Remember me
▼ Content

How accurate are the proxies?



Page 1 of 212>
How accurate are the proxies?16-09-2019 17:55
Third world guy
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
How accurate are the proxies? Can you trust them?

Michael Mann's hockey stick is known to be forced to comply with IPCC policies, but others seem more realistic.

The results of the ice cores of Lake Vostok say the opposite of what the IPCC wants. Is that why they haven't considered it in their reports?


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
16-09-2019 19:12
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
They stopped using the hockey-stick graph too...

Proxies and analogs are substitutes for actual data, and are accurate at all, approximations. Basically, they could assign any value they want to them, use them any way they wish, until somebody calls them out on it. Even the Vostok team explains the accuracy and limits on their website, which I had a look at last week. The ice cores really have no value in climate change, it was wishful thinking. I wanted to find out why they started boring holes back in the 1970s, which was before the ozone layer scare, well before global warming. Never didn't find out what they were hoping to find, they just jump right to their climate change project in the 80s.
16-09-2019 19:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
Third world guy wrote:
How accurate are the proxies? Can you trust them?
They aren't. The use of proxies as data is leaping to a conclusion. That's a fallacy. Science doesn't use proxies.
Third world guy wrote:
Michael Mann's hockey stick is known to be forced to comply with IPCC policies, but others seem more realistic.
How do you know? It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Third world guy wrote:
The results of the ice cores of Lake Vostok say the opposite of what the IPCC wants. Is that why they haven't considered it in their reports?

Ice cores do not show temperature of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2019 00:52
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
I think they take the temp at various points and compare the individual temps to previous temps at the same points.
If a great majority of the individual temps go up then they conclude the earth temp is going up.
I buy it.
19-09-2019 01:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
keepit wrote:
I think they take the temp at various points and compare the individual temps to previous temps at the same points.
If a great majority of the individual temps go up then they conclude the earth temp is going up.
I buy it.

You have to be gullible to buy it. You have to really want other people to be telling you what to believe and telling you what your opinions are in order to believe conclusions drawn from proxy "data."

.


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
19-09-2019 02:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
keepit wrote:
I think they take the temp at various points and compare the individual temps to previous temps at the same points.
If a great majority of the individual temps go up then they conclude the earth temp is going up.
I buy it.


Base rate fallacy. Leaping to conclusion fallacy.

Ice cores do not indicate temperature.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 19-09-2019 02:09
20-09-2019 14:32
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1588)
Third world guy wrote:
How accurate are the proxies?


Technically everything is indirect and therefor a "Proxy" but I know what you mean as this came up before here: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/glacial-climate-rebounding-d6-e2770.php#post_43146
tmiddles wrote:
Third world guy wrote:I am sure that experts know which graph I am referring to.
Into the Night wrote:...it's not possible to measure...
IBdaMann wrote:... there can be no science involved in speculation about the past....

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"


What's conspicuously missing from most things thrown around are the margin of error ranges.

So take tree lines. If you trust carbon dating of dead wood you can age a tree fall. If the tree was growing at an altitude that is currently too cold for that tree to grow today, you could conclude that it was warmer on the date that tree fell.

With ice cores remember that we don't just have 100,000 years ago, we also have 5 years ago to compare with a thermometer that was on site.

Also proxies are just part of the big pictures. It's when all the indicators line up that you can be more confident what the climate was in the past.


"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.
20-09-2019 18:15
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
We don't have ice from 5 years ago, it melted in 2014, also some more melted the summer, Greenland nearly thawed out this past year. Alaska had temperatures in the 90s. Check the actual ice core research website, they clearly state that as much as 1,000 years worth of ice can melt in a summer. They don't claim that they have a continuous record of anything, and are aware there are some large gaps. The IPCC never mentioned any of that, which I found odd a couple weeks ago. Ice cores aren't as bad as I was thinking, their work was just used badly.
20-09-2019 20:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
tmiddles wrote:
Third world guy wrote:I am sure that experts know which graph I am referring to.
Into the Night wrote:...it's not possible to measure...
IBdaMann wrote:... there can be no science involved in speculation about the past....

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"

What's conspicuously missing from most things thrown around are the margin of error ranges.

Especially by you. You are constantly throwing around a margin of error of zero.
tmiddles wrote:
So take tree lines. If you trust carbon dating of dead wood you can age a tree fall. If the tree was growing at an altitude that is currently too cold for that tree to grow today, you could conclude that it was warmer on the date that tree fell.

Trees do not indicate temperature.
tmiddles wrote:
With ice cores remember that we don't just have 100,000 years ago, we also have 5 years ago to compare with a thermometer that was on site.

Ice cores do not indicate temperature.
tmiddles wrote:
Also proxies are just part of the big pictures. It's when all the indicators line up that you can be more confident what the climate was in the past.

No, you are guessing.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2019 00:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1588)
HarveyH55 wrote:
We don't have ice from 5 years ago, it melted in 2014,


Hmmm I guess I was wrong. Here's an interesting link as it has the data but starts 2000+ years back
volstock ice core

To remake the point tree rings can certainly be compared to thermometer readings.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 21-09-2019 00:07
21-09-2019 01:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
We don't have ice from 5 years ago, it melted in 2014,


Hmmm I guess I was wrong. Here's an interesting link as it has the data but starts 2000+ years back
volstock ice core

To remake the point tree rings can certainly be compared to thermometer readings.



No. No tree indicates temperature. No ice indicates temperature. You are leaping to conclusions again. That's a fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2019 17:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1588)
Into the Night wrote:
No. No tree indicates temperature. No ice indicates temperature. You are leaping to conclusions again. That's a fallacy.

Yes they do. It's called evidence and it's all we will ever have. Even a thermometer can lie to you.

You could try giving an example of the "right way" to do anything.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them
21-09-2019 21:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No. No tree indicates temperature. No ice indicates temperature. You are leaping to conclusions again. That's a fallacy.

Yes they do. It's called evidence and it's all we will ever have.

No tree indicates temperature. No ice indicates temperature. You are leaping to conclusions again. That's a fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Even a thermometer can lie to you.

Only if it's busted. Thermometers are easily checked and calibrated.
tmiddles wrote:
You could try giving an example of the "right way" to do anything.

Already did. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2019 14:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1588)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
You could try giving an example of the "right way" to do anything.

Already did. RQAA.

This is a lie.

"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
22-09-2019 16:46
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
So, since you learned the truth about ice cores, and how the IPCC misused the research and data. Made claims not supported by the studies. Why do you believe tree rings are still valid? How many lies do you have to uncover, before you realize it's all pretty much the same misrepresentation. Annual tree growth rings, are just that, we can tell how old the tree is by counting the rings. The width of the rings 'can' indicate growing conditions. The don't tell us why one ring is wider than another, other than the growing conditions were more favorable. Anything else is purely speculation. In a court of law, not many cases are won on purely circumstantial evidence, since even a junior defense attorney can usually present a reasonable doubt defense to the jury. A prosecutor's (IPCC) case is almost always convincing, believable, that's their job. The case would never go to trial, they didn't believe the could sell it to a jury. Even though the IPCC's case is falling apart, you still have faith, that they are correct. Climate Change would never hold up in a trial, and is likely why many countries are dragging their heels on actually passing legislation. It's a political tool, but only useful, as long as it's a conversation. Actually taking real action, which can be challenged in court, is a career killer. Anything 'green' they actually put up for a vote, are for things that don't really matter much. Alternative energy does have benefits, creates jobs, gets money moving in the economy, new business opportunities. Alternatives to petroleum and the power grid, have been a goal for quite a few people, who want to live independently.

You should really take a closer look at the proxies and analogs the IPCC depends on, to sell their product. It's tough, the search engines I've tried, other than Google, seem just as biased. It takes a lot of digging to find what you are actually looking for, out of all the climate-believer based sites. I don't rely on the denier site for information either, they can be useful in providing the keywords need to get past the search bias. You need to find the original, and actual research projects, for the proxies and analogs used. You'll find the goals and the work aren't climate related at all, although they do try to squeeze enough in to get grant money. It's unknown if they went there on there own, to scam some needed funding, to keep their project live. Or, if the money was offered by the IPCC, to looking into possible application of their work so far. Work is still work, it pays, and possibly part of their study, no reason not to accept the money, but doesn't really change the original goals of the project, unless the projected was basically done and dead anyway. I just stumble on the ice core lie. The boring started long before global warming, early 70s. I never did find the original goal of the project, or the documentary from the 70s I was looking for, but I did find an actual site for the research project. They present the full story on what they were doing, the good, and the bad, real science.
22-09-2019 18:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1588)
HarveyH55 wrote:
So, since you learned the truth about ice cores, and how the IPCC misused the research and data. Made claims not supported by the studies. Why do you believe tree rings are still valid?


I think there are two scenarios to compare first:
One in which scientists work to put together the available data to discover what they can about the past.
The other in which a corrupt and diabolical conspiracy works to spread lies.

I am not an expert on proxy data any more than the average person.

I do understand though that they are an important part of putting together a history of the planet.

We can and do have theories that aren't rock solid for a great deal if useful knowledge and we always will.


"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
22-09-2019 18:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
tmiddles wrote:Yes they do. It's called evidence and it's all we will ever have.

Thank you.

It took you long enough but you finally get it. Religions are continually springing up around subjective "evidence" concerning any question that we can't know.

Well done. We can close out the question of "What is Global Warming Settled Science."


.


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
22-09-2019 19:14
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
Proxies and analogs aren't data or facts, that's why they have a different name. They are incomplete, accuracy unknown, and based on speculation. Ice cores, obviously deeper ice, is older ice, but no way of determining just how old. What's trapped in the ice, can proved some clues. Like radioactive particulates, that wouldn't have been there, except around the times of nuclear bomb testing/usage. Still doesn't nail it down to a specific year though. Deeper ice is under a lot of pressure from the weight of the ice above it. You'll find that plays a big role in how reliable the estimates and speculations are, a much lower level of confidence with depth. The IPCC just takes to be that it's all the same, a few feet, or a few thousand feet. They don't acknowledge there are huge gaps, and treat it as one continuous, accurate record, which it was never claimed, by the people actually doing the research. It's always in a very careful choice of words, to avoid making a false statement, which would be challenged. Leave out details, is still a lie, but it's more an ethics issue.

Just because proxies are the only thing that will be available, until time travel, doesn't magically make them acceptable data. They will always be approximations and speculation. If the only food available at dinner time, smells awful, and has maggots crawling throughout. Would that be an acceptable meal to feed your family? Of course not, you aren't likely to consume anything that can get you violently ill, or kill you. You can get by on 'less' food for a few days, and will likely find more reliable food, before resorting to week old roadkill. Climate-change is wanting you to go ahead an eat the roadkill, since you only have a decade or so, to find a new fuel. Even though there is no physical evidence supporting the claims we are all going to die, if we don't do as they say. I ain't eating roadkill, no matter how the IPCC chefs prepare it...
22-09-2019 19:36
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1588)
IBdaMann wrote:
any question that we can't know.
This made no sense. According to you we can't know anything.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Just because proxies are the only thing that will be available, until time travel, doesn't magically make them acceptable data. .
Yes actually it does. We have a lot of data and all of it is technically a proxy is some way. Your error is in assuming there is a default truth and a default path. There isn't. If we were sailors and I had my theory on how to set course and you thought I was wrong what do you do? You have to make a decision. I'm not talking about just global warming but the entire history of scientific discovery and achievement.

Science in my opinion does a poor job of honestly representing the level of certainty we have about things. But science works. We all live in the world built with it.

It makes sense to start with the experts and critique from there.



"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 22-09-2019 19:40
22-09-2019 20:07
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
any question that we can't know.
This made no sense. According to you we can't know anything.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Just because proxies are the only thing that will be available, until time travel, doesn't magically make them acceptable data. .
Yes actually it does. We have a lot of data and all of it is technically a proxy is some way. Your error is in assuming there is a default truth and a default path. There isn't. If we were sailors and I had my theory on how to set course and you thought I was wrong what do you do? You have to make a decision. I'm not talking about just global warming but the entire history of scientific discovery and achievement.

Science in my opinion does a poor job of honestly representing the level of certainty we have about things. But science works. We all live in the world built with it.

It makes sense to start with the experts and critique from there.



"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


Proxies aren't worth much, there is level of confidence, certainty, or consistency. They are just that, approximations, and speculations, as are the results of the research done using them. It's clearly pointed out in the summaries and conclusions. The results are only accurate, as the least accurate data. Proxies aren't accurate date, never were intended to be used as such. Climate change doesn't have any degree of certainty, since it's based mainly on proxies and analogs. If you ever read through an IPCC assessment report (free to download), you'll notice the careful wording. They lack confidence and certainty. Most people don't read these reports, the media, and the socialist looking for headlines to exploit, add the confidence and certainty, which is what the majority of the population go with. The IPCC is very careful not to word anything falsely, that couldn't pass review.

Proxies an approximation, a substitute, not a replacement. Just barely good enough to get by with in some cases, but understood to be weak, but best there ever will be.
22-09-2019 20:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1588)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Proxies aren't worth much, there is level of confidence, ...
Proxies an approximation, a substitute, not a replacement.
Replacement for what? There is no way to directly and completely measure the temperature of anything. There is no 100% option. What you describe as being inadequate is all of scientific work including real time, it's happen now, measurements.

I completely agree it's an outright lie when anyone claims it's 100% certain.

I already presented the work of Dr Pat Frank but no one's interested in discussing it so far (too busy debating sanity to give attention to quality skepticism).


"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
22-09-2019 23:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
any question that we can't know.
This made no sense. According to you we can't know anything.

It's only according to me according to you. You assigned to me an absurd position. Judging by the way you butcher your citations of me it would appear that you didn't even read my post which would explain why you can't understand the words. The word "reading" is the operative word in "reading comprehension."

tmiddles wrote: We have a lot of data and all of it is technically a proxy is some way.

Which means "we" have absolutely no data for what we are claiming to be measuring. If you want to know about historical temperatures and you gather lots of data on tree rings, you have absolutely no historical temperature data and lots of tree ring data.

What you do have is lots of religiously-guided speculation about historical temperatures based on your particular church's interpretation of the good news of the tree rings.

tmiddles wrote: You have to make a decision.

Your need to make a decision does not transform religiously-guided speculation into science.

Nice try, though.

tmiddles wrote:Science in my opinion does a poor job of honestly representing the level of certainty we have about things.

This sounds like a rationalization for denying science in favor of a religion.

Science predicts nature; it's not a motivational speaker that builds confidence.

Religion, on the other hand, builds certainty in speculation ... called "faith."

If this is your explanation for why you deny science in deference to a WACKY Global Warming religion, hey, whatever floats your boat.


.


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
23-09-2019 00:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1588)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
any question that we can't know.
This made no sense. According to you we can't know anything.

It's only according to me according to you. You assigned to me an absurd position.


OK what's one example of research or experimentation where we know something. Anything at all.

You've never qualified anything in 5 years so make some history.


"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
23-09-2019 00:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
tmiddles wrote:OK what's one example of research or experimentation where we know something. Anything at all.

Please notice that this is a question. You would like an answer to your question. It's an easy, straightforward question and it would be proper conversation etiquette for me to answer ...

... yet this stands in contrast to you refusing to answer any question I ask.

So, how about this ... a quid pro quo? You answer my easy, straightforward question honestly and I promise to give you a thorough answer to your question.

My question: what repeatable experiment can you and I perform that doesn't involve living things in which we can isolate the thermal energy flowing from colder to warmer and confirm that you are absolutely correct so that we can resume the discussion so I can get to the part of the discussion into which I want to delve and answer your question above as well?

I'm thinking E-Z-Peezy-Lemon-Squeezy


.


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
23-09-2019 01:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
any question that we can't know.
This made no sense. According to you we can't know anything.

It's only according to me according to you. You assigned to me an absurd position.


OK what's one example of research or experimentation where we know something. Anything at all.

You've never qualified anything in 5 years so make some history.

RQAA


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2019 04:07
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Proxies aren't worth much, there is level of confidence, ...
Proxies an approximation, a substitute, not a replacement.
Replacement for what? There is no way to directly and completely measure the temperature of anything. There is no 100% option. What you describe as being inadequate is all of scientific work including real time, it's happen now, measurements.

I completely agree it's an outright lie when anyone claims it's 100% certain.

I already presented the work of Dr Pat Frank but no one's interested in discussing it so far (too busy debating sanity to give attention to quality skepticism).


"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


I explained it to you very clear, go back and re-read two three times, you obviously missed most of what I wrote. Ask Google to clarify any thing that is beyond your capacity to understand. I don't know any simpler way to explain proxies.

How reliable do you think the actual measured temperature data is anyway? The started reading and recording on a regular basis in 1880. Over the years, they added more stations, updated the equipment, likely more than once, and now they are digital. Do you think, that simply changing the number of stations, the precision of the thermometers, might effect the data? Suppose the bulk of those stations added over the years, where in warm/hot climates around the world. Wouldn't sort of show a rise, on the average, just because more hot records were being added? The warming is only 1C, since the industrial revolution started, so it doesn't take much to make that change.
23-09-2019 11:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1588)
IBdaMann wrote:
...what repeatable experiment can you and I perform that doesn't involve living things
You have yet to give an example of anything that qualifies.

So I have to assume you're just playing games.

Anything at all. Otherwise I work, again, to find something and you disqualify it without explaining why.

You are a fraud. But that's a choice you make each time you post here.


"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
23-09-2019 15:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
tmiddles wrote: You have yet to give an example of anything that qualifies.

You couldn't be bothered to even read the question?

My question: what repeatable experiment can you and I perform that doesn't involve living things in which we can isolate the thermal energy flowing from colder to warmer and confirm that you are absolutely correct so that we can resume the discussion so I can get to the part of the discussion into which I want to delve and answer your question above as well?


Let's see -

* repeatable - all aspects are specified so it can be performed by anyone independently

* doesn't involve living things - self explanatory

* isolate your point of discussion and show you are correct.

... I am asking you for an example because it's your claim that we are looking to validate.


So, regarding our quid pro quo ... you answer my easy, straightforward question honestly and I promise to give you a thorough answer to your question.


.


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
23-09-2019 18:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Proxies aren't worth much, there is level of confidence, ...
Proxies an approximation, a substitute, not a replacement.
Replacement for what? There is no way to directly and completely measure the temperature of anything. There is no 100% option. What you describe as being inadequate is all of scientific work including real time, it's happen now, measurements.

I completely agree it's an outright lie when anyone claims it's 100% certain.

I already presented the work of Dr Pat Frank but no one's interested in discussing it so far (too busy debating sanity to give attention to quality skepticism).


"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


I explained it to you very clear, go back and re-read two three times, you obviously missed most of what I wrote. Ask Google to clarify any thing that is beyond your capacity to understand. I don't know any simpler way to explain proxies.

How reliable do you think the actual measured temperature data is anyway? The started reading and recording on a regular basis in 1880. Over the years, they added more stations, updated the equipment, likely more than once, and now they are digital. Do you think, that simply changing the number of stations, the precision of the thermometers, might effect the data? Suppose the bulk of those stations added over the years, where in warm/hot climates around the world. Wouldn't sort of show a rise, on the average, just because more hot records were being added? The warming is only 1C, since the industrial revolution started, so it doesn't take much to make that change.


Don't forget quite a few cold area stations went off line permanently with the fall of the USSR.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 23-09-2019 18:18
24-09-2019 05:10
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
tmiddles wrote:
To remake the point tree rings can certainly be compared to thermometer readings.

Yeah. Mercury thermometers measure expansion of mercury in their bulbs, and thermocouples measure a Seebeck effect current at a junction. IBdaMann doesn't mind proxies at all, as long as they're his proxies...seismic tomography data as proxy for hydrogen in the lower mantle, for instance. Sing with me after the sheep on Animal Farm: "Tree rings baaaad, earthquakes gooood!"
~


Reliability of correlation is what makes for trust in a proxy. Tree ring widths can be correlated with weather data at the tree's location for recent years. Though not nearly as consistent as a thermometer, narrow rings indicate a drought or a short growing season. If you get narrow rings in Illinois and Europe both, it's likely the cold, as hemisphere-wide droughts have never occurred in the historical record.

I think that's how they figured out the Younger Dryas chill, by carbon-dating those narrow rings. Or lack of trees altogether during the period in question, as one of your posts on this thread avers.

Buried stumps in Illinois
US Forest Service
https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/9508

HarveyH55 wrote:
You should really take a closer look at the proxies and analogs the IPCC depends on, to sell their product. It's tough, the search engines I've tried, other than Google, seem just as biased. It takes a lot of digging to find what you are actually looking for, out of all the climate-believer based sites. I don't rely on the denier site for information either, they can be useful in providing the keywords need to get past the search bias.

I've had to do the same thing, Harvey. Google definitely steers results on hot-button queries such as immigration and puts "fact check" sidebars on the search page or labels on YouTube that cite (gasp) Wikipedia as the authority to believe. Honestly, state of affairs in the Facebook gets me down. It wasn't like that back in the print days. Finding information was very slow then; often you had to go through a lit review catalog to find books and request these via interlibrary loan. But you got it from the horse's mouth.

With climate change, I suspect it's the heavy footprint of the climate lobbies, more than search bias itself. Duck Duck Go and Tor mime Google on that schtick. But the Vostok story is fascinating. I recall a little about when the Soviets went down there in 1957, because it was in the old Scientific Americans my dad left lying around the house, and everyone was still pumped up about results coming from the IGY.

As you stated, they began drilling around 1970 and after numerous failures obtained nice, deep cores. In 1993, as Russia, they bored through half million years' worth of ice to a lake below and sampled water that may have been out of touch with surface conditions much longer. (Ice flows to the edges of glaciers as new snow falls and puts pressure on it, limiting its maximum age.)

The cores are an excellent record of atmospheric composition and oxygen isotope ratios, and "rings" that result from annual snowfall cycles give dates for these. One issue is the air record trails the isotopes by 4000 to 6000 years since air bubbles don't get sealed off until there's a few hundred feet of ice above them.

Question is resolution. The great ice age cycle of the past is settled science, as is its rough temperature trends. But how does CO2 in a glacial-interglacial oscillation lasting 100ky relate to modern fluctuations over a mere century? CO2 in the past was a "lagging economic indicator;" the warming came first, and then the CO2 (even after the trailing I noted above is allowed for). Changes in Earth's orbital parameters and tilt of axis caused the ice ages, which may have started when the Isthmus of Panama formed, blocking a westbound equatorial current that used to link the Atlantic and Pacific.

The most we know is that CO2, as a greenhouse gas, helped retard the advance of an ice age as the orbit and tilt got less favorable. We're certain that CO2 causes the industrial times we live in to be somewhat warmer than they'd otherwise be. Yet this morphs into "tipping points" and scenes worthy of St. John the Revelator from the bible, all due in our grandkids' lifespan.

I dunno. The last interglacial came on a lot faster than the ice age before it did, but it took a millennium or so nonetheless. That's a pretty slow topple from the tipping point.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Edited on 24-09-2019 05:22
24-09-2019 05:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
To remake the point tree rings can certainly be compared to thermometer readings.

Yeah. Mercury thermometers measure expansion of mercury in their bulbs, and thermocouples measure a Seebeck effect current at a junction. IBdaMann doesn't mind proxies at all, as long as they're his proxies...seismic tomography data as proxy for hydrogen in the lower mantle, for instance. Sing with me after the sheep on Animal Farm: "Tree rings baaaad, earthquakes gooood!"
~


Reliability of correlation is what makes for trust in a proxy. Tree ring widths can be correlated with weather data at the tree's location for recent years. Though not nearly as consistent as a thermometer, narrow rings indicate a drought or a short growing season. If you get narrow rings in Illinois and Europe both, it's likely the cold, as hemisphere-wide droughts have never occurred in the historical record.

I think that's how they figured out the Younger Dryas chill, by carbon-dating those narrow rings. Or lack of trees altogether during the period in question, as one of your posts on this thread avers.

Buried stumps in Illinois
US Forest Service
https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/9508

HarveyH55 wrote:
You should really take a closer look at the proxies and analogs the IPCC depends on, to sell their product. It's tough, the search engines I've tried, other than Google, seem just as biased. It takes a lot of digging to find what you are actually looking for, out of all the climate-believer based sites. I don't rely on the denier site for information either, they can be useful in providing the keywords need to get past the search bias.

I've had to do the same thing, Harvey. Google definitely steers results on hot-button queries such as immigration and puts "fact check" sidebars on the search page or labels on YouTube that cite (gasp) Wikipedia as the authority to believe. Honestly, state of affairs in the Facebook gets me down. It wasn't like that back in the print days. Finding information was very slow then; often you had to go through a lit review catalog to find books and request these via interlibrary loan. But you got it from the horse's mouth.

With climate change, I suspect it's the heavy footprint of the climate lobbies, more than search bias itself. Duck Duck Go and Tor mime Google on that schtick. But the Vostok story is fascinating. I recall a little about when the Soviets went down there in 1957, because it was in the old Scientific Americans my dad left lying around the house, and everyone was still pumped up about results coming from the IGY.

As you stated, they began drilling around 1970 and after numerous failures obtained nice, deep cores. In 1993, as Russia, they bored through half million years' worth of ice to a lake below and sampled water that may have been out of touch with surface conditions much longer. (Ice flows to the edges of glaciers as new snow falls and puts pressure on it, limiting its maximum age.)

The cores are an excellent record of atmospheric composition and oxygen isotope ratios, and "rings" that result from annual snowfall cycles give dates for these. One issue is the air record trails the isotopes by 4000 to 6000 years since air bubbles don't get sealed off until there's a few hundred feet of ice above them.

Question is resolution. The great ice age cycle of the past is settled science, as is its rough temperature trends. But how does CO2 in a glacial-interglacial oscillation lasting 100ky relate to modern fluctuations over a mere century? CO2 in the past was a "lagging economic indicator;" the warming came first, and then the CO2 (even after the trailing I noted above is allowed for). Changes in Earth's orbital parameters and tilt of axis caused the ice ages, which may have started when the Isthmus of Panama formed, blocking a westbound equatorial current that used to link the Atlantic and Pacific.

The most we know is that CO2, as a greenhouse gas, helped retard the advance of an ice age as the orbit and tilt got less favorable. We're certain that CO2 causes the industrial times we live in to be somewhat warmer than they'd otherwise be. Yet this morphs into "tipping points" and scenes worthy of St. John the Revelator from the bible, all due in our grandkids' lifespan.

I dunno. The last interglacial came on a lot faster than the ice age before it did, but it took a millennium or so nonetheless. That's a pretty slow topple from the tipping point.


Quoting a piece of fiction out of context is just a lame insult fallacy.

CO2 has NO ability to warm the Earth.
It has no 'tipping point'.
Ice cores do not indicate temperature. Neither do tree rings.

A thermometer is an instrument designed to measure temperature. It can only measure temperature at the thermometer, not any other temperature, and it can only make instantaneous measurements. It does measure any temperature in history or in the future, only the temperature right now.


The Parrot Killer
RE: Professing Religion by Proxy24-09-2019 17:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann doesn't mind proxies at all, as long as they're his proxies...

So now you are following tmiddles lead and assigning bogus positions to others. How disappointing.

VernerHornung wrote:Reliability of correlation is what makes for trust in a proxy.

Absolutely not. Only the establishment of causation can lend credence to a measure and thus validity to data.

VernerHornung wrote: Tree ring widths can be correlated with weather data at the tree's location for recent years.

Without establishing the causation, your "correlation" is nothing more than coincidence.

VernerHornung wrote:Though not nearly as consistent as a thermometer,

In a thermometer, the causation is established and that is why a thermometer is a measure and not a proxy.

VernerHornung wrote:narrow rings indicate a drought or a short growing season.

... or prolonged cooler weather or a period in which the plant had a disease of sorts or any number of other things. You don't know what caused the narrow ring so you cannot claim it to be a measure of anything specific.


VernerHornung wrote:As you stated, they began drilling around 1970 and after numerous failures obtained nice, deep cores. In 1993, as Russia, they bored through half million years' worth of ice

... or it could have been a twenty million-year span. The idea that every year is represented as a layer in the ice is incredibly unlikely. What is likely is that there were warm periods of ice-melt in which "years" were melted away intermixed with periods of ice accumulation which resulted in a "net flow" of overall ice accumulation ... building in many gaps of undetermined size ... meaning we don't know to what "year" any given ice layer corresponds.

Did you catch that? We don't know.

VernerHornung wrote:The cores are an excellent record of atmospheric composition and oxygen isotope ratios,

... except that the ice cores are a terrible record of atmospheric composition and oxygen isotopes for a number of major reasons.

So, yes, that means we don't get to claim that "we know" any of the things you so desperately wish beyond your wildest hopes and dreams that you could claim that "we know" from ice cores.

VernerHornung wrote: The great ice age cycle of the past is settled science, as is its rough temperature trends.

... excpet that all of it is wild speculation by WACKY Global Warming religious fanatics ... and unabashedly dishonest ones at that.

VernerHornung wrote: But how does CO2 in a glacial-interglacial oscillation lasting 100ky relate to modern fluctuations over a mere century?

I have the answer!

From The Manual:

Stadium Wave: noun
A Global Warming edict, written in an unintelligible tongue speculated to be a Latin derivative, issued by Oracle from the Climate Change "Holy Sea" known as the IPCC prophesying and explaining the current multi-decade hiaitus of Global Warming mythology.

The Stadium Wave Prophecy:

"A hypothesized low-frequency climate signal propagating across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of synchronized climate indices was identified in previous analyses of instrumental and proxy data. The tempo of signal propagation is rationalized in terms of the multidecadal component of Atlantic Ocean variability – the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Through multivariate statistical analysis of an expanded database, we further investigate this hypothesized signal to elucidate propagation dynamics. The Eurasian Arctic Shelf-Sea Region, where sea ice is uniquely exposed to open ocean in the Northern Hemisphere, emerges as a strong contender for generating and sustaining propagation of the hemispheric signal. Ocean-ice-atmosphere coupling spawns a sequence of positive and negative feedbacks that convey persistence and quasi-oscillatory features to the signal. Further stabilizing the system are anomalies of co-varying Pacific-centered atmospheric circulations. Indirectly related to dynamics in the Eurasian Arctic, these anomalies appear to negatively feed back onto the Atlantic's freshwater balance. Earth's rotational rate and other proxies encode traces of this signal as it makes its way across the Northern Hemisphere."

Note on the Stadium Wave Prophesy: Scientists are already working on translating this beautiful and mysterious language.

VernerHornung wrote: CO2 in the past was a "lagging economic indicator;"

... and CO2 didn't like playing second fiddle to anyone, so CO2 set about to change that by altering Earth's orbital parameters ...

VernerHornung wrote: ... the warming came first, and then the CO2 (even after the trailing I noted above is allowed for). Changes in Earth's orbital parameters and tilt of axis caused the ice ages, which may have started when the Isthmus of Panama formed, blocking a westbound equatorial current that used to link the Atlantic and Pacific.

I knew it. Panamá has always been a problem. Did you notice that all of their glaciers melted first! I bet if you check, you'll find that Global Warming started right there in Penonomé and migrated northeast to Chorrera (promting the invention of chicheme, one of the postives of Climate Change).

VernerHornung wrote: The most we know is that CO2, as a greenhouse gas, helped retard the advance of an ice age as the orbit and tilt got less favorable.

Oh yeah, ... we know.

Are you smart enough to recognize when someone is professing a deep religious faith?

VernerHornung wrote: We're certain that CO2 causes the industrial times we live in to be somewhat warmer than they'd otherwise be.

Argument by subjunctive. Your certainty stems from your religious convictions.

VernerHornung wrote: Yet this morphs into "tipping points" and scenes worthy of St. John the Revelator from the bible, all due in our grandkids' lifespan.

It's fitting that you recognize the religious nature of your doomsday prophecies.

.


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
25-09-2019 06:12
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
IBdaMann wrote:
So now you are following tmiddles lead and assigning bogus positions to others. How disappointing.

As indicated by your citing Qingyang Hu et. al. on Carnegie Science, a paper which used seismic tomography data as proxy for their hydrogen in the lower mantle. If I got you wrong and you don't approve of this proxy, I'm open to correction.
~


IBdaMann wrote:
Only the establishment of causation can lend credence to a measure and thus validity to data.

A causal mechanism is for that reason included with every proposed proxy measure. For the lower mantle, it was that subducting slabs carry water down with them. The water is the source of the hydrogen. Because the slabs are cooler than the surrounding mantle rock, they're denser and therefore seismic waves pass through them at higher speed.

I've no problem with that. But causality in the mantle, an inaccessible place we can simulate only in diamond-anvil pressure cells, is much less cut and dried than tree rings, where we can observe the effects of droughts and cold weather on living trees—by boring a sample hole through their rings.

IBdaMann wrote:
The idea that every year is represented as a layer in the ice is incredibly unlikely. What is likely is that there were warm periods of ice-melt in which "years" were melted away..

And the Vostok people and others analyzing their cores are well aware of that. The ice melts are identifiable as runnels that cut through and disturb the pattern of ice underneath them. Vostok is very cold, however. It was –82F yesterday, and that's the first day of spring. Therefore, few ice melts, virtually none during the stadials when glaciers were advancing. Imperfections such as missing or extra "ice years" don't change the conclusions in the hypothesis regarding Milankovitch cycles. (The rings can't be counted exactly anyway, even without melt intervals.)

Same thing in geology. Unconformities, where deposition was interrupted by a period of erosion. Didn't faze James Hutton back in the 1780s.

IBdaMann wrote:
... or it could have been a twenty million-year span. Did you catch that? We don't know.

Yes, we do know. We can measure the flow rate and determine that ice formed at the highest point on the Antarctic ice cap discharges to sea as bergs within half million years. Flow rates depend mostly on pressure, not local climate as the ice, once you get far enough down, stays at a more or less constant temperature maintained by geothermal heating. Constancy of conditions is why scientists love caves and ocean bottoms, too.

IBdaMann wrote:
It's fitting that you recognize the religious nature of your doomsday prophecies.

You're barkin' up the wrong tree, dearie. I'm not treating climate change as a doomsday. It's a phenomenon we should factor into our plans, not a monster that will kill us.
~



Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
25-09-2019 10:32
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1588)
IBdaMann wrote:...read the question?
Oh the riddles and games of IBD.
IBdaMann wrote:
Let's see - * * *
Great give an example. Any topic. Just one (you won't because your game is to disqualify everything). And "doesn't involve living things" is a very funny thing to present as a universal standard in science : )
I will not be doing your work for you.
I've presented:
1 - 12 references that includes 5 text books debunking you
2 - An easily repeatable example that debunks you (from a text book)
3 - Direct contradiction of your wild claim by Max Planck and Pierre Provost
You ignored and dismissed them all. Because you're debunked.

Your claim:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object
Is absurd, has nothing to support it at all and the burden is yours to do the impossible defending it. You can't even cobble together an answer about what happens to the radiance of the room your in when it reaches you. hint:it's absorbed, no it's not doing back flips


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them[/quote]
25-09-2019 11:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1588)
VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
To remake the point tree rings can certainly be compared to thermometer readings.

Yeah. Mercury thermometers measure expansion of mercury in their bulbs, and thermocouples measure a Seebeck effect current at a junction. IBdaMann doesn't mind proxies at all, as long as they're his proxies...
Try getting ITN or IBD to admit that the temperature of anything is known! If you can it'll be the first time in the 5 years. It's important to embrace that figuring things out, being a good detective, means working with clues. Even a direct measurement taken with the best instrument is just a clue.
VernerHornung wrote:
CO2 in the past was a "lagging economic indicator;" the warming came first, and then the CO2
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?

VernerHornung wrote:a millennium or so nonetheless. That's a pretty slow topple from the tipping point.
Just not going to work with the news cycle.

Into the Night wrote:
A thermometer is an instrument
Hey ITN can you cite any temperature recordings you consider useable? Come on I dare ya

IBdaMann wrote:
VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann doesn't mind proxies at all, as long as they're his proxies...
So now you are following tmiddles lead and assigning bogus positions to others. How disappointing.
OK so this is technically true because you have no proxies, you accept nothing at all.
VernerHornung wrote:
As indicated by your citing Qingyang Hu
Watch, he'll weasel out. He vouches nothing other than disqualification of knowledge.
IBdaMann wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:Though not nearly as consistent as a thermometer,

In a thermometer, the causation is established and that is why a thermometer is a measure and not a proxy.
A proxy is an indirect measure. So a change in the volume of mercury when you're not trying to measure volume or the temperature of mercury is a direct measurement? How can you directly measure the temperature of an entire mass?
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:the religious nature...
...I'm not treating climate change as a doomsday....
I think ITN/IBD don't even notice real skeptism on this board.



"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
25-09-2019 15:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
tmiddles wrote: A proxy is an indirect measure.

Nope. A proxy is a mere belief where causation has not been established. It is not a measure.

In a thermometer, the causation of temperature has been established. A thermometer can be used to measure.



.


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
25-09-2019 21:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...read the question?
Oh the riddles and games of IBD.
IBdaMann wrote:
Let's see - * * *
Great give an example. Any topic. Just one (you won't because your game is to disqualify everything). And "doesn't involve living things" is a very funny thing to present as a universal standard in science : )
I will not be doing your work for you.
I've presented:
1 - 12 references that includes 5 text books debunking you
2 - An easily repeatable example that debunks you (from a text book)
3 - Direct contradiction of your wild claim by Max Planck and Pierre Provost
You ignored and dismissed them all. Because you're debunked.

Your claim:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object
Is absurd, has nothing to support it at all and the burden is yours to do the impossible defending it. You can't even cobble together an answer about what happens to the radiance of the room your in when it reaches you. hint:it's absorbed, no it's not doing back flips



RQAA


The Parrot Killer
25-09-2019 21:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
tmiddles wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
To remake the point tree rings can certainly be compared to thermometer readings.

Yeah. Mercury thermometers measure expansion of mercury in their bulbs, and thermocouples measure a Seebeck effect current at a junction. IBdaMann doesn't mind proxies at all, as long as they're his proxies...
Try getting ITN or IBD to admit that the temperature of anything is known! If you can it'll be the first time in the 5 years. It's important to embrace that figuring things out, being a good detective, means working with clues. Even a direct measurement taken with the best instrument is just a clue.
VernerHornung wrote:
CO2 in the past was a "lagging economic indicator;" the warming came first, and then the CO2
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?

VernerHornung wrote:a millennium or so nonetheless. That's a pretty slow topple from the tipping point.
Just not going to work with the news cycle.

Into the Night wrote:
A thermometer is an instrument
Hey ITN can you cite any temperature recordings you consider useable? Come on I dare ya

IBdaMann wrote:
VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann doesn't mind proxies at all, as long as they're his proxies...
So now you are following tmiddles lead and assigning bogus positions to others. How disappointing.
OK so this is technically true because you have no proxies, you accept nothing at all.
VernerHornung wrote:
As indicated by your citing Qingyang Hu
Watch, he'll weasel out. He vouches nothing other than disqualification of knowledge.
IBdaMann wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:Though not nearly as consistent as a thermometer,

In a thermometer, the causation is established and that is why a thermometer is a measure and not a proxy.
A proxy is an indirect measure. So a change in the volume of mercury when you're not trying to measure volume or the temperature of mercury is a direct measurement? How can you directly measure the temperature of an entire mass?
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:the religious nature...
...I'm not treating climate change as a doomsday....
I think ITN/IBD don't even notice real skeptism on this board.

RQAA


The Parrot Killer
26-09-2019 00:29
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
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.
~


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. 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. 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). This delayed having CO2 show up in the air.

Plant growth just cycles CO2, I think. Plants absorb CO2 while growing, and release it when they die and decay. 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. The tilt is currently decreasing, and when it's low enough, snow up north will begin to lay on the ground all summer, reflecting the sun and cooling the planet into a new ice age.

tmiddles wrote:
Just not going to work with the news cycle.

Industrial CO2 could be a problem because there's so much of it. But planets don't heat up in time for CNN. Just think how long it takes your turkey to thaw, and imagine it a whole world. An Earth 2˚C warmer with seas about a foot higher around 2100 is a realistic projection, and undesirable. 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.

We ditched DDT to solve our bird woes, put the caps on our Freon cans to close the ozone hole, and we'll kick or moderate our carbon habit to fix climate change. Dow and Du Pont weren't grinning when best-sellers were taken off the shelf, but they're still in business.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
26-09-2019 01:00
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
2 C warmer isn't a big change in climate. I moved from a snow capped mountain in Oregon (skiing all year), to Florida, and didn't bother me a bit. The temperature is 6-10 C warmer here. We get an occasional heat wave, another 2-4 C warmer, and it's still not a mass killer, little unpleasant, but then again, we get some unpleasant winter events as well (nothing freezing, close occasionally). A few degrees warmer isn't such a bad thing, no where near the apocalyptic levels of fear generated. Likely, a lot more folks appreciating a warmer climate, considering summer has ended, and it's time for some global cooling. Hopefully not as extreme as last year...
Page 1 of 212>





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