Remember me
▼ Content

coral bleaching



Page 4 of 5<<<2345>
13-11-2020 17:35
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1869)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
And now Tmidddles will go away for a bit
I can't force you to discuss anything Duncan.

... and I can't force you to discuss anything either, as has already been evidenced by your complete and continuous evasion of these questions...

tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I, like many others, gave you an answer to your questions.
No my question was what CAN the temperature be determined for. Anything at all. Neither you, nor GFM, nor ITN nor Duncan have come up with anything.

LIE. RQAA. Going back to the example of "my house", it very well IS possible (but IF and only IF all the rules of mathematics can be strictly adhered to) to determine the temperature of my house (within a particular margin of error), BUT, like I said, only IF the boundaries of "my house" were to be clearly and unambiguously defined, and only IF I had enough thermometers that were uniformly spread throughout it, and only IF all of those thermometers were simultaneously read, and on and on... Seeing as I only have three thermometers (not uniformly spread) within "my house", and the temperature variance within "my house", during Winter, anyway, is very high (20degF at the very least, as those three thermometers have shown), I do not have enough thermometers to know the temperature of my house within any usable margin of error.

tmiddles wrote:
As the point has been made first that the temperature of the Earth cannot be determined, then Denver, then a house, then a room, it certainly begs the question: Do you all believe temperature is simply unknowable.

gfm7175 wrote:
I have no clue what the temperature of my house is.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
He's absolutely correct....
duncan61 wrote:
I have a Milwaukee temperature gun and the variance in any room in the house can be 10.C or more so I claim the average temperature of the room can not be known exactly so how the average global temperature can be known is also a mystery...

So we have, can the temperature be determined for:
Earth: No?
Denver: No?
A house: No?
A room: No?

So what then?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN

Bogus position assignments... RQAAs...
Edited on 13-11-2020 17:37
13-11-2020 19:58
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3206)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
And now Tmidddles will go away for a bit
I can't force you to discuss anything Duncan.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I, like many others, gave you an answer to your questions.
No my question was what CAN the temperature be determined for. Anything at all. Neither you, nor GFM, nor ITN nor Duncan have come up with anything.

As the point has been made first that the temperature of the Earth cannot be determined, then Denver, then a house, then a room, it certainly begs the question: Do you all believe temperature is simply unknowable.

gfm7175 wrote:
I have no clue what the temperature of my house is.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
He's absolutely correct....
duncan61 wrote:
I have a Milwaukee temperature gun and the variance in any room in the house can be 10.C or more so I claim the average temperature of the room can not be known exactly so how the average global temperature can be known is also a mystery...

So we have, can the temperature be determined for:
Earth: No?
Denver: No?
A house: No?
A room: No?

So what then?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN


You can only know the temperature of an object, at the moment you take the reading.

It's a warm day in Florida, And I take a can of beer out of the refrigerator, measure the temperature, about 40 F. Drink about half, measure the temperature again, about 10 minutes later. That can is 50 F. After a few sips more, and not a fan of warm beer, I just let it set for a while, before throw out the remainder, check the temperature again, 80 F. That can of beer doesn't have one temperature, for all times, ever and ever. Only the temperature you assign, at any given moment in time.
13-11-2020 23:31
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
duncan61 wrote:...91-104 ... Celsius ... I can measure the temperature ...at the top header tank....

So you would be taking a reading from the location at the top of the tank. Can you know anything about the bottom of the tank? How about you take two readings: one at the top and one at the bottom. Can it be determined that the temperature in the middle of the tank is within a range of possible temperatures? Yes of course it can. But you can't be 100% sure, you never can.

So typically statistics will use a 95% probability threshold, called a confidence level, to determine that a true value is between a range of temperatures, called a margin of error.

NOAA calculates their determination for the mean temp of Earth at ground level to be ±0.09°C at a 95% probability/confidence level.

tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:...I could not conclude the average temperature of the room I was in....
...I'm honestly on the fence as to how reliable today's measurements are to within the +/- 0.09 degree margin claimed.
See here:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201313/supplemental/page-1
"the 2013 temperature anomaly was reported as "0.62°C above the 20th century average, ±0.09°C....it is 95% likely that the value falls within this range. "...


duncan61 wrote:...how we can be reliably informed the entire planet is warming/cooling ...if London becomes a steamy mangrove swamp we can safely say its warmer than before....
You'd also have a good clue that your cars radiator had exceeded a certain temperature if the cap valve blew or your car overheated.

But you wouldn't "know" 100%, that's not how it works, ever. ALL measurement is done with a level of uncertainty, a margin of error with a confidence level.

So anytime someone says "It can't be measured" and doesn't elaborate on that point they are full of it (or just ignorant). Someone might do their own calculation and come up with ±5 °C, or ±100 °C, but it's a calculation not a feeling or an opinion.

I don't know how to do the stats on calculating temperature. I also can't rebuild your engine if you blow the head gasket.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 13-11-2020 23:38
14-11-2020 07:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8629)
duncan61 wrote:
Do we have a consensus that the information I shared about the varying sea temperatures of the coast where I live is correct that the coral is perfectly O.K. at temperature ranges from 17.C to mid 30s.My family emmigrated to West Australia April 1967 and soon after that a large loading jetty was built in Kwinana for loading grain on to ships.It is a magnificent shore dive with lots of sea horses if you look carefully.It has many coral species growing on the pylons.Guess what,Its all still there and going fine


I have to confess that I am not an expert on Australia and that's one of the reasons I am elated that you are on this forum because now we have a bona fide expert. I gladly defer to your expertise on such matters.

To your point above, since I am not an expert on either Australia or the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), I periodically (every four or five months) fire up a few YouTube videos of some latest tourists who filmed their dives ... emphasizing how amazing the GBR is and demonstrating that it is still there and doing well. Reports of the GBR's demise at the hands of Climate Change and of sea-water-turned-to-bleach are apparently completely false.

So if you are looking for consensus that the popular cries of "coral bleaching is the ocean's death pandemic!" are bunk ... then I'm in.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-11-2020 00:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15058)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:...you are purposely ignoring the rest...
You always bow out. If you'll actually discuss it let me know.

Here I'll try:
As you've described things the temperature of anything, beyond a single point in space at a singe time, cannot be known. Is that right?

Again that's how I'm understanding you. I certainly don't think that.

RQAA


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-11-2020 01:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15058)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...you can know the temperature of anything with some margin or error at some confidence level.

Confidence, means the same thing as faith,...

No it's basic statistics Harvey.

You deny statistical math.
tmiddles wrote:
That is the terminology that is used:

No, it isn't. Semantics fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
https://www.statisticshowto.com/probability-and-statistics/hypothesis-testing/margin-of-error/

Probability math is not statistical math. Statistical math is not probability math. You deny both.
tmiddles wrote:
https://www.statisticshowto.com/probability-and-statistics/confidence-interval/

False authority fallacy. This is not statistical math nor probability math.
tmiddles wrote:
If you prefer you can think of it as probability that something is within a stated margin.

Probability math is not statistical math. Statistical math is not probability math. This has already been explained to you by me and others.
tmiddles wrote:
If a calculation shows a 95% confidence level that an actual value is between two limits, the margin of error, it means that there is 95% probability that it is (if the work is correct that is).

Argument from randU fallacy. Margin of error is not confidence or a probability. You are just making up numbers again.
tmiddles wrote:
We should all be very familiar with this given current events when the polls for the election weren't just wrong they were wrong by so much they were well outside of their margin of error.

Election polls are not statistical math.
tmiddles wrote:
As the confidence level on those margins was 95% it's unlikely, highly unlikely, that the calculations were done correctly.

Elections are not statistical math.
tmiddles wrote:
ITN will no doubt chime in and deny the above links exist without explanation. That's because whether by will or birth he is insane.

Insult fallacy. Psychoquackery.

No argument presented. Math errors. Semantics fallacies. False authorities. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-11-2020 01:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15058)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Here I'll try:
As you've described things the temperature of anything, beyond a single point in space at a singe time, cannot be known. Is that right?

... and you are not understanding me correctly (intentionally??) ...


gfm7175 wrote:...a thermometer can only measure the temperature at the specific location of the thermometer itself. Once you start introducing 'volumes' ...you're gonna need more than one thermometer, as temperature can vary greatly over very small distances...
How about an example of it done properly?

It makes no sense to be so hypothetical about something that's done often.

How about the temperature of a human body? A car engine? A pot roast?

Let's start with something that's a great example of finding a temperature for a subject matter properly.

RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-11-2020 01:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15058)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
And now Tmidddles will go away for a bit
I can't force you to discuss anything Duncan.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I, like many others, gave you an answer to your questions.
No my question was what CAN the temperature be determined for. Anything at all. Neither you, nor GFM, nor ITN nor Duncan have come up with anything.

As the point has been made first that the temperature of the Earth cannot be determined, then Denver, then a house, then a room, it certainly begs the question: Do you all believe temperature is simply unknowable.

gfm7175 wrote:
I have no clue what the temperature of my house is.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
He's absolutely correct....
duncan61 wrote:
I have a Milwaukee temperature gun and the variance in any room in the house can be 10.C or more so I claim the average temperature of the room can not be known exactly so how the average global temperature can be known is also a mystery...

So we have, can the temperature be determined for:
Earth: No?
Denver: No?
A house: No?
A room: No?

So what then?



RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-11-2020 01:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15058)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:...91-104 ... Celsius ... I can measure the temperature ...at the top header tank....

So you would be taking a reading from the location at the top of the tank. Can you know anything about the bottom of the tank?

No.
tmiddles wrote:
How about you take two readings: one at the top and one at the bottom. Can it be determined that the temperature in the middle of the tank is within a range of possible temperatures? Yes of course it can. But you can't be 100% sure, you never can.

No.
tmiddles wrote:
So typically statistics will use a 95% probability threshold, called a confidence level, to determine that a true value is between a range of temperatures, called a margin of error.

Temperature is not a range. It is a scalar value. It is not a statistic. It is not a margin of error. Neither is 'confidence level'. Denial of math. Redefinition fallacies.
tmiddles wrote:
NOAA calculates their determination for the mean temp of Earth at ground level to be ±0.09°C at a 95% probability/confidence level.

Math error. Use of random numbers as data. There is no such thing as a 'probability/confidence level'. Statistical math is not probability math. Probability math is not statistical math. Failure to select by randN. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Use of biased and manufactured 'data'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 15-11-2020 01:14
15-11-2020 04:13
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1018)
The water in my cold tap is 18.4 C now what
15-11-2020 11:56
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
duncan61 wrote:
The water in my cold tap is 18.4 C now what


I guess you now continue to ignore my response?
15-11-2020 12:20
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1018)
I thought we were trying to measure something for fun.Whats the next step.Forget NASA NOAA and the IPCC.Do your own work like I have.NOAA Have no idea what the average temperature of the ocean is and if they do know why will they not share.All they do is claim it is getting warmer because of mankind.Even if it is true why is it bad
15-11-2020 12:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
duncan61 wrote:
...NOAA Have no idea ....Even if it is true why is it bad

Sounds like you've got it figured out. So I can't help you.
15-11-2020 14:29
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1018)
I feel blessed.Blocked from Skeptical science after 2 posts and disowned by Tmiddles.I bet all you others will be PM me to find out how I did it
15-11-2020 15:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
duncan61 wrote:
I feel blessed.Blocked from Skeptical science after 2 posts and disowned by Tmiddles.I bet all you others will be PM me to find out how I did it


You completely ignored my reply to you Duncan.

Again

In your words:
Now what?

tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:...91-104 ... Celsius ... I can measure the temperature ...at the top header tank....

So you would be taking a reading from the location at the top of the tank. Can you know anything about the bottom of the tank? How about you take two readings: one at the top and one at the bottom. Can it be determined that the temperature in the middle of the tank is within a range of possible temperatures? Yes of course it can. But you can't be 100% sure, you never can.

So typically statistics will use a 95% probability threshold, called a confidence level, to determine that a true value is between a range of temperatures, called a margin of error.

NOAA calculates their determination for the mean temp of Earth at ground level to be ±0.09°C at a 95% probability/confidence level.

tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:...I could not conclude the average temperature of the room I was in....
...I'm honestly on the fence as to how reliable today's measurements are to within the +/- 0.09 degree margin claimed.
See here:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201313/supplemental/page-1
"the 2013 temperature anomaly was reported as "0.62°C above the 20th century average, ±0.09°C....it is 95% likely that the value falls within this range. "...


duncan61 wrote:...how we can be reliably informed the entire planet is warming/cooling ...if London becomes a steamy mangrove swamp we can safely say its warmer than before....
You'd also have a good clue that your cars radiator had exceeded a certain temperature if the cap valve blew or your car overheated.

But you wouldn't "know" 100%, that's not how it works, ever. ALL measurement is done with a level of uncertainty, a margin of error with a confidence level.

So anytime someone says "It can't be measured" and doesn't elaborate on that point they are full of it (or just ignorant). Someone might do their own calculation and come up with ±5 °C, or ±100 °C, but it's a calculation not a feeling or an opinion.

I don't know how to do the stats on calculating temperature. I also can't rebuild your engine if you blow the head gasket.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN

Edited on 15-11-2020 15:28
15-11-2020 18:29
James___
★★★★★
(4164)
Has anyone ever heard of the trust but verify method? If satellites haven't been verified, then a statistical analysis is what's left. Myself, I think I'd prefer the statistical analysis because actual thermometers at a little above ground or sea level could measure the temperature.
Local variation wouldn't be the issue. This is because over time at a given location, it would still show a trend even if no warming is observed. At the same time, either the EPA or NOAA showed where over a period of 20 or 30 years, the contiguous 48 states what's between Mexico and Canada) in the US had no warming.
This would go back to if data sets used to create an algorithm. If not, then all data sets will become homogenized.

p.s., it's nice being allowed to have my own opinion.

Edited on 15-11-2020 18:32
15-11-2020 23:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15058)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
The water in my cold tap is 18.4 C now what


I guess you now continue to ignore my response?

RQAA


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-11-2020 23:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15058)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
...NOAA Have no idea ....Even if it is true why is it bad

Sounds like you've got it figured out. So I can't help you.


Denying science and mathematics and chanting your religion is not helping anybody, you condescending moron.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-11-2020 23:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15058)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
I feel blessed.Blocked from Skeptical science after 2 posts and disowned by Tmiddles.I bet all you others will be PM me to find out how I did it


You completely ignored my reply to you Duncan.

Again

In your words:
Now what?

tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:...91-104 ... Celsius ... I can measure the temperature ...at the top header tank....

So you would be taking a reading from the location at the top of the tank. Can you know anything about the bottom of the tank? How about you take two readings: one at the top and one at the bottom. Can it be determined that the temperature in the middle of the tank is within a range of possible temperatures? Yes of course it can. But you can't be 100% sure, you never can.

So typically statistics will use a 95% probability threshold, called a confidence level, to determine that a true value is between a range of temperatures, called a margin of error.

NOAA calculates their determination for the mean temp of Earth at ground level to be ±0.09°C at a 95% probability/confidence level.

tmiddles wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:...I could not conclude the average temperature of the room I was in....
...I'm honestly on the fence as to how reliable today's measurements are to within the +/- 0.09 degree margin claimed.
See here:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201313/supplemental/page-1
"the 2013 temperature anomaly was reported as "0.62°C above the 20th century average, ±0.09°C....it is 95% likely that the value falls within this range. "...


duncan61 wrote:...how we can be reliably informed the entire planet is warming/cooling ...if London becomes a steamy mangrove swamp we can safely say its warmer than before....
You'd also have a good clue that your cars radiator had exceeded a certain temperature if the cap valve blew or your car overheated.

But you wouldn't "know" 100%, that's not how it works, ever. ALL measurement is done with a level of uncertainty, a margin of error with a confidence level.

So anytime someone says "It can't be measured" and doesn't elaborate on that point they are full of it (or just ignorant). Someone might do their own calculation and come up with ±5 °C, or ±100 °C, but it's a calculation not a feeling or an opinion.

I don't know how to do the stats on calculating temperature. I also can't rebuild your engine if you blow the head gasket.
RQAA



The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-11-2020 23:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15058)
James___ wrote:
Has anyone ever heard of the trust but verify method? If satellites haven't been verified,

Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperatures. They won't work to measure the temperature of the Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
James___ wrote:
then a statistical analysis is what's left. Myself, I think I'd prefer the statistical analysis because actual thermometers at a little above ground or sea level could measure the temperature.

Math error. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to select by randN. Failure to use unbiased data. Use of biased and manufactured 'data'. Failure to calculate margin of error.
James___ wrote:
Local variation wouldn't be the issue.

You can't perform a statistical analysis without declaring and justifying variance and calculating the margin of error value, which MUST accompany any summary.
James___ wrote:
This is because over time at a given location, it would still show a trend even if no warming is observed.

Math error. Base rate fallacy. Failure to declare boundary.
James___ wrote:
At the same time, either the EPA or NOAA showed where over a period of 20 or 30 years, the contiguous 48 states what's between Mexico and Canada) in the US had no warming.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the United States, Mexico, or Canada.
James___ wrote:
This would go back to if data sets used to create an algorithm. If not, then all data sets will become homogenized.

Buzzword fallacies. Homogenization has nothing to do with data or statistical mathematics.
James___ wrote:
p.s., it's nice being allowed to have my own opinion.


It is your opinion, and your religion.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-11-2020 00:08
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1018)
ITN you and IBDM are very condescending but I like it and today I have my big boy pants on
16-11-2020 00:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
duncan61 wrote:
ITN you and IBDM are very condescending but I like it and today I have my big boy pants on


I took the time to respond to you Duncan. I don't like having my time wasted despite what my very presence of this board might suggest in that regard.
16-11-2020 03:27
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3206)
James___ wrote:
Has anyone ever heard of the trust but verify method? If satellites haven't been verified, then a statistical analysis is what's left. Myself, I think I'd prefer the statistical analysis because actual thermometers at a little above ground or sea level could measure the temperature.
Local variation wouldn't be the issue. This is because over time at a given location, it would still show a trend even if no warming is observed. At the same time, either the EPA or NOAA showed where over a period of 20 or 30 years, the contiguous 48 states what's between Mexico and Canada) in the US had no warming.
This would go back to if data sets used to create an algorithm. If not, then all data sets will become homogenized.

p.s., it's nice being allowed to have my own opinion.


"Has anyone ever heard of the trust but verify method?"

Yeah, Ronald Reagan said that about the Russians... Does that mean global warming is Russian propaganda? Before my time, but wasn't Norway part of Russia, before the war?
16-11-2020 04:56
James___
★★★★★
(4164)
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
Has anyone ever heard of the trust but verify method? If satellites haven't been verified, then a statistical analysis is what's left. Myself, I think I'd prefer the statistical analysis because actual thermometers at a little above ground or sea level could measure the temperature.
Local variation wouldn't be the issue. This is because over time at a given location, it would still show a trend even if no warming is observed. At the same time, either the EPA or NOAA showed where over a period of 20 or 30 years, the contiguous 48 states what's between Mexico and Canada) in the US had no warming.
This would go back to if data sets used to create an algorithm. If not, then all data sets will become homogenized.

p.s., it's nice being allowed to have my own opinion.


"Has anyone ever heard of the trust but verify method?"

Yeah, Ronald Reagan said that about the Russians... Does that mean global warming is Russian propaganda? Before my time, but wasn't Norway part of Russia, before the war?



The Vikings (Norwegians) actually taught trade and government to Europeans. An example is York, England. It was a farming community but the Vikings made it into a place like Constantinople was.
It's just that when Rome fell, everyone in Europe basically became farmers and had no real need for anything associated with Rome. Of course the Dark Ages was also a cool period. If you consider that all of the cathedrals in Europe were built during the Medieval Warm Period, it suggests that cool periods really do slow down society as a whole.
16-11-2020 19:38
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1869)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
ITN you and IBDM are very condescending but I like it and today I have my big boy pants on


I took the time to respond to you Duncan. I don't like having my time wasted despite what my very presence of this board might suggest in that regard.

All you've done on this board is waste everyone else's time with your religious cultist gibberbabble...

You continue to deny logic, science, mathematics, engineering, history, philosophy, and even knowledge in general (except for your own omniscience)...
16-11-2020 19:39
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1869)
duncan61 wrote:
ITN you and IBDM are very condescending but I like it and today I have my big boy pants on

Glad to hear it! They are much more comfortable than wearing a poopy diaper around, as tmiddles, keepit, and others regularly do...
17-11-2020 00:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15058)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
ITN you and IBDM are very condescending but I like it and today I have my big boy pants on


I took the time to respond to you Duncan. I don't like having my time wasted despite what my very presence of this board might suggest in that regard.


Your time is of little value. It is YOU that is wasting everyone else's time.
You just repeat your old arguments. You spam. You ask questions that have already been answered. You evade. You have not answered any of the questions put to you. You deny science. You deny mathematics. You deny history. You make one semantic fallacy after another. You use false authorities. You make up numbers and pivot context.

You have done all these things and you continue to do so.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
17-11-2020 02:13
keepit
★★★★★
(2073)
That's a long string of baloney there ITN.
17-11-2020 02:33
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3206)
keepit wrote:
That's a long string of baloney there ITN.


Living in a state of denial...

Twiddles doesn't believe a question is answered, until you agree to the answer he provides for you. He ignores any other answers, until you agree to what he tells you is the answer, to the question. I don't tend to follow those threads any more. Tend to think there is some sort of mental issue involved.
17-11-2020 16:11
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1869)
keepit wrote:
That's a long string of baloney there ITN.

As predicted, keepit still has his poopy diaper on...
17-11-2020 17:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15058)
keepit wrote:
That's a long string of baloney there ITN.


That it is. That's what tmiddles is.

As for you, you simply deny science and mathematics as well as history and logic. You come along and troll with posts like this opportunistically. You are also a devout member of the Church of Global Warming as well as of the Church of Green.

You are also a long string of baloney.

Both of you need to get a clue.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
17-11-2020 18:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15058)
HarveyH55 wrote:
keepit wrote:
That's a long string of baloney there ITN.


Living in a state of denial...

Twiddles doesn't believe a question is answered, until you agree to the answer he provides for you. He ignores any other answers, until you agree to what he tells you is the answer, to the question. I don't tend to follow those threads any more. Tend to think there is some sort of mental issue involved.


Really can't blame you.

It's nice to see another here, such as you, that gets it. You understand just how lost these people are. Your knowledge of science and math is increasing. You see a lot of history for what it is. Your contributions to this forum are most welcome in my opinion.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
17-11-2020 18:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15058)
gfm7175 wrote:
keepit wrote:
That's a long string of baloney there ITN.

As predicted, keepit still has his poopy diaper on...


That's a little like predicting the sun will set in the west.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
17-11-2020 21:51
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1869)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
keepit wrote:
That's a long string of baloney there ITN.


Living in a state of denial...

Twiddles doesn't believe a question is answered, until you agree to the answer he provides for you. He ignores any other answers, until you agree to what he tells you is the answer, to the question. I don't tend to follow those threads any more. Tend to think there is some sort of mental issue involved.


Really can't blame you.

It's nice to see another here, such as you, that gets it. You understand just how lost these people are. Your knowledge of science and math is increasing. You see a lot of history for what it is. Your contributions to this forum are most welcome in my opinion.

Indeed. I welcome his thoughtful contributions as well. Mr Guzzler also makes good contributions whenever he happens to be around.
17-11-2020 21:52
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1869)
Into the Night wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
keepit wrote:
That's a long string of baloney there ITN.

As predicted, keepit still has his poopy diaper on...


That's a little like predicting the sun will set in the west.

Indeed, it's a VERY safe prediction...
19-11-2020 11:45
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1018)
Can anyone show where there is coral dying in the ocean right now.Or where the ocean PH is below 8
19-11-2020 12:45
James___
★★★★★
(4164)
duncan61 wrote:
Can anyone show where there is coral dying in the ocean right now.Or where the ocean PH is below 8



When coral started dying on the Great Barrier Reef in 2016, the El Nino of 2015 - 2016 raised the ocean temperature by 2.5° C. This is where most coral that is dying would probably because of what people are doing outside of global warming.

There's also this.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322941852_Extreme_Marine_Warming_Across_Tropical_Australia_During_Austral_Summer_2015-16
Edited on 19-11-2020 13:17
19-11-2020 15:31
James___
★★★★★
(4164)
@D, the previous post is to give and everyone else an idea of how much warming the oceans need in order to start killing off coral.
19-11-2020 21:22
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3206)
Coral Bleaching, and Reefs Dying, seem to be two different things, but often spoken of as the same thing. Nobody actually knows why some areas are afflicted, some are doing just fine. Been a lot of weird ideas. Key West banned certain brands of suntan lotion a couple years ago... Global Warming, of course blames CO2, and they scorching heat. Hawaii has coral, and they have active volcanoes. Some erupt underwater... And yet, the coral, somehow manages to survive, and thrive...

My theory about Florida coral issues, and the algae blooms (red tide), are related to The Norwegian Cruise Line ships, routinely purging their sewage tanks offshore, to doge the port disposal fees. Covid confirms my theory. No cruses, no red tide this year...
20-11-2020 15:56
James___
★★★★★
(4164)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Coral Bleaching, and Reefs Dying, seem to be two different things, but often spoken of as the same thing. Nobody actually knows why some areas are afflicted, some are doing just fine. Been a lot of weird ideas. Key West banned certain brands of suntan lotion a couple years ago... Global Warming, of course blames CO2, and they scorching heat. Hawaii has coral, and they have active volcanoes. Some erupt underwater... And yet, the coral, somehow manages to survive, and thrive...

My theory about Florida coral issues, and the algae blooms (red tide), are related to The Norwegian Cruise Line ships, routinely purging their sewage tanks offshore, to doge the port disposal fees. Covid confirms my theory. No cruses, no red tide this year...



It's interesting that the Red Tide is always there. Yet the ppm when it's a problem will go up to 10 million per liter. I wonder if a lack of water circulation could allow it's level of saturation to increase. You know, if it's diluted then it doesn't hurt marine life that consumes it. Just a thought.
If you consider the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica is much larger than the one over the Arctic, this has to do primarily with air circulation. With enough circulation, ODSs can be diluted.

As for coral bleaching, maybe it's because when coral dies, the reefs turn white? This might be because the polyps might leave behind calcium carbonate residue.
And now when your friends at work notice that you're getting smarter, you can tell them that it's because you know a Norwegian.

Attached image:


Edited on 20-11-2020 16:20
Page 4 of 5<<<2345>





Join the debate coral bleaching:

Remember me

▲ 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