Remember me
▼ Content

CO2 increase



Page 3 of 3<123
16-08-2019 11:35
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
Into the Night wrote:However, this definition happens to be a valid one. It does not use the word 'bigfoot' to define 'bigfoot'.


I'd argue the definition applies to people I've met, who are not in fact Bigfoot, so it's a bit indefinite.

I would suggest augmenting your challenge and objection by pointing out, if I've got this, that someone is failing to define it because the definition is "Indefinite". YES it can mean this but sadly it could also mean that so no good.

It's very confusing to think there is a communication problem based on the individual words used.
Edited on 16-08-2019 11:36
16-08-2019 16:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote:What has been maddening is thinking you wanted the words defined: Global/Earth Warming/Temperature

So we are now apparently clear, the request is for the terms to be defined:
"Global Warming"
"Global Climate"
"Greenhouse Effect"
"Climate Change"

... but I am specifically requesting that they be unambiguously defined and not violate physics.


tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:However, this definition happens to be a valid one. It does not use the word 'bigfoot' to define 'bigfoot'.


I'd argue the definition applies to people I've met, who are not in fact Bigfoot, so it's a bit indefinite.

You are confusing "class" with "membership in the class."

My definition of a table, e.g. a piece of furniture with a flat surface, defines a class. Just because you can think of many members of that class does not invalidate the definition.

tmiddles wrote: It's very confusing to think there is a communication problem based on the individual words used.

I have to call you on your EVASION. The problem was never about individual words. The problem was never anything other than the terms.

"Global Warming"
"Global Climate"
"Greenhouse Effect"
"Climate Change"

.


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
16-08-2019 17:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
For example: If I wanted to talk about a fizzbat and it's real, I must first define what a 'fizzbat' is, wouldn't I?


OK! I think I'm FINALLY getting the objection. Also add "Bigfoot" in with fizzbat from our other discussion.

What has been maddening is thinking you wanted the words defined:
Global/Earth
Warming/Temperature

But I get it, you mean a definition of what someone is actually referring too. Let me take a stab at it:

Uncertainty and being indefinite can be shown by giving multiple, mutually exclusive examples of something

Example 1: Due to some crazy science stuff the thermosphere cools 300C while the ground level surface of the Earth heats up by 5C. The net total change of the "surface" of the Earth is a drop in average temperature but where humans try to go jogging it's super hot. This is Global Warming.

Example 2: The thermosphere gets so thermy and increases by 200C due to sciencey things, this is only slightly offset by a 5C drop in temperature at ground level. The average temperature of the total "surface" of the Earth has gone up, but it's really cold at the park. This is Global Warming.

Am I grasping the objection a bit better?


No. Warming from when to when? Why are those two points in time significant? Why are any other two points in time NOT significant? How are you measuring the temperature of the surface, where we live? What is the margin of error? What instrumentation is used? Who collected the data and when? How is bias removed while collecting? What is the source of variance used?

You are still defining 'global warming' as 'global warming'.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2019 18:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Into the Night wrote: No. Warming from when to when? Why are those two points in time significant? Why are any other two points in time NOT significant? How are you measuring the temperature of the surface, where we live? What is the margin of error? What instrumentation is used? Who collected the data and when? How is bias removed while collecting? What is the source of variance used?

You are still defining 'global warming' as 'global warming'.

Maybe the answer is a simple one. Perhaps tmiddles knows of some place in the world that is at the average global temperature and we can just go there whenever we need to verify the temperature?

Shall we ask him? ... and if the answer is that there is no such place, we can ask "why not?" It sounds pretty straightforward to me.

.


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
17-08-2019 04:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
My definition of a table, e.g. a piece of furniture with a flat surface, defines a class. Just because you can think of many members of that class does not invalidate the definition.


No but the definitions lacks definition : D

Like defining a marxist as a biped and stopping there.

Into the Night wrote:
You are still defining 'global warming' as 'global warming'.


IBdaMann wrote:
Shall we ask him? ... and if the answer is that there is no such place, we can ask "why not?" It sounds pretty straightforward to me.
.


Sigh. I was trying to do your job for you. Being coherent.
I was asking if you objected to the lack of a definition because it could mean multiple things, including stupid things. You have kind of confirmed that though you seem to have missed the intention of my effort. Those are made up hypothetical definitions that could exist.

Ironically you've both been and continue to be indefinite if your objection to the lack of a definition. I've seen so many times in past threads where people are having this back and forth with you about whether or not you need a dictionary.

I'm trying to make progress with you!
Edited on 17-08-2019 04:07
17-08-2019 05:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote: Ironically you've both been and continue to be indefinite if your objection to the lack of a definition.

I don't see how you don't get it. You recognize the lack of a definition. You need to decide if you want to discuss those topics. If you do, you need to define them. If you can't define them, you should be asking yourself why not.

Of course, if you ask yourself why not, you might be forced to realize that you are waist-deep in a religion that was sold to you as "settled science."

I don't mind giving you a nudge. Why do you think you are finding it absolutely impossible to define the fundamental terms of your beliefs beyond what any religion does for its unfalsifiable concepts?

Thoughts?


tmiddles wrote: I've seen so many times in past threads where people are having this back and forth with you about whether or not you need a dictionary.

Exactly. You are, by no means, the first gullible dude to be hornswoggled into this Marxist religion. None of those others could define those terms either. The result is always the same, i.e. blame Into the Night and me.

Look, I'm here to work you through this. Don't hesitate with any questions. I'll be your personal one-man Global Warming 12-Step program ... and I really only need eight steps, and you've gone through four already.

.


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
17-08-2019 06:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:You are, by no means, the first gullible dude to be hornswoggled into this Marxist religion.


Three things:

I don't happen to be a devotee or believer in the the Global Warming Crisis (I'll use my own title)

I don't think it matters whether or not I am for the purposes of discussion

And in my own words I'm hear to learn about and understand things and so far it's going well. Thank you for you help.

So those 3 things said.

It has in my opinion been a thoroughly non-productive discussion in the past when you and ITN constantly ask people to "Define it" because they (I can personally attest to this) didn't know what your issue was.

How do you like this as a clarification to "Define Global Warming":

Do so because the definition of "Global Warming" is unclear and indefinite. While something getting warmer is clear enough that describes a change over time. What time frame? What do you actually mean when you say "Global"? Do you include the molten core of the earth? the thermosphere far out near space? Are you under the impression you actually know what the temperature for any moment in time for the totality of what you call "Global"? If you do think that what margin of error do you have? Is there more too it like a theory or belief in some cause of the "warming"? As you can see it is not at all definite what you mean when you say those two words together.

The trouble with only repeating "Define Global Warming" is it degenerates most of the time into a discussion with links to Dictionary.com
17-08-2019 06:53
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1431)
tmiddles wrote:

The trouble with only repeating "Define Global Warming" is it degenerates most of the time into a discussion with links to Dictionary.com


What's wrong with dictionary.com?


Heat-noun
1. the state of a body perceived as having or generating a relatively high
degree of warmth.

2. the condition or quality of being hot: the heat of an oven.



I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 17-08-2019 06:54
17-08-2019 10:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
My definition of a table, e.g. a piece of furniture with a flat surface, defines a class. Just because you can think of many members of that class does not invalidate the definition.


No but the definitions lacks definition : D

Like defining a marxist as a biped and stopping there.

Into the Night wrote:
You are still defining 'global warming' as 'global warming'.


IBdaMann wrote:
Shall we ask him? ... and if the answer is that there is no such place, we can ask "why not?" It sounds pretty straightforward to me.
.


Sigh. I was trying to do your job for you. Being coherent.
I was asking if you objected to the lack of a definition because it could mean multiple things, including stupid things. You have kind of confirmed that though you seem to have missed the intention of my effort. Those are made up hypothetical definitions that could exist.

Ironically you've both been and continue to be indefinite if your objection to the lack of a definition. I've seen so many times in past threads where people are having this back and forth with you about whether or not you need a dictionary.

Dictionaries don't define words. That is not their purpose. They standardize spelling and pronunciation of words and give some examples of their use, but no dictionary owns any word.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm trying to make progress with you!

Then you must discard the idea that dictionaries are authoritative for any word.

Words are defined by people. They may define jargon; or specialist words used in a particular hobby, religion,or industry (such as 'byte'); define them ad hoc (such as 'hobbit'); define them using philosophy (how the words 'religion' and 'science' are defined)


The Parrot Killer
17-08-2019 10:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:You are, by no means, the first gullible dude to be hornswoggled into this Marxist religion.


Three things:

I don't happen to be a devotee or believer in the the Global Warming Crisis (I'll use my own title)

I don't think it matters whether or not I am for the purposes of discussion

And in my own words I'm hear to learn about and understand things and so far it's going well. Thank you for you help.

So those 3 things said.

It has in my opinion been a thoroughly non-productive discussion in the past when you and ITN constantly ask people to "Define it" because they (I can personally attest to this) didn't know what your issue was.

The issue is that the phrase is undefined. It doesn't mean anything. It's a meaningless buzzword. Using it as a declaration of any kind is to make a void argument fallacy. I have already told you this multiple times. You need to pay attention.
tmiddles wrote:
How do you like this as a clarification to "Define Global Warming":

Do so because the definition of "Global Warming" is unclear and indefinite. While something getting warmer is clear enough that describes a change over time. What time frame? What do you actually mean when you say "Global"? Do you include the molten core of the earth? the thermosphere far out near space? Are you under the impression you actually know what the temperature for any moment in time for the totality of what you call "Global"? If you do think that what margin of error do you have? Is there more too it like a theory or belief in some cause of the "warming"? As you can see it is not at all definite what you mean when you say those two words together.

I have already said this multiple times.
tmiddles wrote:
The trouble with only repeating "Define Global Warming" is it degenerates most of the time into a discussion with links to Dictionary.com

At which point I point out that no dictionary defines any word.


The Parrot Killer
17-08-2019 11:15
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
Into the Night wrote:
Dictionaries don't define words.


You keep making my point as you point out I don't get it!

That's what I'm saying!!!

Don't just tell someone "Define _____ ______" because for most of us a definition is what you find in the dictionary. Asking and giving a definition is usually simply a matter of establishing a common description. So two people are working with the same description of what a word means, even if it's vague and nonsensical. I have been trying to convey that I NOW finally get that you have been objecting to something be indefinite! That is a different and higher standard.

GasGuzzler wrote:
What's wrong with dictionary.com?


Nothing but plenty of definitions there are indefinite : )

thing·y
/ˈTHiNGē/
noun INFORMAL
a person or thing whose name one has forgotten, does not know, or does not wish to mention.

Trust me ITN, you have been unclear on the point of why you constantly ask for things to be defined.

I believe I FINALLY get it even if I'm somehow not being clear on that point.
17-08-2019 17:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote:I don't happen to be a devotee or believer in the the Global Warming Crisis (I'll use my own title)

This tells me that you nonetheless believe in Global Warming, the religion with the physics-violating dogma. This, in turn, tells me that you have a purpose, i.e. to find a way around the physics violations and maintain your beliefs. This is fine, but I'll warn you in advance that your future holds one of two options:

1. The unlikely option is that you abandon your faith. This is not likely because science is not as important to you as your solidarity with Progressives and your political affiliations.

2. The likely option is frustration on your end as you fail to get around physics and fail to legitimize your beliefs. Plan on ultimately blaming me for this.

tmiddles wrote:I don't think it matters whether or not I am for the purposes of discussion

You know for a fact that this is the driver for all of your questions.

tmiddles wrote:And in my own words I'm hear to learn about and understand things and so far it's going well. Thank you for you help.

You are certainly to be commended for having grasped the principles you have. Keep it up.

tmiddles wrote:It has in my opinion been a thoroughly non-productive discussion in the past when you and ITN constantly ask people to "Define it" because they (I can personally attest to this) didn't know what your issue was.

Irrelevant. If you want to discuss something with me you need to define everything I ask you to define.

Since the Global Warming religion is involved, it's easy to see why you EVADE defining the unfalsifiable terms of your dogma.

So let's put this whole "Define What?" topic to rest. Everything you have been asked to define, everything you have found impossible to define, is accurately defined in
The MANUAL.

Start a new thread to discuss how you think The MANUAL is inaccurate. You must be specific. Whatever you do not dispute will be the definition that is presumed. Silence is agreement.


.


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
18-08-2019 04:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
Start a new thread to discuss how you think The MANUAL is inaccurate. You must be specific. Whatever you do not dispute will be the definition that is presumed. Silence is agreement.


No I actually think it makes more sense to be definite.

Why try to fix or salvage "Global Warming" or "Greenhouse effect" as useful terms in a discussion? I will just use different and more definite terms. If I mean temperature, I'll use temperature. If the Earths's temperature isn't something that can reliably charted, then we can talk about bodies in space abstractly.

I totally get that indefinite terms should not have the pretense of being definite or everyone wastes their time. So not problem there as I see it.

WHEN I talk about "global warming" or the "Greenhouse effect" I will be talking bout the titles themselves. Like:
"When people discuss global warming in most High School classrooms there is little discussion of the ice age" Now I would certainly follow that up with my own clarifications and specifics if I had an argument to make or something to present.
18-08-2019 04:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
1. The unlikely option is that you abandon your faith. This is not likely because science is not as important to you as your solidarity with Progressives and your political affiliations.


This argument against any individual changing their mind about a hot topic applies to all of us including you.

IBdaMann: ITN I have a confession
ITN: What is it my friend?
IBdaMann: I think global warming might be real
ITN: Define global warming
IBdaMann: (sobbing)
Edited on 18-08-2019 04:41
18-08-2019 07:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote:No I actually think it makes more sense to be definite.

As I anticipated, you don't find any inaccuracies in The MANUAL.

Great! That effectively closes out that whole "Define What?" issue.


.


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
18-08-2019 07:57
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:No I actually think it makes more sense to be definite.

As I anticipated, you don't find any inaccuracies in The MANUAL.

Great! That effectively closes out that whole "Define What?" issue.


.


Close it out! It think it's important to point out what is indefinite and immediately move on to what is.
18-08-2019 09:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote:Close it out!

Done!



tmiddles wrote: It think it's important to point out what is indefinite and immediately move on to what is.

How does one pray to Climate?


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
18-08-2019 10:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Close it out!

Done!



tmiddles wrote: It think it's important to point out what is indefinite and immediately move on to what is.

How does one pray to Climate?


blood sacrifice
19-08-2019 00:04
keepit
★★★☆☆
(598)
We can get a pretty good idea of how much fossil fuel is burned each year and from that it is not difficult to figure how much CO2 is produced. You don't have to measure it in the air. You do have to figure out how much went into the ocean and under the tectonic plates though.
If your calculations from total amount of fossil fuels produced comes close to matching atmospheric CO2 measurements you can have some confidence in increases in atmospheric CO2 increases.
19-08-2019 01:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
keepit wrote: We can get a pretty good idea of how much fossil fuel is burned each year and from that it is not difficult to figure how much CO2 is produced.

Why would anyone invest the time, effort and resources into ascertaining that figure? Sheer curiosity? I can think of an endless list of more useful information we should be pursuing first.

keepit wrote: You don't have to measure it in the air.

Let's keep in mind that we don't have to measure it at all. What's the premise for measuring CO2 in the first place?

keepit wrote: You do have to figure out how much went into the ocean and under the tectonic plates though.

Wait, let me check ...

Nope. I don't have to figure that out either. Who told you that I do?

keepit wrote: If your calculations from total amount of fossil fuels produced comes close to matching atmospheric CO2 measurements you can have some confidence in increases in atmospheric CO2 increases.

Are you under the mistaken impression that fossils burn? Do you believe that there exist *any* fossils that serve as fuel?


.


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
19-08-2019 09:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
keepit wrote:
We can get a pretty good idea of how much fossil fuel is burned each year

Zero. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.
keepit wrote:
and from that it is not difficult to figure how much CO2 is produced.

You can't burn fossils, so they produce no CO2.
keepit wrote:
You don't have to measure it in the air.

You can't anyway.
keepit wrote:
You do have to figure out how much went into the ocean

Not possible.
keepit wrote:
and under the tectonic plates though.

Not possible.
keepit wrote:
If your calculations from total amount of fossil fuels produced

No one produces fossils fuels. Fossils don't burn.
keepit wrote:
comes close to matching atmospheric CO2 measurements you can have some confidence in increases in atmospheric CO2 increases.

CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
Page 3 of 3<123





Join the debate CO2 increase:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)15415-10-2019 07:22
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof509-10-2019 03:15
What makes you think CO2 increases temperature?508-10-2019 19:13
money is the cause of CO2 increase918-09-2019 05:16
There is no valid physics that can show CO2 increases temperature2917-09-2019 22:35
▲ 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