coral bleaching

tmiddles wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
And now Tmidddles will go away for a bit

I can't force you to discuss anything Duncan.

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.

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

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

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

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....

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

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.

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.

tmiddles wrote:
That is the terminology that is used:

tmiddles wrote:
https://www.statisticshowto.com/probability-and-statistics/hypothesis-testing/margin-of-error/

tmiddles wrote:
https://www.statisticshowto.com/probability-and-statistics/confidence-interval/

tmiddles wrote:
If you prefer you can think of it as probability that something is within a stated margin.

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).

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.

tmiddles wrote:
As the confidence level on those margins was 95% it's unlikely, highly unlikely, that the calculations were done correctly.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

duncan61 wrote:
The water in my cold tap is 18.4 C now what

duncan61 wrote:
...NOAA Have no idea ....Even if it is true why is it bad

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

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

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?

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.

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

James___ wrote:
Has anyone ever heard of the trust but verify method? If satellites haven't been verified,

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.

James___ wrote:
Local variation wouldn't be the issue.

James___ wrote:
This is because over time at a given location, it would still show a trend even if no warming is observed.

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.

James___ wrote:
This would go back to if data sets used to create an algorithm. If not, then all data sets will become homogenized.

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

duncan61 wrote:
ITN you and IBDM are very condescending but I like it and today I have my big boy pants on

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.

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?

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.

duncan61 wrote:
ITN you and IBDM are very condescending but I like it and today I have my big boy pants on

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.

keepit wrote:
That's a long string of baloney there ITN.

keepit wrote:
That's a long string of baloney there ITN.

keepit wrote:
That's a long string of baloney there ITN.

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.

gfm7175 wrote:

keepit wrote:
That's a long string of baloney there ITN.

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

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.

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.

duncan61 wrote:
Can anyone show where there is coral dying in the ocean right now.Or where the ocean PH is below 8

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...