Remember me
▼ Content

Empirical Evidence for Man-made Global Warming



Page 3 of 5<12345>
21-05-2020 09:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7325)
tmiddles wrote:Easily cleared up by talking about a positive example.

Nothing is ever easily cleared up with you since you intentionally fabricate the confusion in the first place.

tmiddles wrote: No it's not one point. It's the "number provided by the experts"

I have run out of time for you to waste.

Gather your raw data, THEN we'll continue.

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

You don't even know what you just asked. It's supposed to be a target. You speak as though it is something you have. You have no data, ergo you have no margin of error for me to accept. I have already explained this to you twice. There will be no third time.

Gather your raw data. You are simply wasting time gibbering.


tmiddles wrote: 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.

Yes, you are a liar. Both he and I have explained to you the clear difference in what we are talking about and you are intentionally lying right now.

tmiddles wrote: 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.

Have you ever been honest in your life? You seem like a sociopath.


.
Attached image:

21-05-2020 09:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3324)
gfm7175 wrote:
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?
Like to how many decimal places? Why are you saying "precise?

That there are different measurements at different locations is fine. An average for the entire interior would be determined using statistics and there would be a confidence interval. This is the same question that comes up with a lot of things (political telephone poll, toxin in the water supply, and so on). I know what this is but have HS level chops with it at the moment so can't do it (yet).

The more samples you have (in this case temperature measurements) the smaller you can get your confidence interval.

In your house as an example it would be easier, and you'd need fewer measurements, to get the answer to within say 1 degree if your house were more even in it's readings. Your standard deviation would be smaller.

Now to address the intro to this: Not having a clue what the temperature of something is.

I would know, being in you your house, without a thermometer, that the average temp was in the reasonably comfortable livable range. I would KNOW that the average temp of your house was not -51F and I would certainly KNOW that it was not 872F (those are the equilibrium and measured temps of Venus btw). I think we could both agree that it's pretty safe to say the average temp in your house is 65F +/- 10 degrees. Enough of a clue to know I don't need a parka or fan.

Now getting to the issue of this most relevant to the board, the mean temp of Earth annually at ground level, that is where there is genuinely some controversy. Can you get that down to +/- 0.25 degrees? Seems unlikely to me. +/- 20 degrees? I don't doubt it. But this is work done by professionals and I don't pretend to really know enough to critique the technique.

I do like listening to pros who can though:
Pat Franks:
Earth surface temperature measurements

Into the Night wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
No useful content - OK to ignore

So you have no intention of answering his question.
What question?

This one?:
IBdaMann wrote:
Are you asking for some grammar lessons, Mr. Rhodes Scholar?

IBD's entire post had absolutely nothing but drivel and insults in it. Nothing to respond to at all.

IBdaMann wrote:...You have no data, ....
You claim there is no data on the temperature of Venus. This is false claim.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: 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.

Yes, you are a liar.
Oh I'm a quoter, you should try it. All just posted here: link

IBdaMann wrote:...You seem like a sociopath.
Losing it a bit IBD? Why don't you just defeat me in debate? All you have to do is discuss a Venus that is really hot. That is certainly what you actually believe I'm sure.

"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 21-05-2020 09:44
21-05-2020 10:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7325)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...You have no data, ....
You claim there is no data on the temperature of Venus. This is false claim.

I never said that you had zero data. I point out that you don't have the valid datasets to support your conclusions, because you make shit up under the delusion that you are simply omniscient. You figure that the number must have popped into your head for a reason ... and that reason must be because you "know" it. There you go!

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...You seem like a sociopath.
Losing it a bit IBD? Why don't you just defeat me in debate? All you have to do is discuss a Venus that is really hot. That is certainly what you actually believe I'm sure.

I certainly do believe that the bottom of Venus' atmosphere is what I would consider to be very hot. Notice that I don't claim to know that it is.

You have the wrong impression about me. You seem to think that I find your delusions to somehow be a threat to my own faith. Surprise! I don't have any faith for anyone to threaten. I really don't care that you think you are omniscient. Yes, I find it annoying when you misrepresent my position but I'll get over it. You do make me appreciate never having to spew someone else's party line out of fear and you make me ever so glad that I am not a gullible schmuck.


.


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
21-05-2020 11:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...25c...25d...25e...25a...10 (standard deviation<->margin of error)...25c...30...9a...25g...25g...25c...25g...4f...lie...4f...16b...36e..5...25g...23...4a...10 (discussion<->debate)...29...25g...


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
21-05-2020 12:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3324)
IBdaMann wrote:...you don't have the valid datasets to support your conclusions, because you make shit up...
My conclusion is that Venus has a ground level temp that far exceeds the planets equilibrium temp.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...You seem like a sociopath.
Losing it a bit IBD? Why don't you just defeat me in debate? All you have to do is discuss a Venus that is really hot. That is certainly what you actually believe I'm sure.

I certainly do believe that the bottom of Venus' atmosphere is what I would consider to be very hot. Notice that I don't claim to know that it is.

You have the wrong impression about me. You seem to think that I find your delusions to somehow be a threat to my own faith. Surprise! I don't have any faith for anyone to threaten.
Fantastic! So we both agree that Venus, at the bottom of the atmosphere is really hot. I assume you also concur that the equilibrium temp from any object at the distance from the Sun we find Venus is not really hot. That is all that is needed for us to debate the issues. Are you willing to do that?

Again the only exhibit needed for that is the bottom of the atmosphere of Venus being significantly hotter than the equilibrium temp of the planet (you can say we don't know the emissivity but as I said even with the maximum emissivity the equilibrium temp is not hot).

And again you and I define to "Know" differently. I define it as to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt whereas I take it you define it as being beyond all doubt.

"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 21-05-2020 12:32
21-05-2020 21:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...you don't have the valid datasets to support your conclusions, because you make shit up...
My conclusion is that Venus has a ground level temp that far exceeds the planets equilibrium temp.

Why would it? The temperature of Venus is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
Fantastic! So we both agree that Venus, at the bottom of the atmosphere is really hot. I assume you also concur that the equilibrium temp from any object at the distance from the Sun we find Venus is not really hot. That is all that is needed for us to debate the issues. Are you willing to do that?

You are not debating. You are making up random numbers and calling it 'data'. That's a fallacy, not debating. It is borne out of your religion. Mantra 25g...25a...6...
tmiddles wrote:
Again the only exhibit needed for that is the bottom of the atmosphere of Venus being significantly hotter than the equilibrium temp of the planet (you can say we don't know the emissivity but as I said even with the maximum emissivity the equilibrium temp is not hot).

There is no 'should be' in science. Mantra20o...25g...31...
tmiddles wrote:
And again you and I define to "Know" differently. I define it as to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt whereas I take it you define it as being beyond all doubt.

Back to Mantra 31...39a...39g...39j...

No argument presented. Repetition fallacy. 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
21-05-2020 22:30
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3324)
Into the Night wrote:The temperature of Venus is unknown.
Define unknown. You seem to know it here:
\
Into the Night wrote:In the case of Venus, that atmosphere has almost no hydrogen in it at all.
Into the Night wrote:The Venusian atmosphere is almost all CO2.
Into the Night wrote:The surface pressure is 90 times the surface pressure on Earth.
Into the Night wrote:...the high temperatures of Venus.
from:
the DATA MINE
21-05-2020 22:37
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(292)
Into the Night wrote:
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.


No more so than any of you answer mine or answer any of my points with solid evidence - note the premise of this thread.
21-05-2020 22:45
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(292)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...you don't have the valid datasets to support your conclusions, because you make shit up...
My conclusion is that Venus has a ground level temp that far exceeds the planets equilibrium temp.

Why would it? The temperature of Venus is unknown.


You mean apart from the space probes that have landed on the surface and microwave observations?
21-05-2020 23:04
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1113)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
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?
Like to how many decimal places?

However many decimal places your omniscience is good for...

tmiddles wrote:
Why are you saying "precise?

Because you are supposedly omniscient.

tmiddles wrote:
That there are different measurements at different locations is fine. An average for the entire interior would be determined using statistics and there would be a confidence interval. This is the same question that comes up with a lot of things (political telephone poll, toxin in the water supply, and so on). I know what this is but have HS level chops with it at the moment so can't do it (yet).

The more samples you have (in this case temperature measurements) the smaller you can get your confidence interval.

In your house as an example it would be easier, and you'd need fewer measurements, to get the answer to within say 1 degree if your house were more even in it's readings. Your standard deviation would be smaller.

Well, tough shit. That just so happens to be how my house is during Winter... There's possibly even more variance than 20degF, but I only have three thermometers available at the moment and I don't have easy access to all areas within my house. Also, a standard deviation is not a margin of error.

tmiddles wrote:
Now to address the intro to this: Not having a clue what the temperature of something is.

I would know, being in you your house, without a thermometer, that the average temp was in the reasonably comfortable livable range.

You don't know what the average temp is.
Quantify "reasonably comfortable livable range".

tmiddles wrote:
I would KNOW that the average temp of your house was not -51F and I would certainly KNOW that it was not 872F

Is this how you are quantifying "reasonably comfortable livable range"?

tmiddles wrote:
(those are the equilibrium and measured temps of Venus btw).

No, you are just making up numbers again. No, wait... I'm sorry... How dare I question your Omniscience...

tmiddles wrote:
I think we could both agree that it's pretty safe to say the average temp in your house is 65F +/- 10 degrees.

No, I do not agree to that.

tmiddles wrote:
Enough of a clue to know I don't need a parka or fan.

There are no set temperatures that one "needs a parka or fan" for... Even speaking of the same person ("needing a parka/fan" is rather subjective, you know), they might need a fan at one 60degF moment in time but not need it at a different 70degF moment in time.

tmiddles wrote:
Now getting to the issue of this most relevant to the board, the mean temp of Earth annually at ground level, that is where there is genuinely some controversy. Can you get that down to +/- 0.25 degrees? Seems unlikely to me.

Not possible with our current instrumentation setup. There simply aren't enough thermometers being used.

tmiddles wrote:
+/- 20 degrees? I don't doubt it.

Not possible with our current instrumentation setup. There simply aren't enough thermometers being used.

tmiddles wrote:
But this is work done by professionals and I don't pretend to really know enough to critique the technique.

I do like listening to pros who can though:
Pat Franks:
Earth surface temperature measurements

Ignored appeal to random expert. I know enough about mathematics to critique the technique.
Edited on 21-05-2020 23:13
21-05-2020 23:12
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1113)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:The temperature of Venus is unknown.
Define unknown. You seem to know it here:
\
Into the Night wrote:In the case of Venus, that atmosphere has almost no hydrogen in it at all.
Into the Night wrote:The Venusian atmosphere is almost all CO2.
Into the Night wrote:The surface pressure is 90 times the surface pressure on Earth.
Into the Night wrote:...the high temperatures of Venus.
from:
the DATA MINE

You sure love to be dishonest, don't you?
22-05-2020 02:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3324)
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
That there are different measurements at different locations is fine....
In your house as an example it would be easier, and you'd need fewer measurements, to get the answer to within say 1 degree if your house were more even in it's readings. Your standard deviation would be smaller.

Well, tough shit. That just so happens to be how my house is during Winter......a standard deviation is not a margin of error.
Agreed. So a a 95% or 99% confidence interval could be calculated for the interior of your house (no I don't know how to do that as already stated). Did you have a point to make here?

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Now to address the intro to this: Not having a clue ....comfortable livable range.

You don't know what the average temp is.
Quantify "reasonably comfortable livable range".
I already did:
tmiddles wrote:...safe to say the average temp in your house is 65F +/- 10 degrees.

Define "know" when you use it. As I've said before it's to have no reasonable doubt about something when I use it. Statistically it would be to have a 95% or 99% confidence in an answer. It is not to necessarily be 100% in my usage of the term.

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
(those are the equilibrium and measured temps of Venus btw).

No, you are just making up numbers again.
Don't mix up "look something up" with "making something up". You can call be gullible for believing the data presented as a reference but I did not personally "make up" those numbers.

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I think we could both agree that it's pretty safe to say the average temp in your house is 65F +/- 10 degrees.

No, I do not agree to that.
OK so what would you say, about the house you're currently living in. Still that you "have no clue"?

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
+/- 20 degrees? I don't doubt it.

Not possible with our current instrumentation setup. There simply aren't enough thermometers being used....I know enough about mathematics to critique the technique.
Oh yeah? You've calculated this yourself? Or did you look it up?

How many thermometers would you need to know, 95%, the temp to within 1000 degrees? How about 500? 100?

I'm really interested! As I said my statistics are fairly elementary.

You should share your mathematic critique.
22-05-2020 04:24
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(470)
tmiddles wrote:
But this is work done by professionals and I don't pretend to really know enough to critique the technique.

I do like listening to pros who can though:
Pat Franks:
Earth surface temperature measurements

I went to this page and Pat franks explains how the temperature on Earth can not be known.I am confused Tmiddles I thought you were batting for its getting warmer???
22-05-2020 04:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3324)
duncan61 wrote:
I went to this page and Pat franks explains how the temperature on Earth can not be known.I am confused Tmiddles I thought you were batting for its getting warmer???


Nope. I'm in the maybe camp at most. This is the truly sad thing about deniers like ITN/IBD is they are commited to rewriting science text books so can't engage with quality skeptisism like Pat Franks.

My first topic here on tangiers island was critical of how evidence was being misrepresented.
22-05-2020 04:55
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(292)
duncan61 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
But this is work done by professionals and I don't pretend to really know enough to critique the technique.

I do like listening to pros who can though:
Pat Franks:
Earth surface temperature measurements

I went to this page and Pat franks explains how the temperature on Earth can not be known.I am confused Tmiddles I thought you were batting for its getting warmer???


Got a link to Pat Franks comment - I cannot find it anywhere
22-05-2020 06:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
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.


No more so than any of you answer mine or answer any of my points with solid evidence - note the premise of this thread.

You didn't make any points with solid evidence. An URL is not solid evidence. I don't have to prove anything.


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
22-05-2020 06:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...you don't have the valid datasets to support your conclusions, because you make shit up...
My conclusion is that Venus has a ground level temp that far exceeds the planets equilibrium temp.

Why would it? The temperature of Venus is unknown.


You mean apart from the space probes that have landed on the surface and microwave observations?


Microwaves don't measure temperature.
A single thermometer is not enough to measure the temperature of a planet.


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
22-05-2020 06:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
That there are different measurements at different locations is fine....
In your house as an example it would be easier, and you'd need fewer measurements, to get the answer to within say 1 degree if your house were more even in it's readings. Your standard deviation would be smaller.

Well, tough shit. That just so happens to be how my house is during Winter......a standard deviation is not a margin of error.
Agreed. So a a 95% or 99% confidence interval could be calculated for the interior of your house (no I don't know how to do that as already stated). Did you have a point to make here?

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Now to address the intro to this: Not having a clue ....comfortable livable range.

You don't know what the average temp is.
Quantify "reasonably comfortable livable range".
I already did:
tmiddles wrote:...safe to say the average temp in your house is 65F +/- 10 degrees.

Define "know" when you use it. As I've said before it's to have no reasonable doubt about something when I use it. Statistically it would be to have a 95% or 99% confidence in an answer. It is not to necessarily be 100% in my usage of the term.

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
(those are the equilibrium and measured temps of Venus btw).

No, you are just making up numbers again.
Don't mix up "look something up" with "making something up". You can call be gullible for believing the data presented as a reference but I did not personally "make up" those numbers.

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I think we could both agree that it's pretty safe to say the average temp in your house is 65F +/- 10 degrees.

No, I do not agree to that.
OK so what would you say, about the house you're currently living in. Still that you "have no clue"?

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
+/- 20 degrees? I don't doubt it.

Not possible with our current instrumentation setup. There simply aren't enough thermometers being used....I know enough about mathematics to critique the technique.
Oh yeah? You've calculated this yourself? Or did you look it up?

How many thermometers would you need to know, 95%, the temp to within 1000 degrees? How about 500? 100?

I'm really interested! As I said my statistics are fairly elementary.

You should share your mathematic critique.

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
22-05-2020 06:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3324)
DRKTS wrote:
Got a link to Pat Franks comment - I cannot find it anywhere
It was linked above:

Pat Franks:
Earth surface temperature measurements
22-05-2020 14:00
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(292)
Into the Night wrote:

Microwaves don't measure temperature.


Thank you for demonstrating your complete lack of scientific knowledge. It makes it clear why you cannot answer any of the scientific issues I raise or don't even recognize them as such.
22-05-2020 15:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7325)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Microwaves don't measure temperature.


Thank you for demonstrating your complete lack of scientific knowledge. It makes it clear why you cannot answer any of the scientific issues I raise or don't even recognize them as such.


Wow ... let me see if I was fooled by that. Hmmm.

Nope! I wasn't.

Microwaves don't measure temperature. Oh, and you are still a scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent moron. You still haven't raised any scientific issues. You have only invited others to join you in reciting Global Warming prayers and to feign interest in fabricated trivia.

I would be elated to discuss science with you ... but you wouldn't know what to look for in order to get some. As it stands, you don't have any.

What do you think science is anyway?


.


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
22-05-2020 15:46
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(292)
IBdaMann wrote:

What do you think science is anyway?


My profession. Check me out on research gate, buy my book (Many Faces of the Sun). Read my 3 recent papers in BAMS (google "BAMS Keith strong")

I dont hide behind a pseudo name or peddle pseudo science as you do.

Your turn - verifiable qualifications to speak science. Cue the crickets ...
23-05-2020 00:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Holy Link...


No argument presented.


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
23-05-2020 00:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Microwaves don't measure temperature.


Thank you for demonstrating your complete lack of scientific knowledge.

Inversion fallacy. Light does not measure temperature.
DRKTS wrote:
It makes it clear why you cannot answer any of the scientific issues

There is no such thing as a 'scientific' issue. Science is not an issue. An oozing sore is an issue.
DRKTS wrote:
I raise or don't even recognize them as such.

You are denying physics again. Light has no temperature. It cannot measure temperature.


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
23-05-2020 00:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

What do you think science is anyway?


My profession.

Science is not a profession or a job.
DRKTS wrote:
Check me out on research gate,

Science is not a research or a study.
DRKTS wrote:
buy my book (Many Faces of the Sun).

I don't buy books from people that deny physics or chemistry, or who lie about instruments they've constructed, Keith.
DRKTS wrote:
Read my 3 recent papers in BAMS (google "BAMS Keith strong")

I don't pay for papers from such people either.
DRKTS wrote:
I don't hide behind a pseudo name or peddle pseudo science as you do.

Apparently you do. Too bad NASA has become what it has become.
DRKTS wrote:
Your turn - verifiable qualifications to speak science. Cue the crickets ...

Science is not a qualification, degree, license, government office, university, or any other credential or title. You are not discussing science. You are denying physics. You are denying chemistry. You are denying science.


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 23-05-2020 00:27
23-05-2020 01:12
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(470)
tmiddles wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Got a link to Pat Franks comment - I cannot find it anywhere
It was linked above:

Pat Franks:
Earth surface temperature measurements

Tmiddles posts something that puts the whole AGW/CC Theory away and you clowns have a pissing contest well done.Good show for us laymen trying to get a handle on the subject


duncan61
23-05-2020 03:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
duncan61 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Got a link to Pat Franks comment - I cannot find it anywhere
It was linked above:

Pat Franks:
Earth surface temperature measurements

Tmiddles posts something that puts the whole AGW/CC Theory away and you clowns have a pissing contest well done.Good show for us laymen trying to get a handle on the subject


He does that. I have often seen him put both feet in his mouth and try to tie his shoes together.


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
23-05-2020 03:45
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(292)
Into the Night wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Microwaves don't measure temperature.


Thank you for demonstrating your complete lack of scientific knowledge.

Inversion fallacy. Light does not measure temperature.


OK, what does measure temperature?
23-05-2020 04:29
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(470)
Temperature can be measured locally its just not realistic to measure the temperature of the whole planet in one go so to declare that it was this and now its that is a fabrication.Have a good think about it Dr Strong like I did yesterday walking to the bus stop.I was cold in the morning and I have a sleeveless jacket I like to wear as I can put my phone and wallet in the pockets and my trousers stop trying to fall off when I am walking.I warmed up walking to the bus stop but I kept the jacket on as I knew I would cool down at the stop.My bus heads South/East through the streets and the sun rises in the East so I was in direct sunlight and was a bit uncomfortably warm again.I will take my laser reader and get some measurements but I will claim there is a 10 degreeC difference in the bus alone.I am enjoying this forum as a lady I am socializing with raised some questions regarding AGW/CC and I felt I had the correct answers.To know the average temperature of the oceans of the world you would have to know the temperature of every litre of water and divide it by 10 gazzillion and then declare it has gone up.The ice is not melting any different than before the sea is not rising and I have to ask.Does your career depend on people believing AGW/CC Dr Strong.If the funding for your salary gets cut will you be flipping burgers at Maccas
23-05-2020 05:17
James___
★★★★★
(2998)
duncan61 wrote:
Temperature can be measured locally its just not realistic to measure the temperature of the whole planet in one go so to declare that it was this and now its that is a fabrication.Have a good think about it Dr Strong like I did yesterday walking to the bus stop.I was cold in the morning and I have a sleeveless jacket I like to wear as I can put my phone and wallet in the pockets and my trousers stop trying to fall off when I am walking.I warmed up walking to the bus stop but I kept the jacket on as I knew I would cool down at the stop.My bus heads South/East through the streets and the sun rises in the East so I was in direct sunlight and was a bit uncomfortably warm again.I will take my laser reader and get some measurements but I will claim there is a 10 degreeC difference in the bus alone.I am enjoying this forum as a lady I am socializing with raised some questions regarding AGW/CC and I felt I had the correct answers.To know the average temperature of the oceans of the world you would have to know the temperature of every litre of water and divide it by 10 gazzillion and then declare it has gone up.The ice is not melting any different than before the sea is not rising and I have to ask.Does your career depend on people believing AGW/CC Dr Strong.If the funding for your salary gets cut will you be flipping burgers at Maccas


I just wanna fück with someone. There is evidence of AGW but the IPCC, the KKK and the NRA have it all covered it up. Sorry. But the bloods and the crips don't have no initials.
To give you an idea. Christians have always told me that I am going to go to this hot place down under.
Why is going to Australia bad? Is the Nullabor Plain and Alice Springs that bad? Are Australians really living in HELL?
With me, I've heard that it has nice beaches and Tasmania is actually a pretty cool place to visit (they have wallabies). But who to believe?
23-05-2020 06:04
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2209)
duncan61 wrote:
Temperature can be measured locally its just not realistic to measure the temperature of the whole planet in one go so to declare that it was this and now its that is a fabrication.Have a good think about it Dr Strong like I did yesterday walking to the bus stop.I was cold in the morning and I have a sleeveless jacket I like to wear as I can put my phone and wallet in the pockets and my trousers stop trying to fall off when I am walking.I warmed up walking to the bus stop but I kept the jacket on as I knew I would cool down at the stop.My bus heads South/East through the streets and the sun rises in the East so I was in direct sunlight and was a bit uncomfortably warm again.I will take my laser reader and get some measurements but I will claim there is a 10 degreeC difference in the bus alone.I am enjoying this forum as a lady I am socializing with raised some questions regarding AGW/CC and I felt I had the correct answers.To know the average temperature of the oceans of the world you would have to know the temperature of every litre of water and divide it by 10 gazzillion and then declare it has gone up.The ice is not melting any different than before the sea is not rising and I have to ask.Does your career depend on people believing AGW/CC Dr Strong.If the funding for your salary gets cut will you be flipping burgers at Maccas


Pres. Trump wants to cut US funding of WHO, a UN company. Hopefully, he will part with the entire UN BS, like he did with Paris Accord. The UN served a purpose, long time ago, when communication was a little more challenging. World leaders can just call each other, Text, or Email each other, at anytime. No need of a third party to be involved anymore. There hasn't been a need of the UN for decades, and they have been mostly creating problems, to justify their continued existence, and funding.

The IPCC's claims of global warming can't be directly observed, or verified independently. A 1C average warming, since the start of burning fossil fuels, is tiny, and stretched over hundreds of years. 1C warming can be seen in my state, just by traveling 20-30 miles, pretty much anytime, day or night.

When temperature monitoring started, the weather stations had to be read manual, daily. The vast majority of weather stations were placed in, or near cities, where, obviously, weather conditions mattered the most. Not many people really cared that much about polar weather. The focus has always been where weather impacts the most people, you know, the warmer climates around the world, where the larger portion of the population lives. Monitoring stations are added mostly in the warmer climates, closer to the equator. The average global temperature reading is showing warming, because more of the data comes from warmer climates. It's not the planet that's warming, just the faulty way data is collected and interpreted.
23-05-2020 09:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7325)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: What do you think science is anyway?

My profession.

Aaahhhh, so you don't know what it is. You are a fraud.

DRKTS wrote: Check me out on research gate, buy my book (Many Faces of the Sun). Read my 3 recent papers in BAMS (google "BAMS Keith strong")

I took a look. You think that publishing text is science. If you were an author of children's books you would probably imaging just the same that were a scientist.

You're not. I built a model similar to your "Many Faces of the Sun" when I was in the sixth grade, so by your own requirements, you have to acknowledge that I have been a scientist since I was a child.

Let me guess: You believe that peer reviewed papers help establish the scientific consensus, yes?

DRKTS wrote: I dont hide behind a pseudo name ...

You are a moron. This is an anonymous forum. That's why everyone has an avatar.
Attached image:


Edited on 23-05-2020 09:41
23-05-2020 14:04
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(292)
IBdaMann wrote:


I built a model similar to your "Many Faces of the Sun" when I was in the sixth grade, so by your own requirements, you have to acknowledge that I have been a scientist since I was a child.


Oops, The Many Faces of the Sun is not a model, its a review of the scientific results from NASA's Solar Maximum Mission.

Caught you making crap up as usual. As demonstrated by ...

Let me guess: You believe that peer reviewed papers help establish the scientific consensus, yes?


"I guess". You see that is your problem, you create a strawman and then believe it. I think that is called delusional. Guess again, not even warm that time.

If you want to know what I believe why not ask?
23-05-2020 14:07
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(292)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The IPCC's claims of global warming can't be directly observed, or verified independently.


Reference please ... cue the crickets.
23-05-2020 17:49
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2209)
DRKTS wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The IPCC's claims of global warming can't be directly observed, or verified independently.


Reference please ... cue the crickets.


I have eyes, both function well. When I step outside, what do you figure I can observe, that supports global warming? Can't be seen outdoors, by an independent observer, so we have to go online, and use the internet. The only sources, are of course, computer generated. Forecast models, are little different from entertaining video games. Instead of blasting space aliens, some people enjoy destroying virtual planet Earth. Unfortunately, some of those video game players are satisfied destroying virtual Earth, and want to do the same, real world. The destruction isn't in any warming though, it's in energy production, economy, and government, under the guise of saving use from virtual burning up.

Use Al Gore's movie as a reference... Based on IPCC models, right? How many of Al's dire warnings, apocalyptic prophesies came to pass? Oddly enough, little has changed, except the CO2 keeps rising, and nothing else. Well, that was a whole ago, the models/video games, are much better now... So are the weather models, that we uses each year to predict hurricane paths... Last years Hurricane Dorian, didn't follow the math at all. My house, even my employer, were directly in the path, almost centerline. The confidence in the model was so high, the was a curfew set in place, my employer rerouted and rescheduled deliveries, and scheduled to close for two days. We never operate 6 days a week, always. Dorian never made landfall in Florida, as predicted.
23-05-2020 19:20
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(470)
At 2pm AWST Saturday, Ex-Tropical Cyclone Mangga [17U] was located near 16S 99E, about 460 kilometres southeast of the Cocosand Keeling Islands. The remnants of the system will move rapidly towards northwest WA and will not redevelop.

There are no other significant lows in the Western Region at present and none are expected to develop over the next three days.

It faded out
23-05-2020 19:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Microwaves don't measure temperature.


Thank you for demonstrating your complete lack of scientific knowledge.

Inversion fallacy. Light does not measure temperature.


OK, what does measure temperature?


I assume you have heard of a thermometer at some point in your travels.


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
23-05-2020 19:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


I built a model similar to your "Many Faces of the Sun" when I was in the sixth grade, so by your own requirements, you have to acknowledge that I have been a scientist since I was a child.


Oops, The Many Faces of the Sun is not a model, its a review of the scientific results from NASA's Solar Maximum Mission.

Caught you making crap up as usual. As demonstrated by ...

Let me guess: You believe that peer reviewed papers help establish the scientific consensus, yes?


"I guess". You see that is your problem, you create a strawman and then believe it. I think that is called delusional. Guess again, not even warm that time.

If you want to know what I believe why not ask?


There is no such thing as a 'scientific result'. Science is not a 'result'. It is not data. It is not a research. It is not a study. It is not a book. You really are clueless about what science actually is. Not surprising, since you deny it, specifically the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, quantum mechanics, acid-base chemistry and density of materials, and you deny mathematics, specifically statistical mathematics and probability mathematics. You wrongly equivocate electromagnetic energy as thermal energy, you have attempted to compare to systems as if they were the same system, you throw meaningless buzzwords around like crazy and never define them, and now you try to claim books and papers you wrote is science. Whether you are Keith Strong or not is immaterial here. Titles are not science.

You will find that on blind forums such as this one, claims of titles, credentials, books you wrote, etc. have no meaning. Literally anyone can come on here and claim to be Keith Strong, and claimed to have written his books and papers...even quoting from them to 'prove' who he is.

For now, I will call you Keith, since you obviously think that you are. If you are, you are the reason NASA has become such an embarrassing example of its own destruction of trust. NASA once launched rockets to put man on the Moon. Today, it can barely get off the ground with a robot. Today, NASA spends most of time preaching religion. The guys that put man on the Moon are mostly gone from NASA now. They've been replaced by idiots like you.

You are not science. Your book is not science. Your papers are not science. You deny science. Your belief in the Church of Global Warming is not science.


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
23-05-2020 19:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
DRKTS wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The IPCC's claims of global warming can't be directly observed, or verified independently.


Reference please ... cue the crickets.


Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. He does not need to provide any reference of any kind. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the rules of statistical mathematics do not need 'references'. They stand on their own. You are just denying them again.


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
24-05-2020 00:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7325)
DRKTS wrote: Oops, The Many Faces of the Sun is not a model,

I never accused you of knowing what a model is. Yes, your "Many Faces of the Sun" is exactly that, a model. The fact that it is based on certain information makes your model consistent with that information.

Here's another school science fair model based on the exact same information as your "Many Faces of the Sun" ... and admittedly better than my grammar school model:



DRKTS wrote: its a review of the scientific results from NASA's Solar Maximum Mission.

Under the heading of "In how many ways can I advertise that I am a fraud", no actual scientist would refer to mere data as "scientific results." The Solar Maximum Mission was not an experiment attempting to falsify any falsifiable model. All that mission produced was data from tests it had performed. Yes, there were results from those tests, but there is nothing about them that is "scientific" without a falsifiable model around which the mission itself was designed in order to prove it false.

Are you claiming some particular science was intended to be, and successfully proven false by the Solar Maximum Mission? If not, you have at most more supporting data which is just data ... excellent for making science fair models and informative websites.

DRKTS wrote:
Let me guess: You believe that peer reviewed papers help establish the scientific consensus, yes?

"I guess". You see that is your problem, you create a strawman [blah, blah, blah ... EVASION deleted]


It's no surprise that you won't come right out and answer the question in the affirmative as you know frauds are required because that would expose you as a fraud in this forum.

You are a fraud. You are a loser who is desperate to be perceived as important and relevant. You believe that the way to doing this, without learning anything about science is to write stuff and to use terms that would fool laymen.

Of course that only has a chance of working with laymen.

Do you have any science supporting Greenhouse Effect? No? Great. I think we're done here.

DRKTS wrote:If you want to know what I believe why not ask?

I already know. We can move on.

.


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
Page 3 of 5<12345>





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