to an undefined phrase? Define 'climate change'.
TomF1 wrote:
most immediately the environments of coral reefs,

A coral reef isn't an environment. It is a reef. It simply is.
TomF1 wrote:
16] mountains,

A mountain is not an environment. It is a mountain. it simply is.
TomF1 wrote:
and the Arctic.

The Arctic is not an environment. It simply is.
...removed unrelated material...


You seem to make use of a lot of meaningless buzzwords, assumed measurements that were never done, and conclusions based on these meaningless buzzwords and void of data.

* It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. There are not enough thermometers.
* It is not possible to use satellites to measure absolute temperatures. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
* It is not possible to measure a global sea level using reference points that move.
* It is not possible to measure global precipitation or even 'regional' precipitation, unless that 'region' is the size of the 1 inch square rain gauge opening.
* It is possible to measure the size and relative strength of hurricanes. That data is stored at the National Hurricane Center. It shows there has been no increase in the frequency or strength of storms overall.
* It is not possible to measure the temperature of anything much beyond where a thermometer is located. Temperatures can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile. If you are going to try to use statistical math to calculate a global temperature at any given moment, you must:
1) use raw data free of bias. No cooked data allowed. Bias sources for temperature are time and location grouping. Their effects must be eliminated. Readings must be at the same time (by the same authority) and thermometers must be uniformly spaced.
2) publish that raw data, who collected it, when it was collected, and the instrumentation used to collect it.
3) select from that raw data by randN (same random number as found in playing cards).
4) declare the variance used.
5) normalize that selection by paired randR (same random number on two or more dice).
6) calculate mean, and calculate margin of error. Both numbers are required to give the summary any meaning.
* Statistical math is not capable of prediction normally inherent in mathematics due to its use of random numbers. It can only summarize past or present data. Each summary is independent of all other summaries, even if the same data and variance source is used.
* It IS possible to measure ice extent using satellites. The winter ice extent (square miles of polar ice) is in a database at the National Snow and Ice data center in Colorado. It shows the Arctic has been growing the last few years. It is not possible to measure the thickness of this ice.
* It is not possible to measure the total snow and ice on Earth. That changes by the minute due to weather.
* It is not possible to measure global precipitation. That changes by the minute due to weather.
* It is not possible to measure the pH of the ocean. It is possible to measure the pH of a sample of water though. pH varies from place to place in the ocean. We don't know by how much.
* it is not possible to measure a global CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. We don't have enough stations, and they are on the surface.
* No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth simply by being there. It is not possible to create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics). Assuming the same Sun output, the temperature of the Earth is the same. It cannot change due to some magick gas.


It must take ages to go through everyone's post like that, imagine what you could achieve if you used your energy for something constructive.

PLEASE STOP DEVOURING THERMOMETERS, THATS WHY WE DONT HAVE ENOUGH[/quote]
What about the delicious taste of Mercury.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
16-11-2019 08:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
[*find-ITISNOTPOSSIBLELIST]

* It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. There are not enough thermometers.
* It is not possible to use satellites to measure absolute temperatures. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
* It is not possible to measure a global sea level using reference points that move.
* It is not possible to measure global precipitation or even 'regional' precipitation, unless that 'region' is the size of the 1 inch square rain gauge opening.
* It is possible to measure the size and relative strength of hurricanes. That data is stored at the National Hurricane Center. It shows there has been no increase in the frequency or strength of storms overall.
* It is not possible to measure the temperature of anything much beyond where a thermometer is located. Temperatures can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile. If you are going to try to use statistical math to calculate a global temperature at any given moment, you must:
1) use raw data free of bias. No cooked data allowed. Bias sources for temperature are time and location grouping. Their effects must be eliminated. Readings must be at the same time (by the same authority) and thermometers must be uniformly spaced.
2) publish that raw data, who collected it, when it was collected, and the instrumentation used to collect it.
3) select from that raw data by randN (same random number as found in playing cards).
4) declare the variance used.
5) normalize that selection by paired randR (same random number on two or more dice).
6) calculate mean, and calculate margin of error. Both numbers are required to give the summary any meaning.
* Statistical math is not capable of prediction normally inherent in mathematics due to its use of random numbers. It can only summarize past or present data. Each summary is independent of all other summaries, even if the same data and variance source is used.
* It IS possible to measure ice extent using satellites. The winter ice extent (square miles of polar ice) is in a database at the National Snow and Ice data center in Colorado. It shows the Arctic has been growing the last few years. It is not possible to measure the thickness of this ice.
* It is not possible to measure the total snow and ice on Earth. That changes by the minute due to weather.
* It is not possible to measure global precipitation. That changes by the minute due to weather.
* It is not possible to measure the pH of the ocean. It is possible to measure the pH of a sample of water though. pH varies from place to place in the ocean. We don't know by how much.
* it is not possible to measure a global CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. We don't have enough stations, and they are on the surface.
* No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth simply by being there. It is not possible to create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics). Assuming the same Sun output, the temperature of the Earth is the same. It cannot change due to some magick gas.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
16-11-2019 19:04
TomF1
☆☆☆☆☆
(7)
As a year 8 chemistry student, I can tell you that the ocean is solely composed of H+ ions, which give the ocean some acidity. Pure water is practically impossible to obtain as once 2 water molecules interact, the decompose releasing 4H+ ions and O2. This process is accelerated by heat, which explains the oxygen gas given off by hot water (aka steam). This oxygen has a high amount of kinetic energy however, when it's kinetic energy drops it doesn't rebond with 2H+ molecules unless it gains a lot more energy and a large pressure increase. As a matter of fact, if the organic oxygen molecule falls below a certain temperature (below 290kelvin to be precise) it permanently loses the ability to react with 2 H+ ions to reform pure water. Once the oxygen from the ocean is completely gone, humans will evolve to live off other gases e.g. chlorine gas or methane, which will worsen climate change.
16-11-2019 22:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
TomF1 wrote:
As a year 8 chemistry student,

Which school? You should get your money back.
TomF1 wrote:
I can tell you that the ocean is solely composed of H+ ions, which give the ocean some acidity.

Aren't you forgetting the OH- ions?
TomF1 wrote:
Pure water is practically impossible to obtain as once 2 water molecules interact, the decompose releasing 4H+ ions and O2.

WRONG. It's H+ and OH-. They then recombine into H2O. Equilibrium.
TomF1 wrote:
This process is accelerated by heat, which explains the oxygen gas given off by hot water (aka steam).

Steam is not oxygen.
TomF1 wrote:
This oxygen has a high amount of kinetic energy however, when it's kinetic energy drops it doesn't rebond with 2H+ molecules unless it gains a lot more energy and a large pressure increase.

Steam consists of water...H2O.
TomF1 wrote:
As a matter of fact, if the organic oxygen molecule

Oxygen is not an organic molecule.
TomF1 wrote:
falls below a certain temperature (below 290kelvin to be precise) it permanently loses the ability to react with 2 H+ ions to reform pure water.

It is not possible to go below zero deg Kelvin.
TomF1 wrote:
Once the oxygen from the ocean is completely gone,

Oxygen isn't destroyed.
TomF1 wrote:
humans will evolve to live off other gases e.g. chlorine gas or methane, which will worsen climate change.


Define 'climate change'.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using infrared light emitted from Earth's surface. You can't create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics).

You claim to be an eight year student of chemistry. I don't believe you.


The Parrot Killer
17-11-2019 09:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
TomF1 wrote:
Global warming is the long-term rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate..
Don't worry Tom no one else is confused about the Dictionary (not even these jokers) it's just an attempt to side track debate.

thomasistrouble1 wrote:The only reason there is climate change is because of china this is because communists are advocating climate change to take over the capitalists and communists want to bring climate change to save us all
I think you mean that China is pushing a climate change myth in order to game an upper hand in global dominance?

So you should probably work on disproving climate change.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Are you aware of how much CO2 plants require to do their very best? It's been studied quite a but, for a very long time. For most, it ranges from 700-1200 ppm, and most commercial greenhouses these days augment CO2.
I think that qualifies as an inconvenient truth for Al Gore.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Analogs, and proxies data, are a lot of guessing and speculation....make them useless, in the context of climate change.
Ironically that's a highly speculative position for you to take. The history of scientific achievement has worked with a lot less than we have now with respect to understanding the temperature of a planet.
But really your desire that we not try is evident.

Into the Night wrote:
* It is possible to measure the size and relative strength of hurricanes.
To what margin or error? How much ACCURACY on that ITN? Curious as it's one of the only times you've ever admitted anyting could be measured!

James___ wrote:
There are different types of climate change. The Dust Bowl in the 1930s...wildfires in California?...
Oooh good point! Yes and we stopped cutting our trees down in California. Also rich folks like to have plants around their homes so they won't cut buffers.

TomF1 wrote:
..diseases can devastate families far outside the communities which choose to delay or decline vaccines.....
I think this is an excellent parallel to issues of global ecology in general. It's been raised here before:
IBdaMann wrote:
Vaccinations are not science and a rational person is justified in preferring to avoid them.


"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 ever valid for them
17-11-2019 13:09
Dom_Hayes_420
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
ngl i think ur all just a bit retarded lol
17-11-2019 16:16
thomasistrouble1
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
It honestly doesn't matter if there is climate change or not, as in the end Jesus will come down and bless the earth by cooling it down. Effectively restoring the earth to its previous state before climate change took place therefore your arguments are null
Attached image:

18-11-2019 00:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
TomF1 wrote:
Global warming is the long-term rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate..
Don't worry Tom no one else is confused about the Dictionary (not even these jokers) it's just an attempt to side track debate.

Climate has no temperature. A desert climate is not describing a temperature of any kind. A marine climate is not describing a temperature of any kind. You can't define 'global warming' as 'global warming'. Climate is not weather. There is no such thing as a 'global climate'.
tmiddles wrote:
thomasistrouble1 wrote:The only reason there is climate change is because of china this is because communists are advocating climate change to take over the capitalists and communists want to bring climate change to save us all
I think you mean that China is pushing a climate change myth in order to game an upper hand in global dominance?

So you should probably work on disproving climate change.

Void proof. Void argument fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. Define 'climate change'. There is nothing to prove either way.
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Analogs, and proxies data, are a lot of guessing and speculation....make them useless, in the context of climate change.
Ironically that's a highly speculative position for you to take.

A void is not a speculation. Burden of proof fallacy. YOU have to justify proxy use. Science doesn't use proxies.
tmiddles wrote:
The history of scientific achievement has worked with a lot less than we have now with respect to understanding the temperature of a planet.

A temperature is not an 'understanding'. Redefinition fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
But really your desire that we not try is evident.

Try what? Void argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
* It is possible to measure the size and relative strength of hurricanes.
To what margin or error? How much ACCURACY on that ITN? Curious as it's one of the only times you've ever admitted anyting could be measured!

No statistic used here. Redefinition fallacy (observation<->statistical math).
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
There are different types of climate change. The Dust Bowl in the 1930s...wildfires in California?...
Oooh good point! Yes and we stopped cutting our trees down in California. Also rich folks like to have plants around their homes so they won't cut buffers.

And climate has not changed. A desert climate is still a desert climate. A marine climate is still a marine climate.
tmiddles wrote:
TomF1 wrote:
..diseases can devastate families far outside the communities which choose to delay or decline vaccines.....
I think this is an excellent parallel to issues of global ecology in general. It's been raised here before:

Define 'global ecology'. Buzzword fallacy. What does a meaningless buzzword have to do with vaccinations?


The Parrot Killer
20-11-2019 09:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
Climate has no temperature.
OK what is your definition of "Climate"?
The definition is the average weather (this is an annual, 12 month cycle because we're on Earth) which includes temperature.

"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 ever valid for them
20-11-2019 17:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote: The definition is the average weather (this is an annual, 12 month cycle because we're on Earth) which includes temperature.

I realize this is the timeless question and it is daunting, but perhaps you can be the first to actually address it (man, would that be great!).

Could you give me an example of average global weather? Is it rain? Is it wind? What is it? If the weather forecast for my area happened to be "Today we'll be getting average global weather" then what would I be expecting?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
20-11-2019 19:14
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1529)
IBdaMann wrote:
If the weather forecast for my area happened to be "Today we'll be getting average global weather" then what would I be expecting?


Quite nasty and pleasant today with highs ranging from the -50s to 115. Winds will be calm from the SW NW NE and swinging around to the SE, gusting to 100 mph. It will be cloudy and clear, with on and off storms, mostly on or off. Just another average day where you'll want to pack your speedo and a parka.


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
20-11-2019 22:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Climate has no temperature.
OK what is your definition of "Climate"?
The definition is the average weather (this is an annual, 12 month cycle because we're on Earth) which includes temperature.


Climate is a subjective word describing prevalent environmental conditions, including quite possibly, weather.

Climate has no time frame specified. A desert climate is always a desert climate. A marine climate is always a marine climate.


The Parrot Killer
20-11-2019 22:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
If the weather forecast for my area happened to be "Today we'll be getting average global weather" then what would I be expecting?


Quite nasty and pleasant today with highs ranging from the -50s to 115. Winds will be calm from the SW NW NE and swinging around to the SE, gusting to 100 mph. It will be cloudy and clear, with on and off storms, mostly on or off. Just another average day where you'll want to pack your speedo and a parka.





The Parrot Killer
22-11-2019 06:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
Could you give me an example of average global weather?

Weather is: "the state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness"
So basically humidity, temperature, wind and cloud cover. The Weather in Denver is as easily defined as the Weather of Earth, and just as impossible to give as a precise value for humidity, temp, wind or cloud cover. Because from spot to spot, and moment to moment it will vary. This is true of everything in the universe.

GasGuzzler wrote:...highs ranging from the -50s to 115....you'll want to pack your speedo and a parka.
Yeah, kinda. Why did you say -50 to 115 ? Why not 700 degrees? I mean could it be 700 degrees? That's the temperature we measured on Venus. Oh and could Venus be -50s too? Do we have no idea?

Everything every measured has a range gentleman. EVERYTHING

If you reject a temperature for something because it's not one precise stable value, then you got nothing at all.

Into the Night wrote:
Climate has no time frame specified.
Climates on Earth have 12 months cycle. Because this is Earth.

Into the Night wrote:
Climate has no temperature.
Into the Night wrote:
Climate is a subjective word describing prevalent environmental conditions,
That would include temperature bub.

"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 ever valid for them
Edited on 22-11-2019 06:18
22-11-2019 12:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Could you give me an example of average global weather?

Weather is: "the state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness"
So basically humidity, temperature, wind and cloud cover. The Weather in Denver is as easily defined as the Weather of Earth, and just as impossible to give as a precise value for humidity, temp, wind or cloud cover. Because from spot to spot, and moment to moment it will vary. This is true of everything in the universe.

So you have correctly described weather as a set of quantifiable values. What you fail to realize (yet again) is that while these values can be measured at a particular location at a particular time, the measurements are only good for that particular location for that particular time. They do not describe any other location or any other time.
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:...highs ranging from the -50s to 115....you'll want to pack your speedo and a parka.
Yeah, kinda. Why did you say -50 to 115 ? Why not 700 degrees? I mean could it be 700 degrees? That's the temperature we measured on Venus. Oh and could Venus be -50s too? Do we have no idea?

We have no idea. One thermometer cannot measure the temperature of any planet.
tmiddles wrote:
Everything every measured has a range gentleman. EVERYTHING

Correct. You fail to realize this. Am I going to log another paradox for you?
tmiddles wrote:
If you reject a temperature for something because it's not one precise stable value, then you got nothing at all.

Precisely. You have nothing at all.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Climate has no time frame specified.
Climates on Earth have 12 months cycle. Because this is Earth.

Climate has no time frame specified.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Climate has no temperature.
Into the Night wrote:
Climate is a subjective word describing prevalent environmental conditions,
That would include temperature bub.

Nope. A desert climate is always a desert climate. It doesn't matter whether it's a hot desert or a cold desert. It is still a desert climate.

Climate does not change. Unlike weather, it has no set of quantitative values. It has no time frame either.


The Parrot Killer
22-11-2019 16:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
...What you fail to realize (yet again) is that while these values can be measured at a particular location at a particular time, the measurements are only good for that particular location for that particular time. They do not describe any other location or any other time.

Yes and this is as true of Denver tomorrow at 2:00 PM and then at 2:05 PM as it is of the Earth in 1900 and 1950. Its also true of a block of steel in the lab at 2:00 PM and 2:01PM. There is always a range. What is true is you are opting out of participating in the useful employment of the scientific method.

Be honest and admit upfront that you dont believe humans ever know what the weather is beyond a single point in space in time. That YOU believe, pretty much all by yourself, that we have "no idea" what the weather is in south Denver from a measurement in north Denver.

"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 ever valid for them
22-11-2019 18:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
...What you fail to realize (yet again) is that while these values can be measured at a particular location at a particular time, the measurements are only good for that particular location for that particular time. They do not describe any other location or any other time.

Yes and this is as true of Denver tomorrow at 2:00 PM and then at 2:05 PM as it is of the Earth in 1900 and 1950. Its also true of a block of steel in the lab at 2:00 PM and 2:01PM. There is always a range. What is true is you are opting out of participating in the useful employment of the scientific method.

Science isn't data. Science isn't random numbers. Science isn't bad math. Science isn't a 'method'. It is just the falsifiable theories themselves. Theories that you simply deny, along with mathematics.
tmiddles wrote:
Be honest and admit upfront that you dont believe humans ever know what the weather is beyond a single point in space in time.

Not a belief. It is the math.
tmiddles wrote:
That YOU believe, pretty much all by yourself, that we have "no idea" what the weather is in south Denver from a measurement in north Denver.

Not a belief. It is the math.

Math is not a belief. Math a set of axioms defining numbers and operators. It is a closed system, normally capable of the power of prediction and the formal proof. Where random numbers are used, however, you lose the power of prediction.


The Parrot Killer
22-11-2019 23:05
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:Where random numbers are used, however, you lose the power of prediction.
A measurement of the temperature of the surface of Venus is not a random number. Nor is a measurement of North Denver. You falsely claim that measurements are random. What would a "random" measurement even be?

Also your weirdo definitions of the world "science" are totally made up by you. In any case the rest of humanity has been very "useful" in figuring things out and employing t hat knowledge. No one will make you join us.

"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 ever valid for them
22-11-2019 23:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote: What would a "random" measurement even be?

I can answer that for you.

Temperature differences affect the measuring device. Excessive temperatures affect the measuring device greatly, but we don't know how much. The same goes for pressure. We can assume that both the temperature and pressure on Venus where the probe landed was pretty high. We don't know how high and we don't know how the specific temperature and pressure at that moment threw off the temperature reading, i.e.

Unknown Temperature +/ Unknow Error. Hmmm. Wait! This measurement is a random value. We don't what we're getting.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
23-11-2019 00:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
Excessive temperatures affect the measuring device greatly, ...Venus where the probe landed was pretty high....

You're claiming with no evidence or rational whatsoever that the instrumentation used from the 1970s through the 1990s to take direct measurements was so inaccurate at ~700F that we have NO IDEA what the temperature was? That our technology makes measuring temperature that high impossible? So bad that it's "Random"?

OK
You just made all of that up and it's entirely false.

Head down to your local pottery class and talk tot he instructor about the kiln and if the temp inside is unknown as well.

Also learn what the word "Random" actually means.
"made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision."

Rough is not Random

Every temperature measurement ever taken is "rough" based on some higher standard of precision.

So what did the russians use on Venera? A "resistance thermometer" I don't know the model but that type of thermometer currently shows a range up to 1000C with accuracy to ±0.001 °C

I gather they are more reliable than thermocouples.

"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 ever valid for them
Edited on 23-11-2019 00:19
23-11-2019 05:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Where random numbers are used, however, you lose the power of prediction.
A measurement of the temperature of the surface of Venus is not a random number.
It is if you call that the temperature of Venus.
tmiddles wrote:
Nor is a measurement of North Denver.
It is if you call that the temperature of North Denver.
tmiddles wrote:
You falsely claim that measurements are random.
The measurement isn't, they way you use it is.
tmiddles wrote:
What would a "random" measurement even be?
Contextomy fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Also your weirdo definitions of the world "science" are totally made up by you.
Nope. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
In any case the rest of humanity has been very "useful" in figuring things out and employing that knowledge. No one will make you join us.

Void argument fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
23-11-2019 05:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:....is not a random number....
Nor is a measurement of North Denver.
It is if you call that the temperature of North Denver.


So you're saying the temperature of North Denver is unknowable?

"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 ever valid for them
Edited on 23-11-2019 05:28
23-11-2019 05:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Excessive temperatures affect the measuring device greatly, ...Venus where the probe landed was pretty high....

You're claiming with no evidence or rational whatsoever that the instrumentation used from the 1970s through the 1990s to take direct measurements was so inaccurate at ~700F that we have NO IDEA what the temperature was? That our technology makes measuring temperature that high impossible? So bad that it's "Random"?
Calling that the temperature of Venus is an argument from randU fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
OK
You just made all of that up and it's entirely false.
No, YOU made all that up. Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Head down to your local pottery class and talk tot he instructor about the kiln and if the temp inside is unknown as well.
It is known well enough, since the kiln is so small is made of a good thermal insulator.
tmiddles wrote:
Also learn what the word "Random" actually means.

"made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision."[/quote]
Not the definition of 'random'.

I have already told you what a random number is and their various types and where they each come from. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Rough is not Random
Non-sequitur fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Every temperature measurement ever taken is "rough" based on some higher standard of precision.
WRONG. Every useful measurement is within some useful tolerance. Tolerance is not margin of error. Redefinition fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
So what did the russians use on Venera? A "resistance thermometer" I don't know the model but that type of thermometer currently shows a range up to 1000C with accuracy to ±0.001 °C
Irrelevant. You are denying the math by using a redefinition fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
I gather they are more reliable than thermocouples.

Irrelevant.


The Parrot Killer
23-11-2019 05:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:....is not a random number....
Nor is a measurement of North Denver.
It is if you call that the temperature of North Denver.


So you're saying the temperature of North Denver is unknowable?


RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
23-11-2019 05:32
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:....is not a random number....
Nor is a measurement of North Denver.
It is if you call that the temperature of North Denver.


So you're saying the temperature of North Denver is unknowable?


RQAA.


As so you are!
RQAA, Really Quite Absolutely Accurate

Well you should be honest with people. Just open with "we never know the weather" before you say anything else on this topic and they'll know to ignore you.
23-11-2019 18:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:....is not a random number....
Nor is a measurement of North Denver.
It is if you call that the temperature of North Denver.


So you're saying the temperature of North Denver is unknowable?


RQAA.


As so you are!
RQAA, Really Quite Absolutely Accurate

Not the meaning of RQAA and you know it. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
Well you should be honest with people. Just open with "we never know the weather" before you say anything else on this topic and they'll know to ignore you.

You do know the weather. Go stand outside in it.


The Parrot Killer
24-11-2019 02:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
You do know the weather. Go stand outside in it.


Ah but by ITN/IBD rules there can be no weather report. You claim it can be known in on point in space at one time only and beyond that point it is entirely unknown, no clue at all. So if on a street cormer in south Denver its snowing and cold, and someone headed to their house in North Denver asks what weather to expect you ITN, and only you, have no clue. Could be anything, 700F, -50
IT CANNOT BE KNOWN!!

By just you though

We're doing fine without your endorsement.
24-11-2019 02:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote:Ah but by ITN/IBD rules there can be no weather report.

Is this the position you are assigning to me today?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
24-11-2019 13:09
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Ah but by ITN/IBD rules there can be no weather report.

Is this the position you are assigning to me today?

.


What position are you taking today?

Is the surface of the planet Venus hotter then denver and how do you know that?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
25-11-2019 09:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You do know the weather. Go stand outside in it.


Ah but by ITN/IBD rules there can be no weather report.

Weather reports occur every six hours in the United States.
tmiddles wrote:
You claim it can be known in on point in space at one time only and beyond that point it is entirely unknown, no clue at all.

Weather reports don't record a time or a single point in space. They are generic reports of forecasts.
tmiddles wrote:
So if on a street cormer in south Denver its snowing and cold, and someone headed to their house in North Denver asks what weather to expect you ITN, and only you, have no clue. Could be anything, 700F, -50

Nowhere on Earth reaches 700 deg F. No where in Denver has recorded temperatures so high or low. Extreme argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
IT CANNOT BE KNOWN!!

Correct.
tmiddles wrote:
By just you though

Nope. No one can know the temperature of Denver. Just at the point the thermometer is.
tmiddles wrote:
We're doing fine without your endorsement.

My 'endorsement' is not a factor here. Again, you deny the mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
25-11-2019 09:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Ah but by ITN/IBD rules there can be no weather report.

Is this the position you are assigning to me today?

.


What position are you taking today?

Is the surface of the planet Venus hotter then denver and how do you know that?


Denver has never recorded a temperature of 700 deg F.


The Parrot Killer
25-11-2019 10:16
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Ah but by ITN/IBD rules there can be no weather report.

Is this the position you are assigning to me today?

.


What position are you taking today?

Is the surface of the planet Venus hotter then denver and how do you know that?


Denver has never recorded a temperature of 700 deg F.


Since when did you trust records of tempture?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
25-11-2019 11:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Ah but by ITN/IBD rules there can be no weather report.

Is this the position you are assigning to me today?

.


What position are you taking today?

Is the surface of the planet Venus hotter then denver and how do you know that?


Denver has never recorded a temperature of 700 deg F.


Since when did you trust records of tempture?

Never was otherwise.


The Parrot Killer
25-11-2019 12:49
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
So you are saying that you do know what the temperature in denver is and you do know what the temperature on Venus is now?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
25-11-2019 19:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
spot wrote:
So you are saying that you do know what the temperature in denver is and you do know what the temperature on Venus is now?

No.


The Parrot Killer
25-11-2019 19:21
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
So you are saying that you do know what the temperature in denver is and you do know what the temperature on Venus is now?

No.


So Venus could be cooler then Denver?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-11-2019 11:13
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
Weather reports don't record a time or a single point in space. They are generic reports of forecasts.
So are the RANDOM? RANDU? Are the truth? Are they useful at all?
How can Denver have a "weather" but the Earth cannot have a "weather" ITN?

Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
Aaaah! There we have it. The only possible answer consistent with your entire position. IBD concures we must assume.

And the statement any rational person needs to dismiss you.

Because, well, we know the temperature of Denver!
The WEATHER OF DENVER (temperature included)

spot wrote:So Venus could be cooler then Denver?
I know you're enjoying ITN painted in his corner SPOT. So am I!

"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 ever valid for them
27-11-2019 19:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
So you are saying that you do know what the temperature in denver is and you do know what the temperature on Venus is now?

No.


So Venus could be cooler then Denver?


Sure. Why not? Venus is quite a ways south of Denver, but it's nearer the sea.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate Climate change questionnaire:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Climate Change Questionnaire114-05-2018 17:38
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact