Remember me
▼ Content

Percentages



Page 4 of 4<<<234
23-05-2020 03:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I don't believe you.

Into the Night wrote:
You deny both physics and chemistry.

Into the Night wrote:
I don't believe you. You deny chemistry.

Into the Night wrote:
You already said this. I still don't believe you.

Into the Night wrote:
You already said this. I still don't believe you.

Into the Night wrote:
Define 'reality'. You deny physics.


Your profile picture is pretty fitting after all. Although I *have* met parrots with a more complex vocabulary.

Of course you don't believe me. Believing me would force you to accept that maybe your understanding of physics and chemistry is bullshit after all and your mind is clearly not capable of self-doubt.

The equations are clear. You keep trying to ignore them or change them. Mantras 1...5...7...12...20e1...

No argument presented. Insult fallacies. Strawman fallacies. Bulverism. Denial of science.


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
23-05-2020 03:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote:I understand perfectly well that the data is usable.

Too funny! You don't understand anything about data.

.

I don't think he's speaking of data, but rather, he's speaking of THE Data.

Yo!!! Hey there!!! Yes, I am speaking to you, Mr. Set of Falsifiable Models that Predict Nature... There's a NEW sheriff in town NOW, and his name is THE Data!!!!

BOW DOWN Data RULES!!!


According to The Manual:

The Data: proper noun
According to Global Warming mythology, The Data is the rumored proof of Global Warming, the mere mention of which has the magical superpower to end all debate on questions of Global Warming faith. Note: Often Climate Scientists fabricate data and claim that it comes from The Data. As long as the fabricated/cooked/tweaked/modified/fudged/altered/fiddled data support the truth of Climate Science then it is the Climate Scientists' duty to present that data. This duty is analogous to Taqiya in Islam.




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
26-05-2020 00:00
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
The "true" value of any measurement is pretty much by definition unknowable.

There is no such thing as a 'true value'. There is only the measured value.

You don't really get this whole "quote-unquote" thing, do you? I'm not surprised.
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
Let's say you want to find out how many sodium ions there are in a package of table salt.

Did you know that chemists do this kind of thing all the time?

And do *you* know that they have not once been accurate down to the last ion?
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
I hope you'll agree with me that the answer to that question is a very large but finite number.
Can we ever know the *exact* number? Of course not.

Close enough for Avogadro.

Close enough is not exact.
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
But we can approximate it to an arbitrary precision by making more and more precise measurements of weight, atomic mass, isotope distribution and so on.

I guess you don't know what a 'mole' is, do you? It makes such calculations so much easier.

And I guess you don't know what atomic masses, weights and isotope distribution have to do with moles.
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
With those values we can take the total weight of the amount of sodium chloride and divide that by the sum of the (average) atomic masses of sodium and chloride.

Nah. Chemists use moles and usually grams. It make such calculations and measurements so much easier.

Moles and grams are exactly made up of those values.
The total weight is grams (or a fraction thereof) and molar weights are based on atomic weights of all naturally occurring isotopes of the element, weighted by their relative natural abundances. But I guess that is all new to you.
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
So somewhere in between a single buoy and covering every square centimeter with thermometers must be an optimal tradeoff between practicality and accuracy.
Where that optimum is, I don't know. I'm not an oceanographer.

All statistical summaries require the publication of the margin of error value. You must also declare and justify the variance used, and declare and justify the method of data collection as unbiased.

Let's assume I did all that. What will I have determined then?
26-05-2020 01:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
JackFou wrote:...deleted Mantra 39p...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
26-05-2020 02:48
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:Let's say you want to find out how many sodium ions there are in a package of table salt.
Did you know that chemists do this kind of thing all the time?
And do *you* know that they have not once been accurate down to the last ion?

So ITN you were kind enough to provide an example of your work and I've been meaning to ask a bit more. This seems like the perfect discussion to address it. From: link
Into the Night wrote:...a typical paper mill will include my instrumentation readings to calculate how much chemical they actually used....data sets are valid for the purposes they are used for.

This would be a single instrument measuring in a single location for a volume of liquid correct? The results not being the "true value" (because that's impossibly precise) but a use-able approximation?
26-05-2020 06:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote:The results not being the "true value" (because that's impossibly precise) but a use-able approximation?

Is there anything wrong with acknowledging the accuracy and precision of the instrumentation as an upper limit and establishing that as your baseline for discussion?

That would give you many molecules of leeway and make it possible to proceed forward in a manner acceptable to everyone.

.


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
26-05-2020 14:09
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:The results not being the "true value" (because that's impossibly precise) but a use-able approximation?

Is there anything wrong with acknowledging the accuracy and precision of the instrumentation as an upper limit and establishing that as your baseline for discussion?

That would give you many molecules of leeway and make it possible to proceed forward in a manner acceptable to everyone.

Yes of course. Also we aren't actually trying to bleach paper but simply put an example of applied use of our science and technology in measurement on the table.

You never know exactly and you usually have some idea when you measure anything.

Saying "You can't measure it" doesn't describe it well.

We should talk about what this looks like in the real world, how it applies to determining a planet wide temperature, how other applications differ and why.
26-05-2020 17:22
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1325)
Into the Night wrote:
According to The Manual:

The Data: proper noun
According to Global Warming mythology, The Data is the rumored proof of Global Warming, the mere mention of which has the magical superpower to end all debate on questions of Global Warming faith. Note: Often Climate Scientists fabricate data and claim that it comes from The Data. As long as the fabricated/cooked/tweaked/modified/fudged/altered/fiddled data support the truth of Climate Science then it is the Climate Scientists' duty to present that data. This duty is analogous to Taqiya in Islam.


Such a beautifully worded definition. It is precisely what these twits are doing, as our friend JackFou is a perfect QED of...
27-05-2020 04:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:Let's say you want to find out how many sodium ions there are in a package of table salt.
Did you know that chemists do this kind of thing all the time?
And do *you* know that they have not once been accurate down to the last ion?

So ITN you were kind enough to provide an example of your work and I've been meaning to ask a bit more. This seems like the perfect discussion to address it. From: link
Into the Night wrote:...a typical paper mill will include my instrumentation readings to calculate how much chemical they actually used....data sets are valid for the purposes they are used for.

This would be a single instrument measuring in a single location for a volume of liquid correct? The results not being the "true value" (because that's impossibly precise) but a use-able approximation?

The true value is the measured value. There is no other.
No, measurements are taken throughout the process.


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
27-05-2020 04:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:The results not being the "true value" (because that's impossibly precise) but a use-able approximation?

Is there anything wrong with acknowledging the accuracy and precision of the instrumentation as an upper limit and establishing that as your baseline for discussion?

That would give you many molecules of leeway and make it possible to proceed forward in a manner acceptable to everyone.

Yes of course. Also we aren't actually trying to bleach paper but simply put an example of applied use of our science and technology in measurement on the table.

Application does not void theories of science or void mathematics. Mantra 20m.
tmiddles wrote:
You never know exactly and you usually have some idea when you measure anything.

Tolerance is not margin of error. Mantra 10...25c1...
tmiddles wrote:
Saying "You can't measure it" doesn't describe it well.

It describes your claim perfectly. You cannot measure the temperature of the Earth. You cannot measure the global content of atmospheric CO2. You cannot measure the global sea lefvel. You cannot measure the total snow and ice content on Earth. You cannot measure the number and intensity of storms on Earth. You cannot measure the emissivity of Earth. You cannot measure the emissivity of Venus. You cannot measure the temperature of Venus.

You keep trying to claim values for all of these. Such values are random numbers of type randU. You cannot measure them.
tmiddles wrote:
We should talk about what this looks like in the real world, how it applies to determining a planet wide temperature, how other applications differ and why.

It doesn't apply at all. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-05-2020 22:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
Into the Night wrote:
The true value is the measured value. There is no other.
So if a defective instrument takes a reading that is way off you consider that to be the "true value" of the subject measured? In this case a volume of liquid has a concentration of a chemical and an instrument takes a measurement from a single point within that volume. That about right?

Into the Night wrote:You cannot measure the global content of atmospheric CO2.
But you can measure the concentration of a chemical in a volume of liquid. What's the difference?

You said this very confidently:
Into the Night wrote:The Venusian atmosphere is almost all CO2.
from the DATA MINE
28-05-2020 00:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted 29...29...4c...29...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
29-05-2020 06:49
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:You cannot measure the global content of atmospheric CO2.
But you can measure the concentration of a chemical in a volume of liquid. What's the difference?
Come on ITN. A single instrument you built is measuring the concentration in a large volume and the information is usable as you've described it. How is that different than measuring CO2 in the volume of gas that is our atmosphere?
29-05-2020 06:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:You cannot measure the global content of atmospheric CO2.
But you can measure the concentration of a chemical in a volume of liquid. What's the difference?
Come on ITN. A single instrument you built is measuring the concentration in a large volume and the information is usable as you've described it. How is that different than measuring CO2 in the volume of gas that is our atmosphere?


Lie. I never said the information was usable. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 29-05-2020 06:52
03-06-2020 14:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:You cannot measure the global content of atmospheric CO2.
But you can measure the concentration of a chemical in a volume of liquid. What's the difference?
Come on ITN. A single instrument you built is measuring the concentration in a large volume and the information is usable as you've described it. How is that different than measuring CO2 in the volume of gas that is our atmosphere?


Lie. I never said the information was usable. RQAA.

What??
Into the Night wrote:...a typical paper mill will include my instrumentation readings to calculate how much chemical they actually used....data sets are valid for the purposes they are used for.


so the data sets are valid for the purpose they are used for but they are not usable?????
03-06-2020 21:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:You cannot measure the global content of atmospheric CO2.
But you can measure the concentration of a chemical in a volume of liquid. What's the difference?
Come on ITN. A single instrument you built is measuring the concentration in a large volume and the information is usable as you've described it. How is that different than measuring CO2 in the volume of gas that is our atmosphere?


Lie. I never said the information was usable. RQAA.

What??
Into the Night wrote:...a typical paper mill will include my instrumentation readings to calculate how much chemical they actually used....data sets are valid for the purposes they are used for.


so the data sets are valid for the purpose they are used for but they are not usable?????

RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
04-06-2020 10:32
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
so the data sets are valid for the purpose they are used for but they are not usable?????

RQAA.
Not at all.

You are here ducking a simple clarification about what you do for a living.

Talk about a commitment to not debating.
04-06-2020 20:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
so the data sets are valid for the purpose they are used for but they are not usable?????

RQAA.
Not at all.

You are here ducking a simple clarification about what you do for a living.

Talk about a commitment to not debating.

RQAA. Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
04-06-2020 22:36
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
Into the Night wrote:
RQAA.
Are the measurements your own customer makes with your instrument "usable"?
05-06-2020 00:38
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1325)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
RQAA.
Are the measurements your own customer makes with your instrument "usable"?

Which "instrument" are you referring to? A thermometer?

What "measurement" are you referring to? The temperature of a precise location of a thermometer? The temperature of a volume that a thermometer happens to be located somewhere within?
05-06-2020 04:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
RQAA.
Are the measurements your own customer makes with your instrument "usable"?

RQAA


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
05-06-2020 14:12
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
RQAA.
Are the measurements your own customer makes with your instrument "usable"?

Which "instrument" are you referring to? A thermometer?

What "measurement" are you referring to? The temperature of a precise location of a thermometer? The temperature of a volume that a thermometer happens to be located somewhere within?


See here GFM:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Has anyone ever successfully employed one of your instruments to compose a "valid data set"? If so would you please share one.
...a typical paper mill will include my instrumentation readings to calculate how much chemical they actually used in the process vs how effective it was to bleach the paper to a certain whiteness in their internal reports, which help them determine the chemicals and wood they need to buy....data sets are valid for the purposes they are used for.

My presumption was that this was an instrument submerged in a liquid that paper was being passed through and that it's not a thermometer but something ITN would be able to describe if he chose to. ITN is a bit tight lipped though as you can see so extracting how this data is usable and knowable doesn't look like it will happen.

As you are aware GFM I have tried many times to get a "good" example of things being done "usefully"/"properly"/"validly" to no avail. NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN!

Not even a clue about the temperature of your own home. Sigh.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
05-06-2020 17:32
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1325)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
RQAA.
Are the measurements your own customer makes with your instrument "usable"?

Which "instrument" are you referring to? A thermometer?

What "measurement" are you referring to? The temperature of a precise location of a thermometer? The temperature of a volume that a thermometer happens to be located somewhere within?


See here GFM:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Has anyone ever successfully employed one of your instruments to compose a "valid data set"? If so would you please share one.
...a typical paper mill will include my instrumentation readings to calculate how much chemical they actually used in the process vs how effective it was to bleach the paper to a certain whiteness in their internal reports, which help them determine the chemicals and wood they need to buy....data sets are valid for the purposes they are used for.

My presumption was that this was an instrument submerged in a liquid that paper was being passed through and that it's not a thermometer but something ITN would be able to describe if he chose to. ITN is a bit tight lipped though as you can see so extracting how this data is usable and knowable doesn't look like it will happen.

Looks like he already answered your question to me...

tmiddles wrote:
As you are aware GFM I have tried many times to get a "good" example of things being done "usefully"/"properly"/"validly" to no avail. NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN!

RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:
Not even a clue about the temperature of your own home. Sigh.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN

RQAA.
05-06-2020 22:31
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
gfm7175 wrote:
Looks like he already answered your question to me...
Oh did he do that here?:

Into the Night wrote:
...a typical paper mill will include my instrumentation...data sets are valid for the purposes they are used for.
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote: A single instrument you built is measuring the concentration in a large volume and the information is usable...
Lie. I never said the information was usable. RQAA.

That crystal clear for you GFM? If so you want to help me out because it I read that as double talk. ITN, talking about his own instrument, says it's valid for what it's used for and then denies that he said it's usable. Then says RQAA as usual.
05-06-2020 22:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Looks like he already answered your question to me...
Oh did he do that here?:

Into the Night wrote:
...a typical paper mill will include my instrumentation...data sets are valid for the purposes they are used for.
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote: A single instrument you built is measuring the concentration in a large volume and the information is usable...
Lie. I never said the information was usable. RQAA.

That crystal clear for you GFM? If so you want to help me out because it I read that as double talk. ITN, talking about his own instrument, says it's valid for what it's used for and then denies that he said it's usable. Then says RQAA as usual.

Lie. Mantra 30.


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
Page 4 of 4<<<234





Join the debate Percentages:

Remember me

▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact