Remember me
▼ Content

Climate Data 800,000 years



Page 3 of 5<12345>
16-08-2017 03:02
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
JizzGuzzler belched:
GreenMan wrote:
And always remember that, just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.


LOL....this from the guy who has a bomb shelter and food storage because there's a chance the temperature may go up 1 degree. Rich.


Nah, nothing like that at all. A 1 degree change in temperature wouldn't hurt us much. In fact, we have already done that, if you can trust those shady scientists that track such data. If it were just a few degrees it wouldn't be difficult to get through. We would just have to make a few changes to where we live.

The global average temperature will increase well beyond our ability to live, if nothing is done to prevent it.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
16-08-2017 03:03
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Won't Wake Up mumbled something about:
GreenMan wrote: I don't think I care if you think the data I used in "manufactured," because it is the only data we have and using it was the only way I had to determine the truth, because of so many Satanic missionaries in the world, preaching "Don't Worry, Be Happy." The data I used was meticulously averaged. The raw data might be "in question," as far as you are concerned, but that doesn't mean it is erroneous data. It just means that some of Satan's High Priests are busy confusing everyone.


I'm not in the least surprised that you would think that since manufactured data is the only data you have you have to use it.


You shouldn't be surprised either, since it was the only thing to do. Only it wasn't manufactured data. The data were produced not manufactured. Produced from ice, where traces of minerals and gases that indicate the climate of our planet were frozen.

To accuse every scientific organization of colluding to manufacture data that shows that the planet is warming is insane.


Tell you what - take a bottle of carbonated water and freeze it solid. Then thaw it out and tell us all where the bubbles went.
Edited on 16-08-2017 03:04
16-08-2017 03:08
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
JizzGuzzler belched:
GreenMan wrote:
And always remember that, just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.


LOL....this from the guy who has a bomb shelter and food storage because there's a chance the temperature may go up 1 degree. Rich.


Nah, nothing like that at all. A 1 degree change in temperature wouldn't hurt us much. In fact, we have already done that, if you can trust those shady scientists that track such data. If it were just a few degrees it wouldn't be difficult to get through. We would just have to make a few changes to where we live.

The global average temperature will increase well beyond our ability to live, if nothing is done to prevent it.


More of your "produced data".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

If you aren't too stupid to read that chart you will see that we are presently at the coldest point that we've been at in 5.5 Million years. And that temperature for the present is direct measurement.

If you only had a brain Mr. Scarecrow.

Or perhaps you would prefer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Edited on 16-08-2017 03:09
16-08-2017 03:24
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]Wake wrote:....too stupid to read that chart you will see that we are presently at the coldest point that we've been at in 5.5 Million years. And that temperature for the present is direct measurement.

Good to know there were thermometers 5.5 million years ago.
If'n ya know how to expand the graph size, ya'll see that the present temp ain't the coldest of the last 5.5 million years...... accordin' ta yer graph.
16-08-2017 06:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Won't Wake Up mumbled something about:
GreenMan wrote: I don't think I care if you think the data I used in "manufactured," because it is the only data we have and using it was the only way I had to determine the truth, because of so many Satanic missionaries in the world, preaching "Don't Worry, Be Happy." The data I used was meticulously averaged. The raw data might be "in question," as far as you are concerned, but that doesn't mean it is erroneous data. It just means that some of Satan's High Priests are busy confusing everyone.


I'm not in the least surprised that you would think that since manufactured data is the only data you have you have to use it.


You shouldn't be surprised either, since it was the only thing to do. Only it wasn't manufactured data. The data were produced not manufactured. Produced from ice, where traces of minerals and gases that indicate the climate of our planet were frozen.

To accuse every scientific organization of colluding to manufacture data that shows that the planet is warming is insane.


Tell you what - take a bottle of carbonated water and freeze it solid. Then thaw it out and tell us all where the bubbles went.


Nowhere. The carbon dioxide will redissolve into the water (assuming the bottle remains sealed).


The Parrot Killer
RE: Milankovitch Cycles25-08-2017 08:11
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
From Wikipedia


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Attached image:

25-08-2017 18:22
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
From Wikipedia


Who said it did? What was said is that the vast majority of the Sun's radiation is in the visible bands and those are not absorbed by the air. Instead they are absorbed by the Earth and it's plant life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg

Why do you insist on making statements as if what has been said is something entirely different?
25-08-2017 21:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
From Wikipedia


Who said it did? What was said is that the vast majority of the Sun's radiation is in the visible bands and those are not absorbed by the air. Instead they are absorbed by the Earth and it's plant life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg

Why do you insist on making statements as if what has been said is something entirely different?


Heh. Probably for the same reason YOU do.


The Parrot Killer
25-08-2017 22:02
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
From Wikipedia


Who said it did? What was said is that the vast majority of the Sun's radiation is in the visible bands and those are not absorbed by the air. Instead they are absorbed by the Earth and it's plant life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg

Why do you insist on making statements as if what has been said is something entirely different?


Heh. Probably for the same reason YOU do.


Now you are supporting Greenman's contention that the air absorbs the majority of the sun's energy?
25-08-2017 22:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
From Wikipedia


Who said it did? What was said is that the vast majority of the Sun's radiation is in the visible bands and those are not absorbed by the air. Instead they are absorbed by the Earth and it's plant life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg

Why do you insist on making statements as if what has been said is something entirely different?


Heh. Probably for the same reason YOU do.


Now you are supporting Greenman's contention that the air absorbs the majority of the sun's energy?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No!

You just made a statement as if what has been said is something entirely different!

You can remove your feet from your mouth now!


The Parrot Killer
26-08-2017 21:08
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
From Wikipedia


Who said it did? What was said is that the vast majority of the Sun's radiation is in the visible bands and those are not absorbed by the air. Instead they are absorbed by the Earth and it's plant life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg

Why do you insist on making statements as if what has been said is something entirely different?


Heh. Probably for the same reason YOU do.


Now you are supporting Greenman's contention that the air absorbs the majority of the sun's energy?


Sorry, but Greenman does not contend that the air absorbs the majority of the sun's energy. Greenman contends that the air lets all of the sun's energy strike the earth, and that the air only absorbs some of the earth's radiation, and gives it back at heat.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
26-08-2017 21:11
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
From Wikipedia


Who said it did? What was said is that the vast majority of the Sun's radiation is in the visible bands and those are not absorbed by the air. Instead they are absorbed by the Earth and it's plant life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg

Why do you insist on making statements as if what has been said is something entirely different?


Heh. Probably for the same reason YOU do.


It's a common ploy among charlatans to make it seem as if they know more than the person they are attacking. Appears you two use the same tactic out of necessity. You both lack any real evidence to support your claims.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
26-08-2017 21:18
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
From Wikipedia


Who said it did? What was said is that the vast majority of the Sun's radiation is in the visible bands and those are not absorbed by the air. Instead they are absorbed by the Earth and it's plant life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg

Why do you insist on making statements as if what has been said is something entirely different?


You are responding to my signature you idiot. I added one of Professor Parrot Face's comments to my signature line, because it contradicts most of what he tries to preach in here.

How about taking a look at the graph that was posted,

and try explaining why it isn't getting cooler each year, since the insolation from the sun is decreasing a little each year? You can argue, like your Parrot Face friend that it's bad information, because it comes from Wikipedia, but that doesn't change the fact that it's good information, and can be found elsewhere. The truth is that we should be cooling off, if the sun were the only thing responsible for Earth's climate. So please offer up your explanation, if you want to sound intelligent for a change.

You too, Professor Parrot Face. Let's here from you why you think it isn't cooling off, like it should, if the sun were the only force behind our climate.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Edited on 26-08-2017 21:21
26-08-2017 22:03
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
JizzGuzzler belched:
GreenMan wrote:
And always remember that, just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.


LOL....this from the guy who has a bomb shelter and food storage because there's a chance the temperature may go up 1 degree. Rich.


Nah, nothing like that at all. A 1 degree change in temperature wouldn't hurt us much. In fact, we have already done that, if you can trust those shady scientists that track such data. If it were just a few degrees it wouldn't be difficult to get through. We would just have to make a few changes to where we live.

The global average temperature will increase well beyond our ability to live, if nothing is done to prevent it.


More of your "produced data".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

If you aren't too stupid to read that chart you will see that we are presently at the coldest point that we've been at in 5.5 Million years. And that temperature for the present is direct measurement.

If you only had a brain Mr. Scarecrow.

Or perhaps you would prefer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png


So why do you think that because the planet's climate was once warmer than it is now, that humans will be ok with it getting that warm again? Humans weren't even around back when it was that warm. We have evolved, and so has the rest of life on the planet, to live in this environment.

What makes you think we can all go back to living in a climate that we have no tolerance for? You have no idea what a few degrees of average global temperature change will do to our planet, because no one does. It's about like guessing about what Heaven will be like.

All we really know for sure, is that it is going to continue getting warmer as time goes on. And I have a Climate Model that accurately backcasts the climate of the earth for 800,000 years. That model predicts that the earth's average temperature will increase by about 50C from where it is now. I have no idea what will happen if that is anywhere near close to reality, but it won't be good. Nothing on earth is capable of living in that heat, except for a few microbes that live ocean vents, warmed by geothermal activity. It's reasonable to conclude that life will return to that, and then in a few million years it will evolve back to more intelligent life again. Let's hope the next time life evolves to an even more intelligent species than we currently are, before they develop the technology to destroy themselves, again. Or even better, let's hope that we are intelligent enough to respond to this threat in a timely manner, and save a few living things to repopulate the planet with.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
26-08-2017 22:16
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
JizzGuzzler belched:
GreenMan wrote:
And always remember that, just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.


LOL....this from the guy who has a bomb shelter and food storage because there's a chance the temperature may go up 1 degree. Rich.


Nah, nothing like that at all. A 1 degree change in temperature wouldn't hurt us much. In fact, we have already done that, if you can trust those shady scientists that track such data. If it were just a few degrees it wouldn't be difficult to get through. We would just have to make a few changes to where we live.

The global average temperature will increase well beyond our ability to live, if nothing is done to prevent it.


More of your "produced data".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

If you aren't too stupid to read that chart you will see that we are presently at the coldest point that we've been at in 5.5 Million years. And that temperature for the present is direct measurement.

If you only had a brain Mr. Scarecrow.

Or perhaps you would prefer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png


So why do you think that because the planet's climate was once warmer than it is now, that humans will be ok with it getting that warm again? Humans weren't even around back when it was that warm. We have evolved, and so has the rest of life on the planet, to live in this environment.

What makes you think we can all go back to living in a climate that we have no tolerance for? You have no idea what a few degrees of average global temperature change will do to our planet, because no one does. It's about like guessing about what Heaven will be like.

All we really know for sure, is that it is going to continue getting warmer as time goes on. And I have a Climate Model that accurately backcasts the climate of the earth for 800,000 years. That model predicts that the earth's average temperature will increase by about 50C from where it is now. I have no idea what will happen if that is anywhere near close to reality, but it won't be good. Nothing on earth is capable of living in that heat, except for a few microbes that live ocean vents, warmed by geothermal activity. It's reasonable to conclude that life will return to that, and then in a few million years it will evolve back to more intelligent life again. Let's hope the next time life evolves to an even more intelligent species than we currently are, before they develop the technology to destroy themselves, again. Or even better, let's hope that we are intelligent enough to respond to this threat in a timely manner, and save a few living things to repopulate the planet with.


"Humans weren't even around back then"??? Do you mean the previous three warm periods that occur approximately every thousand years? All three of which were warmer than the present warm period?

You can make a mushroom seem intellectual.
26-08-2017 22:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
From Wikipedia


Who said it did? What was said is that the vast majority of the Sun's radiation is in the visible bands and those are not absorbed by the air. Instead they are absorbed by the Earth and it's plant life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg

Why do you insist on making statements as if what has been said is something entirely different?


Heh. Probably for the same reason YOU do.


Now you are supporting Greenman's contention that the air absorbs the majority of the sun's energy?


Sorry, but Greenman does not contend that the air absorbs the majority of the sun's energy.

You are contending EXACTLY that, liar!
GreenMan wrote:
Greenman contends that the air lets all of the sun's energy strike the earth, and that the air only absorbs some of the earth's radiation, and gives it back at heat.

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument doesn't work. You can't heat a hotter surface with a colder gas. You can't reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time.


The Parrot Killer
26-08-2017 22:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
From Wikipedia


Who said it did? What was said is that the vast majority of the Sun's radiation is in the visible bands and those are not absorbed by the air. Instead they are absorbed by the Earth and it's plant life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg

Why do you insist on making statements as if what has been said is something entirely different?


Heh. Probably for the same reason YOU do.


It's a common ploy among charlatans to make it seem as if they know more than the person they are attacking. Appears you two use the same tactic out of necessity. You both lack any real evidence to support your claims.


I do not need to prove a negative. It is YOU that is trying to change science. I do not need evidence. The existing theories of science are all I need.


The Parrot Killer
26-08-2017 22:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
GreenMan wrote:
I added one of Professor Parrot Face's comments to my signature line, because it contradicts most of what he tries to preach in here.

Nope no contradiction at all. Thanks for being so gracious to repeat it in every one of your posts.
GreenMan wrote:
How about taking a look at the graph that was posted,
...deleted manufactured data...
and try explaining why it isn't getting cooler each year,

You don't know the temperature of the Earth. You don't know if it's getting warmer, colder, or just staying the same.
GreenMan wrote:
since the insolation from the sun is decreasing a little each year?

Is it? How do you know? Have you been measuring all the sunlight striking the Earth?
GreenMan wrote:
You can argue, like your Parrot Face friend that it's bad information,

Thank you for saying it. It is bad information.
GreenMan wrote:
because it comes from Wikipedia,

No, because it is manufactured data. Wikipedia often publishes manufactured data. It is also biased. That's why I do not accept it as a source.
GreenMan wrote:
but that doesn't change the fact that it's good information,

Oh...just because YOU call it good information, that automatically makes it good information eh?
GreenMan wrote:
and can be found elsewhere.

True. A lot of people are publishing manufactured data.
GreenMan wrote:
The truth is that we should be cooling off,

There is no way to know.
GreenMan wrote:
if the sun were the only thing responsible for Earth's climate.

There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as global weather.
GreenMan wrote:
So please offer up your explanation, if you want to sound intelligent for a change.

Now THERE's a loaded challenge!
GreenMan wrote:
You too, Professor Parrot Face. Let's here from you why you think it isn't cooling off,

I might very well be. There is no way to know.
GreenMan wrote:
like it should, if the sun were the only force behind our climate.

There is no such thing as global climate. There is no such thing as global weather.

IF the Sun is putting out less power, the Earth will be cooler. It is the only significant source of energy for Earth.


The Parrot Killer
27-08-2017 14:20
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
I added one of Professor Parrot Face's comments to my signature line, because it contradicts most of what he tries to preach in here.

Nope no contradiction at all. Thanks for being so gracious to repeat it in every one of your posts.
GreenMan wrote:
How about taking a look at the graph that was posted,
...deleted manufactured data...
and try explaining why it isn't getting cooler each year,

You don't know the temperature of the Earth. You don't know if it's getting warmer, colder, or just staying the same.
GreenMan wrote:
since the insolation from the sun is decreasing a little each year?

Is it? How do you know? Have you been measuring all the sunlight striking the Earth?
GreenMan wrote:
You can argue, like your Parrot Face friend that it's bad information,

Thank you for saying it. It is bad information.
GreenMan wrote:
because it comes from Wikipedia,

No, because it is manufactured data. Wikipedia often publishes manufactured data. It is also biased. That's why I do not accept it as a source.
GreenMan wrote:
but that doesn't change the fact that it's good information,

Oh...just because YOU call it good information, that automatically makes it good information eh?
GreenMan wrote:
and can be found elsewhere.

True. A lot of people are publishing manufactured data.
GreenMan wrote:
The truth is that we should be cooling off,

There is no way to know.
GreenMan wrote:
if the sun were the only thing responsible for Earth's climate.

There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as global weather.
GreenMan wrote:
So please offer up your explanation, if you want to sound intelligent for a change.

Now THERE's a loaded challenge!
GreenMan wrote:
You too, Professor Parrot Face. Let's here from you why you think it isn't cooling off,

I might very well be. There is no way to know.
GreenMan wrote:
like it should, if the sun were the only force behind our climate.

There is no such thing as global climate. There is no such thing as global weather.

IF the Sun is putting out less power, the Earth will be cooler. It is the only significant source of energy for Earth.

There's no such thing as..............anything that doesn't fit into your version of reality. So there is no such thing as ever changing your twisted mind. But perhaps there are people who are interested in knowing what is really going on.

You avoid answering a lot of questions simply by claiming there is no way of knowing the temperature of the planet. You are correct in that there is no way to measure its absolute value. But we do measure it with thermometers spread around the world. And they even use satellites to measure the temperature nowadays, even though they don't really measure the temperature, they read the light. And we can compare those readings, whether from satellite or thermometers and get a fairly close annual average. As long as we do it the same way each year, then we can compare those averages and determine if the planet is getting warmer or cooler, or even staying the same.

You also claim there is no way of knowing what the insolation from the sun really is either. Again you are using the same tactic of ignore-ance. We have that information. You have shown no reason to doubt it, other than it doesn't fit your criteria for acceptable data. You don't even know though, because you haven't bothered to check. You would rather just assume it is wrong. I guess that works for you, but it doesn't do your argument much good.

And none of this does your credibility any good either. Ignoring solid data is about the same as lying, because you are lying to yourself. If you will lie to yourself, then you would lie to everyone else. And you know what, the world doesn't need another liar telling us what to do or what to think. We have enough of that already with the current regime at the White House. Is that what you are trying to do? Are you trying to get on Trump's team?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
27-08-2017 17:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:

There's no such thing as..............anything that doesn't fit into your version of reality. So there is no such thing as ever changing your twisted mind. But perhaps there are people who are interested in knowing what is really going on.

You avoid answering a lot of questions simply by claiming there is no way of knowing the temperature of the planet. You are correct in that there is no way to measure its absolute value. But we do measure it with thermometers spread around the world. And they even use satellites to measure the temperature nowadays, even though they don't really measure the temperature, they read the light. And we can compare those readings, whether from satellite or thermometers and get a fairly close annual average. As long as we do it the same way each year, then we can compare those averages and determine if the planet is getting warmer or cooler, or even staying the same.

You also claim there is no way of knowing what the insolation from the sun really is either. Again you are using the same tactic of ignore-ance. We have that information. You have shown no reason to doubt it, other than it doesn't fit your criteria for acceptable data. You don't even know though, because you haven't bothered to check. You would rather just assume it is wrong. I guess that works for you, but it doesn't do your argument much good.

And none of this does your credibility any good either. Ignoring solid data is about the same as lying, because you are lying to yourself. If you will lie to yourself, then you would lie to everyone else. And you know what, the world doesn't need another liar telling us what to do or what to think. We have enough of that already with the current regime at the White House. Is that what you are trying to do? Are you trying to get on Trump's team?


Tell me pantywaist - since we're all going to die from global warming anyway what does it matter who is President and what he does? Do you suppose cutting US emissions 100% would have any effect now that China and India and Russia are the world's largest CO2 generators?
27-08-2017 21:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
GreenMan wrote:
There's no such thing as..............anything that doesn't fit into your version of reality. So there is no such thing as ever changing your twisted mind. But perhaps there are people who are interested in knowing what is really going on.

Back to trying to figure out philosophy again, are you? Oh well...another area you are horribly illiterate in.

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions, links, or quotes; Oh Faithful One.
GreenMan wrote:
You avoid answering a lot of questions simply by claiming there is no way of knowing the temperature of the planet.

I can't change the mathematics. You can't either.
GreenMan wrote:
You are correct in that there is no way to measure its absolute value. But we do measure it with thermometers spread around the world.

Welcome to your new paradox.
GreenMan wrote:
And they even use satellites to measure the temperature nowadays,

Satellites can't measure temperature.
GreenMan wrote:
even though they don't really measure the temperature, they read the light.

That light is not an accurate representation of absolute temperature. You don't know what the emissivity of Earth is.
GreenMan wrote:
And we can compare those readings, whether from satellite or thermometers and get a fairly close annual average.

Math error: Selection by opportunity. Selection with bias by failing to eliminate influencing aspects of data. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.
Logic error: Assumption of data. Manufactured data. Argument from randU.
Science error: Attempt to redefine the Stefan-Boltzmann law through misuse of dependent and independent variables. Assumption of measured constant through an argument from randU.
GreenMan wrote:
As long as we do it the same way each year, then we can compare those averages and determine if the planet is getting warmer or cooler, or even staying the same.

No, you can't. You can't just assume a value for emissivity. You can't just assume a value for temperature. Data selection for statistics must be by randN and independent of any aspect of the data itself (such as location or location grouping, in the case of temperature).
GreenMan wrote:
You also claim there is no way of knowing what the insolation from the sun really is either.

There is, but I bet you don't know what it is!
GreenMan wrote:
Again you are using the same tactic of ignore-ance.

We have that information. You have shown no reason to doubt it, other than it doesn't fit your criteria for acceptable data.

Actually, it does.
GreenMan wrote:
You don't even know though, because you haven't bothered to check. You would rather just assume it is wrong. I guess that works for you, but it doesn't do your argument much good.

I have checked. The output of the Sun is very slightly decreasing this past year so far, and has been for a couple of years now.
GreenMan wrote:
And none of this does your credibility any good either. Ignoring solid data is about the same as lying, because you are lying to yourself. If you will lie to yourself, then you would lie to everyone else.

Go check the Data Mine. You are just making rash assumptions and claiming your data is good simply because you said so.
GreenMan wrote:
And you know what, the world doesn't need another liar telling us what to do or what to think.

I agree...so I'll not take part in your religion.
GreenMan wrote:
We have enough of that already with the current regime at the White House. Is that what you are trying to do? Are you trying to get on Trump's team?

Did you know the guy was actually ELECTED? Did you know that Republicans CONTINUE to get elected?

I already AM on Trump's team. I am a citizen of the United States, own my own business, and help stop pollution and make industry more efficient. That industry in turn can make their products cheaper, and make products that never existed before.

Too bad the Church of Karl Marx wants to call that evil.


The Parrot Killer
27-08-2017 22:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

There's no such thing as..............anything that doesn't fit into your version of reality. So there is no such thing as ever changing your twisted mind. But perhaps there are people who are interested in knowing what is really going on.

You avoid answering a lot of questions simply by claiming there is no way of knowing the temperature of the planet. You are correct in that there is no way to measure its absolute value. But we do measure it with thermometers spread around the world. And they even use satellites to measure the temperature nowadays, even though they don't really measure the temperature, they read the light. And we can compare those readings, whether from satellite or thermometers and get a fairly close annual average. As long as we do it the same way each year, then we can compare those averages and determine if the planet is getting warmer or cooler, or even staying the same.

You also claim there is no way of knowing what the insolation from the sun really is either. Again you are using the same tactic of ignore-ance. We have that information. You have shown no reason to doubt it, other than it doesn't fit your criteria for acceptable data. You don't even know though, because you haven't bothered to check. You would rather just assume it is wrong. I guess that works for you, but it doesn't do your argument much good.

And none of this does your credibility any good either. Ignoring solid data is about the same as lying, because you are lying to yourself. If you will lie to yourself, then you would lie to everyone else. And you know what, the world doesn't need another liar telling us what to do or what to think. We have enough of that already with the current regime at the White House. Is that what you are trying to do? Are you trying to get on Trump's team?


Tell me pantywaist - since we're all going to die from global warming anyway what does it matter who is President and what he does? Do you suppose cutting US emissions 100% would have any effect now that China and India and Russia are the world's largest CO2 generators?


Who cares about the CO2?

China has cities filled with particulates (soot) that seriously damage your ability to breath. These particulate clouds are NOT being dealt with. They contain other stuff besides just soot too. They include sulfuric acid droplets and a whole host of nasty stuff.

Russia has DESTROYED a lake that was once larger than Lake Michigan, due to pollution and mis(micro)management. The Lake is literally not there anymore! It is now a wasteland.

Chernobyl...remember Chernobyl...where they operated a nuclear reactor (normally much closer to the red line than we do) with bad instrumentation and NO CONTAINMENT?

CO2 doesn't warm the Earth, helps plants to grow, and is absolutely essential for life on Earth.


The Parrot Killer
RE: Climate Model 1,000 Year Prediction28-08-2017 05:32
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
This graph shows what the average global temperature will climb to, if nothing changes.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Attached image:

28-08-2017 07:24
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote: This graph shows what the average global temperature will climb to, if nothing changes.


So you show a graph in which the temperature has done this many times before exactly like this and recovered all by itself and now you're saying something must be done.

You certainly demonstrate a mental capacity of a blackhead.
28-08-2017 07:34
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: This graph shows what the average global temperature will climb to, if nothing changes.


So you show a graph in which the temperature has done this many times before exactly like this and recovered all by itself and now you're saying something must be done.

You certainly demonstrate a mental capacity of a blackhead.


Did you bother to look at the graph, dingle berry? The average temperature has never been that high. If you need help interpreting graphs, you should probably visit your local elementary school. I'm sure they have a 1st grade teacher that can help you.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
28-08-2017 07:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: This graph shows what the average global temperature will climb to, if nothing changes.


So you show a graph in which the temperature has done this many times before exactly like this and recovered all by itself and now you're saying something must be done.

You certainly demonstrate a mental capacity of a blackhead.


Did you bother to look at the graph, dingle berry? The average temperature has never been that high. If you need help interpreting graphs, you should probably visit your local elementary school. I'm sure they have a 1st grade teacher that can help you.


Perhaps you are incapable of reading the very chart that you use to demonstrate your point? You are really out of it.
28-08-2017 07:39
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

There's no such thing as..............anything that doesn't fit into your version of reality. So there is no such thing as ever changing your twisted mind. But perhaps there are people who are interested in knowing what is really going on.

You avoid answering a lot of questions simply by claiming there is no way of knowing the temperature of the planet. You are correct in that there is no way to measure its absolute value. But we do measure it with thermometers spread around the world. And they even use satellites to measure the temperature nowadays, even though they don't really measure the temperature, they read the light. And we can compare those readings, whether from satellite or thermometers and get a fairly close annual average. As long as we do it the same way each year, then we can compare those averages and determine if the planet is getting warmer or cooler, or even staying the same.

You also claim there is no way of knowing what the insolation from the sun really is either. Again you are using the same tactic of ignore-ance. We have that information. You have shown no reason to doubt it, other than it doesn't fit your criteria for acceptable data. You don't even know though, because you haven't bothered to check. You would rather just assume it is wrong. I guess that works for you, but it doesn't do your argument much good.

And none of this does your credibility any good either. Ignoring solid data is about the same as lying, because you are lying to yourself. If you will lie to yourself, then you would lie to everyone else. And you know what, the world doesn't need another liar telling us what to do or what to think. We have enough of that already with the current regime at the White House. Is that what you are trying to do? Are you trying to get on Trump's team?


Tell me pantywaist - since we're all going to die from global warming anyway what does it matter who is President and what he does? Do you suppose cutting US emissions 100% would have any effect now that China and India and Russia are the world's largest CO2 generators?


Pantywaist? What the hell does that mean anyway? You're such a moron.
China, India, and Russia are all part of the Paris Accord to cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions. We are the only country being led by a complete idiot. And guess what, genius, we are the leading CO2 producers per capita.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
28-08-2017 08:22
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: This graph shows what the average global temperature will climb to, if nothing changes.


So you show a graph in which the temperature has done this many times before exactly like this and recovered all by itself and now you're saying something must be done.

You certainly demonstrate a mental capacity of a blackhead.


Did you bother to look at the graph, dingle berry? The average temperature has never been that high. If you need help interpreting graphs, you should probably visit your local elementary school. I'm sure they have a 1st grade teacher that can help you.


Perhaps you are incapable of reading the very chart that you use to demonstrate your point? You are really out of it.

That chart shows over a 50C rise to 68C in the global average temperature is to be expected. Look at the left side of it to see the projected global average temperature.

Could you please identify anytime the earth has ever went anywhere near that temperature? It hasn't in the last million years. Not even close. I don't really think it will go that high, because the planet would become a sauna before then, and most of the solar radiation would be blocked by clouds. It would be like trying to live in a sauna, which doesn't really sound doable.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Edited on 28-08-2017 08:24
28-08-2017 08:57
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
There's no such thing as..............anything that doesn't fit into your version of reality. So there is no such thing as ever changing your twisted mind. But perhaps there are people who are interested in knowing what is really going on.

Back to trying to figure out philosophy again, are you? Oh well...another area you are horribly illiterate in.

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions, links, or quotes; Oh Faithful One.

Climate Change is the result of the earth's global average temperature either increasing or decreasing over time, that is sustained long enough to force inhabitants to live elsewhere.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You avoid answering a lot of questions simply by claiming there is no way of knowing the temperature of the planet.

I can't change the mathematics. You can't either.

You don't have to change the mathematics to know the difference in the average global temperature from year to year. All you have to do is apply some very basic mathematics. Is it too hard for you to subtract two numbers? Is it the decimal point that the evil scientists put in there that gives you such a hard time?

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You are correct in that there is no way to measure its absolute value. But we do measure it with thermometers spread around the world.

Welcome to your new paradox.

I'm thinking you are over using that little catch phrase. There is no paradox in using instruments around the world to determine the average global temperature. As long as those instruments don't change from year to year, they give us a good indication of how much the average global temperature has changed over the years.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
And they even use satellites to measure the temperature nowadays,

Satellites can't measure temperature.
GreenMan wrote:
even though they don't really measure the temperature, they read the light.

That light is not an accurate representation of absolute temperature. You don't know what the emissivity of Earth is.

Well smarter people than you and I have figured out some way to determine the temperature with satellites. Your AGW Denier god Roy Spencer even uses satellite data.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
And we can compare those readings, whether from satellite or thermometers and get a fairly close annual average.

Math error: Selection by opportunity. Selection with bias by failing to eliminate influencing aspects of data. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.
Logic error: Assumption of data. Manufactured data. Argument from randU.
Science error: Attempt to redefine the Stefan-Boltzmann law through misuse of dependent and independent variables. Assumption of measured constant through an argument from randU.

That looks like copy paste propaganda from your local Church of AGW Denial's website. You are just claiming that the data is worthless, because it doesn't prove anything that you feel compelled to believe in.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
As long as we do it the same way each year, then we can compare those averages and determine if the planet is getting warmer or cooler, or even staying the same.

No, you can't. You can't just assume a value for emissivity. You can't just assume a value for temperature. Data selection for statistics must be by randN and independent of any aspect of the data itself (such as location or location grouping, in the case of temperature).

We're not working on a statistical analysis that tells us how many people we can expect to eat our new flavor of Cheerios in the morning. We are working on understanding the relationship of Greenhouse Gases and the planet's climate. We are doing so with limited data, and until some better data comes along that we can use, we are going to have to use what we have. The data I used was good enough to accurately backcast the climate for 800,000 years. There is no way that random numbers could come even close to doing that.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You also claim there is no way of knowing what the insolation from the sun really is either.

There is, but I bet you don't know what it is!
GreenMan wrote:
Again you are using the same tactic of ignore-ance.

We have that information. You have shown no reason to doubt it, other than it doesn't fit your criteria for acceptable data.

Actually, it does.
GreenMan wrote:
You don't even know though, because you haven't bothered to check. You would rather just assume it is wrong. I guess that works for you, but it doesn't do your argument much good.

I have checked. The output of the Sun is very slightly decreasing this past year so far, and has been for a couple of years now.

The output of the Sun should continue to decrease as we head towards the Solar Minimum. But what is also decreasing is the amount of radiation that makes it to our planet, due to the Milankovitch Effect. Either should cause the average global temperature to drop, but amazingly, it has been increasing the last several years. Yeah, I know you are going to say El Nino. But this isn't an El Nino year. So if the sun is the only influence on our climate, then we should drop back down to where we were before the last El Nino came through. That isn't happening.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
And none of this does your credibility any good either. Ignoring solid data is about the same as lying, because you are lying to yourself. If you will lie to yourself, then you would lie to everyone else.

Go check the Data Mine. You are just making rash assumptions and claiming your data is good simply because you said so.
GreenMan wrote:
And you know what, the world doesn't need another liar telling us what to do or what to think.

I agree...so I'll not take part in your religion.
GreenMan wrote:
We have enough of that already with the current regime at the White House. Is that what you are trying to do? Are you trying to get on Trump's team?

Did you know the guy was actually ELECTED? Did you know that Republicans CONTINUE to get elected?

Yes, I know these things. People want to believe the Republican "Don't Worry, Be Happy" attitude toward Global Warming. Sad that people's opinions don't alter reality one iota.

Into the Night wrote:

I already AM on Trump's team. I am a citizen of the United States, own my own business, and help stop pollution and make industry more efficient. That industry in turn can make their products cheaper, and make products that never existed before.

Too bad the Church of Karl Marx wants to call that evil.


Not aware that anyone is calling free enterprise evil, just because if it were left up to free enterprise to police their own pollution, then our environment would be destroyed already. Companies used to just pour their waste into the rivers, or pile it in an out of the way place, because their waste products cost too much to dispose of properly. Same thing is going on now, but we have so many bleeding heart conservatives that want to cry foul now that we know CO2 and CH4 are pollutants. Regardless, you will eventually stop producing CO2. That's the only guarantee we have about anything.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
28-08-2017 17:36
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

There's no such thing as..............anything that doesn't fit into your version of reality. So there is no such thing as ever changing your twisted mind. But perhaps there are people who are interested in knowing what is really going on.

You avoid answering a lot of questions simply by claiming there is no way of knowing the temperature of the planet. You are correct in that there is no way to measure its absolute value. But we do measure it with thermometers spread around the world. And they even use satellites to measure the temperature nowadays, even though they don't really measure the temperature, they read the light. And we can compare those readings, whether from satellite or thermometers and get a fairly close annual average. As long as we do it the same way each year, then we can compare those averages and determine if the planet is getting warmer or cooler, or even staying the same.

You also claim there is no way of knowing what the insolation from the sun really is either. Again you are using the same tactic of ignore-ance. We have that information. You have shown no reason to doubt it, other than it doesn't fit your criteria for acceptable data. You don't even know though, because you haven't bothered to check. You would rather just assume it is wrong. I guess that works for you, but it doesn't do your argument much good.

And none of this does your credibility any good either. Ignoring solid data is about the same as lying, because you are lying to yourself. If you will lie to yourself, then you would lie to everyone else. And you know what, the world doesn't need another liar telling us what to do or what to think. We have enough of that already with the current regime at the White House. Is that what you are trying to do? Are you trying to get on Trump's team?


Tell me pantywaist - since we're all going to die from global warming anyway what does it matter who is President and what he does? Do you suppose cutting US emissions 100% would have any effect now that China and India and Russia are the world's largest CO2 generators?


Pantywaist? What the hell does that mean anyway? You're such a moron.
China, India, and Russia are all part of the Paris Accord to cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions. We are the only country being led by a complete idiot. And guess what, genius, we are the leading CO2 producers per capita.


I didn't think you knew what the Paris Accords were. They are nothing but a meaningless set of numbers that nations would "TRY" to accomplish. And none of the major nations have any intentions of limiting their advancement to do so. You are a complete and blithering idiot that opens your mouth instead of actually looking something up so that at least you'd have some knowledge of what you're talking about.
28-08-2017 21:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
GreenMan wrote:
This graph shows what the average global temperature will climb to, if nothing changes.


Manufactured data.


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2017 21:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: This graph shows what the average global temperature will climb to, if nothing changes.


So you show a graph in which the temperature has done this many times before exactly like this and recovered all by itself and now you're saying something must be done.

You certainly demonstrate a mental capacity of a blackhead.


Did you bother to look at the graph, dingle berry? The average temperature has never been that high. If you need help interpreting graphs, you should probably visit your local elementary school. I'm sure they have a 1st grade teacher that can help you.


It's not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy.

This graph is manufactured data.


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2017 21:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

There's no such thing as..............anything that doesn't fit into your version of reality. So there is no such thing as ever changing your twisted mind. But perhaps there are people who are interested in knowing what is really going on.

You avoid answering a lot of questions simply by claiming there is no way of knowing the temperature of the planet. You are correct in that there is no way to measure its absolute value. But we do measure it with thermometers spread around the world. And they even use satellites to measure the temperature nowadays, even though they don't really measure the temperature, they read the light. And we can compare those readings, whether from satellite or thermometers and get a fairly close annual average. As long as we do it the same way each year, then we can compare those averages and determine if the planet is getting warmer or cooler, or even staying the same.

You also claim there is no way of knowing what the insolation from the sun really is either. Again you are using the same tactic of ignore-ance. We have that information. You have shown no reason to doubt it, other than it doesn't fit your criteria for acceptable data. You don't even know though, because you haven't bothered to check. You would rather just assume it is wrong. I guess that works for you, but it doesn't do your argument much good.

And none of this does your credibility any good either. Ignoring solid data is about the same as lying, because you are lying to yourself. If you will lie to yourself, then you would lie to everyone else. And you know what, the world doesn't need another liar telling us what to do or what to think. We have enough of that already with the current regime at the White House. Is that what you are trying to do? Are you trying to get on Trump's team?


Tell me pantywaist - since we're all going to die from global warming anyway what does it matter who is President and what he does? Do you suppose cutting US emissions 100% would have any effect now that China and India and Russia are the world's largest CO2 generators?


Pantywaist? What the hell does that mean anyway? You're such a moron.
China, India, and Russia are all part of the Paris Accord to cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions. We are the only country being led by a complete idiot. And guess what, genius, we are the leading CO2 producers per capita.


We are not China. The United States is not a communist nation.

We are not Russia. The United States is not a communist nation.

We are not India. The United States is not India.

Frankly, it doesn't matter who decided to stay in the 'Paris accord'.

It doesn't matter how much CO2 we produce. It doesn't harm the planet.

I already know you think Trump is an idiot. I'll allow for this only because you are talking about a politician. Be careful with him, though. He is the Corbomite president.


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2017 21:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
There's no such thing as..............anything that doesn't fit into your version of reality. So there is no such thing as ever changing your twisted mind. But perhaps there are people who are interested in knowing what is really going on.

Back to trying to figure out philosophy again, are you? Oh well...another area you are horribly illiterate in.

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions, links, or quotes; Oh Faithful One.

Climate Change is the result of the earth's global average temperature either increasing or decreasing over time, that is sustained long enough to force inhabitants to live elsewhere.

So...'climate change' is 'climate change', but you are limiting the word 'climate' to 'temperature'....got it.

Circular definition. Try again.

Attaching 'forcing inhabitants to live elsewhere' doesn't work. Are you talking about global 'climate change'. There is no elsewhere.

There is no global weather. There is no global 'climate'.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy.


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2017 21:43
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
There's no such thing as..............anything that doesn't fit into your version of reality. So there is no such thing as ever changing your twisted mind. But perhaps there are people who are interested in knowing what is really going on.

Back to trying to figure out philosophy again, are you? Oh well...another area you are horribly illiterate in.

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions, links, or quotes; Oh Faithful One.

Climate Change is the result of the earth's global average temperature either increasing or decreasing over time, that is sustained long enough to force inhabitants to live elsewhere.

So...'climate change' is 'climate change', but you are limiting the word 'climate' to 'temperature'....got it.

Circular definition. Try again.

Attaching 'forcing inhabitants to live elsewhere' doesn't work. Are you talking about global 'climate change'. There is no elsewhere.

There is no global weather. There is no global 'climate'.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy.


This is so funny
28-08-2017 21:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I can't change the mathematics. You can't either.

You don't have to change the mathematics to know the difference in the average global temperature from year to year. All you have to do is apply some very basic mathematics. Is it too hard for you to subtract two numbers? Is it the decimal point that the evil scientists put in there that gives you such a hard time?


Math error: selection by opportunity. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to select independent of aspects of data.

A simple average is not statistics, dude. It also does not provide a global temperature.

It is obvious you do not know statistical mathematics, probability mathematics, or random number mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2017 21:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Welcome to your new paradox.

I'm thinking you are over using that little catch phrase.


You think so? Okay...let's revisit some of the paradoxes you have accumulated. You are welcome to clear any of these at any time. The only way to clear a paradox is to choose one argument and reject the other.

1) No one told me what to believe in.
2) My religion originated with someone initially telling me.

1) There is no way to measure absolute temperature.
2) We can measure absolute temperature with thermometers around the
world.

1) I don't force my views on others.
2) People like should all eat a plate of shit and die.

1) Give me a quote of <whatever>
2) You simply copy and paste.

1) The warmer it gets the more clouds we get.
2) the colder it gets the more clouds we get.

1) same radiation goes into space
2) less radiation goes into space

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable.

Feel like making any choices? Remember, continuing to argue both sides of a paradox is irrational.

GreenMan wrote:
There is no paradox in using instruments around the world to determine the average global temperature. As long as those instruments don't change from year to year, they give us a good indication of how much the average global temperature has changed over the years.


Math error: Selection by opportunity. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to select independent of aspects of data. Assumption of data. Preselection.

I'll put a question to you: How many official thermometers are in the world?


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2017 21:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
That light is not an accurate representation of absolute temperature. You don't know what the emissivity of Earth is.

Well smarter people than you and I have figured out some way to determine the temperature with satellites. Your AGW Denier god Roy Spencer even uses satellite data.


I do not worship Roy Spencer. If he is using satellite data this way, he is making the same mistake you are.

Satellites cannot measure the temperature of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2017 22:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Math error: Selection by opportunity. Selection with bias by failing to eliminate influencing aspects of data. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.
Logic error: Assumption of data. Manufactured data. Argument from randU.
Science error: Attempt to redefine the Stefan-Boltzmann law through misuse of dependent and independent variables. Assumption of measured constant through an argument from randU.

That looks like copy paste propaganda from your local Church of AGW Denial's website. You are just claiming that the data is worthless, because it doesn't prove anything that you feel compelled to believe in.


Math is not propaganda. You do not understand statistics, probability, or random numbers.

You deny the Stefan Boltzmann law, where it comes from, and the theories of Max Planck in general.

You have no data. I am no just claiming it's worthless. The math says it's worthless.

Data is not a proof.

There is no circular argument for a 'church of AGW denial'. Inversion fallacy. There is no such religion.

No one has to prove a negative.


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2017 22:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You can't just assume a value for emissivity. You can't just assume a value for temperature. Data selection for statistics must be by randN and independent of any aspect of the data itself (such as location or location grouping, in the case of temperature).

We're not working on a statistical analysis that tells us how many people we can expect to eat our new flavor of Cheerios in the morning. We are working on understanding the relationship of Greenhouse Gases and the planet's climate. We are doing so with limited data, and until some better data comes along that we can use, we are going to have to use what we have. The data I used was good enough to accurately backcast the climate for 800,000 years. There is no way that random numbers could come even close to doing that.


Argument from paired randU. You do not understand random numbers or their mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
Page 3 of 5<12345>





Join the debate Climate Data 800,000 years:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
80 year moving average data8813-05-2020 01:32
Headed For A New Ice Age? Latest Data Says Yes!1811-02-2020 18:00
SCIENTISTS: 30 Years Of Data Show The 'Godfather' Global Warming Was Wrong1711-02-2020 17:42
The Data Mine28419-07-2019 04:56
Climate Data Gaps?125-06-2019 13:28
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact