Remember me
▼ Content

How accurate are the proxies?



Page 2 of 2<12
26-09-2019 02:35
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
A thermometer can be used to measure.
I don't believe you'll back that up. Give an example.

VernerHornung wrote:I've gotta stop radiating toward those warm walls and radiate only toward the dry ice!" Rather smart snowman.
According to IBD it's the photons themselves that get just crazy! It's an uncertainty principle you see (IBD knows cuz a guy on the streets told him about it, in the oral tradition of physics, no books allowed) but to quote the sage himself:
IBdaMann wrote:2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed.
These are laws of Physics cuz they say so (and presumably the guy who told IBD about it also knows, again no books allowed).
VernerHornung wrote:People have more ability to adapt than environmentalists assume, ...We ditched DDT to solve our bird woes, ..
Yeah environmental F ups are not new. What people need to focus on in my opinion is that they suck. It's bad business. Oh and you'll love this, ITN is PRO DDT ha ha. Yep. Points for consistency ITN.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them
26-09-2019 03:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
...photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object is absurd, has nothing to support it at all...

Opportune for a cartoon, though. Picture a snowman happily radiating to space outdoors. Now bring him in the house, but set him next to a block of dry ice. So he says, "Uh-oh. I've gotta stop radiating toward those warm walls and radiate only toward the dry ice!" Rather smart snowman.
~

No brains needed, not even that of a snowman!

He may radiate towards the warm walls, but the walls won't absorb it. You can't heat a warmer object with a colder one. Both the snowman and his block of dry ice will absorb radiance from the walls.
VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Yikes, I thought up till I read that it was the other way around. But I guess that wouldn't make sense since the CO2 presumably came from increased growth?

My guess is it was outgassed from the oceans as they warmed up.

The temperature of the oceans of Earth are unknown. It is not possible to measure it.
VernerHornung wrote:
Cold water dissolves more CO2 than warm water does, which is why they serve beer and soda pap cold, to delay having your beverage go flat on you.

WRONG. You are forgetting English beer, dude.

Ocean water is not saturated with CO2, so saturation levels are not relevant. The reason we serve beer cold in the U.S. (and in Germany) is because it is bottom fermented. English beer is top fermented, and drinks better warm (some consider it an acquired taste).

Soda is often better cold, but a warm Coke does not have less CO2 in it.
VernerHornung wrote:
When the glaciers first melted, the water they put into the oceans was chilly and free of dissolved CO2 to boot (because water doesn't retain gases or salts when it freezes).

Whut? Didn't you say earlier that ice cores contain a record of past CO2?
VernerHornung wrote:
This delayed having CO2 show up in the air.

Guess what? The ice didn't cover the entire Earth during the last ice age...at least there's no indication of it!
VernerHornung wrote:
Plant growth just cycles CO2, I think. Plants absorb CO2 while growing, and release it when they die and decay.

Nope. Plant growth destroys CO2. It is converted into carbohydrates.
VernerHornung wrote:
End of the Ice Age is believed to have occurred when the Earth's axis became more tilted. (It "nods" a bit over thousands of years.)
This exposed the North Pole to more sun during summers, melting snow and ice, uncovering the darker bare ground to absorb heat. Once the CO2 did go up, it helped maintain the interglacial period.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using IR from the Earth's surface.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Just not going to work with the news cycle.

Industrial CO2 could be a problem because there's so much of it.

I assume you mean man-made CO2. How much? Please show all sources.
VernerHornung wrote:
But planets don't heat up in time for CNN.

...or for Al Gore, or for the Church of Global Warming. Is it warming up at all?
VernerHornung wrote:
Just think how long it takes your turkey to thaw, and imagine it a whole world.

The world isn't frozen. Conveniently ignoring latent heat?
VernerHornung wrote:
An Earth 2˚C warmer with seas about a foot higher around 2100 is a realistic projection,

I don't believe your Holy Entrails.
VernerHornung wrote:
and undesirable.

No? Why would 3.5 degF make any difference to anywhere? Where is all this water coming from? Are you suggesting that the Great Flood of Noah actually happened?
VernerHornung wrote:
People have more ability to adapt than environmentalists assume, however; for those groups any change at all equals catastrophe—from Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, where the birds were gonna fall from the sky, up to now with climate change.

Rachel Carson in particular was a disaster monger. She even went so far as to remove needed calcium from the bird's diets to get their eggs to weaken.

In other words, she faked it all.

VernerHornung wrote:
We ditched DDT to solve our bird woes,

And caused thousands, possibly millions of deaths as a result of the mosquito populations DDT was so effective against.

Fortunately, some nations still use DDT and ignore the U.S. panic about the stuff.
VernerHornung wrote:
put the caps on our Freon cans to close the ozone hole,

The hole didn't close. It's still there. It's over the poles, not the industrial nations where these cans were being used. Ozone and freon don't chemically react. You can put them both in a tank and nothing happens. Freon is also like propane. It's heavier than air.
VernerHornung wrote:
and we'll kick or moderate our carbon habit to fix climate change.

Define 'climate change'.
VernerHornung wrote:
Dow and Du Pont weren't grinning when best-sellers were taken off the shelf,

DuPont WANTED the stuff off the shelf! They were losing the patents on R-12. They could no longer be renewed. DuPont fabricated the whole ozone story to destroy the R-12 market so they could market R134a. They even got the government to pass laws prohibiting the use of R-12 to maintain their monopoly on it. In other words, graft.
VernerHornung wrote:
but they're still in business.

That they are. The gambit was successful.


The Parrot Killer
26-09-2019 03:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
A thermometer can be used to measure.
I don't believe you'll back that up. Give an example.

VernerHornung wrote:I've gotta stop radiating toward those warm walls and radiate only toward the dry ice!" Rather smart snowman.
According to IBD it's the photons themselves that get just crazy! It's an uncertainty principle you see (IBD knows cuz a guy on the streets told him about it, in the oral tradition of physics, no books allowed) but to quote the sage himself:
IBdaMann wrote:2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed.
These are laws of Physics cuz they say so (and presumably the guy who told IBD about it also knows, again no books allowed).
VernerHornung wrote:People have more ability to adapt than environmentalists assume, ...We ditched DDT to solve our bird woes, ..
Yeah environmental F ups are not new. What people need to focus on in my opinion is that they suck. It's bad business. Oh and you'll love this, ITN is PRO DDT ha ha. Yep. Points for consistency ITN.



RDCF


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 26-09-2019 03:34
26-09-2019 04:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
Into the Night wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
...photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object is absurd, has nothing to support it at all...

Opportune for a cartoon, though. Picture a snowman happily radiating to space outdoors. Now bring him in the house, but set him next to a block of dry ice. So he says, "Uh-oh. I've gotta stop radiating toward those warm walls and radiate only toward the dry ice!" Rather smart snowman.
~

No brains needed, not even that of a snowman!

He may radiate towards the warm walls, but the walls won't absorb it. You can't heat a warmer object with a colder one. Both the snowman and his block of dry ice will absorb radiance from the walls.

Completely manufactured and false information. So what does happen to the radiance ITN? If it's not absorbed it must be reflected or transmitted? You do realize that there is no support for this crazy theory of yours and IBD's anywhere at all. You are contradicting the last 239 years of thermodynamic science.



"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 26-09-2019 04:46
26-09-2019 05:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
...photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object is absurd, has nothing to support it at all...

Opportune for a cartoon, though. Picture a snowman happily radiating to space outdoors. Now bring him in the house, but set him next to a block of dry ice. So he says, "Uh-oh. I've gotta stop radiating toward those warm walls and radiate only toward the dry ice!" Rather smart snowman.
~

No brains needed, not even that of a snowman!

He may radiate towards the warm walls, but the walls won't absorb it. You can't heat a warmer object with a colder one. Both the snowman and his block of dry ice will absorb radiance from the walls.

Completely manufactured and false information. So what does happen to the radiance ITN? If it's not absorbed it must be reflected or transmitted? You do realize that there is no support for this crazy theory of yours and IBD's anywhere at all. You are contradicting the last 239 years of thermodynamic science.

RDCF. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 26-09-2019 05:50
26-09-2019 15:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
A thermometer can be used to measure.
I don't believe you'll back that up. Give an example.

How does one "back up" a statement such as the one I made?

.


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
26-09-2019 21:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
A thermometer can be used to measure.
I don't believe you'll back that up. Give an example.

How does one "back up" a statement such as the one I made?
Give an example of how a thermometer could be or has been used to measure something. Or some source that does so.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them.
26-09-2019 21:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
A thermometer can be used to measure.
I don't believe you'll back that up. Give an example.

How does one "back up" a statement such as the one I made?
Give an example of how a thermometer could be or has been used to measure something. Or some source that does so.

I feel silly about this but OK, here you go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpJULQICiGM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvjLvCs8PAc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViNrWf-kXNs

.


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
26-09-2019 22:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
I feel silly about this but OK, here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpJULQICiGM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvjLvCs8PAc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViNrWf-kXNs
.

Fantastic! So in each video a single thermometer is used, including uses on living things, to determine a temperature. So you acknowledge a temperature being determined in this way? Do you still consider the temperature of the human skin in my repeatable example to be an "unkown"?
repeatable example using your own body to prove net radiance

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
26-09-2019 22:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote: Do you still consider the temperature of the human skin in my repeatable example to be an "unkown"?

You haven't provided a repeatable example.


.


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
26-09-2019 22:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Do you still consider the temperature of the human skin in my repeatable example to be an "unkown"?

You haven't provided a repeatable example.
.

Do you consider the temperature of your skin, right now, to be unknowable? Unmeasureable? Undeterminable?

You didn't answer.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 26-09-2019 22:19
26-09-2019 22:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Do you still consider the temperature of the human skin in my repeatable example to be an "unkown"?

You haven't provided a repeatable example.
.

Do you consider the temperature of your skin, right now, to be unknowable? Unmeasureable? Undeterminable?

You didn't answer.


He answered a long time ago.

RQAA


The Parrot Killer
26-09-2019 23:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Do you consider the temperature of your skin, right now, to be unknowable?

He answered a long time ago.
Yes for 5 years you and IBD has said nothing is knowable, nothing can be measured, all science is useless. Yet IBD is here pretending that he believes a thermometer can be employed in some way. He included a video link which gave instructions on taking the temperature of a human.

So ITN can the temperature of anything be determined/measured with a thermometer? Speak for yourself.

In the past you have only stated that it cannot.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 26-09-2019 23:04
27-09-2019 02:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Do you consider the temperature of your skin, right now, to be unknowable?

He answered a long time ago.
Yes for 5 years you and IBD has said nothing is knowable, nothing can be measured, all science is useless. Yet IBD is here pretending that he believes a thermometer can be employed in some way. He included a video link which gave instructions on taking the temperature of a human.

So ITN can the temperature of anything be determined/measured with a thermometer? Speak for yourself.

In the past you have only stated that it cannot.


RDCF. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate How accurate are the proxies?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
It appears that past estimates of prehistoric CO2 levels were not accurate and there is no statistically402-01-2016 18:43
▲ 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