Remember me
▼ Content

Empirical Evidence for Man-made Global Warming



Page 2 of 5<1234>>>
17-05-2020 23:21
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)

The 2nd law of thermodynamics. Newton's laws. The 1st law of thermodynamics. The Stefan-Boltzmann law. RQAA.


You seem to have heard about these things, now I suggest you learn what they mean. Then we can start a discussion.
17-05-2020 23:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Technology is the implementation of science to control nature.
So the Covid-19 activity/effort for example is "technology" in IBDese not "Science" I got that right?

Covid-19 is a virus. It is neither technology nor science. Divisional error fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Is that your definition too ITN?

Mantra 29.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Outstanding! So "shape our world" how is it employed in doing that? Let's have an example of something actually happening.

You are posting on the internet.
OK so the microprocessor is a good example of __________ shaping our world? (would that be "science" or "technology" for you guys?, I seriously don't care which word).

Technology.

Mantras 4d...6...9a...16c...26...29...

No argument presented. Inane questioning. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
17-05-2020 23:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
tmiddles wrote:
DRKTS wrote:...engineering, the application of scientific principles to every day life to create new technologies.
Well they don't have to be new. And I think for the purposes of all discussion here it should be acknowledged that not everyone earns an A+ on the work they do.

Someone can have really terrible/lame/ineffective technology or engineering.

But if someone wants to call the Paris Accords a work of engineering I have no problem with that.

Mantra 16b...

The Paris Accord treaty is political BS and was properly rejected by Trump. It it not enforceable and makes use of buzzwords to define compliance.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
17-05-2020 23:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
DRKTS wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Hi DRKTS.SkS is a forum called Skeptical science that I came across when looking for forums on climate change and its only my opinion but it seems to be the Headquarters for people who believe this AGW/CC stuff.If you post material agreeing to the problem it gets debated and everyone gets a little more scared.If you ask a few questions like I did like where is the sea going up you will get all the fact sheets/data but if you question the data you get moderated and blocked like I did.I can feel your frustration that we are not accepting your view but imagine my frustration if you all send us back to the dark ages for no good reason like it seems you want to.Do not inflict your insanity on me.leave it alone


Thanks for the clarification on SKS. I am familiar with them because they have some good graphics but I did not know you can post comments there. I checked it out and its true. However I note lots of questions, negative comments and counter arguments there. In some cases heated even debate debate. So I am not sure why they blocked you but it does not seem to be for simply asking questions about the data.

I am not inflicting "my insanity" on your or anyone else. I am providing information (data and observations) to fuel a debate. The insanity I see is people denying the facts and introducing red herrings (e.g., redefining words, misquoting people, making up strawman arguments, and introducing religion or politics) rather than discussing the interpretation of the data with an open mind (see some of the posts above).


There is no global temperature data. There is no global CO2 concentration data. There is no sea level data. Random numbers are not data. It is not possible to measure any one of these values. There is nothing to interpret.

Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'. The entire religion of the Church of Global Warming is based on meaningless buzzwords.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
17-05-2020 23:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
DRKTS wrote:

The 2nd law of thermodynamics. Newton's laws. The 1st law of thermodynamics. The Stefan-Boltzmann law. RQAA.


You seem to have heard about these things, now I suggest you learn what they mean. Then we can start a discussion.


Inversion fallacy. Mantras 12...17...

No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
18-05-2020 00:07
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(729)
DRKTS wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Hi DRKTS.SkS is a forum called Skeptical science that I came across when looking for forums on climate change and its only my opinion but it seems to be the Headquarters for people who believe this AGW/CC stuff.If you post material agreeing to the problem it gets debated and everyone gets a little more scared.If you ask a few questions like I did like where is the sea going up you will get all the fact sheets/data but if you question the data you get moderated and blocked like I did.I can feel your frustration that we are not accepting your view but imagine my frustration if you all send us back to the dark ages for no good reason like it seems you want to.Do not inflict your insanity on me.leave it alone


Thanks for the clarification on SKS. I am familiar with them because they have some good graphics but I did not know you can post comments there. I checked it out and its true. However I note lots of questions, negative comments and counter arguments there. In some cases heated even debate debate. So I am not sure why they blocked you but it does not seem to be for simply asking questions about the data.

I am not inflicting "my insanity" on your or anyone else. I am providing information (data and observations) to fuel a debate. The insanity I see is people denying the facts and introducing red herrings (e.g., redefining words, misquoting people, making up strawman arguments, and introducing religion or politics) rather than discussing the interpretation of the data with an open mind (see some of the posts above).


Its the data that I question.I have to go with ITN and IBDM that the average global temperature can not be known and all the terminolgy used by alarmists are possibly and maybe.Every time a line is drawn in the sand like Ascot race course will be flooded by 2010 does not happen.The Swan river it sits on has a very small tidal influence and the level is exactly where it was when I was a 12 year old boy scout doing a regatta in 1973.My point is there are claims we are past the tipping point and all this baloney yet the sea is still where it was 50 years ago.When is this stuff going to actualy start happening.If you as a Solar physicist,read some dude what looks at the sun.LOL can demonstrate/explain how the temperature can be averaged globaly I will believe you.Then we can look at is it changing?Then we can look at is it good or bad?


duncan61
18-05-2020 00:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
DRKTS wrote:
The 2nd law of thermodynamics. Newton's laws. The 1st law of thermodynamics. The Stefan-Boltzmann law. RQAA.
You seem to have heard about these things, now I suggest you learn what they mean. Then we can start a discussion.


I'm in. Start a discussion on thermodynamics. Don't worry about possibly making egregious errors; I'll help you fix them.



.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-05-2020 00:32
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(729)
I will list the things that fail the AGW/CC as a menber of the human race on Earth

.Mauna Loa.I have seen the documentry where it is admitted the data was altered
.Sea levels will rise and flood places.Again when is this going to happen
.How can averages be taken on something that is constantly shifting.Temperature CO2 etc
.In the 50 or so documentries I have recently watched it is very common for the Scientist to freely admit that the data is altered to allow for other factors example the Satellite is further from the Earth at the time/There was cloud cover so we adjusted it.Even I as a plumbing contractor I have to go are you for real you cant do that but the Scientist glibly states it like its normal
.This is the big one.I am in construction and traditionaly get up around 6am have a coffee and chug of to work I dated an office lady and her routine was roll in about 8.30-9.00 send someone for coffee and cake have a smoke read the paper chat to her friends and then sort out some stuff.The funded research scientists doing all this global testing can not come back from their tour and say its all good nothing is happening as next year they will not be asked to go.No more coffee and cakes for you.You have to get a real job
.This is my own take on NASA.January 28, 1986; 34 years ago Space Shuttle Challenger blew up just as the camera panned on the mother of the school teacher who was on board and the whole world watched as she realised no one was going to survive.The shuttle program came to an end how are NASA going to get funding.Start telling the government that the Earth is in trouble and we need to research outer space.There is a lot more transparency now and we all have access to information we all know you have to keep things from the public and send out what the public need to hear in their best interests.AGW/CC is just the right vehicle
18-05-2020 02:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
duncan61 wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Hi DRKTS.SkS is a forum called Skeptical science that I came across when looking for forums on climate change and its only my opinion but it seems to be the Headquarters for people who believe this AGW/CC stuff.If you post material agreeing to the problem it gets debated and everyone gets a little more scared.If you ask a few questions like I did like where is the sea going up you will get all the fact sheets/data but if you question the data you get moderated and blocked like I did.I can feel your frustration that we are not accepting your view but imagine my frustration if you all send us back to the dark ages for no good reason like it seems you want to.Do not inflict your insanity on me.leave it alone


Thanks for the clarification on SKS. I am familiar with them because they have some good graphics but I did not know you can post comments there. I checked it out and its true. However I note lots of questions, negative comments and counter arguments there. In some cases heated even debate debate. So I am not sure why they blocked you but it does not seem to be for simply asking questions about the data.

I am not inflicting "my insanity" on your or anyone else. I am providing information (data and observations) to fuel a debate. The insanity I see is people denying the facts and introducing red herrings (e.g., redefining words, misquoting people, making up strawman arguments, and introducing religion or politics) rather than discussing the interpretation of the data with an open mind (see some of the posts above).


Its the data that I question.I have to go with ITN and IBDM that the average global temperature can not be known and all the terminolgy used by alarmists are possibly and maybe.Every time a line is drawn in the sand like Ascot race course will be flooded by 2010 does not happen.The Swan river it sits on has a very small tidal influence and the level is exactly where it was when I was a 12 year old boy scout doing a regatta in 1973.My point is there are claims we are past the tipping point and all this baloney yet the sea is still where it was 50 years ago.When is this stuff going to actualy start happening.If you as a Solar physicist,read some dude what looks at the sun.LOL can demonstrate/explain how the temperature can be averaged globaly I will believe you.Then we can look at is it changing?Then we can look at is it good or bad?


An average by itself is meaningless.

Statistical math summaries require the publication of not only the raw data, but also how biasing influences were removed. Cooked or 'adjusted' data is not allowed. It also requires the publication of the variance used and it's justification, the margin of error value, and of course, the average of the data selected from the raw data. That selection must be by randN, and normalized over a paired randR.

Failure to publish the required information is not a statistical summary. It's a random number of type randU.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
18-05-2020 02:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
duncan61 wrote:I have to go with ITN and IBDM that the average global temperature can not be known
Do you think you can know the temperature of the interior of your own home?

Into the Night wrote:... the publication of not only the raw data, ....
The "valid data" and "raw data" play by ITN/IBD has been debunked. See my sig below:

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 18-05-2020 02:15
18-05-2020 02:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
duncan61 wrote:
I will list the things that fail the AGW/CC as a menber of the human race on Earth

.Mauna Loa.I have seen the documentry where it is admitted the data was altered
.Sea levels will rise and flood places.Again when is this going to happen
.How can averages be taken on something that is constantly shifting.Temperature CO2 etc
.In the 50 or so documentries I have recently watched it is very common for the Scientist to freely admit that the data is altered to allow for other factors example the Satellite is further from the Earth at the time/There was cloud cover so we adjusted it.Even I as a plumbing contractor I have to go are you for real you cant do that but the Scientist glibly states it like its normal
.This is the big one.I am in construction and traditionaly get up around 6am have a coffee and chug of to work I dated an office lady and her routine was roll in about 8.30-9.00 send someone for coffee and cake have a smoke read the paper chat to her friends and then sort out some stuff.The funded research scientists doing all this global testing can not come back from their tour and say its all good nothing is happening as next year they will not be asked to go.No more coffee and cakes for you.You have to get a real job
.This is my own take on NASA.January 28, 1986; 34 years ago Space Shuttle Challenger blew up just as the camera panned on the mother of the school teacher who was on board and the whole world watched as she realised no one was going to survive.The shuttle program came to an end how are NASA going to get funding.Start telling the government that the Earth is in trouble and we need to research outer space.There is a lot more transparency now and we all have access to information we all know you have to keep things from the public and send out what the public need to hear in their best interests.AGW/CC is just the right vehicle

The Challenger disaster is a radical example of what can happen due to pilot error and what in aviation is called 'get there-itus'. Yes...it was pilot error. He knew the temperatures were too cold to safely launch the shuttle. He is the final authority to the operation of that spacecraft. He allowed the launch anyway, under pressure from mission controllers to show the Shuttle could get there reliably, on time, every time.

Parker Seals was not at fault. Morton Thiokol was not at fault. NASA pressured their pilot to launch under conditions that were known to be unsafe for that spacecraft. The pilot allowed himeself to be pressured.

The final result, unfortunately, is infamous. All aboard were killed, probably instantly.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
18-05-2020 02:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 7...22e...25f...25k...20d...39g...39j...39m...29...7...25c...25d...25e...


No argument presented. Invalid proofs. Denial of mathematics. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 18-05-2020 02:20
18-05-2020 03:25
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(729)
Do you think you can know the temperature of the interior of your own home?
yes of course I can put a thermometer a metre up and measure every room and get an average.There is no wind rain or snow present or clouds
18-05-2020 03:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
duncan61 wrote:
Do you think you can know the temperature of the interior of your own home?
yes of course I can put a thermometer a metre up and measure every room and get an average.There is no wind rain or snow present or clouds


Not good enough. A thermometer in a room may not react to sunlight on a rug, or the temperature variances in the room itself, such as cooler temperatures being nearer the window than the door to the room. The window might even be open, allowing outside temperatures to affect the room more easily than if the window is closed. The condition of the drapery and even how well it absorbs sunlight and is converted to thermal energy can make a difference. Temperature varies with height in the room as well, and with any proximity to a heat source, such as a heat vent or baseboard heater. Rooms vary in size as well. Also, remember the hallway is a 'room' for such a measurement attempt.

So a lot depends on where you put your thermometer in the room, doesn't it? And, if that's true, how many thermometers do you need for a room? And, for a 2nd finish, how does that predict any future temperature reading? It doesn't. Indeed, how is it related to any other temperature readings you take? Would not the temperature of your home vary whether windows get close or opened, doors? The position of the Sun in the sky? Nighttime? Whether your heating system is functioning properly or not?

All you really know is the temperature at the bulb of the thermometer. To assume the temperature of anything else, you must first declare the sources and rates of variance. These are used to calculate the margin of error for the temperature of each room, and for the temperature of the entire house.

Because what you are describing here is a statistical summary.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 18-05-2020 03:55
18-05-2020 05:40
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Do you think you can know the temperature of the interior of your own home?
yes of course I can put a thermometer a metre up and measure every room and get an average.There is no wind rain or snow present or clouds


Not good enough. A thermometer in a room may not react to sunlight on a rug, or the temperature variances in the room itself, such as cooler temperatures being nearer the window than the door to the room. The window might even be open, allowing outside temperatures to affect the room more easily than if the window is closed. The condition of the drapery and even how well it absorbs sunlight and is converted to thermal energy can make a difference. Temperature varies with height in the room as well, and with any proximity to a heat source, such as a heat vent or baseboard heater. Rooms vary in size as well. Also, remember the hallway is a 'room' for such a measurement attempt.

So a lot depends on where you put your thermometer in the room, doesn't it? And, if that's true, how many thermometers do you need for a room? And, for a 2nd finish, how does that predict any future temperature reading? It doesn't. Indeed, how is it related to any other temperature readings you take? Would not the temperature of your home vary whether windows get close or opened, doors? The position of the Sun in the sky? Nighttime? Whether your heating system is functioning properly or not?

All you really know is the temperature at the bulb of the thermometer. To assume the temperature of anything else, you must first declare the sources and rates of variance. These are used to calculate the margin of error for the temperature of each room, and for the temperature of the entire house.

Because what you are describing here is a statistical summary.


So if your thermometer in the room on day 1 says its 16C and the next day it says its 20C, you can tell it was hotter on day 2.
18-05-2020 06:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Do you think you can know the temperature of the interior of your own home?
yes of course I can put a thermometer a metre up and measure every room and get an average.There is no wind rain or snow present or clouds


Not good enough. A thermometer in a room may not react to sunlight on a rug, or the temperature variances in the room itself, such as cooler temperatures being nearer the window than the door to the room. The window might even be open, allowing outside temperatures to affect the room more easily than if the window is closed. The condition of the drapery and even how well it absorbs sunlight and is converted to thermal energy can make a difference. Temperature varies with height in the room as well, and with any proximity to a heat source, such as a heat vent or baseboard heater. Rooms vary in size as well. Also, remember the hallway is a 'room' for such a measurement attempt.

So a lot depends on where you put your thermometer in the room, doesn't it? And, if that's true, how many thermometers do you need for a room? And, for a 2nd finish, how does that predict any future temperature reading? It doesn't. Indeed, how is it related to any other temperature readings you take? Would not the temperature of your home vary whether windows get close or opened, doors? The position of the Sun in the sky? Nighttime? Whether your heating system is functioning properly or not?

All you really know is the temperature at the bulb of the thermometer. To assume the temperature of anything else, you must first declare the sources and rates of variance. These are used to calculate the margin of error for the temperature of each room, and for the temperature of the entire house.

Because what you are describing here is a statistical summary.


So if your thermometer in the room on day 1 says its 16C and the next day it says its 20C, you can tell it was hotter on day 2.

Not really. This forms a base rate fallacy. You have to be able to measure a temperature in the first place to compare two temperatures. All you know is that the bulb of the thermometer is hotter. It still doesn't say anything more about the room due to the variances in the room.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 18-05-2020 06:44
18-05-2020 08:02
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
duncan61 wrote:
Do you think you can know the temperature of the interior of your own home?
yes of course I can put a thermometer a metre up and measure every room and get an average.There is no wind rain or snow present or clouds


Yeah me too.

So if you took some measurements they would all be a bit different right? How would you represent the temp to yourself?

Would you say that there was just one temperature for the interior of your house?

I would say the interioir of my house hase a range of temperatures all within about 5 degrees of each other at any given moment. I definitely have both a good idea what that range is and what the mean is.

I would argue there isnt a subject in the universe you can say has a temperature that doesn't have a multitude of them which fall in a range.

Agree?
18-05-2020 10:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
duncan61 wrote:
Do you think you can know the temperature of the interior of your own home?
yes of course I can put a thermometer a metre up and measure every room and get an average.There is no wind rain or snow present or clouds

duncan, tmiddles is manipulating you.

The correct answer is that you can certainly know the temperature of the interior of your home ... to a certain margin of error. This is key. tmiddles has been trying to make the case that he is omniscient and that he can know "the temperature" for the entire volume of Denver up to the stratosphere ... and that this exact temperature, within zero margin of error, is provided to us by the Denver Airport.

tmiddles is trying to get you to back him up with his claims of omniscience by starting with something small, with which you will certainly agree, i.e. some rooms in your house. Then he will get you to agree to larger and larger volumes without any mention of a requirement for a margin of error. Then, all of a sudden, he will announce on the board that "even duncan agrees with me" and when you explain "WTF? I never said that!" it will be too late. He will dredge up every post in which you agreed with him without needing any margin of error and then he will mock you as you try to walk it back.

The correct answer is that thermometers register a temperature at one point only, not any sort of volume of any size. The moment you start talking about a temperature of a volume, no matter how small, you always must first specify your margin of error requirement. If you are talking about some rooms in your house and you plan on taking seven temperature measurements at seven points, you would need to calculate the margin of error of your final calculation using standard statistical formulae. The extent to which you care about the "margin of error" in your own home is not the point. tmiddles was asking if you "can know" that temperature, i.e. can you be omniscient. He's playing you, and he's going to use it against you.

So, when you are talking about temperature of a volume, and you want to play it safe, i.e. not say anything stupid and avoid allowing someone to manipulate you, always make mention of whether you would be comfortable with the margin of error ... and you're safe ... because you at least mentioned it and you can't be accused of pretending to be omniscient, i.e. KNOWING the temperature exactly to infinite precision because you think you're a god.


.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-05-2020 12:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...29...31...25c...25d...25e...25g...25j..


No argument presented. Math errors. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
18-05-2020 13:41
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
Into the Night wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Do you think you can know the temperature of the interior of your own home?
yes of course I can put a thermometer a metre up and measure every room and get an average.There is no wind rain or snow present or clouds


Not good enough. A thermometer in a room may not react to sunlight on a rug, or the temperature variances in the room itself, such as cooler temperatures being nearer the window than the door to the room. The window might even be open, allowing outside temperatures to affect the room more easily than if the window is closed. The condition of the drapery and even how well it absorbs sunlight and is converted to thermal energy can make a difference. Temperature varies with height in the room as well, and with any proximity to a heat source, such as a heat vent or baseboard heater. Rooms vary in size as well. Also, remember the hallway is a 'room' for such a measurement attempt.

So a lot depends on where you put your thermometer in the room, doesn't it? And, if that's true, how many thermometers do you need for a room? And, for a 2nd finish, how does that predict any future temperature reading? It doesn't. Indeed, how is it related to any other temperature readings you take? Would not the temperature of your home vary whether windows get close or opened, doors? The position of the Sun in the sky? Nighttime? Whether your heating system is functioning properly or not?

All you really know is the temperature at the bulb of the thermometer. To assume the temperature of anything else, you must first declare the sources and rates of variance. These are used to calculate the margin of error for the temperature of each room, and for the temperature of the entire house.

Because what you are describing here is a statistical summary.


So if your thermometer in the room on day 1 says its 16C and the next day it says its 20C, you can tell it was hotter on day 2.

Not really. This forms a base rate fallacy. You have to be able to measure a temperature in the first place to compare two temperatures. All you know is that the bulb of the thermometer is hotter. It still doesn't say anything more about the room due to the variances in the room.


Silly pedantic argument. Same room, same thermometer, same location. Day 2 is warmer than day 1. If this were not the case your thermostat would not work. How many times ahs you A/C kicked in to make it cooler when it should be have tried to hear the room. Never happened to me.
18-05-2020 15:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
DRKTS wrote: Silly pedantic argument. Same room, same thermometer, same location.

Let's take this S-L-O-W-L-Y because I've seen rock formations that are quicker on the uptake than you are.

Spatially, we generally think of nature in three orthogonal dimensions, and this would be the domain of "volume."

We generally refer to "area" as being of two orthogonal dimensions.

One dimension is of a line, or is "linear."

A point in space is dimensionless ... that means there aren't any dimensions.

Let me know if I'm going too fast.

You are confusing a dimensionless point of temperature measure with a three-dimensional volume. So what I recommend is that you do a little reading and become a little more familiar with how differing numbers of dimensions are really different things altogether and how you really can't be conflating them and expect to formulate rational concepts or logical arguments.

After you grasp that concept a bit more firmly we can discuss "statistics" and "margin of error." You won't get anywhere unless you understand how those are required to provide valid answers.

... and maybe try ginseng for the mental sluggishness.

.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-05-2020 19:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Do you think you can know the temperature of the interior of your own home?
yes of course I can put a thermometer a metre up and measure every room and get an average.There is no wind rain or snow present or clouds


Not good enough. A thermometer in a room may not react to sunlight on a rug, or the temperature variances in the room itself, such as cooler temperatures being nearer the window than the door to the room. The window might even be open, allowing outside temperatures to affect the room more easily than if the window is closed. The condition of the drapery and even how well it absorbs sunlight and is converted to thermal energy can make a difference. Temperature varies with height in the room as well, and with any proximity to a heat source, such as a heat vent or baseboard heater. Rooms vary in size as well. Also, remember the hallway is a 'room' for such a measurement attempt.

So a lot depends on where you put your thermometer in the room, doesn't it? And, if that's true, how many thermometers do you need for a room? And, for a 2nd finish, how does that predict any future temperature reading? It doesn't. Indeed, how is it related to any other temperature readings you take? Would not the temperature of your home vary whether windows get close or opened, doors? The position of the Sun in the sky? Nighttime? Whether your heating system is functioning properly or not?

All you really know is the temperature at the bulb of the thermometer. To assume the temperature of anything else, you must first declare the sources and rates of variance. These are used to calculate the margin of error for the temperature of each room, and for the temperature of the entire house.

Because what you are describing here is a statistical summary.


So if your thermometer in the room on day 1 says its 16C and the next day it says its 20C, you can tell it was hotter on day 2.

Not really. This forms a base rate fallacy. You have to be able to measure a temperature in the first place to compare two temperatures. All you know is that the bulb of the thermometer is hotter. It still doesn't say anything more about the room due to the variances in the room.


Silly pedantic argument. Same room, same thermometer, same location. Day 2 is warmer than day 1. If this were not the case your thermostat would not work. How many times ahs you A/C kicked in to make it cooler when it should be have tried to hear the room. Never happened to me.

It happens in any house of any size. That's why people keep adjusting their thermostats.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-05-2020 03:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles has been trying to make the case...
Kindly quote me IBD if you are going to claim I said something.

IBdaMann wrote:
The correct answer is that you can certainly know the temperature of the interior of your home ... to a certain margin of error. This is key.
Absolutely how I see it as well! So IBD let's carry that forward shall we?:
IBD thinks you can certainly know the temperature, to a certain margin of error, of:
1- The interior of your home: YES (see his declarative statement above)
2- The exterior of your home?: The air space just beyond your abode?: ____?
3- The street you live on? ______?
2- The city of Denver (bottom of the atmosphere of course) ? NO see his declarative statement below.

IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
He's absolutely correct....

One would think that the margin of error would simply increase as the complexity of the subject increased. I got that wrong IBD?

IBdaMann wrote: ...always make mention of whether you would be comfortable with the margin of error ...
As it stands you won't even go along with 300C margin of error on the temperature of Venus.https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s720.php#post_53762
68 days with no reply

So speaking to you Duncan again:
The amount of thermal energy matter has, what gives us the quantity "temperature" will always ALWAYS vary even if just minutely. A surface is ALWAYS radiating out and losing thermal energy and absorbing radiance from outside itself. Typically conduction is at play too. So the amount of thermal energy within a gas, liquid or solid is never perfectly uniform.

So your ability to measure something has a margin of error (the instrument might be a little or a lot inaccurate and your method of collecting data have limitations), but the actual thermal energy in a collection of matter you identify as your subject will have a range of values. A single mean at a single moment sure, but a range always.

ITN especially LOVES to say you can never know the temperature of anything but he denies, without explanation, what I've just said.
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:What you really know is the temperature range. You may call that range "narrow" but it's still a range.

Nope. It's not a range. The block of steel, once equilibrium is reached, is all the same temperature.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
There is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS a range for temperature.
Temperature has no range. Mantra 25j.


Into the Night wrote:
Temperature is the average internal kinetic energy of molecules. It is always a single value.
Actually this last one is pretty clear.

I guess you could say that any collection of matter you identify as your subject has a range of thermal energy and you can say that the temperature of the entire subject is that average.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 19-05-2020 03:58
19-05-2020 04:45
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(729)
[img][/img]I have a Milwaukee laser temperature reader that I was given as a part payment for a job.The variables in the same room go from 17.1 to 24.9 and my arm is 33.8 but my daughters feet are 20.1 as she just hung out the washing with no shoes on.The back of the car in the sun is 34.4 the road surface is 17.1 the wall where I am sitting is 20.2 my monitor screen is 25.4 so you are right ITN and I first thought you were full of it but I now know there is no actual temperature it is all variable all the walls are 20. something but the glass window in the shade is 18.2
19-05-2020 04:47
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(729)
lazer
19-05-2020 04:49
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(729)
still can not post pictures
19-05-2020 04:49
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(729)
it keeps saying this Invalid attachment filename or filesize.
19-05-2020 05:50
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
duncan61 wrote:
it keeps saying this Invalid attachment filename or filesize.


I don't every try to upload them. Find them online, right click and choose open image in new tab, and make sure the link ends in "jpg" or "png".

Like so:
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41HMMnraxsL._AC_SY355_.jpg

Now use the img insert:
[img][/img]

and it should work:
19-05-2020 05:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
duncan61 wrote:...so you are right ITN and I first thought you were full of it but I now know there is no actual temperature it is all variable ...


I believe if I'm not mistaken ITN's position is that there IS a temperature, just one, the average of the whole thing, but you'll never be able to figure it out because it's too hard to do.

My position is that ITN's definition of "the temperature of an object" is fine as is IBD's "temperature measurement" only being of one point (he says infinitesimal but it's really the size of the entire probe).

The important bit is if you think you "have a clue" what the temperature is.

I think it's safe to say it almost always matters if the thermal energy in your subject matter is evenly distributed or not.

Two cars may have the same temperature and one of them is parked in the sun and another is on fire in the snow.

The room you are in, the street you are on, the city you an in and the bottom of the atmosphere of this planet all have a single temperature (as ITN prefers) and a multitude of temperature measurements you could make.

My argument is that we "have a clue" about all of them.
19-05-2020 06:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...36e...30...25c...4a...25c...16c...29...25j...11...20b...25l...10 (tolerance<->margin of error)...25j...25j...30...4a...25j...4a...4a...25j...25l...


No argument presented. Math error. A scalar is not a set. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 19-05-2020 06:16
19-05-2020 06:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 25l...25j...25j...16b...25j...25l...25c...25d...25e...


No argument presented. Math error. A scalar is not a set. Argument from randU fallacy. Denial of statistical math.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-05-2020 14:57
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote: Silly pedantic argument. Same room, same thermometer, same location.

Let's take this S-L-O-W-L-Y because I've seen rock formations that are quicker on the uptake than you are.

Spatially, we generally think of nature in three orthogonal dimensions, and this would be the domain of "volume."

We generally refer to "area" as being of two orthogonal dimensions.

One dimension is of a line, or is "linear."

A point in space is dimensionless ... that means there aren't any dimensions.

Let me know if I'm going too fast.

You are confusing a dimensionless point of temperature measure with a three-dimensional volume. So what I recommend is that you do a little reading and become a little more familiar with how differing numbers of dimensions are really different things altogether and how you really can't be conflating them and expect to formulate rational concepts or logical arguments.

After you grasp that concept a bit more firmly we can discuss "statistics" and "margin of error." You won't get anywhere unless you understand how those are required to provide valid answers.

... and maybe try ginseng for the mental sluggishness.

.


I can be pedantic too: A temperature measurement is 4 dimensional - the temperature at a particular location (3 dimensions) and time (1 dimension).

Your point of view isolates that space-time point from the rest of the room but the thermometer is not a closed system - it is linked energetically by conduction, radiation, and convection to the conditions in the rest of the room. Thus its reading is a measure of all the integral conditions throughout the room. Thus day 2 is still warmer than day 1.

I did I go too fast for you?

This little diversion does not affect 1 single point of the 42 I initially listed and is the point of the thread. So far not a single scientifically based arguments against any one of them. Patiently waiting for you to choose your best one and argue it with verifiable data from a reputable source.

Not holding my breath.
19-05-2020 17:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
DRKTS wrote: I can be pedantic too:

Apparently not. You don't know what the word means. Try again.

DRKTS wrote: A temperature measurement is 4 dimensional - the temperature at a particular location (3 dimensions) and time (1 dimension).

Only when multiple measurements are taken, Mr. Brilliant ... and I specified just a single temperature measure, as denoted in English by the indefinite article "a". Are you asking for some grammar lessons, Mr. Rhodes Scholar?

DRKTS wrote: Your point of view isolates that space-time point from the rest of the room but the thermometer is not a closed system

Once again, lay off the terms you don't understand, or are you asking for help on that too?

DRKTS wrote: - it is linked energetically by conduction, radiation, and convection to the conditions in the rest of the room.

Did Mr. Illuminance suddenly realize that there are many Cause-Effects occurring? I'll give you a clue: you don't serve anyone's interests by directing everyone's attention to an endless list of things without any point.

DRKTS wrote:This little diversion does not affect 1 single point of the 42 I initially listed and is the point of the thread.

You didn't list any points. You recited 42 Global Warming prayers. We get it. You are devoted to your faith. Great. Your euphoria from preaching the Good Word of Climate unfortunately does not suffice for "a point."

DRKTS wrote: So far not a single scientifically based arguments against any one of them.

There is no such thing as a scientific refutation of a prayer. What are you expecting?

I am patiently waiting for you to explain why any rational person should believe your religion. So far you haven't been forthcoming with any reasons, perhaps because you don't really believe it yourself.

.
Attached image:

19-05-2020 17:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote: ITN especially LOVES to say you can never know the temperature of anything


duncan, tmiddles is apparently clinging to the hope of manipulating you.

Into the Night does not hold the position that temperature cannot be known. It is tmiddles who insists that he knows temperatures that he doesn't know. tmiddles never discusses margin of error (yes, he sometimes writes those words but he doesn't understand what it is, what it means or what it's significance is) and he gets frustrated because every time he pretends to be omniscient, Into the Night reminds him that he doesn't really know that information. Upon being reminded that he isn't actually omniscient, tmiddles dives deep into cognitive dissonance and claims that Into the Night's position is that "nothing can be known."

tmiddles wants you to commit to knowing temperatures to infinite accuracy to infinite precision ... so that he can announce "Do you all see? duncan agrees with me."

Just tread carefully.

.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-05-2020 20:06
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:I have to go with ITN and IBDM that the average global temperature can not be known
Do you think you can know the temperature of the interior of your own home?

I'm still waiting for you to respond to me regarding how you'd go about figuring this out...

I've already specified for you that my home in particular, during Winter, will have a thermometer inside the "Mud Room" that reads 78degF, a thermometer in the "Living Room" that reads 66degF, and a thermometer inside of my "Bedroom" that reads 58degF. Just those three thermometers alone (and disregarding all other areas of "My House") are showing a 20degF difference between them.

What is the precise temperature of my house, Mr. Omniscient?
Edited on 19-05-2020 20:10
19-05-2020 21:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote: Silly pedantic argument. Same room, same thermometer, same location.

Let's take this S-L-O-W-L-Y because I've seen rock formations that are quicker on the uptake than you are.

Spatially, we generally think of nature in three orthogonal dimensions, and this would be the domain of "volume."

We generally refer to "area" as being of two orthogonal dimensions.

One dimension is of a line, or is "linear."

A point in space is dimensionless ... that means there aren't any dimensions.

Let me know if I'm going too fast.

You are confusing a dimensionless point of temperature measure with a three-dimensional volume. So what I recommend is that you do a little reading and become a little more familiar with how differing numbers of dimensions are really different things altogether and how you really can't be conflating them and expect to formulate rational concepts or logical arguments.

After you grasp that concept a bit more firmly we can discuss "statistics" and "margin of error." You won't get anywhere unless you understand how those are required to provide valid answers.

... and maybe try ginseng for the mental sluggishness.

.


I can be pedantic too: A temperature measurement is 4 dimensional - the temperature at a particular location (3 dimensions) and time (1 dimension).

Your point of view isolates that space-time point from the rest of the room but the thermometer is not a closed system

Yes it is.
DRKTS wrote:
- it is linked energetically by conduction, radiation, and convection to the conditions in the rest of the room.

A different closed system.
DRKTS wrote:
Thus its reading is a measure of all the integral conditions throughout the room.

WRONG. Argument from randU fallacy. Nothing says the temperatures in the room are uniform.
DRKTS wrote:
Thus day 2 is still warmer than day 1.

I did I go too fast for you?

You went too fast for you. Perhaps you had better take it slowly, as IBdaMann suggested.
DRKTS wrote:
This little diversion does not affect 1 single point of the 42 I initially listed and is the point of the thread.

Not yet. But it will. I have already addressed every single one of your 42 points. You are lucky. Usually I discard that sort of crap out of hand.
DRKTS wrote:
So far not a single scientifically based arguments against any one of them.

Lie. There are both theories of science you have ignored and branches of mathematics you have ignored.
DRKTS wrote:
Patiently waiting for you to choose your best one and argue it with verifiable data from a reputable source.

Attempted force of negative proof. Buzzword fallacy. Define 'reliable source'. You are not quoting reliable or verifiable data. You are quoting random numbers.
DRKTS wrote:
Not holding my breath.

Good. You'll retain too much CO2.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
20-05-2020 02:30
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(729)
Thats the exact one tmiddles thank you
20-05-2020 17:20
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote: I can be pedantic too:

Apparently not. You don't know what the word means. Try again.

DRKTS wrote: A temperature measurement is 4 dimensional - the temperature at a particular location (3 dimensions) and time (1 dimension).

Only when multiple measurements are taken, Mr. Brilliant ... and I specified just a single temperature measure, as denoted in English by the indefinite article "a". Are you asking for some grammar lessons, Mr. Rhodes Scholar?

DRKTS wrote: Your point of view isolates that space-time point from the rest of the room but the thermometer is not a closed system

Once again, lay off the terms you don't understand, or are you asking for help on that too?

DRKTS wrote: - it is linked energetically by conduction, radiation, and convection to the conditions in the rest of the room.

Did Mr. Illuminance suddenly realize that there are many Cause-Effects occurring? I'll give you a clue: you don't serve anyone's interests by directing everyone's attention to an endless list of things without any point.

DRKTS wrote:This little diversion does not affect 1 single point of the 42 I initially listed and is the point of the thread.

You didn't list any points. You recited 42 Global Warming prayers. We get it. You are devoted to your faith. Great. Your euphoria from preaching the Good Word of Climate unfortunately does not suffice for "a point."

DRKTS wrote: So far not a single scientifically based arguments against any one of them.

There is no such thing as a scientific refutation of a prayer. What are you expecting?

I am patiently waiting for you to explain why any rational person should believe your religion. So far you haven't been forthcoming with any reasons, perhaps because you don't really believe it yourself.

.


No useful content - OK to ignore
20-05-2020 22:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote: I can be pedantic too:

Apparently not. You don't know what the word means. Try again.

DRKTS wrote: A temperature measurement is 4 dimensional - the temperature at a particular location (3 dimensions) and time (1 dimension).

Only when multiple measurements are taken, Mr. Brilliant ... and I specified just a single temperature measure, as denoted in English by the indefinite article "a". Are you asking for some grammar lessons, Mr. Rhodes Scholar?

DRKTS wrote: Your point of view isolates that space-time point from the rest of the room but the thermometer is not a closed system

Once again, lay off the terms you don't understand, or are you asking for help on that too?

DRKTS wrote: - it is linked energetically by conduction, radiation, and convection to the conditions in the rest of the room.

Did Mr. Illuminance suddenly realize that there are many Cause-Effects occurring? I'll give you a clue: you don't serve anyone's interests by directing everyone's attention to an endless list of things without any point.

DRKTS wrote:This little diversion does not affect 1 single point of the 42 I initially listed and is the point of the thread.

You didn't list any points. You recited 42 Global Warming prayers. We get it. You are devoted to your faith. Great. Your euphoria from preaching the Good Word of Climate unfortunately does not suffice for "a point."

DRKTS wrote: So far not a single scientifically based arguments against any one of them.

There is no such thing as a scientific refutation of a prayer. What are you expecting?

I am patiently waiting for you to explain why any rational person should believe your religion. So far you haven't been forthcoming with any reasons, perhaps because you don't really believe it yourself.

.


No useful content - OK to ignore

So you have no intention of answering his question. That's plain enough.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
21-05-2020 08:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night does not hold the position that temperature cannot be known.
Easily cleared up by talking about a positive example.

IBdaMann wrote: It is tmiddles who insists that he knows temperatures that he doesn't know. tmiddles never discusses margin of error
Really? Never huh?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Let's talk about your data point. It is not for the bottom of Venus' atmosphere.
No it's not one point. It's the "number provided by the experts" for the entire ground level of Venus based on the total of the research done. A 200 degree margin of error should easily compensate for the level of accuracy.

Do you or do you not accept the +/- 200 degree margin of error?

Let's put "margin of error" on hold for the moment and let's discuss the raw data first. What raw data do we have?
link
Still on hold Duncan, still on hold.

IBdaMann wrote:...tmiddles...claims that Into the Night's position is that "nothing can be known."
Well the one example I can find of ITN presenting data, the Mouna Loa CO2 measurements, he now disavows and claims that data is corrupt. So in 5 years neither of you have presented anything you'll acknowledge as reliable. So yes you both play the "nothing can be known" game.

If you actually thought that I would just hope you got some counseling. As it is I know you're both dishonest and intent on a campaign of disinformation and effectively intellectual sabotage.

But to sweep the doody aside: We all know a LOT of things. That is to say we are reasonable sure those things are true. Beyond a reasonable doubt. It's good enough to execute a criminal, put a man on the moon and cross the street.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Page 2 of 5<1234>>>





Join the debate Empirical Evidence for Man-made Global Warming:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Does the absence of empirical evidence for CAGW give you pause for thought?4813-05-2020 22:35
Made a graph of low equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates to show that the IPCC's best estimate o203-03-2020 02:17
22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming21629-01-2020 05:52
man made or natural31527-01-2020 21:32
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N252624-01-2020 06:17
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact