Remember me
▼ Content

CO2 increase



Page 1 of 3123>
CO2 increase07-08-2019 00:37
olyz
☆☆☆☆☆
(44)
I have come across claims something like COz has increased 50% in ten years.

Reminds me of headlines that profits have increased 100%.
if I have a 1 billion dollar company and my profits from 1 year to the next have increased from 1 penny to 2 pennies, my profits have increased 100%.
07-08-2019 23:09
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(164)
olyz wrote:
I have come across claims something like COz has increased 50% in ten years.

Reminds me of headlines that profits have increased 100%.
if I have a 1 billion dollar company and my profits from 1 year to the next have increased from 1 penny to 2 pennies, my profits have increased 100%.


The thing is, we have no way of accurately measuring global CO2 content. CO2 is not uniformly distributed across the atmosphere, we do not have near enough stations, nor are those stations uniformly spread out, etc... Mauna Loa is also known to cook their data...
08-08-2019 02:28
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
gfm7175 wrote:
The thing is, we have no way of accurately measuring global CO2 content.


What do you consider accurate? Do we have no clue? Is it +/- 10 ppm, +/- 10,000 ?

Can we know anything at all about anything we measure?

An example of "reliable" to contrast with "unreliable" is always helpful in a world that never offers complete certainty.
08-08-2019 06:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote:
What do you consider accurate? Do we have no clue? Is it +/- 10 ppm, +/- 10,000 ?

Can we know anything at all about anything we measure?

tmiddles, what is the average global sand distribution?

What do you consider accurate? Do we have no clue? Is it +/- 10 ppm, +/- 10,000 ?

Can we know anything at all about anything we measure?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
08-08-2019 06:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
The thing is, we have no way of accurately measuring global CO2 content.


What do you consider accurate? Do we have no clue? Is it +/- 10 ppm, +/- 10,000 ?

Can we know anything at all about anything we measure?

An example of "reliable" to contrast with "unreliable" is always helpful in a world that never offers complete certainty.


This is where one has to declare a variance source and justify it.

* We know that CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa varies as the seasons pass. This variance is about 10ppm.
* We also know that CO2 concentrations in forested areas (higher) is different than open deserts (lower), and that grasslands are somewhere in between. Differences as much as 30ppm have been observed.
* We also know that CO2 is heavier than air and tends to stay lower in the atmosphere. These differences are about 400ppm, if you believe the Mauna Loa data.
* We also know that there are very high concentrations of CO2 in the open atmosphere. Some lakes in the some mountain areas will vent CO2. These lethal concentrations of CO2 will flow down the valley and kill everyone in a village below. These differences can range upwards to 10,000ppm.
* We know that fires, industrial plants, etc. put out varying amounts of CO2. These amounts do disperse into the atmosphere, but not all at once. Differences may range upwards to 1000ppm.

We also know that CO2 has no capability at all to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does. So arguing the global concentration of CO2 is rather moot.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-08-2019 06:53
08-08-2019 06:55
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote:what is the average global sand distribution?


You mean the amount of sand visible from the air?
How about the amount of "desert" all kinds:

I find this credible:
landmass of Earth amounts to approximately 29 percent of the surface. Of this remaining 29 percent, deserts

Why do I find this credible?

Because satellites are able to photograph the surface and desert areas can be easily identified.
https://satellites.pro/



Now the question is what the "KNOW" in your question is defined by. Do I know that deserts are 33.00000 percent of the land and that the land is 29.00000 percent of earths total surface. No but what did I need the information for? Maybe I just needed to know if it was less or more than half the planet.

So let's take CO2. Do we care that it's any particular value for the purpose of discussion at hand? Are a bunch of pot smokers waiting for 420 ppm to toke up and have a party? And if it's not exactly, in truth 420.00000 it'll spoil their fun?

The only reason and significance in the discussions of CO2 concentrations are relative.

So if measurements are taken in the same way, apples to apples, it can be reasonably determined that at that location the CO2 concentration changed by that percentage. If that change is corroborated at multiple locations it becomes more likely that it's a world wide change.

But if the CO2 ppm is between 350 and 450 and 50 years ago it was between 200 and 300 it's pretty much the same thing. It went up a lot.

Accuracy is a term that requires an identified purpose. Accurate for what?
08-08-2019 06:59
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
Into the Night wrote:So arguing the global concentration of CO2 is rather moot.


Not if it's to demonstrate it has no effect.

FDA testing pretty much amounts to "well it doesn't seem to be killing them and we really put a lot in there" right?

Also you have one of two problems:
There is serious environmental problem
There is a serious problem with the abuse and mishandling of scientific authority

#2 may be a worse option.

But it's not nap time.

We need to fight for what's right.
08-08-2019 07:04
olyz
☆☆☆☆☆
(44)
The point I was originally making is that a 50% increase in CO2 is meaningless if the amount is negligible to begin with.

But let's not get carried away. It is not unreasonable to assume CO2 can be measured at various parts of the earth and averaged. We know qualitatively where CO2 comes from but have no idea how much comes from or goes to a particular source.

If the amount of the sun's radiation that a CO2 molecule absorbs is of the order of magnitude that other air molecules absorb, then .2-.4ppm CO2 should have a negligible (non measurable) effect on atmospheric temperature.
08-08-2019 07:19
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
olyz wrote:
If the amount of the sun's radiation that a CO2 molecule absorbs is of the order of magnitude that other air molecules absorb


Well there's a bit of a wrinkle. Oxygen, Nitrogen and 99.5% of "Air" is invisible to the suns radiation (it passes right through without energizing the molecules). The up to 4% of water vapor in the air is the largest gas that does get energized by radiation. Also CO2, methane, ozone and so on. The "Greenhouse gasses"

So while CO2 may only be 4/10 of 1%, it's a small piece of a small amount.

That's the argument anyway.

I tried to sum up what I THINK is the argument here:
do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right
Edited on 08-08-2019 07:21
08-08-2019 07:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:what is the average global sand distribution?


You mean the amount of sand visible from the air?
How about the amount of "desert" all kinds:

I find this credible:
landmass of Earth amounts to approximately 29 percent of the surface. Of this remaining 29 percent, deserts

Why do I find this credible?

Because satellites are able to photograph the surface and desert areas can be easily identified.
https://satellites.pro/



Now the question is what the "KNOW" in your question is defined by. Do I know that deserts are 33.00000 percent of the land and that the land is 29.00000 percent of earths total surface. No but what did I need the information for? Maybe I just needed to know if it was less or more than half the planet.

How deep is the sand? Is there sand at places other than deserts? Spoiler alert: yes. Forests have sand. Jungles have sand. Ocean bottoms have sand.
tmiddles wrote:
So let's take CO2. Do we care that it's any particular value for the purpose of discussion at hand? Are a bunch of pot smokers waiting for 420 ppm to toke up and have a party? And if it's not exactly, in truth 420.00000 it'll spoil their fun?

You have to, if you want to talk about 'change', or what is also called a 'delta' (the mathematical symbols for a changing value).
tmiddles wrote:
The only reason and significance in the discussions of CO2 concentrations are relative.

You can't describe a change in measurements without using absolute measurements.
tmiddles wrote:
So if measurements are taken in the same way, apples to apples, it can be reasonably determined that at that location the CO2 concentration changed by that percentage.

Percentage of what? You have no absolute value. You have nothing to compare a change with.
tmiddles wrote:
If that change is corroborated at multiple locations it becomes more likely that it's a world wide change.

Unnecessary complexity. The same thing applies.
tmiddles wrote:
But if the CO2 ppm is between 350 and 450 and 50 years ago it was between 200 and 300 it's pretty much the same thing. It went up a lot.

You are comparing two absolute values. This is what I mean.
tmiddles wrote:
Accuracy is a term that requires an identified purpose. Accurate for what?

Accuracy is a term that applies to a combination of instrument tolerance (how accurate is that thermometer anyway? When was it last calibrated? By whom? By what method?
The other contributing factor is the margin of error value, which is calculated from possible variances of the data (not the data itself).

Since we have about two dozen stations measuring atmospheric CO2, and 197 million square miles of Earth, and we know CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, and that CO2 concentrations have been observed far lower in the upper atmosphere then in the lower atmosphere, the margin of error comes out to +-400ppm, or the entire 'measured' value of the current Mauna Loa 'data'

In other words, the global atmosphere CO2 content is a wild ass guess.

That said, it's not important anyway. CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does. Worrying about the global CO2 concentration is rather pointless.


The Parrot Killer
08-08-2019 07:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:So arguing the global concentration of CO2 is rather moot.


Not if it's to demonstrate it has no effect.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. No one needs to prove a negative.
tmiddles wrote:
FDA testing pretty much amounts to "well it doesn't seem to be killing them and we really put a lot in there" right?

Testing of what?
tmiddles wrote:
Also you have one of two problems:
There is serious environmental problem
There is a serious problem with the abuse and mishandling of scientific authority

#2 may be a worse option.

False dichotomy fallacy. Void argument fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.
You first have to define 'environmental problem'.
Science is not an 'authority'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

tmiddles wrote:
But it's not nap time.

It's not paranoia time either.
tmiddles wrote:
We need to fight for what's right.

What are you fighting? Why are you fighting at all? For your religion?


The Parrot Killer
08-08-2019 07:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
olyz wrote:
If the amount of the sun's radiation that a CO2 molecule absorbs is of the order of magnitude that other air molecules absorb


Well there's a bit of a wrinkle. Oxygen, Nitrogen and 99.5% of "Air" is invisible to the suns radiation (it passes right through without energizing the molecules). The up to 4% of water vapor in the air is the largest gas that does get energized by radiation. Also CO2, methane, ozone and so on. The "Greenhouse gasses"

So while CO2 may only be 4/10 of 1%, it's a small piece of a small amount.

That's the argument anyway.

I tried to sum up what I THINK is the argument here:
do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right


There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
08-08-2019 07:36
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:discussions of CO2 concentrations are relative.

You can't describe a change in measurements without using absolute measurements.


What I mean is that a skewing in a measurement being present each time the measurement is taken allows for a proportional answer to what is happening.

So if a CO2 measurement is higher because it's taken in a valley then each time it'll be higher for the same reason and presumably in the same way.

You could still determine that it had increase in that location by a certain percentage.

Into the Night wrote:
Percentage of what? You have no absolute value. You have nothing to compare a change with.


With the same measurements from the same station with the same equipment.

A Proxy Measure. A proxy is an indirect measure of the desired outcome which is itself strongly correlated to that outcome.

All global measurements which are local hope to be accurate proxy measurements.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
If that change is corroborated at multiple locations it becomes more likely that it's a world wide change.

Unnecessary complexity. The same thing applies.


No having more measurements in statistical analysis narrows the error rate.

Into the Night wrote:
Accuracy is a term that applies to a combination of instrument tolerance (how accurate is that thermometer anyway? When was it last calibrated? By whom? By what method?
The other contributing factor is the margin of error value, which is calculated from possible variances of the data (not the data itself).


Good point! I was initially skeptical of your claim that a global temperature couldn't be accurately determined since it sounds simple. However you do start with the accuracy of your equipment and then the error range is added onto that.

Into the Night wrote:
Worrying about the global CO2 concentration is rather pointless.


Disagree!!! Very very worth disproving or proving.
Edited on 08-08-2019 07:37
08-08-2019 07:47
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
Into the Night wrote:
No one needs to prove a negative.

You mean they are not legally compelled to disprove a theory? Yes I suppose that's true.

But it's useful work.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
FDA testing pretty much amounts to "well it doesn't seem to be killing them and we really put a lot in there" right?

Testing of what?


Lots of stuff. Saccharin was given to rats in huge doses for example.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Also you have one of two problems:
There is serious environmental problem
There is a serious problem with the abuse and mishandling of scientific authority

#2 may be a worse option.

You first have to define 'environmental problem'.
Science is not an 'authority'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


The public trust of distrust of the scientific communities recommendations, information and advice is very important. Take the whole anti-vaxer bs.

Having a good working and honest relationship between the scientific community and a real solid understanding of science by the public is valuable.

Into the Night wrote:
It's not paranoia time either.


It is for many. While no one is obligated to point out there is no actual fire in a crowded theater it would be an ace thing to do.

Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'.


That's what the kids are calling it and the corresponding list of gases are real. And those gases do in fact have a quality in common that the rest of "Air" does not:
They absorb and re-emit infrared radiation.

Just clarifying the vocabulary.
Edited on 08-08-2019 07:50
08-08-2019 07:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote:Why do I find this credible?

Because satellites are able to photograph the surface and desert areas can be easily identified.

I'm disappointed.

You don't care to question the 29% figure that you were told to accept? You aren't going to insist on personally reviewing the same satellite imagery from which the 29% figure was guesstimated to ensure all the correct stuff was "counted"? The fact that no margin of error was presented didn't raise any BS flags? You're not bothered by the fact that satellites cannot tell you the depth of the sand? Are you not aware that you need to know the volume of sand and that "area" will not help you?

Are you not concerned that beaches didn't get a mention, nor that distance out to sea was never specified.

So when Marxists abandon efforts to convince the world that CO2 has magickal superpowers to heat the earth and instead turn their attention to sand, will you be sucked in this easily?

Sand is not evenly distributed over the earth. No one has ever tried to measure the global sand quantity so the correct answer is that we just don't have any clue.

... and we can at least see sand. CO2 is invisible, not evenly distributed, and measured at only a few places on earth. What margin of error do you believe exists for the global average atmospheric CO2 level?

tmiddles wrote: If that change is corroborated at multiple locations it becomes more likely that it's a world wide change.

... and if atmospheric CO2 is only being measured at a few places on earth then we're stuck with "we don't have a clue."

tmiddles wrote: But if the CO2 ppm is between 350 and 450 and 50 years ago it was between 200 and 300 it's pretty much the same thing. It went up a lot.

... and if we don't really have a clue what the average atmospheric CO2 levels were 50 years ago then we're stuck with"we don't have a clue."

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
08-08-2019 07:57
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote:volume of sand


I actually changed your question to "Desert" a definition of a biome that only sometimes has sand and is defined with geographic boundaries.

But you skipped right over my point.

ACCURACY depends on NEED.

There is no such thing as ACCURATE in the absolute sense.

You might be making spaghetti and simply need to know water is boiling using the instrument of your eye (though that's a fairly accurate temperature reading, those bubbles). Pretty sloppy setup but ACCURATE for the purposes at hand. Definitely have a clue about when to toss in the noodles.

IBdaMann wrote:
... and if we don't really have a clue what the average atmospheric CO2 levels were 50 years ago then we're stuck with"we don't have a clue."
.


Maybe, but that's something that can be looked at. If it's a fairly broad range of possible values it may yet be valuable as a clue.
Edited on 08-08-2019 08:01
08-08-2019 17:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote:I actually changed your question to "Desert" a definition of a biome that only sometimes has sand and is defined with geographic boundaries.

I completely missed that. I wish you would more clearly alert me when you wish to change my question and instead answer a different question that I didn't ask.

tmiddles wrote: But you skipped right over my point.
ACCURACY depends on NEED.

I don't buy this. Accuracy only depends on what you are measuring and how you are measuring it ... not why.

If you ask me to measure the length of a kitchen wall and you insist that I be accurate, I can do that without you ever telling me why you need the wall measured.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
08-08-2019 18:24
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1012)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:volume of sand


I actually changed your question to "Desert" a definition of a biome that only sometimes has sand and is defined with geographic boundaries.

But you skipped right over my point.

ACCURACY depends on NEED.

There is no such thing as ACCURATE in the absolute sense.

You might be making spaghetti and simply need to know water is boiling using the instrument of your eye (though that's a fairly accurate temperature reading, those bubbles). Pretty sloppy setup but ACCURATE for the purposes at hand. Definitely have a clue about when to toss in the noodles.

IBdaMann wrote:
... and if we don't really have a clue what the average atmospheric CO2 levels were 50 years ago then we're stuck with"we don't have a clue."
.


Maybe, but that's something that can be looked at. If it's a fairly broad range of possible values it may yet be valuable as a clue.


Accuracy is more about the level of confidence you need in the measurements you make. Boiling water and freezing water are sort the calibration points for thermometers, I'm sure they have simpler, more, precise ways of doing it now, but that's what the scale was based on. I work in a warehouse, they use thermometers on the cooler dock, mostly when receiving cold goods. The calibration process is to put them in a cup of ice water for one minute.

The accuracy and precision, depends entirely on what you need. When working with wood, it was always impressed upon me to measure twice, and only need to cut once. Otherwise you hear something along the lines of 'cut it twice, and it's still too short'... If your measuring tool only has a precision of whole digits, you have to discard the fractional part when doing averages or extrapolations, since didn't measure anything in fractional units. You can't create accuracy.
08-08-2019 21:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:volume of sand


I actually changed your question to "Desert" a definition of a biome that only sometimes has sand and is defined with geographic boundaries.

But you skipped right over my point.

ACCURACY depends on NEED.

There is no such thing as ACCURATE in the absolute sense.

You might be making spaghetti and simply need to know water is boiling using the instrument of your eye (though that's a fairly accurate temperature reading, those bubbles). Pretty sloppy setup but ACCURATE for the purposes at hand. Definitely have a clue about when to toss in the noodles.

IBdaMann wrote:
... and if we don't really have a clue what the average atmospheric CO2 levels were 50 years ago then we're stuck with"we don't have a clue."
.


Maybe, but that's something that can be looked at. If it's a fairly broad range of possible values it may yet be valuable as a clue.


Accuracy is more about the level of confidence you need in the measurements you make. Boiling water and freezing water are sort the calibration points for thermometers, I'm sure they have simpler, more, precise ways of doing it now, but that's what the scale was based on.

It is still the most accurate way to calibrate a thermometer.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I work in a warehouse, they use thermometers on the cooler dock, mostly when receiving cold goods. The calibration process is to put them in a cup of ice water for one minute.

Works for calibrating one end of it! This is more of a check on the thermometer itself, since most thermometers aren't adjustable.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The accuracy and precision, depends entirely on what you need.

No, it depends on the tolerance of the instrument, nothing more. Why you are using the instrument makes no difference.
HarveyH55 wrote:
When working with wood, it was always impressed upon me to measure twice, and only need to cut once. Otherwise you hear something along the lines of 'cut it twice, and it's still too short'... If your measuring tool only has a precision of whole digits, you have to discard the fractional part when doing averages or extrapolations, since didn't measure anything in fractional units. You can't create accuracy.

It is YOU that is discarding accuracy. The measuring rod you used is just as accurate as before.


The Parrot Killer
08-08-2019 21:06
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
olyz wrote:
I have come across claims something like COz has increased 50% in ten years.

Reminds me of headlines that profits have increased 100%.
if I have a 1 billion dollar company and my profits from 1 year to the next have increased from 1 penny to 2 pennies, my profits have increased 100%.


CO2 has increased from 280 parts per million in about 1850 to 400 and a bit now.

It is growing at about 3ppm per year.
08-08-2019 21:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Tim the plumber wrote:CO2 has increased from 280 parts per million in about 1850 to 400 and a bit now.

It is growing at about 3ppm per year.


Might you explain why you believe this? Is it because you believe whatever Wikipedia tells you to believe?

From Wikipedia:

[atmospheric CO2 is] 280 parts per million during the interglacial periods. Following the start of the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 concentration increased to over 400 parts per million and continues to increase, causing the phenomenon of global warming.[9]


I take it that CO2 is invisible to you just as it is to everyone else, and that the total quantity of atmospheric CO2 is unknown to you just as it is to everyone else. Yet you claim to have your finger on the pulse of average atmospheric CO2, over time, down to single-digit parts per million. Wow! UBeDaMann! I wish I could do that.

Oh, does CO2 cause Global Warming? That's also what Wikipedia says and I just wanted to double check with you on that.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
08-08-2019 22:29
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
The data from ice cores says so.

I don't know if CO2 does or does not significantly effect the surface temperatures.

Edited on 08-08-2019 22:29
08-08-2019 22:40
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote:Accuracy only depends on what you are measuring and how you are measuring it ... not why.


OK define accurate? It's an attribute like "Close" or "near" and is absolutely based on PURPOSE.

If I told you I could estimate the Earth's temperature to within 10 degrees Kelvin
Worthless from a global warming news stories perspective
Useful in comparing planetary temperatures in the solar system

If I told you I could estimate the CO2 ppm globally within 10 ppm
Plenty of precision if it allows me to concluded that the highest in 800,000 years was between 290 and 310 and it's currently between 390 and 410.

Kitchen Cabinets
Car Engine Pistons
A sandwich we agree to split

Accuracy is always based on our needs as users of the tool.

Tim the plumber wrote:
The data from ice cores says so.

I don't know if CO2 does or does not significantly effect the surface temperatures.


We are able to compare ice cores from periods in time when we had measurements of the air to corroborate the accuracy of the ice.

But before the "Accuracy" is questioned it's only fair to say what you consider to be accurate enough and why.
Edited on 08-08-2019 22:43
08-08-2019 22:43
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Accuracy only depends on what you are measuring and how you are measuring it ... not why.


OK define accurate? It's an attribute like "Close" or "near" and is absolutely based on PURPOSE.

If I told you I could estimate the Earth's temperature to within 10 degrees Kelvin
Worthless from a global warming news stories perspective
Useful in comparing planetary temperatures in the solar system

If I told you I could estimate the CO2 ppm globally within 10 ppm
Plenty of precision if it allows me to concluded that the highest in 800,000 years was between 290 and 310 and it's currently between 390 and 410.

Kitchen Cabinets
Car Engine Pistons
A sandwich we agree to split

Accuracy is always based on our needs as users of the tool.


Don't bother with I Be Da Mann. Mad.
09-08-2019 04:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote:OK define accurate? It's an attribute like "Close" or "near" and is absolutely based on PURPOSE.

Nope.

Accurate -> Absolute_Value(Realized - Actual) is small.
Very Accurate -> Absolute_Value(Realized - Actual) is very small.

tmiddles wrote: If I told you I could estimate the Earth's temperature to within 10 degrees Kelvin
Worthless from a global warming news stories perspective
Useful in comparing planetary temperatures in the solar system

tmiddles, you are using the wrong word. You aren't discussing accuracy, you are discussing usefulness. Those are two completely different concepts.

Yes, some tools are useful in certain applications but worthless in others.

My accurate measurement of a wall says nothing about how useful my measurement is. Accuracy is completely independent of usefulness.

tmiddles wrote:If I told you I could estimate the CO2 ppm globally within 10 ppm Plenty of precision if it allows me to concluded that the highest in 800,000 years was between 290 and 310 and it's currently between 390 and 410.

Precision is not accuracy. Don't confuse the two.

... otherwise I missed your point of this sentence. It appears you were trying to construct an if-then that you didn't finish.


Tim the plumber wrote:Don't bother with I Be Da Mann. Mad.

Tim the plumber is one of those who desperately needs his erroneous opinions to be accepted as "what we know." If you don't readily accept his violations of physics, he gets very pissy and throws a temper tantrum.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
09-08-2019 06:33
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:OK define accurate? It's an attribute like "Close"

Nope.

Accurate -> Absolute_Value(Realized - Actual) is small.


Wait it's not a relative term like "Close" but you'll go with "Small"?

What was the story with the shortest giant, tallest dwarf, and it was the same guy?

To put this in contexts. The "You cannot measure that accurately", "You can't accurately measure the _____". When that is said there is an underlying frame of reference. A context. That frame of reference should be clarified for the statement to be clear.

The question of temperature changes is an excellent example. You can't accurately determine changes of 1/4 degree if the sensors have an error range of 1/4 degree. But you can (in a single location) accurately measure a less precise difference.

In data it's usually implied with how many decimal places are given.

If you have a job one of the first things an engineer will discuss are the tolerances you need as it can greatly effect the budget.

Also sometimes a 95% confidence doesn't cut it you need 99% and the tolerances have to be even tighter.

IT DEPENDS

which isn't surprising since it's a relative term.

A way to cheat in dismissing an issue is to apply an arbitrary requirement for accuracy just so you can say the requirement hasn't been met.
Edited on 09-08-2019 06:37
09-08-2019 07:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Accurate -> Absolute_Value(Realized - Actual) is small.


Wait it's not a relative term like "Close" but you'll go with "Small"?

You just shifted the goalposts. When did "relative" terms enter the discussion? You claimed accuracy was based on need and I explained accuracy's independence from need.

tmiddles wrote:The question of temperature changes is an excellent example. You can't accurately determine changes of 1/4 degree if the sensors have an error range of 1/4 degree. But you can (in a single location) accurately measure a less precise difference.

Apparently you are going to insist on confusing accuracy with precision.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
09-08-2019 07:45
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote: You claimed accuracy was based on need


Well it is based on need if it's based on need : )

"You can't measure that accurately enough"

Always means:

"You cannot measure that as accurately as you need to for _______"

So sure the word accuracy can find itself in a lot of uses.

But when an argument is dismissed for "lack of accurate data/measurements ect." the accusation is that it didn't meet the requirement, didn't meet the need.

Trying to determine a 1/4 degree change with instruments with a 1/4 degree variance for example can be dismissed properly as lacking the necessary accuracy (note that I included the need with my dismissal based on inaccuracy).
10-08-2019 04:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:discussions of CO2 concentrations are relative.

You can't describe a change in measurements without using absolute measurements.


What I mean is that a skewing in a measurement being present each time the measurement is taken allows for a proportional answer to what is happening.

You are describing a series of absolute measurements.
tmiddles wrote:
So if a CO2 measurement is higher because it's taken in a valley then each time it'll be higher for the same reason and presumably in the same way.

You have no idea what the future holds. Put your Holy Entrails away.
tmiddles wrote:
You could still determine that it had increase in that location by a certain percentage.

Percentage of what?
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Percentage of what? You have no absolute value. You have nothing to compare a change with.


With the same measurements from the same station with the same equipment.

You have not specified a unit or a zero reference point. A percentage of a non-number???
tmiddles wrote:
A Proxy Measure. A proxy is an indirect measure of the desired outcome which is itself strongly correlated to that outcome.

No, a proxy is leaping to conclusions. You blundered into the problems of phenomenology again.
tmiddles wrote:
All global measurements which are local hope to be accurate proxy measurements.

No local measurement is a global measurement.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
If that change is corroborated at multiple locations it becomes more likely that it's a world wide change.

Unnecessary complexity. The same thing applies.


No having more measurements in statistical analysis narrows the error rate.

Math error. Failure to provide raw data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to specify sources of data. Void argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Accuracy is a term that applies to a combination of instrument tolerance (how accurate is that thermometer anyway? When was it last calibrated? By whom? By what method?
The other contributing factor is the margin of error value, which is calculated from possible variances of the data (not the data itself).


Good point! I was initially skeptical of your claim that a global temperature couldn't be accurately determined since it sounds simple. However you do start with the accuracy of your equipment and then the error range is added onto that.

But you haven't even begun to calculate the margin of error. You are simply declaring it to be 'acceptable'. That's a math error.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Worrying about the global CO2 concentration is rather pointless.


Disagree!!! Very very worth disproving or proving.

Have forgotten the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics? Have you forgotten the Stefan-Boltzmann law?? Have you forgotten to stuff you've agreed to already??


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2019 05:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No one needs to prove a negative.

You mean they are not legally compelled to disprove a theory? Yes I suppose that's true.

But it's useful work.

Contextomy fallacy. Pay attention. YOU insisted the someone prove CO2 has no effect. YOU say that CO2 has an effect. That is not a theory. That is a bald claim. YOU have to show it has an effect, and YOU have to show it by not violating any law of science. NO ONE has to show it doesn't.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
FDA testing pretty much amounts to "well it doesn't seem to be killing them and we really put a lot in there" right?

Testing of what?


Lots of stuff. Saccharin was given to rats in huge doses for example.

And a lot of the developed cancer. Of course, lab rats normally develop cancer a lot of the time anyway, but...

Did you know that with a few exceptions, human beings are not rats?

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Also you have one of two problems:
There is serious environmental problem
There is a serious problem with the abuse and mishandling of scientific authority

#2 may be a worse option.

You first have to define 'environmental problem'.
Science is not an 'authority'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


The public trust of distrust of the scientific communities recommendations, information and advice is very important. Take the whole anti-vaxer bs.

Having a good working and honest relationship between the scientific community and a real solid understanding of science by the public is valuable.

No need. Science is not a 'community'. It is not 'relationships'. It is not about 'trust'. It is not about 'recommendations'. It is not about scientists or even people at all.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories.

tmiddles wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
It's not paranoia time either.


It is for many. While no one is obligated to point out there is no actual fire in a crowded theater it would be an ace thing to do.
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'.


That's what the kids are calling it and the corresponding list of gases are real.
tmiddles wrote:
And those gases do in fact have a quality in common that the rest of "Air" does not:
They absorb and re-emit infrared radiation.

No gas re-emits anything. ALL gases emit infrared and other light according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
tmiddles wrote:
Just clarifying the vocabulary.

Blew it.

* You can't heat the warmer surface using a colder gas. You can't make heat flow backwards.
* You can't hold or trap heat.
* You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its energy at the same time.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2019 05:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
Tim the plumber wrote:
The data from ice cores says so.

I don't know if CO2 does or does not significantly effect the surface temperatures.


Ice cores do not describe temperature or CO2 concentration.

Even if they did, there are a lot fewer ice cores than current numbers of thermometers. Even with those, we STILL are not able to measure the temperature of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2019 05:15
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
Into the Night wrote:we STILL are not able to measure the temperature of the Earth.


But can we come to any useful conclusion? Do we gain any knowledge at all?

And if not from ice cores than what's an example of time humans do attain useful knowledge?

Our options are limited in looking to the ancient past but I don't think it's reasonable to conclude it's pointless.

Knowing the temperature range in a particular location over hundreds of thousands of years can be very useful information.
10-08-2019 07:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:we STILL are not able to measure the temperature of the Earth.


But can we come to any useful conclusion? Do we gain any knowledge at all?

Not about the temperature of the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
And if not from ice cores than what's an example of time humans do attain useful knowledge?

Void question.
tmiddles wrote:
Our options are limited in looking to the ancient past but I don't think it's reasonable to conclude it's pointless.

You can't measure the ancient past without using a time machine to go to the ancient past.
tmiddles wrote:
Knowing the temperature range in a particular location over hundreds of thousands of years can be very useful information.

Too bad we can't do it.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 10-08-2019 07:21
10-08-2019 08:43
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:we STILL are not able to measure the temperature of the Earth.


But can we come to any useful conclusion? Do we gain any knowledge at all?

Not about the temperature of the Earth.


Dodge dodge dodge

Your premise I keep reading as: "We cannot be sure so we have no clue" invalidates all human accomplishment.

So I ask you again: What is an example of the proper attainment of useful human knowledge?
10-08-2019 15:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote:So I ask you again: What is an example of the proper attainment of useful human knowledge?

Is that you can use it.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
11-08-2019 01:25
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So I ask you again: What is an example of the proper attainment of useful human knowledge?

Is that you can use it.


Repeatedly on this board it's pointed out that the reliability/accuracy/integrity of our ability to gather data do analysis ect. is inadequate and we have "NO CLUE" it's "TOTALLY POINTLESS" to continue.

We have come very far as a species with a lot less to work with in the past.

So you should give an example of "Doing it right"

I know why you don't want to. Because it will be something real and something real will have imperfections. Then it'll be harder to say imperfect=pointless.
Edited on 11-08-2019 01:26
11-08-2019 03:24
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote:Repeatedly on this board it's pointed out that the reliability/accuracy/integrity of our ability to gather data do analysis ect. is inadequate and we have "NO CLUE" it's "TOTALLY POINTLESS" to continue.


... because you have limited the discussions to things we can't know and can't measure.

Why don't you try discussing something that *can* be measured/known? Why don't you try discussing something for which you have a valid dataset? All of that is under your control.

tmiddles wrote: I know why you don't want to.

I bet this is going to be good. We have apparently reached the point where you start assigning motives.

tmiddles wrote: Because it will be something real and something real will have imperfections. Then it'll be harder to say imperfect=pointless.

Nope. If it can't be measured to within a useful margin of error then it is what it is. It's nobody fault. If you can't define what you are talking about, it's nobody's fault for not buying your arguments.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
11-08-2019 06:37
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote:If it can't be measured to within a useful margin of error


See that's something that can be addressed. You are saying that no useful action can be taken because we don't have enough or reliable enough information/knowledge about the subject correct?

So OK I'll pick something: Vaccinations to prevent disease. A long saga to this point of scientific and technological achievements that includes government mandates and considerable cost with lives at stake.

Would you agree that represents some really valuable work? Do you take issue with it? Doubtless the steps along the way were fraught with doubt and that even today there are those who allege conspiracy and prevent their children from being vaccinated.
11-08-2019 08:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:we STILL are not able to measure the temperature of the Earth.


But can we come to any useful conclusion? Do we gain any knowledge at all?

Not about the temperature of the Earth.


Dodge dodge dodge

Math is not a dodge.
tmiddles wrote:
Your premise I keep reading as: "We cannot be sure so we have no clue" invalidates all human accomplishment.

Compositional error fallacy. It only invalidates any claim of the temperature of the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
So I ask you again: What is an example of the proper attainment of useful human knowledge?

Philosophy, math, logic, science.


The Parrot Killer
11-08-2019 08:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So I ask you again: What is an example of the proper attainment of useful human knowledge?

Is that you can use it.


Repeatedly on this board it's pointed out that the reliability/accuracy/integrity of our ability to gather data do analysis ect. is inadequate and we have "NO CLUE" it's "TOTALLY POINTLESS" to continue.

For certain things, yes. Among them, trying to measure the temperature of the Earth with the instrumentation we have.
tmiddles wrote:
We have come very far as a species with a lot less to work with in the past.

No by using made up 'data'.
tmiddles wrote:
So you should give an example of "Doing it right"

See the Data Mine thread. Read the 1st two posts there. These are my standards of data, which is considerably higher than yours.
tmiddles wrote:
I know why you don't want to.

I already did. See the Data Mine thread.
tmiddles wrote:
Because it will be something real and something real will have imperfections.

Compositional error fallacy. See the Data Mine thread.
tmiddles wrote:
Then it'll be harder to say imperfect=pointless.

No, you are making a compositional error fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate CO2 increase:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
CO2 saturated water409-08-2019 06:43
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)2031-07-2019 23:12
So what if CO2 goes up to 1000 ppm and gives people head ache?009-07-2019 03:27
▲ 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