Remember me
▼ Content

Satellites



Page 6 of 7<<<4567>
17-06-2020 12:47
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(751)
I am with Tmiddles on this point.My best friend was an engineer that made steering box parts and shafts and had a dial gauge set of vernier calipers for extreme tolerances where all I need them for as a plumber is reloading centre fire cases and measuring the OAL case length to SAAMI specs so I only have a $30 manual set that with my glasses on I can read to .1 mm.My mates set would measure to a thou.Thats my take on Tolerance correct me if I am wrong but I have followed this thread and it has been indicated there is no such thing as tolerance when measuring,I am going to reread the whole thread again when I remove my lips from the bottom of the Tmiddles.A bit disgusting IBDM and you wrote it 3 times
17-06-2020 13:27
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(751)
I found the post I was refering to on page 5 however I am determined not to get into slinging matches over who said what.I started this thread on what Satellites are capable because that is the go to for the warmazombies who I am studying with.Its the science and the Satellites measure it all.Even Dr Strong who drops in every now and then with alarmist news states that the way the Satellites are used is very hit and miss
17-06-2020 16:36
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3562)
duncan61 wrote:
.... I am determined not to get into slinging matches over who said what...

Was that the higher resolution or the accuracy with your friend"s device Duncan? Accuracy is determined in evaluating the tool by testing it and not the number of decimal places displayed.

The reason this is fundamental to any topic here is everything discussed involves what we "know" about values, like temperatue, which are measured as well as determinations made beyond that.

To "know" the value of something which is measured is to have a confidence level on the accuracy, which is the margin of error, of that measurement. Usually that means that there is at least a 95% probability that the measurement is within the the tools "accuracy" range of the true value.

So when someone says "it cannot be known" without explaining themselves you know they are full of it just as surely as claiming something is known exactly.

This is true of both simple measurements and more complex conclusions (like the temp a million years ago).
17-06-2020 17:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7672)
tgoebbles wrote: The reason this is fundamental to any topic here is everything discussed involves what we "know" about values, like temperatue, which are measured as well as determinations made beyond that.

But you are the one intentionally conflating "accuracy," "tolerance" and "margin of error."

I'm still waiting for your explanation. If "accuracy" and "tolerance" are exactly the same thing, then why do any two calipers of the same manufacturer, make and model have distinctly different accuracies but identical tolerances?

This is so fundamental to any topic here because everything discussed involves what we "know" about values, like temperatue, which are measured as well as determinations made beyond that.

tgoebbles wrote:This is true of both simple measurements and more complex conclusions (like the temp a million years ago).

How can we travel back in time and measure a temperature in the past?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-06-2020 18:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3562)
IBdaMann wrote:you are the one intentionally conflating "accuracy," "tolerance" and "margin of error."
Thoroughly debunked here: METROLOGY AND CALIBRATION

IBdaMann wrote:...measure a temperature in the past?
It is amazing how much we can figure out. Go humans!

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
17-06-2020 18:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7672)
tgoebbles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:you are the one intentionally conflating "accuracy," "tolerance" and "margin of error."
Thoroughly debunked here: METROLOGY AND CALIBRATION

I schooled you on this in the other thread.

tgoebbles wrote: It is amazing how much we can figure out [about the past]. Go humans!

It's amazing how some humans merely speculate about the past and then delude themselves into believing that their WILD speculation is somehow "what we know."


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-06-2020 20:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13990)
duncan61 wrote:
I am with Tmiddles on this point.My best friend was an engineer that made steering box parts and shafts and had a dial gauge set of vernier calipers for extreme tolerances where all I need them for as a plumber is reloading centre fire cases and measuring the OAL case length to SAAMI specs so I only have a $30 manual set that with my glasses on I can read to .1 mm.My mates set would measure to a thou.Thats my take on Tolerance correct me if I am wrong but I have followed this thread and it has been indicated there is no such thing as tolerance when measuring,I am going to reread the whole thread again when I remove my lips from the bottom of the Tmiddles.A bit disgusting IBDM and you wrote it 3 times


You are discussing precision and accuracy, not tolerance. All measurement devices have a precision, an accuracy, and a tolerance. None of it has anything to do with margin of error, a term in statistical mathematics.

Precision is a relative term, denoting the scale the instrument is capable of using and the number of marks on the scale.

Accuracy is the scale markings themselves, and how precisely they are marked. It also includes the zero reference point and how it is determined.

Tolerance is the ability of the instrument to repeat a measurement of the same thing, including the zero reference point. Differences can arise in a vernier caliper due to screw slop, dial friction, quality of the faces, cleanliness and maintenance of the instrument, and of course, technique in using it.

They are a nice quick instrument for measuring distances, and it is certainly good enough for your reloading. They can be used as a quick measurement of shafts and gears, but precise work really requires a micrometer, an instrument with higher precision and accuracy, and a lower tolerance. For example, for measuring the bearing points on an aircraft engine crankshaft, a micrometer must be used. A vernier caliper isn't good enough.

Happy reloading!


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
17-06-2020 20:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13990)
duncan61 wrote:
I found the post I was refering to on page 5 however I am determined not to get into slinging matches over who said what.I started this thread on what Satellites are capable because that is the go to for the warmazombies who I am studying with.Its the science and the Satellites measure it all.Even Dr Strong who drops in every now and then with alarmist news states that the way the Satellites are used is very hit and miss


Satellites are capable of measuring light. They can't do much anything else (except measure their own internal condition).

Light is not temperature. It may arise from harmonic or 'cold' emission (such as LEDs, bioluminescent critters, reflections, transmissions (light through transparent or partially transparent objects), etc. Light that is emitted as a result of thermal energy is only part of the light seen from Earth's surface. The surface is also reflective, and the Earth is also semi-transparent to some frequencies. All frequencies of light are included in the Stefan-Boltzmann law (light emitted by thermal energy). Measuring only some of these frequencies is quite meaningless. Earth emits a wide range of frequencies from thermal energy, as well as from other sources.

The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The temperature of Earth is unknown. One must accurately know the temperature of the emitting surface to be able to calculate the emissivity of that surface.

So a satellite is not capable of producing an absolute temperature measurement of anything on Earth.

It can, however, produce pretty good relative temperature maps. This allows us, for example, to locate the Gulf Stream using a satellite as it passes over. Such a measurement, of course, is just a snapshot.

Satellites are also capable of measuring the ice extent of polar ice. It cannot measure the thickness of that ice, but it can measure how far away from that pole the ice forms in the winter. These records are known as the winter ice extent, and are taken each winter at the maximum extent for each pole. According to these records, polar ice at both poles has been increasing the last few years. In 2014, the Antarctic ice extent was the largest ever recorded. It currently is smaller than that now, but it is increasing again somewhat. Again, these are snapshots.

There is no satellite measuring the amount of ice in glaciers and ice fields, or the amount of snow anywhere. Satellites can measure surface coverage, but they cannot measure thickness of any ice, and the amount of snow and ice on Earth constantly changes.

Satellites are pretty good and giving us our own locations. GPS is good to +-30ft in any XY direction, and to within +- 100ft of altitude (Z information), as long as the point being referenced is here on the surface of the Earth (as opposed to the opposite point out in space). Thus, GPS can be used by hikers, hunters, boaters, aircraft, buses, cars, and all manner of needs for locating yourself on Earth to within 30 ft. Even surveyors use it these days to find the Point of Beginning location or to help locate a buried monument to use as a Point of Origin. It's why a professional survey is admissible in a court of law.

Satellites can also be used to relay surface signals to somewhere else. One constellation that went up in the last few years monitors a new emergency frequency. This equipment is digital in nature and also makes use of GPS to accurately the point on Earth where the emergency is occurring. This is required equipment on aircraft now. Sure beats the old system of using radio direction finding equipment (the old 121.5Mhz system)! One button push or a good thunk on the equipment (as in a crash) will broadcast the location and who it is to waiting satellites, which relay that to listening authorities on the ground. This new equipment is becoming available for hikers and hunters as well. It's a bit pricey yet, but it can save your life.

Another use of them of course is for telecom systems. Starlink for automotive use is one such system, as well as many phone and internet communications that run over satellite repeaters.

They are capable of a lot, but they are not magick. They can only see light. They cannot measure an absolute temperature.


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
17-06-2020 20:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13990)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 10g...25g...25c1...10g...29...


No argument presented. Denial of mathematics. Word salad. 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
17-06-2020 20:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13990)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 4b...7...39f...39g...10g...25g...25c1...


No argument presented. Denial of mathematics. Invalid proofs. Spamming.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 17-06-2020 20:55
17-06-2020 23:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3562)
INTeze says:
Into the Night wrote:
Precision is a relative term, denoting the scale the instrument is capable of using and the number of marks on the scale.
But the correct answer is:linkPrecision: The extent to which an instrument gives constant results when making repeat measurements on the same unit.
So Precision has nothing at all to do with the number of markings on the scale. The term for that is resolution.

INTeze says:
Into the Night wrote:
Accuracy is the scale markings themselves, and how precisely they are marked.
But the correct answer is:linkAccuracy: The closeness of the agreement between the result of a measurement and its reference value.
Otherwise known as the "error". Not getting it right is an error and Accuracy represents just how wrong it's likely to be and yes, it is the margin of error usually represented at the 95% confidence level. So if a caliper stated it's accuracy at +/-0.03mm you'd be within .03mm 95% of the time you took a measurement (though it's a minimum so probably better than that).

INTeze says:
Into the Night wrote:
Tolerance is the ability of the instrument to repeat a measurement of the same thing,
But the correct answer is:linkTolerance Limits: These are measurement specifications that bound the acceptance region for a measured characteristic.
So here ITN has swapped Tolerance for Precision (very weird) and that is dead wrong either way. Tolerance is the margin of error. Keep in mind we can choose to have an 80% confidence margin, 95%, 99.7%, it's up to the measurer. But the instrument specs are based on 95%. Different projects demand different levels of confidence.

To tie it all together: Confidence Level: The probability that a measured value will be inside of the tolerance limits. The confidence level for standards is usually set at 95%.

Anyone reading this can reference ITN's answers with anything online and find he is completely wrong.

BUT HERE IS THE REAL PROOF:

Neither ITN or IBD will ever describe HOW what they call "Tolerance" is determined by the manufacturer of a measuring device.

Why? Because it's by testing and determining a margin of error and a confidence level. Note that it's NOT called tolerance but accuracy but that's a minor point as they describe the same thing.
17-06-2020 23:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13990)
tmiddles wrote:
INTeze says:
Into the Night wrote:
Precision is a relative term, denoting the scale the instrument is capable of using and the number of marks on the scale.
But the correct answer is:...deleted Holy Link...
[b]Precision: The extent to which an instrument gives constant results when making repeat measurements on the same unit.

So Precision has nothing at all to do with the number of markings on the scale. The term for that is resolution.

Nope. Resolution for any instrument is the number of markings itself. It is not precision, which is the number of marks per base unit.
tmiddles wrote:
INTeze says:
Into the Night wrote:
Accuracy is the scale markings themselves, and how precisely they are marked.
But the correct answer is:...deleted Holy Link...
Accuracy: The closeness of the agreement between the result of a measurement and its reference value.

Nope. The closeness of the agreement between the result of a measurement and its reference value is called the 'measurement'.
tmiddles wrote:
Otherwise known as the "error".
Measurements are not an error.
tmiddles wrote:
Not getting it right is an error
...deleted Mantras 4a...4b...4f...10g...29...

All measurements simply that. There is no 'right' or 'wrong'. False dichotomy fallacy.

No argument presented. False authority fallacy. Denial of engineering. Denial of mathematics. 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
18-06-2020 00:37
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1392)
tmiddles wrote:
INTeze says:
Into the Night wrote:
Accuracy is the scale markings themselves, and how precisely they are marked.
But the correct answer is:linkAccuracy: The closeness of the agreement between the result of a measurement and its reference value.
Otherwise known as the "error". Not getting it right is an error and Accuracy represents just how wrong it's likely to be and yes, it is the margin of error usually represented at the 95% confidence level. So if a caliper stated it's accuracy at +/-0.03mm you'd be within .03mm 95% of the time you took a measurement (though it's a minimum so probably better than that).

RE: red text...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA holy crap dude... I would suggest that you stop trying to teach others when you have absolutely ZERO idea what you are talking about... I would also suggest that you stop making an appeal to a textbook that you have absolutely ZERO understanding of what is being conveyed within it.

There is no "confidence level" involved with measurements, dude... Why? Because YOU HAVE DIRECTLY MEASURED IT ALREADY... Thus, you can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the measured amount is in fact [insert measurement here] +- [insert tolerance here].

Note: Tolerance is NOT accuracy is NOT margin of error... etc, etc...

You've already been told all of this (at the very LEAST) as far back as page 3 of this thread...

You simply refuse to learn mathematics...
18-06-2020 03:10
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(751)
Good to be learning again.I understood all of that thanks team.I looked up how the satellites are used to map sea level rise and its even more vague.2% of the oceans depth is known and the Satellite from lots of kilometres away takes a reading from the ship which is taking a reading from the ocean floor and together they calculate the difference.Sounds super accurate to me
18-06-2020 04:35
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3562)
Into the Night wrote:
All measurements simply that. There is no 'right' or 'wrong'.
gfm7175 wrote:...you have absolutely ZERO understanding...

And as predicted:
tmiddles wrote:
Neither ITN or IBD will ever describe HOW what they call "Tolerance" is determined by the manufacturer of a measuring device.
No answer.

So GFM when a instrument, caliper, thermomenter, or any other, shows it's accuracy as +/- ___. Where do you suppose that number comes from?

I can tell you it's from the manufacturer testing the tool and developing it's 95% confidence interval. Example: Statistical Tolerance Limits

So why this fight to pretend that there is no confidence level in determining a value through measurement? Because if there is, and there is, you cannot say something dead wrong like: it is not possible to measure the temperature of Denver. Because it's totally possible to some margin of error, at some confidence level. Then you'd have to explain why you disagree with NASA or whoever has presented their answer to that.

Now IBD has actually laid that our correctly recently, saying "to a useful margin of error", but ITN always stated that you cannot know period.

What it means to "know" is critical to every topic here. You almost never know 100% but you almost always have some idea short of that. 95% and 99% being used most. The "answer" that you "know" is almost always a range of values.
Edited on 18-06-2020 04:37
18-06-2020 06:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7672)
tgoebbles wrote: Neither ITN or IBD will ever describe HOW what they call "Tolerance" is determined by the manufacturer of a measuring device.[/b][/color]

I have never been a quality engineer. I have never engineered a tolerance into a system or device. Have you? It's not calibration as you are describing.

Tolerance is an engineering requirement and is part of the design. Tolerance is created, and reflected, in the start-to-finish manufacturing of the system/device, from the initial generation of requirements, through the design and engineering all the way through to when the component parts are manufactured and assembled. That is what determines the tolerance, everything in the manufacturing process. This is why every item thus manufactured and assembled has the exact same tolerance ... because they are all results of the exact same process.

The accuracy of each one so built will have a different specific accuracy but they will all have the same tolerance.

tgoebbles wrote: So why this fight to pretend that there is no confidence level in determining a value through measurement?

So why this fight to pretend that all the people measuring things doubt the measurments they are reading and/or also jot down their "confidence levels" in each measurement? That whole notion is absurd. Nobody does that.

This is why tgoebbles can't find a valid dataset used for any practical or industrial purpose that contains as part of the data "confidence levels." There is no such thing as a "confidence level" associated with any measurement.

I ws talking with my friend (who is a general contractor) while he was taking some measurements with a tape measure. He was putting in some cabinets and an island. He was pretty quick with each measurement and he jotted down each measurement on some rough sketches he had made.

tgoebbles, I have to tell you that he wrote down absolutely no "confidence levels" and no probabilities ... yet you absurdly insist that he did. Explain?

tgoebbles wrote:Now IBD has actually laid that our correctly recently, saying "to a useful margin of error",

For the record, the word I use is "usable" and yes, I have also reiterated this recently but I have been reminding people of this for decades because statistical math has not really changed in this regard. Just a sprinkle of examples from this site:

26 SEP 2015IBdaMann wrote:
climate scientist wrote:Determining whether the planet has warmed, is still warming, and will warm in the future is a very complicated task.

No, it's simply not possible. We don't have the hundreds of millions of evenly-spaced, synchronized thermometers at various altitudes that will allow an average measurement to be computed within any usable margin of error


14 NOV 2016 IBdaMann wrote:
climate scientist wrote: The WMO has released information about the status of global temperatures in 2016

The WMO still cannot measure the average global temperature to any usable accuracy. Only their target audience, i.e. the scientifically illiterate and the gullible, believes that they somehow can.


07 MAY 2019IBdaMann wrote:
dehammer wrote:[quote] According to NASA, the average of the earths temperature is +/-.15 using instruments.

NASA does not know the earth's average global temperature to any usable accuracy. There is no instrumentation that can provide a dataset that supports that margin of error.


This is not some "new" position that I only recently adopted and expressed.


tgoebbles wrote: You almost never know 100% but you almost always have some idea short of that. 95% and 99% being used most. The "answer" that you "know" is almost always a range of values.

Nope. We have debunked your "range of values" many times yet you keep trying to sneak it in there.

When my friend was measuring for the cabinets, he only got one value for each measurement. One. He did not get any range of values.

I'll let you know when the cabinets are installed so that we can see whether you are right that he didn't know some of what he needed. I wouldn't count on it though.



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-06-2020 06:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13990)
duncan61 wrote:
Good to be learning again.I understood all of that thanks team.I looked up how the satellites are used to map sea level rise and its even more vague.2% of the oceans depth is known and the Satellite from lots of kilometres away takes a reading from the ship which is taking a reading from the ocean floor and together they calculate the difference.Sounds super accurate to me


Except it's not. The problem with measuring global sea level is that there is no zero reference point that is valid. Land moves, you see, and even has a tide like the oceans do.

A satellite can measure a relative sea level to somewhere else, but it cannot measure an absolute sea level. Thus, a satellite can see things like storm surges compared to high pressure areas, but it has no base reference.


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
18-06-2020 06:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13990)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 7...29...29...10g...4a...4b...10g...25c1...4b...4f...24a...25j...


No argument presented. RQAA. Word salad. False authorities. Denial of mathematics.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
18-06-2020 14:45
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
duncan61 wrote:
I am with Tmiddles on this point.My best friend was an engineer that made steering box parts and shafts and had a dial gauge set of vernier calipers for extreme tolerances where all I need them for as a plumber is reloading centre fire cases and measuring the OAL case length to SAAMI specs so I only have a $30 manual set that with my glasses on I can read to .1 mm.My mates set would measure to a thou.Thats my take on Tolerance correct me if I am wrong but I have followed this thread and it has been indicated there is no such thing as tolerance when measuring,I am going to reread the whole thread again when I remove my lips from the bottom of the Tmiddles.A bit disgusting IBDM and you wrote it 3 times



I've worked as a machinist for many years. And you guys are confusing issues.
Just because something can be measured to within .001 inches does not mean that the dimension has to be exact. I've worked with tolerances that go from .002 inches to .03 inches.
If scientists are accurate with how they determine half lives then that allows for IMO a good understand of what happened in the past and when. And with climate science, it might actually be more about observing a trend.
As you've said yourself, you can look at a body of water and see if it's level has changed over many years and that we can't measure the tide. When you make statements like that...
18-06-2020 15:20
Nobi
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
As far as i know, the +- of the measuring equipment indicates the accuracy. Let's say the accuracy of a digital caliper is +-0.02 mm. You measure the height of your phone, and your caliper reads 10.82 mm. That means that your real measurement can lie anywhere between 10.80-10.84 mm.

The only time when confidence level comes into the picture, that i know, is when you want to determine the measurement uncertainty.
U = k.u
U = expanded uncertainty
k = coverage factor. k= 1 -> confidence level 68%, k=2 -> confidence level 95%; k=3 -> confidence level 99.7%
u= standard uncertainty(ies) e.g. u equipment, u temperature, u object, u person

u^2 = u equipment^2 + u temp^2 + u object^2....

Once you calculated U, you can report your measurement e.g. 10.80 mm +- U mm, k=2

My knowledge about this is quite rusty though, so please correct if necessary.
18-06-2020 16:37
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1392)
tmiddles wrote:
So GFM when a instrument, caliper, thermomenter, or any other, shows it's accuracy as +/- ___. Where do you suppose that number comes from?

NOT accuracy, moron... tolerance. This has already been explained to you multiple times. RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:
I can tell you it's from the manufacturer testing the tool and developing it's 95% confidence interval. Example: Statistical Tolerance Limits

RAAA.

tmiddles wrote:
So why this fight to pretend that there is no confidence level in determining a value through measurement?

Continued denial of mathematics.

tmiddles wrote:
Because if there is, and there is,

Continued denial of mathematics.

tmiddles wrote:
you cannot say something dead wrong like: it is not possible to measure the temperature of Denver. Because it's totally possible to some margin of error, at some confidence level.

Semantic games. Denial of mathematics.

tmiddles wrote:
Then you'd have to explain why you disagree with NASA or whoever has presented their answer to that.

RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:
Now IBD has actually laid that our correctly recently, saying "to a useful margin of error",

That's what ITN and I are saying as well. IBD has already explained this to you.

tmiddles wrote:
but ITN always stated that you cannot know period.

Your semantic games have already been addressed.

tmiddles wrote:
What it means to "know" is critical to every topic here. You almost never know 100% but you almost always have some idea short of that. 95% and 99% being used most. The "answer" that you "know" is almost always a range of values.

With regard to a measurement, you can be 100% certain that the result is equal to [insert measurement here] +- [insert tolerance here]. This has already been explained to you. This is NOT "accuracy". This is NOT "margin of error". This is NOT "confidence level".
18-06-2020 16:51
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1392)
Nobi wrote:
As far as i know, the +- of the measuring equipment indicates the accuracy. Let's say the accuracy of a digital caliper is +-0.02 mm. You measure the height of your phone, and your caliper reads 10.82 mm. That means that your real measurement can lie anywhere between 10.80-10.84 mm.

The only time when confidence level comes into the picture, that i know, is when you want to determine the measurement uncertainty.
U = k.u
U = expanded uncertainty
k = coverage factor. k= 1 -> confidence level 68%, k=2 -> confidence level 95%; k=3 -> confidence level 99.7%
u= standard uncertainty(ies) e.g. u equipment, u temperature, u object, u person

u^2 = u equipment^2 + u temp^2 + u object^2....

Once you calculated U, you can report your measurement e.g. 10.80 mm +- U mm, k=2

My knowledge about this is quite rusty though, so please correct if necessary.

You're speaking of "tolerance" here, not "accuracy". ITN did a great job of explaining the differences between the terminology here:


Into the Night wrote:
You are discussing precision and accuracy, not tolerance. All measurement devices have a precision, an accuracy, and a tolerance. None of it has anything to do with margin of error, a term in statistical mathematics.

Precision is a relative term, denoting the scale the instrument is capable of using and the number of marks on the scale.

Accuracy is the scale markings themselves, and how precisely they are marked. It also includes the zero reference point and how it is determined.

Tolerance is the ability of the instrument to repeat a measurement of the same thing, including the zero reference point. Differences can arise in a vernier caliper due to screw slop, dial friction, quality of the faces, cleanliness and maintenance of the instrument, and of course, technique in using it.

Edited on 18-06-2020 16:53
18-06-2020 17:54
Nobi
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
what i understand about accuracy is how far your measurement differs from a true value.
Lets say the true value of a gauge block is 10.02 mm.
I take caliper 1 and it reads 10.03 mm
then i take caliper 2 and it reads 10.07 mm.
I can then say caliper 1 is more accurate than caliper 2.


I guess the "accuracy" is just the term the manufacturer uses for +- of the measuring equipments?

The tolerance i know is when a nominal value is given with its upper and lower limit. The upper limit-the lower limit is the tolerance.
For example if i were to manufacture metal rods with a length of 10mm, and i have the technical specification from e.g my supplier 10 mm +- 1 mm, my tolerance is 2 mm. that means i can deliver my suppliers all metals rods that's 9-11mm long. Of course i need to take the uncertainties of my measurements into account as well.
18-06-2020 21:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7672)
Nobi wrote: what i understand about accuracy is how far your measurement differs from a true value.

Correct. Notice that accuracy is not a +/- ... it's a "how far off."

Tolerance is a +/-
Margin of Error is a +/-
Accuracy is just an absolute value.

Go to a shooting range and fire at a target. You will notice that your "accuracy" is described as "high and to the left" not +/- anything.

Your firearm, however, has a tolerance (which for firearms is unfortunately called "accuracy") which is the result of everything involved in its manufacture. You can completely lock/bolt down any firearm into a fixed position and fire multiple shots at an indoor target. All bullets will follow similar but different paths, within the +/- delta comprising the firearm's tolerance.

If you were to collect data concerning where bullets hit a target you could use statistical math to determine the accuracy of the shooting, but the data and the collection methodology and instrumentation all become factored into determining the +/- "margin of error" for the computed accuracy value.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-06-2020 23:10
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1392)
Nobi wrote:
what i understand about accuracy is how far your measurement differs from a true value.
Lets say the true value of a gauge block is 10.02 mm.
I take caliper 1 and it reads 10.03 mm
then i take caliper 2 and it reads 10.07 mm.
I can then say caliper 1 is more accurate than caliper 2.

Yup. This you have correct. IBD already said this, but I will reiterate (mostly for tmiddles' sake... a hopeless cause, I know!), notice that there is no "+-" regarding accuracy (it is, rather, an absolute value).

Nobi wrote:
I guess the "accuracy" is just the term the manufacturer uses for +- of the measuring equipments?

The tolerance i know is when a nominal value is given with its upper and lower limit. The upper limit-the lower limit is the tolerance.
For example if i were to manufacture metal rods with a length of 10mm, and i have the technical specification from e.g my supplier 10 mm +- 1 mm, my tolerance is 2 mm. that means i can deliver my suppliers all metals rods that's 9-11mm long. Of course i need to take the uncertainties of my measurements into account as well.


I think IBD did a good job of explaining tolerance earlier in this thread...

IBdaMann wrote:
If you measure a wall and find it to be of length 27 meters 13.443 cm +/- 0.09 cm ... your tolerance is the +/- 0.09 cm. Confidence level does not apply because you have measured the wall and you are now 100% confident, i.e. absolutely certain, that the wall is 27 meters 13.443 cm +/- 0.09 cm.

Edited on 18-06-2020 23:30
18-06-2020 23:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3562)
IBdaMann wrote: Tolerance is created, and reflected, in the start-to-finish manufacturing of the system/device, from the initial generation of requirements, through the design and engineering all the way through to when the component parts are manufactured and assembled. That is what determines the tolerance,...

You just made all of that up. "Tolerance" is traditionally the word used to describe a need, a requirement. You and ITN have been using it to describe the accuracy of a measuring tool, as the +/-0.03mm shown below for model 530-120*:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Measurements do not have a margin of error.

Here is the specification for a digital caliper:

Where is says: "High accuracy model: +/- 0.03mm" what do you call that ITN? Also where does that come from?

Tolerance. RQAA.
gfm7175 wrote:...This is NOT "accuracy"....
(don't you wonder why they wrote "accuracy" GFM? Seems like they would know their stuff doesn't it?
IBdaMann wrote:Your firearm, however, has a tolerance (which for firearms is unfortunately called "accuracy")
But you guys never let reality get in your way now do you!
Really it doesn't matter how you redefine words in spite of their common usage.
Tolerance and accuracy are achieved standards for a manufacturer based on performance. You ignored Example: Statistical Tolerance Limits

IBdaMann wrote:So why this fight to pretend that all the people measuring things doubt the measurments they are reading and/or also jot down their "confidence levels" in each measurement? That whole notion is absurd. Nobody does that.
There is ALWAYS doubt about a measurement. They don't have to jot down the accuracy of the measuring device because it's in the spec sheet. Even a garage mechanic will know how much doubt there is about the measurement from the spec sheet. If I'm using a model 530-122 caliper as shown in the list above and I measure a 10.013 mm length I know that there is a 95% probability that the true length is between 9.983 and 10.043. I NEVER EVER get to know the exact length, there will always be some doubt about that.
IBdaMann wrote:He did not get any range of values.
Yes he did, as above it is from 9.983 and 10.043 mm.

IBdaMann wrote:...find a valid dataset...
your definition of "valid dataset" has been shown to be a nonexistent entity (in my sig). If not I welcome your providing one (for the first time ever).

IBdaMann wrote:...26 SEP 2015....hundreds of millions
Why not hundreds of billions or trillions? Why not share your calculation on that? Sounds like impressive work you've done in besting NASA and the gang.

Nobi wrote:
As far as i know, the +- of the measuring equipment indicates the accuracy. Let's say the accuracy of a digital caliper is +-0.02 mm. You measure the height of your phone, and your caliper reads 10.82 mm. That means that your real measurement can lie anywhere between 10.80-10.84 mm.
Yep. We can never have an exact measurement but that answer is exactly right


"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
18-06-2020 23:51
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1392)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted same repetitious bullshit with no desire to learn about mathematics

No new argumentation presented.
18-06-2020 23:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13990)
James___ wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
I am with Tmiddles on this point.My best friend was an engineer that made steering box parts and shafts and had a dial gauge set of vernier calipers for extreme tolerances where all I need them for as a plumber is reloading centre fire cases and measuring the OAL case length to SAAMI specs so I only have a $30 manual set that with my glasses on I can read to .1 mm.My mates set would measure to a thou.Thats my take on Tolerance correct me if I am wrong but I have followed this thread and it has been indicated there is no such thing as tolerance when measuring,I am going to reread the whole thread again when I remove my lips from the bottom of the Tmiddles.A bit disgusting IBDM and you wrote it 3 times



I've worked as a machinist for many years. And you guys are confusing issues.
Just because something can be measured to within .001 inches does not mean that the dimension has to be exact. I've worked with tolerances that go from .002 inches to .03 inches.
If scientists are accurate with how they determine half lives then that allows for IMO a good understand of what happened in the past and when. And with climate science, it might actually be more about observing a trend.
As you've said yourself, you can look at a body of water and see if it's level has changed over many years and that we can't measure the tide. When you make statements like that...

Base rate fallacy.
I have never said you can't measure a tide.


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
19-06-2020 00:30
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3562)
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:...This is NOT "accuracy"....
IBdaMann wrote:...which... is unfortunately called "accuracy")
No new argumentation presented.
Yeah sure....
19-06-2020 00:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7672)
tgoebbles wrote: You just made all of that up.

Nope. You're a dumbass.

You don't have a clue what's in that Quality Engineer certification material you like to cite. How much do you want to bet that it backs up everything I wrote, that quality is engineered into what is manufactured and is determined by the requirements demanded of the final manufactured product.

You're just trying to ruin this thread.

tgoebbles wrote: "Tolerance" is traditionally the word used to describe a need, a requirement.

No chit Mr. Genius. First you tell me that I'm WRONG! and then you recite back exactly what I wrote.

This has to be intentional on your part.

tgoebbles wrote: You and ITN have been using it to describe the accuracy of a measuring tool, as the +/-0.03mm shown below for model 530-120*:

Nope. That's you. That is all you. We have been insisting that tolerance is tolerance and not accuracy.

This is definitely intentional on your part, to disrupt the thread. I sense that you fear your Global Warming dogma being put in jeopardy.

tgoebbles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:So why this fight to pretend that all the people measuring things doubt the measurments they are reading and/or also jot down their "confidence levels" in each measurement? That whole notion is absurd. Nobody does that.
There is ALWAYS doubt about a measurement.

Stop pretending to speak for other people.

Doubt is a human emotion that no one is required to have. Look at you; you would rather die than doubt your WACKY religious dogma or your terrorist BLM buddies. My friend took measurements for his cabinets and he had no doubts. He is a human and their was no doubt on his mind.

If you are saying that most every measurement value differs from the absolute truth to infinite precision then yes, most probably do, but the nature of not knowing what you don't know is that you don't know what it is that you don't know ... *and* a measurement might be right on the money, you don't know.

tgoebbles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:He did not get any range of values.
Yes he did, as above it is from 9.983 and 10.043 mm.

Nope. I saw what he wrote. No ranges of values.

You are just making chit up and babbling in order to disrupt a thread that is getting to heart of the reason no one should buy into your fugged-up religion.

tgoebbles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...26 SEP 2015....hundreds of millions
Why not hundreds of billions or trillions? Why not share your calculation on that? Sounds like impressive work you've done in besting NASA and the gang.

Nope. It was easy. They are frauds.

NASA is a government organization; they don't deal with science very well. They simply manage work performed by private contracting firms that *do* understand science.

NASA and NOAA are like the pointy-haired boss in Dilber comics.



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-06-2020 01:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13990)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 26...10g...semantic fallacy...30...15...38b...4f...35d...10g...25j...


No argument presented. Denial of mathematics. Denial of engineering.


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
19-06-2020 05:30
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 26...10g...semantic fallacy...30...15...38b...4f...35d...10g...25j...


No argument presented. Denial of mathematics. Denial of engineering.



Aren't people who live in Seattle called Satellites? Why we talking about them for?
19-06-2020 07:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7672)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 26...10g...semantic fallacy...30...15...38b...4f...35d...10g...25j...


No argument presented. Denial of mathematics. Denial of engineering.



Aren't people who live in Seattle called Satellites? Why we talking about them for?


Because Seattle has CHAZ ... I mean CHOP ... and they are the shit-hot center of BLM terrorism ... I mean of BLM social justice ... where victimhood is freely assumed and violence and crime and murder are considered to be completely justified ... because of the freely assumed victimhood.

Just ask tgoebbles. Yeah.

Pigs in a Blanket; Fry Like Bacon!

I will rejoice the day BLM is listed as a terrorist organization and subject to drone strikes for their lynchings and looting and criminal trespass.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-06-2020 08:52
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3562)
IBdaMann wrote:Doubt is a human emotion
Not in this context. If you'd like you can replace it with uncertainty. Just as confidence level here has nothing at all to do with human emotion but describes the probability that the true value is within a range of the measurement.

IBdaMann wrote:...your WACKY religious dogma...
This is about the fundamental nature of what much we "know" about what we measure directly. It has nothing specifically to do with AGW.

IBdaMann wrote:My friend took measurements for his cabinets and he had no doubts.
What he did not have were any problems because the margin of error for his measurements was far narrower than he needed it to be for his purposes. His emotional state or mental capacity are irrelevant to the fact that the actual length he measured was uncertain.

IBdaMann wrote:...every measurement value differs from the absolute truth to infinite precision then yes, most probably do, ...
OK finally you say something that is correct.

IBdaMann wrote:
tgoebbles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...26 SEP 2015....hundreds of millions
Why not hundreds of billions or trillions?
...Dilber comics.
No answer to my question. How did you arrive at hundred of millions? 200,000,000? What was the number you actually calculated? Or did you just make it up?

You also never answered:
HOW does a manufacturer determine the "Tolerance", or "Accuracy" of a measuring device?

Here's a big clue (well the whole answer) which you also ignored:
Statistical Tolerance Limits

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 19-06-2020 08:58
19-06-2020 15:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7672)
tgoebbles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Doubt is a human emotion
Not in this context.

Yes in this case. Doubt is always a human emotion. Perhaps "uncertainty" would be better, of which Heisenberg explained always exists when working with elementary particles ... but if the uncertainty falls below the human level of concern then the human emotion of doubt vanishes and my friend ends up jotting down single value measurements to install the cabinets.

... and of course uncertainty can easily be eliminated when the measure involves counting or discrete units/outomes.

... and you are just WRONG!


tgoebbles wrote: It has nothing specifically to do with AGW.

It has everything to do with your religion. We're talking about data and your religion claims to have "The Data" to infinite accuracy. You tout it all the time as that which gives you omniscience, such as the knowledge of temperatures of even very large yet undefined volumes like "Denver." You claim to "know" said temperatures exactly , +/- zero margin of error. This is why you aren't relegated to using statistical math like the rest of us mere mortals.

Of course it's funny how you insist that you, in your omniscience, don't need to bother with any statistical math because you are simply 100% accurate in whatever you say whereas we mere mortals can't escape being WRONG! because of inescapable uncertainty.

Would you care to guess to what extent I subscribe to your view?

tgoebbles wrote: What he did not have were any problems because the margin of error for his measurements was far narrower than he needed it to be for his purposes.

There is no such thing as "margin of error" for measurements. I suppose you meant to write that he was "confident" that the measures were "good enough" yes? Then you need to explain why he did not jot down any "confidence level" with his measurements that would become part of the data ... as you insist happens.

tgoebbles wrote: His emotional state or mental capacity are irrelevant to the fact that the actual length he measured was uncertain.

His emotional state has everything to do with him being "confident" that all his measurements were just fine. Everything. There is no other way to account for his being "confident."

tgoebbles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...every measurement value differs from the absolute truth to infinite precision then yes, most probably do, ...
OK finally you say something that is correct.

If by "finally" you mean "maintained throughout my life, including this conversation" then sure. I have expressed this very sentiment several times in several ways, and I believe every time except this one you have declared me to be WRONG! (or your latest trend is to claim that I "made it up").

Well good, finally you accept something that I am telling you. It took quite a while though.

Is there a magical quantity of times that I need to tell you something before your mind will allow it in?

tgoebbles wrote: answer to my question. How did you arrive at hundred of millions? 200,000,000? What was the number you actually calculated? Or did you just make it up?

GO - LEARN - STANDARD - DEVIATION ... demonstrate that you understand it, then tell me how many times I need to write the answer for you to accept it and then I'll gladly explain.

tgoebbles wrote:You also never answered:
HOW does a manufacturer determine the "Tolerance", or "Accuracy" of a measuring device?

You never read my direct response to this question.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-06-2020 17:20
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1392)
IBdaMann wrote:
I will rejoice the day BLM is listed as a terrorist organization and subject to drone strikes for their lynchings and looting and criminal trespass.

.

Rejoice (at least a very tiny bit) because the Mayor of Olympia, WA (Cheryl Selby) is now labeling BLM as "domestic terrorism", taking a drastic change from her former support for BLM.

What happened?!?!? Oh, wait, what's this??? Just in... BLM vandalized her home.

Hmmmmmmmmm.......... Apparently she's perfectly fine with BLM so long as BLM is not affecting her personally... Interesting........

Be violent, so long as your violence isn't aimed at me
19-06-2020 18:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7672)
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I will rejoice the day BLM is listed as a terrorist organization and subject to drone strikes for their lynchings and looting and criminal trespass.

.

Rejoice (at least a very tiny bit) because the Mayor of Olympia, WA (Cheryl Selby) is now labeling BLM as "domestic terrorism", taking a drastic change from her former support for BLM.

What happened?!?!? Oh, wait, what's this??? Just in... BLM vandalized her home.

Hmmmmmmmmm.......... Apparently she's perfectly fine with BLM so long as BLM is not affecting her personally... Interesting........

Be violent, so long as your violence isn't aimed at me


Let's add "stupid" to the modifiers of BLM. Their motto this week should be "We bite the hands that feed us!" Cheryl Selby was a Democrat BLM supporter. Now the flashlight isn't being shined in her eyes.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-06-2020 22:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13990)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted semantic fallacy...Mantras 10g...31...10g...29...17...29...29...10g...10g...29...


No argument presented. Semantic fallacies. Redefinition fallacies. 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
20-06-2020 03:50
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(751)
duncan61 wrote:
I found the post I was refering to on page 5 however I am determined not to get into slinging matches over who said what.I started this thread on what Satellites are capable because that is the go to for the warmazombies who I am studying with.Its the science and the Satellites measure it all.Even Dr Strong who drops in every now and then with alarmist news states that the way the Satellites are used is very hit and miss


I asked about sea level rise at my CCLA meeting and the official response was it is happening really slowly.So nothing to worry about


duncan61
20-06-2020 04:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3562)
duncan61 wrote:
I asked about sea level rise at my CCLA meeting and the official response was it is happening really slowly.So nothing to worry about
Yeah Al Gore put his chips on the wrong number there. If it's happening we know it's slow because we've got 50 years now of not much happening when compared to the 50 years before that is.

IBdaMann wrote:There is no such thing as "margin of error" for measurements.
If a measurement differs from the true value what do you call that difference? I'll help you out:
Measurement Error (also called Observational Error) is the difference between a measured quantity and its true value. It includes random error (naturally occurring errors that are to be expected with any experiment) and systematic error (caused by a mis-calibrated instrument that affects all measurements).

He didn't jot down a confidence level because there was no need to.

Why don't you tell me what the probability is that if I use a caliper with accuracy of +/-0.03mm to measure something that the value the caliper provides with be within +/-0.03mm of the true length? Do you think it's 100% certain? 50%?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...the actual length he measured was uncertain.
..His emotional state
Ah ah, you skip the actual issue. Was the measurement uncertain or not? Was there a probability that it would fall within a range of the true value or not?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: How did you arrive at hundred of millions? 200,000,000? What was the number you actually calculated? Or did you just make it up?
...... demonstrate that you understand
Still no answer to this. What would you like to know about standard deviation? I told you I have no problem with basic statistics. That has no bearing on your ability to answer that simple question.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:You also never answered:
HOW does a manufacturer determine the "Tolerance", or "Accuracy" of a measuring device?

You never read my direct response to this question.
This?:
IBdaMann wrote:Tolerance is an engineering requirement and is part of the design. Tolerance is created, and reflected,...

Saying that a "tolerance" is "created" is like someone asking how a cake is made and you simply say that a baker makes one. That's not an answer to HOW that is an answer to WHO.

So IBD let's say a manufacturer is going to determine not what they wanted, hoped and set out to make the accuracy of their device, but what they actually have in their current manufacturing batch. THAT is what the accuracy actually is.

IBdaMann wrote:That is what determines the tolerance, everything in the manufacturing process.
Which really reads that is WHO determines the tolerance. You just left out how it is measured.

Your non-answer could be used for just about everything. "How is ______ done?": "Through hard work and determination".

You've again ignored the answer:
Statistical Tolerance Limits

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Page 6 of 7<<<4567>





Join the debate Satellites:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
GRACE satellites to be shut down116-09-2017 22:11
▲ 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