| 11-07-2017 23:24 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Okay. First 'global climate' must be defined without using circular arguments.
Go ahead.
Why do I need an argument for a definition? Circular or square? Because you brought it up.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Climate, by definition, is the average of all weather.
Okay. Since you are now discussing averages, what is the start time and end time of sampling? Why are these times significant? Why are any other times NOT significant? The simple average for an instant of weather is weather.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Does the globe have an rainfall? Yes. Rainfall is weather. It moves around.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Does the globe have an average wind speed? Yes. Windspeed is weather. It moves around.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Does the globe have an average dew point? Yes. Dewpoint is weather. It moves around.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Does the globe have an average Temperature. Yes. Temperature is weather. It moves around.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Do we know exactly what these numbers are? No. Correct.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Does the globe have a climate? Yes. No. You are confusing weather with climate.
Climate is prevailing weather over a long time. Nothing specifies the time interval. Nothing specifies the starting and ending timepoints. This is why you don't find 'climate' in the world of science.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Are there many climates? Sure. So does your house. Cool damp basement, comfortable living room and a hot attic area. The Earth has many climates. It has no single climate.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Do we know what the average climate is for the globe....exactly? No. But it does have a climate, and we've got a pretty good idea of what it is.
No it doesn't. The 'average' climate is itself an average, taken over an unspecified time interval and region.
When you consider the Earth's 'climate', are you considering only surface conditions? What about the oceans? How deep? The atmosphere? How high? From when to when is this average and why are those points of time important?
GasGuzzler wrote:
The number of peoples minds that will change by simply saying there's no such thing as global climate is exactly 0. Argument from randU, stemming from an argument of ignorance.
GasGuzzler wrote:
So to revisit your original request for the definition of global climate, it would be the "average of all the weather on the globe", The average of an instant of weather on the globe would be weather.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Global climate change would be "the moving of the averages of global weather". A moving average? What is the time interval of sampling? Why is this time interval significant? Why is any other time interval NOT significant?
GasGuzzler wrote:
The argument is what is causing the averages to move?....., God or man. You have not defined what these averages are.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Where do we disagree?
In terms of our view of the Church of Global Warming, we agree.
In terms of attempting to define a global 'climate', you seem to be unable to define the boundaries of sampling. Without that, you still have no more than a circular argument.
The boundaries of sampling are up to the one producing the average number. When talking about an average in general, it's from the beginning of existence to the present. Are those types of numbers possible? Hell no. Doesn't mean they don't exist.
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 11-07-2017 23:41 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21596) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Okay. First 'global climate' must be defined without using circular arguments.
Go ahead.
Why do I need an argument for a definition? Circular or square? Because you brought it up.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Climate, by definition, is the average of all weather.
Okay. Since you are now discussing averages, what is the start time and end time of sampling? Why are these times significant? Why are any other times NOT significant? The simple average for an instant of weather is weather.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Does the globe have an rainfall? Yes. Rainfall is weather. It moves around.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Does the globe have an average wind speed? Yes. Windspeed is weather. It moves around.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Does the globe have an average dew point? Yes. Dewpoint is weather. It moves around.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Does the globe have an average Temperature. Yes. Temperature is weather. It moves around.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Do we know exactly what these numbers are? No. Correct.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Does the globe have a climate? Yes. No. You are confusing weather with climate.
Climate is prevailing weather over a long time. Nothing specifies the time interval. Nothing specifies the starting and ending timepoints. This is why you don't find 'climate' in the world of science.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Are there many climates? Sure. So does your house. Cool damp basement, comfortable living room and a hot attic area. The Earth has many climates. It has no single climate.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Do we know what the average climate is for the globe....exactly? No. But it does have a climate, and we've got a pretty good idea of what it is.
No it doesn't. The 'average' climate is itself an average, taken over an unspecified time interval and region.
When you consider the Earth's 'climate', are you considering only surface conditions? What about the oceans? How deep? The atmosphere? How high? From when to when is this average and why are those points of time important?
GasGuzzler wrote:
The number of peoples minds that will change by simply saying there's no such thing as global climate is exactly 0. Argument from randU, stemming from an argument of ignorance.
GasGuzzler wrote:
So to revisit your original request for the definition of global climate, it would be the "average of all the weather on the globe", The average of an instant of weather on the globe would be weather.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Global climate change would be "the moving of the averages of global weather". A moving average? What is the time interval of sampling? Why is this time interval significant? Why is any other time interval NOT significant?
GasGuzzler wrote:
The argument is what is causing the averages to move?....., God or man. You have not defined what these averages are.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Where do we disagree?
In terms of our view of the Church of Global Warming, we agree.
In terms of attempting to define a global 'climate', you seem to be unable to define the boundaries of sampling. Without that, you still have no more than a circular argument.
The boundaries of sampling are up to the one producing the average number. When talking about an average in general, it's from the beginning of existence to the present. Are those types of numbers possible? Hell no. Doesn't mean they don't exist.
Actually, it does. You can't have an average at all unless you have data to sample from.
A void is not an average.
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 |
| 12-07-2017 00:29 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
Into the Night wrote:
Actually, it does. You can't have an average at all unless you have data to sample from.
A void is not an average.
True....we can't the average value without the data.
The average stills exists without the data.
For 5 days it rained exactly five inches each day. No one measured the rainfall. Was there an average rainfall?
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Edited on 12-07-2017 00:31 |
| 12-07-2017 01:27 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
RealityCheck wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
ummm which 'reliable, public and verified surface data' would that be? and why do you think its more reliable than the satellite data?
It would be the thousands of measurements taken directly at the Earth's surface by hundreds of meteorological agencies using straightforward thermometers.
Would that be those reliable measurements that produced this picture?:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201312.gif
Good thing we have all those reliable , verifiable thermometers in eastern russia and in the middle of the oceans so that, even though North America was experiencing the coldest winter in 100 years..., we still knew the earth was warming...
The part I like is "Into the Night" doesn't know the slightest thing about radiated energy and what it means. He gives the most bizarre statements about things.
Consider: if the weather satellites dropped in orbit they would be looking at a smaller area of scan. This would make the readings WARMER instead of colder. If the orbits opened up the scanned sections would be larger and the readings would appear to be cooler but since this would be tiny percentages from an altitude of some 22,000 miles the reading changes would be too small to be of any importance. What would be more important is that the satellites would no longer be geosynchronous and so the exact areas being measured would be inaccurate and not the actual information.
Why do you suppose there are so many self made men out there that fumbled it? |
| 12-07-2017 02:21 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Actually, it does. You can't have an average at all unless you have data to sample from.
A void is not an average.
True....we can't the average value without the data.
The average stills exists without the data.
Welcome to your new paradox.
GasGuzzler wrote:
For 5 days it rained exactly five inches each day. No one measured the rainfall. Was there an average rainfall?
Yes. The average is 5 inches per day, using the specified data.
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 |
|
| 12-07-2017 02:28 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
Wake wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
ummm which 'reliable, public and verified surface data' would that be? and why do you think its more reliable than the satellite data?
It would be the thousands of measurements taken directly at the Earth's surface by hundreds of meteorological agencies using straightforward thermometers.
Would that be those reliable measurements that produced this picture?:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201312.gif
Good thing we have all those reliable , verifiable thermometers in eastern russia and in the middle of the oceans so that, even though North America was experiencing the coldest winter in 100 years..., we still knew the earth was warming...
...deleted insults...
Consider: if the weather satellites dropped in orbit they would be looking at a smaller area of scan.
True.
Wake wrote:
This would make the readings WARMER instead of colder.
No change would occur.
Wake wrote:
If the orbits opened up the scanned sections would be larger
True.
Wake wrote:
and the readings would appear to be cooler
No change would occur.
Wake wrote:
but since this would be tiny percentages from an altitude of some 22,000 miles the reading changes would be too small to be of any importance.
Go study what 'radiance' is and how it's specified.
Wake wrote:
What would be more important is that the satellites would no longer be geosynchronous and so the exact areas being measured would be inaccurate and not the actual information.
The readings are perfectly fine. The satellite may move in the sky, but we know pretty accurately where it is at any given time.
Wake wrote:
Why do you suppose there are so many self made men out there that fumbled it?
Welcome to your new paradox.
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 |
| 12-07-2017 02:37 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Actually, it does. You can't have an average at all unless you have data to sample from.
A void is not an average.
True....we can't the average value without the data.
The average stills exists without the data.
Welcome to your new paradox.
GasGuzzler wrote:
For 5 days it rained exactly five inches each day. No one measured the rainfall. Was there an average rainfall?
Yes. The average is 5 inches per day, using the specified data.
My whole point in this little exercise is this.....
This is a mind game of technicalities that the Church of GB won't listen to. The nonsense of GB will be legislated AND litigated if we don't stop this crazinees soon, and we don't have time to play these games.
Scenario....
Dad; Son, go pick up your room
Son; technically dad, I can't do that
Dad; You know what I mean, now pick up your shit
Son; Technically dad, I can't do that either
Dad; GO CLEAN YOUR ROOM!
Son; First we'll need to define "room" without using a circular argument
Dad: Boy, I was there when you came into this world, I'll help take you out!
Son; define "out" without using links or quotes
SMACK!...................
Now ITN,
Which one do you sound more like?
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 12-07-2017 02:47 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Actually, it does. You can't have an average at all unless you have data to sample from.
A void is not an average.
True....we can't the average value without the data.
The average stills exists without the data.
Welcome to your new paradox.
GasGuzzler wrote:
For 5 days it rained exactly five inches each day. No one measured the rainfall. Was there an average rainfall?
Yes. The average is 5 inches per day, using the specified data.
My whole point in this little exercise is this.....
This is a mind game of technicalities that the Church of GB won't listen to. The nonsense of GB will be legislated AND litigated if we don't stop this crazinees soon, and we don't have time to play these games.
Scenario....
Dad; Son, go pick up your room
Son; technically dad, I can't do that
Dad; You know what I mean, now pick up your shit
Son; Technically dad, I can't do that either
Dad; GO CLEAN YOUR ROOM!
Son; First we'll need to define "room" without using a circular argument
Dad: Boy, I was there when you came into this world, I'll help take you out!
Son; define "out" without using links or quotes
SMACK!...................
Now ITN,
Which one do you sound more like?
False equivalence.
First, this is not about picking up a room.
Second, these games have been played for a very long time. Perhaps you haven't noticed?
Third, the Church of Global Warming has already been legislated and litigated. Perhaps you haven't noticed?
Fourth, a State Religion is always a cause of problems. The government should return to the Constitution, or it will eventually be done for them, one way or another.
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 |
| 12-07-2017 03:21 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
False equivalence.First, this is not about picking up a room.
Not supposed to be an exact parallel...supposed to get you to see that reasoning tactics such as yours, right or wrong, will be defeated or rejected by the people in power
Second, these games have been played for a very long time. Perhaps you haven't
noticed?
No, I've never heard decent well pointed argument sound like this. Yes, my opinion
Third, the Church of Global Warming has already been legislated and litigated. Perhaps you haven't noticed?
Yes, and it's only going to get worse....much worse
Fourth, a State Religion is always a cause of problems. The government should return to the Constitution, or it will eventually be done for them, one way or another.
Agree
Edited on 12-07-2017 03:38 |
| 12-07-2017 09:24 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
False equivalence.First, this is not about picking up a room.
Not supposed to be an exact parallel...supposed to get you to see that reasoning tactics such as yours, right or wrong, will be defeated or rejected by the people in power
Do you believe you have power over me? Guess what...you don't.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Second, these games have been played for a very long time. Perhaps you haven't
noticed?
No, I've never heard decent well pointed argument sound like this. Yes, my opinion
I haven't heard a well pointed argument coming from the Church of Global Warming yet. All I have ever heard is their gospel. It hasn't changed much in many decades now.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Third, the Church of Global Warming has already been legislated and litigated. Perhaps you haven't noticed?
Yes, and it's only going to get worse....much worse
It's already changing for the better. People are waking up to the idea that there is something wrong with the Church of Global Warming gospel. Thanks to Trump, several laws concerning global warming have already been repealed.
The individual States are another problem, and of course the constant attempts to litigate what the libs can't legislate.
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 |
| 12-07-2017 15:27 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
Do you believe you have power over me? Guess what...you don't.
No, I was talking about our lawmakers and our courts...I just think your line of reasoning, right or wrong, will be dismissed.
It's already changing for the better. People are waking up to the idea that there is something wrong with the Church of Global Warming gospel. Thanks to Trump, several laws concerning global warming have already been repealed.
yes we're winning for now.....This ain't over |
| 12-07-2017 18:04 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
ummm which 'reliable, public and verified surface data' would that be? and why do you think its more reliable than the satellite data?
It would be the thousands of measurements taken directly at the Earth's surface by hundreds of meteorological agencies using straightforward thermometers.
Would that be those reliable measurements that produced this picture?:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201312.gif
Good thing we have all those reliable , verifiable thermometers in eastern russia and in the middle of the oceans so that, even though North America was experiencing the coldest winter in 100 years..., we still knew the earth was warming...
...deleted insults...
Consider: if the weather satellites dropped in orbit they would be looking at a smaller area of scan.
True.
Wake wrote:
This would make the readings WARMER instead of colder.
No change would occur.
Wake wrote:
If the orbits opened up the scanned sections would be larger
True.
Wake wrote:
and the readings would appear to be cooler
No change would occur.
Wake wrote:
but since this would be tiny percentages from an altitude of some 22,000 miles the reading changes would be too small to be of any importance.
Go study what 'radiance' is and how it's specified.
Wake wrote:
What would be more important is that the satellites would no longer be geosynchronous and so the exact areas being measured would be inaccurate and not the actual information.
The readings are perfectly fine. The satellite may move in the sky, but we know pretty accurately where it is at any given time.
Wake wrote:
Why do you suppose there are so many self made men out there that fumbled it?
Welcome to your new paradox.
Is there any end to you almost total lack of any sort of scientific or technical knowledge?
There is no point in making any more comments in your direction because you are one of the world's great fools. |
| 12-07-2017 20:33 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Do you believe you have power over me? Guess what...you don't.
No, I was talking about our lawmakers and our courts...I just think your line of reasoning, right or wrong, will be dismissed.
Our lawmakers? You mean the folks that can't figure out that you can't take a train to Hawaii? I don't expect much reasoning from them!
Our courts? Considering how many courts today are exceeding their authority, including the Supreme Court, I don't expect much justice to come out of activist courts.
Out of cases I have observed, including those of my own, I find that lawyers are often very concerned about the meaning and definition of a word or phrase.
Science is not a court. It does not have a judge. No one owns science. It doesn't have theories about stuff that can't be defined.
GasGuzzler wrote:
It's already changing for the better. People are waking up to the idea that there is something wrong with the Church of Global Warming gospel. Thanks to Trump, several laws concerning global warming have already been repealed.
yes we're winning for now.....This ain't over
Agreed.
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
Edited on 12-07-2017 20:38 |
| 12-07-2017 20:37 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
ummm which 'reliable, public and verified surface data' would that be? and why do you think its more reliable than the satellite data?
It would be the thousands of measurements taken directly at the Earth's surface by hundreds of meteorological agencies using straightforward thermometers.
Would that be those reliable measurements that produced this picture?:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201312.gif
Good thing we have all those reliable , verifiable thermometers in eastern russia and in the middle of the oceans so that, even though North America was experiencing the coldest winter in 100 years..., we still knew the earth was warming...
...deleted insults...
Consider: if the weather satellites dropped in orbit they would be looking at a smaller area of scan.
True.
Wake wrote:
This would make the readings WARMER instead of colder.
No change would occur.
Wake wrote:
If the orbits opened up the scanned sections would be larger
True.
Wake wrote:
and the readings would appear to be cooler
No change would occur.
Wake wrote:
but since this would be tiny percentages from an altitude of some 22,000 miles the reading changes would be too small to be of any importance.
Go study what 'radiance' is and how it's specified.
Wake wrote:
What would be more important is that the satellites would no longer be geosynchronous and so the exact areas being measured would be inaccurate and not the actual information.
The readings are perfectly fine. The satellite may move in the sky, but we know pretty accurately where it is at any given time.
Wake wrote:
Why do you suppose there are so many self made men out there that fumbled it?
Welcome to your new paradox.
Is there any end to you almost total lack of any sort of scientific or technical knowledge?
There is no point in making any more comments in your direction because you are one of the world's great fools.
You still think insults are an argument do you?
I guess that's all you have left.
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 |