Remember me
▼ Content

Earth surface temperature measurements



Page 2 of 3<123>
15-09-2019 06:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
tmiddles wrote:For knowing that Venus is hotter than Mercury it's not.

... as written, ... we do not know that.

VernerHornung wrote:
There are questions regarding how much of global warming is caused by nature...But there's no doubt it's real...

False. If just one person has any doubt then there is doubt.

Oh yeah, I met a person who has doubt about any of the Global Warming crap being real. Conclusion: Doubt exists about Global Warming being real.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-09-2019 12:37
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
GasGuzzler wrote:
It is still an unknown value, otherwise known as speculation.

The number of people with flu is speculative, but the fact that more people have it on January 26 than in previous weeks is not.

GasGuzzler wrote:
We don't know if the temp is rising. Remember, we only have a fair idea of the global mean temp?

We don't need the exact value of the global mean temp to know whether it's going up or down. Look at

x + 1 > x.

This is true no matter what x is. Now suppose that f(x) is any monotone increasing function of x. Even if we don't know the value of x, we do know that

f(x + 1) > f(x).

The only thing the weatherwomen need to prove is that the weighted average of their temperature figures, f(x), is a monotone function of the true average temperature x. It's unlikely that with 7500 land stations and thousands of ships plying the seas, the areas not covered by these instruments are magically cooler to compensate for the warming the instruments observe. Thermal radiation measurements from satellites aren't wont to go up if the Earth's cooling down.

The error you're talking about would matter if we had very little data, or if all our data came from one portion of the Earth. But we have lots of data, well spread around our planet. My single doubt is about whether climate models forecast the future accurately, as knowledge of paleoclimates and natural forcings remains provisional. We can even ask whether the temp hike since 1850 might be due to natural causes, and I do.

Yet the hike itself is real, and because CO2 is known (Svante Arrhenius, 1896) to force temps up other things being equal, it's a suspect in crime good enough for any cop. A quarter of the CO2 now overhead has appeared in my lifetime while we've pumped fumes skyward. And it's been measured with high precision atop Mauna Loa, a high, unpolluted place, since 1957-58's International Geophysical Year. There's even a seasonal jiggle, low in northern hemisphere fall after plants have absorbed a lot of CO2, high in spring when the plants have been dead overwinter. The southern hemisphere has less land, fewer plants, and doesn't counteract the dominant north.

GasGuzzler wrote:
What's real is that there is no way to heat a warmer surface with a cooler gas.

The gases do not heat the surface. They impede loss of heat from the surface by exchanging radiant energy with it. Not all energy flows are heat, only those caused by temperature difference are. Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody radiation from, or absorption by, a given surface occur regardless of the temperatures other surfaces in the universe lie at. Yup. You, in winter blast, emit photons toward the hot sun if outdoors on a sunny day, and the sun absorbs them, impeding a bit of its heat loss.
~


Into the Night wrote:
That requires absolute measurements.

No, it doesn't, as I explained above.

Into the Night wrote:
No, that's called a base rate fallacy, and is a math error as well as a logic error, stemming from a false equivalence.

It's not a fallacy. Base rate fallacies arise when something that's rare suddenly doubles and people freak out. Or when it's common, and people freak out over minor fluctuations. While a 1 Kelvin change in the Earth's roughly 300K absolute temperature is pretty small, 0.3%, it's enough to matter. Were it to go up 20% we'd have a nearly sterile planet.


Are the lumps in this noisy, contrast-biased Venera 9 image rocks?

The problem you're considering is either noise in the data or systematic bias introduced as data collection methodology changes. I concede both of these are possible, and that's why I don't subscribe to the panic mentality around climate change. But the deniers ostrich their heads into the sand at what that looks too plausible to warrant neglect. I'm not gonna second-guess the folks at NCAR Boulder who spend their careers on the subject, very lefties they be, in favor of a retired engineer who's become a right-wing pundit online.

Into the Night wrote:
You can't use cooked data in statistical math.

Yes, you can, if you keep in mind the uncertainties inherent in cooking. Herrnstein & Murray had no trouble using factor analysis to get IQ data from widely variant US studies and from Africa to support a conclusion that whites and Asians are smarter than blacks—which may well be true despite PC's psychologists excoriating The Bell Curve. After all, notwithstanding the social construction of race and the disparate environmental experience, the groups are genetically distinct from one another.

Into the Night wrote:
Selection MUST be by randN, and the RAW data MUST be available for inspection.

Then you can simply reject use of stats altogether. Totally random sampling is impossible in the real world. The raw datasets, meanwhile, are open to your inspection if you want to download them. It'll be a mess to keep you busy 'til 2595.

Into the Night wrote:
Further, statistics is not capable of prediction.

You mean correlation isn't causation, and I already know that. And nobody can predict the future. I already know that, too. Didn't stop Glenn Beck's monologues on the imminent demise of the USA that waxed so weary Roger Ailes dismissed him from Fox.

Into the Night wrote:
Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperatures, which are absolutely necessary to describe a trend of any kind.

Satellites can estimate them. If you insist on putting a tiny thermometer on every cubic millimeter in the cosmos to obtain the assurance you desire, not much I can do to help you. All decisions are made with incomplete data, or with proxy variables believed causally related to phenomena one can't measure directly.

Think about it when approaching an ATM at night and a shifty fella with a bulge in his pocket is hanging around. You retreat to your car and leave. But the guy's almost harmless, statistically speaking, so we've a choice based on much less evidence than available for climate change.

Into the Night wrote:
Irrelevant, and a stupid unconstitutional law. Thanks, Nixon.

Forum topic's climate change, not constitutional law. I've already ventured farther into politics than I should have. Nixon had sense to realize energy was becoming a matter of concern.

Into the Night wrote:
Got to fan the faith of the religious mob, you know.

Topic's not religion, either.

Into the Night wrote:
* You cannot create energy out of nothing. (1st law of thermodynamics)
* You cannot trap heat. (1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics)
* You cannot trap light. (Planck's law)
...
...

(plus 55 lines of blather not quoted here)

Take it up with the folks at NCAR. Tell them why their models are bunkum. If you do, then I'll read you on physics. Energy is a concept anyway, a conserved quantity by definition, with no known counterexamples to militate against relying on it to date. Heat is flow of energy between system and environment due to a difference of temperature, also by definition; of course you can't trap it—it's flowing, and would stop flowing if trapped, negating our definition of heat. Light is absorbed and changes to some other form of energy if halted; it can only move at speed c per Maxwell. We all know that already.

None of this stuff, which you post everywhere, tells me why we should discard the published science.

tmiddles wrote:
For knowing that Venus is hotter than Mercury it's not.

Ja. It was blatant:


Jesus, Ma! Turn up the AC!

I'm bushed and will get back with you later. Thanks for the moral lift.
~



Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
15-09-2019 19:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1545)
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Satellites are incapable of measuring...

Satellites can estimate them. If you insist on putting a tiny thermometer on every cubic millimeter in the cosmos to obtain the assurance you desire, not much I can do to help you.

Just FYI Verner, I really tried with Into the Night and IBdaMann on this board and neither EVER affirmed that any data/experiment/example of any kind was useable in the 5 years they've been here. EVERYTHING is unknown according to them. Good example here (thorough study of skin's emissivity dismissed by ITN):
the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD

I'm not saying don't bother. You're doing an excellent job of clearly breaking things down. It's of course very important to not only have science figure out the best course but to find the best way for the rest of us to understand it.

You don't want a pile of cut off arms in the village after the vaccination!

Great post again.
Edited on 15-09-2019 19:21
15-09-2019 22:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
VernerHornung wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
It is still an unknown value, otherwise known as speculation.

The number of people with flu is speculative, but the fact that more people have it on January 26 than in previous weeks is not.

No, it's speculative. It is not a fact. It is an argument.
VernerHornung wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
We don't know if the temp is rising. Remember, we only have a fair idea of the global mean temp?

We don't need the exact value of the global mean temp to know whether it's going up or down.

Yes you do.
VernerHornung wrote:
x + 1 > x.

This is true no matter what x is. Now suppose that f(x) is any monotone increasing function of x. Even if we don't know the value of x, we do know that

f(x + 1) > f(x).

You are describing absolute measurements and comparing them. Are are attempting a base rate fallacy again.
VernerHornung wrote:
The only thing the weatherwomen need to prove is that the weighted average of their temperature figures,

Use English. It works much better.
Data is not a proof. Cooking data is not allowed in statistical math. Selection MUST be by randN.
VernerHornung wrote:
f(x), is a monotone function of the true average temperature x.

A function is not data. Neither is it a measurement. You are attempting to describe a function as data. Redefinition fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
It's unlikely that with 7500 land stations and thousands of ships plying the seas, the areas not covered by these instruments are magically cooler to compensate for the warming the instruments observe.

How unlikely? Math error. Failure to select by randN. Failure to show raw data. Failure to remove biasing influences. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to declare variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to declare dataset.
VernerHornung wrote:
Thermal radiation measurements from satellites aren't wont to go up if the Earth's cooling down.

They can do anything. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not static either.
VernerHornung wrote:
The error you're talking about would matter if we had very little data,

We have very little data.
VernerHornung wrote:
or if all our data came from one portion of the Earth.

It all comes from one a few portions of the Earth. Further, it was not read at the same time. Time is significant. Its effects MUST be eliminated. Location grouping is significant. It's effects MUST be eliminated.
VernerHornung wrote:
But we have lots of data, well spread around our planet.

Nope.
VernerHornung wrote:
My single doubt is about whether climate models forecast the future accurately,

Models don't forecast anything. Computers only spit out the numbers they are told to spit out.
VernerHornung wrote:
as knowledge of paleoclimates and natural forcings

Buzzword fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
remains provisional.

Remains meaningless buzzwords.
VernerHornung wrote:
We can even ask whether the temp hike since 1850 might be due to natural causes, and I do.

What temperature hike? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth in 1850 or even today.
VernerHornung wrote:
Yet the hike itself is real,

Define 'real'.
VernerHornung wrote:
and because CO2 is known (Svante Arrhenius, 1896) to force temps up other things being equal,

Ah. Abusing this poor fellow's name again. No, dude. The laws of thermodynamics falsified this particular theory of Arrhenius. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
VernerHornung wrote:
it's a suspect in crime good enough for any cop.

Cops don't enforce the laws of physics. You are simply denying them.
VernerHornung wrote:
A quarter of the CO2 now overhead has appeared in my lifetime

How do you know? It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content.
VernerHornung wrote:
while we've pumped fumes skyward.

CO2 is a gas, not a fume. It naturally occurs in the atmosphere. I assure you, no pumps are being used.
VernerHornung wrote:
And it's been measured with high precision atop Mauna Loa,

WRONG. Mauna Loa data is cooked. It's useless.
VernerHornung wrote:
a high, unpolluted place,

It is polluted. It sits atop a range of active volcanoes that put out varying amounts of CO2. It is surrounded by increasing development on the island, which puts out increasing levels of CO2. It is surrounded by the sea, which contains a large amount of plankton, which destroys CO2. CO2 also dissolves in water.
VernerHornung wrote:
since 1957-58's International Geophysical Year.

In other words, 1957 AD of our Lord Jesus Christ.

No, Mauna Loa has never been able to record the global atmospheric CO2 content.
CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.
VernerHornung wrote:
There's even a seasonal jiggle, low in northern hemisphere fall after plants have absorbed a lot of CO2, high in spring when the plants have been dead overwinter.

Again, CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.
VernerHornung wrote:
The southern hemisphere has less land, fewer plants, and doesn't counteract the dominant north.

It has the sea. The sea has plankton.
VernerHornung wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
What's real is that there is no way to heat a warmer surface with a cooler gas.

The gases do not heat the surface. They impede loss of heat from the surface by exchanging radiant energy with it.

* You cannot slow or trap heat.
* You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
* You cannot say heat is not heat. You are locking yourself in paradox.
VernerHornung wrote:
Not all energy flows are heat, only those caused by temperature difference are.

WRONG. Heat is the movement of thermal energy, period.
VernerHornung wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody radiation from, or absorption by, a given surface occur regardless of the temperatures other surfaces in the universe lie at.

True, and Irrelevant.
VernerHornung wrote:
Yup. You, in winter blast, emit photons toward the hot sun if outdoors on a sunny day, and the sun absorbs them, impeding a bit of its heat loss.

* You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one.
* You cannot slow or trap heat.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
That requires absolute measurements.

No, it doesn't, as I explained above.

Yes it does. Your explanation was about absolute measurements.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No, that's called a base rate fallacy, and is a math error as well as a logic error, stemming from a false equivalence.

It's not a fallacy.

It is a fallacy. It is a variation of a void argument fallacy, in that the reference is not stated but is simply used as if it were. In other words, you are using a void for a reference.
VernerHornung wrote:
Base rate fallacies arise when something that's rare suddenly doubles and people freak out.

Nope. Base rate fallacies are the use of a void reference as a reference point. No freak-out necessary.
VernerHornung wrote:
Or when it's common, and people freak out over minor fluctuations.

No freak-out necessary.
VernerHornung wrote:
While a 1 Kelvin change in the Earth's roughly 300K absolute temperature is pretty small, 0.3%, it's enough to matter.

Irrelevant.
VernerHornung wrote:
Were it to go up 20% we'd have a nearly sterile planet.

Irrelevant.
VernerHornung wrote:

Are the lumps in this noisy, contrast-biased Venera 9 image rocks?

Yes. Irrelevant.
VernerHornung wrote:
The problem you're considering is either noise in the data or systematic bias introduced as data collection methodology changes. I concede both of these are possible, and that's why I don't subscribe to the panic mentality around climate change.
VernerHornung wrote:
But the deniers ostrich their heads into the sand

Ostriches don't put their heads in the sand, not even when threatened. It is YOU that is denying science and mathematics here.
VernerHornung wrote:
at what that looks too plausible to warrant neglect.

Denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and denying statistical mathematics is NOT a plausible argument.

You can't even DEFINE 'global warming' or 'climate change'.
VernerHornung wrote:
I'm not gonna second-guess the folks at NCAR Boulder who spend their careers on the subject,

I don't 2nd guess. I will simply challenge anyone that denies these theories of science or mathematics, no matter who they are.
VernerHornung wrote:
very lefties they be, in favor of a retired engineer who's become a right-wing pundit online.

Bulverism fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
You can't use cooked data in statistical math.

Yes, you can,

No, you can't. The summary has no yet been run! Circular argument fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
if you keep in mind the uncertainties inherent in cooking.

Irrelevant. Circular argument fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
Herrnstein & Murray had no trouble using factor analysis to get IQ data

IQ is not data. It is a meaningless number. It is randU.
VernerHornung wrote:
from widely variant US studies and from Africa to support a conclusion that whites and Asians are smarter than blacks—

In this case, to justify racism.
VernerHornung wrote:
which may well be true despite PC's psychologists excoriating The Bell Curve.

The bell curve is irrelevant. Racism is racism. It is a compositional error fallacy involving people as the class and a genetic trait as the property.
VernerHornung wrote:
After all, notwithstanding the social construction of race and the disparate environmental experience, the groups are genetically distinct from one another.

Racism, We are ALL genetically distinct from one another, dude.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Selection MUST be by randN, and the RAW data MUST be available for inspection.

Then you can simply reject use of stats altogether.

WRONG. The conditions are specified. You can't change them or ignore them.
VernerHornung wrote:
Totally random sampling is impossible in the real world.

WRONG. It is possible and is done. You are now denying probability and random number mathematics as well.
VernerHornung wrote:
The raw datasets, meanwhile, are open to your inspection if you want to download them.

Insufficient data. Biasing influences are in this data. It's useless.

Time is significant. Readings MUST be taken at the same time under the same authority.
Location grouping is significant. Thermometers MUST be uniformly distributed.

Using biased data only produces a biased summary and no useful margin of error. Useless.
VernerHornung wrote:
It'll be a mess to keep you busy 'til 2595.

No, I reject it for the reasons described.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Further, statistics is not capable of prediction.

You mean correlation isn't causation, and I already know that.

No, I mean statistics is not capable of prediction.
VernerHornung wrote:
And nobody can predict the future.

YOU are trying, by using statistics and bad math.
VernerHornung wrote:
I already know that, too.

Apparently you don't. You are lying.
VernerHornung wrote:
Didn't stop Glenn Beck's monologues on the imminent demise of the USA that waxed so weary Roger Ailes dismissed him from Fox.

Irrelevant.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperatures, which are absolutely necessary to describe a trend of any kind.

Satellites can estimate them.

No, they can't. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
VernerHornung wrote:
If you insist on putting a tiny thermometer on every cubic millimeter in the cosmos to obtain the assurance you desire, not much I can do to help you.

Again, you deny the declaration of variance and the calculation of the margin of error. Math error. Extreme argument fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
All decisions are made with incomplete data,

WRONG. Many decisions do not require the use of data at all. Remember, data is not a proof.
VernerHornung wrote:
or with proxy variables believed causally related to phenomena one can't measure directly.

Use of proxy data results in leaping to a conclusion. That's a fallacy. Proxy data is not used in science.
VernerHornung wrote:
Think about it when approaching an ATM at night and a shifty fella with a bulge in his pocket is hanging around.

How do you know he's shifty?
VernerHornung wrote:
You retreat to your car and leave.

If someone is hanging around an ATM at night for no apparent reason, that's enough for me.
VernerHornung wrote:
But the guy's almost harmless, statistically speaking,

No, he is hanging around an ATM at night for no apparent reason.
VernerHornung wrote:
so we've a choice based on much less evidence than available for climate change.

Define 'climate change'. A guy hanging around an ATM at night for no apparent reason is definable. 'Climate change' is not.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Irrelevant, and a stupid unconstitutional law. Thanks, Nixon.

Forum topic's climate change, not constitutional law.

Then why did you bring it up??!?
VernerHornung wrote:
I've already ventured farther into politics than I should have.

The Church of Global Warming is political in nature, because it is trying to become a state religion.
VernerHornung wrote:
Nixon had sense to realize energy was becoming a matter of concern.

Even though it wasn't? Doesn't sound like much sense to me. Of course, Nixon was a particularly strange individual.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Got to fan the faith of the religious mob, you know.

Topic's not religion, either.

Yes it is. The Church of Global Warming is a religion.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
* You cannot create energy out of nothing. (1st law of thermodynamics)
* You cannot trap heat. (1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics)
* You cannot trap light. (Planck's law)
...
...

(plus 55 lines of blather not quoted here)

Denying science again?
VernerHornung wrote:
Take it up with the folks at NCAR. Tell them why their models are bunkum.

I have better things to do then argue with twits at NCAR. Their models are broken.
VernerHornung wrote:
If you do, then I'll read you on physics.

Try English. It works better.
VernerHornung wrote:
Energy is a concept anyway,

So is matter.
VernerHornung wrote:
a conserved quantity by definition, with no known counterexamples to militate against relying on it to date.

Hey. There's that falsifiable theory of science again!
VernerHornung wrote:
Heat is flow of energy between system and environment due to a difference of temperature, also by definition;

WRONG. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, period.
VernerHornung wrote:
of course you can't trap it—it's flowing, and would stop flowing if trapped, negating our definition of heat.

So why are you trying to trap it? Which is it, dude?
VernerHornung wrote:
Light is absorbed and changes to some other form of energy if halted;

No, it is not halted. It is DESTROYED.
VernerHornung wrote:
it can only move at speed c per Maxwell. We all know that already.

Then why are you arguing otherwise? Which is it, dude?
VernerHornung wrote:
None of this stuff, which you post everywhere, tells me why we should discard the published science.

Yet YOU are discarding the published science.
VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
For knowing that Venus is hotter than Mercury it's not.

Ja. It was blatant:

No, it is not. We do not know the temperature of either planet.


The Parrot Killer
15-09-2019 22:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
tmiddles wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Satellites are incapable of measuring...

Satellites can estimate them. If you insist on putting a tiny thermometer on every cubic millimeter in the cosmos to obtain the assurance you desire, not much I can do to help you.

Just FYI Verner, I really tried with Into the Night and IBdaMann on this board and neither EVER affirmed that any data/experiment/example of any kind was useable in the 5 years they've been here. EVERYTHING is unknown according to them. Good example here (thorough study of skin's emissivity dismissed by ITN):

Making up data is not data, dude. You can't measure emissivity that way.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm not saying don't bother. You're doing an excellent job of clearly breaking things down.

Nah. He's just making the same kind of mistakes you have.
tmiddles wrote:
It's of course very important to not only have science figure out the best course

Science doesn't figure out council. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. A theory is an explanatory argument.
tmiddles wrote:
but to find the best way for the rest of us to understand it.

You don't want to understand it. You want to deny it.
tmiddles wrote:
Great post again.

Only because it supports your religion.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2019 09:48
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
IBdaMann wrote:
...Oh yeah, I met a person who has doubt about any of the Global Warming crap being real. Conclusion: Doubt exists about Global Warming being real.

Three blokes doubted. Ninety-seven did not.
Conclusion: substantial unanimity.

tmiddles wrote:
...It's of course very important to not only have science figure out the best course but to find the best way for the rest of us to understand it. You don't want a pile of cut off arms in the village after the vaccination!

You're onto the white coats doing a bum job of parsing this so nonscientists get the gist. Climate change jargon's confusing. It's gotten us Extinction Rebellion hourglass flags where I don't recall anything went extinct in the ice-free Cretaceous 'til the asteroid blew the dinos away.

With ideologues mixed up in it, in USA we've a Green New Deal (H. Res. 109, 116th Congress) of healthcare, housing, Indigenous people, reparations for historical wrongs and "community-defined solutions" having little to do with energy production and use, the things we must control if emissions are to drop. Bad vaccine reaction in the works indeed. Having communities define the solutions is the worst course; every town will enact a policy at cross-purposes with the next town in that case. Energy really is a national affair.

Never thought I'd find myself pining for Nixon, Ford and Carter in 2019.
~


tmiddles wrote:Good example here (thorough study of skin's emissivity dismissed by ITN)...

Notice that thread's up to 201 posts, a sure sign of plague, and ITN splashed a piece on conduction in the midst:

Into the Night wrote (p. 1, August 28, 2019 21:06 UT):
Hey! Look at that! The test subject's skin temperature is the same as the room! The only heat is to heat the air in the room. You [tmiddles] are ignoring conduction completely.

https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference--d10-e2769.php

Yet if skin's same as ambient air, no heat at all and therefore no conduction. ITN may be thinking of the continuous temperature gradient in a frying pan conducting heat from the burner, where point P in the handle is very nearly isothermal with the point P + 1μm farther out. But if so, she (or he) should have mentioned the higher temperature beneath the skin providing the gradient. I'm under the impression skin's usually warmer than the 70˚F indoor air, say 85 or 90 whereupon it radiates directly to the walls. The air—conduction & convection—need not enter a whit here, though perforce any oldster who's shivered in a 70˚ room knows they do, because that leather's warmer than the air after all.
~


I won't reply there, as the load of self-contradiction ITN-style feels too heavy. Thermodynamics is a tough subject grad students regularly flail in, and one I don't claim encyclopedic authority on. But thanks again; you've marked the chitchat on it as an instance of idiocy way after the Clean Air Act.
~


---

Into the Night wrote:
You are describing absolute measurements and comparing them. Are are attempting a base rate fallacy again.

Oh, dearie! Can't butt heads on your novel-length list of points, so I'll respond to a select few. I'm not describing absolute measurements on this one; I'm describing a property of any monotone function f(x). It's familiar to any student who's had first-semester calculus. The graphs of such functions always rise from lower left to upper right and never jag back downward.

And "are are?" ~




A base-rate conundrum would bollux only if the slope of f(x) is very steep or nearly flat, which the weather station and satellite data are not. All values are within 1% or so of Kelvins of one another, with a smooth upward progression over time, strongly suggesting x is monotone smooth over t and f(x) monotone smooth over x.

Into the Night wrote:
Use English. It works much better.

Ahh...here you admonish me to use 20th century "weathermen," and then go on to slap the race card, and our Lord Jesus Christ (who was probably born between 10 and 2 BCE, knocking Gregorian slightly out of kilter), on the baize (next item, below). But I chose "weatherwomen" to note that female forecasters exist. English is gendered, like all other languages.

Into the Night wrote:
How unlikely? Math error. Failure to select by randN. Failure to show raw data. Failure to remove biasing influences. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to declare variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to declare dataset... Irrelevant... Irrelevant... Irrelevant.

Now you're sounding like my computer when it's mad at me. I grew up when "computer" meant consoles and tape drives the size of washing machines in a special, air-conditioned room, and slide rules were still in vogue. I've trouble computing the private vocabulary randN and randU you resort to every other comment. "error message gibberish," I tell the oracle. I don't know which dataset you're requesting, or what the second moments of its random variables might be; those are likely in the IPCC documents' references.

By now I'm sure you're aware I've decided to trust the climatologists did those calculations properly so I don't have to. 69-year brains lose a lot of the math they held when 24. I hope you'll pardon me for not trying to reinvent wheels as I read.

Finally, I've gotta dispense with the racism charges:

Into the Night wrote:
The bell curve is irrelevant. Racism is racism. It is a compositional error fallacy involving people as the class and a genetic trait as the property.


Uhh... fallacy of composition is assuming that true of a part is true of the whole and I claimed no genetic trait, only that the genomes differ. The class is the social construct of race I mentioned above, sorting US residents into white, black, Native American, Alaska Native, Asian, or Pacific Islander by race and Latino/Hispanic or non by ethnicity. Most Latinos are white. In 2010, the Census Bureau allowed respondents to pick two or more categories; racial-ethnic group is by self-identification.

We agree Herrnstein, Jensen, Murray and Spearman's g from 1904 are all racist. Yet "racist" is both label and ideology, and I chose The Bell Curve as example specifically for that reason—a politically controversial, and politically supervised, topic in which some questions cannot be asked and some research cannot be done. H & M turned to the Heritage Foundation after the universities refused them. As ideology, racism is the belief that one race (socially constructed) is superior to the others in a physical, mental or moral sense. As label, it's what whacks you whenever your utterances discomfit the Millennial woke.

The Bell Curve docked larded with 1990s conservative views and jump-overs on comparability. The geometric shapes, colors and numerals WAIS and WISC billboard to the test-taker presume a background where playing with such abstractions is encouraged in school. Blacks in school or in Africa may have been directed—by environmental imperatives—to attend to the concrete instead. This penalizes them when they're tested.

Then we have the meaning of "smarter," exhibit in my post, possibly conflated with scores on the WAIS or WISC, the operational definition for the IQ construct. Yet at the same time, group mean scores on this task differ, and the groups are genetically distinct. We've to assess the relative contributions genes and environment make to IQ. Personally, given verisimilar brain anatomy, I think environment matters more. Zambian thatch-roof schoolrooms teaching what kids need to know in Zambia aren't the same as Wyoming's. Still, brains evolved in Africa may be optimized for different intellectual tasks than those modified in Europe. Thus genes in exam as well.

Analogy to climate change is global mean temperature being influenced by natural versus anthropogenic causes, where again, some questions cannot be asked and some research cannot be done. Truth is relative and uncertain in any such quiz. That's what bothers me about the issue.

[quote][ September 14, 2019 21:10UT] Into the Night wrote:
A single molecule has a temperature, so why not? This is really just an instrumentation problem.

Almost forgot this, but what happened to the kinetic theory of gases? Temperature's a statistical property of bulk matter, not a property of individual molecules.

And before we dive deeper into the physics, here's a little thermodynamic paradox:



Bodies A and B are not perfectly black, that is, they're not cavity radiators. Each tends to emit at its own preferred wavelengths. They begin at the same temperature, and should therefore radiate equal energy toward one another. But interposition of a band pass filter selecting one of B's emission wavelengths dims A's emissions at this wavelength, causing A to accumulate more energy per unit time than B does, and therefore get hotter. If so, this violates the second law. What's wrong with the picture? Assume A and B constitute the universe.

Easy; no math required. I'll await your reply.
~



Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Edited on 16-09-2019 10:23
16-09-2019 11:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
...Oh yeah, I met a person who has doubt about any of the Global Warming crap being real. Conclusion: Doubt exists about Global Warming being real.

Three blokes doubted. Ninety-seven did not.
Conclusion: substantial unanimity.

Argument of ignorance fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
...It's of course very important to not only have science figure out the best course but to find the best way for the rest of us to understand it. You don't want a pile of cut off arms in the village after the vaccination!

You're onto the white coats doing a bum job of parsing this so nonscientists get the gist. Climate change jargon's confusing.

Appeal to complexity fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. Define 'climate change'.
VernerHornung wrote:
It's gotten us Extinction Rebellion hourglass flags where I don't recall anything went extinct in the ice-free Cretaceous 'til the asteroid blew the dinos away.

Perhaps because you weren't there to observe anything.
VernerHornung wrote:
With ideologues mixed up in it, in USA we've a Green New Deal (H. Res. 109, 116th Congress) of healthcare, housing, Indigenous people, reparations for historical wrongs and "community-defined solutions" having little to do with energy production and use, the things we must control if emissions are to drop. Bad vaccine reaction in the works indeed. Having communities define the solutions is the worst course; every town will enact a policy at cross-purposes with the next town in that case. Energy really is a national affair.

No. Energy is a free market. Nothing any government or you can do will change that. Free markets are immortal, even if you drive them underground, they are still there. See your local drug dealer for details.
VernerHornung wrote:
Never thought I'd find myself pining for Nixon, Ford and Carter in 2019.
~

Why? Do you want them to repeat their mistakes?
VernerHornung wrote:
I won't reply there, as the load of self-contradiction ITN-style feels too heavy. Thermodynamics is a tough subject grad students regularly flail in,

There is no contradiction. Appeal to complexity fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
and one I don't claim encyclopedic authority on.

You don't need to memorize any encyclopedia. Appeal to complexity fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You are describing absolute measurements and comparing them. Are are attempting a base rate fallacy again.

Oh, dearie! Can't butt heads on your novel-length list of points,

I know.
VernerHornung wrote:
so I'll respond to a select few. I'm not describing absolute measurements on this one;

Yes you are.
VernerHornung wrote:
I'm describing a property of any monotone function f(x).

No, you are describing absolute measurements, not a function at all.
VernerHornung wrote:
It's familiar to any student who's had first-semester calculus.

Buzzword fallacy. This has nothing to do with calculus.
VernerHornung wrote:
The graphs of such functions always rise from lower left to upper right and never jag back downward.
...deleted irrelevant images...

Not a function. You are describing absolute measurements.
VernerHornung wrote:
A base-rate conundrum would bollux only if the slope of f(x) is very steep or nearly flat,

WRONG. Redirection fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (baserate<->function, function<->absolute measurement). Base rate fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
which the weather station and satellite data are not.

Compositional error fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature.
VernerHornung wrote:
All values are within 1% or so of Kelvins of one another,

Irrelevant.
VernerHornung wrote:
with a smooth upward progression over time, strongly suggesting x is monotone smooth over t and f(x) monotone smooth over x.

Base rate fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Use English. It works much better.

Ahh...here you admonish me to use 20th century "weathermen," and then go on to slap the race card, and our Lord Jesus Christ (who was probably born between 10 and 2 BCE, knocking Gregorian slightly out of kilter), on the baize (next item, below). But I chose "weatherwomen" to note that female forecasters exist. English is gendered, like all other languages.

Try English. It works better. False equivalence fallacy. Divisional error fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
How unlikely? Math error. Failure to select by randN. Failure to show raw data. Failure to remove biasing influences. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to declare variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to declare dataset... Irrelevant... Irrelevant... Irrelevant.

Now you're sounding like my computer when it's mad at me.

Stop making errors, I won't call you on them.
VernerHornung wrote:
I grew up when "computer" meant consoles and tape drives the size of washing machines in a special, air-conditioned room, and slide rules were still in vogue.

Irrelevance fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
I've trouble computing the private vocabulary randN and randU you resort to every other comment.

This has been explained before, but not to you. It has nothing to do with computers. The terms come from random number mathematics. To be brief:

randR is the random number associated with dice. The number can be repeated any number of times or occur not at all in a given sequence. It has no memory.

randN is the random number associated with a deck of cards. It has a memory. Once a card is pulled, it cannot be pulled again until a reset event occurs (such as a shuffle).

randU is the 'predictable' random number. These are numbers just pulled out of the air by someone, or an algorithm that does the same thing. randU is often used to embellish an argument by using it as 'data'. To use this kind of number this way is a fallacy.

VernerHornung wrote:
"error message gibberish," I tell the oracle.

No, they are real fallacies. Fallacies are errors in logic, just as an arithmetic error is an error in mathematics. Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.
VernerHornung wrote:
I don't know which dataset you're requesting,

See the Data Mine thread for my requirements to consider data to be possibly valid. In addition, a dataset used in a statistical summary must also be unbiased, must contain ONLY raw data (no cooked data allowed), and must have a definable boundary.
VernerHornung wrote:
or what the second moments of its random variables might be;

Word salad. Try English. It works better.
VernerHornung wrote:
those are likely in the IPCC documents' references.

I don't pay much attention to IPCC propaganda. It's a waste of time.
VernerHornung wrote:
By now I'm sure you're aware I've decided to trust the climatologists did those calculations properly

What calculations? Void argument fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
so I don't have to. 69-year brains lose a lot of the math they held when 24.

Frankly, I don't think you learned it at 24 either.
VernerHornung wrote:
I hope you'll pardon me for not trying to reinvent wheels as I read.

Meaningless sentence for context. Try English. It works better.
VernerHornung wrote:
Finally, I've gotta dispense with the racism charges:

Good luck.
Into the Night wrote:
The bell curve is irrelevant. Racism is racism. It is a compositional error fallacy involving people as the class and a genetic trait as the property.


Uhh... fallacy of composition is assuming that true of a part is true of the whole[/quote]
No. A compositional error is applying a property of some elements across all elements or across the entire class. If the class involved is people, that is bigotry. If the property is a genetic trait, that is racism. Both are compositional error fallacies.
VernerHornung wrote:
and I claimed no genetic trait,

Yes you did.
VernerHornung wrote:
only that the genomes differ.

No. You used genetic traits in a racist manner.
VernerHornung wrote:
The class is the social construct of race I mentioned above, sorting US residents into white, black, Native American, Alaska Native, Asian, or Pacific Islander by race and Latino/Hispanic or non by ethnicity. Most Latinos are white.

You did it again.
VernerHornung wrote:
In 2010, the Census Bureau allowed respondents to pick two or more categories; racial-ethnic group is by self-identification.

Irrelevant. The government does not define logic.
VernerHornung wrote:
We agree Herrnstein, Jensen, Murray and Spearman's g from 1904 are all racist. Yet "racist" is both label and ideology,

No, it is a compositional error fallacy involving people as the class and a genetic trait as the property.
VernerHornung wrote:
and I chose The Bell Curve as example specifically for that reason—

Irrelevance fallacy. Paired randR has nothing to do with compositional error fallacies.
VernerHornung wrote:
a politically controversial, and politically supervised, topic in which some questions cannot be asked and some research cannot be done.

Irrelevance fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
H & M turned to the Heritage Foundation after the universities refused them.

Irrelevance fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
As ideology, racism is the belief that one race (socially constructed) is superior to the others in a physical, mental or moral sense.

Racism can and is used that way, but it occurs even when one race is not considered superior or inferior.
VernerHornung wrote:
As label, it's what whacks you whenever your utterances discomfit the Millennial woke.

Word salad. Try English. It works better.
VernerHornung wrote:
The Bell Curve docked larded with 1990s conservative views and jump-overs on comparability.

Word salad. Try English. It works better.
VernerHornung wrote:
The geometric shapes, colors and numerals WAIS and WISC billboard to the test-taker presume a background where playing with such abstractions is encouraged in school. Blacks in school or in Africa may have been directed—by environmental imperatives—to attend to the concrete instead. This penalizes them when they're tested.

IQ tests and IQ numbers are meaningless.
VernerHornung wrote:
Then we have the meaning of "smarter," exhibit in my post, possibly conflated with scores on the WAIS or WISC, the operational definition for the IQ construct.

IQ does not indicate who is smarter or dumber. Bigotry.
VernerHornung wrote:
Yet at the same time, group mean scores on this task differ, and the groups are genetically distinct.

Racism.
VernerHornung wrote:
We've to assess the relative contributions genes and environment make to IQ.

False authority fallacy. Bigotry. Racism.
VernerHornung wrote:
Personally, given verisimilar brain anatomy, I think environment matters more.

Bigotry. False authority fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
Zambian thatch-roof schoolrooms teaching what kids need to know in Zambia aren't the same as Wyoming's.

Irrelevance fallacy. False authority fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
Still, brains evolved in Africa may be optimized for different intellectual tasks than those modified in Europe. Thus genes in exam as well.

Racism.
VernerHornung wrote:
Analogy to climate change is global mean temperature being influenced by natural versus anthropogenic causes,

Define 'climate change'. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
VernerHornung wrote:
where again, some questions cannot be asked and some research cannot be done.

Redefinition fallacy (data<->research).
VernerHornung wrote:
Truth is relative and uncertain in any such quiz.

Redefinition fallacy (True<->question). Try English. It works better.
VernerHornung wrote:
That's what bothers me about the issue.

Void argument fallacy. What issue?
VernerHornung wrote:
[quote][ September 14, 2019 21:10UT] Into the Night wrote:
A single molecule has a temperature, so why not? This is really just an instrumentation problem.

Almost forgot this, but what happened to the kinetic theory of gases?

Nothing.
VernerHornung wrote:
Temperature's a statistical property of bulk matter, not a property of individual molecules.

Temperature can be in a single molecule. An average of a single molecule is the molecule itself.
VernerHornung wrote:
And before we dive deeper into the physics, here's a little thermodynamic paradox:



Bodies A and B are not perfectly black, that is, they're not cavity radiators. Each tends to emit at its own preferred wavelengths. They begin at the same temperature, and should therefore radiate equal energy toward one another. But interposition of a band pass filter selecting one of B's emission wavelengths dims A's emissions at this wavelength, causing A to accumulate more energy per unit time than B does, and therefore get hotter. If so, this violates the second law. What's wrong with the picture? Assume A and B constitute the universe.

Easy; no math required. I'll await your reply.

1) There is frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
2) You are describing a variation of Maxwell's Demon. The bandpass filter is an attempt to modify the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2019 11:14
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Into the Night wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
Heat is flow of energy between system and environment due to a difference of temperature

WRONG. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, period.

RIGHT. Quote from book: "Heat is energy that flows between a system and its environment because of a temperature difference between them."

Physics
Halliday & Resnick, 5th ed., p. 517 (p. 533 of pdf)
Internet Archive
https://ia802901.us.archive.org/32/items/KraneResnickAndHallidayPhysics5thEd.Vol.1/Krane%2C%20Resnick%20and%20Halliday%20-%20Physics%20%285th%20ed.%29%20Vol.%201.pdf

Just to let you know I'm not lying to you.
~


Into the Night wrote:
Free markets are immortal.

Free markets had a birthdate, a timepoint before which they did not exist. And they may see an end, a date after which they will no longer exist. Endless population and consumption growth ala Julian Simon, the progression you seem to enjoy, renders that denouement more likely.
~


Into the Night wrote:
...variation of Maxwell's demon...

Maxwell's demon is the size of an atom. The bandpass filter is macroscopic, and you can buy one at a photography buffs' store. The answer is that the bandpass filter itself, as a macroscopic object, also emits radiation toward body B, and body A radiates toward the bandpass filter at other than Lambda zero for indirect conveyance toward B. See? No math, no quantum mechanics.
~



Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Edited on 16-09-2019 11:54
16-09-2019 13:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
VernerHornung wrote:Maxwell's demon is the size of an atom.

Incorrect. Maxwell's demon is exactly the size required for the given thought experiment.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-09-2019 13:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
...Oh yeah, I met a person who has doubt about any of the Global Warming crap being real. Conclusion: Doubt exists about Global Warming being real.

Three blokes doubted. Ninety-seven did not.
Conclusion: substantial unanimity.

You obviously failed Logic 101.

Your belief was obviously handed to you and is based on the idea that there is no doubt. Upon realizing there is, in fact, doubt you should therefore realize that the belief you were handed is FALSE. Instead, you amazingly conclude "substantial unanimity" which isn't a truth value but rather religious dogma.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-09-2019 19:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
Heat is flow of energy between system and environment due to a difference of temperature

WRONG. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, period.

RIGHT. Quote from book: "Heat is energy that flows between a system and its environment because of a temperature difference between them."

Physics
Halliday & Resnick, 5th ed., p. 517 (p. 533 of pdf)
Internet Archive
https://ia802901.us.archive.org/32/items/KraneResnickAndHallidayPhysics5thEd.Vol.1/Krane%2C%20Resnick%20and%20Halliday%20-%20Physics%20%285th%20ed.%29%20Vol.%201.pdf

Just to let you know I'm not lying to you.
~

The book is correct, but not precise. It is not a legal document. Don't treat it like one. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, period.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Free markets are immortal.

Free markets had a birthdate, a timepoint before which they did not exist. And they may see an end, a date after which they will no longer exist. Endless population and consumption growth ala Julian Simon, the progression you seem to enjoy, renders that denouement more likely.
~

How do you know? Were you there?
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
...variation of Maxwell's demon...

Maxwell's demon is the size of an atom. The bandpass filter is macroscopic, and you can buy one at a photography buffs' store. The answer is that the bandpass filter itself, as a macroscopic object, also emits radiation toward body B, and body A radiates toward the bandpass filter at other than Lambda zero for indirect conveyance toward B. See? No math, no quantum mechanics.
~


Maxwell's demon has no size. The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no frequency term. You are attempting to change it by inserting one.


The Parrot Killer
RE: Disabled by glitches17-09-2019 05:09
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Into the Night wrote:
Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.

In 1931, Kurt Gödel proved that neither logic nor mathematics is a closed system. There are undecidable theorems in any system extensive enough to describe arithmetic. Gödel's proof was reasonably short and elementary, leading us to wonder why it took so long to dethrone Frege and his vision of a closed mathematics. An instance of undecidability is the Turing machine. We don't know whether a Turing machine will stop if given an arbitrary input tape, and per Gödel incompleteness, we'll never know.

To resolve an undecidable, if one wishes to do so, requires introducing new axioms to the system. The resulting system then has undecidable theorems of its own, and you introduce more axioms again, but to no avail, as every axiom you add just creates more undecidable theorems. Thus systems expand forever.

IBdaMann wrote:
Maxwell's demon is exactly the size required for the given thought experiment.

Ja. Big enough to open and shut a valve that lets one molecule at a time pass to the side of a divided compartment of initially equithermal gas he wants to heat up. He opens for the faster-moving molecules on the side he wants to cool, or the slower-moving ones on the side he wants to heat. Alas, not to be, no matter how big he is.

IBdaMann wrote:
You obviously failed Logic 101.

Ja. When I chose to come on this forum and argue with you fellas.
~




Into the Night wrote:
The book is correct, but not precise. It is not a legal document. Don't treat it like one. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, period.

It's better than legal, as in physics the law itself punishes you if you step over the parapet of a high rooftop—no cops at all. Thermal energy is just any energy that will flow to a cooler body given a difference of temperature. No more, no less. As you seem eager to ignore differences of temperature, I'm gonna harp on it again. I like the 2nd edition of 1981 better, however. It ran only 870 pages and made every word in its crisp definitions count. And to avoid confusing the student, it never mentioned thermal energy, just difference of temperature and heat. The internal state of the system is unimportant for thermodynamic laws.
~


Into the Night wrote:
How do you know? Were you there?

Do you believe George Washington camped his troops at Valley Forge winter 1777-78? I'm sure you do, though you weren't there at that time. Don't worry. I believe it, too, thanks to writing's ability to preserve memory past human lifespan. The emergence of free markets beginning in the philosophy of John Locke circa 1690 is well-documented. England and Scotland had lots of guilds and lords of the manor and other kinds of unfree distribution in medieval days.

Into the Night wrote:
IQ does not indicate who is smarter or dumber.

And that's what I acknowledged, placing "smarter" in quotes to indicate its possible disconnect with IQ on the WAIS and WISC. Nevertheless, Spearman's g correlates with performance on a wide variety of real-life tasks. We speak of "dumb" football players, yet college and pro athletes score higher on IQ than similarly beefy guys not on the gridiron. Smarts matters in contact sports.

Meanwhile, you decline to acknowledge I take IQ and Bell Curve and climate change prognoses with healthy doses of skepticism. These are Brazil nuts when it comes to getting X --> Y consequents. I don't follow PC on either, and if that means someone labels me bigot, I shake it off. The smarts are there, or they're not, and no amount of Critical Race Theory discourse can make it otherwise. Fancy postmodernism, where reality, like happiness in Albert Finney's Scrooge, is whatever you want it to be.

Into the Night wrote:
False authority fallacy. Bigotry. Racism. Bigotry. False authority fallacy. Racism. Bigotry. Racism. Bigotry. Racism. Bigotry. Racism...

"Oops! Computer in Social Work's down, Tashawn."

Into the Night wrote:
Void argument fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (data<->research). Void argument fallacy. Irrelevance fallacy. Paired randR has nothing to do with compositional error fallacies. Irrelevance fallacy. Irrelevance. Irrelevance. Irrelevance...

"It's spreading, Jim! Philosophy's down, too! And Computer Science!"



Into the Night wrote:
Word salad. Try English. It works better... Word salad. Try English. It works better...

"Psychology's offline!"

"Allright, young 'uns, cut the power. We've gotta get those moths out of the motherboards again. Unless it's Stuxnet, returning to us from Iran's revolving centrifuges."

Arab oil. Persian oil. Venezuelan oil. Arab oil. Persian oil....
~


But thanks for telling me what randN, randR and randU mean. Selection with or without replacement, or pseudorandom number generated from a seed.
~



Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Edited on 17-09-2019 05:17
17-09-2019 06:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
VernerHornung wrote:In 1931, Kurt Gödel proved that neither logic nor mathematics is a closed system.

That is not what he proved. Read the theorem again.


VernerHornung wrote:Gödel's proof was reasonably short and elementary, leading us to wonder why it took so long to dethrone Frege and his vision of a closed mathematics.

Kurt Gödel showed that mathematics is inherently incomplete, not that it is open.

Do you know why it's called the "incompleteness" theorem and not the "openness" theorem?

Would you like to take a guess?

VernerHornung wrote:An instance of undecidability is the Turing machine.

This is the halting problem of algorithms.

VernerHornung wrote:To resolve an undecidable, if one wishes to do so, requires introducing new axioms to the system. The resulting system then has undecidable theorems of its own, and you introduce more axioms again, but to no avail, as every axiom you add just creates more undecidable theorems. Thus systems expand forever.

Until you add axioms, the system is ... what?

Say it: The system is ... CLOSED

VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Maxwell's demon is exactly the size required for the given thought experiment.

Ja. Big enough to open and shut a valve that lets one molecule at a time pass to the side of a divided compartment of initially equithermal gas he wants to heat up. He opens for the faster-moving molecules on the side he wants to cool, or the slower-moving ones on the side he wants to heat.

That is just one instance of the demon. So the problem is merely that you do not understand the nature of the demon.

VernerHornung wrote:Thermal energy is just any energy that will flow to a cooler body given a difference of temperature. No more, no less. As you seem eager to ignore differences of temperature, I'm gonna harp on it again. I like the 2nd edition of 1981 better, however. It ran only 870 pages and made every word in its crisp definitions count. And to avoid confusing the student, it never mentioned thermal energy, just difference of temperature and heat. The internal state of the system is unimportant for thermodynamic laws.
~

Thank you. Please continue harping, however it is not Into the Night that is denying temperature differences; your grievance is with tmiddles.

VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
How do you know? Were you there?

Do you believe George Washington camped his troops at Valley Forge winter 1777-78?

As long as you acknowledge that you are firmly in the realm of beliefs and not in the realm of "what we know."

VernerHornung wrote:Meanwhile, you decline to acknowledge I take IQ and Bell Curve and climate change prognoses with healthy doses of skepticism.

Let's see. Do you believe in Greenhouse Effect?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-09-2019 08:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.

In 1931, Kurt Gödel proved that neither logic nor mathematics is a closed system. There are undecidable theorems in any system extensive enough to describe arithmetic. Gödel's proof was reasonably short and elementary, leading us to wonder why it took so long to dethrone Frege and his vision of a closed mathematics. An instance of undecidability is the Turing machine. We don't know whether a Turing machine will stop if given an arbitrary input tape, and per Gödel incompleteness, we'll never know.

To resolve an undecidable, if one wishes to do so, requires introducing new axioms to the system. The resulting system then has undecidable theorems of its own, and you introduce more axioms again, but to no avail, as every axiom you add just creates more undecidable theorems. Thus systems expand forever.

Nope. Mathematics is bound by its axioms. Logic is bound by its axioms. Neither can operate outside of those axioms.
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Maxwell's demon is exactly the size required for the given thought experiment.

Ja. Big enough to open and shut a valve that lets one molecule at a time pass to the side of a divided compartment of initially equithermal gas he wants to heat up. He opens for the faster-moving molecules on the side he wants to cool, or the slower-moving ones on the side he wants to heat. Alas, not to be, no matter how big he is.

There is no size.
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You obviously failed Logic 101.

Ja. When I chose to come on this forum and argue with you fellas.
~

Apparently.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The book is correct, but not precise. It is not a legal document. Don't treat it like one. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, period.

It's better than legal,

Nope. Not a legal document. It also not authoritative. The ONLY authoritative source for any theory of science are the authors of that theory.
VernerHornung wrote:
as in physics the law

Is not a law in the legal sense. They are theories, formalized into a closed system to gain the power of prediction. The resulting equation is called a 'law'. No theory is ever proven.
VernerHornung wrote:
itself punishes you if you step over the parapet of a high rooftop

Hang gliding is punishment?
VernerHornung wrote:
—no cops at all.

None necessary.
VernerHornung wrote:
Thermal energy is just any energy that will flow to a cooler body given a difference of temperature. No more, no less.

Nope. Only the movement of thermal energy.
VernerHornung wrote:
As you seem eager to ignore differences of temperature, I'm gonna harp on it again.

No, I am not. A difference of temperature may not result in heat at all, though it is necessary for heat to flow.
VernerHornung wrote:
I like the 2nd edition of 1981 better, however. It ran only 870 pages and made every word in its crisp definitions count.

False authority fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
And to avoid confusing the student, it never mentioned thermal energy, just difference of temperature and heat.

Irrelevant.
VernerHornung wrote:
The internal state of the system is unimportant for thermodynamic laws.

You are now locked in paradox. Which is it, dude?
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
How do you know? Were you there?

Do you believe George Washington camped his troops at Valley Forge winter 1777-78?

Yes. That is not, however, a proof.
VernerHornung wrote:
Don't worry. I believe it, too, thanks to writing's ability to preserve memory past human lifespan.

It is still not a proof. You are attempting to use a past unobserved event as a proof. Circular argument fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
The emergence of free markets beginning in the philosophy of John Locke circa 1690 is well-documented.

No. Free markets existed long before Locke!
VernerHornung wrote:
England and Scotland had lots of guilds and lords of the manor and other kinds of unfree distribution in medieval days.

England is not the world. Compositional error fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IQ does not indicate who is smarter or dumber.

And that's what I acknowledged, placing "smarter" in quotes to indicate its possible disconnect with IQ on the WAIS and WISC. Nevertheless, Spearman's g correlates with performance on a wide variety of real-life tasks. We speak of "dumb" football players, yet college and pro athletes score higher on IQ than similarly beefy guys not on the gridiron. Smarts matters in contact sports.

Bigotry.
VernerHornung wrote:
...random rant deleted...
Into the Night wrote:
False authority fallacy. Bigotry. Racism. Bigotry. False authority fallacy. Racism. Bigotry. Racism. Bigotry. Racism. Bigotry. Racism...

"Oops! Computer in Social Work's down, Tashawn."

Into the Night wrote:
Void argument fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (data<->research). Void argument fallacy. Irrelevance fallacy. Paired randR has nothing to do with compositional error fallacies. Irrelevance fallacy. Irrelevance. Irrelevance. Irrelevance...

"It's spreading, Jim! Philosophy's down, too! And Computer Science!"

Into the Night wrote:
Word salad. Try English. It works better... Word salad. Try English. It works better...

"Psychology's offline!"

"Allright, young 'uns, cut the power. We've gotta get those moths out of the motherboards again. Unless it's Stuxnet, returning to us from Iran's revolving centrifuges."

Arab oil. Persian oil. Venezuelan oil. Arab oil. Persian oil....
~


Stop making errors, and I won't call you on them.
VernerHornung wrote:
But thanks for telling me what randN, randR and randU mean. Selection with or without replacement, or pseudorandom number generated from a seed.
~


WRONG. No seed required for any type of random number.


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2019 15:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
As long as we have a subthread about terminology, I'll be more than happy to jump in.

Into the Night wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
But thanks for telling me what randN, randR and randU mean. Selection with or without replacement, or pseudorandom number generated from a seed.
~


WRONG. No seed required for any type of random number.

To be fair, seeds are required for pseudorandom numbers (which is what he was claiming). Pseudorandom numbers, however, are not random numbers and VernerHornung was in error when he claimed that that is what you were describing.

Into the Night wrote: randR is the random number associated with dice. The number can be repeated any number of times or occur not at all in a given sequence. It has no memory.

In my lexicon, I refer to this as an actual random number generator, but just as all bodies in nature have an emissivity strictly between zero and one, all random number generators in nature have a non-zero bias of some sort, e.g. when dealing with dice in Vegas the objective is to get the biases sufficiently close to zero.

I like the term "randR" because it saves one the trouble from having to write out "random number generator." Whenever a randR is discussed, the bias parameter(s) should be addressed.

Into the Night wrote:randN is the random number associated with a deck of cards. It has a memory. Once a card is pulled, it cannot be pulled again until a reset event occurs (such as a shuffle).

In my lexicon, this is combinatorics, i.e. discrete math. This covers combinations and permutations. I don't see it so much as a random number but as a discussion on probability ... just in word problem format.

Once again, "randN" is a much shorter way to express the concept.

Into the Night wrote: randU is the 'predictable' random number. These are numbers just pulled out of the air by someone, or an algorithm that does the same thing. randU is often used to embellish an argument by using it as 'data'. To use this kind of number this way is a fallacy.

In my lexicon, this is an arbitrarily chosen number. Other words that apply "fabricated," "concocted," "selected," "cherry-picked," "predetermined," "pulled-out-of-one's-nostril," etc...

None of the above are pseudorandom number generators, which are merely deterministic formulae, i.e. mathematical calculations, that meet certain tests, e.g. spectral test, for appearance of "randomness." In the same manner that we could have a philosophical discussion on what is required for non-intelligent machines to simulate artificial intelligence, we could also have a philosophical discussion concerning what is required by completely deterministic mathematical calculations to nonetheless "appear" to be generating random numbers.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-09-2019 19:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
IBdaMann wrote:
As long as we have a subthread about terminology, I'll be more than happy to jump in.

Into the Night wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
But thanks for telling me what randN, randR and randU mean. Selection with or without replacement, or pseudorandom number generated from a seed.
~


WRONG. No seed required for any type of random number.

To be fair, seeds are required for pseudorandom numbers (which is what he was claiming). Pseudorandom numbers, however, are not random numbers and VernerHornung was in error when he claimed that that is what you were describing.

No, they are random numbers of type randU, even though they use a seed and even though they are often referred to as psuedo-random numbers.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: randR is the random number associated with dice. The number can be repeated any number of times or occur not at all in a given sequence. It has no memory.

In my lexicon, I refer to this as an actual random number generator, but just as all bodies in nature have an emissivity strictly between zero and one, all random number generators in nature have a non-zero bias of some sort, e.g. when dealing with dice in Vegas the objective is to get the biases sufficiently close to zero.

No, no bias is necessary. No offset is necessary either. That doesn't mean that some bias or offset isn't there, or even that it's necessarily bad!
IBdaMann wrote:
I like the term "randR" because it saves one the trouble from having to write out "random number generator." Whenever a randR is discussed, the bias parameter(s) should be addressed.

If you want to discuss bias of a randR source, you can do so. RandR does not require a bias at all. It can, theoretically, be zero.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:randN is the random number associated with a deck of cards. It has a memory. Once a card is pulled, it cannot be pulled again until a reset event occurs (such as a shuffle).

In my lexicon, this is combinatorics, i.e. discrete math. This covers combinations and permutations. I don't see it so much as a random number but as a discussion on probability ... just in word problem format.

Once again, "randN" is a much shorter way to express the concept.

No, randN is the random number or algorithm itself, not the probability of pulling any one card. It is not about any combination logic, or the probability of any combination or permutation. Probability and randN are completely separate.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: randU is the 'predictable' random number. These are numbers just pulled out of the air by someone, or an algorithm that does the same thing. randU is often used to embellish an argument by using it as 'data'. To use this kind of number this way is a fallacy.

In my lexicon, this is an arbitrarily chosen number. Other words that apply "fabricated," "concocted," "selected," "cherry-picked," "predetermined," "pulled-out-of-one's-nostril," etc...

These are indeed randU numbers.
IBdaMann wrote:
None of the above are pseudorandom number generators, which are merely deterministic formulae, i.e. mathematical calculations, that meet certain tests, e.g. spectral test, for appearance of "randomness." In the same manner that we could have a philosophical discussion on what is required for non-intelligent machines to simulate artificial intelligence, we could also have a philosophical discussion concerning what is required by completely deterministic mathematical calculations to nonetheless "appear" to be generating random numbers.
.

No, these are also randU numbers. Whether you generate a number itself out of your left nostril, or generate an algorithm of any sort out of your left nostril to generate them, it is the same.

Computer models of climate or global temperatures are essentially randU generators for this reason.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 17-09-2019 19:13
18-09-2019 02:04
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
IBdaMann wrote:
Until you add axioms, the system is ... what? Say it: The system is ... CLOSED

My reply to you didn't use the word "open," however. Only thing closed here is applying a logical operator to a proposition yields another proposition. In math, the set of integers is closed under addition and a set is topologically closed if it contains its boundary. The term "closed" is a bit vague. Each book usually defines it in context before using it, and I may have stumbled by using it loosely of Frege to mean "consistent," a better term. Gödel showed that the consistency of arithmetic cannot be proven from within arithmetic itself. E.g. see

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems
https://mat.iitm.ac.in/home/asingh/public_html/papers/goedel.pdf

IBdaMann wrote:
[Maxwell's Demon has no size...]

Maxwell's Demon requires foresight at the quantum level. That's basically what's wrong with it.

IBdaMann wrote:
your grievance is with tmiddles.

I don't think tmiddles has denied that the atmosphere is cooler than the Earth's surface. He's merely said that a cooler object can radiate energy toward a warmer one, which is true. Not all transfers of energy are heat. Light can be converted to electrical energy, for instance.

IBdaMann wrote:
As long as you acknowledge that you are firmly in the realm of beliefs and not in the realm of "what we know."

Valley Forge is not a belief. It's knowable by its matters of fact. The impossibility of having complete information on Valley Forge, or any other historical event, doesn't force us into speculation about the unknown.

IBdaMann wrote:
Let's see. Do you believe in Greenhouse Effect?

The dispute concerns only whether human activity is responsible for climate change. None too many of the "deniers" (I don't really like left's label; I'm using it here for brevity) have declared greenhouse effect nonexistent or climate change unreal. They merely assert that the latter stems predominantly from natural causes, and that human activity has little influence on climate.

Greenhouse effect is a matter of fact, not just belief. Global warming over the last 150 years is similarly fact. Anthropogenic causation is probative given natural causes are present. I see it as likely enough to make assigning priority to countermeasures advisable, although I don't put much stock in the apocalyptic views of it.

Into the Night wrote:
Mathematics is bound by its axioms.

You can choose which axioms you want to use, however. Dropping the parallel postulate allows for elliptic and hyperbolic geometries.

Into the Night wrote:
Nope. Not a legal document.

I never said it was.

Into the Night wrote:
The ONLY authoritative source for any theory of science are the authors of that theory.

That's not true. Hardly anyone except historians of science reads the Principia today. Convenient and much easier notations for formulating Newton's laws have been developed since then, and some of Newton's statements modified or supplemented. But no one considers modern texts on mechanics as lacking authority.

Into the Night wrote:
They are theories, formalized into a closed system to gain the power of prediction. The resulting equation is called a 'law'. No theory is ever proven.

Agreed. The predictions of a scientific theory may be controverted by new observations or experiments, as with phlogiston, in which case a new theory is needed. And the climatologists' theories about the Earth's radiation budget will probably be revised later on; climatology is a relatively new field. Still, note phlogiston explained quite a bit. It worked fine for describing flow of heat from candle flame to melting wax in spoon, and ran off the road only when it arrived at Joule's experiment with the paddle wheels in the calorimeter, the "mechanical equivalent of heat."

Into the Night wrote:
Hang gliding is punishment?

I wouldn't try even with a hang glider. Arne Tanzer landed safely after launching from the De Johanna Apartments' roof in Utrecht a couple years ago.
~


Into the Night wrote:
Nope. Only the movement of thermal energy.

Thermal energy was strictly internal in the classes I took, conceived of as vibrational energy of atoms in a solid or in terms of mean speed of particles in a classical gas. It became work and/or heat when the system was coupled with an environment and did work or caused the environment's temperature to change. Since nomenclature can vary, I'm not gonna hash the point.

Into the Night wrote:
No, I am not. A difference of temperature may not result in heat at all, though it is necessary for heat to flow.

Difference of temperature always leads to some heat from warmer region to cooler, unless a perfectly insulating box encloses a region to isolate it from the universe. In practice, we may neglect the heat involved if it's small enough.

Into the Night wrote:
You are attempting to use a past unobserved event as a proof.

The winter camp at Valley Forge was observed by thousands of people. You're claiming it unobserved just because 20th century folks missed out. Ja. I'm aware of the pitfalls in using historical info. Memories fade, documents are lost, people retell the story, inserting new elements as they do, or deleting elements that were there, and superimposing their own interpretations on what the story should mean. The NY Times just made August 20, 1619 (instead of 1776) the US's founding date even though there was no such date; everything happened in continuum up until we had a working republic by 1789.

Into the Night wrote:
Free markets existed long before Locke!

Precious few of them. Markets require guards to prevent robberies, frauds or raids and commercial codes to enforce contract and defend title to property, which already chips away at that freedom. Our notion of "free" also requires a concept of individualism that's barely a few hundred years old. Individualism, in turn, can exist only within a state. Before the formation of the state, people were much more communal than we are. They had to band together because there was no one to safeguard individuals or familes wandering about alone.

Into the Night wrote:
No seed required for any type of random number.

Pseudorandom number algorithms use a seed. But I'll be nice and let you use dodecahedral dice instead.
~


Into the Night wrote:
England is not the world.

Never said it was. Holland (independent from Spain in 1575), England and Scotland were among the first to adopt free domestic markets, which they protected by mercantilist foreign policies rendered feasible as all were maritime trading countries. Free markets are neither immortal nor inevitable. They're rare, historically, becoming a global "norm" after WWII, and even the freest markets aren't laissez-faire. I value them for their growth and innovation potentials, but don't see them as an object of worship.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Edited on 18-09-2019 02:27
18-09-2019 04:40
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1519)
IBdaMann wrote:Let's see. Do you believe in Greenhouse Effect?
VernerHornung wrote:The dispute concerns only whether human activity is responsible for climate change.

No. The dispute concerns whether the Earth is even warming.

VernerHornung wrote: None too many of the "deniers" (I don't really like left's label; I'm using it here for brevity)

I like the label. I am a denier.

VernerHornung wrote: have declared greenhouse effect nonexistent.

It only exists in a greenhouse. They work by reducing convective heat. How does CO2 reduce heat?

VernerHornung wrote: VernerHornung wrote: They merely assert that the latter stems predominantly from natural causes, and that human activity has little influence on climate.

It could be warming. It could be cooling. I've seen signs of both, everywhere.
Define global climate again please.

VernerHornung wrote: Greenhouse effect is a matter of fact,

Not a fact. Please show comparison of greenhouses and atmospheric CO2.

VernerHornung wrote: not just belief.

Trying to remove your religion from it now.

VernerHornung wrote: Global warming over the last 150 years is similarly fact.

Nope. We don't know it's warming today OR 150 years ago.

VernerHornung wrote: Anthropogenic causation is probative given natural causes are present.

Just a great big WTF on that statement.

VernerHornung wrote: I see it as likely enough to make assigning priority to countermeasures advisable, although I don't put much stock in the apocalyptic views of it.

Likely enough? And how much of my money would you like to take in order implement these "advisable" countermeasures?


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
Edited on 18-09-2019 05:16
18-09-2019 05:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
VernerHornung wrote: Gödel showed that the consistency of arithmetic cannot be proven from within arithmetic itself.

Gödel simply proved that there are true statements about a system that cannot be proven by the system.

The set theory equivalent is the "set of all sets" contradiction.

VernerHornung wrote: Maxwell's Demon requires foresight at the quantum level. That's basically what's wrong with it.

Maxwell's demon is an attempt to get around the 2nd law of thermodynamics ... that's what's wrong with it.

VernerHornung wrote: Valley Forge is not a belief. It's knowable by its matters of fact.

So, what you are saying is that you believe that the events of Valley Forge actually happened.

So do I. Neither of us were there but we believe nonetheless.

VernerHornung wrote:The impossibility of having complete information on Valley Forge, or any other historical event, doesn't force us into speculation about the unknown.

Yes, that is exactly what it does. Speculation. It's all we have.

VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Let's see. Do you believe in Greenhouse Effect?

The dispute concerns only whether human activity is responsible for climate change.

No, it's a question of English comprehension. Do you believe in Greenhouse Effect?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-09-2019 01:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1545)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
It's of course very important to not only have science figure out the best course

Science doesn't figure out council. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. A theory is an explanatory argument.

Your definition of science is one you made up. You have never, in 5 years, pointed out the "right way" to go about anything useful or productive.

VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
...It's of course very important to not only have science figure out the best course but to find the best way for the rest of us to understand it.

You're onto the white coats doing a bum job of parsing this so nonscientists get the gist.

I think one major problem with science in society has been that everything is presented with the same definitive tone. We "know" ______. No matter what it is. So the thing's we're close to certain of get tossed in a salad with things that are entirely unsupported by evidence. It would almost be helpful if there was a color coding system for certainty!

Into the Night wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
I've trouble computing the private vocabulary randN and randU you resort to every other comment.

This has been explained before, but not to you. I...randR is ...randN is

You just make things up and pretend it's old hat ITN. You waste everyones time when you do that. This is a google search for:randr randn randu Nada!
Oh and VernerHornung you should be aware that ITN/IBD don't endorse ANY textbooks or publications of any kind. They are all corrupted by warmazombies or something. So ITN would be hard pressed to say where his private vocab came from.

IBdaMann wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:In 1931, Kurt Gödel proved that neither logic nor mathematics is a closed system.

That is not what he proved. Read the theorem again.

This never ending game of "hide the ball" is just designed to frustrate you and stifle debate. Of course an inquisitive mind interested in discussion would put forward their point of view or what the correct info is.

VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
your grievance is with tmiddles.

I don't think tmiddles has denied that the atmosphere is cooler than the Earth's surface. He's merely said that a cooler object can radiate energy toward a warmer one, which is true. Not all transfers of energy are heat. Light can be converted to electrical energy, for instance.

Radiance has three options upon striking a body: Absorption, Transmission or Reflection

Radiance leaving a cooler object is absorbed by hotter objects. The energy is thermal. It's not "heat" because that is the net flow of thermal energy (like "Profit" for a company). This is proven here: net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The ONLY authoritative source for any theory of science are the authors of that theory.

That's not true.

I would agree it's not true at all and ITN is engaged in an appeal to authority. What is absurd is that he is currently hiding from this topic I made just for him!: Max Planck debunks ITN

GasGuzzler wrote:The dispute concerns whether the Earth is even warming.
So you don't believe there was even an ice age and we are no longer in it?
Also "the dispute" implies the active participation of more than a few nuts. You could say there is a dispute about whether the Earth is flat (there's a forum for that) but you'd just be wrong.

GasGuzzler wrote:How does CO2 reduce heat?

Right here: Why CO2 can cause a higher ground level temperature Why are you not taking me up on the invite to debate it?

GasGuzzler wrote:
Define global climate again please.

Climate is the weather long term (in the case of Earth is an annual cycle) and we are concerned with the temperature part of weather in this case.

IBdaMann wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:The impossibility of having complete information on Valley Forge, or any other historical event, doesn't force us into speculation about the unknown.

Yes, that is exactly what it does. Speculation. It's all we have.

To call everything speculation is a bit of a pointless exercise isn't it? We could reprogram a Teddy Ruxpin to say "It is uncertain" to every question posed to it and it would be as useful as your commentary.

IBdaMann wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
The dispute concerns only whether human activity is responsible for climate change.

No, it's a question of English comprehension. Do you believe in Greenhouse Effect?

I do. Are you pretending there is no distinction to be made between the natural and mand made greenhouse effects? Same effect but different causes. You don't have to believe in it to understand there is a distinction and to even debate it.




"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 ever valid for them.
Edited on 20-09-2019 01:53
20-09-2019 19:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Let's see. Do you believe in Greenhouse Effect?

The dispute concerns only whether human activity is responsible for climate change.

Define 'climate change'.
VernerHornung wrote:
None too many of the "deniers" (I don't really like left's label; I'm using it here for brevity) have declared greenhouse effect nonexistent or climate change unreal.

Define 'climate change'. Describe the 'greenhouse effect' without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
VernerHornung wrote:
They merely assert that the latter stems predominantly from natural causes,

Define 'climate change'.
VernerHornung wrote:
and that human activity has little influence on climate.

None. Climate is a subjective word. There is desert climate, marine climate, mountain climate, etc. There is no global climate. Climate doesn't change. Climate is not quantifiable.
VernerHornung wrote:
Greenhouse effect is a matter of fact,

Not a fact. An argument. Learn what 'fact' means. 'Fact' does not mean 'universal truth'. Buzzword fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
not just belief.

It is just a belief. It is part of the core belief of the Church of Global Warming.
VernerHornung wrote:
Global warming over the last 150 years is similarly fact.

Define 'global warming'. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Buzzword fallacies.
VernerHornung wrote:
Anthropogenic causation is probative given natural causes are present.

Natural cause of what? Void argument fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
I see it as likely enough to make assigning priority to countermeasures advisable, although I don't put much stock in the apocalyptic views of it.

Pascal's wager fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Mathematics is bound by its axioms.

You can choose which axioms you want to use, however. Dropping the parallel postulate allows for elliptic and hyperbolic geometries.

WRONG. The parallel postulate only applies to 2 dimensional geometry in the first place. That postulate is not an axiom of mathematics either. It's an axiom of 2d geometry. The mathematics behind the geometry doesn't change.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Nope. Not a legal document.

I never said it was.

You are using it like one.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The ONLY authoritative source for any theory of science are the authors of that theory.

That's not true.

That is true.
VernerHornung wrote:
Hardly anyone except historians of science reads the Principia today.

The Principia is a book, not a theory.
VernerHornung wrote:
Convenient and much easier notations for formulating Newton's laws have been developed since then,

No. They have not changed at all. The theories remain the same.
VernerHornung wrote:
and some of Newton's statements modified or supplemented.

Statements are not theories.
VernerHornung wrote:
But no one considers modern texts on mechanics as lacking authority.

Argument from randU fallacy. Argument of ignorance fallacy. Compositional error fallacy. Not all texts are the same.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
They are theories, formalized into a closed system to gain the power of prediction. The resulting equation is called a 'law'. No theory is ever proven.

Agreed.
The predictions of a scientific theory may be controverted by new observations or experiments, as with phlogiston, in which case a new theory is needed.

And the climatologists' theories about the Earth's radiation budget will probably be revised later on; climatology is a relatively new field.

Sorry dude, no theory of science can conflict with any other theory of science. That's the external consistency check. No theory of any kind can exist based on a fallacy. That's the internal consistency check.

You have to define 'climate change' or 'global warming' before you can start having theories about them.
VernerHornung wrote:
Still, note phlogiston explained quite a bit. It worked fine for describing flow of heat from candle flame to melting wax in spoon, and ran off the road only when it arrived at Joule's experiment with the paddle wheels in the calorimeter, the "mechanical equivalent of heat."

WRONG. The Phlogiston theory didn't work for metals. It has nothing to do with paddlewheels or calorimeters.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Hang gliding is punishment?

I wouldn't try even with a hang glider.

Your loss.
VernerHornung wrote:
Arne Tanzer landed safely after launching from the De Johanna Apartments' roof in Utrecht a couple years ago.

Lots of people fly hang gliders from roofs. It's perfectly safe.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No, I am not. A difference of temperature may not result in heat at all, though it is necessary for heat to flow.

Difference of temperature always leads to some heat from warmer region to cooler,

Nope. The two regions have to be coupled in some way.
VernerHornung wrote:
unless a perfectly insulating box encloses a region to isolate it from the universe.

Not needed.
VernerHornung wrote:
In practice, we may neglect the heat involved if it's small enough.

No. A colder body cannot heat a warmer body.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You are attempting to use a past unobserved event as a proof.

The winter camp at Valley Forge was observed by thousands of people.

How do you know?
VernerHornung wrote:
You're claiming it unobserved just because 20th century folks missed out.

Correct.
VernerHornung wrote:
Ja. I'm aware of the pitfalls in using historical info.

No. You are unaware that history is not a proof. Don't use it like one.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Free markets existed long before Locke!

Precious few of them.

Lots of them. You are trying to paint yourself out of the corner you are in now. You have locked yourself in another paradox doing it.
VernerHornung wrote:
Markets require guards to prevent robberies, frauds or raids and commercial codes to enforce contract and defend title to property, which already chips away at that freedom.

Guards do not chip away at any freedom, and no guards are necessary for a free market to exist.
VernerHornung wrote:
Our notion of "free" also requires a concept of individualism that's barely a few hundred years old.

WRONG. individuals have been around as long as there have been people, you see.
VernerHornung wrote:
Individualism, in turn, can exist only within a state.

WRONG. People are individuals. They always have been.
VernerHornung wrote:
Before the formation of the state, people were much more communal than we are.

WRONG. They are just as communal today as back then.
VernerHornung wrote:
They had to band together because there was no one to safeguard individuals or familes wandering about alone.

Yet many wandered about alone.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No seed required for any type of random number.

Pseudorandom number algorithms use a seed.

A psuedorandom number generator is only one type of randU. You are attempting to redefine a randU.
VernerHornung wrote:
But I'll be nice and let you use dodecahedral dice instead.

They are paired randR.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
England is not the world.

Never said it was.

You used it as such.
VernerHornung wrote:
Holland (independent from Spain in 1575), England and Scotland were among the first to adopt free domestic markets, which they protected by mercantilist foreign policies rendered feasible as all were maritime trading countries. Free markets are neither immortal nor inevitable.

None of these invented the free market or capitalism.
VernerHornung wrote:
They're rare,

WRONG. It exists everywhere, all the time, even in places like China and Venezuela.
VernerHornung wrote:
historically, becoming a global "norm" after WWII, and even the freest markets aren't laissez-faire.

They are everywhere, dude. Even during and after WW2.
VernerHornung wrote:
I value them for their growth and innovation potentials, but don't see them as an object of worship.

Never said they were.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2019 19:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
It's of course very important to not only have science figure out the best course

Science doesn't figure out council. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. A theory is an explanatory argument.

Your definition of science is one you made up. You have never, in 5 years, pointed out the "right way" to go about anything useful or productive.

Repetitious lies.

tmiddles wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
...It's of course very important to not only have science figure out the best course but to find the best way for the rest of us to understand it.

You're onto the white coats doing a bum job of parsing this so nonscientists get the gist.

I think one major problem with science in society has been that everything is presented with the same definitive tone. We "know" ______. No matter what it is. So the thing's we're close to certain of get tossed in a salad with things that are entirely unsupported by evidence. It would almost be helpful if there was a color coding system for certainty!

Void argument fallacy.

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
I've trouble computing the private vocabulary randN and randU you resort to every other comment.

This has been explained before, but not to you. I...randR is ...randN is

You just make things up and pretend it's old hat ITN. You waste everyones time when you do that. This is a google search for:randr randn randu Nada!
Oh and VernerHornung you should be aware that ITN/IBD don't endorse ANY textbooks or publications of any kind. They are all corrupted by warmazombies or something. So ITN would be hard pressed to say where his private vocab came from.

Repetitious lies.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:In 1931, Kurt Gödel proved that neither logic nor mathematics is a closed system.

That is not what he proved. Read the theorem again.

This never ending game of "hide the ball" is just designed to frustrate you and stifle debate. Of course an inquisitive mind interested in discussion would put forward their point of view or what the correct info is.

Repetitious lies.

tmiddles wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
your grievance is with tmiddles.

I don't think tmiddles has denied that the atmosphere is cooler than the Earth's surface. He's merely said that a cooler object can radiate energy toward a warmer one, which is true. Not all transfers of energy are heat. Light can be converted to electrical energy, for instance.

Radiance has three options upon striking a body: Absorption, Transmission or Reflection

Radiance leaving a cooler object is absorbed by hotter objects. The energy is thermal. It's not "heat" because that is the net flow of thermal energy (like "Profit" for a company). This is proven here: net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

Repetitious denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

tmiddles wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The ONLY authoritative source for any theory of science are the authors of that theory.

That's not true.

I would agree it's not true at all and ITN is engaged in an appeal to authority. What is absurd is that he is currently hiding from this topic I made just for him!: Max Planck debunks ITN

Repetitious buzzwords and lies.

tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:The dispute concerns whether the Earth is even warming.
So you don't believe there was even an ice age and we are no longer in it?
Also "the dispute" implies the active participation of more than a few nuts. You could say there is a dispute about whether the Earth is flat (there's a forum for that) but you'd just be wrong.

Redirection fallacy. YALIF.

tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:How does CO2 reduce heat?

Right here: Why CO2 can cause a higher ground level temperature Why are you not taking me up on the invite to debate it?

Repetitious questions already answered.

tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Define global climate again please.

Climate is the weather long term (in the case of Earth is an annual cycle) and we are concerned with the temperature part of weather in this case.

Repetitious redefinition fallacy. Climate is not temperature.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:The impossibility of having complete information on Valley Forge, or any other historical event, doesn't force us into speculation about the unknown.

Yes, that is exactly what it does. Speculation. It's all we have.

To call everything speculation is a bit of a pointless exercise isn't it? We could reprogram a Teddy Ruxpin to say "It is uncertain" to every question posed to it and it would be as useful as your commentary.

Contextomy fallacy. Repetitious compositional error fallacy.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
The dispute concerns only whether human activity is responsible for climate change.

No, it's a question of English comprehension. Do you believe in Greenhouse Effect?

I do. Are you pretending there is no distinction to be made between the natural and mand made greenhouse effects? Same effect but different causes. You don't have to believe in it to understand there is a distinction and to even debate it.

Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'. Explain 'greenhouse effect' without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

tmiddles wrote:
"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 ever valid for them.

Repetitious lies and denial of several theories of science.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2019 20:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
tmiddles wrote:What is absurd is that he is currently hiding from this topic I made just for him!: Max Planck debunks ITN

What is absurd is that you are currently avoiding this topic that you created. Now that's absurd!

Ever since you came to this site to preach, you have ignored everything I have written, yet you continue to demand answers to questions and other responses ... that you completely ignore on your way to repeating those same questions.

You, on the other hand, refuse to answer any questions honestly and appear dazed and confused as to why you are eventually ignored in return.

* On what repeatable experiment did Max Planck base what he supposedly said?
* In what repeatable test can we isolate some thermal energy flowing from a cooler object to a warmer object ... even though more thermal energy is flowing the other way?

Let's establish that you are correct so we can move forward. Is that fair or is that asking too much?

Why are you not taking me up on the invite to discuss/debate?

tmiddles wrote: To call everything speculation is a bit of a pointless exercise isn't it?

I'm only calling speculation "speculation." It's a bit of a pointless exercise to insist that I am calling everything "speculation" isn't it? After all, anyone can read that I'm merely highlighting your speculations that you declare are "what we know." Perhaps you should see a therapist about your delusions.

Anyway, this problem too is on your end.

We could reprogram a Teddy Ruxpin to say "It is what we know" to every speculation you make and it would be as useful as your commentary.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:No, it's a question of English comprehension. Do you believe in Greenhouse Effect?

I do. Are you pretending there is no distinction to be made between the natural and mand made greenhouse effects?

There can be absolutely no distinction between the completely undefined. You have had more than ample time to provide an unambiguous definition and all you have been able to do is to blame others for your shortcomings.

So nope, no distinction as you have defined (or left completely undefined) Greenhouse Effect and its "drivers" and "causes" and "forcings" and any other terms in your WACKY religious dogma.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-09-2019 20:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1545)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I do. Are you pretending there is no distinction to be made between the natural and mand made greenhouse effects?

Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'. Explain 'greenhouse effect' without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You mean your invented laws or the currently accepted laws?

Define which law you think is violated by the radiance from the cooler gases of our atmosphere being absorbed by the ground.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
"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 ever valid for them.

Repetitious lies and denial of several theories of science.

Max Planck debunks you and all you can say is nothing. I'm not surprised. Too busy to name theories. And pasting platitudes is all you do.
20-09-2019 21:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1545)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:What is absurd is that he is currently hiding from this topic
What is absurd is that you are currently avoiding this topic that you created.

So far you've had no response. As you are aware the burden is YOURS when you want to revolutionize the laws of physics with some idea of your own.

IBdaMann wrote:
* In what repeatable test can we isolate some thermal energy flowing from a cooler object to a warmer object ... even though more thermal energy is flowing the other way?
.

Fake question. To date you've never given an example/model of what you consider a repeatable example. A person in A room is repeatable.


"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 ever valid for them.[/quote]
20-09-2019 21:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
tmiddles wrote: So far you've had no response.

I have been asking questions and you are the one without responses.

tmiddles wrote: As you are aware the burden is YOURS when you want to revolutionize the laws of physics with some idea of your own.

When that day comes, yes I will bear the full burden. For the present I'm just going with existing science.

Are you aware that the burden is YOURS whenever you make an affirmative claim? Just because you can point to many other warmizombies who share your opinion does not relieve you of your burden. There is no quantity of corroborating warmizombie opinions that converts your assertions into science.

The good news is, you can establish your position as correct/true for the purposes of our discussion by throwing right in my face a repeatable example of isolated thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body, even if more thermal energy is flowing the other way.

... or you can even bypass that and just present a valid dataset that shows the above (meaning someone has already done the legwork).

You've got options.

When can we expect that, by the way?

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
* In what repeatable test can we isolate some thermal energy flowing from a cooler object to a warmer object ... even though more thermal energy is flowing the other way?
.

Fake question. To date you've never given an example/model of what you consider a repeatable example. A person in A room is repeatable.

Unfortunately your laziness is teaming up with your dishonesty to prove a rather formidable force. We'll just have to chalk this one up as another win in your column. I just can't learn you anything you refuse to learn.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-09-2019 23:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I do. Are you pretending there is no distinction to be made between the natural and mand made greenhouse effects?

Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'. Explain 'greenhouse effect' without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You mean your invented laws or the currently accepted laws?

Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'. Let's start there.
tmiddles wrote:
Define which law you think is violated by the radiance from the cooler gases of our atmosphere being absorbed by the ground.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics. Repetitious question already answered (and answered again!).
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
"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 ever valid for them.

Repetitious lies and denial of several theories of science.

Max Planck debunks you and all you can say is nothing.

No. No Theory of Planck debunks anything I've said.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm not surprised. Too busy to name theories.

Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
And pasting platitudes is all you do.

Inversion fallacy. You are projecting again.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2019 23:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:What is absurd is that he is currently hiding from this topic
What is absurd is that you are currently avoiding this topic that you created.

So far you've had no response. As you are aware the burden is YOURS when you want to revolutionize the laws of physics with some idea of your own.
Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
* In what repeatable test can we isolate some thermal energy flowing from a cooler object to a warmer object ... even though more thermal energy is flowing the other way?
.

Fake question. To date you've never given an example/model of what you consider a repeatable example. A person in A room is repeatable.

Repetitious question already answered.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2019 17:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1545)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: As you are aware the burden is YOURS when you want to revolutionize the laws of physics with some idea of your own.

When that day comes, yes I will bear the full burden. For the present I'm just going with existing science.
.


This is it. The TRUMP card. A lie, a total fabrication presented as fact.

You version of existing science is contradicted by every text book on thermodynamics. You have no response to Planck debunking you.

You invariably play the game of demanding others do homework. I think you are insane. No I won't be doing your homework.

I will continue to debate but I won't play your games again.


"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 ever valid for them
21-09-2019 17:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1545)
Into the Night wrote:
No. No Theory of Planck debunks anything I've said.
[quote]tmiddles wrote:

You've been hiding from the topic you debunked fraud.

A healthy debate is good. Even spin is reasonable. Deliberately lying and misrepresenting facts is reprehensible. You and IBD are the enemies of science and human progress.

"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 ever valid for them
21-09-2019 20:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
tmiddles wrote:This is it. The TRUMP card. A lie, a total fabrication presented as fact.

I am so with you on this one. I have no defense. Your assignment of bogus positions to me is my lie. Absolutely. You ignoring me completely is clearly my total fabrication. Your refusal to answer any of my questions is my trump card that I keep up my sleeve.

You got me dead to rights.

Should I publicly apologize to you for any inconvenience the ball may have caused you by being in your court for months?

tmiddles wrote: You version of existing science is contradicted by every text book on thermodynamics.

I see you are still assigning positions to me that are not mine and still pretending to speak for every text book.

If only you would devote a flake of that effort to providing a repeatable example of what you are discussing then we could continue. Is this what you are referring to as being my position or are you referring to something else?

tmiddles wrote: You have no response to Planck debunking you.

I wasn't aware that my buddy Max ever asserted that the burden to support someone's claim is borne by everyone else on the planet. Boy, you are really rubbing this in my face.

tmiddles wrote: You invariably play the game of demanding others do homework.

... whenever I'm not the one making the assertion.

Oh, I'm not making any assertion. I am requesting an example which will help me answer your questions. You refuse to help me answer your questions. I can't do it without your help.

tmiddles wrote: I think you are insane.

Get in line. So do my kids.

tmiddles wrote: No I won't be doing your homework.

Great. Let me know when something changes and you want to re-engage in our discussion.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2019 21:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1545)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: You version of existing science is contradicted by every text book on thermodynamics.

I see you are still assigning positions to me that are not mine

What I assign to you is that you claim radiance from cooler objects is not absorbed by hotter ones. This of course makes "Net Radiance" impossible, ends a discussion of greenhouse gases before it begins and is in fact contradicted by the entire history of thermodynamic study going back 239 years. But here you are in your own words:

from : greenhouse-gases-do-not-violate-the-stefan-boltzmann-law
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: The NET flow of energy is in one direction, from hot to cold.

Just "the flow" of energy is in one direction. Whenever you see someone squeezing the word "net" in front of "flow" then s/he is implying that some of the flow is in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
tmiddles wrote: Separate question: Is there anything that prevents a white hot object from getting hotter due to infra-red radiation?

Yes ... the infrared thermal radiation coming from a cooler object.
Otherwise, if the infrared is coming from a body of higher temperature, then no, there is nothing preventing absorption and an increase in temperature. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies always and everywhere.
...
Bodies of higher temperature radiate particular wavelengths with greater Radiance (radiativity at that wavelength) than bodies of lower temperature (re: Wein's Displacement law) which causes the radiation of that wavelength to be absorbed, bringing the colder body up to a higher energy state (Re: Planck's)
.
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: That if EM radiation reaches an object and fails to achieve the necessary energy level it will not be thermalized.

That is correct; it is the 2nd law of thermodynamics hardcoded into Planck's

tmiddles wrote:But what happens to it?

You are going to have a difficult time finding a satisfying answer. This is all I can tell you without researching it further:
1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed.

Disappointing, eh?



"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 ever valid for them
Edited on 21-09-2019 21:46
21-09-2019 21:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: As you are aware the burden is YOURS when you want to revolutionize the laws of physics with some idea of your own.

When that day comes, yes I will bear the full burden. For the present I'm just going with existing science.
.


This is it. The TRUMP card. A lie, a total fabrication presented as fact.

He is not presenting a fact. He is asking a question. You just refuse to answer it.
Redefinition fallacy (question<->fact).
tmiddles wrote:
You version of existing science is contradicted by every text book on thermodynamics. You have no response to Planck debunking you.

There is no one named Planck here. I figure this is some kind of invisible friend you have.
tmiddles wrote:
You invariably play the game of demanding others do homework.

It might help if you did, you know. No, he is not demanding that. He is asking a question that you so far have not answered.
tmiddles wrote:
I think you are insane.

YOU are the asking the same question over and over, even though it's already been answered.
YOU are the one denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
YOU are the one that is confusing religion with science.
tmiddles wrote:
No I won't be doing your homework.

I already assumed you have no intention of answering his very simple question. You will just continue to evade. I believe IBdaMann has also made the same assumption, but I'll let him speak for himself.
tmiddles wrote:
I will continue to debate but I won't play your games again.

You are not debating.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2019 21:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No. No Theory of Planck debunks anything I've said.

You've been hiding from the topic you debunked fraud.

What topic? Void argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
A healthy debate is good.

So when are you going to debate?
tmiddles wrote:
Even spin is reasonable.

No, that's a fallacy. I will call you on it. Fallacies are not valid arguments.
tmiddles wrote:
Deliberately lying and misrepresenting facts is reprehensible.

Agreed. So why are you lying and misrepresenting what people have said and misrepresenting data?
tmiddles wrote:
You and IBD are the enemies of science and human progress.

Inversion fallacy.

Little ingrates like you do not appreciate what my products do for you.
You do not even appreciate what the authors of the theory of the 2nd law of thermodynamics have done.

We have shown you the theories of science you ignore. We didn't write them. Others did. You do not appreciate what they've done or even how they've done it.

It is YOU that is denying theories of science. It is YOU that is denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is YOU that is denying the 1st law of thermodynamics. It is YOU that is now even denying Planck's law. It is YOU that is denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 21-09-2019 22:01
21-09-2019 22:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1545)
Into the Night wrote:
You do not even appreciate what the authors of the theory of the 2nd law of thermodynamics have done.

Who would they be?


"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 ever valid for them
Edited on 21-09-2019 22:11
21-09-2019 22:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You do not even appreciate what the authors of the theory of the 2nd law of thermodynamics have done.

Who would they be?


Why don't you go find out?


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2019 22:55
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1545)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You do not even appreciate what the authors of the theory of the 2nd law of thermodynamics have done.

Who would they be?


Why don't you go find out?


Hide the ball all you like you debunked fraud.


"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 ever valid for them
21-09-2019 23:00
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1519)
tmiddles wrote: You and IBD are the enemies of science


tmiddles then wrote: "Good tests kill flawed theories........ - Karl Popper


I've been following this closely...I am here to learn. This is the heart of the global warming by CO2 debate.

IBdaMann has asked for a repeatable example of heat flowing backwards from cold to hot.

If he and ITN are using flawed theories, then a good test should kill it. No?
21-09-2019 23:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1545)
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote: You and IBD are the enemies of science


tmiddles then wrote: "Good tests kill flawed theories........ - Karl Popper


I've been following this closely...I am here to learn. This is the heart of the global warming by CO2 debate.

IBdaMann has asked for a repeatable example of heat flowing backwards from cold to hot.

If he and ITN are using flawed theories, then a good test should kill it. No?


Heat only flows in one direction, from hot to cold. The issue ITN/IBD misrepresent is "Net Heat" and "Net Flow". Thermal energy is exchanged, the difference is the flow. You are a repeatable example in the room you are in. Any reasonable calculation of you radiant heat loss means you must be absorbing radiance from the cooler room.

Thermal energy doesn't mean heat. Heat is the net movement of thermal energy. Two hot objects can furiously exchange thermal energy but do so equally meaning there is no heat at all.

Quick question GasGuzzler: Don't you think a correct theory on basic fundamental thermodynamics would appear in at least one text book?


"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 ever valid for them
Edited on 21-09-2019 23:14
21-09-2019 23:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
tmiddles wrote: But here you are in your own words:
IBdaMann wrote:Just "the flow" of energy is in one direction. Whenever you see someone squeezing the word "net" in front of "flow" then s/he is implying that some of the flow is in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

This gives you heartburn ... but you won't discuss it, you won't answer my questions and you won't provide one repeatable example of thermal energy flowing in both directions, i.e. that isolates some thermal energy flowing from cold to hot to show clearly that thermal energy flows in both directions.

You have effectively shut down this discussion ... but of course this is my fault.

Just one example ... and we'll discuss it.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate Earth surface temperature measurements:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What makes you think CO2 increases temperature?508-10-2019 19:13
There is no valid physics that can show CO2 increases temperature2917-09-2019 22:35
If CO2 have higher temperature than O2 and N2 in the air?317-09-2019 00:37
Earths Temperature114-08-2019 20:08
Temperature207-08-2019 05:59
▲ 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