How to create a hypothesis for Global Climate Change?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > How to create a hypothesis for Global Climate Change?

Page 1 of 2

How to create a hypothesis for Global Climate Change?03-02-2020 01:29
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157)	I understand and agree with those that contend that there is not enough information to support the hypothetical phenomenon of AGW/CC. Compound that with the lack of a valid collection of data over a significant period of time, how can the phenomenon be theorized, much less proven? How many data collection points would it take to have a high probability global average temperature? Part of the problem with the current temperature data sets, besides being corrupted by reporting agencies, is that it not only requires the temperature at the surface but at elevation intervals that can track changes in temperatures as it moves around the globe and throughout the atmosphere. I can only venture a guess that the temperature would have to be measured to a point in space where it does not vary based upon what happens on earth. Then after you have a valid set of temperature collection points, you would have to have the data over a very long time. It would have to be long enough to statistically cover the entire range of temperatures that the earth was ever known to exist. Lastly, you would have to have matching CO2 levels to correlate in all of those temperature measurement locations to correlate CO2 levels with the encountered temperatures. If you can even imagine the magnitude of the problem, you will come to understand that it's like looking for an atomic particle in a haystack. It's worse than a long shot given just the variability of the items above. You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
03-02-2020 18:28
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Yeah, there's simply not enough stations that measure temperature and CO2 to have any sort of an idea of a global temperature or a global CO2 concentration. The stations would need to be uniformly spaced and simultaneously read by the same observer. The number of stations required is going to depend on how accurate you wish the results to be, but for the temperature of the Earth, that number would be upwards of 200 million (this is because temperatures have such a high variance, as variances can be as high as 20degF per mile (as personally observed). In terms of a time variance, a variance of 49degF in only two minutes has been recorded before. However, before we even get to that point, any theory about "Global Climate Change" immediately fails internal testing against logic, since "Climate Change" is not defined (circular definitions do not work). No theory of science can be based on an undefined buzzword. There needs to be a precise definition for "Climate Change". How does a climate "change", exactly, and how does one quantify such a "change"?
03-02-2020 19:25
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14451)	Harry C wrote: How many data collection points would it take to have a high probability global average temperature? That depends on the target margin of error. I'm sure you have noticed that no one ever discusses this but it is an absolute requirement at the very beginning of any discussion of this type. You need to establish the target margin of error. Let's say you need your average global temperature to fall within +/- 4 degrees Clesius. Great. A mathematician can tell you that you'll need roughly a billion and a half synchronized, well-calibrated and evenly-spaced thermometers, with several hundred million at/around sea-level, several hundred million evenly-spaced around one kilometer altitude, another several hundred million evenly-spaced at two kilometers altitude, three kilometers, four kilometers ... you get the picture. The target margin of error determines the measuring requirement. And that's not all. It affects your conclusions. Let's say you want to get by with fewer than a billion thermometers, say only 850 million, so you say that you are willing to accept a much bigger margin of error, say +/- 22 degrees Celsius. Great, but the moment you try to claim that the earth's average global temperature is increasing by 1.4 degrees Celsius per decade, you should prepare yourself for calls of "bullshit" because you can't possibly draw conclusions of greater accuracy than your margin of error. Results indicating 1.4 degree temperature increase imply conclusions that include a possible 23.4 degree Clesius increase over each decade down to a 20.6 degree Celsius DECREASE. Harry C wrote: Then after you have a valid set of temperature collection points, you would have to have the data over a very long time. Why? Temperature is an instanteneous measure. I am quite capable of taking a temperature right now without having to gather data for years. So what are you talking about? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-02-2020 06:45
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Harry C wrote:...it not only requires the temperature at the surface but at elevation intervals that can track changes in temperatures as it moves around the globe and throughout the atmosphere. Is that something they are doing or they should do? I don't understand why that's necessary. We only care about what happens at ground level right? Harry C wrote:...you would have to have matching CO2 levels... In general why can't this be done in the lab? I've never understood that. Mythbusters Greenhouse effect and a few low rent productions, two liter soda bottles have come online but why can't this hypothesis be confirmed in a lab at least (or disproven for that matter). gfm7175 wrote:...not enough stations...to have any sort of an idea... The binary reaction of works/doesn't work for measurements taken to accuracy is wrong. The more measurements you have the better your data is but it's never perfect and you always know something. Could CO2 be 10,000 ppm? Could it be 5 ppm? Of course not. IBdaMann wrote: Harry C wrote: How many data collection points would it take to have a high probability global average temperature? That depends on the target margin of error. Exactly. IBdaMann wrote:+/- 4 degrees Clesius. Great. A mathematician can tell you that you'll need roughly a billion and a half synchronized, well-calibrated and evenly-spaced thermometers A great time for a citation! What margin of error would you say we have the Earth's temperature figured out to presently IBD? Annual mean of course (at 2 meters above ground/water level). This deals with the same issue though it's the ocean: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/11/a-small-margin-of-error/ IBdaMann wrote: Harry C wrote:...data over a very long time. Why? Temperature is an instantaneous measure. Because it's an increase in temp that is being looked for.
05-02-2020 07:27
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14451)	tmiddles wrote: I don't understand why that's necessary. We only care about what happens at ground level right? A temperature is not "what happens." The earth's temperature includes the atmosphere, the hydrosphere and the ground surface. However, if I recall correctly, you have eliminated the hydrosphere and the ground surface from consideration in your definition (which nobody else uses). Ergo, your only option is to have thermometers throughout the atmosphere. tmiddles wrote: Harry C wrote:...you would have to have matching CO2 levels... In general why can't this be done in the lab? Are you under the mistaken impression that CO2 is uniform throughout the atmosphere? ... or that CO2 somehow does not accumulate to higher levels indoors? Just wondering. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:+/- 4 degrees Clesius. Great. A mathematician can tell you that you'll need roughly a billion and a half synchronized, well-calibrated and evenly-spaced thermometers A great time for a citation! Nope. It's a great time for you to roll up your sleeves and to do the math, i.e. confirm for yourself. You probably won't find the answer to this specific question in Google. You'll just have to check yourself but at least you'll have the satisfaction of knowing you have the right answer. tmiddles wrote: What margin of error would you say we have the Earth's temperature figured out to presently IBD? I would estimate +/-47F (36C) ... but I haven't done the math. I don't believe we have anything to any usable margin of error. After all, we have a paltry tens of thousands of thermometers available, they are not synchronized and none are over the ocean. We need hundreds of millions to achieve a usable margin of error. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Harry C wrote:...data over a very long time. Why? Temperature is an instantaneous measure. Because it's an increase in temp that is being looked for. Explain why lots of data over a long period of time affords any value beyond acquiring the earth's instantaneous average global temperature on say, June 12th every year at noon Zulu, i.e. one value per year. Something to think about: A car leaves from point X and travels to point Y, exactly 40 miles away. I note the exact moment the car leaves point X and the exact moment it arrives at point Y. I notice that the car travelled for exactly one hour. I announce that the car travelled at an average rate of 40 miles per hour. You, on the other hand, measure everything imaginable, and when the car arrives at Point Y you have 73 Terrabytes of data. When it comes to the car's average speed, your calculation differs from mine how? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

05-02-2020 09:20
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: I don't understand why that's necessary. We only care about what happens at ground level right? A temperature is not "what happens." The earth's temperature includes the atmosphere, the hydrosphere and the ground surface. Don't forget it's molten core. Yes I'm saying there is nothing fataly flawed about having the emperical data that effects us (and ice, and plants) directly. You can absolutely leave out the thermosphere, molten core, or anything else. IBdaMann wrote: However, if I recall correctly, you have eliminated the hydrosphere and the ground surface from consideration in your definition (which nobody else uses). No my definition is implicit in all temperature data. ~2M above ground: noaa specs IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Harry C wrote:...you would have to have matching CO2 levels... In general why can't this be done in the lab? Are you under the mistaken impression that CO2 is uniform throughout the atmosphere? ... or that CO2 somehow does not accumulate to higher levels indoors? Just wondering. That's very true: lack of purity, variance, no way to know the true number perfectly. Yes that's true of nearly everything. Pot Roasts too. IBdaMann wrote: IBdaMann wrote:+/- 4 degrees Clesius. Great. A mathematician can tell you that you'll need roughly a billion and a half synchronized, well-calibrated and evenly-spaced thermometers tmiddles wrote: A great time for a citation! Nope. It's a great time for you to roll up your sleeves and to do the math, i.e. confirm for yourself. You probably won't find the answer to this specific question in Google. You'll just have to check yourself but at least you'll have the satisfaction of knowing you have the right answer. Not my area of expertise. I would like to find the research. So you just made those numbers up? IBdaMann wrote: Explain why lots of data over a long period of time affords any value beyond acquiring the earth's instantaneous average global temperature on say, June 12th every year at noon Aside from the daily and seasonal cycles there are others. Length of measurement allows us to determine the variance. Take Venus. It was the same crazy hot temp every time we landed there. Different times, different locations, just as hot at night as during the day! Thats good to know wouldnt you agree?
05-02-2020 16:06
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14451)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:The earth's temperature includes the atmosphere, the hydrosphere and the ground surface. Don't forget it's molten core. [/quote] Nope. The earth's crust prevents that from being a factor. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: However, if I recall correctly, you have eliminated the hydrosphere and the ground surface from consideration in your definition (which nobody else uses). No my definition is implicit in all temperature data. ~2M above ground: That is exactly what I wrote. Your definition doesn't consider anything below ~2M. Ergo, you misspelled "Yes" as "No." tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Harry C wrote:...you would have to have matching CO2 levels... In general why can't this be done in the lab? Are you under the mistaken impression that CO2 is uniform throughout the atmosphere? ... or that CO2 somehow does not accumulate to higher levels indoors? Just wondering. That's very true: lack of purity, variance, no way to know the true number perfectly. So we can close this one out. tmiddles wrote:Yes that's true of nearly everything. Pot Roasts too. Incorrect. You never took me up on my recommendation to get a good feel for standard deviation. Your insistence on denying statistical math will perpetuate your confusion on these matters. tmiddles wrote: Not my area of expertise. I would like to find the research. Google doesn't do word problems. You can't "research" an answer to a math problem. You can research how to solve it yourself, and that's what I am recommending you do. tmiddles wrote:So you just made those numbers up? You're certainly going to get to the bottom of that as you learn to solve that particular problem. I guarantee it. Start with statistical math. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Explain why lots of data over a long period of time affords any value beyond acquiring the earth's instantaneous average global temperature on say, June 12th every year at noon Aside from the daily and seasonal cycles there are others. Length of measurement allows us to determine the variance. Incorrect. I gave you an example to show you how stupid that notion is. tmiddles wrote: Take Venus. It was the same crazy hot temp every time we landed there. Nope. Not the same temperature and nowhere near the same margins of error. One took undetermined damage from a hard fall. Did you see the raw data? It is supposedly on microfiche and being kept secret. We have only your omniscience to guide us. tmiddles wrote:Thats good to know wouldnt you agree? It's not "what we know." . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-02-2020 17:16
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Length of measurement allows us to determine the variance. Incorrect. I gave you an example to show you how stupid that notion is. according to your assertions, as I understand it, about the amount of data, number of thermometers, and general difficulty of determining the temperature in Denver ect. We are not capable of determining that there are seasons. Is that right? Summer is only 10-20 C warmer than winter. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Take Venus. It was the same crazy hot temp every time we landed there. Nope. Not the same temperature and nowhere near the same margins of error. One took undetermined damage from a hard fall. Did you see the raw data? And if I did you'd want it notorized. That's just a cheap trick to dodge the issue. What margin of error would you put on the temp of Venus? Because a 200C margin of error still begs the question why is Venus so hot (measured 462C expected -41C)
05-02-2020 18:12
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Length of measurement allows us to determine the variance. Incorrect. I gave you an example to show you how stupid that notion is. according to your assertions, as I understand it, about the amount of data, number of thermometers, and general difficulty of determining the temperature in Denver ect. We are not capable of determining that there are seasons. Is that right? Summer is only 10-20 C warmer than winter. Seasons are not determined by data, thermometers, nor temperature.
05-02-2020 18:31
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14451)	tmiddles wrote:We are not capable of determining that there are seasons. Is that right? Summer is only 10-20 C warmer than winter. We observe the seasons. I know that I need to wear a jacket, then it's uncomfortably hot, then I need to wear jacket, etc... The trees and other plants go through cycles. Bears hybernate. Observations. Then there's our model of earth's orbit around the sun. Yeah, there's that. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Did you see the raw data? And if I did you'd want it notorized. That's just a cheap trick to dodge the issue. Don't dodge the issue. The thing about the data you claim forms the basis of your conclusions is that you have to publish it for public scrutiny. Keeping it a secret is a big no-no in science. Doing so gets all conclusions summarily dismissed. So, show me the raw data that forms your conclusions on Venus or consider them summarily dismissed. It's that simple. Don't dodge. tmiddles wrote: What margin of error would you put on the temp of Venus? Let's go with +/- 200C tmiddles wrote: Because a 200C margin of error still begs the question why is Venus so hot (measured 462C expected -41C) Nope. It begs the question "Why is Venus possibly so cold?" I'm getting the impression you still don't understand margin of error. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-02-2020 21:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantras 23...2...27...27...denial of 1st LOT...denial of SB law...23...27...23...27...4... IBdaMann wrote: Harry C wrote:...data over a very long time. Why? Temperature is an instantaneous measure. Because it's an increase in temp that is being looked for. From when to when? Why are those two points in time significant? Why are any other two points in time not significant? The temperature change you are looking for is not possible to determine. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You have not specified the two points of time to consider for the change of temperature either. Define 'global warming'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-02-2020 21:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: I don't understand why that's necessary. We only care about what happens at ground level right? A temperature is not "what happens." The earth's temperature includes the atmosphere, the hydrosphere and the ground surface. Don't forget it's molten core. Yes I'm saying there is nothing fataly flawed about having the emperical data that effects us (and ice, and plants) directly. You can absolutely leave out the thermosphere, molten core, or anything else. Paradox. Are you including the molten core or are you not? Which is it, dude? tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: However, if I recall correctly, you have eliminated the hydrosphere and the ground surface from consideration in your definition (which nobody else uses). No my definition is implicit in all temperature data. ~2M above ground: noaa specs Mantras 4, 23, 20. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. NOAA can't either. Their 'standard' is meaningless. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [quote]tmiddles wrote: Are you under the mistaken impression that CO2 is uniform throughout the atmosphere? ... or that CO2 somehow does not accumulate to higher levels indoors? Just wondering. That's very true: lack of purity, variance, no way to know the true number perfectly. ...deleted Mantras 9...24...16...10... ...deleted Mantras 4...23...16...16...10 (instaneous<->time consuming)...10 (delta<->variance)...27...23...24...27... You are starting to get a glimmer of understanding here and there. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of CO2. You still tend to deny statistical mathematics though. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-02-2020 21:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [quote]tmiddles wrote: Length of measurement allows us to determine the variance. Incorrect. I gave you an example to show you how stupid that notion is. according to your assertions, as I understand it, about the amount of data, number of thermometers, and general difficulty of determining the temperature in Denver ect. We are not capable of determining that there are seasons. Is that right? Summer is only 10-20 C warmer than winter. tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantras 4...5...23...27...23..23... Seasons aren't determined by temperature they are determined by length of day in a hemisphere. They do not change the temperature of Earth either. Winter: begins at lowest solstice of the year. Summer: begins at highest solstice of the year. Autumn: begins a declining equinox. Spring: begins at ascending equinox. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-02-2020 00:08
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: Seasons are not determined by data, thermometers, nor temperature. I think you're saying that measuring/perceiving something is not creating it??? IBdaMann wrote: .... there's our model of earth's orbit around the sun. Yeah, there's that. This causes seasons so I don't see how it's relevant to being able to know summer from winter through temperature measurement. IBdaMann wrote: I know that I need to wear a jacket, Are you saying we cannot tell summer from winter with the thermometers in weather stations have now? IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Did you see the raw data? And if I did you'd want it notorized. That's just a cheap trick to dodge the issue. Don't dodge the issue. OK based on your premise it's "normal" for all the raw data to be available online for most research? Examples? IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: What margin of error would you put on the temp of Venus? Let's go with +/- 200C. OK so that means you're confident the low range on Venus ground level temp is 462-200 = 262C The prediction was -41C so that is 303C higher. Wrong?
06-02-2020 00:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantra 10 (temperature measurement<->season, creation<->cycle)...16...27...10...4...23...4...23...27... No argument presented. No new questions. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

06-02-2020 01:47
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantra 10 (temperature measurement<->season, creation<->cycle)...16...27...10...4...23...4...23...27... No argument presented. No new questions. ITN I have to say this new system is great. I'm able to look them up, it's clear concise, I know what I'm rebutting if I do. Having the link to the directory in your sig might be even better:http://politiplex.freeforums.net/post/134 The Official List of Spurious Mantras, Dishonest Tactics and Common Fallacies of Online Discourse
06-02-2020 03:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantra 10 (temperature measurement<->season, creation<->cycle)...16...27...10...4...23...4...23...27... No argument presented. No new questions. ITN I have to say this new system is great. I'm able to look them up, it's clear concise, I know what I'm rebutting if I do. Having the link to the directory in your sig might be even better:http://politiplex.freeforums.net/post/134 The Official List of Spurious Mantras, Dishonest Tactics and Common Fallacies of Online Discourse Glad to be of service. This official list is now my approved list. I have updated 20 since it was a dup of 1. 20 is now an attempt to deny or change a theory of science. I will not put this link in every time, since it is time consuming and unnecessary. Feel free to link to it, however. I approve this list as edited by me. Thanks IBDaMann! A valuable reference for everyone to look at! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-02-2020 05:56
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14451)	Into the Night wrote:I have updated 20 since it was a dup of 1. 20 is now an attempt to deny or change a theory of science. Excellent. You beat me to it. I was going to ask you about that but you are one step ahead of me. Into the Night wrote:Thanks IBDaMann! A valuable reference for everyone to look at! All credit goes to you for the list ... and to gfm7175 for bringing back the memories. I remember times when you really got on a roll ... and I see that you have wasted no time getting back into your groove. Kudos. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-02-2020 17:42
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Seasons are not determined by data, thermometers, nor temperature. I think you're saying that measuring/perceiving something is not creating it??? I'm saying that data, thermometers, and temperature all have absolutely ZERO to do with how seasons are determined. They are determined, as ITN said, by the solstices (the longest and shortest days of the year) and equinoxes (when day is of equal length to night). Come up with whatever data you wish, play with however many thermometers you wish, and measure whatever temperatures you wish, but that all has no effect on the solstices nor equinoxes. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: .... there's our model of earth's orbit around the sun. Yeah, there's that. This causes seasons so I don't see how it's relevant to being able to know summer from winter through temperature measurement. Temperature is irrelevant in determining seasons. Does a 50deg F summer day and a 60deg F autumn day suddenly make summer into autumn and autumn into summer? The seasons are based on the solstices and equinoxes; they have nothing to do with temperature measurement. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: I know that I need to wear a jacket, Are you saying we cannot tell summer from winter with the thermometers in weather stations have now? Generally we can, but not necessarily. Seasons are not determined by temperature measurements. They are determined by the solstices and equinoxes. Edited on 06-02-2020 17:54
06-02-2020 17:51
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Thanks IBDaMann! A valuable reference for everyone to look at! All credit goes to you for the list ... and to gfm7175 for bringing back the memories. I remember times when you really got on a roll ... and I see that you have wasted no time getting back into your groove. Kudos. . Yup, seeing all of those numbers pop up in responses once again is pure joy in which no words can accurately describe.
06-02-2020 20:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:I have updated 20 since it was a dup of 1. 20 is now an attempt to deny or change a theory of science. Excellent. You beat me to it. I was going to ask you about that but you are one step ahead of me. Into the Night wrote:Thanks IBDaMann! A valuable reference for everyone to look at! All credit goes to you for the list ... and to gfm7175 for bringing back the memories. I remember times when you really got on a roll ... and I see that you have wasted no time getting back into your groove. Kudos. . And to you for thinking of a central reference to place the list. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-02-2020 20:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Thanks IBDaMann! A valuable reference for everyone to look at! All credit goes to you for the list ... and to gfm7175 for bringing back the memories. I remember times when you really got on a roll ... and I see that you have wasted no time getting back into your groove. Kudos. . Yup, seeing all of those numbers pop up in responses once again is pure joy in which no words can accurately describe. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
07-02-2020 01:13
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote:...temperature...ZERO to do with...seasons... The purpose of my example IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: What margin of error would you say we have the Earth's temperature figured out to presently IBD? I would estimate +/-47F (36C) ... tmiddles wrote:according to your assertions, as I understand it, about the amount of data, number of thermometers, and general difficulty of determining the temperature in Denver ect. We are not capable of determining that there are seasons. Is that right? Summer is only 10-20 C warmer than winter. is that this is an ability all regular people have. It is not plausible, I would argue, to a layman (regular non-professional) to claim we lack the precision in measuring temperature to distinguish winter weather from summer weather. So it certainly begs elaboration if that is believed by anyone here. I am confident in our ability to distinguish summer from winter by mean temperature alone even in mild climates like San Diego, based on my own experience.
07-02-2020 02:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantras 34...31...10 (temperature<->season)...25...31...34...31... No arguments presented. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
07-02-2020 02:44
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantras 34...31...10 (temperature<->season)...25...31...34...31... No arguments presented. False. I'm saying that laypeople are able to distinguish summer from winter from temperature alone. This is not "31" or any kind of omniscience. It is my own direct experience as a human living on Earth. "10" Unfounded accusation on your part. I said that we can identify a season by it's temperature, that is not to say a season IS temperature, temperature is just it's dominant characteristic. I did not redefine anything. "25" you fail to point out any error in math.
07-02-2020 20:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantras 34...31...10 (temperature<->season)...25...31...34...31... No arguments presented. ...deleted Mantras 23...34...10 (temperature<->season)...lie...29... No argument presented. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
07-02-2020 21:46
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14451)	tmiddles wrote: I'm saying that laypeople are able to distinguish summer from winter from temperature alone. I claim that humans actually cannot do this ... primarily due to the fact that the seasons are arbitrary hard-coded dates. I claim that humans can only tell the seasons by looking at a calendar. One example that drives this point home to me was a profound cold-wave hitting Illinois bringing temperatures down from the Arctic through Canada one particular year resulting in a week of just-above-freezing temperatures in late April. Therefore, when you write: tmiddles wrote: It is my own direct experience as a human living on Earth. ... or tmiddles wrote: I said that we can identify a season by it's temperature, that is not to say a season IS temperature, temperature is just it's dominant characteristic. ... I claim that without a calendar, your human senses would have assured you that you were still in winter. Jussayn. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-02-2020 22:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: I'm saying that laypeople are able to distinguish summer from winter from temperature alone. I claim that humans actually cannot do this ... primarily due to the fact that the seasons are arbitrary hard-coded dates. I claim that humans can only tell the seasons by looking at a calendar. One example that drives this point home to me was a profound cold-wave hitting Illinois bringing temperatures down from the Arctic through Canada one particular year resulting in a week of just-above-freezing temperatures in late April. Therefore, when you write: tmiddles wrote: It is my own direct experience as a human living on Earth. ... or tmiddles wrote: I said that we can identify a season by it's temperature, that is not to say a season IS temperature, temperature is just it's dominant characteristic. ... I claim that without a calendar, your human senses would have assured you that you were still in winter. Jussayn. . Quite right. The day before the D-Day invasion, weather across the channel was essentially like the middle of winter. Fortunately, it cleared just enough to allow the invasion, convincing the Germans that no one would fool enough to invade in such a storm. Several of their commanders left early for wargames in Rennes. That was June, 1944. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-02-2020 03:09
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...your human senses would have assured you that you were still in winter...Jussayn... Here is the order of arguments as I see it: IBD proposes that human technology is unable to determine ground level mean temperature on Earth to anything narrower than a 37C margin (that's the entire planet's annual mean, so admittedly a challenge). I argue human beings are able to determine a ground level temperature difference of 10C because I know winter is colder than summer. How can my body be more precise than current thermometer and weather tech? Off base argument 1: Seasons are not temperature Off base argument 2: A human can detect a very cold anomoly in a warm season and get confused about which season it is. This actually makes my point since it's acknowledge we can detect the difference. Into the Night wrote:...before the D-Day invasion, weather across the channel was essentially like the middle of winter..... But you don't actually know that right? Isn't that a WAG? Could be off by 30C+ right?
08-02-2020 07:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...your human senses would have assured you that you were still in winter...Jussayn... Here is the order of arguments as I see it: IBD proposes that human technology is unable to determine ground level mean temperature on Earth to anything narrower than a 37C margin (that's the entire planet's annual mean, so admittedly a challenge). ...deleted Mantras 25...33...10 (temperature<->season)...31...21...10 (weather<->temperature)... No counterargument presented. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

08-02-2020 07:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14451)	tmiddles wrote: I argue human beings are able to determine a ground level temperature difference of 10C because I know winter is colder than summer. How can my body be more precise than current thermometer and weather tech? Great attempt at a goalpost shift ... but you need to do it when no one is watching otherwise you'll get caught like you did just now. Your premise was NOT that humans can tell whether it is "hot" or "cold" but that humans can tell what season it is by noting whether it is "hot" or "cold." Ergo, my point still stands. A human who correctly feels "cold" will believe that he is still in winter, ... even though Spring has already begun. Unless you can show that humans cannot be fooled, ever ... you are mistaken on this point. Additionally, since many people have been fooled into believing Greenhouse Effect and other scams, you can't make that case either. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-02-2020 07:28
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...goalpost shift ... Fine new question then (it'll look a lot like the old one). Since you didn't understand what I was saying. I take full responsibility for my lack of clarity in communicating. So here it is: Me, the cat, dog, my neighbor, can all easily distinguish a month mid summer from a month mid winter. Now I'm not calling any special attention to it being summer and winter, they are simply useful in that they annually bring this 10 degree shift in mean temperature. So the question is why is it that organisms like us can distinguish a 10 degree mean temperature shift but you're saying that we can't measure one? IBdaMann wrote: A human who correctly feels "cold" is better equipped to determine ground level temperature than those who do this professionally? Edited on 08-02-2020 07:30
08-02-2020 07:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...goalpost shift ... Fine new question then (it'll look a lot like the old one). ...deleted Mantras 12...6...10 (temperature<->season)...34...31...25...34...31...29... No argument presented. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-02-2020 08:20
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14451)	tmiddles wrote: So the question is why is it that organisms like us can distinguish a 10 degree mean temperature shift but you're saying that we can't measure one? Your statement has so much ambiguity that I'm not even going to hazard a guess as to which semantic I should answer. I will just claim that no, humans cannot know by "feeling" when a temperature has shifted by ten degrees because humans are easily fooled by temperatures. This is owed to the fact that humans sense temperature relativistically and not absolutely, and humans acclimate (one of the problems with using life forms in experiments). Humans, when presented two pots, each filled with water of the same temperature, can be easily fooled into somehow believing the temperatures differ by more than twenty deg C. The bottom line is that if you are going to base an argument on the accuracy of human feeling, then your argument is dismissed. Humans are terrible estimators. This is why rulers, thermometers, tire pressure gauges, radar, sonar, biometrics and other measuring devices are so popular with humans. I don't want the point to be lost. How is it that you are claiming that a human knows when Spring has begun without being two weeks late or two weeks early? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist Edited on 08-02-2020 08:22
08-02-2020 11:41
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...humans cannot know by "feeling" when a temperature has shifted by ten degrees... And would you also, in assesing the general feelings of humans, agree that most people would think you're wrong about that? That if you told people "Hey I've got a climate change theory here and first of all let's just get it out of the way that human's can't tell a ten degree temperature change often/usually" that regular folks like me would look at you funny and slowly back away out of the room? IBdaMann wrote:Humans, when presented two pots, each filled with water of the same temperature, can be easily fooled into somehow believing the temperatures differ by more than twenty deg C. Really? What temps do they think they feel? I'm guessing one isn't near 0C and the other 20C (68F), maybe 10C (50F) and 30C (86F), literally cold vs hot for a human? Is this a study? I tried to find it. You mean this? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cold-or-warm-can-we-really-tell/ To come back to the initial issue you've said that you'd expect a margin of error of about 36C for the ground level temp of Earth planet wide. The current estimate is 14C. So you're saying it's between -22C and 50C (that's -8F to 122F). IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: What margin of error would you say we have the Earth's temperature figured out to presently IBD? I would estimate +/-47F (36C) ... Now I'm not trying to be silly in using our own experience moving through the world as a measure of sorts. The weather is always changing, the temp may change 30F from day to night, and day to day can vary a lot. That said I don't believe I would have any trouble, lacking other clues, in being able to distinguish a 10 degree gap in mean temp between two month long intervals (just as an example, comparing July to February just about anywhere with seasons). IBdaMann wrote:...if you are going to base an argument on the accuracy of human feeling,... Actually my whole point is that human feeling isn't that accurate, yet I know from person experience 10 degrees is easily discernible as an average (I think a lot less than that). So common sense leads me to conclude that you've got to be way wrong about the 47F margin. Because it's not plausible to me, on it's face, that humans are a more accurate weather detection system than the electronic one we have. Edited on 08-02-2020 11:48
10-02-2020 18:27
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote:...continued ignoring of the main point at hand... I, akin to IBdaMann, don't want the point to be lost. How is it that you are claiming that a human knows when Spring has begun without being two weeks late or two weeks early?
10-02-2020 21:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14451)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...humans cannot know by "feeling" when a temperature has shifted by ten degrees... And would you also, in assesing the general feelings of humans, agree that most people would think you're wrong about that? Can we agree that if I were to offer you ... and most people ... the opportunity to sit in a room over a period of a few hours ... and you had to tell me the moment that the temperature in that room finally had changed ten degrees to win an easy $1,000,000 ... but that if you were mistaken that you'd get a bullet in the head ... that only suicidal people would take me up on my offer? Can we agree that no rational person would accept because humans cannot know by "feeling" when a temperature has shifted by ten degrees? IBdaMann wrote:Humans, when presented two pots, each filled with water of the same temperature, can be easily fooled into somehow believing the temperatures differ by more than twenty deg C. Really? What temps do they think they feel? I'm guessing one isn't near 0C and the other 20C (68F), maybe 10C (50F) and 30C (86F), literally cold vs hot for a human? Is this a study? I tried to find it. You mean this? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cold-or-warm-can-we-really-tell/ What you have just told me is that you didn't bother checking it out for yourself. You'll get a kick out of it when you do. Get four pots. Fill them with water (room temperature). Arrange them as such. Pot C, Pot D Pot A, Pot B Refrigerate Pot B, get the water cold, then dump a bunch of ice in it. Put Pot A on the stove and get it to "very hot but I can still insert my hand without the skin being scalded off." Pot C and Pot D remain at room temperature. Stick your left hand in Pot A and your right hand in Pot B and let them remain submerged for a couple of minutes. At the same moment submerge your left hand in Pot C while submerging your right hand in Pot D (which are both at room temperature) and your left hand will tell your brain "Crap, this water is cold!" while your right hand tells your brain "Crap, this water is hot!" For an even greater effect, you don't need separate pots C and D. You only use separate pots when you are trying to fool kids into thinking that C has cold water and D has hot water and then you surprise them afterwards with the news that they are both the same at room temperature. You apparently never did this demonstration as a kid. Go try it today. Humans don't measure absolute temperature. Humans gauge instantaneous temperature differential (relative difference) and flow of thermal energy (caused by temperature differential). Ergo, I could change the temperature in a room so slowly that no human in the room will notice either that the temperature is changing tmiddles wrote: To come back to the initial issue you've said that you'd expect a margin of error of about 36C for the ground level temp of Earth planet wide. Yes, as a conservative figure. tmiddles wrote: The current estimate is 14C. Nope. There is no such thing as a passive, established estimate. Whose estimate is it and how was it estimated? What was the target margin of error? So you're saying it's between -22C and 50C (that's -8F to 122F). IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: What margin of error would you say we have the Earth's temperature figured out to presently IBD? I would estimate +/-47F (36C) ... Now I'm not trying to be silly in using our own experience moving through the world as a measure of sorts. The weather is always changing, the temp may change 30F from day to night, and day to day can vary a lot. That said I don't believe I would have any trouble, lacking other clues, in being able to distinguish a 10 degree gap in mean temp between two month long intervals (just as an example, comparing July to February just about anywhere with seasons). tmiddles wrote: yet I know from person experience 10 degrees is easily discernible No, you cannot. Humans are easily fooled. Absolute temperature is an easy way to fool humans. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-02-2020 02:33
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote:...you are claiming that a human knows when Spring has begun... I'm not. I'm claiming a human can detect a 10 degree difference very easily. Seasons are just an example of such an experience. IBdaMann wrote:...tell me the moment that the temperature in that room finally had changed ten degrees... Ah! I believe you loving calling out this "changing of the goal posts". But really this isn't that at all. It's an entirely unrelated example you've given. Identifying the exact moment that a temperature reaches X with how many decimal places and how many milliseconds IBD? That example has nothing to do with my claim a human can distinguish a 10 degree temperature difference. I'm saying a human can easily detect a 10 degree difference (not the precise millisecond and 0.001 of a degree a temperature is reached). If you have someone walking into two rooms, 10 degrees apart in temperature, they will be able to point "Colder room!" and then point "Warmer room!". IBdaMann wrote: Humans don't measure absolute temperature. Humans gauge instantaneous temperature differential... Humans dumped in ice water maybe. Regular folks in dry clothes all have the consistent temperature of their own body so they really do have a frame of reference similar to using absolute temperature. IBdaMann wrote:Ergo, I could change the temperature in a room so slowly that no human in the room will notice either that the temperature is changing By how many degrees do you think you could do that? 10? I don't think you could get away with 3. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: The current estimate is 14C. Nope. There is no such thing as a passive, established estimate. It's the estimate of the mean temperature. IPCC/NASA If you need to understand what "mean" temperature is let me know. Edited on 11-02-2020 02:35
11-02-2020 17:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantras 23...34...35...29...31...4...25...25a...25...25...10(temperature<->season)...25...25...10...25...23...31... No argument presented. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-02-2020 17:17
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14451)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: [quote]IBdaMann wrote:...humans cannot know by "feeling" when a temperature has shifted by ten degrees... And would you also, in assesing the general feelings of humans, agree that most people would think you're wrong about that? [temperature Russian roulette deleted] Ah! I believe you loving calling out this "changing of the goal posts". Nope. I do not call backpedaling on your part as goalpost shifting on my part. I claimed that humans cannot know by "feeling" when a temperature has shifted by ten degrees. You insist that humans can easily know by "feeling" when a temperature has shifted ten degrees. The moment I laid out a scenario for testing our respective opposing claims, you abandoned ship. For tolerance, I will grant a time window beginning with the moment the temperature reaches 0.05 degrees within the 10 degree mark ... to the ten degree mark ... with a full three seconds added onto each end (ergo, if someone calls the mark early, but then the temperature ends up having shifted 9.95 degrees within three seconds from the call, then we say that is a success. tmiddles wrote:If you have someone walking into two rooms, 10 degrees apart in temperature, they will be able to point "Colder room!" and then point "Warmer room!". Exactly. Humans gauge by relative differential, just like in your example here whereby there is a substantial difference between the two. However, humans cannot measure absolute temperature. A human can walk into various rooms of different temperatures and not be able to tell you which two are ten degrees different. You still haven't done the potted water demonstration, have you? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Page 1 of 2

Join the debate How to create a hypothesis for Global Climate Change?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Magma vortex hypothesis about earthquakes	37	16-08-2023 14:54
Everybody, Any Entity Can Create New Money Currency, It Is About How To Persuade The Users	1	13-08-2022 23:34
"Trump won in a landslide" - A Falsifiable Hypothesis	26	13-05-2022 01:32
How Did TrueCompanion Create a New Thread/Post in a Closed Forum?	3	26-08-2021 00:43
Many worlds hypothesis	20	11-03-2021 21:26