| 03-09-2016 21:38 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Oh look Tweedledum as well as Tweedledee are on,
You do know every time you post it bumps my post "July is the hottest month since records began" to the top of the forum, |
| 03-09-2016 21:42 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: It's a bit more complex then that obviously, only a remedial level idiot would think otherwise.
Of course.
What's your preferred method for establishing the average global temperature from an ice core?
.
If I wasn't being asked that question by a time-wasting idiot I might put some time into formulating a reply. |
| 03-09-2016 21:44 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Sorry, but the idea that scientists would be unable to detect a change in global temperature equal to the difference between now and the depths of the ice age, even with a thermometer on every square mile, is totally absurd. Time to check your working, ITN!
So now you deny that the atmosphere contains any of the earth's "global average temperature"? That only the very bottom edge of the atmosphere matters?
Will you go on record with this as your official position?
If not, then you must acknowledge that merely decking out the earth's surface with millions of thermometers is egregiously insufficient...
...or have you not thought this through very well?
.
I haven't denied anything. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of ITN's claim that our current instrumentation would be insufficient to detect a change in the Earth's temperature exceeding that of the difference between now and the depths of the ice age.
You have not thought this through very well.
You don't know what the temperatures were around the planet during the last ice age. You don't know the overall temperature of the planet then either.
It is not possible to measure or calculate the temperature of the Earth today with our present instrumentation.
The instrumentation required to make such a measurement is impractical for political reasons and difficulty of access reasons, not to mention the expense of creating such instrumentation.
We know from analyses of oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores and sediments that the average temperature of the Earth during the depths of the ice age was about 8 deg F colder than today. The Arctic ice cap extended as far as Kentucky in North America and to the English Midlands.
This shows just how absurd your (revised) claim is that scientists are would be unable to detect global temperature changes of less then 11 deg F, even with a thermometer every square mile.
You know what happened in Kentucky (there was once ice there). You do not know what happened to global temperature.
Ice cores are a single point. So are sediment cores. We only have an idea of the temperature at that point. We do not know the global temperature.
The thing is, ITN, we aren't actually interested in the global (or regional) temperature. We are interested in the change in the global (or regional) temperature.
For the sake of argument, image that we have taken 10 ice cores from locations dotted around Antarctica, and all of them indicate that the temperature was, at a specific time, between 5 C and 10 C lower than at those same locations today. That would already suffice to conclude with a reasonable level of certainty that the temperature in Antarctica has risen by an average of around 7 or 8 C since that time.
You don't need to cover an area with thermometers to determine a change in temperature with reasonable accuracy because you don't need to determine an absolute temperature. |
| 03-09-2016 21:53 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21582) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Sorry, but the idea that scientists would be unable to detect a change in global temperature equal to the difference between now and the depths of the ice age, even with a thermometer on every square mile, is totally absurd. Time to check your working, ITN!
So now you deny that the atmosphere contains any of the earth's "global average temperature"? That only the very bottom edge of the atmosphere matters?
Will you go on record with this as your official position?
If not, then you must acknowledge that merely decking out the earth's surface with millions of thermometers is egregiously insufficient...
...or have you not thought this through very well?
.
I haven't denied anything. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of ITN's claim that our current instrumentation would be insufficient to detect a change in the Earth's temperature exceeding that of the difference between now and the depths of the ice age.
You have not thought this through very well.
You don't know what the temperatures were around the planet during the last ice age. You don't know the overall temperature of the planet then either.
It is not possible to measure or calculate the temperature of the Earth today with our present instrumentation.
The instrumentation required to make such a measurement is impractical for political reasons and difficulty of access reasons, not to mention the expense of creating such instrumentation.
We know from analyses of oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores and sediments that the average temperature of the Earth during the depths of the ice age was about 8 deg F colder than today. The Arctic ice cap extended as far as Kentucky in North America and to the English Midlands.
This shows just how absurd your (revised) claim is that scientists are would be unable to detect global temperature changes of less then 11 deg F, even with a thermometer every square mile.
You know what happened in Kentucky (there was once ice there). You do not know what happened to global temperature.
Ice cores are a single point. So are sediment cores. We only have an idea of the temperature at that point. We do not know the global temperature.
The thing is, ITN, we aren't actually interested in the global (or regional) temperature. We are interested in the change in the global (or regional) temperature.
For the sake of argument, image that we have taken 10 ice cores from locations dotted around Antarctica, and all of them indicate that the temperature was, at a specific time, between 5 C and 10 C lower than at those same locations today. That would already suffice to conclude with a reasonable level of certainty that the temperature in Antarctica has risen by an average of around 7 or 8 C since that time.
You don't need to cover an area with thermometers to determine a change in temperature with reasonable accuracy because you don't need to determine an absolute temperature.
Actually, yes you do. You cannot measure a CHANGE in something without a REFERENCE in something.
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 |
| 03-09-2016 22:18 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Sorry, but the idea that scientists would be unable to detect a change in global temperature equal to the difference between now and the depths of the ice age, even with a thermometer on every square mile, is totally absurd. Time to check your working, ITN!
So now you deny that the atmosphere contains any of the earth's "global average temperature"? That only the very bottom edge of the atmosphere matters?
Will you go on record with this as your official position?
If not, then you must acknowledge that merely decking out the earth's surface with millions of thermometers is egregiously insufficient...
...or have you not thought this through very well?
.
I haven't denied anything. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of ITN's claim that our current instrumentation would be insufficient to detect a change in the Earth's temperature exceeding that of the difference between now and the depths of the ice age.
You have not thought this through very well.
You don't know what the temperatures were around the planet during the last ice age. You don't know the overall temperature of the planet then either.
It is not possible to measure or calculate the temperature of the Earth today with our present instrumentation.
The instrumentation required to make such a measurement is impractical for political reasons and difficulty of access reasons, not to mention the expense of creating such instrumentation.
We know from analyses of oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores and sediments that the average temperature of the Earth during the depths of the ice age was about 8 deg F colder than today. The Arctic ice cap extended as far as Kentucky in North America and to the English Midlands.
This shows just how absurd your (revised) claim is that scientists are would be unable to detect global temperature changes of less then 11 deg F, even with a thermometer every square mile.
You know what happened in Kentucky (there was once ice there). You do not know what happened to global temperature.
Ice cores are a single point. So are sediment cores. We only have an idea of the temperature at that point. We do not know the global temperature.
The thing is, ITN, we aren't actually interested in the global (or regional) temperature. We are interested in the change in the global (or regional) temperature.
For the sake of argument, image that we have taken 10 ice cores from locations dotted around Antarctica, and all of them indicate that the temperature was, at a specific time, between 5 C and 10 C lower than at those same locations today. That would already suffice to conclude with a reasonable level of certainty that the temperature in Antarctica has risen by an average of around 7 or 8 C since that time.
You don't need to cover an area with thermometers to determine a change in temperature with reasonable accuracy because you don't need to determine an absolute temperature.
Actually, yes you do. You cannot measure a CHANGE in something without a REFERENCE in something.
You don't need to determine a global or regional absolute temperature. You just use the current temperature at a particular point as the reference to compare with past readings. See my Antarctica example. |
|
| 04-09-2016 00:08 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Sorry, but the idea that scientists would be unable to detect a change in global temperature equal to the difference between now and the depths of the ice age, even with a thermometer on every square mile, is totally absurd. Time to check your working, ITN!
So now you deny that the atmosphere contains any of the earth's "global average temperature"? That only the very bottom edge of the atmosphere matters?
Will you go on record with this as your official position?
If not, then you must acknowledge that merely decking out the earth's surface with millions of thermometers is egregiously insufficient...
...or have you not thought this through very well?
.
I haven't denied anything. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of ITN's claim that our current instrumentation would be insufficient to detect a change in the Earth's temperature exceeding that of the difference between now and the depths of the ice age.
You have not thought this through very well.
You don't know what the temperatures were around the planet during the last ice age. You don't know the overall temperature of the planet then either.
It is not possible to measure or calculate the temperature of the Earth today with our present instrumentation.
The instrumentation required to make such a measurement is impractical for political reasons and difficulty of access reasons, not to mention the expense of creating such instrumentation.
We know from analyses of oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores and sediments that the average temperature of the Earth during the depths of the ice age was about 8 deg F colder than today. The Arctic ice cap extended as far as Kentucky in North America and to the English Midlands.
This shows just how absurd your (revised) claim is that scientists are would be unable to detect global temperature changes of less then 11 deg F, even with a thermometer every square mile.
You know what happened in Kentucky (there was once ice there). You do not know what happened to global temperature.
Ice cores are a single point. So are sediment cores. We only have an idea of the temperature at that point. We do not know the global temperature.
The thing is, ITN, we aren't actually interested in the global (or regional) temperature. We are interested in the change in the global (or regional) temperature.
For the sake of argument, image that we have taken 10 ice cores from locations dotted around Antarctica, and all of them indicate that the temperature was, at a specific time, between 5 C and 10 C lower than at those same locations today. That would already suffice to conclude with a reasonable level of certainty that the temperature in Antarctica has risen by an average of around 7 or 8 C since that time.
You don't need to cover an area with thermometers to determine a change in temperature with reasonable accuracy because you don't need to determine an absolute temperature.
Actually, yes you do. You cannot measure a CHANGE in something without a REFERENCE in something.
You don't need to determine a global or regional absolute temperature. You just use the current temperature at a particular point as the reference to compare with past readings. See my Antarctica example.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Now that we've established you need a reference point, how do you claim to obtain that reference point?
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 |
| 04-09-2016 00:31 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
The thing is, ITN, we aren't actually interested in the global (or regional) temperature. We are interested in the change in the global (or regional) temperature.
For the sake of argument, image that we have taken 10 ice cores from locations dotted around Antarctica, and all of them indicate that the temperature was, at a specific time, between 5 C and 10 C lower than at those same locations today. That would already suffice to conclude with a reasonable level of certainty that the temperature in Antarctica has risen by an average of around 7 or 8 C since that time.
You don't need to cover an area with thermometers to determine a change in temperature with reasonable accuracy because you don't need to determine an absolute temperature.
Actually, yes you do. You cannot measure a CHANGE in something without a REFERENCE in something.
You don't need to determine a global or regional absolute temperature. You just use the current temperature at a particular point as the reference to compare with past readings. See my Antarctica example.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Now that we've established you need a reference point, how do you claim to obtain that reference point?
No, I haven't agreed with you. You have claimed that we need to determine the absolute temperature of the Earth by measuring its temperature on every single square mile if we are to be able to measure global temperature changes to within 11 deg F. I say this is bollocks.
Why? There is no need to determine an absolute global average temperature (even if it were possible) because we are only interested in the temperature change. How do you measure temperature change? For each past temperature reading (or proxy) that is available, you take the current temperature at that location and subtract the past temperature reading. This gives you a set of temperature differences. You then take the average of these differences to find the average global (or regional) change in temperature. See the Antarctica example above.
Obviously this is the simple version; the readings need to be weighed to account for uneven distributions, etc, but that's the general idea. You'll note that published graphs of global temperate trends never have absolute values, but are instead zeroed at some arbitrary point. This is because the absolute global average temperature is indeed a matter of definition and isn't required to calculate a trend. |
| 04-09-2016 05:52 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14389) |
Surface Detail wrote:No, I haven't agreed with you.
Yes you did. He stated that relative change requires a base reference point. You then made it clear that you were obligated to disagree just to disagree, and then you clarified that all that was required was to establish a base reference point from which relative change could be determined. He then thanked you for agreeing with him to which you rushed to assure everyone that you will never agree Into the Night, even if he says breathing is good.
In any event, you agree with him on that point. I don't know why I thought for a moment that you might be honest and just say "Yes, that's what I'm talking about." When you get a chance I'd like to revisit the topic of why it's virtually impossible to hold a reasonable conversation with you.
Surface Detail wrote:You have claimed that we need to determine the absolute temperature of the Earth by measuring its temperature on every single square mile if we are to be able to measure global temperature changes to within 11 deg F. I say this is bollocks.
...and you obviously haven't given this topic enough thought.
For a global average temperature, what do YOU consider to be an acceptable margin of error?
Surface Detail wrote: There is no need to determine an absolute global average temperature (even if it were possible) because we are only interested in the temperature change.
I wish you would be clear. It would be so helpful.
In this sentence of yours, you end in "the temperature change." The temperature change of 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 |
| 04-09-2016 05:52 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14389) |
Surface Detail wrote:No, I haven't agreed with you.
Yes you did. He stated that relative change requires a base reference point. You then made it clear that you were obligated to disagree just to disagree, and then you clarified that all that was required was to establish a base reference point from which relative change could be determined. He then thanked you for agreeing with him to which you rushed to assure everyone that you will never agree Into the Night, even if he says breathing is good.
In any event, you agree with him on that point. I don't know why I thought for a moment that you might be honest and just say "Yes, that's what I'm talking about." When you get a chance I'd like to revisit the topic of why it's virtually impossible to hold a reasonable conversation with you.
Surface Detail wrote:You have claimed that we need to determine the absolute temperature of the Earth by measuring its temperature on every single square mile if we are to be able to measure global temperature changes to within 11 deg F. I say this is bollocks.
...and you obviously haven't given this topic enough thought.
For a global average temperature, what do YOU consider to be an acceptable margin of error?
Surface Detail wrote: There is no need to determine an absolute global average temperature (even if it were possible) because we are only interested in the temperature change.
I wish you would be clear. It would be so helpful.
In this sentence of yours, you end in "the temperature change." The temperature change of 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 |
| 04-09-2016 09:22 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
The thing is, ITN, we aren't actually interested in the global (or regional) temperature. We are interested in the change in the global (or regional) temperature.
For the sake of argument, image that we have taken 10 ice cores from locations dotted around Antarctica, and all of them indicate that the temperature was, at a specific time, between 5 C and 10 C lower than at those same locations today. That would already suffice to conclude with a reasonable level of certainty that the temperature in Antarctica has risen by an average of around 7 or 8 C since that time.
You don't need to cover an area with thermometers to determine a change in temperature with reasonable accuracy because you don't need to determine an absolute temperature.
Actually, yes you do. You cannot measure a CHANGE in something without a REFERENCE in something.
You don't need to determine a global or regional absolute temperature. You just use the current temperature at a particular point as the reference to compare with past readings. See my Antarctica example.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Now that we've established you need a reference point, how do you claim to obtain that reference point?
No, I haven't agreed with you. You have claimed that we need to determine the absolute temperature of the Earth by measuring its temperature on every single square mile if we are to be able to measure global temperature changes to within 11 deg F. I say this is bollocks.
Why? There is no need to determine an absolute global average temperature (even if it were possible) because we are only interested in the temperature change. How do you measure temperature change? For each past temperature reading (or proxy) that is available, you take the current temperature at that location and subtract the past temperature reading. This gives you a set of temperature differences. You then take the average of these differences to find the average global (or regional) change in temperature. See the Antarctica example above.
Obviously this is the simple version; the readings need to be weighed to account for uneven distributions, etc, but that's the general idea. You'll note that published graphs of global temperate trends never have absolute values, but are instead zeroed at some arbitrary point. This is because the absolute global average temperature is indeed a matter of definition and isn't required to calculate a trend.
Actually, you did. You agreed that you need a starting reference point to show any kind of change. Now you deny your own argument, then deny your own denial!
You are seriously confused. At this point, you are locked in paradox. Any argument you make from here concerning temperature measurement will have to be summarily dismissed until you clear the paradox.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 06-09-2016 04:15 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
The thing is, ITN, we aren't actually interested in the global (or regional) temperature. We are interested in the change in the global (or regional) temperature.
For the sake of argument, image that we have taken 10 ice cores from locations dotted around Antarctica, and all of them indicate that the temperature was, at a specific time, between 5 C and 10 C lower than at those same locations today. That would already suffice to conclude with a reasonable level of certainty that the temperature in Antarctica has risen by an average of around 7 or 8 C since that time.
You don't need to cover an area with thermometers to determine a change in temperature with reasonable accuracy because you don't need to determine an absolute temperature.
Actually, yes you do. You cannot measure a CHANGE in something without a REFERENCE in something.
You don't need to determine a global or regional absolute temperature. You just use the current temperature at a particular point as the reference to compare with past readings. See my Antarctica example.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Now that we've established you need a reference point, how do you claim to obtain that reference point?
No, I haven't agreed with you. You have claimed that we need to determine the absolute temperature of the Earth by measuring its temperature on every single square mile if we are to be able to measure global temperature changes to within 11 deg F. I say this is bollocks.
Why? There is no need to determine an absolute global average temperature (even if it were possible) because we are only interested in the temperature change. How do you measure temperature change? For each past temperature reading (or proxy) that is available, you take the current temperature at that location and subtract the past temperature reading. This gives you a set of temperature differences. You then take the average of these differences to find the average global (or regional) change in temperature. See the Antarctica example above.
Obviously this is the simple version; the readings need to be weighed to account for uneven distributions, etc, but that's the general idea. You'll note that published graphs of global temperate trends never have absolute values, but are instead zeroed at some arbitrary point. This is because the absolute global average temperature is indeed a matter of definition and isn't required to calculate a trend.
Actually, you did. You agreed that you need a starting reference point to show any kind of change. Now you deny your own argument, then deny your own denial!
You are seriously confused. At this point, you are locked in paradox. Any argument you make from here concerning temperature measurement will have to be summarily dismissed until you clear the paradox.
Oooh, dismissed is bad enough, but to be summarily dismissed is harsh! If, dear sir, you could just explain in nice, simple words which paradox you need clearing, I'll do my best. |
| 06-09-2016 04:52 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14389) |
Surface Detail wrote:Oooh, dismissed is bad enough, but to be summarily dismissed is harsh!
Please don't forget that.
A noble, but erroneous, argument is dismissed after consideration.
Dishonesty and violations of discourse etiquette can be summarily dismissed.
.
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 |
| 23-02-2017 22:16 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
[b]Surface Detail wrote: Time to check your working, ITN!
I checked the work of "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" & it proves that it is an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner. |
| 23-02-2017 22:52 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
The thing is, ITN, we aren't actually interested in the global (or regional) temperature. We are interested in the change in the global (or regional) temperature.
For the sake of argument, image that we have taken 10 ice cores from locations dotted around Antarctica, and all of them indicate that the temperature was, at a specific time, between 5 C and 10 C lower than at those same locations today. That would already suffice to conclude with a reasonable level of certainty that the temperature in Antarctica has risen by an average of around 7 or 8 C since that time.
You don't need to cover an area with thermometers to determine a change in temperature with reasonable accuracy because you don't need to determine an absolute temperature.
Actually, yes you do. You cannot measure a CHANGE in something without a REFERENCE in something.
You don't need to determine a global or regional absolute temperature. You just use the current temperature at a particular point as the reference to compare with past readings. See my Antarctica example.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Now that we've established you need a reference point, how do you claim to obtain that reference point?
No, I haven't agreed with you. You have claimed that we need to determine the absolute temperature of the Earth by measuring its temperature on every single square mile if we are to be able to measure global temperature changes to within 11 deg F. I say this is bollocks.
Why? There is no need to determine an absolute global average temperature (even if it were possible) because we are only interested in the temperature change. How do you measure temperature change? For each past temperature reading (or proxy) that is available, you take the current temperature at that location and subtract the past temperature reading. This gives you a set of temperature differences. You then take the average of these differences to find the average global (or regional) change in temperature. See the Antarctica example above.
Obviously this is the simple version; the readings need to be weighed to account for uneven distributions, etc, but that's the general idea. You'll note that published graphs of global temperate trends never have absolute values, but are instead zeroed at some arbitrary point. This is because the absolute global average temperature is indeed a matter of definition and isn't required to calculate a trend.
Actually, you did. You agreed that you need a starting reference point to show any kind of change. Now you deny your own argument, then deny your own denial!
You are seriously confused. At this point, you are locked in paradox. Any argument you make from here concerning temperature measurement will have to be summarily dismissed until you clear the paradox.
Oooh, dismissed is bad enough, but to be summarily dismissed is harsh! If, dear sir, you could just explain in nice, simple words which paradox you need clearing, I'll do my best.
1) Use the current temperature at a particular point as the reference
to compare your past readings.
2) There is no need to determine an absolute temperature.
Did you know that you run into the same problem calculating a global difference temperature that you do when calculating a global absolute temperature?
The demands of statistical math is not going to give you anything like a useful number.
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 |
| 24-02-2017 06:14 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
litesong wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote: Time to check your working, ITN!
I checked the work of "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" & it proves that it is an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner.
Meanwhile, check-out:
For 386+ STRAIGHT months, global Earth temperatures have been above the 20th century average. This has occurred DESPITE the solar TSI energy output being languid for decades, & below normal for 10 years (including a 3+ year period of low solar TSI energy setting a 100 year low). When the sun returns to normal (& it will because it has INCREASED very slowly for 5 billion years), AGW effects will increase strongly. In late 2016, the Present High Arctic Berserker, or PHAB, or FAB ( over- temperatures on nearly 4 million square kilometers of the High Arctic), jumped to 20degC over-temperature. MIND YOU!! This is NOT a local city temperature over say a 20 kilometer by 20 kilometer square. It is over a square almost 2000 kilometers by 2000 kilometers. Within the last 2 years in the MIDDLE OF WINTER, our Earth's North Pole heated above the freezing point of water for short times, on three occasions. Presently, Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 10,600 cubic kilometers LESS than the to date Arctic sea ice average year for the 1980's. The energy to melt such a cube of ice (almost 22 kilometers by 22 kilometers by 65000 feet high) is about 33 times the annual energy used by the United States of America. Lesser ice losses are occurring in the Antarctic (but increasing). |
|