Remember me
▼ Content

Percentages



Page 3 of 4<1234>
21-05-2020 02:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7294)
JackFou wrote: The CO2 readings there are going to be much higher than the average atmospheric CO2 levels, perhaps several times as high.
Only if you're downwind from the volcano.[/quote]
... which is a guarantee for everyone if wind direction changes ... which it does.

Thank you for helping round out that point.

JackFou wrote: Any changes of more than a fraction of a ppm from one hour to the next is a clear sign of something being off.

I'll let you in on a little secret. Fudged numbers and cooked books are clear signs of something being off.

But of course Mauna Loa isn't the only place on the planet where people measure atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

JackFou wrote: Nearby vegetation will also affect your readings if you try to measure atmospheric CO2.

@ Into the Night, is CO2 measuring equipment affected by nearby vegetation?

.


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
21-05-2020 02:57
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Follow along here ITN.

Follow along here, riddles ...

You say that the street lights installed by the city had NO effect on the city's elephant infestation.
OK I do like "riddles"!

Exactly! I get your point (my favorite rendition being the Bear Patrol in Springfield on the Simpsons).

So if, when faced with the specious logic you provided in your example, someones advice was that "Really we have more street lights than are needed because the Elephant levels are low!" it certainly included the belief that street lights ward of Elephants.

ITN first says there is nothing we can do.

He then says we don't need to do so much because the problem isn't a big one.

It is either stupid or insincere to make both statements.

IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Current level = 416 ppm
...why should any rational person believe the numbers you posted?
ITN posted it his Data Mine and you accepted it:
"The Data Mine"
Into the Night wrote:
....I have already presented the data from Mauna Loa. This is the form and support I would expect of any data. Use that as a 'form guide' if you wish, remembering the rules I set up.


I say again: INTO THE NIGHT posted that data as a model and you had ample time and opportunity to point out his error at that time if you saw one. ITN went on to use the data to make arguments against other posters. So I call BS on you both.

If anyone doubts what I'm saying please follow the link: The Data Mine

Into the Night wrote:
Not everyone reacted as stupidly as governors in the United States.
Let me guess the Trump administration did this perfectly in your opininion?

gfm7175 wrote:
Random number. How do you figure 0.04%? Remember, you are speaking of the WHOLE atmosphere.
No we aren't gfm we are concerned with the bottom of the atmosphere. You can determine the composition of gases in air you know. Do you doubt that? ITN can even tell you the composition of gases on Venus:
Into the Night wrote:The Venusian atmosphere is almost all CO2.
from the DATA MINE

So tell me GFM do you have "no clue" what the gas composition of the bottom of our atmosphere is? I mean you have said:
gfm7175 wrote:
I have no clue what the temperature of my house is.
So it would be consistent. I see you're asking a lot of elementary basic question. This is clearly an attempt to sand bag and waste time. Look it up yourself and make an actual argument.


"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
21-05-2020 03:11
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: The CO2 readings there are going to be much higher than the average atmospheric CO2 levels, perhaps several times as high.
Only if you're downwind from the volcano.

... which is a guarantee for everyone if wind direction changes ... which it does.

So they can't use the raw data because the nearby volcano might mess up the values if the wind blows the wrong way but they also cannot correct for the falsifying influence of the volcano when the wind blows the wrong way because of... some reason...
Where *should* they put their measurement station(s), according to you, to avoid all unwanted influences from the environment such that the "raw data" is *directly* useful for determining atmospheric CO2 concentrations? I'm sure the people running the measurements would be over the moon to learn which location is just *so perfect* that no one could possibly question the readings from that location.
Or is the atmospheric CO2 concentration just another of those quantities like average global temperature that we're unfortunately doomed to never know because no real-world measurement will ever be adequate?

IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote: Any changes of more than a fraction of a ppm from one hour to the next is a clear sign of something being off.

I'll let you in on a little secret. Fudged numbers and cooked books are clear signs of something being off.

Correcting for known biases in the data isn't fudging numbers. Are you one of those guys who just blindly trusts any reading off of a measurement device? The people aboard the Star Dust want a word with you... oh wait... they're dead because of an instrument error.

IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote: Nearby vegetation will also affect your readings if you try to measure atmospheric CO2.

@ Into the Night, is CO2 measuring equipment affected by nearby vegetation?

What?
The equipment doesn't care. Vegetation just affects the CO2 concentrations locally. Have you heard of photosynthesis?
Edited on 21-05-2020 03:26
21-05-2020 08:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote: The CO2 readings there are going to be much higher than the average atmospheric CO2 levels, perhaps several times as high.
Only if you're downwind from the volcano.

... which is a guarantee for everyone if wind direction changes ... which it does.

Thank you for helping round out that point.

JackFou wrote: Any changes of more than a fraction of a ppm from one hour to the next is a clear sign of something being off.

I'll let you in on a little secret. Fudged numbers and cooked books are clear signs of something being off.

But of course Mauna Loa isn't the only place on the planet where people measure atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

JackFou wrote: Nearby vegetation will also affect your readings if you try to measure atmospheric CO2.

@ Into the Night, is CO2 measuring equipment affected by nearby vegetation?

.[/quote]
Yes. Although there is little vegetation at the station itself, there are some succulents that grow there, and of course the thick vegetation of the lower elevations is nearby. The nearby ocean also contains CO2 that absorbs and vents a bit different depending on the weather at that moment. Further, there are numerous nearby volcanoes venting varying amounts of CO2, and the nearby Loihi seamount puts out a wide variation of CO2 which may easily be carried westward by the trade winds, which do not blow all the time at the same speed (and which may not blow at all during the Kona winds, a reversal in the normal airflow over the islands).

Varying rains may also affect CO2 in the air, since CO2 may dissolve in the rain water (part of the reason rain is naturally acidic).


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
21-05-2020 08:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 30...30...1...7...4c...30...4a...TDS...20h..25g...30...29...29...4d...17...


No argument presented. Math errors. Denial of science. TDS. 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
21-05-2020 08:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
JackFou wrote:
...deleted Mantras 25g...25c..25d...25e...29...29...
Correcting for known biases in the data isn't fudging numbers.
...deleted Mantras 25j...25e...25c...25d...25f...20h...20o...


Yes it is. You cannot use cooked numbers in a statistical analysis. The analysis hasn't been run yet. You can only use raw data. Biasing influences must be removed from the method of collecting the raw data, and the method and time of collection must be known and published.

Cooking the data (or 'adjusting' the data) is just turning it into random numbers of type randU. Useless.

Manta 25g...25e...


No argument presented. Math error. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
21-05-2020 09:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
Into the Night wrote:...You can only use raw data.....
Care to provide an example?

This is the game you play:
1- You claim that those how have done the analysis are incompetent or frauds
2- You ask for the "raw data" they used knowing there is no reason to publish it online an it's not available

It's simply a technique designed to end debate and claim that nothing can be know.

YOU, yes YOU, ITN presented the Mauna Loa data:
ITN posted this in the Data Mine 4 years ago, excerpts below.
Into the Night wrote:
Data collection began in 1958....

IBD accepted the data as useful/valid/legit as it was presented.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I have already presented the data from Mauna Loa. This is the form and support I would expect of any data....
...I was wondering if you had any suggestion on acquiring global humidity and atmospheric water vapor data...

ITN you go on to use the data in your arguments and conclusions:
Into the Night wrote:
trafn wrote:...2. To you, how does this data impact questions concerning GHG's...
I also posted another set of data (...does not allow me to post the actual plots...) concerning the temperature ...near Seattle...I see no correlation with the temperatures in Seattle to the increase of carbon dioxide. I have examined charts...As far as I have been able to determine, there is no effective correlation between the two at all.
Into the Night wrote:
climate scientist wrote:...Just because you do not see a correlation ...does not mean that they are not linked.
Actually, yes it does. It exactly means they are not linked.

IBD posted some data and you certainly sound as though you are referring back to your own Moana Loa data as "reliable and verifiable data"..
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
For example:...data...
10/21/2300Z 82.926°N 85.428°W -24.1°C 1001.7mb...
10/21/2200Z 82.926°N 85.428°W -23.7°C 1001.6mb
....Thank you for providing another source of reliable and verifiable data.

You indicate that the government has collected "reilable data":.
Into the Night wrote:Reliable data goes back to 1944 when we first started flying aircraft into hurricanes.

You use this data you consider reliable to make arguments again:
Into the Night wrote:As you can see, by any measure, hurricane activity seems to have NO correlation with either CO2 concentration, temperature...

You make a claim very similar to my own here, in insisting that data is available so let's proceed with a debate:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
What is the source of your data?

IBdaMann wrote:
My source is terrible. If you don't accept it, I'll understand. I grabbed the first datums I encountered.

Surface Detail wrote:
Just provide a link to the source of your data, please.

You have the data in both Atlantic and Pacific basins. You no longer have an excuse to evade the conversation. Stop calling people names and proceed with your discussion.....You have been EVADING a sensible conversation by ...demanding data to be formatted in a particular way...Start having a discussion about the meaning of the data you have!

At no point do you seem to lose confidence in the Moana Loa chart, saying toward the end of the thread:
Into the Night wrote:
You might also note that a lot of data that conformed to the rules has been presented other than the individual station data. The Mauna Loa data, for example, has been presented in a form that completely follows the rules set up for the data mine.


And you both pretend that this is not raw data from the Russians:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
Post the raw data.

That chart ... is a chart! It's not data.

You are frauds.

"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
21-05-2020 10:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7294)
tmiddles wrote: You are frauds.

You are a liar and probably a sociopath.

.


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
21-05-2020 10:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...You can only use raw data.....
Care to provide an example?

RQAA. Mantra 29.
tmiddles wrote:
This is the game you play:
1- You claim that those how have done the analysis are incompetent or frauds

Lie. No one has done the analysis.
tmiddles wrote:
2- You ask for the "raw data" they used knowing there is no reason to publish it online an it's not available

It is a requirement of any statistical analysis to publish the raw data. No one said anything about it being online.
tmiddles wrote:
It's simply a technique designed to end debate and claim that nothing can be know.

Lie. Compositional error fallacy. Mantra 9a.
tmiddles wrote:
YOU, yes YOU, ITN presented the Mauna Loa data:

No. Mauna Loa presented the Mauna Loa data. I simply acknowledge the 'data' is published by the Mauna Loa observatory. That's the only thing the Data Mine does. It does not bless or sanctify any data.

The Muana Loa observatory, however, has been cooking their data. It is just random numbers. It is also not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. There are not enough stations. CO2 is no uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. You can't use the Muana Loa data because they've cooked it. Cooked data cannot be used in a statistical summary.
tmiddles wrote:
And you both pretend that this is not raw data from the Russians:

It is unknown. The Russians could simply be lying. We don't know.


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
21-05-2020 12:44
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
...deleted Mantras 25g...25c..25d...25e...29...29...
Correcting for known biases in the data isn't fudging numbers.
...deleted Mantras 25j...25e...25c...25d...25f...20h...20o...


Yes it is. You cannot use cooked numbers in a statistical analysis. The analysis hasn't been run yet. You can only use raw data. Biasing influences must be removed from the method of collecting the raw data, and the method and time of collection must be known and published.

So how and where should they measure atmospheric CO2 then according to you? Which site and method are so perfect that no biasing influences exist?

Into the Night wrote:
Cooking the data (or 'adjusting' the data) is just turning it into random numbers of type randU. Useless.

You need to explain how removing a few hourly data points from a decades long measurement series somehow invalidates all the remaining data that was not affected.

Also, according to you, is background correction also a method of "fudging" the data?
Or is it only fudging if I apply background correction *after* the measurement?
Edited on 21-05-2020 13:14
21-05-2020 13:09
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...You can only use raw data.....
Care to provide an example?

This is the game you play:
1- You claim that those how have done the analysis are incompetent or frauds
2- You ask for the "raw data" they used knowing there is no reason to publish it online an it's not available

It's simply a technique designed to end debate and claim that nothing can be know.


Just for the record, in the case of Mauna Loa both the raw data, including flags which indicate likely problems with the quality for each data point when relevant, and the method of collection as well as the methodology for flagging the data for quality control are all publicly available.

He's in fact trying to claim that the data must be perfectly usable and 100% free of errors at the instance of measurement. Even a single faulty data point invalidates the whole dataset, apparently (because otherwise the remaining data would still be usable after removal of faulty data points).

I would really like to see him try and work as an actual scientist or measurement engineer for a couple of weeks. I'm sure his supervisor will be delighted when he comes in, day after day, to inform his supervisor that again, he had to toss out all data collected that day because someone near him sneezed during the measurement or something.
21-05-2020 13:21
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
It is also not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. There are not enough stations.


Isn't that convenient. It just so happens that *all* of the quantities like atmospheric CO2 concentration and average global temperature that are relevant for determining changes in climate on a global scale are unknowable.
That way you can just dismiss any claim you wish by asserting that the measurements done to gather data to back up that claim aren't just *quite* perfect and therefore you'll just dismiss them outright.
Really, just *terribly* convenient for you.
Edited on 21-05-2020 13:22
21-05-2020 15:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7294)
JackFou wrote: Isn't that convenient. It just so happens that *all* of the quantities like atmospheric CO2 concentration and average global temperature that are relevant for determining changes in climate on a global scale are unknowable.

Well isn't that convenient ... you are just as omniscient as tmiddles! It must be nice knowing everything. You have to forgive those of us who happen to be mere mortals; the exact answers don't just come to us. We depend on valid datasets and other observations in order to know things.

But there is one thing that confuses me. If you just know absolutely everything, why are you such a moron in all other aspects? Why is it you don't know even the basic fundamentals of science? Why don't you understand the mathematical requirements for the data about which you keep asking? Why weren't you aware that you weren't going to fool anyone into thinking you were a "scientist"?

Also, why is it you haven't been able to put forward a single reason a rational person should believe your WACKY cult dogma? I was right, wasn't I? You don't really believe it yourself, do you? How could anybody possibly believe in so many physics violations all rolled into one nice, neat, incomprehensibe package? You'd have to be total dumbass, wouldn't you?

So, are you playing a joke on everyone? Why are you pretending to believe in Climate Almighty anyway? Why the need to make us think you know things that only an omniscient god would know? Why the need to pout like a baby at the mere recognition that you are a loser? Has that method worked for you in the past? Was there some indication that it would work for you here?

... so while we're on the subject, would you like to amend your statement and freely admit that you dropped out of highschool and that bending over for tmiddles is about the best "position" you can expect to get at this point?

I really need to talk to Into the Night about getting another fallacy listed: Omniscience Delusion, i.e. the simply inexplicable belief that the unknowable is precisely "what we know" and that the reason for believing that "we know" is because knowledge apparently "just pops into my mind." How many rational people do you honestly believe are going to buy that? ... I mean besides me, of course; you know that I'm on your side in all this. Of course you know absolutely everything, .. because we have the internet and it's ON THERE!

I'll tell you what, let me pull Into the Night aside and explain to him that his obsession with statistical validity crosses the line and that we're just not going to tolerate it here. I mean, after all, we have a planet to save for Christ's sake. He can't be standing in the way of humanity's "first responders." If he's not going to get out of the Justice League's way then he's going to get bowled over, let me tell you.

Let me talk to him and you can bet he'll be singing a different tune come nightfall.

Really. Truly. Honestly.

I'm still laughing about how you must have been exerting effort to keep a straight face when you posted that you were a highly paid "research scientist." You did catch me off guard when I read that. That was a good one.


.


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
21-05-2020 21:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
JackFou wrote:...deleted Mantras...29...29...29...29...29...25e...


No argument presented. Assumption of bad math. 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
21-05-2020 22:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
IBdaMann wrote:...We depend on valid datasets....
This has long since been debunked without rebuttal from ITN/IBD.

Here is a study on human skin emissivity that has a valid data set and ITN dismissed it out of hand claiming thermometers don't work:
ITN dismissing a professionally conducted study with raw data and methods provided in detial:
link & link
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Here is the raw data, method of determination, for emissivity of skin measurements from 40 subjects here:link
Subject Emissivity
1 0.996 ...40 0.995
That's 40 subjects with emissivity all over 0.95
Meh. RandU. How was it measured?
... I provided a link....a SATIR infrared camera, model S280 ...To check the range of skin temperatures of the participants, a Fluke 52II thermometer...

But it's basically 4 screens full of the methodology layed out with photos so it's easier for you to just look:
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/journal-of-biomedical-optics/volume-14/issue-02/024006/Novel-approach-to-assess-the-emissivity-of-the-human-skin/10.1117/1.3086612.full?SSO=1
That method doesn't work...
Into the Night wrote:
1) The human skin is not one single temperature.
2) The room temperature makes a big difference.
3) The mood of a person can make a big difference.
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:You claim the temperature can change so rapidly in THIS EXPERIMENT so as to make the data unusable.
1) The human skin is not one single temperature....
They are testing one spot consistently so that doesn't matter.
Yes it does.
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Have you done emissivity testing professionally?
On occasion.

IBD has dismissed valid data sets from the Venera 8 prode to Venus claiming that thermometers don't work (in my sig).

So it's just BS.

The real proof of it is that it's been 5 years and all that ITN/IBD have presented is the Mauna Loa CO2 chart in the Data Mine that ITN NOW, but not then, says is bogus.

So the only "valid data" they have presented is an example they claim is bogus.

IBdaMann wrote:....why are you such a moron...total dumbass,...pout like a baby...you are a loser...
Really. Truly. Honestly. I'm still laughing...

If you have nothing to say IBD could you make it shorter?

"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
21-05-2020 22:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
JackFou wrote:
Just for the record, in the case of Mauna Loa both the raw data, including flags which indicate likely problems with the quality for each data point when relevant, and the method of collection as well as the methodology for flagging the data for quality control are all publicly available.

It isn't raw data. It's cooked. There are no flags. The method of collection is published, but the method itself is faulty. No data point is no data. Publishing cooked data is publishing random numbers.
JackFou wrote:
He's in fact trying to claim that the data must be perfectly usable and 100% free of errors at the instance of measurement.

Measurements are not about errors other than instrument tolerance. There is no 'should be' in science. Mantra 20o. You cannot use cooked data in a statistical summary. Mantra 25e.
JackFou wrote:
Even a single faulty data point invalidates the whole dataset, apparently (because otherwise the remaining data would still be usable after removal of faulty data points).

Define 'faulty data point'. Buzzword fallacy.
JackFou wrote:
I would really like to see him try and work as an actual scientist or measurement engineer for a couple of weeks.

I am both. That's my living. I build instrumentation systems for industrial, aerospace, and medical uses. My instruments are sold worldwide.
JackFou wrote:
I'm sure his supervisor

I am the supervisor.
JackFou wrote:
will be delighted when he comes in, day after day, to inform his supervisor that again, he had to toss out all data collected that day because someone near him sneezed during the measurement or something.

I am the supervisor. I own the company.


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
21-05-2020 22:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is also not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. There are not enough stations.


Isn't that convenient. It just so happens that *all* of the quantities like atmospheric CO2 concentration and average global temperature that are relevant for determining changes in climate on a global scale are unknowable.

There is no such thing as 'average global temperature'. Buzzword fallacy. Mantra 25l...
JackFou wrote:
That way you can just dismiss any claim you wish by asserting that the measurements done to gather data to back up that claim aren't just *quite* perfect and therefore you'll just dismiss them outright.

I can certainly dismiss yours. I can also dismiss the Mauna Loa 'data'. It is cooked. It's useless.
JackFou wrote:
Really, just *terribly* convenient for you.

You can't make a random number a piece of 'data' by claiming convenience or inconvenience on anyone.

Statistical mathematics has specific requirements on the use of data. I have a higher standard for accepting data. You will accept anything some nut publishes on the internet as 'data'.


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
21-05-2020 22:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote: Isn't that convenient. It just so happens that *all* of the quantities like atmospheric CO2 concentration and average global temperature that are relevant for determining changes in climate on a global scale are unknowable.

Well isn't that convenient ... you are just as omniscient as tmiddles! It must be nice knowing everything. You have to forgive those of us who happen to be mere mortals; the exact answers don't just come to us. We depend on valid datasets and other observations in order to know things.

But there is one thing that confuses me. If you just know absolutely everything, why are you such a moron in all other aspects? Why is it you don't know even the basic fundamentals of science? Why don't you understand the mathematical requirements for the data about which you keep asking? Why weren't you aware that you weren't going to fool anyone into thinking you were a "scientist"?

Also, why is it you haven't been able to put forward a single reason a rational person should believe your WACKY cult dogma? I was right, wasn't I? You don't really believe it yourself, do you? How could anybody possibly believe in so many physics violations all rolled into one nice, neat, incomprehensibe package? You'd have to be total dumbass, wouldn't you?

So, are you playing a joke on everyone? Why are you pretending to believe in Climate Almighty anyway? Why the need to make us think you know things that only an omniscient god would know? Why the need to pout like a baby at the mere recognition that you are a loser? Has that method worked for you in the past? Was there some indication that it would work for you here?

... so while we're on the subject, would you like to amend your statement and freely admit that you dropped out of highschool and that bending over for tmiddles is about the best "position" you can expect to get at this point?

I really need to talk to Into the Night about getting another fallacy listed: Omniscience Delusion, i.e. the simply inexplicable belief that the unknowable is precisely "what we know" and that the reason for believing that "we know" is because knowledge apparently "just pops into my mind." How many rational people do you honestly believe are going to buy that? ... I mean besides me, of course; you know that I'm on your side in all this. Of course you know absolutely everything, .. because we have the internet and it's ON THERE!

I'll tell you what, let me pull Into the Night aside and explain to him that his obsession with statistical validity crosses the line and that we're just not going to tolerate it here. I mean, after all, we have a planet to save for Christ's sake. He can't be standing in the way of humanity's "first responders." If he's not going to get out of the Justice League's way then he's going to get bowled over, let me tell you.

Let me talk to him and you can bet he'll be singing a different tune come nightfall.

Really. Truly. Honestly.

I'm still laughing about how you must have been exerting effort to keep a straight face when you posted that you were a highly paid "research scientist." You did catch me off guard when I read that. That was a good one.


.


Omniscience Delusion is Mantra 31. It is a form of circular argument fallacy, like declaring a god exists because I said so, as if that was a valid proof of the given fact that such god exists.

The fallacy is not new by any means.



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
21-05-2020 22:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 25g...30...25g...30...25f...25g...20b1...20w6...20w2...20w3...29...25d...30...29...25d...25c...4c...17...39j...39c...39g...


No argument presented. Faulty methodologies accepted as proof. Math errors. 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
21-05-2020 22:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
Into the Night wrote:
I am both. That's my living. I build instrumentation systems for industrial, aerospace, and medical uses. My instruments are sold worldwide.


Has anyone ever successfully employed one of your instruments to compose a "valid data set"? If so would you please share one.

It's like Chupacabra or the Lock Ness monster at this point with you guys.

The Mauna Loa Chart you presented as a model isn't valid data, the Venera Probe that is so similar isn't. Such a mystery what would pass muster!
21-05-2020 22:55
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(286)
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: The CO2 readings there are going to be much higher than the average atmospheric CO2 levels, perhaps several times as high.
Only if you're downwind from the volcano.

... which is a guarantee for everyone if wind direction changes ... which it does.

So they can't use the raw data because the nearby volcano might mess up the values if the wind blows the wrong way but they also cannot correct for the falsifying influence of the volcano when the wind blows the wrong way because of... some reason...
Where *should* they put their measurement station(s), according to you, to avoid all unwanted influences from the environment such that the "raw data" is *directly* useful for determining atmospheric CO2 concentrations? I'm sure the people running the measurements would be over the moon to learn which location is just *so perfect* that no one could possibly question the readings from that location.
Or is the atmospheric CO2 concentration just another of those quantities like average global temperature that we're unfortunately doomed to never know because no real-world measurement will ever be adequate?

IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote: Any changes of more than a fraction of a ppm from one hour to the next is a clear sign of something being off.

I'll let you in on a little secret. Fudged numbers and cooked books are clear signs of something being off.

Correcting for known biases in the data isn't fudging numbers. Are you one of those guys who just blindly trusts any reading off of a measurement device? The people aboard the Star Dust want a word with you... oh wait... they're dead because of an instrument error.

IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote: Nearby vegetation will also affect your readings if you try to measure atmospheric CO2.

@ Into the Night, is CO2 measuring equipment affected by nearby vegetation?

What?
The equipment doesn't care. Vegetation just affects the CO2 concentrations locally. Have you heard of photosynthesis?


What vegetation? Go look at images of the observatory there
21-05-2020 22:58
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
IBdaMann wrote:
Well isn't that convenient ... you are just as omniscient as tmiddles! It must be nice knowing everything. You have to forgive those of us who happen to be mere mortals; the exact answers don't just come to us. We depend on valid datasets and other observations in order to know things.


And we're back to your favourite dichotomy: There exists only utter ignorance or omniscience. Nothing in between.
We can only know values with absolute precision or not at all.

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm still laughing about how you must have been exerting effort to keep a straight face when you posted that you were a highly paid "research scientist." You did catch me off guard when I read that. That was a good one.


Some people always search for the problem everywhere but in themselves.
If pretty much the entire scientific community disagrees with you, maybe it's not all of them who are full of shit but you. Maybe it's not everyone else who got the physics wrong but you.

Fact is, I am working as a research scientist. My understanding of physics and chemistry is apparently sufficiently good that I can gather data, develop measurement methodologies and design chemical production processes that actually work and produce reliable real-world results according to expectations.
You may think I don't understand physics or science but the daily reality of my work is that my understanding applied to the real world does yield reproducible results that match up with the expectations.
If I didn't understand chemistry an physics, I shouldn't be able to correctly predict the outcome of a chemical reaction or design molecules such that they will have the desired properties and yet, it works.
My understanding of physics may not line up with yours but it sure seems to line up with reality.
Edited on 21-05-2020 23:36
21-05-2020 23:01
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
I am both. That's my living. I build instrumentation systems for industrial, aerospace, and medical uses. My instruments are sold worldwide.


So you're an engineer. That does explain why your understanding of physics doesn't go deeper than "temperature is a measure of average thermal energy". That is a pretty "engineer" answer to what temperature is.
21-05-2020 23:29
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
DRKTS wrote:
What vegetation? Go look at images of the observatory there


There is little to none. That's the point.
IBD and ITN want to dismiss the measurements from Mauna Loa because it's near a volcano, despite the fact that you could simply ignore the measurements from moments when the measurement station is downwind from the volcano.

But they cannot seem to come up with any suggestions for suitable measurement locations that are so good that they would find the results of the measurements taken at those locations acceptable.

As tmiddles pointed out several times, it's a pretty simple and wholly transparent attempt at dodging any discussion by simply claiming that no real-world measurement is ever good enough.
22-05-2020 03:10
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(465)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is also not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. There are not enough stations.


Isn't that convenient. It just so happens that *all* of the quantities like atmospheric CO2 concentration and average global temperature that are relevant for determining changes in climate on a global scale are unknowable.
That way you can just dismiss any claim you wish by asserting that the measurements done to gather data to back up that claim aren't just *quite* perfect and therefore you'll just dismiss them outright.
Really, just *terribly* convenient for you.

This is how it is however.I did the temp measuring in the room and the variables that came back are astounding.Its not convenient its true.Demonstrate how you can know the average temperature of every ocean


duncan61
22-05-2020 04:59
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(286)
JackFou wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
What vegetation? Go look at images of the observatory there


There is little to none. That's the point.
IBD and ITN want to dismiss the measurements from Mauna Loa because it's near a volcano, despite the fact that you could simply ignore the measurements from moments when the measurement station is downwind from the volcano.

But they cannot seem to come up with any suggestions for suitable measurement locations that are so good that they would find the results of the measurements taken at those locations acceptable.

As tmiddles pointed out several times, it's a pretty simple and wholly transparent attempt at dodging any discussion by simply claiming that no real-world measurement is ever good enough.


You think that the scientist dont know its on a volcano and allow for it.

Please show me large jumps in their data when the mountain erupts.

Nor does that explain why every other CO2 monitoring station gets the same trend.
22-05-2020 04:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I am both. That's my living. I build instrumentation systems for industrial, aerospace, and medical uses. My instruments are sold worldwide.


Has anyone ever successfully employed one of your instruments to compose a "valid data set"? If so would you please share one.

I do not give out the names of my clients on the internet. That would be an invasion of their privacy and a violation of my own security that is actionable under the law.

However, 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.

Telemetry gathered during a flight helps to determine the performance of the aircraft or rocket.

Both data sets are valid for the purposes they are used for.

tmiddles wrote:
It's like Chupacabra or the Lock Ness monster at this point with you guys.

Mantra 35b1...5...
tmiddles wrote:
The Mauna Loa Chart you presented as a model isn't valid data, the Venera Probe that is so similar isn't. Such a mystery what would pass muster!

Mauna Loa numbers are from a known source. It is valid as numbers quoted from that source. The published methodology of collecting those numbers is valid as coming from that source. Nothing in the Data Mine designates any such numbers are necessarily correct nor that the methodology is correct. Mauna Loa observatory is not using a valid methodology for collecting those numbers. Thus the numbers themselves are essentially random numbers of type randU.


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
22-05-2020 05:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
DRKTS wrote:
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: The CO2 readings there are going to be much higher than the average atmospheric CO2 levels, perhaps several times as high.
Only if you're downwind from the volcano.

... which is a guarantee for everyone if wind direction changes ... which it does.

So they can't use the raw data because the nearby volcano might mess up the values if the wind blows the wrong way but they also cannot correct for the falsifying influence of the volcano when the wind blows the wrong way because of... some reason...
Where *should* they put their measurement station(s), according to you, to avoid all unwanted influences from the environment such that the "raw data" is *directly* useful for determining atmospheric CO2 concentrations? I'm sure the people running the measurements would be over the moon to learn which location is just *so perfect* that no one could possibly question the readings from that location.
Or is the atmospheric CO2 concentration just another of those quantities like average global temperature that we're unfortunately doomed to never know because no real-world measurement will ever be adequate?

IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote: Any changes of more than a fraction of a ppm from one hour to the next is a clear sign of something being off.

I'll let you in on a little secret. Fudged numbers and cooked books are clear signs of something being off.

Correcting for known biases in the data isn't fudging numbers. Are you one of those guys who just blindly trusts any reading off of a measurement device? The people aboard the Star Dust want a word with you... oh wait... they're dead because of an instrument error.

IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote: Nearby vegetation will also affect your readings if you try to measure atmospheric CO2.

@ Into the Night, is CO2 measuring equipment affected by nearby vegetation?

What?
The equipment doesn't care. Vegetation just affects the CO2 concentrations locally. Have you heard of photosynthesis?


What vegetation? Go look at images of the observatory there

I used to live in Hawaii, dumbass. I know what grows around that station and what grows below it in the mountains and along the coast.


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
22-05-2020 05:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Well isn't that convenient ... you are just as omniscient as tmiddles! It must be nice knowing everything. You have to forgive those of us who happen to be mere mortals; the exact answers don't just come to us. We depend on valid datasets and other observations in order to know things.


And we're back to your favourite dichotomy: There exists only utter ignorance or omniscience. Nothing in between.
We can only know values with absolute precision or not at all.

Nope. There is no precision in random numbers.
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I'm still laughing about how you must have been exerting effort to keep a straight face when you posted that you were a highly paid "research scientist." You did catch me off guard when I read that. That was a good one.


Some people always search for the problem everywhere but in themselves.

Like you? Inversion fallacy.
JackFou wrote:
If pretty much the entire scientific community disagrees with you,

You don't get speak for any community. You only get to speak for yourself. Science is not a community.
JackFou wrote:
maybe it's not all of them who are full of shit but you.

Science does not use consensus.
JackFou wrote:
Maybe it's not everyone else who got the physics wrong but you.

You already said this. Science does not use consensus.
JackFou wrote:
Fact is, I am working as a research scientist.

I don't believe you.
JackFou wrote:
My understanding of physics and chemistry is apparently sufficiently good

You deny both physics and chemistry.
JackFou wrote:
that I can gather data, develop measurement methodologies and design chemical production processes that actually work and produce reliable real-world results according to expectations.

I don't believe you. You deny chemistry.
JackFou wrote:
You may think I don't understand physics or science but the daily reality of my work is that my understanding applied to the real world does yield reproducible results that match up with the expectations.

You already said this. I still don't believe you.
JackFou wrote:
If I didn't understand chemistry an physics, I shouldn't be able to correctly predict the outcome of a chemical reaction or design molecules such that they will have the desired properties and yet, it works.

You already said this. I still don't believe you.
JackFou wrote:
My understanding of physics may not line up with yours but it sure seems to line up with reality.

Define 'reality'. You deny physics.


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
22-05-2020 05:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I am both. That's my living. I build instrumentation systems for industrial, aerospace, and medical uses. My instruments are sold worldwide.


So you're an engineer.

...as well as a scientist, business owner, musician, aircraft pilot, chemist, computer programmer, radio operator, mechanic, welder, salesman, accountant, marksman, chief cook and bottle washer, etc.
JackFou wrote:
That does explain why your understanding of physics doesn't go deeper than "temperature is a measure of average thermal energy".
That IS the definition of temperature in physics. You are again denying physics.
JackFou wrote:
That is a pretty "engineer" answer to what temperature is.

Nope. It's the physics answer to what temperature is. The same definition is used in chemistry and engineering as well.


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
22-05-2020 05:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
JackFou wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
What vegetation? Go look at images of the observatory there


There is little to none. That's the point.

There is a little. Not much. However, growing just a bit below that altitude at the same mountain is a jungle, surrounded by a sea filled with plankton and fish, and other nearby islands, also with jungle.
JackFou wrote:
IBD and ITN want to dismiss the measurements from Mauna Loa because it's near a volcano, despite the fact that you could simply ignore the measurements from moments when the measurement station is downwind from the volcano.

Mauna Loa is surrounded by volcanoes, jungle, the sea, and nearby islands...all of which affect CO2 concentration.
JackFou wrote:
But they cannot seem to come up with any suggestions for suitable measurement locations that are so good that they would find the results of the measurements taken at those locations acceptable.

A single thermometer cannot measure the temperature of the Earth. There is no location good enough. A single CO2 monitoring station cannot measure the global atmospheric content of CO2 of the Earth. There is no location good enough. Mauna Loa has been cooking their data. It's useless. It has failed to show any effects of last year's eruption in that mountain range, or of the eruptions of the Loihi seamount, or the variance in plankton or vegetation around the station (which varies daily and depends on the weather and other factors).

They are not allowed to 'cancel' these variances out. That's cooking the data. You can't use cooked data in a statistical analysis.


JackFou wrote:
As tmiddles pointed out several times, it's a pretty simple and wholly transparent attempt at dodging any discussion by simply claiming that no real-world measurement is ever good enough.

Sorry dude. That's an attempt to force a negative proof fallacy. I don't have to prove anything. YOU have to prove the data is valid. So far, you've failed miserably.


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 22-05-2020 05:35
22-05-2020 05:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
DRKTS wrote:
JackFou wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
What vegetation? Go look at images of the observatory there


There is little to none. That's the point.
IBD and ITN want to dismiss the measurements from Mauna Loa because it's near a volcano, despite the fact that you could simply ignore the measurements from moments when the measurement station is downwind from the volcano.

But they cannot seem to come up with any suggestions for suitable measurement locations that are so good that they would find the results of the measurements taken at those locations acceptable.

As tmiddles pointed out several times, it's a pretty simple and wholly transparent attempt at dodging any discussion by simply claiming that no real-world measurement is ever good enough.


You think that the scientist dont know its on a volcano and allow for it.

Please show me large jumps in their data when the mountain erupts.

You are not allowed to allow for it. Thats called cooking the data. You cannot use cooked data in a statistical analysis.
DRKTS wrote:
Nor does that explain why every other CO2 monitoring station gets the same trend.

They don't, even though their results are flawed for the same reasons.


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 22-05-2020 05:35
22-05-2020 13:48
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
duncan61 wrote:
This is how it is however.I did the temp measuring in the room and the variables that came back are astounding.Its not convenient its true.Demonstrate how you can know the average temperature of every ocean


Every real-world measurement will only ever be an approximation of some kind of "true" value. The "true" value of any measurement is pretty much by definition unknowable.
You could get lucky and end up with a measurement that is by chance exactly right but you can never know for sure that you have found the "true" value.
Let's say you want to find out how many sodium ions there are in a package of table salt. 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. 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.
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.

Would a single buoy with a thermometer give you enough information to determine the average surface water temperature of a large body of water? Depends on what accuracy you want.
If you want to know whether our oceans are closer to 100°C or closer to 0°C, a single buoy is probably gonna get you quite far.
For determining how much additional heat the oceans are absorbing due to the atmospheric greenhouse effect, you'd need a bit more information.
You could stick a thermometer into every square centimetre of ocean surface and you still wouldn't know the "true" average but I think it would get you close enough for all intents and purposes.
Sticking a thermometer on every square centimetre of ocean surface isn't practical though. 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.
22-05-2020 13:50
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
DRKTS wrote:
JackFou wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
What vegetation? Go look at images of the observatory there


There is little to none. That's the point.
IBD and ITN want to dismiss the measurements from Mauna Loa because it's near a volcano, despite the fact that you could simply ignore the measurements from moments when the measurement station is downwind from the volcano.

But they cannot seem to come up with any suggestions for suitable measurement locations that are so good that they would find the results of the measurements taken at those locations acceptable.

As tmiddles pointed out several times, it's a pretty simple and wholly transparent attempt at dodging any discussion by simply claiming that no real-world measurement is ever good enough.


You think that the scientist dont know its on a volcano and allow for it.

Please show me large jumps in their data when the mountain erupts.

Nor does that explain why every other CO2 monitoring station gets the same trend.


Mate I'm on your side on this one.
I understand perfectly well that the data is usable. I'm trying to point out ITNs nonsense.
22-05-2020 13:56
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
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.
Edited on 22-05-2020 13:59
22-05-2020 18:12
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1093)
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.

... except for all of the times that he HAS used much lengthier and more complex vocabulary?? Just conveniently leaving those instances out, eh?
22-05-2020 21:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7294)
JackFou wrote:I understand perfectly well that the data is usable.

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

.


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
22-05-2020 22:50
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1093)
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!!!
Edited on 22-05-2020 23:22
23-05-2020 02:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
JackFou wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
This is how it is however.I did the temp measuring in the room and the variables that came back are astounding.Its not convenient its true.Demonstrate how you can know the average temperature of every ocean


Every real-world measurement will only ever be an approximation of some kind of "true" value.

Nope. It's a value. Nothing more. There is no 'should be' in science or in measurement.
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.
JackFou wrote:
You could get lucky and end up with a measurement that is by chance exactly right but you can never know for sure that you have found the "true" value.

There is no such thing as the 'true value'. Buzzword fallacy.
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?
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.
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.
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.
JackFou wrote:
Would a single buoy with a thermometer give you enough information to determine the average surface water temperature of a large body of water?

No. There is no such thing as 'average surface water temperature'. Mantra 25l. It won't tell you the water temperature at anything but at the buoy itself (assuming it's equipped to measure water temperature).
JackFou wrote:
Depends on what accuracy you want.

There is none. You are ignoring statistical mathematics again. Mantra 25c.
JackFou wrote:
If you want to know whether our oceans are closer to 100°C or closer to 0°C, a single buoy is probably gonna get you quite far.

Nope. Same problem. Mantra 25c.
JackFou wrote:
For determining how much additional heat the oceans are absorbing due to the atmospheric greenhouse effect, you'd need a bit more information.

There is no such thing as 'greenhouse effect'. No gas or vapor is capable of creating or trapping energy.
JackFou wrote:
You could stick a thermometer into every square centimetre of ocean surface and you still wouldn't know the "true" average but I think it would get you close enough for all intents and purposes.

Mantra 25c. You still don't get statistical math at all, do you?
JackFou wrote:
Sticking a thermometer on every square centimetre of ocean surface isn't practical though.

Obviously. There are not enough thermometers on Earth to do that.
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.

Neither are you a mathematician. You are denying statistical mathematics. A statistical summary is not a measurement. 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.


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 02:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
JackFou wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
JackFou wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
What vegetation? Go look at images of the observatory there


There is little to none. That's the point.
IBD and ITN want to dismiss the measurements from Mauna Loa because it's near a volcano, despite the fact that you could simply ignore the measurements from moments when the measurement station is downwind from the volcano.

But they cannot seem to come up with any suggestions for suitable measurement locations that are so good that they would find the results of the measurements taken at those locations acceptable.

As tmiddles pointed out several times, it's a pretty simple and wholly transparent attempt at dodging any discussion by simply claiming that no real-world measurement is ever good enough.


You think that the scientist dont know its on a volcano and allow for it.

Please show me large jumps in their data when the mountain erupts.

Nor does that explain why every other CO2 monitoring station gets the same trend.


Mate I'm on your side on this one.
I understand perfectly well that the data is usable. I'm trying to point out ITNs nonsense.

Mantra 7. The data is not usable. Mantra 25g...25e...29...


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 23-05-2020 02:57
Page 3 of 4<1234>





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