Remember me
▼ Content

Migrations induced by extreme climatic events



Page 2 of 2<12
04-10-2019 00:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Do you believe in weather at all? Is that "unknowable" too!
Specify. There is no boundary to the question.
My question is what YOU consider knowable as weather.

Why play a game where I guess at what you believe and you say nu uh, guess again. YOU tell me what is knowable in terms of "weather" or you should be objecting every-time that word appears too.

Look out the window. Better, go outside. Is it warm? Is it raining? Is it snowing? Are there clouds in the sky? That's weather, dude.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Guess what. The weather changes all year, it changes all month, all day, and even every hour, minute and second. It is never something you can know completely and exactly.

Sure it is. You can know the weather at any time for where you are standing. You can even take thermometers, barometers, hydrometers, and any other instrument you can think of with you. All of your measurements are the weather where you are at, at the time you are measuring it.
tmiddles wrote:
So you are arguing that you cannot know the weather. Ok.
I'm not I'm saying knowing anything in this real world means having a grasp of it's changing reality. You're never 100%. Dissagree? If so give an example.

Just did.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
From a block of steel in the lab to the albedo of Earth.
You can measure a block of steel. You can know it's weight, it's average temperature (since steel is such a good conductor of heat), it's hardness, it's tensile strength, it's sheer strength, and its compressive strength. You can even measure how much carbon is in the steel.
So I could address all of that but let's go with temp first. How could you know a block of steel (in the lab) had a certain average temperature?

Simple. Steel has a high thermal conductivity. Once equilibrium is reached (just a dozen minutes or so for a steel block near room temperature), the entire steel block is the same as room temperature.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
"Climate Change" and "Global Warming" are names FOR the same thing which, whether or not you agree with it, is clearly defined.

Then define them. You have now stated that they are synonyms. But you can't define a word with another undefined word.
Waiting to see if you consider the word "Weather" to be undefined.

Only if YOU undefine it. If you choose to do so, be prepared to provide your definition. Weather is simply the combination of temperature, humidity, cloud cover, wind speed and direction, precipitation, and barometric pressure at a particular moment and in a particular location. Weather is not quantifiable, but it is made up of quantifiable elements.

The last weather report, as observed at SeaTac airport is:
KSEA 032053Z 21010KT 10SM SCT032 BKN075 BKN200 16/06 A2997 RMK AO2 SLP154 T01610056 58011

This means the wind is from 210 deg true at 10 knots, 10 miles of visibility, scattered clouds are at 3200 feet, a broken cloud layer is at 7500 feet and another at 20,000 feet, the temp is 16 degC, and the dew point is 6 degC. The barometric pressure is 29.97 inches of mercury. It is not raining or snowing.

The station name is KSEA (SeaTac airport), it is automated. The report was generated on Oct 3rd, at 8:53pm UTC. That was the weather at that station at that time.

All in all a reasonably nice day around here for this time of year.



The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-10-2019 00:18
04-10-2019 00:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: My question is what YOU consider knowable as weather.

Oh, pick me! Pick me! I want to get in this.

I'm going to take a guess that Into the Night will claim that you can, in fact, know what the weather is, say, outside your house by, say, walking outside your house. Now, I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that if you were to, say, walk outside your house with no measuring instruments whatsoever, you could nonetheless know what the weather is to a level that gives you a high degree of confidence that you know what the weather is outside your house.

... and that's with absolutely no measuring instruments at all.

If I'm right, what do I win?

.


You win. I have no prize to offer you, however, other than bragging rights.



The Parrot Killer
04-10-2019 01:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
Into the Night wrote:You win. I have no prize to offer you, however, other than bragging rights.

I am bragging as we speak.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-10-2019 09:41
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
IBdaMann wrote:...you can, in fact, know what the weather is, say, outside your house by, say, walking outside your house...
HarveyH55 wrote:
Without instruments, I can tell the weather, and I can make a fairly accurate forecast for the rest of the day. It's warm and sunny, light breeze, few clouds at a distance. Should get a little warmer, possible light shower (few minutes) later on, more sun. Nice day, might fly my drone a little.
Into the Night wrote:
Look out the window. Better, go outside. Is it warm? Is it raining? Is it snowing? Are there clouds in the sky? That's weather, dude.

We certainly all agree on this part! Would it not be fair to say that it's within a range for all the measurements? Slight variations even from the front to the back yard, and moment to moment. As a child I once had it raining in my back yard and not my front yard, ran back and forth a few times to confirm.

Into the Night wrote:Weather is simply the combination of temperature, humidity, cloud cover, wind speed and direction, precipitation, and barometric pressure at a particular moment and in a particular location. Weather is not quantifiable, but it is made up of quantifiable elements.
Well put. We can't say a "someones measurements" is quantifiable either but height, weight and and the measurement we can make each are.
But as I said above each of these is going to be within a range. We can be confident we "know" the range of temperature, wind, ect. for our street, the neighborhood, the city? How about the county and the state?

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
How could you know a block of steel (in the lab) had a certain average temperature?

Simple. Steel has a high thermal conductivity. Once equilibrium is reached (just a dozen minutes or so for a steel block near room temperature), the entire steel block is the same as room temperature.
We come back to our old discussion of "Accurate" which I maintain is a meaningless word in itself about as specific as saying "close enough". That block of steel is in fact a mix of a multitude of different thermal energies and temperatures. We would say "slight" differences but that's a matter of perspective. You could measure a few points on the block, find nothing you consider to be an important difference and conclude you know the temperature. What you really know is the temperature range. You may call that range "narrow" but it's still a range.

IBdaMann wrote:
C'mon, there's gotta be a prize at the end of this rope.
Sanity awaits you IBD. One of the greatest prizes of them all!

"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 ever valid for them
06-10-2019 10:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Simple. Steel has a high thermal conductivity. Once equilibrium is reached (just a dozen minutes or so for a steel block near room temperature), the entire steel block is the same as room temperature.
We come back to our old discussion of "Accurate" which I maintain is a meaningless word in itself about as specific as saying "close enough". That block of steel is in fact a mix of a multitude of different thermal energies and temperatures. We would say "slight" differences but that's a matter of perspective. You could measure a few points on the block, find nothing you consider to be an important difference and conclude you know the temperature. What you really know is the temperature range. You may call that range "narrow" but it's still a range.

Nope. It's not a range. The block of steel, once equilibrium is reached, is all the same temperature.


The Parrot Killer
06-10-2019 12:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
Into the Night wrote:
Nope. It's not a range. The block of steel, once equilibrium is reached, is all the same temperature.

No, each molecule can have a slightly different energy level. Let's here from Max Planck:
Max Planck wrote:Pg.190
According [to the Boltzmann] atomic theory the thermal energy of a body is the sum-total of a small, rapid, and unregulated movement of its molecules. The temperature corresponds to the medium kinetic energy of the molecules, and the transfer of heat from a hotter to a colder body depends upon the fact that the kinetic energies of the molecules are averaged because of their frequent collision with one another.

And by the way a true and pure equilibrium is never reached. Welcome to the real world.

Do you deny that weather is a range as well?

"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 ever valid for them
Edited on 06-10-2019 12:31
06-10-2019 22:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Nope. It's not a range. The block of steel, once equilibrium is reached, is all the same temperature.

No, each molecule can have a slightly different energy level. Let's here from Max Planck:
Max Planck wrote:Pg.190
According [to the Boltzmann] atomic theory the thermal energy of a body is the sum-total of a small, rapid, and unregulated movement of its molecules. The temperature corresponds to the medium kinetic energy of the molecules, and the transfer of heat from a hotter to a colder body depends upon the fact that the kinetic energies of the molecules are averaged because of their frequent collision with one another.

And by the way a true and pure equilibrium is never reached. Welcome to the real world.

Do you deny that weather is a range as well?

False equivalence fallacy. RDCF. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
07-10-2019 05:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
tmiddles wrote:No, each molecule can have a slightly different energy level.

This is something I wanted to cover in the discussion that you shut down just because you had a problem finding an example to support your point.

Of course different molecules can have differnt energy levels. The problem is that you have to remain consistent with your model. If it involves a temperature then you have to remain at the level of precision of your ability to measure ... which precludes distinguishing between individual molecules that cannot be measured.

Also, if your model is not accounting for each individual molecule as a separate "body" but rather is focusing on one "body" then you have to treat it exactly as Into the Night has indicated. Either you have one "body" or you account for every single molecule separately.

That's what Planck means by "a body is the sum-total of a small, rapid, and unregulated movement of its molecules. " My recommendation is to just go with the sum-total. Don't try to account for the individual energy states of every single molecule.

Seriously.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-10-2019 07:24
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:No, each molecule can have a slightly different energy level.

This is something I wanted to cover...you have to remain at the level of precision of your ability to measure...
So you'd agree that "Temperature" is only ever a range and never a single unchanging value? KNOWING the temperature of something mean's knowing the range, narrow or not, that it posses's. Correct?

In determining temperature with a measuring device we will get different readings, slight or not, and we have to interpret that. Usually identifying the "temperature" as the mean, average of those values.

Or do I have it wrong? And if so what is the RIGHT WAY to determine temperature?


"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 ever valid for them
07-10-2019 18:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
tmiddles wrote: So you'd agree that "Temperature" is only ever a range and never a single unchanging value? KNOWING the temperature of something mean's knowing the range, narrow or not, that it posses's. Correct?

Nope. Perhaps it's just your poor wording, but if I take a temperature measurement I have three parameters: 1) the resulting value, 2) the precision of the measuring device and 3) the tolerance of the measuring device (allowable error) which includes make and model of the device, when it was last calibrated, etc...

These parameters must exist for each measurement for a dataset to be considered valid, among other requirements.

tmiddles wrote: In determining temperature with a measuring device we will get different readings, slight or not, and we have to interpret that. Usually identifying the "temperature" as the mean, average of those values.

Or do I have it wrong? And if so what is the RIGHT WAY to determine temperature?

I think I know what you are getting at, but you would be expressing it correctly if you had not ignored all of Into the Night's explanations on statistical math and its role.

Let's suppose I were to take copious measurements, very methodically and very mechanically, capturing all three of the parameters identified above in every measurement as I compile my dataset.

No one will "interpret" anything. What will happen is that I will pull out the appropriate statistical methods and just dump my data into a computer program to "compute" all the necessary values, to include "margin of error."

Then, I will publish all my results, especially and necessarily including the raw data (with all three parameters) along with which statistical methods I used, in addition to any other analyses I may wish to present (e.g. weightings).

[note: one of the lower quotes in my signature is by Leafsdude who would notoriously believe anything that had no associated raw data and no margin of error. '*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.']

https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/proffessor-brian-cox-vs-conspiracy-theorist-australian-senator-d6-e1141-s120.php#post_10030

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-10-2019 08:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: So you'd agree that "Temperature" is only ever a range...
Nope. ...three parameters: 1) the resulting value, 2) the precision... and 3) the tolerance ...
Why do you assume that what you are measuring has a flawlessly uniform distribution of thermal energy?

IBdaMann wrote:...I were to take copious measurements, ...to include "margin of error."...
Nope! It's not an error if it's true. If what you decide to call your object (what fraction of the universe you draw a line around and say "I'm just measuring this piece") has different thermal energies in different places and at different times, that's not an error! That's reality!

I've debunked your fake presentation that there is "valid data" you accept. In 5 years you've never accepted any data. Just a game you play.


"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 ever valid for them
Edited on 08-10-2019 08:05
08-10-2019 13:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
tmiddles wrote:
Why do you assume that what you are measuring has a flawlessly uniform distribution of thermal energy?

Why do you assume I assume that?

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...I were to take copious measurements, ...to include "margin of error."...
Nope! It's not an error if it's true.

Margin of error. Learn it.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
09-10-2019 14:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Why do you assume that what you are measuring has a flawlessly uniform distribution of thermal energy?

Why do you assume I assume that?

Because you call different readings "errors". They are not they are simply variance and the truth.

The real world is always a mix and the best we ever have is a range to work with. It's never even steven perfectly uniform.

It makes sense, I observe this in the macro world, and it's the accepted scientific theory as express by Max Planck so well:
Max Planck wrote:Pg.190
According [to the Boltzmann] atomic theory the thermal energy of a body is the sum-total of a small, rapid, and unregulated movement of its molecules. The temperature corresponds to the medium kinetic energy of the molecules,[/b]...
Margin of error. Learn it.

So what about a block of steel sitting on a heating element? Can you find the temperature? Is it perfectly distributed in the block? Is the portion of the block in direct contact with the heating element the same temperature as the upper surfaces exposed to the room air?


"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 ever valid for them
Edited on 09-10-2019 14:02
09-10-2019 15:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Why do you assume that what you are measuring has a flawlessly uniform distribution of thermal energy?

Why do you assume I assume that?

Because you call different readings "errors".

Well, I do not ... and your assumption is false.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
09-10-2019 19:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...I were to take copious measurements, ...to include "margin of error."...
Nope! It's not an error if it's true. If what you decide to call your object (what fraction of the universe you draw a line around and say "I'm just measuring this piece") has different thermal energies in different places and at different times, that's not an error! That's reality!

Nope that a false equivalence. Goalpost fallacy. You cannot equivocate part of a system as the system.
tmiddles wrote:
I've debunked your fake presentation that there is "valid data" you accept. In 5 years you've never accepted any data. Just a game you play.

RDCF. Lie. You have not even been here five years. See the Data Mine


The Parrot Killer
10-10-2019 09:13
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot equivocate part of a system as the system.
IBdaMann wrote:
Well, I do not ... and your assumption is false.
Dodge Dodge Dodge

So Fraud squad how do you measure the temperature of a block of steel on a hot plate? Is that also unknowable?


"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 ever valid for them
10-10-2019 15:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
tmainstream-media wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot equivocate part of a system as the system.
IBdaMann wrote:
Well, I do not ... and your assumption is false.
Dodge Dodge Dodge

One cannot "dodge" a position one does not have.

tmainstream-media wrote: So Fraud squad how do you measure the temperature of a block of steel on a hot plate? Is that also unknowable?

Hey, MSM, what are you claiming is unknowable?

While you're at it, what is the bogus position assignment for today?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
10-10-2019 19:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot equivocate part of a system as the system.
IBdaMann wrote:
Well, I do not ... and your assumption is false.
Dodge Dodge Dodge

So Fraud squad how do you measure the temperature of a block of steel on a hot plate? Is that also unknowable?


RDCF. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
10-10-2019 21:55
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Let's revisit frying pans again.

tmiddles wrote:
We certainly all agree on this part! Would it not be fair to say that it's within a range for all the measurements? Slight variations even from the front to the back yard, and moment to moment. As a child I once had it raining in my back yard and not my front yard...

Must be raining in the Sahara if we all agree. Microclimates. Plant your Japanese maples on the south side of the house because they're marginal in Utah.

Into the Night wrote:
The block of steel, once equilibrium is reached, is all the same temperature.

Ho-hum...a block of steel in thermal equilibrium with the room, everything at the same temperature. Hard to imagine a more boring thermodynamic scenario.

tmiddles wrote:
So what about a block of steel sitting on a heating element? Can you find the temperature? Is it perfectly distributed in the block?

Or an iron skillet. And the handle that sticks out, so you don't have to touch the hot part where your trout are becoming lunch. Of course the pan is not in thermal equilibrium with your kitchen, or with the burner on your range; what is achieved is a steady heat flow condition which resembles equilibrium in that it doesn't change until you turn off the burner, but differs from equilibrium since the environment surrounding the pan contains objects, room & burner, at two or more temperatures.

For steady flow and equilibrium both, conduction through and radiation from the pan depend on its geometry, although total heat out equals total heat in.

In other words, balanced conditions but directional heat flow from burner to pan to room.

tmiddles wrote:
If what you decide to call your object (what fraction of the universe you draw a line around and say "I'm just measuring this piece") has different thermal energies in different places and at different times, that's not an error! That's reality!

Yup. The Earth isn't in thermal equilibrium with the sun any more than my skillet was. Furthermore, Earth's composition is hardly as uniform as the pan's, but more like a copper-bottom pan with plastic handle inlaid with rubies and amethysts! So we already have variation by place and time. To deal with time, averaging methods are used so we can examine long-term changes without the distraction of day/night and summer/winter contrasts. But we must deal with surface & atmosphere individually because gases, liquid ocean, ices and solid ground all have very distinct properties.

IBdaMann wrote:
If it involves a temperature then you have to remain at the level of precision of your ability to measure...which precludes distinguishing between individual molecules that cannot be measured.

Agreed here. Temperature is a statistical property of collections of molecules, and with 10^22 iron atoms in a gram of iron, we're not gonna try to observe each one.

IBdaMann wrote:
Either you have one "body" or you account for every single molecule separately.

But this false dichotomy is absurd. Every atom in the solar system exerts a gravitational effect on every other atom in Newtonian mechanics, yet astronomers developing ephemerides for the planets' motions are required neither to treat the solar system as a single body nor to analyze every one of its molecules. Rather, they use a system of nine bodies, sun and planets, or if wanting more precision, include the larger moons, asteroids & minor planets.

Engineers at GM likewise analyze auto engines as systems of discrete parts: block, pistons, radiator. They don't even treat the block as a uniform body except insofar as it's all made of a single alloy; their models slice the block into thin layers or small cubical elements, each of which contains zillions of metal atoms but comprises a tiny portion of the block as a whole. They must do this to analyze heat flow through the block while the engine's running. The cylinder walls are much hotter than the outside of the block, and they want to know where best to place the coolant channels that keep the device from seizing up on the road.

tmiddles wrote:
They are not they are simply variance and the truth.

The term "margin of error" is meaningless anyway and rarely used in science, which simply calls it "error." There are two kinds: statistical and systematic. Error bars in documents report the statistical spread; in general, the bars are fixed so that 95% of the measurements lie between the bars. But this "95% confidence interval" won't reveal systematic error. Say all your thermometer readings cluster together in a narrow range, but they're all about 10˚ too high. You'll get a small error bar that makes the measurements look more accurate than they really are.

Error bars are useful for determining how much your signal is affected by random noise, but they won't tell you whether your signal-detecting apparatus is miscalibrated, nor whether the assumptions that underpin your measurement method are valid. Gas thermometers, the gold standard for precise readings, assume the nitrogen inside them will expand at constant pressure according to the ideal gas law, with a small correction term that allows for nitrogen's departure from ideal behavior.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Edited on 10-10-2019 22:01
11-10-2019 12:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
VernerHornung wrote:...a block of steel in thermal equilibrium with the room, everything at the same temperature. Hard to imagine a more boring thermodynamic scenario.
Indeed! And even here thermal energy's distribution is not perfect. Because this is the real world and we don't get to have perfect. Upside being that claims something is illegitimate because they aren't perfect are simply BS. I guess we can accept ourselves now, warts and all.


VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So what about a block of steel sitting on a heating element?...
...steady flow and equilibrium both,...
Answering the "simple" question "What is the temperature?" of the pan, or block, suddenly means that calculations and assumptions must come into play. The top of the block will have a lower temperature than the bottom where it's in contact with the burner. You don't get to slice the block open to take internal measurements.

VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Either you have one "body" or you account for every single molecule separately.

But this false dichotomy is absurd.
But what about when a body has matter leave it? Is that now a new body? Did it abandon the first body never to be considered one body again? Did you have a crisis with this as a child or something?

VernerHornung wrote:...use a system of nine bodies, sun and planets, or if wanting more precision, include the larger moons, asteroids & minor planets.
Yes the sensible approach is to model reality as you're able to. In most cases it's reasonable to represent "everything else" as "ambient". Technically speaking running an analysis of something you decided to carve out of the universe as "the body" in relation to "ambient" represents the entire universe of "That thing" and "Everything else".

VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
They are not they are simply variance and the truth.
...Say all your thermometer readings...they're all about 10˚ too high...
Or say what you're measuring doesn't not obey the nonexistent law of EVEN STEVENS and changes on you! Things in the real world don't obey any commandment not to vary and actually have different data.

The pretense of ITN/IBD has been that it's UNKNOWABLE! If it can't be nailed down but that objection rejects every single thing that is real because nothing is perfect, unchanging and with constant data. Real stuff varies and all you can do is have a range.

"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 ever valid for them
11-10-2019 19:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
tmainstream-media wrote:But what about when a body has matter leave it? Is that now a new body?

Yes it is. Very good.

tmainstream-media wrote: The pretense of ITN/IBD has been that it's UNKNOWABLE!

I take it that this is today's bogus position assignment?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2019 23:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
VernerHornung wrote:
Yup. The Earth isn't in thermal equilibrium with the sun any more than my skillet was.

Both the Earth and the skillet are in equilibrium, even though temperatures may differ at different locations on them.
VernerHornung wrote:
Furthermore, Earth's composition is hardly as uniform as the pan's, but more like a copper-bottom pan with plastic handle inlaid with rubies and amethysts! So we already have variation by place and time.

Time is not temperature.
VernerHornung wrote:
To deal with time, averaging methods are used

Void argument. What are you averaging? Averages by themselves are meaningless in statistical mathematics.
VernerHornung wrote:
so we can examine long-term changes without the distraction of day/night and summer/winter contrasts.

No, you are trying to separate the Earth into parts again, and treating them as the whole. False equivalence fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
But we must deal with surface & atmosphere individually because gases, liquid ocean, ices and solid ground all have very distinct properties.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using IR from Earth's surface.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
If it involves a temperature then you have to remain at the level of precision of your ability to measure...which precludes distinguishing between individual molecules that cannot be measured.

Agreed here. Temperature is a statistical property of collections of molecules, and with 10^22 iron atoms in a gram of iron, we're not gonna try to observe each one.

But you happily treat a part of system as the whole system just the same. You can't do that.
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Either you have one "body" or you account for every single molecule separately.

But this false dichotomy is absurd.

No. It is the same as what you are doing.
VernerHornung wrote:
Every atom in the solar system exerts a gravitational effect on every other atom in Newtonian mechanics, yet astronomers developing ephemerides for the planets' motions are required neither to treat the solar system as a single body nor to analyze every one of its molecules. Rather, they use a system of nine bodies, sun and planets, or if wanting more precision, include the larger moons, asteroids & minor planets.

No. They treat the solar system as a single body. You cannot ignore any single part of it.
VernerHornung wrote:
Engineers at GM likewise analyze auto engines as systems of discrete parts: block, pistons, radiator.

False equivalence. A block is not an engine or a car. A piston is not an engine or a car. A radiator is not an engine or a car. You can't treat any one of them like an engine or a car.
VernerHornung wrote:
They don't even treat the block as a uniform body

Yes they do.
VernerHornung wrote:
except insofar as it's all made of a single alloy;

WRONG. It is made of multiple materials, including aluminum alloy, steel, and brass.
VernerHornung wrote:
their models slice the block into thin layers or small cubical elements,

Models are random number generators. They do not tell you anything about the actual parts, the engine, or the car.
VernerHornung wrote:
each of which contains zillions of metal atoms but comprises a tiny portion of the block as a whole.

Nope. The block is treated as a whole. So is the engine. So is the car. They are different systems. You cannot compare different systems as if they were the same. False equivalence fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
They must do this to analyze heat flow through the block while the engine's running.

Nope. They just measure it.
VernerHornung wrote:
The cylinder walls are much hotter than the outside of the block, and they want to know where best to place the coolant channels that keep the device from seizing up on the road.

Around the piston wall. Duh. Do you have ANY idea how a cooling system works?
VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
They are not they are simply variance and the truth.

The term "margin of error" is meaningless anyway

WRONG. Margin of error is a required calculation for any statistical summary.
VernerHornung wrote:
and rarely used in science,

It is not used in science at all. It is used in math.
VernerHornung wrote:
which simply calls it "error."

WRONG. Science does not call it anything. It is not part of science at all. It is part of math.
VernerHornung wrote:
There are two kinds: statistical and systematic.

Buzzword fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
Error bars in documents report the statistical spread; in general, the bars are fixed so that 95% of the measurements lie between the bars.

There are no bars.
VernerHornung wrote:
But this "95% confidence interval" won't reveal systematic error.

Confidence is a mathematical term, not a science term. There is no such thing as 'confidence interval'.
VernerHornung wrote:
Say all your thermometer readings cluster together in a narrow range, but they're all about 10˚ too high.

How do you know? They are the only ones you have!
VernerHornung wrote:
You'll get a small error bar that makes the measurements look more accurate than they really are.

An error makes a measurement look more accurate??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
VernerHornung wrote:
Error bars

No such thing.
VernerHornung wrote:
are useful for determining how much your signal is affected by random noise,

No, this is done by mathematics again. Nothing to do with science.
VernerHornung wrote:
but they won't tell you whether your signal-detecting apparatus is miscalibrated,

Calibration tells you that.
VernerHornung wrote:
nor whether the assumptions that underpin your measurement method are valid.

They are valid as long as the instrument was calibrated.
VernerHornung wrote:
Gas thermometers, the gold standard for precise readings,

No. There is no 'gold standard' for thermometers.
VernerHornung wrote:
assume the nitrogen inside them will expand at constant pressure according to the ideal gas law, with a small correction term that allows for nitrogen's departure from ideal behavior.

You seem to be confusing instrument tolerance with margin of error. They are complete separate things. Neither is part of science. One is part of engineering, the other is part of mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2019 13:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:But what about when a body has matter leave it? Is that now a new body?
Yes it is. Very good.
So you're under the impression it seems that the universe is divided up into solids and that any space between them divides them automatically. What pray tell is the minimum amount of space between two molecules for there to be a necessary division between them where they are separate bodies that cannot be considered one? Doesn't this confuse you when it comes to gasses? I believe SPOT is fond of quoting you saying:
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.

I hate to break it to you but the entire solar system is "a body", as is the entire universe, it's "a body". You can't find one thing in the this universe not being pulled and pushed and heated by the whole rest of it. Where and how you subdivide things is an exercise in problem solving or based on your interest in them. There is no "correct" division between two things.

Into the Night wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
Yup. The Earth isn't in thermal equilibrium with the sun any more than my skillet was.

Both the Earth and the skillet are in equilibrium, even though temperatures may differ at different locations on them.
I think you're confused about what "Equilibrium" means there ITN. It means there is no change and it's a "break even" scenario (to use a business analogy). It is:
"a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced."
So the frying pan is definitely not in equilibrium as you don't buy them from the store red hot and you don't put them in the cupboard that way either. A frying pan's life is one of occasional equilibrium while on the shelf at home, for brief periods.
So again: THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM would mean that the temperature isn't changing

You are of course in no position to claim the Earth is in Equilibrium since you claim the temperature is unknown. So YOU don't know.

Into the Night wrote:
...you are trying to separate the Earth into parts again,...

As stated above seperating the Earth from the Moon, or either from the Solar system, an on and on, is not "correct". You're making up rules again.

Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using IR from Earth's surface.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
Easily reformatted as the also false statement: "No blanket has the capability to warm you using IR from your surface. * You can't create energy out of nothing." WRONG! ITN/IBD have no explanation for why planets have higher ground level temps then they would without gases. They pretend we don't know the temp of the Earth, Moon, Venus, Mercury or anything. YET they claim they know what is going on with no evidence at all.

Into the Night wrote:
They are valid as long as the instrument was calibrated.
Says the guy who has never accepted measurements of anything. Lies Lies Lies.

"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 ever valid for them
14-10-2019 19:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
tmiddles wrote: I hate to break it to you but the entire solar system is "a body",

It certainly can be. What is it you hate to break to me?

Look, this problem is also on your end. You don't understand modeling. You keep shifting goalposts by trying to shift between models. You don't get to shift models in the middle of an analysis *and* your model needs to support some argument.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
15-10-2019 00:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
Yup. The Earth isn't in thermal equilibrium with the sun any more than my skillet was.

Both the Earth and the skillet are in equilibrium, even though temperatures may differ at different locations on them.
I think you're confused about what "Equilibrium" means there ITN. It means there is no change and it's a "break even" scenario (to use a business analogy). It is:
"a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced."

And they are, even on a hot stove.
tmiddles wrote:
So the frying pan is definitely not in equilibrium as you don't buy them from the store red hot and you don't put them in the cupboard that way either.

It is in equilibrium in both cases.
tmiddles wrote:
A frying pan's life is one of occasional equilibrium while on the shelf at home, for brief periods.
So again: THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM would mean that the temperature isn't changing

It isn't.
tmiddles wrote:
You are of course in no position to claim the Earth is in Equilibrium since you claim the temperature is unknown. So YOU don't know.

Assuming the Sun's output hasn't changed, Earth is in equilibrium. I don't need to know the temperature of Earth.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't destroy energy into nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
...you are trying to separate the Earth into parts again,...

As stated above seperating the Earth from the Moon, or either from the Solar system, an on and on, is not "correct". You're making up rules again.

No, that would be you. There is no absolute boundary for a system. The boundary is what you set. You are finally agreeing with this. However:
1) Radiance is only from the top of the atmosphere.
2) Radiance is from walls inside a closed room.
Which is it, dude?
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using IR from Earth's surface.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
Easily reformatted as the also false statement: "No blanket has the capability to warm you using IR from your surface.

No, those are different statements. False equivalence fallacy. Also, blankets don't warm you. You are warm blooded. Your body temperature remains the same (as long as you don't exceed the limits of your body's regulatory systems).
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
* You can't create energy out of nothing."

WRONG! ITN/IBD have no explanation for why planets have higher ground level temps then they would without gases.

They don't.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
They pretend we don't know the temp of the Earth, Moon, Venus, Mercury or anything.

We don't.
tmiddles wrote:
YET they claim they know what is going on with no evidence at all.

Yes, because the laws of thermodynamics so far have not yet been falsified.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
They are valid as long as the instrument was calibrated.
Says the guy who has never accepted measurements of anything. Lies Lies Lies.

Lie. RDCF.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-10-2019 00:19
15-10-2019 01:20
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
Blankets, clothing, walls, a greenhouse... They all work the same way, they reduce convection. They don't warm or cool anything. CO2 and everything else in the atmosphere, are part of the convection. You if you want to get cool, you remove clothes, open windows, turn on fans.

The error, is in trying to treat the whole planet, as if the same thing is happening over the entire surface. It's not, on side is exposed to the sun, receiving energy, the other half is in shadow, and shedding energy. The planet is of sufficient size, that it does warm all the way through, doesn't even warm very deep at all. There is warming and cooling going on at the same time, from different halves of the planet. The cooling, is heat moving away from the surface, carried away. It's a one-way journey, until the sun rises again,
18-10-2019 15:56
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
IBdaMann wrote:...You keep shifting goalposts... your model needs to support some argument.
You like to pretend your hands are somehow tied, or that this is all figured out (or unknowable, one of the two) so there is no point in your offering any explanation for anything.

Why is the Earth warmer than the moon? It's not? Wait it's not knowable? It's a warmazombie conspiracy!

Venus is unknown! It's all unknown!

It's often easier to prove something is dead wrong that to prove it's correct.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman

Confirming that something is wrong is an important part of the process. Join in. Be useful. Prove this wrong don't just give up, cop out and waste everyone's time including your own.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Both the Earth and the skillet are in equilibrium,..
I think you're confused about what "Equilibrium" means there ITN. It means there is no change ..

And they are, even on a hot stove.
If that were always true you could never cook dinner could you? Not everything is always in equilibrium, in fact almost nothing ever truly is.

A watched pot never boils, especially if it's already in equilibrium.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
WRONG! ITN/IBD have no explanation for why planets have higher ground level temps then they would without gases.

They don't.
Just living in denial! Also totally inconsistent and hypocritical. If the temperature of a planet is unknown then you don't know do you? You're just a fraud.

Into the Night wrote:...the laws of thermodynamics...
ITN, if a student wanted to learn those laws how could they do that?

HarveyH55 wrote:
The error, is in trying to treat the whole planet, as if the same thing is happening over the entire surface.
Harvey do you believe that Venus is hotter than Mercury? Again, Mercury is much closer to the Sun but all the data we've collected, directly, shows that venus-is-hotter-than-mercury The "whole planet" as compared with the other "whole planet". And the "whole Earth" is considerably warmer, 30C, than the "whole moon", both the same distance from the Sun.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Blankets, clothing, walls, a greenhouse... They all work the same way, they reduce convection.
Now the moon, (we've been there, with thermometers), has it's convection completely reduced, to zero convection, and it's not warmer it's colder.


"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 ever valid for them
18-10-2019 16:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
tmiddles wrote: Why is the Earth warmer than the moon? It's not? Wait it's not knowable?

Wrong word.
Correct: "It is not known."
Correct: "Cannot be calculated to any usable accuracy."
Incorrect: "It is not knowable."

tmiddles wrote: Venus is unknown! It's all unknown!

tmiddles: "Everything that is unknown is KNOWN and is, in fact, 'what we know'."

tmiddles wrote: Confirming that something is wrong is an important part of the process.

Showing that something is false is the purpose of the scientific method.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-11-2019 13:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
IBdaMann wrote:
Showing that something is false is the purpose of the scientific method.

Yet you have never once, in 5 years, shown that ANYTHING is correct. That's not the scientific method. It's comparative. (ever here of a control group?).

Here's how it's done: You find the errors by comparing the work to work done properly. If you don't believe anything has ever been done right, well, you're kinda done and should find a new hobby.

"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 ever valid for them
01-11-2019 16:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Showing that something is false is the purpose of the scientific method.

Yet you have never once, in 5 years, shown that ANYTHING is correct.

There are two major problems with your assertion.

1) Nothing in science is ever confirmed or proven TRUE/"correct."

2) You have not researched the number of times I have used the word "correct" to refer to arguments that are "correct." If you had, you would be lying.

Have you actually researched my usage of the word "correct" and are you lying right now?

tmiddles wrote: That's not the scientific method.

Forgive me if I prefer to go with what I know.


tmiddles wrote: Here's how it's done:

I will gladly grade your work.

tmiddles wrote: You find the errors by comparing the work to work done properly.

When Newton proposed F=m*a, against which properly done work was his model compared in search of errors?

tmiddles wrote: If you don't believe anything has ever been done right, well, you're kinda done and should find a new hobby.

Incorrect. If there had already existed a "correct" model of F=m*a when Newton propsed it, nobody would have performed any comparison. Instead, everyone would have said "Dude, you're too late. That theory already exists."

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-11-2019 18:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Blankets, clothing, walls, a greenhouse... They all work the same way, they reduce convection. They don't warm or cool anything. CO2 and everything else in the atmosphere, are part of the convection. You if you want to get cool, you remove clothes, open windows, turn on fans.

The error, is in trying to treat the whole planet, as if the same thing is happening over the entire surface. It's not, on side is exposed to the sun, receiving energy, the other half is in shadow, and shedding energy. The planet is of sufficient size, that it does warm all the way through, doesn't even warm very deep at all. There is warming and cooling going on at the same time, from different halves of the planet. The cooling, is heat moving away from the surface, carried away. It's a one-way journey, until the sun rises again,


The error is not that.

It is treating two different thermodynamic systems as if they are the same system. This error that tmiddles is making is based on a goalpost fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
01-11-2019 18:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...You keep shifting goalposts... your model needs to support some argument.
You like to pretend your hands are somehow tied, or that this is all figured out (or unknowable, one of the two) so there is no point in your offering any explanation for anything.

RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Why is the Earth warmer than the moon?

Neither the temperature of Earth or of the moon is known.
tmiddles wrote:
It's not? Wait it's not knowable?

It's not knowable.
tmiddles wrote:
It's a warmazombie conspiracy!

It is not a conspiracy at all. It's simple mathematics.
tmiddles wrote:
Venus is unknown! It's all unknown!

Correct.
tmiddles wrote:
It's often easier to prove something is dead wrong that to prove it's correct.

True.
tmiddles wrote:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman

This is correct.
tmiddles wrote:
Confirming that something is wrong is an important part of the process. Join in. Be useful. Prove this wrong don't just give up, cop out and waste everyone's time including your own.

Already did. RQAA. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Both the Earth and the skillet are in equilibrium,..
I think you're confused about what "Equilibrium" means there ITN. It means there is no change ..

And they are, even on a hot stove.
If that were always true you could never cook dinner could you? Not everything is always in equilibrium, in fact almost nothing ever truly is.

A hot stove with a pan on it can be in equilibrium. There is no change.
tmiddles wrote:
A watched pot never boils, especially if it's already in equilibrium.

A boiling pot is not in equilibrium. Water is being converted to steam. When it's all gone, then the stove and pot will be in equilibrium.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
WRONG! ITN/IBD have no explanation for why planets have higher ground level temps then they would without gases.

They don't.
Just living in denial!

No. They simply don't.
tmiddles wrote:
Also totally inconsistent and hypocritical.

Not at all.
tmiddles wrote:
If the temperature of a planet is unknown then you don't know do you? You're just a fraud.

It is known, even thought the temperature of a planet is unknown. No gas or vapor is a source of energy that warms a surface.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...the laws of thermodynamics...
ITN, if a student wanted to learn those laws how could they do that?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The error, is in trying to treat the whole planet, as if the same thing is happening over the entire surface.
Harvey do you believe that Venus is hotter than Mercury? Again, Mercury is much closer to the Sun but all the data we've collected, directly, shows that venus-is-hotter-than-mercury The "whole planet" as compared with the other "whole planet". And the "whole Earth" is considerably warmer, 30C, than the "whole moon", both the same distance from the Sun.

The temperature of the Moon is unknown. The temperature of Earth is unknown. Their overall temperatures are similar due to their similar distance from the Sun, and vary only by the emissivity of either body, both of which are unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Blankets, clothing, walls, a greenhouse... They all work the same way, they reduce convection.
Now the moon, (we've been there, with thermometers), has it's convection completely reduced, to zero convection, and it's not warmer it's colder.

The temperature of the Moon is unknown. The temperature of Earth is unknown.


The Parrot Killer
01-11-2019 18:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Showing that something is false is the purpose of the scientific method.

Yet you have never once, in 5 years, shown that ANYTHING is correct. That's not the scientific method.

Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. It has no proofs. Science is about showing that a theory is false, not correct.
tmiddles wrote:
It's comparative. (ever here of a control group?).

Irrelevant.
tmiddles wrote:
Here's how it's done: You find the errors by comparing the work to work done properly.

How do you know the 'work is done properly'?
tmiddles wrote:
If you don't believe anything has ever been done right, well, you're kinda done and should find a new hobby.

You are attempting to redefine science as religion. There are no proofs in science. It does not show what is true. It does not use supporting evidence at all. You have the theory itself for that, and that is all you need. Science only uses conflicting evidence.

Only religions use supporting evidence.

Religion is not science. Science is not religion. Redefinition fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
02-11-2019 12:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
IBdaMann wrote:
1) Nothing in science is ever confirmed or proven TRUE/"correct."
Things are confirmed all the time. You just can't ever be completely certain. You statement is basically false practically speaking.

IBdaMann wrote:
2) You have not researched the number of times I have used the word "correct"
You want to play hide the ball, you're playing with yourself. I looked, you got nothing.

IBdaMann wrote:
When Newton proposed F=m*a, against which properly done work was his model compared in search of errors?

What work did Newton do in developing it? Do you know how he worked?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: If you don't believe anything has ever been done right, well, you're kinda done and should find a new hobby.

Incorrect. If there had already existed a "correct" model of F=m*a
Ah more dumb games deliberately misconstruing things. The METHOD can be compared. But again do you know how Newton worked? Were experiments done?

Into the Night wrote:treating two different thermodynamic systems as if they are the same system. This error that tmiddles is making is based on a goalpost fallacy.
No it's looking at the parts of a system. Depending on the discussion we'd even include the liquid of the Ocean as a apart interacting with the other parts of Earth. But you're just silent as usual on the PROPER METHOD. But no one is stopping you from laying it out.

Into the Night wrote:
The temperature of the Moon is unknown. The temperature of Earth is unknown. Their overall temperatures are similar due to their similar distance from the Sun, and vary only by the emissivity of either body,

How do you know they are similar if they are unknown?

Into the Night wrote:Science only uses conflicting evidence.
Only religions use supporting evidence.
And an example of scientific work done well? Anything? Something in thermodynamics perhaps?


"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 ever valid for them
03-11-2019 19:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
1) Nothing in science is ever confirmed or proven TRUE/"correct."
Things are confirmed all the time.

No, they aren't. Science does not use supporting evidence at all. It is not possible to confirm any theory.
tmiddles wrote:
You just can't ever be completely certain.
Then it's not confirmed.
tmiddles wrote:
You statement is basically false practically speaking.
No, you are making another paradox. Irrational.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
When Newton proposed F=m*a, against which properly done work was his model compared in search of errors?

What work did Newton do in developing it? Do you know how he worked?

Go look at the history of that law. It's a rather fascinating examination of the way Newton worked and how he arrived at this theory and how he tested it. I know you won't though.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: If you don't believe anything has ever been done right, well, you're kinda done and should find a new hobby.

Incorrect. If there had already existed a "correct" model of F=m*a
Ah more dumb games deliberately misconstruing things. The METHOD can be compared.
Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'. It's just the falsifiable theories themselves.
tmiddles wrote:
But again do you know how Newton worked? Were experiments done?

Yes to both questions. It is too long to discuss here. Go find it out yourself. Yes...that means homework for you.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:treating two different thermodynamic systems as if they are the same system. This error that tmiddles is making is based on a goalpost fallacy.
No it's looking at the parts of a system.
No, it's a goalpost fallacy. You cannot compare two systems as if they were the same system.
tmiddles wrote:
Depending on the discussion we'd even include the liquid of the Ocean as a apart interacting with the other parts of Earth.
You still cannot compare two systems as the same system.
tmiddles wrote:
But you're just silent as usual on the PROPER METHOD.
Science isn't a 'method'.
tmiddles wrote:
But no one is stopping you from laying it out.
There is no method. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The temperature of the Moon is unknown. The temperature of Earth is unknown. Their overall temperatures are similar due to their similar distance from the Sun, and vary only by the emissivity of either body,

How do you know they are similar if they are unknown?
RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Science only uses conflicting evidence.
Only religions use supporting evidence.
And an example of scientific work done well? Anything? Something in thermodynamics perhaps?

RQAA. Science isn't 'work'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


The Parrot Killer
06-11-2019 23:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
You obviously don't know anything about Newton or you'd cite it.

Into the Night wrote:...Science isn't a 'method'....Science isn't 'work'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
It is called the "Scientific Method" for a reason. And it is most certainly work. Your definition of science has long since been debunked:
Google: 7 results, pretty much just you

"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 ever valid for them
06-11-2019 23:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
You obviously don't know anything about Newton or you'd cite it.

Already did. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...Science isn't a 'method'....Science isn't 'work'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
It is called the "Scientific Method" for a reason.

Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'.
tmiddles wrote:
And it is most certainly work.

Nope. Just a set of falsifiable theories.
tmiddles wrote:
Your definition of science has long since been debunked:

Not my definition, and it has not been debunked. RDCF.


The Parrot Killer
08-11-2019 12:50
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Your definition of science has long since been debunked:

Not my definition, and it has not been debunked. RDCF.

OK where'd you get it? God speak to you? Your Mom? A man on the street in your ITN/IBD oral tradition of learning physics?

I know you can never cite anything published.

Where?

"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 ever valid for them
08-11-2019 19:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Your definition of science has long since been debunked:

Not my definition, and it has not been debunked. RDCF.

OK where'd you get it? God speak to you? Your Mom? A man on the street in your ITN/IBD oral tradition of learning physics?

I know you can never cite anything published.

Where?


You've already been told. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Migrations induced by extreme climatic events:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Understanding aspects of human induced climate changes through belief823-08-2019 16:33
IPCC sucks. They have no answer for natural climatic cooling other than painting houses black to decrease019-04-2019 16:32
Extreme weather news may not change climate change skeptics' minds027-03-2019 15:47
Potential Effects of Broadcast Induced REP on Climate Change29906-03-2019 18:50
Important space and weather related events of 2018!1008-11-2018 00:43
Articles
Appendix B - Calculating The Economic Costs of Extreme Weather Events
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact