It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth

Page 1 of 4

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth17-06-2020 16:07
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	How often do we hear that same old refrain "It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth" without any evidence to support that assertion? Yet many different groups of scientists manage to do it every month and every year. Odd that someone, who has no expertise in this area and can provide nothing to back up their claim, can make such a definitive statement that is apparently obvious to them but not the experts in the field. It reeks of hubris. Well, there are many papers published on how global temperatures are measured. But scientific papers are full of complicated science which these people don't apparently understand (or don't want to) so it is futile to reference them. However, I have found a relatively simple explanation that might help them understand more about the process. It is from the American Chemical Society (so not a group that has a dog in this fight so cant be legitimately accused of bias) .... enjoy: https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/earthtemperature.html
17-06-2020 16:52
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	DRKTS wrote: How often do we hear that same old refrain "It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth" without any evidence to support that assertion? How often do we find warmizombies who will accurately express the rpoblems with their WACKY religious dogma? Correct. Never. The correct refrain is "It is not possible to measure the average global temperature of the earth to any usable margin of error." The red herring of claims of the impossible nature of merely measuring the temperature of the earth is repeated by warmizombies as a fully intentional mischaracterization of opposing views, so that the assigned mischaracterization can be easily attacked. I can go outside right now with a standard thermometer, read it and declare that to be the temperature of the earth. In fact, I can go outside without any thermometer, breathe in the air and hazard a guesstimate of the earth's "average temperature." Warmizombies take that one step further. They look at a tree ring from one particular tree and declare the earth's average temperature for an entire year more than two centuries ago! It may sound WACKY but they just call the tree ring a "proxy" and presume that that mere declaration transforms their pure fabrication into actual knowledge. However, if the correct concern were to be addressed, i.e. "It is not possible to measure the average global temperature of the earth to any usable margin of error" then the warmizombie slinks silently back into his hole ... or intentionally conflates "accuracy," "margin of error" and "manufacturing tolerance" in order to disrupt the conversation. DRKTS wrote: Yet many different groups of scientists manage to do it every month and every year. Absolutely! ... just not to any usable margin of error, i.e. those temperature values are totally bogus and utterly useless. DRKTS wrote: Odd that someone, who has no expertise in this area and can provide nothing to back up their claim, can make such a definitive statement that is apparently obvious to them but not the experts in the field. It reeks of hubris. Odd that someone, who has no expertise in statistics and who is completely scientifically illiterate will nonetheless make such a definitive statement that is apparently obvious to them but not the experts in the field. It reeks of hubris. DRKTS wrote: Well, there are many papers published on how global temperatures are measured. There are no publications explaining how to practicably calculate the earth's average global temperature to within any usable margin of error, because humanity does not yet have the means. DRKTS wrote: But scientific papers are full of complicated science which these people don't apparently understand (or don't want to) so it is futile to reference them. Just for grits and shins, could you give me an example of this "complicated science" that is not mere mathematical gibberish that I apparently don't understand? I'm genuinely curious. DRKTS wrote: However, I have found [reference to his church literature deleted] "within a usable 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
17-06-2020 17:15
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	DRKTS wrote: https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/earthtemperature.html Great article DRKTS I think an important base line to establish is that to "know" something like say the temperature of the atmosphere outside a Venera probe landing on Venus, means to have a margin of error and a probability (confidence level) that the true value is within a margin of error. Here you can see the dashed lines identifying that: Recently it's come to light that ITN, IBD and GFM don't believe there is such a thing as a confidence level or a margin of error in measurement (which is quite amazing) see here: link The only intelligent rejection of a determination based on measuring would be to show that the margin of error exceeds the value which one is trying to identify. So for example if the margin of error on the mean temp on Earth was +/-5C then a 0.5C change can't been "confidently" shown. I'm posting this over from the 1998 thread: The margin of error we are give is: Explained here https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-precision.php "Scientists, statisticians and mathematicians have several terms for this concept, such as "precision", "margin of error" or "confidence interval"." The default is 95% which is twice the standard error in statistics. Example here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201407 "The margin of error associated with this temperature is ±0.23°F (0.13°C)." So they are claiming a margin of error of +/-0.13C (note that there are reputable scientists that dispute this, notably Pat Franks) IBdaMann wrote: DRKTS wrote: How often do we hear that same old refrain "It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth" without any evidence to support that assertion? The correct refrain is "It is not possible to measure the average global temperature of the earth to any usable margin of error." Maybe you should tell ITN that: Into the Night wrote:it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. So what margin do you come up with IBD and how do you justify it? "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 Edited on 17-06-2020 17:17
17-06-2020 17:53
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	tgoebbles wrote: Recently it's come to light that ITN, IBD and GFM don't believe there is such a thing as a confidence level or a margin of error in measurement Correct, given the specific context of measuring (determining the here and now). Within an entirely different context of say, engineering (e.g. quality engineering), that endeavors to design a future outcome, then "confidence level" applies ... not only for the final result but for each component. In fact, component-level confidence guides what is acceptable and what trade-offs will be made in the final system/product. This is why so much effort is placed on component testing, and only the tolerances of the testing equipment are considered, by the way. There is no "confidence level" involved in component testing. Trivia Question: What is the standard "confidence level" required of a scientific experiment? tgoebbles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:The correct refrain is "It is not possible to measure the average global temperature of the earth to any usable margin of error." Maybe you should tell ITN that: Into the Night is saying the same thing. He considers an inability to measure within a usable margin of error equivalent to being unable to measure. What is the point of measuring? To determine the measurement sufficient to make a decision or to take an action. If something cannot be measured sufficiently to support a decision or an action then it effectively cannot be measured. .. and you understand this. Of course you are playing your dishonest little games of "he said X" while stripping away all context. tgoebbles wrote: So what margin do you come up with IBD and how do you justify it? You recently expressed to gfm7175 that you understand all of these concepts that you are intentionally misconstruing; that you learned them in highschool and that you are essentially just wasting everyone's time. So, what's obviously wrong with your question? You and I both know so just explain to the board. . 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
17-06-2020 18:01
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tgoebbles wrote: [no] such a thing as a confidence level ... Correct, given the specific context of measuring... Already debunked, thoroughly, here: METROLOGY AND CALIBRATION IBdaMann wrote:Trivia Question:... No thanks IBdaMann wrote:Of course you are playing your dishonest little games of "he said X" while stripping away all context. I quoted him directly. You're welcome to quote some context from him. tmiddles wrote: So what margin do you come up with IBD and how do you justify it? No answer given. "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

17-06-2020 18:19
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	tgoebbles wrote: METROLOGY AND CALIBRATION I addressed the engineering context vs the measuring context. You are WRONG! You are dismissed. tgoebbles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Trivia Question:... No thanks ... and your king is tipped. Would you like to play another round? tgoebbles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Of course you are playing your dishonest little games of "he said X" while stripping away all context. I quoted him directly. You could have just written "Yes, I am. How nice of you to notice." It would have been much easier, simpler and clearer. . 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
17-06-2020 18:23
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: METROLOGY AND CALIBRATION I addressed the engineering context vs the measuring context. The reference I supplied was the measuring context as you are well aware. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Of course you are playing your dishonest little games of "he said X" while stripping away all context. I quoted him directly. You've declined to. OK. I truly have never seen any "context". ITN is rather sparse with backing anything up.
17-06-2020 18:26
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	tgoebbles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: METROLOGY AND CALIBRATION I addressed the engineering context vs the measuring context. The reference I supplied was the measuring context as you are well aware. Nope. You cited the Quality Engineer's exam. You specifically referenced quality engineering and nothing about measuring. . 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
17-06-2020 18:30
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: METROLOGY AND CALIBRATION I addressed the engineering context vs the measuring context. You specifically referenced quality engineering and nothing about measuring. [/quote] Do you know what the word "METROLOGY" means?
17-06-2020 18:40
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	tgoebbles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: METROLOGY AND CALIBRATION I addressed the engineering context vs the measuring context. You specifically referenced quality engineering and nothing about measuring. Do you know what the word "METROLOGY" means? You clearly don't understand what "engineering" means. You should be embarrassed that I'm the first person to teach you that measuring devices and calibration equipment are engineered as well. They are engineered by quality engineers because the equipment pertains to metrology and calibration. If it were merely electronic equipment then that would be handled by an electrical engineer. I'm starting to doub that you learned all the stuff you claim you learned in highschool. . 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
17-06-2020 19:33
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	IBdaMann wrote: DRKTS wrote: How often do we hear that same old refrain "It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth" without any evidence to support that assertion? How often do we find warmizombies who will accurately express the rpoblems with their WACKY religious dogma? Correct. Never. The correct refrain is "It is not possible to measure the average global temperature of the earth to any usable margin of error." The red herring of claims of the impossible nature of merely measuring the temperature of the earth is repeated by warmizombies as a fully intentional mischaracterization of opposing views, so that the assigned mischaracterization can be easily attacked. I can go outside right now with a standard thermometer, read it and declare that to be the temperature of the earth. In fact, I can go outside without any thermometer, breathe in the air and hazard a guesstimate of the earth's "average temperature." Warmizombies take that one step further. They look at a tree ring from one particular tree and declare the earth's average temperature for an entire year more than two centuries ago! It may sound WACKY but they just call the tree ring a "proxy" and presume that that mere declaration transforms their pure fabrication into actual knowledge. However, if the correct concern were to be addressed, i.e. "It is not possible to measure the average global temperature of the earth to any usable margin of error" then the warmizombie slinks silently back into his hole ... or intentionally conflates "accuracy," "margin of error" and "manufacturing tolerance" in order to disrupt the conversation. DRKTS wrote: Yet many different groups of scientists manage to do it every month and every year. Absolutely! ... just not to any usable margin of error, i.e. those temperature values are totally bogus and utterly useless. DRKTS wrote: Odd that someone, who has no expertise in this area and can provide nothing to back up their claim, can make such a definitive statement that is apparently obvious to them but not the experts in the field. It reeks of hubris. Odd that someone, who has no expertise in statistics and who is completely scientifically illiterate will nonetheless make such a definitive statement that is apparently obvious to them but not the experts in the field. It reeks of hubris. DRKTS wrote: Well, there are many papers published on how global temperatures are measured. There are no publications explaining how to practicably calculate the earth's average global temperature to within any usable margin of error, because humanity does not yet have the means. DRKTS wrote: But scientific papers are full of complicated science which these people don't apparently understand (or don't want to) so it is futile to reference them. Just for grits and shins, could you give me an example of this "complicated science" that is not mere mathematical gibberish that I apparently don't understand? I'm genuinely curious. DRKTS wrote: However, I have found [reference to his church literature deleted] "within a usable margin of error." . Define "usable margin of error" a meaningless statement unless you define what you are using if for. The analyses do give a margin of error.
17-06-2020 19:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	DRKTS wrote: How often do we hear that same old refrain "It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth" without any evidence to support that assertion? RQAA. There are simply not enough thermometers. There are nowhere near enough thermometers. Thermometers that do exist are not equally spaced either, or read at the same time. Grouping effects are significant. Time is significant. A variance of 20 deg F/mile is not out of line. It has often been observed. The resulting margin of error is greater than the highest and lowest temperatures ever recorded at any weather station. DRKTS wrote: Yet many different groups of scientists manage to do it every month and every year. Lie. Argument from randU fallacy. Mantras 25g...4d...4f...25e... DRKTS wrote: Odd that someone, who has no expertise in this area and can provide nothing to back up their claim, can make such a definitive statement that is apparently obvious to them but not the experts in the field. It reeks of hubris. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Mantras 38b...4f... DRKTS wrote: Well, there are many papers published on how global temperatures are measured. Papers are not science or mathematics. Mantras 20l...25g...25c... DRKTS wrote: But scientific papers There is no such thing as a 'scientific' paper. Science is not a paper. Mantra 20l. DRKTS wrote: are full of complicated science Nothing complicated. It is not a science problem. It is a math problem. Mantras 11...25c...25e... DRKTS wrote: which these people don't apparently understand (or don't want to) so it is futile to reference them. False authority fallacy. Mantras 4f...4d... DRKTS wrote: However, I have found a relatively simple explanation that might help them understand more about the process. It is from the American Chemical Society (so not a group that has a dog in this fight so cant be legitimately accused of bias) .... enjoy:...deleted Holy Link... The ACL is not science. Science is not a scientist or any group of scientists. Science is not a political organization. Mathematics is not a scientist or any group of scientists. Mathematics is not a political organization. Mantras 4b...4f...4a... 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
17-06-2020 19:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: Great article DRKTS Mantras 4b...37a... tmiddles wrote: I think an important base line to establish is that to "know" something like say the temperature of the atmosphere outside a Venera probe landing on Venus, means to have a margin of error and a probability (confidence level) that the true value is within a margin of error. Word salad. Mantras 10g...25c1... tmiddles wrote: Here you can see the dashed lines identifying that: ...deleted Holy Image... Mantra 25g...25c1... tmiddles wrote: Recently it's come to light that ITN, IBD and GFM don't believe there is such a thing as a confidence level or a margin of error in measurement (which is quite amazing) see here: ...deleted spam... Mantras 15a...15b... tmiddles wrote: The only intelligent rejection of a determination based on measuring would be to show that the margin of error exceeds the value which one is trying to identify. So for example if the margin of error on the mean temp on Earth was +/-5C then a 0.5C change can't been "confidently" shown. Word salad. Bad math. Mantras 25g...25c1...10g... tmiddles wrote: I'm posting this over from the 1998 thread: ...deleted spam and Holy Links... Mantras 15b... tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: DRKTS wrote: How often do we hear that same old refrain "It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth" without any evidence to support that assertion? The correct refrain is "It is not possible to measure the average global temperature of the earth to any usable margin of error." Maybe you should tell ITN that: Into the Night wrote:it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. So what margin do you come up with IBD and how do you justify it? RQAA. Mantra 24a...29... No argument presented. Denial of mathematics. Buzzword fallacies. RQAA. Spamming. 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
17-06-2020 19:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tgoebbles wrote: [no] such a thing as a confidence level ... Correct, given the specific context of measuring... Already debunked, thoroughly, here: METROLOGY AND CALIBRATION Spamming. Mantras 15a...15b... tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Trivia Question:... No thanks Evasion. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Of course you are playing your dishonest little games of "he said X" while stripping away all context. I quoted him directly. You're welcome to quote some context from him. Mantras 38a...4b... tmiddles wrote: tmiddles wrote: So what margin do you come up with IBD and how do you justify it? No answer given. Lie. RQAA. Mantra 29. No arguments presented. RQAA. Spamming. 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
17-06-2020 20:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 4c...10 (engineering<->mathematics)...22 (measuring context)...4a....30...7...30...29...25g...25c... No argument presented. Buzzword fallacies. Word salad. RQAA. Lies. False authorities. Denial of mathematics. 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

17-06-2020 20:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Semantics fallacy...Mantras 15...29... No argument presented. 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
17-06-2020 20:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	DRKTS wrote: IBdaMann wrote: DRKTS wrote: How often do we hear that same old refrain "It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth" without any evidence to support that assertion? How often do we find warmizombies who will accurately express the rpoblems with their WACKY religious dogma? Correct. Never. The correct refrain is "It is not possible to measure the average global temperature of the earth to any usable margin of error." The red herring of claims of the impossible nature of merely measuring the temperature of the earth is repeated by warmizombies as a fully intentional mischaracterization of opposing views, so that the assigned mischaracterization can be easily attacked. I can go outside right now with a standard thermometer, read it and declare that to be the temperature of the earth. In fact, I can go outside without any thermometer, breathe in the air and hazard a guesstimate of the earth's "average temperature." Warmizombies take that one step further. They look at a tree ring from one particular tree and declare the earth's average temperature for an entire year more than two centuries ago! It may sound WACKY but they just call the tree ring a "proxy" and presume that that mere declaration transforms their pure fabrication into actual knowledge. However, if the correct concern were to be addressed, i.e. "It is not possible to measure the average global temperature of the earth to any usable margin of error" then the warmizombie slinks silently back into his hole ... or intentionally conflates "accuracy," "margin of error" and "manufacturing tolerance" in order to disrupt the conversation. DRKTS wrote: Yet many different groups of scientists manage to do it every month and every year. Absolutely! ... just not to any usable margin of error, i.e. those temperature values are totally bogus and utterly useless. DRKTS wrote: Odd that someone, who has no expertise in this area and can provide nothing to back up their claim, can make such a definitive statement that is apparently obvious to them but not the experts in the field. It reeks of hubris. Odd that someone, who has no expertise in statistics and who is completely scientifically illiterate will nonetheless make such a definitive statement that is apparently obvious to them but not the experts in the field. It reeks of hubris. DRKTS wrote: Well, there are many papers published on how global temperatures are measured. There are no publications explaining how to practicably calculate the earth's average global temperature to within any usable margin of error, because humanity does not yet have the means. DRKTS wrote: But scientific papers are full of complicated science which these people don't apparently understand (or don't want to) so it is futile to reference them. Just for grits and shins, could you give me an example of this "complicated science" that is not mere mathematical gibberish that I apparently don't understand? I'm genuinely curious. DRKTS wrote: However, I have found [reference to his church literature deleted] "within a usable margin of error." . Define "usable margin of error" a meaningless statement unless you define what you are using if for. The analyses do give a margin of error. 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
17-06-2020 20:09
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	Into the Night wrote: DRKTS wrote: IBdaMann wrote: DRKTS wrote: How often do we hear that same old refrain "It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth" without any evidence to support that assertion? How often do we find warmizombies who will accurately express the rpoblems with their WACKY religious dogma? Correct. Never. The correct refrain is "It is not possible to measure the average global temperature of the earth to any usable margin of error." The red herring of claims of the impossible nature of merely measuring the temperature of the earth is repeated by warmizombies as a fully intentional mischaracterization of opposing views, so that the assigned mischaracterization can be easily attacked. I can go outside right now with a standard thermometer, read it and declare that to be the temperature of the earth. In fact, I can go outside without any thermometer, breathe in the air and hazard a guesstimate of the earth's "average temperature." Warmizombies take that one step further. They look at a tree ring from one particular tree and declare the earth's average temperature for an entire year more than two centuries ago! It may sound WACKY but they just call the tree ring a "proxy" and presume that that mere declaration transforms their pure fabrication into actual knowledge. However, if the correct concern were to be addressed, i.e. "It is not possible to measure the average global temperature of the earth to any usable margin of error" then the warmizombie slinks silently back into his hole ... or intentionally conflates "accuracy," "margin of error" and "manufacturing tolerance" in order to disrupt the conversation. DRKTS wrote: Yet many different groups of scientists manage to do it every month and every year. Absolutely! ... just not to any usable margin of error, i.e. those temperature values are totally bogus and utterly useless. DRKTS wrote: Odd that someone, who has no expertise in this area and can provide nothing to back up their claim, can make such a definitive statement that is apparently obvious to them but not the experts in the field. It reeks of hubris. Odd that someone, who has no expertise in statistics and who is completely scientifically illiterate will nonetheless make such a definitive statement that is apparently obvious to them but not the experts in the field. It reeks of hubris. DRKTS wrote: Well, there are many papers published on how global temperatures are measured. There are no publications explaining how to practicably calculate the earth's average global temperature to within any usable margin of error, because humanity does not yet have the means. DRKTS wrote: But scientific papers are full of complicated science which these people don't apparently understand (or don't want to) so it is futile to reference them. Just for grits and shins, could you give me an example of this "complicated science" that is not mere mathematical gibberish that I apparently don't understand? I'm genuinely curious. DRKTS wrote: However, I have found [reference to his church literature deleted] "within a usable margin of error." . Define "usable margin of error" a meaningless statement unless you define what you are using if for. The analyses do give a margin of error. RQAA. As usual no answer
17-06-2020 21:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	DRKTS wrote: Into the Night wrote: DRKTS wrote: IBdaMann wrote: DRKTS wrote: How often do we hear that same old refrain "It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth" without any evidence to support that assertion? How often do we find warmizombies who will accurately express the rpoblems with their WACKY religious dogma? Correct. Never. The correct refrain is "It is not possible to measure the average global temperature of the earth to any usable margin of error." The red herring of claims of the impossible nature of merely measuring the temperature of the earth is repeated by warmizombies as a fully intentional mischaracterization of opposing views, so that the assigned mischaracterization can be easily attacked. I can go outside right now with a standard thermometer, read it and declare that to be the temperature of the earth. In fact, I can go outside without any thermometer, breathe in the air and hazard a guesstimate of the earth's "average temperature." Warmizombies take that one step further. They look at a tree ring from one particular tree and declare the earth's average temperature for an entire year more than two centuries ago! It may sound WACKY but they just call the tree ring a "proxy" and presume that that mere declaration transforms their pure fabrication into actual knowledge. However, if the correct concern were to be addressed, i.e. "It is not possible to measure the average global temperature of the earth to any usable margin of error" then the warmizombie slinks silently back into his hole ... or intentionally conflates "accuracy," "margin of error" and "manufacturing tolerance" in order to disrupt the conversation. DRKTS wrote: Yet many different groups of scientists manage to do it every month and every year. Absolutely! ... just not to any usable margin of error, i.e. those temperature values are totally bogus and utterly useless. DRKTS wrote: Odd that someone, who has no expertise in this area and can provide nothing to back up their claim, can make such a definitive statement that is apparently obvious to them but not the experts in the field. It reeks of hubris. Odd that someone, who has no expertise in statistics and who is completely scientifically illiterate will nonetheless make such a definitive statement that is apparently obvious to them but not the experts in the field. It reeks of hubris. DRKTS wrote: Well, there are many papers published on how global temperatures are measured. There are no publications explaining how to practicably calculate the earth's average global temperature to within any usable margin of error, because humanity does not yet have the means. DRKTS wrote: But scientific papers are full of complicated science which these people don't apparently understand (or don't want to) so it is futile to reference them. Just for grits and shins, could you give me an example of this "complicated science" that is not mere mathematical gibberish that I apparently don't understand? I'm genuinely curious. DRKTS wrote: However, I have found [reference to his church literature deleted] "within a usable margin of error." . Define "usable margin of error" a meaningless statement unless you define what you are using if for. The analyses do give a margin of error. RQAA. As usual no answer Already answered. 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
17-06-2020 22:49
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	DRKTS wrote: Define "usable margin of error" a meaningless statement unless you define what you are using if for. Do you remember how you tried to convince us that you were somehow smart in some way? It turns out that you are a completely uneducated dumbass. I will educate you on this point so pay attention. The person seeking the value determines the acceptable margin of error. I don't define it. You don't define it. The person seeking the temperature makes that determination. However, the entire reason for seeking say, a temperature value, exists because of some need for that information, i.e. the purpose. The purpose is what demands a specific margin of error and the person desiring a value establishes the required margin of error as the target ... which then determines requirements for the collection method from which a data collection plan is devised, i.e. the data collection plan is devised such that the resulting value conforms to the required margin of error. In the case of the earth, there are no purposes that can benefit from an earth's temperature at the very large margin of error to which humanity is limited. Now, if you think I'm mistaken, then show me to be mistaken. DRKTS wrote:The analyses do give a margin of error. I'm not interested in what anyone else claims is the margin of error. Nobody is. Everyone cares only about the margin of error supported by the data so as to gauge the conclusions garnered thereof. Ergo, everyone is interested in the raw data from which the true margin of error can be derived by anyone and the claimed margin of error can be verified. You aren't really a researcher, are 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
17-06-2020 23:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: tgoebbles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: METROLOGY AND CALIBRATION I addressed the engineering context vs the measuring context. You specifically referenced quality engineering and nothing about measuring. Do you know what the word "METROLOGY" means? You clearly don't understand what "engineering" means. You should be embarrassed that I'm the first person to teach you that measuring devices and calibration equipment are engineered as well. They are engineered by quality engineers because the equipment pertains to metrology and calibration. If it were merely electronic equipment then that would be handled by an electrical engineer. I'm starting to doub that you learned all the stuff you claim you learned in highschool. . Electronic equipment often involves a mechanical engineer as well. Such equipment requires a case and the construction of switches, meters, and other components. Several components require the use of a chemical engineer as well. Then there is of course the packaging engineers, that put these components into usable form for the electrical engineer. 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
17-06-2020 23:49
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tgoebbles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: METROLOGY AND CALIBRATION I addressed the engineering context vs the measuring context. You specifically referenced quality engineering and nothing about measuring. Do you know what the word "METROLOGY" means? You clearly don't understand what "engineering" means. You should be embarrassed that I'm the first person to teach you that measuring devices and calibration equipment are engineered as well. They are engineered by quality engineers because the equipment pertains to metrology and calibration. If it were merely electronic equipment then that would be handled by an electrical engineer. I'm starting to doub that you learned all the stuff you claim you learned in highschool. . Electronic equipment often involves a mechanical engineer as well. Such equipment requires a case and the construction of switches, meters, and other components. Several components require the use of a chemical engineer as well. Then there is of course the packaging engineers, that put these components into usable form for the electrical engineer. Kind of makes me wonder what it will take to put you in usable form. Is that even possible?
18-06-2020 03:28
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	As soon as I see NASA or NOAA I know it is cooked data.My analogy would be the chief editor of a newspaper gets the call on what is published.NASA and NOAA have a huge finger in the pie their very existense depends upon it.We could do without both organisations and use private enterprise and compare their data.East anglia would be a good start.You will find that the Earth cycles and only in tiny amounts.To claim a small amount of trace gas has this huge effect on the weather is just out there with the fairies
18-06-2020 06:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: As soon as I see NASA or NOAA I know it is cooked data.My analogy would be the chief editor of a newspaper gets the call on what is published.NASA and NOAA have a huge finger in the pie their very existense depends upon it.We could do without both organisations and use private enterprise and compare their data.East anglia would be a good start.You will find that the Earth cycles and only in tiny amounts.To claim a small amount of trace gas has this huge effect on the weather is just out there with the fairies It's not even cooked data. It's not data at all. The numbers that both agencies are reporting are the result of an egregious math error. They continue to report it because both agencies are pushing for the whole Global Warming religion and have for a long time. NASA, which uses the larger number of thermometers (about 7500 across the world), means there is one thermometer for an area the size of Virginia at best. With a variance of 20 deg F per mile, such a low number of thermometers is utterly useless, even if they WERE all spaced uniformly (which they aren't), and read at the same time (which they aren't) or by the same agency (which they aren't). The margin of error is greater than the spread between the highest and lower temperatures ever recorded at any weather station. In mathematical terms, then, NASA is guessing. NOAA is even worse. 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
18-06-2020 15:52
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	Into the Night wrote: duncan61 wrote: As soon as I see NASA or NOAA I know it is cooked data.My analogy would be the chief editor of a newspaper gets the call on what is published.NASA and NOAA have a huge finger in the pie their very existense depends upon it.We could do without both organisations and use private enterprise and compare their data.East anglia would be a good start.You will find that the Earth cycles and only in tiny amounts.To claim a small amount of trace gas has this huge effect on the weather is just out there with the fairies It's not even cooked data. It's not data at all. The numbers that both agencies are reporting are the result of an egregious math error. They continue to report it because both agencies are pushing for the whole Global Warming religion and have for a long time. NASA, which uses the larger number of thermometers (about 7500 across the world), means there is one thermometer for an area the size of Virginia at best. With a variance of 20 deg F per mile, such a low number of thermometers is utterly useless, even if they WERE all spaced uniformly (which they aren't), and read at the same time (which they aren't) or by the same agency (which they aren't). The margin of error is greater than the spread between the highest and lower temperatures ever recorded at any weather station. In mathematical terms, then, NASA is guessing. NOAA is even worse. Lets see the papers that explain why the data is wrong. References please. Why does the ground data (so badly flawed according to you due to under-sampling) agree with the satellite data which covers most of the globe? Note the gradient is the same for the surface measurements and satellite measurements (UAH and RSS)
18-06-2020 15:58
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I am tooking foward to going to my club meetings
18-06-2020 16:01
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	We crossed lines when will we see the sea rise
18-06-2020 16:04
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	You are all full off wank more than a Hunters dunny cart
18-06-2020 16:05
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	IBdaMann wrote: DRKTS wrote: Define "usable margin of error" a meaningless statement unless you define what you are using if for. Do you remember how you tried to convince us that you were somehow smart in some way? It turns out that you are a completely uneducated dumbass. I will educate you on this point so pay attention. The person seeking the value determines the acceptable margin of error. I don't define it. You don't define it. The person seeking the temperature makes that determination. However, the entire reason for seeking say, a temperature value, exists because of some need for that information, i.e. the purpose. The purpose is what demands a specific margin of error and the person desiring a value establishes the required margin of error as the target ... which then determines requirements for the collection method from which a data collection plan is devised, i.e. the data collection plan is devised such that the resulting value conforms to the required margin of error. In the case of the earth, there are no purposes that can benefit from an earth's temperature at the very large margin of error to which humanity is limited. Now, if you think I'm mistaken, then show me to be mistaken. DRKTS wrote:The analyses do give a margin of error. I'm not interested in what anyone else claims is the margin of error. Nobody is. Everyone cares only about the margin of error supported by the data so as to gauge the conclusions garnered thereof. Ergo, everyone is interested in the raw data from which the true margin of error can be derived by anyone and the claimed margin of error can be verified. You aren't really a researcher, are you? . The data define the range of uncertainty through statistical analysis and error propagation through each step of the calculation. The resulting uncertainty on the quantity being measured is defined as being useful depending on the purpose of the analysis. A result that has larger uncertainty than the value can be useful as it can provide an upper or lower limit on the quantity and if that is all that is needed. I published a paper in Nature (my first paper ever) on the upper limit of the X-ray emissions from Lambda Scorpius showing that it was not a black hole, as some had claimed. Raw data is useless as as source of information. It only provides one source of uncertainty - the statistical error on the measurement. There are many other factors that need to be considered going from raw data to a actual measurement (systematic errors, calibration errors, intercalibration errors if using more than one instrument, sampling errors, number of measurements, and so on). That is why you have to read and understand the papers that detail what the analysis involves. Apparently you have done neither.
18-06-2020 17:22
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	DRKTS wrote:The data define the range of uncertainty through statistical analysis The data establish the uncertainty but the statistical method defines it. DRKTS wrote: and error propagation through each step of the calculation. It's not error propagation. It is your assumed error being applied as a coefficient in the series. It merely is a factor in each term, it is not "propagating." DRKTS wrote: The resulting uncertainty on the quantity being measured is defined as being useful depending on the purpose of the analysis. Well, it's the purpose that determines the requirement in the first place. The analysis merely determines whether the data meet that requirement. If the analysis determines that the margin of error meets the requirement THEN the margin of error is determined to be usable for that purpose. If not then new data must be collected and possibly the data collection plan needs to be reworked. DRKTS wrote: Raw data is useless as as source of information. Stupid comment. Raw data is all that matters and is absolutely required to be presented for public scrutiny. He who will not publish his raw data is hiding something and is lying. DRKTS wrote: That is why you have to read and understand the papers that detail what the analysis involves. Nope. I am quite capable of performing my own analysis and frankly, I don't trust anyone else. I take the science approach and presume all papers got it wrong until I verify that they got it right ... so give me the raw data and only the raw data. Doctored, fudged, tweaked, weighted, cooked, altered and/or modified data is discarded. I don't need it. Do you publish all of your raw data along with your papers? . 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

18-06-2020 23:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	DRKTS wrote: Into the Night wrote: duncan61 wrote: As soon as I see NASA or NOAA I know it is cooked data.My analogy would be the chief editor of a newspaper gets the call on what is published.NASA and NOAA have a huge finger in the pie their very existense depends upon it.We could do without both organisations and use private enterprise and compare their data.East anglia would be a good start.You will find that the Earth cycles and only in tiny amounts.To claim a small amount of trace gas has this huge effect on the weather is just out there with the fairies It's not even cooked data. It's not data at all. The numbers that both agencies are reporting are the result of an egregious math error. They continue to report it because both agencies are pushing for the whole Global Warming religion and have for a long time. NASA, which uses the larger number of thermometers (about 7500 across the world), means there is one thermometer for an area the size of Virginia at best. With a variance of 20 deg F per mile, such a low number of thermometers is utterly useless, even if they WERE all spaced uniformly (which they aren't), and read at the same time (which they aren't) or by the same agency (which they aren't). The margin of error is greater than the spread between the highest and lower temperatures ever recorded at any weather station. In mathematical terms, then, NASA is guessing. NOAA is even worse. Lets see the papers that explain why the data is wrong. References please. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. DRKTS wrote: Why does the ground data (so badly flawed according to you due to under-sampling) agree with the satellite data which covers most of the globe? ...deleted Holy Link... Satellites are incapable of measuring an absolute temperature. There is no satellite data. All a satellite can do is measure light. DRKTS wrote: Note the gradient is the same for the surface measurements and satellite measurements (UAH and RSS) Comparing random numbers with random numbers is pointless. 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
18-06-2020 23:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	DRKTS wrote: IBdaMann wrote: DRKTS wrote: Define "usable margin of error" a meaningless statement unless you define what you are using if for. Do you remember how you tried to convince us that you were somehow smart in some way? It turns out that you are a completely uneducated dumbass. I will educate you on this point so pay attention. The person seeking the value determines the acceptable margin of error. I don't define it. You don't define it. The person seeking the temperature makes that determination. However, the entire reason for seeking say, a temperature value, exists because of some need for that information, i.e. the purpose. The purpose is what demands a specific margin of error and the person desiring a value establishes the required margin of error as the target ... which then determines requirements for the collection method from which a data collection plan is devised, i.e. the data collection plan is devised such that the resulting value conforms to the required margin of error. In the case of the earth, there are no purposes that can benefit from an earth's temperature at the very large margin of error to which humanity is limited. Now, if you think I'm mistaken, then show me to be mistaken. DRKTS wrote:The analyses do give a margin of error. I'm not interested in what anyone else claims is the margin of error. Nobody is. Everyone cares only about the margin of error supported by the data so as to gauge the conclusions garnered thereof. Ergo, everyone is interested in the raw data from which the true margin of error can be derived by anyone and the claimed margin of error can be verified. You aren't really a researcher, are you? . The data define the range of uncertainty through statistical analysis WRONG. Data is simply data. There is NO uncertainty in a statistical analysis. The margin of error is a result of the declared variance, not the data. DRKTS wrote: and error propagation through each step of the calculation. WRONG. There is no 'error propagation' through any step of a statistical analysis. Buzzword fallacy. DRKTS wrote: The resulting uncertainty on the quantity being measured is defined as being useful depending on the purpose of the analysis. You can't declare any margin of error by defining it's purpose. DRKTS wrote: A result that has larger uncertainty than the value can be useful as it can provide an upper or lower limit on the quantity and if that is all that is needed. Word salad. DRKTS wrote: I published a paper in Nature (my first paper ever) Big deal. Mathematics is not a paper. You are denying mathematics. DRKTS wrote: on the upper limit of the X-ray emissions from Lambda Scorpius showing that it was not a black hole, as some had claimed. Wandering off topic. DRKTS wrote: Raw data is useless as as source of information. Raw data IS the information. DRKTS wrote: It only provides one source of uncertainty Data is not an 'uncertainty'. Buzzword fallacy. DRKTS wrote: - the statistical error on the measurement. Measurements are not statistical errors. DRKTS wrote: There are many other factors that need to be considered going from raw data to a actual measurement (systematic errors, calibration errors, intercalibration errors if using more than one instrument, sampling errors, number of measurements, and so on). The measurement IS the raw data, regardless of instrument tolerances. Tolerance is not margin of error. Mantra 10g. DRKTS wrote: That is why you have to read and understand the papers that detail what the analysis involves. Mathematics is not papers. DRKTS wrote: Apparently you have done neither. Mathematics is not papers. No argument presented. Denial of mathematics. False authority fallacies. Redefinition fallacies. 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
19-06-2020 05:36
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: DRKTS wrote: IBdaMann wrote: DRKTS wrote: Define "usable margin of error" a meaningless statement unless you define what you are using if for. Do you remember how you tried to convince us that you were somehow smart in some way? It turns out that you are a completely uneducated dumbass. I will educate you on this point so pay attention. The person seeking the value determines the acceptable margin of error. I don't define it. You don't define it. The person seeking the temperature makes that determination. However, the entire reason for seeking say, a temperature value, exists because of some need for that information, i.e. the purpose. The purpose is what demands a specific margin of error and the person desiring a value establishes the required margin of error as the target ... which then determines requirements for the collection method from which a data collection plan is devised, i.e. the data collection plan is devised such that the resulting value conforms to the required margin of error. In the case of the earth, there are no purposes that can benefit from an earth's temperature at the very large margin of error to which humanity is limited. Now, if you think I'm mistaken, then show me to be mistaken. DRKTS wrote:The analyses do give a margin of error. I'm not interested in what anyone else claims is the margin of error. Nobody is. Everyone cares only about the margin of error supported by the data so as to gauge the conclusions garnered thereof. Ergo, everyone is interested in the raw data from which the true margin of error can be derived by anyone and the claimed margin of error can be verified. You aren't really a researcher, are you? . The data define the range of uncertainty through statistical analysis WRONG. Data is simply data. There is NO uncertainty in a statistical analysis. The margin of error is a result of the declared variance, not the data. DRKTS wrote: and error propagation through each step of the calculation. WRONG. There is no 'error propagation' through any step of a statistical analysis. Buzzword fallacy. DRKTS wrote: The resulting uncertainty on the quantity being measured is defined as being useful depending on the purpose of the analysis. You can't declare any margin of error by defining it's purpose. DRKTS wrote: A result that has larger uncertainty than the value can be useful as it can provide an upper or lower limit on the quantity and if that is all that is needed. Word salad. DRKTS wrote: I published a paper in Nature (my first paper ever) Big deal. Mathematics is not a paper. You are denying mathematics. DRKTS wrote: on the upper limit of the X-ray emissions from Lambda Scorpius showing that it was not a black hole, as some had claimed. Wandering off topic. DRKTS wrote: Raw data is useless as as source of information. Raw data IS the information. DRKTS wrote: It only provides one source of uncertainty Data is not an 'uncertainty'. Buzzword fallacy. DRKTS wrote: - the statistical error on the measurement. Measurements are not statistical errors. DRKTS wrote: There are many other factors that need to be considered going from raw data to a actual measurement (systematic errors, calibration errors, intercalibration errors if using more than one instrument, sampling errors, number of measurements, and so on). The measurement IS the raw data, regardless of instrument tolerances. Tolerance is not margin of error. Mantra 10g. DRKTS wrote: That is why you have to read and understand the papers that detail what the analysis involves. Mathematics is not papers. DRKTS wrote: Apparently you have done neither. Mathematics is not papers. No argument presented. Denial of mathematics. False authority fallacies. Redefinition fallacies. I'm just curious. When they stuck a thermometer in your mouth and then on your forehead, did you tell them they couldn't know your body temperature until they took it rectally? There's also your arm pits which I guess would be next, right? And then there's the urethra tube and your ear canals. I think with you, you would want them to take the temperature in every orifice you have. And then there's the probe they could put inside of you, a thin needle really. That does seem to be your argument. I mean, even a thermal image will show varying temperatures so we can't really tell if someone has a fever, can we? And yet that is a common symptom of an infection. But we can't know that.
19-06-2020 06:11
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Go outside and have a look
19-06-2020 06:22
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	duncan61 wrote: Go outside and have a look Who were you addressing? To your point, I went outside and had a look. I saw a bunch of things. Therefore ... what? . 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
19-06-2020 09:31
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Do you know what the word "METROLOGY" means? ...measuring devices and calibration equipment are engineered as well... So you DON'T know what "METROLOGY" is. OK I'll help you out: it's the scientific study of measurement. This link: METROLOGY AND CALIBRATION Teaches the basic concepts of Metrology and it's the same information you'll find anywhere else. Look here if you like: https://www.nist.gov/topics/metrology DRKTS wrote: Define "usable margin of error" a meaningless statement unless you define what you are using if for. The analyses do give a margin of error. AND it's not one that was simply made up, like you making up "hundreds of millions" IBD. One can take issue with how a margin of error was arrived at. Sadly that has never happened on this board. I wish it would. Into the Night wrote:There are simply not enough thermometers. How many is enough? Also be sure to include that it's enough for what MARGIN OF ERROR at what CONFIDENCE LEVEL ? You're simply saying it. You're not Harry Potter. Just saying you don't want something to be true won't change anything. Let's see your calculation on this. IBdaMann wrote: earth's temperature at the very large margin of error to which humanity is limited....the margin of error supported by the data... And what is that? What is "large"? More than 1, 10, 100, is it more than 1000 degrees? We both know that you haven't bothered to do any work on this yet you assert your "answer", which is based on your gut feeling, is right. IBdaMann wrote:...the raw data... Fraud. Debunked in my sig. DRKTS wrote: Why does the ground data ...agree with the satellite data Excellent point! Any explanation from team denial on how that could happen? Other than "fudging the numbers" it clearly indicates accuracy. duncan61 wrote: I am looking foward to going to my club meetings It's great you're actually interested enough to go. Most on both sides are too afraid they might here something they can't explain away. DRKTS wrote:A result that has larger uncertainty than the value can be useful as it can provide an upper or lower limit on the quantity and if that is all that is needed. Well said. This is true of Venus showing that most of the ITN/IBD claims made here are false. Also we know that the equilibrium temp for Earth would have the planet a frozen ball. We don't even need a thermometer to know that didn't happen. DRKTS wrote:Raw data is useless as as source of information. It only provides one source of uncertainty - the statistical error on the measurement. Also well said. You're forgetting why it's SO valuable to ITN/IBD: because there is no reason to put it online it allows them to disqualify everything for lack of having it. IBdaMann wrote:Raw data is all that matters...I am quite capable of performing my own analysis Great then how about you share some of each? Into the Night wrote: The margin of error is a result of the declared variance, not the data. WOW! Hey DRKTS did you know you can simply declare your own margin of error? You mean after you rub the lamp and the genie comes out right ITN? A margin of error is ALWAYS determined by circumstances/results, ALWAYS. You can decide where to set your confidence level (90%,95% ect) but aside from it being a goal, the margin of error(the amount of random sampling error in the results) is entirely beyond human declarations. It seem abundantly clear that either ITN if full of it about building instrumentation or he doesn't even understand his own field. "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 Edited on 19-06-2020 09:37
19-06-2020 16:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	tgoebbles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Do you know what the word "METROLOGY" means? ...measuring devices and calibration equipment are engineered as well... So you DON'T know what "METROLOGY" is. OK I'll help you out: it's the scientific study of measurement. Your king was already tipped but heck, if you want to tip it again knock yourself out. tgoebbles wrote: AND it's not one that was simply made up, like you making up "hundreds of millions" IBD. Don't think I'm not noticing you doubling down on stupid. We will have a blast on this, I guarantee. Have you learned "standard deviation" yet? Oh, as a special treat I will give you a hint about the basic statistical math you will be doing to verify for yourself the "hundreds of millions" or "billions" figure you will need to achieve a usable margin of error. Are you ready? Drum roll please ... tgoebbles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...you can measure the temperature in the eight corners of the room... standard deviation....get you within one degree Yep, sounds about right to me. ------------------- tgoebbles wrote: One can take issue with how a margin of error was arrived at. ... only if there are errors in the math, yes? We're going to have fun. tgoebbles wrote: Sadly that has never happened on this board. I wish it would. You WANT math errors? ... or do you just want more people who are crappy at math? tgoebbles wrote: Into the Night wrote:There are simply not enough thermometers. How many is enough? You are going to be verifying that personally and it's going to be fun ... for me at least. tgoebbles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...the raw data... Fraud. Debunked in my sig. Your "debunking" is debunked in my signature. tgoebbles wrote: duncan61 wrote: I am looking foward to going to my club meetings It's great you're actually interested enough to go. Most on both sides are too afraid they might here something they can't explain away. That's exactly why warmizombies never want me to go. They know they'll hear things they cannot explain with their WACKY dogma. tgoebbles wrote: Also we know that the equilibrium temp for Earth would have the planet a frozen ball. What is earth's equilibrium temperature, oh omniscient one? Did you try to sneak another subjunctive by us? There are no "could'a-would'a-should'a"s in science. Also, we just had this conversation about grill presses. Has your Alzheimer's kicked in on that already? tgoebbles wrote: We don't even need a thermometer to know that didn't happen. What specific occurrence are you now denying occurred? tgoebbles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Raw data is all that matters...I am quite capable of performing my own analysis Great then how about you share some of each? Sure. Let's compute the margin of error on "The Climate." Post here in this thread a valid "Climate" dataset. Don't bother with any weather data; just focus on Climate data. Into the Night wrote: The margin of error is a result of the declared variance, not the data. WOW! Hey DRKTS did you know you can simply declare your own margin of error? [/quote] Yes, everyone declares his/her own target, determined by some original requirement for doing the measuring in the first place. How shall we celebrate this apparently great news (news to you at least)? . . 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
19-06-2020 18:51
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	DRKTS wrote: A result that has larger uncertainty than the value can be useful as it can provide an upper or lower limit on the quantity and if that is all that is needed. This is of no value without an application/purpose for which those limits add value ... and there happen to be none. Here's how you can verify. We currently have an upper limit, i.e. the hottest temperature of the sun. We have a lower limit, i.e. absolute zero. So you are happy, yes? What? It's not useful you say? How can that be? You just finished insisting that it is useful as long as there is an upper and lower limit? Of course, the upper and lower limit need to be such that they are usable to whatever application you are working. . 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
19-06-2020 22:25
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 10g...4a...10g...16b...30...29...10g...29...10g...16b...29...22...7...39d...39g...25c...20k...20q5...20w1...20w2...20w3...20z3...10g...3...31...7...15b...20o...25g...25k...25j...38b...37c...38b...10g...15b...12...30...7...39l... No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. Redefinition fallacies. Semantic fallacies. Invalid proofs. 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
21-06-2020 04:39
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Your king was already tipped ...learned "standard deviation" yet? ...only if there are errors in the math, yes? ...more people who are crappy at math?... What is earth's equilibrium temperature, oh omniscient one? ... your Alzheimer's kicked in on that already? IBD you said a whole lot of nothing with a very long post. I can't make you debate. The equilibrium temp of Earth is calculated at −18 °C; −1 °F if you accept the estimate for the emissivity of Earth. But we've been over all of that before. IBdaMann wrote:What specific occurrence are you now denying occurred? The ground level of Earth having a mean of -18C. That was the only coherent question I spotted in your post. IBdaMann wrote: Into The Night wrote:The margin of error is a result of the declared variance, not the data. Yes, everyone declares his/her own This is simply dead wrong. A margin of error is determined by the data. You can have a goal to get enough data to change the margin but the margin is not "declared" it is calculated. "The margin of error is a statistic expressing the amount of random sampling error in the results" wikipedia You have ducked my questions: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: earth's temperature at the very large margin of error to which humanity is limited....the margin of error supported by the data... And what is that? What is "large"? More than 1, 10, 100, is it more than 1000 degrees? We both know that you haven't bothered to do any work on this yet you assert your "answer", which is based on your gut feeling, is right. IBdaMann wrote:Raw data is all that matters...I am quite capable of performing my own analysis Great then how about you share some of each? IBdaMann wrote: DRKTS wrote: ...upper or lower limit ... This is of no value without an application/purpose DRKTS gave you an example. I've given you another with VENUS having temperatures well beyond the most extreme margin of error demonstrating that the ground level of a planet can exceed it's equilibrium temp. The upper limit of the Sun's energy for a planet is not the temp on the surface of the sun it is the radiance at that distance. But you know that. "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

Page 1 of 4

Join the debate It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Can we trust the satellite and surface-based temperature records?	0	22-04-2024 00:55
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