It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth
| 30-06-2020 06:22 | |
| James___★★★★★ (5513) |
This is too funny. A delta is also where a fresh water river like the Mississippi flows into the Gulf of Mexico. That's known as a delta also. And some call it an estuary. An estuary is where fresh water and salt water mix. This represents a "change". How could we quantify this "change" from fresh water to salt water? If we were Egyptians and there is the Nile, how does that become the Mediterranean Sea? If only we could quantify "change". This still has nothing to do with flying a plane in Alaska. Just sayin'. You'll have to forgive me IBDM for going off on a tangent. Edited on 30-06-2020 06:31 |
| 30-06-2020 07:25 | |
tmiddles ★★★★★(3979) |
GreenEggsNham wrote:Earth is ... variableAll matter with temperature has variability in the temperature from location to location. GreenEggsNham wrote:Where do you measure temperatures - sea level? Top of hills?This is also something common to almost all measurement/estimation of temperature. How about Human body temperature? Varied considerably throughout your body:  A variance of a good 5 degrees in the cold. If you dropped the core body temp by 5 degrees you would die.Do you doubt our ability to usefully measure the temperature of the human body? Of course not. Do you puzzle at what part of the body a doctor is concerned with? No, it's the core temp. We are interested in the temperature of the Earth because of the consequences at ground/water level so it's of course our focus. GreenEggsNham wrote:...the only thing this data has in common is that its a temperature on the planet.And that is the result(the end product of whatever is going on thermodynamically) that we care about. Technically the temperature of the Earth as a complete object would be completely overwhelmed by the matter below the surface as temperature is the thermal energy divided by the matter. We don't care about the temperature underground though (kind of the opposite of our focus with the human body). GreenEggsNham wrote:...30C at the equator, -30C at Antarctica average = 0C - No.YES they would average to 0. 0C isn't nothing it's 273.15 Kelvin. A perfectly real average a planet could have. GreenEggsNham wrote:What temperature are you measuring - Max, Min? Are these temperatures weighted to reflect the trend over a day? No....unless the temperature is sampled every minute for 24hrsYES, you are measuring the whole 24hours, every day. It's only one thermometer in one location but it is taking measurements constantly. GreenEggsNham wrote:Temperature data is being homogenised in a way that makes it irrelevant.That is a provable critique of the work being done. You might find this interesting: Pat Fanks However I would be very interested to know if you think the temperature of anything can be determined, what it is, and how it's different. As far as I can see all of your issues apply to everything. GreenEggsNham wrote:...we are talking about global temperatures being quoted down to 0.01CIt's actually +/- 0.05C but your point is a good one. GISS results...uncertainty of annual global means after 1960 is about ±0.05°C, DRKTS wrote:Very clearly explained. Thank you DRKTS GasGuzzler wrote:Earth surface temp is constantly changing,....Again this applies to everything. Including Apples and Oranges. "Changes A LOT!" is a purely subjective perspective. IBdaMann wrote:That "uncertainty" is the tolerance of the measuring device.IBD/ITN have come out with revolutionary statistics! There is NO confidence level in theirs statistics! Because they are crackpots. Debunked here in this thread: link IBdaMann wrote:...Into the Night is correct about not conflating confidence with margin of error... IBdaMann wrote:...requirement of valid data...Debunked in my signature below. GreenEggsNham wrote:I was talking about the experimental error associated with taking a measurementBut your conclusion is that the margin of error at 95% confidence would be much larger than what is claimed (or useful) right? This is not the same as being unable to do something at all, it would be an inability to do it for your purpose. GreenEggsNham wrote:...it is not valid to average temperatures in different places.Why not? If you have an object with uneven temperature you have to don't you? What about a block of steel being heated by a bunsen burner in the lab. Much hotter where the flame hits it then it's upper cooler surface. Is it impossible to calculate the temperature averaging the hot side with the cooler side? GreenEggsNham wrote:You cannot, and I repeat, cannot increase the accuracy of experimental data to below that of the reading error....Applying statistical analysis to temperature data is meaninglessSo you ARE saying the temperature of an object cannot be calculated? "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 valid for IBD or ITN |
| 30-06-2020 07:35 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14389) |
tgoebbles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:...requirement of valid data...Debunked in my signature below. You mean "Extreme denial in my signature below." Too funny. . 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 |
| 30-06-2020 08:19 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21588) |
tmiddles wrote:GreenEggsNham wrote:Earth is ... variableAll matter with temperature has variability in the temperature from location to location.GreenEggsNham wrote:Where do you measure temperatures - sea level? Top of hills?This is also something common to almost all measurement/estimation of temperature. How about Human body temperature? Varied considerably throughout your body: You are ignoring Kirchoff's law again. Mantras 20b4...20a5...20a4... tmiddles wrote:GreenEggsNham wrote:...30C at the equator, -30C at Antarctica average = 0C - No.YES they would average to 0. 0C isn't nothing it's 273.15 Kelvin. A perfectly real average a planet could have. Random numbers. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Mantra 25g. tmiddles wrote:GreenEggsNham wrote:What temperature are you measuring - Max, Min? Are these temperatures weighted to reflect the trend over a day? No....unless the temperature is sampled every minute for 24hrsYES, you are measuring the whole 24hours, every day. It's only one thermometer in one location but it is taking measurements constantly. Irrelevant. tmiddles wrote:GreenEggsNham wrote:Temperature data is being homogenised in a way that makes it irrelevant.That is a provable critique of the work being done. You might find this interesting: It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Mantra 25e. tmiddles wrote: RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Void argument fallacy. tmiddles wrote:GreenEggsNham wrote:...we are talking about global temperatures being quoted down to 0.01CIt's actually +/- 0.05C but your point is a good one. Random number used as data. Argument from randU fallacy. tmiddles wrote:DRKTS wrote:Very clearly explained. Thank you DRKTS Nah. He just understands it as badly as you. Both of you deny statistical mathematics. tmiddles wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:Earth surface temp is constantly changing,....Again this applies to everything. Including Apples and Oranges. "Changes A LOT!" is a purely subjective perspective. Void argument fallacy. tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:That "uncertainty" is the tolerance of the measuring device.IBD/ITN have come out with revolutionary statistics! Inversion fallacy. You deny statistical mathematics. tmiddles wrote: Redefinition fallacies. Spam. Mantras 10g...15b...15a... tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:...Into the Night is correct about not conflating confidence with margin of error...IBdaMann wrote:...requirement of valid data...Debunked in my signature below. Lie. Mantras 7...15a...39g... tmiddles wrote:GreenEggsNham wrote:I was talking about the experimental error associated with taking a measurementBut your conclusion is that the margin of error at 95% confidence would be much larger than what is claimed (or useful) right? This is not the same as being unable to do something at all, it would be an inability to do it for your purpose. Word salad. Mantras 10g...25g... tmiddles wrote:GreenEggsNham wrote:...it is not valid to average temperatures in different places.Why not? If you have an object with uneven temperature you have to don't you? What about a block of steel being heated by a bunsen burner in the lab. Much hotter where the flame hits it then it's upper cooler surface. Is it impossible to calculate the temperature averaging the hot side with the cooler side? Contrivance and false equivalence fallacy, and you are ignoring Kirchoff's law again. Mantras 25f...20a4...20a5... tmiddles wrote:GreenEggsNham wrote:You cannot, and I repeat, cannot increase the accuracy of experimental data to below that of the reading error....Applying statistical analysis to temperature data is meaninglessSo you ARE saying the temperature of an object cannot be calculated? RQAA. No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of mathematics. Denial of science. Invalid proofs. Spam. 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 30-06-2020 08:20 |
| 30-06-2020 08:29 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:Maybe one day you'll explain why you think so. And start spelling his name properly: Kirchhoff RQAA. 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 |
| 30-06-2020 08:33 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:Maybe one day you'll explain why you think so. And start spelling his name properly: Kirchhoff RQAA. Semantics fallacy. 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 |
| 30-06-2020 08:35 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Into the Night wrote:Maybe one day you'll explain why you think so. And start spelling his name properly: Kirchhoff gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.He's absolutely correct.... |
| 30-06-2020 10:59 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
O.K lets assume this is true Averaged as a whole, the global land and ocean surface temperature for March 2020 was 1.16°C (2.09°F) above the 20th century average of 12.7°C (54.9°F) and the second highest in the 141-year record. This is where I live and its fabulous and loads more than the average go figure Perth, Australia: Annual Weather Averages January is the hottest month in Perth with an average temperature of 24.5°C (76°F) and the coldest is July at 13°C (55°F) with the most daily sunshine hours at 13 in January. The wettest month is June with an average of 140mm of rain. The best month to swim in the sea is in February when the average sea temperature is 22°C (72°F). Average High/Low Temperature: Perth Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec High °C 31 31 29 24 20 18 17 17 19 21 25 27 High °F 88 88 84 75 68 64 63 63 66 70 77 81 Low °C 18 18 17 14 11 9 9 9 10 11 14 16 Low °F 64 64 63 57 52 48 48 48 50 52 57 61 |
| 30-06-2020 17:03 | |
gfm7175 ★★★★★(3314) |
tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:Maybe one day you'll explain why you think so. And start spelling his name properly: Kirchhoff tmiddlesC8. RQAA. |
| 30-06-2020 18:50 | |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★(5196) |
duncan61 wrote: Is that 140mm for the entire month, or just an hour or so? We get that in an afternoon thunderstorm, kind of frequently, during our rainy/hurricane season... Been mid 70's when I get up at 3:00 AM for work... |
| 30-06-2020 18:50 | |
| James___★★★★★ (5513) |
duncan61 wrote: Duncan, if what you posted is correct, 2 things could help to explain the +1.16°C . One is a thinner ozone layer which the hole in it over Antarctica helps to demonstrate. The 2nd is that the Earth's orbit around the Sun has changed since 1900. It's orbit has become more elliptical. The change in the ellipse actually places the Earth closer to the Sun for more months during the year. Basically speaking, for every kilometre the Earth moves away from the Sun (perehelion), it's closest point (perigee) to the Sun increases by 3 kilometres. And I didn't mention that alpha numeric term that gets people upset. |
| 30-06-2020 22:09 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:Maybe one day you'll explain why you think so. And start spelling his name properly: Kirchhoff RQAA. Semantics fallacy. 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 |
| 01-07-2020 03:48 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
duncan61 wrote: O.K lets assume this is true Averaged as a whole, the global land and ocean surface temperature for March 2020 was 1.16°C (2.09°F) above the 20th century average of 12.7°C (54.9°F) and the second highest in the 141-year record. I have doubts over the validity of the measurements my point is it is a heap warmer where I live than the average and it is wonderful climate for humans |
| 01-07-2020 03:58 | |
| GreenEggsNham☆☆☆☆☆ (10) |
As ususal we plunge to the bottom of the well without any substance...GreenEggsNham wrote:Where do you measure temperatures - sea level? Top of hills?This is also something common to almost all measurement/estimation of temperature. How about Human body temperature? Varied considerably throughout your body: A variance of a good 5 degrees in the cold. If you dropped the core body temp by 5 degrees you would die.Do you doubt our ability to usefully measure the temperature of the human body? Of course not. Do you puzzle at what part of the body a doctor is concerned with? No, it's the core temp. You quote these temperatures as absolute - human core temperature varies "naturally" between 36.5C and 37.5C ie +/-0.5C which is 1.4%. then we also have to consider the extreemes the human body can display. Above 40C is life thretening, but you are still alive and 2C below 37C. This produces a range of 35C to 40C. Still inside nature we now have a variability of +/-2.5C which is 6.66%. then you need to add error from your measuring device. Stop reading when you can see the stupidity of this comparison. Importantly, the causes of these changes are many, in the climate debate there is only one, funny. Doctors generally dont measure your core temperature because its not convenient to shove a probe up your butt. they use ear or mouth - and from this they infer a core temperature - adding more uncertainty to their measurement. So following your logic, core temperature is what they are interested in. So You are proposing that the average temperature of a population of healthy humans, all being discrete small well mixed [ie core temp is relatively even], with blood flowing through all of these parts and isolated beings. Is somehow comparible to a massive planet that is not well mixed, has almost infinite surface variations, a gas layer around it, is dynamically mixed by varying pressure zones, includes clouds and storm systems and experiences daily temperature shifts between day and night. This is a moronic comparison. It is then outdone by your other comparison, the hot metal block. GreenEggsNham wrote:...it is not valid to average temperatures in different places.Why not? If you have an object with uneven temperature you have to don't you? What about a block of steel being heated by a bunsen burner in the lab. Much hotter where the flame hits it then it's upper cooler surface. Is it impossible to calculate the temperature averaging the hot side with the cooler side? So you answered and dismissed your own false example. You can calculate the temperature difference across the steel block to a high level of accuracy knowing the ambient temperature and surrounding conditions, thermal conductivity of the steel, surface condition of the steel, energy added by the bunsen burner, dimensions and composition of the steel, presence of wind or forced draft etc - all very measurable or reference available data. Note that the controlling factors here are measurable and well understood. Can you say the same about earth? No, you cannot and hence the problem. Can you provide a formula to explain the natural variations in temperature over quite small distances? How would your formula allow for random events such as cloud and weather? What about humidity and pressure changes? Also need to allow for human induced changes to the surface of the planet. Add in volcanoes (most of which you cannot see as they are below the ocean), forrest fires, pollution. Also changes in the incident energy on earth from the sun for a number of reasons including solar flux variations, earths orbit, long term cycles. Do you think we know everything about all of this stuff? Did we think we knew everything about this stuff 30 years ago? What about 30 years from now. Dont let your knowledge now think you are even aware of everything let alone understand it. If you can produce a valid mathematical formula to do this then you could claim some validity but this is not possible - BTW you need to be accurate to 0.1C, no pressure. Hence we resort to "modelling" temperature rather than measuring it. With that piece of steel you could sit there are measure the temperature differences, you could not go out and measure temperatures that you model because the model ignores too many variables. Taking a step back, why would the average temperature of the steel block be of any use and what would it represent? Of course you could do this but the result means nothing - 300C at one end, 50C at the other (assuming end to end measurements) so the average is 175C, meaningless. Now generating a formula to describe the temperature as you move along the steel rod my be useful, but then we are back to knowing all about it. It is clear that the average is seen to be a very important thing, its not. As I asked, without reply, our resident expert DRKTS, what is the distribution curve of temperatures used in your averaging? If you dont know the distribution you cannot validly average. Another Nobel prize becons for someone who can show this. GreenEggsNham wrote:You cannot, and I repeat, cannot increase the accuracy of experimental data to below that of the reading error....Applying statistical analysis to temperature data is meaninglessSo you ARE saying the temperature of an object cannot be calculated? you are asking a question that has no bearing on what i said, No I am not, are you unable to comprehend a simple sentence? Poor old DRKTS is not aware of "experimental error" which is the error you collect when taking a measurement like a temperature as opposed to statistical error from sampling. So you read a thermometer with 1C graduation, your reading is 22C +/- 0.5C, this is experimental error. Every time you use this reading you have to carry that error, if you add two temperatures you add the error etc as per my previous link post. It is impossible to reduce the experimental error, impossible. It accumulates. If you alter or adjust data then this adjustment must be included as part of the experimental error (not statistical error). In your view all data is calculated as none of the original data survives processing. When it comes to climate you cannot calculate a temperature and claim it as data - this is not data. Either measure it or leave it blank. Statistical error does reduce when you take more samples from a population N as the stats you produce are more likely to represent that population. In climate you have two problems. First is there is no known population N, and second is you dont know the distribution. More and more interpolated samples coupled with homogenisation will move your model further and further away from reality. You say a lot in this forum but seldom make a point that is of any use. You display all of the dogma that dominates this debate. If you had studied science you would not defend the utterly unbelievable approach taken in relation to experimental data. You seem too view actual data as secondary to models. You believe that manipulation of measurements makes them more accurate and that this is normal - it is not normal in any other scientific field. All you do is clog up discussion with time wasting insignificance. Before you place your foot back in your mouth go and read the links I have posted. Stop ignoring basic principles of experimental science and go and learn how this works before endorsing models as science. As a former proponent of CO2 induced warming I would have been embarrassed to hear the arguments you put forward to support this theory. As I asked DRKTS, what is the population number used for temperature readings (ie the number of places that display a different temperature on earth) and what is the distribution of these temperatures. Answer these questions before you try and prepare an average. BTW, I dont care if CO2 is warming us or not. All I care about is what can be validly proven by science. I shifted my view when looking at the "science" produced to create the CO2 panic. I would gladly shift my view back but first I would need an explanation for the manipulation, lies and corruption used to promote this narrative. You dont need to lie if you are telling the truth, truth speaks for itself in data that has not been corrupted. Dr Mann - refusing to release his data, suing critics who called him a fraud and losing, he is a court proven fraud. Fake news - polar bears in the arctic, national geographic retracted this story NASSA and their ever changing temperature data - right back to the 1960's Raw data showing temperature increases and decreases while CO2 increases there are too many to list. |
| 01-07-2020 04:40 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
GreenEggsNham I have reformatted your post below so it's easier to see where you are responding to me. Let me know if I got this wrong. Also it doesn't sound like you are interested in having me respond so I won't. If you would like a response let me know (you may just want to hear agreement). You wrote: ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// As ususal we plunge to the bottom of the well without any substance... tmiddles wrote:GreenEggsNham wrote:Where do you measure temperatures - sea level? Top of hills?This is also something common to almost all measurement/estimation of temperature. How about Human body temperature? Varied considerably throughout your body: You quote these temperatures as absolute - human core temperature varies "naturally" between 36.5C and 37.5C ie +/-0.5C which is 1.4%. then we also have to consider the extreemes the human body can display. Above 40C is life thretening, but you are still alive and 2C below 37C. This produces a range of 35C to 40C. Still inside nature we now have a variability of +/-2.5C which is 6.66%. then you need to add error from your measuring device. Stop reading when you can see the stupidity of this comparison. Importantly, the causes of these changes are many, in the climate debate there is only one, funny. Doctors generally dont measure your core temperature because its not convenient to shove a probe up your butt. they use ear or mouth - and from this they infer a core temperature - adding more uncertainty to their measurement. So following your logic, core temperature is what they are interested in. So You are proposing that the average temperature of a population of healthy humans, all being discrete small well mixed [ie core temp is relatively even], with blood flowing through all of these parts and isolated beings. Is somehow comparible to a massive planet that is not well mixed, has almost infinite surface variations, a gas layer around it, is dynamically mixed by varying pressure zones, includes clouds and storm systems and experiences daily temperature shifts between day and night. This is a moronic comparison. It is then outdone by your other comparison, the hot metal block. tmiddles wrote:GreenEggsNham wrote:...it is not valid to average temperatures in different places.Why not? If you have an object with uneven temperature you have to don't you? What about a block of steel being heated by a bunsen burner in the lab. Much hotter where the flame hits it then it's upper cooler surface. Is it impossible to calculate the temperature averaging the hot side with the cooler side? So you answered and dismissed your own false example. You can calculate the temperature difference across the steel block to a high level of accuracy knowing the ambient temperature and surrounding conditions, thermal conductivity of the steel, surface condition of the steel, energy added by the bunsen burner, dimensions and composition of the steel, presence of wind or forced draft etc - all very measurable or reference available data. Note that the controlling factors here are measurable and well understood. Can you say the same about earth? No, you cannot and hence the problem. Can you provide a formula to explain the natural variations in temperature over quite small distances? How would your formula allow for random events such as cloud and weather? What about humidity and pressure changes? Also need to allow for human induced changes to the surface of the planet. Add in volcanoes (most of which you cannot see as they are below the ocean), forrest fires, pollution. Also changes in the incident energy on earth from the sun for a number of reasons including solar flux variations, earths orbit, long term cycles. Do you think we know everything about all of this stuff? Did we think we knew everything about this stuff 30 years ago? What about 30 years from now. Dont let your knowledge now think you are even aware of everything let alone understand it. If you can produce a valid mathematical formula to do this then you could claim some validity but this is not possible - BTW you need to be accurate to 0.1C, no pressure. Hence we resort to "modelling" temperature rather than measuring it. With that piece of steel you could sit there are measure the temperature differences, you could not go out and measure temperatures that you model because the model ignores too many variables. Taking a step back, why would the average temperature of the steel block be of any use and what would it represent? Of course you could do this but the result means nothing - 300C at one end, 50C at the other (assuming end to end measurements) so the average is 175C, meaningless. Now generating a formula to describe the temperature as you move along the steel rod my be useful, but then we are back to knowing all about it. It is clear that the average is seen to be a very important thing, its not. As I asked, without reply, our resident expert DRKTS, what is the distribution curve of temperatures used in your averaging? If you dont know the distribution you cannot validly average. Another Nobel prize becons for someone who can show this. tmiddles wrote:GreenEggsNham wrote:You cannot, and I repeat, cannot increase the accuracy of experimental data to below that of the reading error....Applying statistical analysis to temperature data is meaninglessSo you ARE saying the temperature of an object cannot be calculated? you are asking a question that has no bearing on what i said, No I am not, are you unable to comprehend a simple sentence? Poor old DRKTS is not aware of "experimental error" which is the error you collect when taking a measurement like a temperature as opposed to statistical error from sampling. So you read a thermometer with 1C graduation, your reading is 22C +/- 0.5C, this is experimental error. Every time you use this reading you have to carry that error, if you add two temperatures you add the error etc as per my previous link post. It is impossible to reduce the experimental error, impossible. It accumulates. If you alter or adjust data then this adjustment must be included as part of the experimental error (not statistical error). In your view all data is calculated as none of the original data survives processing. When it comes to climate you cannot calculate a temperature and claim it as data - this is not data. Either measure it or leave it blank. Statistical error does reduce when you take more samples from a population N as the stats you produce are more likely to represent that population. In climate you have two problems. First is there is no known population N, and second is you dont know the distribution. More and more interpolated samples coupled with homogenisation will move your model further and further away from reality. You say a lot in this forum but seldom make a point that is of any use. You display all of the dogma that dominates this debate. If you had studied science you would not defend the utterly unbelievable approach taken in relation to experimental data. You seem too view actual data as secondary to models. You believe that manipulation of measurements makes them more accurate and that this is normal - it is not normal in any other scientific field. All you do is clog up discussion with time wasting insignificance. Before you place your foot back in your mouth go and read the links I have posted. Stop ignoring basic principles of experimental science and go and learn how this works before endorsing models as science. As a former proponent of CO2 induced warming I would have been embarrassed to hear the arguments you put forward to support this theory. As I asked DRKTS, what is the population number used for temperature readings (ie the number of places that display a different temperature on earth) and what is the distribution of these temperatures. Answer these questions before you try and prepare an average. BTW, I dont care if CO2 is warming us or not. All I care about is what can be validly proven by science. I shifted my view when looking at the "science" produced to create the CO2 panic. I would gladly shift my view back but first I would need an explanation for the manipulation, lies and corruption used to promote this narrative. You dont need to lie if you are telling the truth, truth speaks for itself in data that has not been corrupted. Dr Mann - refusing to release his data, suing critics who called him a fraud and losing, he is a court proven fraud. Fake news - polar bears in the arctic, national geographic retracted this story NASSA and their ever changing temperature data - right back to the 1960's Raw data showing temperature increases and decreases while CO2 increases there are too many to list. Edited on 01-07-2020 04:42 |
| 01-07-2020 04:59 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
James___ wrote: If only we could quantify "change". James___ wrote: You'll have to forgive me IBDM for going off on a tangent. James__, that was BRILLIANT! Yes, we can quantify change by the slope of the tangent line! All we need is the Climate function and the Nobel Prize in physics is ours, baby, ours! Then of course there's the lecture circuit, the book deals, MSNBC Climate Scientist Fellows and Contributor positions, ... we're on the cusp of a gold mine! . 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 |
| 01-07-2020 12:56 | |
| GreenEggsNham☆☆☆☆☆ (10) |
GreenEggsNham wrote:...30C at the equator, -30C at Antarctica average = 0C - No.YES they would average to 0. 0C isn't nothing it's 273.15 Kelvin. A perfectly real average a planet could have. Maybe this was pitched too high for you. I was highlighting the oversimplification of using averages on earth, not another planet. Does 0C give a realistic representation of the average temperature on earth, no. Why, because it is too simplistic. You may have missed that these two temperatures could very easily be used to represent the average of earth. But would this be ok, no. So lets take 10, 100, 1000 readings. And lets not measure every point, lets compute the parts we dont measure. Then lets take out any that we "think' are wrong. You cant see a problem with this, its not scientific. GreenEggsNham wrote:What temperature are you measuring - Max, Min? Are these temperatures weighted to reflect the trend over a day? No....unless the temperature is sampled every minute for 24hrsYES, you are measuring the whole 24hours, every day. It's only one thermometer in one location but it is taking measurements constantly. We are now but historic data used to create these trend lines used daily max/min. This data gives a very different picture and should only be compared with similar data, not mixed. Continuous measurement is the correct method but this cannot be applied over the entire surface for obvious reasons. GreenEggsNham wrote:Temperature data is being homogenised in a way that makes it irrelevant.That is a provable critique of the work being done. You might find this interesting: Pat Fanks However I would be very interested to know if you think the temperature of anything can be determined, what it is, and how it's different. Again you ask a pointless question. I note you say "determined", not measured. Of course you can "measure" a temperature at that point, time and under those conditions. It will be subject to an error related to its collection. Simple. Has it changed? If the temperature is measured again and its different then of course it has changed. You could calculate a temperature but this can never be considered data, it is not based on a physical measurement. The problem comes when you determine change through calculated temperatures included in the data set, when raw data is altered. The biggest problem is the straight line between temperature and CO2 - this is an assumption and it creates a bias before a temperature has even been measured. GreenEggsNham wrote:...we are talking about global temperatures being quoted down to 0.01CIt's actually +/- 0.05C but your point is a good one. GISS results...uncertainty of annual global means after 1960 is about ±0.05°C, I have just stopped laughing but here goes... You really dont have any experience is presentation of data do you. So again here is a link quoting 1.42C increase. This figure is measured to 0.1C. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-climate-201912 So +/- 0.05C (your number) gives a range 1.37C to 1.47C. The "error"means that the true number lies between these two numbers. The last decimal place is below the resolution of your measurement so the reading should only ever be 0 or 5, ie 1.40 or 1.45, so in this case it would round down to 1.4C. This is the approach for measured data and you cannot eliminate or decrease measurement from your data by resampling. So here is the funny bit. You seriously believe that we can measure the planet to an accuracy of +/-0.05C. Think about that for a second 0.05C. I have a precision thermometer and went for a walk around the block, about 600m in total. My thermometer showed a variation of 0.6C so over ten times your claimed accuracy. So by moving a temperature station just a few hundred meters there could be a variation of ten times your error, how on earth (yes its a pun) could you ever claim to be accurate down to 0.05C. And I wasn't even trying. [laughing] do you realise what nonsense this is? But this not for my block, this number is for the entire planet. Get a high accuracy thermometer and try it. Oh, and then we need an exact calibration for +40C down to -40C as well, so we know that we are actually measuring the correct temperature. DRKTS wrote:Very clearly explained. Thank you DRKTS Ahhhhhh, NO. Here you idiots are talking about statistical sampling - ie how close to the true mean a sample of a population is.. When you measure the temperature at some point that is the temperature right there, this is a sample size N=1. You mentioned that temperature monitoring is continuous so let me guess, you take the temperature every X seconds (X =30 or so?) and then you average these for the day. Then you take all of the averages from your collection points and average them together - OH NO, you cannot average averages. "Simpson's paradox... is a phenomenon in probability and statistics, in which a trend appears in different groups of data but disappears or reverses when these groups are combined. It is sometimes given the descriptive title reversal paradox or amalgamation paradox." You are trapped here in BS land. In order to produce a single value for a sample point you have to average it. You cannot average all of the temperatures for all of your collection points at the same time ie at 9am get all the data collected at this time and average it. This would be meaningless and even if it wasn't you still end up with a whole pile of average numbers you cannot average again. This is not new as when daily average was (Tmax + Tmin)/2 you have an average - cant use these numbers to average again. But climate experts do this anyway, no wonder the data is so corrupt. Also as i have asked DRTKBS, what is the distribution of temperatures (for most of the people here I am effectively asking how long is a litre of paint but for you two this either goes over your heads or you don't want to admit the problem). Your statistical methods are no use if you don't know the distribution (DIKTRS said it was a bell curve, well bell end maybe) and it is not a normal curve. This is a real rookie mistake, like not even stats 101. Do you know how much CO2 you are creating with all of your juvenile and naive comments that don't make sense. Start by reading a few things, it might improve your understanding but somehow I dont think you will bother, you appear to have your own interpretation of established science and mathematical theories, but buddy, you are 100% wrong. here is a wiki page, very basic, a good place to start, then move on to distributions as thats when it gets interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics#Misuse Misuse Main article: Misuse of statistics Misuse of statistics can produce subtle but serious errors in description and interpretation—subtle in the sense that even experienced professionals make such errors, and serious in the sense that they can lead to devastating decision errors. For instance, social policy, medical practice, and the reliability of structures like bridges all rely on the proper use of statistics. Even when statistical techniques are correctly applied, the results can be difficult to interpret for those lacking expertise. The statistical significance of a trend in the data—which measures the extent to which a trend could be caused by random variation in the sample—may or may not agree with an intuitive sense of its significance. The set of basic statistical skills (and skepticism) that people need to deal with information in their everyday lives properly is referred to as statistical literacy. There is a general perception that statistical knowledge is all-too-frequently intentionally misused by finding ways to interpret only the data that are favorable to the presenter.[55] A mistrust and misunderstanding of statistics is associated with the quotation, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". Misuse of statistics can be both inadvertent and intentional, and the book How to Lie with Statistics[55] outlines a range of considerations. In an attempt to shed light on the use and misuse of statistics, reviews of statistical techniques used in particular fields are conducted (e.g. Warne, Lazo, Ramos, and Ritter (2012)).[56] Ways to avoid misuse of statistics include using proper diagrams and avoiding bias.[57] Misuse can occur when conclusions are overgeneralized and claimed to be representative of more than they really are, often by either deliberately or unconsciously overlooking sampling bias.[58] Bar graphs are arguably the easiest diagrams to use and understand, and they can be made either by hand or with simple computer programs.[57] Unfortunately, most people do not look for bias or errors, so they are not noticed. Thus, people may often believe that something is true even if it is not well represented.[58] To make data gathered from statistics believable and accurate, the sample taken must be representative of the whole.[59] According to Huff, "The dependability of a sample can be destroyed by [bias]... allow yourself some degree of skepticism."[60] To assist in the understanding of statistics Huff proposed a series of questions to be asked in each case:[61] Who says so? (Does he/she have an axe to grind?) How does he/she know? (Does he/she have the resources to know the facts?) What's missing? (Does he/she give us a complete picture?) Did someone change the subject? (Does he/she offer us the right answer to the wrong problem?) Does it make sense? (Is his/her conclusion logical and consistent with what we already know?) |
| 01-07-2020 14:31 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
GreenEggsNham wrote: Please figure out how to quote properly. I'll assume your post is rhetorical and you don't want a response. Let me know if you do. |
| 01-07-2020 17:05 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
The big deal Tmiddles is does it make sense to you.It sure makes sense to me |
| 01-07-2020 17:59 | |
| gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
tmiddles wrote:GreenEggsNham wrote: Please figure out how to form a valid argument. |
| 01-07-2020 21:49 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
duncan61 wrote:It's extra work. I'm just skipping it for now as I don't think he wants me to reply anyway. |
| 02-07-2020 01:41 | |
| GreenEggsNham☆☆☆☆☆ (10) |
tmiddles wrote:GreenEggsNham wrote: Why you assume that is beyond me - your ongoing inability to comprehend and application of conclusions that do not relate to comments has me wondering if you are on the spectrum? Serious, you dont seem to be in touch with reality. My comment was not rhetoric, it was a factual reply to your childish comparisons and statements that are without basis. Reply if you can do so withing the known fields of science and math - to date you have shown an inability to do so. You are DRKTBS welcome to reply to the following that has been requested several times....what is the distribution that describes temperatures and what is the population size being sampled? I previously posted "Also as i have asked DRTKBS, what is the distribution of temperatures (for most of the people here I am effectively asking how long is a litre of paint but for you two this either goes over your heads or you don't want to admit the problem). Your statistical methods are no use if you don't know the distribution (DIKTRS said it was a bell curve, well bell end maybe) and it is not a normal curve. This is a real rookie mistake, like not even stats 101." |
| 02-07-2020 01:55 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
GreenEggsNham wrote:Well then maybe I shouldn't waste your time. Instead of dismissing my examples as being irrelevant why don't you offer an example yourself of temperature measurement (or something similar) done right so we can make a comparison with the failure you're seeing by NASA and the gang. Edited on 02-07-2020 01:56 |
| 02-07-2020 03:58 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
You are comparing the human body and a piece of steel being heated to the ability to accurately measure the entire Earth in one go and then claim it is changing.change is localized sure but its too variable.My senses tell me you are starting to get your head around this reality.I am not stating the Earths temperature is not warming or cooling on average it is just we can not know accurately enough to declare a climate emergency.As soon as someone starts talking about wasting time get this.This entire forum is a waste of time but I like it and have my time to waste |
| 02-07-2020 04:08 | |
| James___★★★★★ (5513) |
duncan61 wrote: Thank you Duncan. That is precisely why I posited the theorem of measuring specific locations continuously. And as I've previously mentioned, we could understand how this affects the Southern Oscillation which affects the weather in Australia. While some say that we live in a global society, does this include Powhatans? I'm asking for a friend. |
| 02-07-2020 04:18 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
duncan61 wrote:Duncan you recently had the revelation that you could not determine the temperature in the room you were sitting because you got different readings from all the objects you pointed the thermometer at. duncan61 wrote: There is little point in saying something specific cannot be done if really you believe it cannot be done in general. Why say that you cannot measure the temperature of Earth if you believe it's impossible to measure the temperature of a single city or of the room you are sitting in. It makes sense to start with what can be done and to move outward from what you consider reliable. Edited on 02-07-2020 04:20 |
| 02-07-2020 04:37 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
Do you still believe it is possible to know the global average temperature??I determined through my own experiment I could not conclude the average temperature of the room I was in.I am not seeing the conflict you are inferring |
| 02-07-2020 04:54 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
I am waiting for it to warm up as we are in winter and the sky is clear so it is cold and my next task involves removing a flume made of sheet metal and sealing it properly and call me a wimp but it is not fun with cold hands.Plus the freeway will have cleared and its across town.I have the measurable experiment that could answer your request.To expand copper pipe I use my LPG/OXY set to anneal the tube first and if people are watching they always comment as I am holding the tube with my bare hands 18 inches from where I have heated the tube to cherry red and about 1500 F.I can take an accurate measurement of the tube at the point I have heated it immediately after removing the heat source however the temperature will drop rapidly and also conduct towards my hand so I have a short time to either quench the tube in water or put it somewhere for a few minutes till it can be handled again.At some point all 18 inches of tube will be at the same temperature if left unattended.It will soften enough for me to flare or expand either way but quenching will make it much softer.To do reverse flares for small brake lines I would quench.The moral of the story is time now becomes a factor.I will measure the sheet metal roof I am working on in the next hour and the road in the shade and sun and come back with the data. |
| 02-07-2020 04:57 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
duncan61 wrote: Well the terminology "possible to know" needs "within the margin of error you want" added to it. I'm honestly on the fence as to how reliable today's measurements are to within the +/- 0.09 degree margin claimed. See here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201313/supplemental/page-1 "the 2013 temperature anomaly was reported as "0.62°C above the 20th century average, ±0.09°C....it is 95% likely that the value falls within this range. " A much wider margin of error is still useful though. Being able to compare Venus, Earth and Mars to each other and their equilibrium temps doesn't require even +/-5 degrees. |
| 02-07-2020 08:11 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
tmiddles wrote:GreenEggsNham wrote:Well then maybe I shouldn't waste your time. RQAA. 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 |
| 02-07-2020 08:14 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
tmiddles wrote:duncan61 wrote:Duncan you recently had the revelation that you could not determine the temperature in the room you were sitting because you got different readings from all the objects you pointed the thermometer at. Void question. 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 |
| 02-07-2020 08:17 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
tmiddles wrote:duncan61 wrote: Mantras 10g...25g...10g...15a...25g...25g...20o...20a4...25g... No arguments presented. RQAA. Denial of mathematics. Spam. 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 |
| 02-07-2020 10:13 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
I went to this link https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201313/supplemental/page-1 and it is made clear they are not comparing temperature data but anomalies.Interesting.No comment on my copper pipe example as a real measurement.If you add margin of error you will accept is that not code for making it up |
| 02-07-2020 12:52 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
duncan61 wrote: They are, of course, making it up. It is not possible to measure the temperature the Earth, and showing an 'anomaly' is a base rate fallacy, since they have no base data to declare an 'anomaly' from. They can't even define what that base data IS. 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 02-07-2020 12:52 |
| 02-07-2020 22:44 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
duncan61 wrote:I am not stating the Earths temperature is not warming or cooling on average it is just we can not know accurately enough to declare a climate emergency. More to the point, no rational adult has any reason to believe that there is any sort of "problem," "threat," "crisis," "danger," "catastrophe," "issue," "menace" or any other cataclysmic concern. However your observation is particularly distressing to tgoebbles because it signifies that he isn't omniscient ... a realization that causes the gnashing of teeth. . 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 |
| 03-07-2020 03:38 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
I was fortunate yesterday to have a client that was interested in the climate debate.I find if I say my thoughts out loud it gives me a chance to analyse where I am going.I feel I have the answers needed to debate the climate issue in person.wheres the tmid on the copper pipe example of a temperature can be known.An oven can be set for a temperature and it will be close if the thermostat is working well |
| 03-07-2020 04:05 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
duncan61 wrote:An oven can be set for a temperature and it will be close if the thermostat is working well It will be close because an oven is a very small volume.  . 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 |
| 03-07-2020 07:07 | |
| GreenEggsNham☆☆☆☆☆ (10) |
gfm7175 wrote:tmiddles wrote:GreenEggsNham wrote: well said the frustration of responding to absolutely ridiculous assertions that have no basis in science or maths is way more annoying that a bit of formatting in very basic forum software. |
| 03-07-2020 07:26 | |
| GreenEggsNham☆☆☆☆☆ (10) |
tmiddles wrote:GreenEggsNham wrote:Well then maybe I shouldn't waste your time. Sorry, id I dismissed you examples as irrelevant, oh but they were and are irrelevant as pointed out. but you want me to present an example that supports the devoid of science science used to concoct an average temperature of the earth - its not possible. No example is comparable. You are talking about a planet, no an oven. Its called scale up and when you go as big as a planet even the most carefully designed example falls down - weather, nonuniform mixing, sun, variable surfaces.............. The problem is the obsession with an average for the planet to prove warming. An this process then precludes that cause id CO2 - this is shonky science used to support shonky science. I see that agencies are now averaging a 30 year baseline period, then comparing 10 year averages to the baseline period - for polar ice. If you have 40 years of data then determine a global average across all of the data and from there you can get variance and significance in changes (if you know the distribution). |
| 03-07-2020 12:44 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
duncan61 wrote:...not comparing temperature data but anomalies."anomaly" just means the difference from the mean in that case. They are still comparing temperatures. duncan61 wrote:If you add margin of error you will accept is that not code for making it upMargin of error at the difference confidence levels (which means the probability that the true value is within the margin) are determined by what you are working with. It's calculated not chosen. duncan61 wrote:...the copper pipe example of a temperature can be known.An oven can be set for a temperature and it will be close if the thermostat is working well duncan61 wrote:I have heated the tube to cherry red and about 1500 F.You are describing a margin of error in your description. "close" as in +/- some amount. You can never calculate it exactly but it's probable the value lies within a margin of error. This can be calculated. This is true of every temperature determination made about anything. GreenEggsNham wrote:...to concoct an average temperature of the earth - its not possible.How about for a single city? Say just a 150 square mile patch of the Earth. We have lived our lives listening to weather reports for the city we are in. "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 valid for IBD or ITN |
Join the debate It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Present temperature spike July '23 | 31 | 27-09-2023 00:27 |
| Surface temperature of earth according to Boltzmann law | 56 | 10-05-2023 15:46 |
| Greenhouse gases cool better and cause lower surface temperature of earth than non greenhouse gases | 3 | 10-05-2023 08:27 |
| Low temperature breaks record set over 100 years ago, proving climate change is real | 28 | 01-06-2022 06:03 |
| gravity and temperature | 214 | 21-11-2021 09:13 |