Remember me
▼ Content

GLACIAL CLIMATE REBOUNDING



Page 1 of 212>
GLACIAL CLIMATE REBOUNDING30-08-2019 19:08
Third world guy
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
I am not talking about the isostatic effect of recovery of the earth's crust. That's clear to me.

I refer to a theory that I once read indirectly in relation to the temperature vs time graph (for the last 11 000 years) that Tim Ball used to sue Michael Mann against the deplorable Hockey Stick.

Unfortunately I can't find a way to post it on this forum.

I am sure that experts know which graph I am referring to.

It clearly shows how there is a rebound or resilience in which the global temperature rises and falls in search of stability, and this justifies the current increase in global temperature, except for the reality of the climate hiatus.

I would appreciate any link or explanation that led me to know that theory.


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
30-08-2019 20:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
Third world guy wrote:
I am not talking about the isostatic effect of recovery of the earth's crust. That's clear to me.

I refer to a theory that I once read indirectly in relation to the temperature vs time graph (for the last 11 000 years) that Tim Ball used to sue Michael Mann against the deplorable Hockey Stick.

Unfortunately I can't find a way to post it on this forum.

I am sure that experts know which graph I am referring to.

It clearly shows how there is a rebound or resilience in which the global temperature rises and falls in search of stability, and this justifies the current increase in global temperature, except for the reality of the climate hiatus.

I would appreciate any link or explanation that led me to know that theory.


That was an interesting lawsuit, not the least for the simple reason that it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers to even begin to build a sensible raw dataset. They are not uniformly spaced, but are concentrated in cities and along roads. Different governments read them at different times. Who knows who is being accurate, just plain lying, or is actually trying to report an actual value as accurately as possible?

Statistical math requires the calculate of a thing called the margin of error to accompany the summary. That comes from the possible variances of data, not the data itself.

The data must be raw. It cannot be 'cooked' in any way. Selection must be by randN (the same as a deck of cards).

Location grouping is significant. Thermometers must be uniformly spaced.
Time is significant. Thermometers must be read by the same authority (not the same observer) at the same time.

To even begin to discuss intelligently about the temperature of the Earth, one must first answer the question, "How many thermometers are used to produce the raw data?".


The Parrot Killer
30-08-2019 20:51
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1454)
Even if you had all the thermometers you wanted, half the planet is warming in the sunlight, the other half cooling int the night. Then there's the in-between, when the sun rises or sets. Weather would also effect the readings, cloud cover, rain, snow... Doesn't happen all the time, every day, globally. Electronic communications globally, aren't instantaneous, always some delay, lag time.

They only started an official recording in the 1880's for temperature. I don't know the precision, but likely it was in whole degrees. Being read manual, likely some margin of error, +/- 1 degree or more. Would expect for them to have gone completely digital, until the 1970's. The data, is only as accurate as the least precise reading.

CO2 wasn't recorded, until 1959, mainly on the side of an active volcano (odd choice). Even stranger, Mauna Loa, is still the main source for CO2 data... Not sure what the margin of error is for CO2 readings.

Proxies and analogs are not data, they are basically a guess, rough estimate at best. A very large margin of error. Including them, just 'dumbs down' an actual data, to the point of uselessness. Climate Change is like playing a 'what if' video game, and not a whole lot to support any of it.
30-08-2019 22:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Even if you had all the thermometers you wanted, half the planet is warming in the sunlight, the other half cooling int the night. Then there's the in-between, when the sun rises or sets. Weather would also effect the readings, cloud cover, rain, snow... Doesn't happen all the time, every day, globally. Electronic communications globally, aren't instantaneous, always some delay, lag time.

Oddly enough, such lag time is not a problem, so long as the readings themselves were taken at the same time. Of course, as you so rightly indicated, the measurement is only good for that moment in time.
HarveyH55 wrote:
They only started an official recording in the 1880's for temperature. I don't know the precision, but likely it was in whole degrees. Being read manual, likely some margin of error, +/- 1 degree or more. Would expect for them to have gone completely digital, until the 1970's. The data, is only as accurate as the least precise reading.

This is about instrument tolerance, not margin of error. Thermometers used in 1880 in weather stations were remarkably good, having tolerances as small as +- fractions of a degree.

Of course, those thermometers were few and far between and only located in the United States. Temperature can and does easily vary by as much as 20 deg F per mile.

HarveyH55 wrote:
CO2 wasn't recorded, until 1959, mainly on the side of an active volcano (odd choice). Even stranger, Mauna Loa, is still the main source for CO2 data... Not sure what the margin of error is for CO2 readings.

The Mauna Loa data has been cooked. It is utterly useless. Cooked data is not allowed in statistical analysis. There are other stations, but they don't show the same thing. There are also satellites that try to measure CO2 by it's absorption characteristics, but that is over a fairly large area and does not account for the variance of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere per mile. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Proxies and analogs are not data, they are basically a guess, rough estimate at best.

They are not data at all. They are the result of leaping to conclusions. A fallacy.
HarveyH55 wrote:
A very large margin of error.

There is none, since there is no data. Leaping to a conclusion is a fallacy, not data. Any numbers coming out of such proxies are randU.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Including them, just 'dumbs down' an actual data, to the point of uselessness.

No, they are strictly random numbers.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate Change is like playing a 'what if' video game, and not a whole lot to support any of it.

Heh. It's worse than that! It's like playing a video game where you don't know whether you are the antagonist, the protagonist, or some other character in the game, and you don't even know what the name of the video game is!

'Climate change' has no meaning.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 30-08-2019 22:32
30-08-2019 23:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
Third world guy wrote:I refer to a theory that I once read indirectly in relation to the temperature vs time graph (for the last 11 000 years) that Tim Ball used to sue Michael Mann against the deplorable Hockey Stick.

Unfortunately I can't find a way to post it on this forum.

Yeah, it can't be done.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-08-2019 15:08
Third world guy
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
Could someone tell me with pears and apples how to publish an image?
Thanks in advance.


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
Edited on 31-08-2019 15:12
31-08-2019 15:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
Third world guy wrote:
Could someone tell me with pears and apples how to publish an image?
Thanks in advance.


Step 1. Get the URL for the image, e.g.

https://www.askideas.com/media/07/Dancing-Frog-Says-Hello-Animated-Picture.gif


Step 2. Put image tags, [img][/img]


... and voila!




.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-08-2019 15:48
Third world guy
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
Thanks, IBdaMann, for you reply:


This is the URL for the image:

www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=657&ei=c2pqXaCVIceotQWb-aeIBA&q=historical+global+temperature+graph&oq=historical+temperature+gr&gs_l=img.1.1.0j0i8i30.3380.15430..19129...4.0..0.215.3508.3j22j2......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i10j0i10i24j0i5i30j0i30j0i24.HYsUBZT_LXw#imgrc=XGTkfvFyJuNuiM:

And this is what I get.

[img]https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=657&ei=c2pqXaCVIceotQWb-aeIBA&q=historical+global+temperature+graph&oq=historical+temperature+gr&gs_l=img.1.1.0j0i8i30.3380.15430..19129...4.0..0.215.3508.3j22j2......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i10j0i10i24j0i5i30j0i30j0i24.HYsUBZT_LXw#imgrc=XGTkfvFyJuNuiM:[/img]

Something is missing¡


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
31-08-2019 16:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
Third world guy wrote:
Thanks, IBdaMann, for you reply:


This is the URL for the image:

www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=657&ei=c2pqXaCVIceotQWb-aeIBA&q=historical+global+temperature+graph&oq=historical+temperature+gr&gs_l=img.1.1.0j0i8i30.3380.15430..19129...4.0..0.215.3508.3j22j2......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i10j0i10i24j0i5i30j0i30j0i24.HYsUBZT_LXw#imgrc=XGTkfvFyJuNuiM:

Something is missing¡

Unfortunately this is not an image URL. It is a URL for a system call that provides information to the system regarding what action to take (like display an image). Basically, this URL will not work for what you want.

You need to actually find a website with that image, open the image in a separate tab and then copy that URL, e.g.

https://jpenhall.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/holocenetemperatures.png




.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-08-2019 16:27
Third world guy
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
Thanks, again, IBdaMann: I'm getting closer.



Let's start from here.

My first question is whether this graphic is scientifically recognized (obviously not for Michael Mann).

The second has to do with the theory that I once read somewhere: if we project a straight line along the maximum temperature points, it is seen that they tend to be less.

It is as if it were a climate rebound from the last glaciation.

If so, the next maximum (the current one) would be lower than the previous one, and could be considered a natural phenomenon.

What is your opinion about it?


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
31-08-2019 18:03
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1454)
It's really anyone's guess, about what to expect int the future. We have no records of what is was like before, during, or for many thousands of years after the last major glacial event. Most of the past, is faith-based, bunch people thought about it, agreed what most likely happened, based on 'modern', meaning past couple thousand years, experiences. Might have happened, as 'believed', or something else entirely. Basically, what I get from all the graphs, is there really is no 'normal', so no basis to predicted. We can be pretty sure, that life on earth has been around a very long time, and most likely will continue, long after this species is gone. We either adapt/evolve, or go extinct. That should really be the focus, rather trying to fight, or change the planet, to better suit our selfish wants and needs. Any such attempts, are purely experimental, we don't actually know anything really needs to be changed, or what else we might be effecting. We do know it'll take a long time, no quick fix, and no way to reverse quickly, if it turns badly.

We are currently going through a climate/weather event in the tropics, and has a lot to do with predictions, based on computer models. These models are actually better, more reliable, than any climate change models, being that they are fed actual data, and the results of the predictions, can be compared to what actually happens. The models can be updated, or rewritten, from what is learned from each storm. When the predictions are off, they can try to figure out why, what influenced the storm, to take a different path. Their will always be another storm. A week ago, Dorian was barely a named tropical storm, and predicted to make landfall in the central part of Florida, as a Cat 2 Hurricane. Now, its a Cat 4, and the models pretty much agree that landfall is unlikely, it'll follow off the coast, heading north, possibly back out over open ocean. Still about 3 days out, the models were much different 3 days ago... We still are going to get hit with strong winds, a lot of rain, likely worse, than had it made landfall, since it'll be picking up water and energy from the ocean. Over land, it would have been drained, and weakened.

These models get a lot more work, than Climate Change models, and still don't give more than 3 days, semi-reliable predictions. How does anyone trust a few climate change models, to predict what happened thousands of years in the past, or hundreds of years in the future? Climate Change models are fed garbage, faith-based data.

Another interesting note... There are several hundred hurricane tracking models, only a dozen or so are selected, and the focus of the news coverage. Even NOAA doesn't provide the graphics with the full set anymore. Who decides which models to use, and why? I've lived in Florida for a while, the news reporting use to be more accurate, no it's a lot of hype, mostly to encourage people to prepare, basically spend lots of money, quickly. Which is great for the economy. The greater the perceived threat, the more people are likely to stay glued to the local news channels for lasted updates. Great business for the station, and the sponsors. Nothing wrong with an abundance of caution, or being prepared for the worst, life is priceless, you only get one. Unfortunately, some people like me, don't get into the panic and hype generated by the news coverage, and maybe one of these times, I won't be as prepared as I could have been. I just noticed a strong similarity to a storm we had 2-3 years ago, call Matthew, which I'm not sure if it actually made landfall, close though, it headed north, like this one is being predicted to do. Matthew still made a mess, knocked down some of my fence, branch broke one of my side mirrors on my Explorer... Still did a lot of damage around the state. Wasn't no where near as bad as the news was making it out to be though. Think flooding is going to be a huge problem though, quite a few places with construction in progress, storm water management not finish, impeded. Few places on my daily 40 minute commute, that flood, or a lot of standing water, from not so severe afternoon storms, less than one inch rain, over maybe an hour. Dorian will dump several inches/hour, over much of the state, for a day or two, not short, scatter showers. My home hasn't seen any flooding threats, so no worries, no sandbags. Little concerned about driving to work though, expect it to take an hour, or more (likely to have to slow down some, even below the posted limit).

I know, long winded, but thought it worth illustrating the value of computer models, and accurate data. The data isn't there, for climate change models to produce anything reliable or useful. There is no past history to check and modify the models against. It's entirely faith based, science fiction, hype, marketing. The actual crisis, is the many trillions of dollars, that climate change enthusiasts want to spend, over a very short time span, just to experiment, and prove their beliefs. Atmospheric CO2 is a very poor choice to play with, directly related to the plants, that provide all the food, for all life on this planet, oxygen too. Two very key elements of survival, we can't live without, but we can survive a few degrees warmer.
31-08-2019 18:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
Third world guy wrote:My first question is whether this graphic is scientifically recognized (obviously not for Michael Mann).

There is no such thing as "scientific recognition." Science is not subjective. Opinions do not apply. Nobody owns science. Nobody's "recognition" is of any value.

The question for you is: Whose opinion matters to you regarding the "recognition" of this graph.

Also, there can be no science involved in speculation about the past. The chart you posted is mere speculation and has nothing to do with science. None of the graph's content is "known." You could make up your own chart with values you like and it would be just as valid. Why? Your graph is comprised exclusively of proxy measures which are invalid data because they are the measures of something other than what is claimed.

Third world guy wrote: It is as if it were a climate rebound from the last glaciation.

There is no such thing as a global climate. That is a contradiction in terms. Unless you are using your own special definition, your assertion here makes no sense.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-09-2019 03:48
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
Third world guy wrote:
... the isostatic effect of recovery of the earth's crust....

Woah, news to me. In case anyone else reading didn't know what that was "Though the ice melted long ago, the land once under and around the ice is still rising and falling in reaction to its ice-age burden. This ongoing movement of land is called glacial isostatic adjustment."

Third world guy wrote:I am sure that experts know which graph I am referring to.
There are no experts here just FYI. Enthusiasts maybe but no one you could call an expert.

Into the Night wrote:...it's not possible to measure...
IBdaMann wrote:... there can be no science involved in speculation about the past....
Cases in point, ITN and IBD have never taken the position that any study or data is ever use-able.

I would argue that there is no "default reality" 10,000 years ago and that you can argue how confident we can be but not that, without enough certainty, you must conclude that it was some default.

Of course we are only ever to talk about confidence levels which are never 100%.

Proxies used in the past can still be used today to keep things apples to apples for comparison:
PROXIES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

That image came from a climate change skeptics blog: jpenhall:"IPCC...assume...a total fallacy"

Third world guy wrote:

is ...this graphic is scientifically recognized...It is as if it were a climate rebound from the last glaciation.


I would agree that not so just this graph but all of those presented clearly show that we were "shooting up" in temperature before man made CO2 could have been a factor. Even the 1880 to 1930 jump which involved real thermometers.

However this only set's aside the significance of the claim "Whoah guys it's the hottest year on record!!!". Since the last ice age was 12000+ years ago someone could have said that 6000 years ago and been right.

I have a similar question in my first post here:
tangier-island-should-it-be-used-as-an-example
Of course it in no way dismisses AGW by CO2 it only makes it more complicated to study (If temp history indicated we should be headed lower and we went higher it would be a simpler case to make).
tmiddles wrote:... we can set aside questions about the reliability of the data to look at the second question: Does the concept make sense.
(the graph above overlaps with your graph only in the last tiny bit of zig zag)
Here's a few alternatives covering your same period:

02-09-2019 16:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
tmiddles wrote:Cases in point, ITN and IBD have never taken the position that any study or data is ever use-able.

False. Can you go one post without dishonestly misrepresenting my position?

tmiddles wrote:I would argue that there is no "default reality"

... you just wouldn't argue it very well. In order to hold that position, which you do, you must deny science, which you do. This gets you mocked more than it gets you respected.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-09-2019 19:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
tmiddles wrote:
Third world guy wrote:
... the isostatic effect of recovery of the earth's crust....

Woah, news to me. In case anyone else reading didn't know what that was "Though the ice melted long ago, the land once under and around the ice is still rising and falling in reaction to its ice-age burden. This ongoing movement of land is called glacial isostatic adjustment."

Third world guy wrote:I am sure that experts know which graph I am referring to.
There are no experts here just FYI. Enthusiasts maybe but no one you could call an expert.

Into the Night wrote:...it's not possible to measure...
IBdaMann wrote:... there can be no science involved in speculation about the past....
Cases in point, ITN and IBD have never taken the position that any study or data is ever use-able.

I would argue that there is no "default reality" 10,000 years ago and that you can argue how confident we can be but not that, without enough certainty, you must conclude that it was some default.

Of course we are only ever to talk about confidence levels which are never 100%.

Proxies used in the past can still be used today to keep things apples to apples for comparison:
PROXIES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

That image came from a climate change skeptics blog: jpenhall:"IPCC...assume...a total fallacy"

Third world guy wrote:

is ...this graphic is scientifically recognized...It is as if it were a climate rebound from the last glaciation.


I would agree that not so just this graph but all of those presented clearly show that we were "shooting up" in temperature before man made CO2 could have been a factor. Even the 1880 to 1930 jump which involved real thermometers.

However this only set's aside the significance of the claim "Whoah guys it's the hottest year on record!!!". Since the last ice age was 12000+ years ago someone could have said that 6000 years ago and been right.

I have a similar question in my first post here:
tangier-island-should-it-be-used-as-an-example
Of course it in no way dismisses AGW by CO2 it only makes it more complicated to study (If temp history indicated we should be headed lower and we went higher it would be a simpler case to make).
tmiddles wrote:... we can set aside questions about the reliability of the data to look at the second question: Does the concept make sense.
(the graph above overlaps with your graph only in the last tiny bit of zig zag)
Here's a few alternatives covering your same period:



Argument from randU fallacy. Math error. Failure to show unbiased raw data. Failue to select by randN. Failure to declare variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Leaping to conclusion fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
02-09-2019 23:42
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Cases in point, ITN and IBD have never taken the position that any study or data is ever use-able.
False.

Ah the I can't be bothered to link or quote but I assure you it's there BS.

Into the Night wrote:Failure to show unbiased raw data.

How about an example of when you've done this properly yourself ITN? How many years on this board? You must of done it the right way many times.
03-09-2019 19:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Cases in point, ITN and IBD have never taken the position that any study or data is ever use-able.
False.

Ah the I can't be bothered to link or quote but I assure you it's there BS.

A link is not data. A link is not a proof. A quote is not data. A quote is not a proof.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Failure to show unbiased raw data.

How about an example of when you've done this properly yourself ITN? How many years on this board?

Do what? Post manufactured data? I don't post manufactured data.
tmiddles wrote:
You must of done it the right way many times.

No, I don't post manufactured data. See the Data Mine.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2019 04:53
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Cases in point, ITN and IBD have never taken the position that any study or data is ever use-able.
False.

Ah the I can't be bothered to link or quote but I assure you it's there BS.

A link is not data. A link is not a proof. A quote is not data. A quote is not a proof.

That would be a link to your own post. Pay attention.

You and IBD have never affirmed anything on this board as making the grade. You claim that's false. That would mean there is a post in the past when you have.

So yeah that would be proof. If you had it.
04-09-2019 07:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Cases in point, ITN and IBD have never taken the position that any study or data is ever use-able.
False.

Ah the I can't be bothered to link or quote but I assure you it's there BS.

A link is not data. A link is not a proof. A quote is not data. A quote is not a proof.

That would be a link to your own post. Pay attention.

And your point?
tmiddles wrote:
You and IBD have never affirmed anything on this board as making the grade.

You don't get to judge whether anyone 'makes the grade'.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2019 08:41
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ITN and IBD have never taken the position that any study or data is ever use-able.

And your point?

That your strategy is to disqualify all of science/technology/research. So you can effectively end any discussion with "NOPE! Not valid data". It's an attempt to sabotage debate before it starts.

It's Lame. You're doing it. And you are pretending you don't.

You and IBD have never once qualified anything as being valid/accurate/usable.

It's just a cheap trick no more sofisticated than a 5 yo who continues to ask WHY after every explanation
04-09-2019 09:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
tmiddles wrote:That your strategy is to disqualify all of science/technology/research.

Interesting. You seek to disqualify the Stefan-Boltzmann and the 2nd law of thermodynamics on whose adherence we insist, and without missing a beat you claim that we are trying to disqualify all science.

You ignore everything Trump says except for one bite taken completely out of context while ignoring all of his direct messages in their full context, and without missing a beat you claim we seek to disqualify all research.

I bet you wonder why no one lends you any credibility.

tmiddles wrote:So you can effectively end any discussion with "NOPE! Not valid data".

I see that you are confused and frustrated at getting that a lot. I can explain why that happens to you so frequently. At some point in your life you realized that you were a non-competitive loser who was desperate to be perceived as smart and important. You saw people such as Trump achieve success by providing value to society by offering goods and services demanded by free markets. You became debilitatingly envious and secretly wished ill on all those who earned nice things by adding value and began wondering how you could confiscate the fruits of their labors and how you could destroy free markets so that no one else could ever again have nice things ... unless it's you.

You then met some people (or online avatars) who convinced you that you could be perceived as smart and important if you would just lie as you were instructed, and to HATE at their command. You were malleable and gullible and you fell for it.

Ask me how I know.

Hint:
tmiddles wrote:You and IBD have never once qualified anything as being valid/accurate/usable.


Hint:
tmiddles wrote:It's just a cheap trick no more sofisticated than a 5 yo who continues to ask WHY after every explanation


p.s. - do you know how you can tell whether someone is sofisticated?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-09-2019 09:31
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
IBdaMann wrote:You seek to disqualify the Stefan-Boltzmann and the 2nd law of thermodynamics

Did I do that with my calculation on the net thermal radiation of a person in a room? Did I make mistakes?

You don't qualify ANYTHING. Well ITN did just put a few things on the table that qualify, I think. We'll see.

You know someone is losing when they stoop to personal attacks and trying to get to the psychology of their opponent who simply has the winning side.
Edited on 04-09-2019 09:31
04-09-2019 09:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
tmiddles wrote:Did I do that with my calculation on the net thermal radiation of a person in a room? Did I make mistakes?

Absolutely.

tmiddles wrote:You know someone is losing when they stoop to personal attacks and trying to get to the psychology of their opponent who simply has the winning side.

Losing? What's the score?

I think you missed my victory lap because you still hadn't emerged from the starting gate.

You also missed the part where I mentioned that I am happy (and amused) to let you believe what you believe, and for you to be the only one you are fooling.

Enjoy.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Edited on 04-09-2019 09:39
04-09-2019 09:41
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Did I do that with my calculation on the net thermal radiation of a person in a room? Did I make mistakes?

Absolutely.

Name just one.
04-09-2019 16:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Did I do that with my calculation on the net thermal radiation of a person in a room? Did I make mistakes?

Absolutely.

Name just one.

1. You misapplied the principle in question.
2.
3.

... Oh, you specified "just one."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-09-2019 19:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ITN and IBD have never taken the position that any study or data is ever use-able.

And your point?

That your strategy is to disqualify all of science/technology/research.

There is no such thing as 'scientific' research. I have said this many times. There...it's hanging out all pink and naked. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not a 'research' or a 'study'.

Technology is not science. It is the result of engineering. Engineers use theories of science as part of their engineering. Engineering is building and operating engines and structures. The only research they do is to find previous information about what they are building and to learn from their successes or failures.

A scientist might research the behavior patterns of polar bears, for example, but that is because he is either testing a theory of his, or he is trying to formulate a new theory. Other than that, it's just a pleasure cruise...in the Arctic. Science isn't the boat trip. It isn't even observing polar bears. It's the THEORY itself and the tests against it.

tmiddles wrote:
So you can effectively end any discussion with "NOPE! Not valid data".

I will do so anytime you introduce invalid 'data'. There IS such a thing as valid data. See the Data Mine for details.
tmiddles wrote:
It's an attempt to sabotage debate before it starts.

No, you are not debating. You are preaching.
tmiddles wrote:
It's Lame. You're doing it. And you are pretending you don't.

There is no debate. There is only you preaching and people like me and IBdaMann calling on the rug for it.
tmiddles wrote:
You and IBD have never once qualified anything as being valid/accurate/usable.

Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
It's just a cheap trick no more sofisticated than a 5 yo who continues to ask WHY after every explanation

Lie. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is repetitively asking for the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over even though you have already been answered.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2019 19:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:You seek to disqualify the Stefan-Boltzmann and the 2nd law of thermodynamics

Did I do that with my calculation on the net thermal radiation of a person in a room?

Yes.
tmiddles wrote:
Did I make mistakes?

Yes.
tmiddles wrote:
You don't qualify ANYTHING.

Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
Well ITN did just put a few things on the table that qualify, I think. We'll see.

You know someone is losing when they stoop to personal attacks and trying to get to the psychology of their opponent who simply has the winning side.

He is not making a personal attack (you have). He is describing your religion and what it's done to you.


The Parrot Killer
05-09-2019 02:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
IBdaMann wrote:the principle in question.
Too much energy for you to name it there sport?

Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'scientific' research.

Is there such a thing as research? Is there such a thing as Technology. I do not care what ITN's definition of "Science" is (which you will find nowhere else by the way, Google it).

You disqualify everything.
Into the Night wrote:
There IS such a thing as valid data. See the Data Mine for details.

BS. Case in point:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Here is the raw data, method of determination, for emissivity of skin measurements from 40 subjects here:
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/journal-of-biomedical-optics/volume-14/issue-02/024006/Novel-approach-to-assess-the-emissivity-of-the-human-skin/10.1117/1.3086612.full?SSO=1

Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity
1 0.996 11 0.998 21 0.994 31 0.998
2 0.994 12 0.996 22 0.998 32 0.999
3 0.998 13 0.991 23 0.997 33 0.997
4 0.999 14 0.998 24 0.997 34 0.999
5 0.998 15 0.992 25 0.995 35 0.995
6 0.998 16 0.992 26 0.999 36 0.992
7 0.996 17 0.997 27 0.990 37 0.998
8 0.996 18 0.995 28 0.993 38 0.998
9 0.992 19 0.998 29 0.999 39 0.994
10 0.998 20 0.997 30 0.997 40 0.995

That's 40 subjects with emissivity all over 0.95

Meh. RandU. How was it measured?


Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:You seek to disqualify the Stefan-Boltzmann and the 2nd law of thermodynamics

Did I do that with my calculation on the net thermal radiation of a person in a room?

Yes.

How's that?

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Did I make mistakes?

Yes.

What was it?
Edited on 05-09-2019 02:47
05-09-2019 02:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:the principle in question.
Too much energy for you to name it there sport?

Contextomy fallacy. A principle is not energy.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'scientific' research.

Is there such a thing as research?

Yes. I explained it to you already.
tmiddles wrote:
Is there such a thing as Technology.

Yes. I explained it to you already.
tmiddles wrote:
I do not care what ITN's definition of "Science" is (which you will find nowhere else by the way, Google it).

Not my definition. Philosophy defines words like 'science' and 'religion'.
tmiddles wrote:
You disqualify everything.

Compositional error fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There IS such a thing as valid data. See the Data Mine for details.

BS. Case in point:

Argument of the stone fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Here is the raw data, method of determination, for emissivity of skin measurements from 40 subjects here:
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/journal-of-biomedical-optics/volume-14/issue-02/024006/Novel-approach-to-assess-the-emissivity-of-the-human-skin/10.1117/1.3086612.full?SSO=1

Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity
1 0.996 11 0.998 21 0.994 31 0.998
2 0.994 12 0.996 22 0.998 32 0.999
3 0.998 13 0.991 23 0.997 33 0.997
4 0.999 14 0.998 24 0.997 34 0.999
5 0.998 15 0.992 25 0.995 35 0.995
6 0.998 16 0.992 26 0.999 36 0.992
7 0.996 17 0.997 27 0.990 37 0.998
8 0.996 18 0.995 28 0.993 38 0.998
9 0.992 19 0.998 29 0.999 39 0.994
10 0.998 20 0.997 30 0.997 40 0.995

That's 40 subjects with emissivity all over 0.95

Meh. RandU. How was it measured?

I repeat. How was it measured? Since you can't seem to answer that, I must disqualify it. See the Data Mine for details.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:You seek to disqualify the Stefan-Boltzmann and the 2nd law of thermodynamics

Did I do that with my calculation on the net thermal radiation of a person in a room?

Yes.

How's that?

Already explained to you. Go back and read it again. Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy.

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Did I make mistakes?

Yes.

What was it?

Already explained to you. Go back and read it again. Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-09-2019 02:55
05-09-2019 03:12
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
Into the Night wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Here is the raw data, method of determination, for emissivity of skin measurements from 40 subjects here:
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/journal-of-biomedical-optics/volume-14/issue-02/024006/Novel-approach-to-assess-the-emissivity-of-the-human-skin/10.1117/1.3086612.full?SSO=1

Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity
1 0.996 11 0.998 21 0.994 31 0.998
2 0.994 12 0.996 22 0.998 32 0.999
3 0.998 13 0.991 23 0.997 33 0.997
4 0.999 14 0.998 24 0.997 34 0.999
5 0.998 15 0.992 25 0.995 35 0.995
6 0.998 16 0.992 26 0.999 36 0.992
7 0.996 17 0.997 27 0.990 37 0.998
8 0.996 18 0.995 28 0.993 38 0.998
9 0.992 19 0.998 29 0.999 39 0.994
10 0.998 20 0.997 30 0.997 40 0.995

That's 40 subjects with emissivity all over 0.95

Meh. RandU. How was it measured?

I repeat. How was it measured? Since you can't seem to answer that, I must disqualify it. See the Data Mine for details.


I know you and IBD like to pretend you get to make the rules with "The Manual" and your "data mine" but you don't. I provided a link. Np giving you it's contents:

3.Materials and Methods
This study was developed with the participation of 40 volunteers who were informed about the type and level of radiation to be used. ...
Infrared images were acquired with a SATIR infrared camera, model S280 ...To check the range of skin temperatures of the participants, a Fluke 52II thermometer (Fluke Corporation, Everett, Washington) with a type-K thermopar and ....

But it's basically 4 screens full of the methodology layed out with photos so it's easier for you to just look:
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/journal-of-biomedical-optics/volume-14/issue-02/024006/Novel-approach-to-assess-the-emissivity-of-the-human-skin/10.1117/1.3086612.full?SSO=1
05-09-2019 06:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Here is the raw data, method of determination, for emissivity of skin measurements from 40 subjects here:
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/journal-of-biomedical-optics/volume-14/issue-02/024006/Novel-approach-to-assess-the-emissivity-of-the-human-skin/10.1117/1.3086612.full?SSO=1

Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity
1 0.996 11 0.998 21 0.994 31 0.998
2 0.994 12 0.996 22 0.998 32 0.999
3 0.998 13 0.991 23 0.997 33 0.997
4 0.999 14 0.998 24 0.997 34 0.999
5 0.998 15 0.992 25 0.995 35 0.995
6 0.998 16 0.992 26 0.999 36 0.992
7 0.996 17 0.997 27 0.990 37 0.998
8 0.996 18 0.995 28 0.993 38 0.998
9 0.992 19 0.998 29 0.999 39 0.994
10 0.998 20 0.997 30 0.997 40 0.995

That's 40 subjects with emissivity all over 0.95

Meh. RandU. How was it measured?

I repeat. How was it measured? Since you can't seem to answer that, I must disqualify it. See the Data Mine for details.


I know you and IBD like to pretend you get to make the rules with "The Manual" and your "data mine" but you don't. I provided a link. Np giving you it's contents:

3.Materials and Methods
This study was developed with the participation of 40 volunteers who were informed about the type and level of radiation to be used. ...
Infrared images were acquired with a SATIR infrared camera, model S280 ...To check the range of skin temperatures of the participants, a Fluke 52II thermometer (Fluke Corporation, Everett, Washington) with a type-K thermopar and ....

But it's basically 4 screens full of the methodology layed out with photos so it's easier for you to just look:
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/journal-of-biomedical-optics/volume-14/issue-02/024006/Novel-approach-to-assess-the-emissivity-of-the-human-skin/10.1117/1.3086612.full?SSO=1


That method doesn't work. You cannot measure the emissivity of anything without accurately knowing it's temperature, and human skin varies in temperature.

Reflecting various colors of light off a surface doesn't measure emissivity.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-09-2019 06:07
05-09-2019 07:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
Into the Night wrote:
That method doesn't work. You cannot measure the emissivity of anything without accurately knowing it's temperature, and human skin varies in temperature.
Reflecting various colors of light off a surface doesn't measure emissivity.

What a surprise! You're claiming it's not possible to get the job done.

They measure the temperature of the skin at the time they measure the radiance. You're claiming it's useless research because the skin temperature might change in that space of time? Really?

Your claim that skin temperature changes so quickly. I don't suppose you can back that up?
05-09-2019 08:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
That method doesn't work. You cannot measure the emissivity of anything without accurately knowing it's temperature, and human skin varies in temperature.
Reflecting various colors of light off a surface doesn't measure emissivity.

What a surprise! You're claiming it's not possible to get the job done.

Not by that method, no.
tmiddles wrote:
They measure the temperature of the skin at the time they measure the radiance.
No, they don't. They are using reflecting lights.
tmiddles wrote:
You're claiming it's useless research because the skin temperature might change in that space of time? Really?
It can change quite rapidly.
tmiddles wrote:
Your claim that skin temperature changes so quickly. I don't suppose you can back that up?

Sure. Walk from your warm house to the outdoors without a jacket this winter. Use a fast thermometer to measure the temperature change.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-09-2019 08:29
05-09-2019 08:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
They measure the temperature of the skin at the time they measure the radiance.
No, they don't. They are using reflecting lights.

To check the range of skin temperatures of the participants, a Fluke 52II thermometer (Fluke Corporation, Everett, Washington) with a type-K thermopar and a resolution of 0.1°C was used.

Are you claiming that the Fluke 52II isn't capable of determing the temperature of the skin? Can you back up that claim?

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Your claim that skin temperature changes so quickly. I don't suppose you can back that up?

Sure. Walk from your warm house to the outdoors without a jacket this winter. Use a fast thermometer to measure the temperature change.

Forget what we were talking about? You claim the temperature can change so rapidly in THIS EXPERIMENT so as to make the data unuseable.


Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
What a surprise! You're claiming it's not possible to get the job done.
Not by that method, no.

A normal follow up to this would be pointing out the method that does work. As well as ACTUALLY supporting your claim with real references/data/research/anything.
Edited on 05-09-2019 08:40
05-09-2019 10:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
They measure the temperature of the skin at the time they measure the radiance.
No, they don't. They are using reflecting lights.

To check the range of skin temperatures of the participants, a Fluke 52II thermometer (Fluke Corporation, Everett, Washington) with a type-K thermopar and a resolution of 0.1°C was used.

Are you claiming that the Fluke 52II isn't capable of determing the temperature of the skin? Can you back up that claim?

That's right. And I just did.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Your claim that skin temperature changes so quickly. I don't suppose you can back that up?

Sure. Walk from your warm house to the outdoors without a jacket this winter. Use a fast thermometer to measure the temperature change.

Forget what we were talking about? You claim the temperature can change so rapidly in THIS EXPERIMENT so as to make the data unuseable.

1) The human skin is not one single temperature.
2) The room temperature makes a big difference.
3) The mood of a person can make a big difference.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
What a surprise! You're claiming it's not possible to get the job done.
Not by that method, no.

A normal follow up to this would be pointing out the method that does work.

You don't get to speak for anyone except yourself.
tmiddles wrote:
As well as ACTUALLY supporting your claim with real references/data/research/anything.

True Scotsman's fallacy. Define 'real'. I am not the one making a claim. YOU are. YOU are the one with the burden of proof. YOU presented an invalid method of measuring emissivity. YOU have to show the measurements is legit. Burden of proof fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-09-2019 10:23
05-09-2019 10:52
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:You claim the temperature can change so rapidly in THIS EXPERIMENT so as to make the data unusable.

1) The human skin is not one single temperature....

They are testing one spot consistently so that doesn't matter. You are just making things up! Have you done emissivity testing professionally? Could you reference how it's normally done? Could you reference anything REAL?

And no that's not the true Scotsman fallacy, it's REAL as in not abstract, not a platitude, not an imagined or hypothetical thing, REAL as in actual. This study on human skin's emessivity is real.

But I have proven that your Data Mine BS is just that BS.

You have given me the perfect demonstration of how insincere your demand for "Valid Data" is. Expect a link to this ever time you bring it up with anyone.
Edited on 05-09-2019 11:21
05-09-2019 19:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:You claim the temperature can change so rapidly in THIS EXPERIMENT so as to make the data unusable.

1) The human skin is not one single temperature....

They are testing one spot consistently so that doesn't matter.

Yes it does.
tmiddles wrote:
You are just making things up!

No, that would be you. Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Have you done emissivity testing professionally?

On occasion.
tmiddles wrote:
Could you reference how it's normally done? Could you reference anything REAL?

True Scotsman fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
And no that's not the true Scotsman fallacy,

Yes it is.
tmiddles wrote:
it's REAL as in not abstract, not a platitude, not an imagined or hypothetical thing, REAL as in actual.

True Scotsman fallacy. Define 'real'.
tmiddles wrote:
This study on human skin's emessivity is real.

Since you want to play spelling cop, it's 'emissivity'.
tmiddles wrote:
But I have proven that your Data Mine BS is just that BS.

Bulverism fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
You have given me the perfect demonstration of how insincere your demand for "Valid Data" is.

No, you have given me a bunch of hooey, and not a measurement for emissivity.
tmiddles wrote:
Expect a link to this ever time you bring it up with anyone.

I expect a lot of religious links and out of context links from you. It's what you do best.


The Parrot Killer
05-09-2019 19:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:You claim the temperature can change so rapidly in THIS EXPERIMENT so as to make the data unusable.

1) The human skin is not one single temperature....

They are testing one spot consistently so that doesn't matter. You are just making things up! Have you done emissivity testing professionally? Could you reference how it's normally done? Could you reference anything REAL?

And no that's not the true Scotsman fallacy, it's REAL as in not abstract, not a platitude, not an imagined or hypothetical thing, REAL as in actual. This study on human skin's emessivity is real.

But I have proven that your Data Mine BS is just that BS.

You have given me the perfect demonstration of how insincere your demand for "Valid Data" is. Expect a link to this ever time you bring it up with anyone.

Was there a repeatable instance in there somewhere of thermal radiation from a cooler body being absorbed by a warmer body?

I didn't see one. Let me re-read the whole thing again.

Nope. It's not there. Did you just forget to include it?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-09-2019 07:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
They are testing one spot consistently so that doesn't matter.

Yes it does.

Sums you up ITN. Intent to disqualify everything you fear. But in the end you have nothing to say yourself. You can back up nothing you claim and your made up rules would leave the world without any scientific achievement at all.

IBdaMann wrote:
Was there a repeatable instance in there somewhere of thermal radiation from a cooler body being absorbed by a warmer body?

And very much on that topic the request you refuse to define. But I'll ask again. How about an example of what you consider a qualified repeatable instance of anything?
06-09-2019 10:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
They are testing one spot consistently so that doesn't matter.

Yes it does.

Sums you up ITN. Intent to disqualify everything you fear.

Psychoquackery. I disqualify any use of randU numbers as data. I don't fear them.
tmiddles wrote:
But in the end you have nothing to say yourself.

Lie. Already have.
tmiddles wrote:
You can back up nothing you claim

Lie. Already have.
tmiddles wrote:
and your made up rules

I didn't make them up.
tmiddles wrote:
would leave the world without any scientific achievement at all.

Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Was there a repeatable instance in there somewhere of thermal radiation from a cooler body being absorbed by a warmer body?

And very much on that topic the request you refuse to define. But I'll ask again. How about an example of what you consider a qualified repeatable instance of anything?

Irrelevant. When are you going to show an example of heating a warmer object with a colder one?


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate GLACIAL CLIMATE REBOUNDING:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What caused Pleistocene to start around 2 million years ago which had periodic glacial interglacial perio3205-02-2019 22:29
Greenland's Glacial Melt2404-09-2017 19:45
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact