Remember me
▼ Content

Definitions required to address discussions in this forum.


Definitions required to address discussions in this forum.24-08-2019 17:44
Third world guy
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
I am starting in this forum from my pleasant and irresponsible third world.
 
I see that all the threads in this place are a disorder of opinions that lead nowhere.

If we are not able to achieve a minimum consensus on elementary definitions, where do we go?

There are basic concepts that should be agreed upon before proceeding with any debate: climate change, global warming, anthropogenic global warming, etc.

The only concept that I see clearly in the forum is 'chaos'.

Is there even a consensus on the concept of 'consensus'?

I think I'm going to have pleasant moments between you, if you don't force me to define what a 'pleasant moment' is.

I look forward to the local hoolingans appearing.

Please do not force me to define hooligan.


Tell me what you want to demonstrate, give me money, and I will design a model to prove it.
24-08-2019 19:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
Third world guy wrote:
I am starting in this forum from my pleasant and irresponsible third world.
 
I see that all the threads in this place are a disorder of opinions that lead nowhere.

If we are not able to achieve a minimum consensus on elementary definitions, where do we go?

There are basic concepts that should be agreed upon before proceeding with any debate: climate change, global warming, anthropogenic global warming, etc.

The only concept that I see clearly in the forum is 'chaos'.

Is there even a consensus on the concept of 'consensus'?

I think I'm going to have pleasant moments between you, if you don't force me to define what a 'pleasant moment' is.

I look forward to the local hoolingans appearing.

Please do not force me to define hooligan.


Words are defined by people. To discuss 'global warming' or 'climate change', they must first be defined. Circular definitions are not definitions. It is not possible to define 'global warming' as 'global warming', for example.

So far, no one has been able to define 'global warming' or 'climate change' (except IBdaMann, which uses a mythical approach to these definitions).

I created a thread for this very purpose, called the Wordsmith.

But never yet have I found anyone that could define 'global warming' or 'climate change', other than IBdaMann's mythical approach.

Science has a definition. This definition comes from philosophy, which defines words like 'religion' and 'science'. The definition of both have changed over the years. Currently, the definition of science is that it is a set of falsifiable theories. From here, the obvious questions are what is a 'theory' and what does 'falsifiable' mean? Often the word 'hypothesis' and 'model' wander around these. What exactly are they? Those definitions come from logic, philosophy, and to a certain extent, science itself.

A theory is simply an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion.

For a theory to be one of science, it simply needs to be 'falsifiable'. This means that:
* the theory must first be a valid argument (no fallacies allowed). This is known as the Internal Consistency Check. All theories, whether scientific or not, must pass this test, or it cannot be a theory at all.
* the theory must not conflict with any other theory of science. This is known as the External Consistency Check. There must not be any conflict, for if there is, one or both of the theories must be wrong, they are falsifying each other.
* a null hypothesis must be available. A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. The null hypothesis takes the form of the question, "How can I prove this theory to be wrong?".
* a test for the null hypothesis must be available. It must be practical to conduct. It must be a specific test and it must produce a specific result.
* A theory that survives the test of falsifiability is automatically one of science. It will never be proven True. It will remain a theory until it is destroyed by falsification. When a theory is so destroyed, it ceases to be a valid argument, and becomes instead a fallacy.
* A nonscientific theory is one that can never be falsified, so it can never be proven True or False. It remains a theory forever.
* All theories begin as circular arguments. Theories of science, however, have passed the test of falsifiability, and the failure to destroy the theory gives it more than just the simple circular argument to stand upon. It is for this reason that theories of science are not themselves religions, even though other theories (and therefore other arguments) extend from them. Theories that are not falsifiable remain circular arguments.

Religion also has a definition, which also comes from philosophy. Religion is anything based on a circular argument, with arguments extending from that initial circular argument. The other word for the circular argument (which is not a fallacy by the way), is 'faith'. The circular argument is also known as the argument of faith.

Religions do not have to be organized. They do not even require a god or gods (several don't). However, they are ALL based on the argument of faith.

Note that though 'global warming' is not defined, there can still be a religion formed around it. This is because 'global warming' itself is simply used as a conclusion in and of itself, thus forming the initial circular argument. Such use requires no meaning.

Because of the political nature of the Church of Global Warming in attempting to become a State religion, there is much debate about it. As you have already observed, there are a lot of lies floating about, many of them based on the redefinitions of words and even redefinitions of existing theories of science.

Three theories of science describe why the arguments for 'greenhouse effect' (which itself is undefined, since it requires the definition of 'global warming' to be defined), don't work. These arguments generally take one of two forms, which I call the Magick Blanket argument, and the Magick Bouncing Photon argument. These three theories are the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Occasionally, Kirchoff's law or Planck's laws come into the conversation, and are equally denied by the Church of Global Warming.

If you want to learn about these laws, IBdaMann can describe them for you. He is very good at that. He is also very good at mathematics. If you want to push religion into his face, he can get very snide very quickly. He has no patience for it, and I don't blame him, particularly when the religion is being used as a mechanism for implementing socialism.

By trade, I am an engineer. I build instrumentation for industrial, aerospace, and medical uses. I have built a successful company and my instrumentation is all over the world (and above it!). I am better with answering engineering questions for you. Nevertheless, I am also a scientist, just as IBdaMann is. I am more of a logician than a mathematician, but both of us understand logic and mathematics.

Occasionally, discussions of 'socialism' and 'capitalism' appear. These two words also have a definite meaning, but liberals again like to try to redefine them to mask what they are.

Both of these are economic systems. Capitalism is a system whereby each individual is free to produce a product for the market, and to create new products for the market. It is not speculation or gambling, but simply the freedom to create new and better products. Thus, capitalism creates wealth. It can create whole markets where none existed before (the personal computer revolution came from just exactly that). It is innovation. It is not a zero sum game. It is not only capable of creating whole cities out of the wilderness, it has done so. Implementing capitalism requires no government. It just happens.

Socialism is the forced sharing of wealth. It does not create any wealth. It steals it. It is theft. It can only be implemented by force. It is the system of slavery. It is the system of fascism. It is the system of communism.

In fascism, the government allows you to keep the company you took the risk to start and build, but then tells you how to run it. They tell you what your price can be, where you are allowed to buy raw materials, how much you are going to pay your workers and when, what your allowed product is going to be, when you can sell it, and any other aspect of operating the company YOU took the risk to start and grow. Fascism is a step on the road to communism, described next.

In communism, the government doesn't just operate your business for you, they OWN the business outright. They simply take it, lock, stock, and the tree outside; and they OWN it.

Both are theft. First of your knowledge of the business, then of your business itself.

Since the government does not know the business, they will obviously **** it up. Shortages occur. The business fails.

Socialism brings with it theft, forced labor (slavery, which is theft of the fruits of your labor), and misery. It can only be implemented by dictatorship or oligarchy (dictatorship by committee).

The goals of socialism are quite well described by Karl Marx, who wrote the Communist Manifesto.

Do elements of fascism exist in the United States today? Yes. Each and every one of them is unconstitutional. It is much of the internal struggle taking place in the United States right now. The Church of Global Warming is a big part of that struggle, for it stems from the Church of Karl Marx.

If you are outside the United States, it still affects you, since this struggle is a worldwide one. Christians might even label this as the struggle between Jesus Christ, which counsels methods to become free and to produce good things for the world (capitalism) and Satan, which counsels forced compliance where the individual is no longer free, and in which Satan owns all glory (socialism).

Regardless of the religious overtones of these two individuals, it is the difference between these two systems, one of freedom and liberty, the other of dictatorships and oligarchies and slavery.

The United States is unique. It is the only nation that is not based on who conquered who and which king is in charge, but is based on the rule of law (the Constitution). This form of government has only been tried in very limited form before, and was eventually overthrown from within. The United States can withstand any attack from outside. The greatest danger she faces is from within. If we lose the Constitution, it will because we chose to discard it.

Hopefully, this clarifies some definitions for you, and provides you with a source of where the confusion comes from.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 24-08-2019 20:01
24-08-2019 20:37
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
I mostly got into this, because of the financial and economic impact, that even entertaining the possibility is burdening society with. I think the threat of our government spending trillions of our dollars, is a much greater crisis, than anything nature has thrown at us. I'm not interested in learning more math, playing word games, philosophy, or complex theories, that wouldn't apply to much anything else, but discussing climate change. I started down that road, and found it intentionally confusing and frustrating. Basically, a huge, frustrating, time wasting, confusing mess, which most people without the time or patience, would eventually just give in and believe, rather than understand. More of a cult tactic, than a scientific study. Changing the name, from 'global warming' to 'climate change', was just a marketing trick, nothing actually changed except the name, same exact product, in the same package. You don't sell science, you share it. Which is another issue... If this were science, and the only goal is to save the planet, which requires everyone's cooperation, why so hard to get access to the data being used, the software tools, computer models? Isn't saving the planet more important than intellectual property rights? Why do they cite papers in their official reports, that require you to pay to view? Our tax dollars actually paid for pretty much every bit of this, shouldn't there be 100% transparency?

CO2 does seem like the only product that can be taxed and controlled. Only 0.04% of the atmosphere, doesn't at all seem likely to have a very important role in an thermal shenanigans. Even the top 4 'greenhouse' gasses, don't make up a very large portion of the air we breath. I don't believe any of them are spread evenly across the whole planet. Basically, I don't know exactly why 'climate change' doesn't feel right, but I have no doubt it's got some major flaw to it. They work with some very small changes, over very long periods of time, which greatly exceed the accuracy of the records and measurements available. Temperature recording started in the 1880s on a regular basis. CO2 didn't start until 1958, on the side of an active volcano (odd choice), which is still the primary source of CO2 readings, for the entire planet. It's a big planet, been here a very long time, stretching the data to cover all that time and space, also stretches the margin of error in the data. Huge error, very small, fractional numbers, pretty useless.

The more resent concern is when they started talking 'carbon capture', and 'carbon sequestering'. We need CO2 badly, for all life to survive and do well. Every living thing is based on carbon based molecules. The only source of carbon, ultimately comes from plants, which get the carbon from CO2 in the atmosphere. Sure, plants can survive of less, they are pretty tough, manage to make it through a lot of tough situations. They thrive, and do incredibly well with much higher levels of CO2. Greenhouses and grow rooms, commonly augment CO2 to 1200-2000 ppm, for faster growth, stronger plants, greater yields. The increase in quality and yield, is huge, and more than pays for the added cost of augmentation (isn't much either). Seems to me, more CO2 would improve food production, and make it easier to grow crops in more places, since they would need a shorter season.

I would like plenty of food, and able to save a few dollars. Neither of these seem likely, fighting a phantom. I live in Florida, it's already a few degrees warmer most of the year, than anywhere else on the planet. A few more degrees isn't going to kill me, survived a few heat waves just fine. Al Gore jinx it, every since he said we'd get stronger storms, more frequently, the exact opposite has been happening. Down to a couple of strong storms a year, and the get weak quick when the come on land too.
25-08-2019 02:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
Third world guy wrote:I see that all the threads in this place are a disorder of opinions that lead nowhere.

Yet it is here that you want to start a discussion?

Third world guy wrote:If we are not able to achieve a minimum consensus on elementary definitions, where do we go?

Hey Bozo, pay attention before you engage the keyboard. No one is arguing over definitions. The problem is the complete EVASION of definitions for Global Warming terms. Did you notice how you didn't offer any definitions either?

Third world guy wrote:There are basic concepts that should be agreed upon before proceeding with any debate:

Yes. Physics.

The insurmountable problem here is that warmizombies are scientifically illiterate morons who are incapable of "agreeing to" the basic fundamental concepts needed.

Third world guy wrote: climate change, global warming, anthropogenic global warming, etc.

These are the concepts that absolutely need to be defined.

... so define them, unambiguously, so we can discuss them.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
25-08-2019 12:21
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Third world guy wrote:minimum consensus on elementary definitions


I think it's better to be specific. 99% of the time someone says "Climate Change" they could say "Increasing temperatures" instead.

There's also a difference between disputes about something being indefinite and about something being unfounded.

The "temperature of a planet" is only as indefinite as specifying over what time frame and how much of the planet you're including (stratosphere? Molten core?)

Doubts about the ability to determine the temperature could be legitimate while the concept is crystal clear.

But doubting the ability to measure something doesn't doubt it's existence. Those get conflated on here a lot.
25-08-2019 16:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote: The "temperature of a planet" is only as indefinite as specifying over what time frame and how much of the planet you're including (stratosphere? Molten core?)

Nope. Without some other clear, unambiguous specification, the standard English semantics have temperature being an instantaneous measurement (not over a time interval) and the planet as being all of itself.

tmiddles wrote:Doubts about the ability to determine the temperature could be legitimate while the concept is crystal clear.

Exactly, which is why the problem with the earth's average global temperature has always been one of a missing valid dataset, not of any lack of definition.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
25-08-2019 17:36
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
tmiddles wrote:
Third world guy wrote:minimum consensus on elementary definitions


I think it's better to be specific. 99% of the time someone says "Climate Change" they could say "Increasing temperatures" instead.

There's also a difference between disputes about something being indefinite and about something being unfounded.

The "temperature of a planet" is only as indefinite as specifying over what time frame and how much of the planet you're including (stratosphere? Molten core?)

Doubts about the ability to determine the temperature could be legitimate while the concept is crystal clear.

But doubting the ability to measure something doesn't doubt it's existence. Those get conflated on here a lot.


There is currently no possible way to measure the temperature of any planet, to the degree of accuracy and precision used in the global warming calculations. Best we get, is a rough estimate +/- a few degrees Celsius. Think 1978 was the first year they used satellites, and it's still only an estimate. Everything before then, is less complete, therefore less accurate. 1880, was when they officially started reading and recording temperature on a regular basis, but not global coverage. Before 1880, it's just guessing, since we need precision in the fraction of one degree, none of it really matters too much. You might think that averaging what data is available, cancels out there errors, the missing records, abnormalities, but it doesn't work that way. Your data will only be as accurate, as the least reliable component. It's still basically guessing.

The IPCC estimates about a 1 degree Celsius rise in temperature per century. If there is a +/- 1 degree margin of error in the data, even if it got colder by 1 degree, it's still an accurate statement. Since the temperature data can be off by a few degrees, they have a lot of room to make rising temperature claims, and still be technically correct, since they stay within the margin of error for the data available. The problem is that they don't talk about that much, only the parts that illustrate the concept.

There is obviously global cooling going on, CO2 takes a break, every day, otherwise we would have burned up a long time ago. They barely acknowledge any cooling components in anything they discuss, or dismiss as being significant. If producing the warming CO2 molecule is slowly killing us, why not just increase the magic cooling molecule, which is kept secret, or nobody bothered to look. Sort of good vs evil CO2 thing.
25-08-2019 18:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
HarveyH55 wrote:There is currently no possible way to measure the temperature of any planet, to the degree of accuracy and precision used in the global warming calculations.

Which never involves any margin of error. It's almost as though warmizombies receive their exact knowledge through divine inspiration which is only received by "believers" ... which is why warmizombies are inherently smarter than"deniers."

HarveyH55 wrote: Best we get, is a rough estimate +/- a few degrees Celsius.

Using the best statistical methods, the best we can hope for currently is in the +/- 30degC range.

This is why nowhere can you find a published valid dataset that leads to the statistical computation of the earth's average temperature to within a usable margin of error: none exist. The only datasets we have support only ridiculously unusable margins of error.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
26-08-2019 00:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:the problem with the earth's average global temperature has always been one of a missing valid dataset, not of any lack of definition.

Well said.

I think this should make sense to to everyone. We should put a sign up here:
"If you meant temperature say that, now justify the margin of error"
26-08-2019 00:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
HarveyH55 wrote:There is currently no possible way to measure the temperature of any planet, to the degree of accuracy and precision used in the global warming calculations.


A lack of "Accuracy" should not be converted to declaring a calculation useless. Accurate enough for what? Our measurements of Venus and of Mercury allow us to be confident that Venus is hotter than Mercury at the ground level. We may even be confident withing 1/4 degree for the metropolitan area of a particular city going back to 1900.

The fishy bit in almost everything politicized is that a margin or error is missing entirely. Dr Pat Frank talked about it very clearly I thought:

tmiddles wrote:
Dr Patrick Frank of Stanford

Article mentioning him
temp measurements innacurrate

Him speaking for himself:
pod cast
youtube

"Temperature readings, he finds, have errors over twice as large as generally recognized."
26-08-2019 01:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:A lack of "Accuracy" should not be converted to declaring a calculation useless.

That's exactly what makes a measurement/calculation useless.

tmiddles wrote: Our measurements of Venus and of Mercury allow us to be confident that Venus is hotter than Mercury at the ground level.

It's your manner of thinking that "allows" you confidence in whatever you want. In the US, you also have the added firepower of the 1st Amendment to be confident in whatever you wish.

Our highly accurate measurements of Venus' atmopheric pressure make it pretty clear that surface temperatures on Venus are going to be hot. Mercury doesn't really have an atmosphere to have any sort of atmospheric pressure to make it a Venus-type pressure cooker.

tmiddles wrote: We may even be confident withing 1/4 degree for the metropolitan area of a particular city going back to 1900.

No confidence level in any erroneous speculation is unreachable with the right amount of self-delusion, ironically fueled by that erroneous speculation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zerWCVpXTr8&t=149s%3Ft%3D3m31s


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
26-08-2019 02:03
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:There is currently no possible way to measure the temperature of any planet, to the degree of accuracy and precision used in the global warming calculations.


A lack of "Accuracy" should not be converted to declaring a calculation useless. Accurate enough for what? Our measurements of Venus and of Mercury allow us to be confident that Venus is hotter than Mercury at the ground level. We may even be confident withing 1/4 degree for the metropolitan area of a particular city going back to 1900.

The fishy bit in almost everything politicized is that a margin or error is missing entirely. Dr Pat Frank talked about it very clearly I thought:

tmiddles wrote:
Dr Patrick Frank of Stanford

Article mentioning him
temp measurements innacurrate

Him speaking for himself:
pod cast
youtube

"Temperature readings, he finds, have errors over twice as large as generally recognized."


1900s, 1/4 degree, that's dreaming, since they didn't have the means to read that. Probably have doubts about within 1 degree, since the readings on a column of mercury, would have been done manually, if someone felt like it. Icy cold, pouring down rain, little hung over... who would know if the reading got taken on time, if at all, just write something reasonable down...
26-08-2019 02:53
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:A lack of "Accuracy" should not be converted to declaring a calculation useless.

That's exactly what makes a measurement/calculation useless.

"Accuracy" as a word just floating around without clarification is hopelessly indefinite.

Is your aim accurate enough to hit it IBdaMann? I mean you can hit a target right? Can you hit it?

What? How far away is it? Is a drinking game involved? Throwing a rock or using a rifle on a tripod? ect...

Take clues trapped in ice, tree rings or stalagmites. Are you trying to identify an ice age as compared with an interglacial, about 7 C difference, or 1/2 a C difference since the 1800s?

IBdaMann wrote: Our highly accurate measurements of Venus' atmopheric pressure make it pretty clear that surface temperatures on Venus are going to be hot. Mercury doesn't really have an atmosphere to have any sort of atmospheric pressure to make it a Venus-type pressure cooker.

Also the difference between the two is so great that even a large margin of error allows for a high confidence that Venus is much higher than Mercury.
Edited on 26-08-2019 02:57
26-08-2019 02:56
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
HarveyH55 wrote:
1900s, 1/4 degree, that's dreaming,


Yes the level of precision is never perfect. But we can still make use of the information.

We never have had and never will have complete accuracy or limitless data.
26-08-2019 10:36
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
1900s, 1/4 degree, that's dreaming,


Yes the level of precision is never perfect. But we can still make use of the information.

We never have had and never will have complete accuracy or limitless data.


But, that still doesn't make it okay to manufacture data or accuracy. We work with what we have available, and acknowledge it's not perfect or ideal. For climate science work, the data and accuracy never existed, so the 'science' could never have been settled. Just because there is a perceived threat, doesn't justify ignoring the facts. In this case, fossil fuels were always considered a 'bad' thing, and CO2 was just another handy scheme to get people to stop using them. Fossil fuels are what created the industrial age. Human workers are easy to control and manipulate, machines changed that. Machine don't have opinions that can be changed. Lot simpler to teach an employee to operate a machine, than to teach a craft or trade.

CO2 makes up about 0.04% of the atmosphere. Even a +/-1% error rate, would be a huge difference in how many ppm being reported. Temperature in climate change, is a small fraction of a degree per year. Even over a hundred years, it's only estimated to be about 1 degree. Climate change is based on very small, precise numbers, but the accuracy of the data used doesn't support it. The methodology is faulty, but doesn't completely prove the concept false, since all the calculations fall safely inside the huge margin of error. That's why it's always going to be debatable.
26-08-2019 11:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
HarveyH55 wrote:For climate science work, the data and accuracy never existed, ...but doesn't completely prove the concept false, since all the calculations fall safely inside the huge margin of error. That's why it's always going to be debatable.


Yeah I think that there is a big difference between claiming there was an ice aged that ended about 12500 years ago (and it it turned out to be 12000 or 13000 it really doesn't change anything) and claiming that the global ground level temperature average increased by 0.25 C in the last 40 years and claiming it's to within +/- 0.1 C.

What I find disturbing in general is the unproveable hypothesis. When it's something that is happening in 100 years who can say. It's like THE SECRET that BS new age deal where positive thought make things manifest themselves in your life. Then if they don't manifest someone can accuse you of not having been truly positive (the True Scottsman fallacy as I've been taught).

Looking at one spots temperature history it's pretty hard to see it as a proxy measurement for a global increase:


This is cool:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4_globe/
26-08-2019 19:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Third world guy wrote:minimum consensus on elementary definitions


I think it's better to be specific. 99% of the time someone says "Climate Change" they could say "Increasing temperatures" instead.

From when to when? Why are those two points in time significant? Why are any other two points in time not significant?
tmiddles wrote:
There's also a difference between disputes about something being indefinite and about something being unfounded.

Neither 'global warming' nor 'climate change' have any meaning.
tmiddles wrote:
The "temperature of a planet" is only as indefinite as specifying over what time frame and how much of the planet you're including (stratosphere? Molten core?)

Which means it's undefined.
tmiddles wrote:
Doubts about the ability to determine the temperature could be legitimate while the concept is crystal clear.

What concept?
tmiddles wrote:
But doubting the ability to measure something doesn't doubt it's existence. Those get conflated on here a lot.

The Earth does have an average temperature. We just have no idea what it is.


The Parrot Killer
26-08-2019 19:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:There is currently no possible way to measure the temperature of any planet, to the degree of accuracy and precision used in the global warming calculations.


A lack of "Accuracy" should not be converted to declaring a calculation useless. Accurate enough for what? Our measurements of Venus and of Mercury allow us to be confident that Venus is hotter than Mercury at the ground level. We may even be confident withing 1/4 degree for the metropolitan area of a particular city going back to 1900.

Argument from randU fallacy.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of an entire city to anything close to that level of accuracy. Heck, it's not even possible to measure the temperature in a house that accurately.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 26-08-2019 19:06
26-08-2019 19:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:A lack of "Accuracy" should not be converted to declaring a calculation useless.

That's exactly what makes a measurement/calculation useless.

"Accuracy" as a word just floating around without clarification is hopelessly indefinite.

Is your aim accurate enough to hit it IBdaMann? I mean you can hit a target right? Can you hit it?

What? How far away is it? Is a drinking game involved? Throwing a rock or using a rifle on a tripod? ect...

Take clues trapped in ice, tree rings or stalagmites. Are you trying to identify an ice age as compared with an interglacial, about 7 C difference, or 1/2 a C difference since the 1800s?

IBdaMann wrote: Our highly accurate measurements of Venus' atmopheric pressure make it pretty clear that surface temperatures on Venus are going to be hot. Mercury doesn't really have an atmosphere to have any sort of atmospheric pressure to make it a Venus-type pressure cooker.

Also the difference between the two is so great that even a large margin of error allows for a high confidence that Venus is much higher than Mercury.


Argument from randU fallacies. False authority fallacy. Neither tree rings nor stalagmites indicate temperature. We do not know the temperature of either Venus nor Mercury.

Accuracy is a word. It means something. It is the result of a math calculation in this case. It cannot be discarded merely as a word.


The Parrot Killer
26-08-2019 19:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
1900s, 1/4 degree, that's dreaming,


Yes the level of precision is never perfect. But we can still make use of the information.

We never have had and never will have complete accuracy or limitless data.


We've never had any data. There is no information.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 26-08-2019 19:11
26-08-2019 19:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:For climate science work, the data and accuracy never existed, ...but doesn't completely prove the concept false, since all the calculations fall safely inside the huge margin of error. That's why it's always going to be debatable.


Yeah I think that there is a big difference between claiming there was an ice aged that ended about 12500 years ago (and it it turned out to be 12000 or 13000 it really doesn't change anything) and claiming that the global ground level temperature average increased by 0.25 C in the last 40 years and claiming it's to within +/- 0.1 C.

How do you know there was even an 'ice age'? Were you there? How do you know when it 'ended'? Were you there?
tmiddles wrote:
What I find disturbing in general is the unproveable hypothesis.

A hypothesis has no proofs. It is not even a thing that you can prove. Theories have no proofs either. Proofs only occur in closed functional systems.
tmiddles wrote:
When it's something that is happening in 100 years who can say. It's like THE SECRET that BS new age deal where positive thought make things manifest themselves in your life. Then if they don't manifest someone can accuse you of not having been truly positive (the True Scottsman fallacy as I've been taught).

No, that's the false authority fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Looking at one spots temperature history it's pretty hard to see it as a proxy measurement for a global increase:

Correct.


The Parrot Killer
26-08-2019 19:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
1900s, 1/4 degree, that's dreaming,


Yes the level of precision is never perfect. But we can still make use of the information.

We never have had and never will have complete accuracy or limitless data.


We've never had any data. There is no information.




.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
26-08-2019 20:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
they could say "Increasing temperatures" instead.

From when to when?

Usually the calendar year of course.
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
The "temperature of a planet" is only as indefinite as specifying over what time frame and how much of the planet you're including

Which means it's undefined.

No the default when a human talks about weather is 2 meters above ground. The time frame is usually given as well.
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
while the concept is crystal clear.

What concept?.

The concept for example of the annual average temperature 2 meter above ground level in Texas in 2004.
Into the Night wrote:
The Earth does have an average temperature. We just have no idea what it is.

No idea? So the annual average temperature 2 meters above ground level on Earth could be the same as on Venus?
No. Of course we have some idea. It's the margin of error that is uncertain but then they usually are.
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
A lack of "Accuracy" should not be converted to declaring a calculation useless.

Argument from randU fallacy.

I thought randU meant a random number? That's a fallacy title of your own invention isn't it?

Well someone reading a mercury thermometer in the town square every day for 50 years is not a random number generator.
Into the Night wrote:
Neither tree rings nor stalagmites indicate temperature. We do not know the temperature of either Venus nor Mercury.
Accuracy is a word. It means something. It is the result of a math calculation in this case. It cannot be discarded merely as a word.

Ok define Accuracy.
So we have visited both planets and measured the temperature. On Venus we did so directly at ground levels many times. Claiming we have no idea what the temperature is at ground level begs the question compared to what? Give a positive to clarify your negative. Of what DO we know the temperature?

Trees grow thicker rings in hotter years but really you can look this stuff up and have a more informed claim they are useless. Just saying no they don't is lazy.
Into the Night wrote:
How do you know there was even an 'ice age'? Were you there?

How do you know anything?
26-08-2019 23:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote: No the default when a human talks about weather is 2 meters above ground.

I'm thinking pilots might disagree with you, even the human pilots.

Don't you think that when humans talk about rain, snow, hail, high winds, hot temperatures and other aspects of weather that they are speaking about the exact elevation and area where they are standing at the moment in question? ... or am I just strange that way?

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The Earth does have an average temperature. We just have no idea what it is.

No idea? So the annual average temperature 2 meters above ground level on Earth could be the same as on Venus?

I see what you did there. Clever. You took his common colloquial exaggeration completely literally making you far too smart for me to be mocking you right now, that's for sure.

This morning I had no idea where my keys were ... because they could have been on Venus!

You are well aware that you are supposed to be mentally tacking on the phrase "within any usable margin of error." We have been over this many times.

tmiddles wrote: Well someone reading a mercury thermometer in the town square every day for 50 years is not a random number generator.

Absolutely not, but a political activist who thereafter cooks that data because he is an inherently dishonest Marxist warmizombie wastes no time in turning a valid set of measurements into a random number waste.

A political activist will point to his criminal butchering of data and claim that it is what was read in the town square every day for 50 years ... as a dishonest means of claiming undeserved authority for intentional deceit.

tmiddles wrote: Accuracy is a word. It means something.

Please allow me a moment to take this all in.

tmiddles wrote: It is the result of a math calculation in this case.

Which calculation? Would you care to share that so we can validate the claimed accuracy?

tmiddles wrote: So we have visited both planets and measured the temperature.

Semantic fallacy. You don't get to use the definite article "the." There were many temperature measurements. The word "the" doesn't apply. You have to say "measured temperatures." You do understand English, don't you? You understand what I am saying, right? ... or did I type too fast?

Oh, and we have never visited either Venus or Mercury.

tmiddles wrote: Claiming we have no idea what the temperature is at ground level begs the question compared to what?

Does Venus have only one ground level, or the exact same temperature at every ground level?

Do you speak English? Either you don't or you are greatly confused or you are a liar. How is it that you simply cannot express a truthful, complete thought?

Earth to tmiddles: there are many temperatures, as in "multiple" and "different." In English we don't refer to many different temperatures as "the temperature." Did you never learn this?

tmiddles wrote: Trees grow thicker rings in hotter years

There are multiple factors that determine tree ring thickness. For example, trees grow thicker rings in cooler years that nonetheless have a greater abundance of water, and Bozos like you will staunchly claim that "we know" that those years were warmer.

You are well aware that proxies are completely invalid data sources, but are great for religious purposes. You have simply found some proxies that are great for your religious purposes.

tmiddles wrote: How do you know anything?

This has already been answered several times. How many times are you going to ask?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
27-08-2019 00:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
they could say "Increasing temperatures" instead.

From when to when?

Usually the calendar year of course.

Why the calendar year? What makes it so special? Which calendar year are you referring to?
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
The "temperature of a planet" is only as indefinite as specifying over what time frame and how much of the planet you're including

Which means it's undefined.

No the default when a human talks about weather is 2 meters above ground. The time frame is usually given as well.

No time frame has been given, liar. Did you know that most weather occurs between 1000 ft and 12000 ft? Bigger storms often reach as high as 18000 ft. Really big storms can reach 35000 ft.

Very little weather occurs at 6 ft, unless it's fog.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
while the concept is crystal clear.

What concept?.

The concept for example of the annual average temperature 2 meter above ground level in Texas in 2004.

The temperature at 6 ft AGL in Texas in 2004 is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The Earth does have an average temperature. We just have no idea what it is.

No idea? So the annual average temperature 2 meters above ground level on Earth could be the same as on Venus?

Probably not. Earth if further away from the Sun and probably has a different emissivity.
tmiddles wrote:
No. Of course we have some idea. It's the margin of error that is uncertain but then they usually are.

No idea. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
A lack of "Accuracy" should not be converted to declaring a calculation useless.

Argument from randU fallacy.

I thought randU meant a random number? That's a fallacy title of your own invention isn't it?

A randU is a type of random number. It is the so-called 'predictable' random number. It is the random number that is thought up by an individual, usual to embellish a conversation, or the algorithm thought up by an individual (such as crappy computer 'random number' generators). They are also called 'psuedo-random' numbers.

Using a randU number as data is the argument from randU fallacy. I did not invent the fallacy. Fallacies are errors in logic, just as an arithmetic error is an error in mathematics.

tmiddles wrote:
Well someone reading a mercury thermometer in the town square every day for 50 years is not a random number generator.

It is when you consider to represent anything in the next town, or even the next block in the same town.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Neither tree rings nor stalagmites indicate temperature. We do not know the temperature of either Venus nor Mercury.
Accuracy is a word. It means something. It is the result of a math calculation in this case. It cannot be discarded merely as a word.

Ok define Accuracy.

Accuracy (or precision) is the number that is the combined error effects of tolerance, scale, and if a summary is involved, the margin of error.
tmiddles wrote:
So we have visited both planets and measured the temperature.

We have never measured the temperature of either Venus nor Mercury...ever.

The spacecraft that landed there measured the temperature of the location of the spacecraft only.
tmiddles wrote:
On Venus we did so directly at ground levels many times.

Five. Each measurement was separated by an Earth year at the shortest.
tmiddles wrote:
Claiming we have no idea what the temperature is at ground level begs the question compared to what?

Nothing. No comparison necessary.
tmiddles wrote:
Give a positive to clarify your negative.

No need. I am not claiming to know the temperature of Mercury, Venus, nor Earth. YOU are. Burden of proof fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Of what DO we know the temperature?

The temperature at the location of the thermometer, at the moment the reading is made.
tmiddles wrote:
Trees grow thicker rings in hotter years

WRONG. Trees require water, nutrients, and temperatures in the tolerance range of the tree (which are usually fairly large).
tmiddles wrote:
but really you can look this stuff up

I live in the Pacific Northwest, dumbass. I am surrounded by trees.
tmiddles wrote:
Just saying no they don't is lazy.

Just saying no is perfectly fine. I am not trying to prove anything about temperatures from trees. YOU are. Burden of proof fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
How do you know there was even an 'ice age'? Were you there?

How do you know anything?

I am not trying to claim there even WAS an ice age. YOU are. Burden of proof fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
27-08-2019 01:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
Into the Night wrote: Very little weather occurs at 6 ft, unless it's fog.

I'm going to go on record with one of my eccentricities: 100% of the weather that concerns me occurs between 6ft and the ground.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
28-08-2019 03:22
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Accuracy is a word. It means something.

Please allow me a moment to take this all in.


IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: It is the result of a math calculation in this case.

Which calculation? Would you care to share that so we can validate the claimed accuracy?


You misattributed this to me. ITN said it.

Into the Night wrote:
Accuracy is a word. It means something. It is the result of a math calculation in this case. It cannot be discarded merely as a word.



Par for the course
28-08-2019 06:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Accuracy is a word. It means something.

Please allow me a moment to take this all in.


IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: It is the result of a math calculation in this case.

Which calculation? Would you care to share that so we can validate the claimed accuracy?


You misattributed this to me. ITN said it.

Into the Night wrote:
Accuracy is a word. It means something. It is the result of a math calculation in this case. It cannot be discarded merely as a word.



Par for the course


I apologize for any confusion. I thought you were pulling a 180 and now claiming you needed specificity whereas before you were complaining that you were being asked to be specific.

I retract.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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




Join the debate Definitions required to address discussions in this forum.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Reddit's science forum banned climate deniers. Why don't all newspapers do the same? (2013)921-11-2017 19:25
This forum is f ucking garbage8913-11-2017 06:00
In Obama's final State of the Union Address, he mocked deniers. He bad person?513-03-2017 04:59
This forum is very disappointing2128-11-2016 22:31
Why trafn no longer moderates the Sharing Ideas sub-forum.302-11-2015 19:26
Articles
Ban Ki-Moon: Address to the UN Climate Change Conference
Arnold Schwarzenegger: Address to the United Nations on Global Climate Change
▲ 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