Satellites

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Satellites > Page 2

Page 2 of 7

22-05-2020 17:17
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	JackFou wrote: gfm7175 wrote: There is no such thing as as "global climate". Shoo! We don't need another annoying bird in here! Make me.
23-05-2020 01:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: Words have meaning. Good, we agree on that. Apparently not. You keep redefining words and attempting to use undefined words in your arguments. JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: They also have a history on how that meaning came about. No objection there. Apparently there is. You figure there is some central authoritative reference on the meaning of words. JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: No dictionary defines any word. So if you don't know the meaning of a word, where would you look it up? Depends on the word. JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: You can't just arbitrarily redefine them And yet that is exactly what you try to do all the time. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU using undefined words in your arguments. JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: and you can't define key words and phrases you repeatedly use. If you look closely, you'll find that I generally try to avoid terms like "global climate" because I know exactly what bringing them up leads to with people like you. Your post is precisely the kind of waste of effort in an attempt to dance around meanings I previously mentioned. Lie. You used 'global climate'. You used 'global warming'. You used 'greenhouse effect'. You used 'greenhouse gas'. You still continue to use them as your arguments. Now you quibble about what you have already said??? Denial of self fallacy. JackFou wrote: JackFou wrote: I think my main issue with the whole "climate" thing is that you can get lost in endless arguments about what the terms "climate" or "climate change" should or shouldn't encompass, how big of a region you should consider for any given climate zone etc. Into the Night wrote: Define 30+ years in terms of defining 'climate'. Define 'location' in terms of 'climate'. What is it's size? What is it's coordinates? Q.E.D. Lost, eh? I thought so. JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: Words like 'heat', 'radiance', 'energy', 'force', 'entropy', 'frequency', 'wavelength', 'emissivity', 'temperature', 'quantum', etc. are defined by science by designation. They each have a specific meaning. Funny you'd mention "heat" because your understanding of what it means doesn't line up with how the term is used in physics. Yes it does. JackFou wrote: If you do some digging, you'll also find that there are several ways how "temperature" is understood and explained, depending on the context. It has only one specific meaning in physics and chemistry. It is not context dependent. Strawman fallacy. Redefinition fallacy. (heat->void, temperature->void). Void authority fallacy. JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: Words like 'climate change', 'global warming', 'climate science', 'expert', 'pollution', and 'greenhouse gas', have no meaning. They are all meaningless buzzwords. I can define greenhouse gas for you, if you want. Okay. Let's see you try. JackFou wrote: It's any gas in the atmosphere which absorbs and emits EM radiation within the spectrum of radiance from earth's surface. So...any gas. Riiiight. JackFou wrote: Considering that most of the radiation given off by earth's surface is in the IR range of the EM spectrum, that would be equivalent to being pretty much any gas in the atmosphere that absorbs and emits in the IR frequency band. Earth emits a wide range of frequencies, including the entire range of infrared frequencies. It even emits frequencies below the infrared band. Did you know that Earth has more than one temperature upon it's surface? JackFou wrote: Questions about whether there exists such a thing as a "global climate" or an "average global temperature" and whether we can ever define/know it are mostly of philosophical nature. You first have to define 'global climate' to make an argument about it. Philosophy does not discuss undefined words. It may define a word, given the nature of the arguments made in it. There is no such thing as 'average global temperature'. Mantra 25l. JackFou wrote: I'm more interested in the science. You are denying science. JackFou wrote: Science tells us that IR active gases in the atmosphere lead to an increased amount of incoming radiance at the surface of the earth compared to a situation without IR active gases in the atmosphere. No, it doesn't. The 1st law of thermodynamics (a theory of science) says you cannot create energy out of nothing. The 2nd law of thermodynamics (also a theory of science) says you can't heat the surface using a colder gas. You can't reduce entropy in any given system. JackFou wrote: This in turn must result in an equally increased outgoing radiance from the surface which in turn requires an increased temperature of the radiating surface. This isn't science either. The Stefan-Boltzmann law (a theory of science) states that radiance is proportional to the temperature of a radiating surface. There is no sequence. There is no frequency term in the law. You cannot suspend this law...not even for a microsecond. JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: Right out of Marx. Like you, he teaches that profit is 'evil' and somehow 'costs human life'. I don't believe for one second that you've read anything from Marx. Maybe 'The Communist Manifesto' but I doubt even that. I have read Marx. You are making the argument that Marx makes. You can read the Communist Manifesto, conveniently translated to English for you, here. You can read another work of his, again, conveniently translated into English for you here. JackFou wrote: All you claim to know about Marx and what he said is most likely straight from the mouth of people like Dennis Prager, Steven Crowder, Jordan Peterson, Alex Jones, Ben Shapiro etc. irrelevant strawman. JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: He is not talking about the European Union. He is talking about European oligarchies and dictatorships. He literally used the words "European Union". Now you're trying to redefine what that means. Because he included the EU in with the others, dumbass. Pay attention. JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: Words have meaning. Into the Night wrote: They also have a history on how that meaning came about. Into the Night wrote: You can't just arbitrarily redefine them Oops! Mantra 7. JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: Like me, he understands what capitalism really is: the creation of wealth. Meaningless buzzword fallacy. "Capitalism" is an economic system, defined by private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. This is the only system that can create wealth. Both definitions are essentially equivalent for that reason. JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: It was no different for the colonies. If you mean that "the creation of wealth" got properly started by plundering foreign lands and forcing the population into slavery, then yes. History revisionism. Bigotry. Plunder is not creating wealth. It is theft. Slavery is not creating wealth. It is theft. The colonists were independent communities that raised their own food, obtained their own supplies, learned a ton from the mostly friendly indians that showed them where to hunt and what crops to plant. They built everything out of nothing. They planted their own crops, created their own towns, built their own homes, formed their own governments, created their own trade with the indians, fought their own wars to protect themselves and their property from those who sought to steal it, and built themselves up from nothing to becoming the first States of the United States of America. You owe a LOT to them and what they did...even though you despise them due to the lies the Democrats have been feeding you. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-05-2020 01:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	JackFou wrote: gfm7175 wrote: There is no such thing as as "global climate". Shoo! We don't need another annoying bird in here! You don't get to order people around. You are not the king. He will post where he wants to post. This is not a private messaging service. It is not a soapbox reserved for you to preach your religion to a totally compliant congregation. This is a public forum, centered around the Church of Global Warming, the scripture stated by its believers, and what is wrong with it, and how it denies science and mathematics, and how it's just another religion stemming from the Church of Karl Marx. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-05-2020 01:36
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	The temperature of Earth can not be known end of story.So stop scaring the children you freaks.Stop telling everyone its getting hotter and we are all going to burn when it can not be proven
23-05-2020 02:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: What is the climate for the whole planet "at the bottom of the atmosphere"? Desert? Tropical? Glacial? Habitable. 'Habitable' is not a climate. tmiddles wrote: Climate is the temperature, wind, pressure, humidity and so on. It's the weather. No, the weather is the weather. Climate is a subjective word that does not have any quantify associated with it. tmiddles wrote: The Climate of Earth is survivable for humans. There is no global weather. Everyone will die. Yes...you too. tmiddles wrote: The Climate of Venus is not. Are you still confused? No, but I bet YOU are. tmiddles wrote: The climate of Earth has a temperature range from -25C to 45C with a mean temp of approximately 14C. The temperature of Earth is unknown. Argument from randU fallacies. tmiddles wrote: The mean barometric pressure is approximately 15 lbs per square inch. The global air pressure on Earth's surface is unknown. However, a standard temperature and pressure is defined by engineers and government for engineering (and aviation) purposes as 29.92 inches of mercury at 59 deg F. This corresponds to a standard pressure of approx 14.7 apsi. This value is simply a declaration by a government...nothing more...like declaring a standard screw size. The lowest barometric surface reading ever recorded was 25.72, in the middle of a typhoon, before the instrument was destroyed by the storm. A reconnaissance aircraft monitoring the same storm recorded a reading of 25.69 (equivalent to 12.85apsi at standard temperature). The highest barometric reading recorded at the surface was 32.01 during a very clear and very cold day in Siberia. That's equivalent to 15.72apsi at standard temperature. tmiddles wrote: The range is fairly narrow at sea level but drops at higher altitudes of course (which are technically still the bottom of the atmosphere at those locations). Barometric readings are always related to standard temperature at sea level. tmiddles wrote: Still scratching your head? No, but I bet YOU are. tmiddles wrote: The Climate of Venus would crush you roast you. ITN can tell you about the climate of Venus: So will a red hot greased safe falling from the sky. A cow falling from the sky will only crush you. The last known cow falling from the sky crushed and destroyed a Japanese fishing boat. tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Holy Links... gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: "Weather" describes a number of different attributes including: temperature, humidity, wind, pressure, and so on. At a specific location at a specific point in time. No not "specific" but simply "specified" and climate means the weather over a span of time. Nope. 'A long time' is not a specific value. 'Over a area' is not a specific value. A 'span of time' is not a specific value. Multiple temperature readings are not a specific value. tmiddles wrote: If you want to pretend weather is only ever for an instant in time at a specific point in space, nothing more, go ahead, Mantra 25l...31... tmiddles wrote: but the English speaking world does not concur with you. You don't get to speak for the English speaking world. You only get to speak for you. Mantra 34...37e... tmiddles wrote: "How's the weather looking for Sunday Mr. Marx?", "well should be warmer than last week" Not the weather. A speculation. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Define "climate change". Describe how a subjective non-quantifiable thing such as climate can change. What you think of the climate may be subjective but Climate is not. Yes it is. Mantra 25j. tmiddles wrote: It is the weather over a period of time. That is specific and quantifiable. No, it is not. A 'period of time' is not specific or quantifiable. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

24-05-2020 06:16
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote: The temperature of Earth can not be known end of story... Care to identify something we can know the temperature of and explain the difference?
24-05-2020 06:33
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: 'Habitable' is not a climate. Sure it is. It's a range of environmental condition which a human can survive. Into the Night wrote:....Climate is a subjective word... Are you claiming universal authority to define words? When I say "climate" I mean the weather over the time specified for my identified subject matter. Got it? You should learn it as it's the dictionary definition as well: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/climate?s=t Into the Night wrote: The temperature of Earth is unknown. And is the temperature for anything known? Give an example. Into the Night wrote:The global air pressure on Earth's surface is unknown. Super weird you know more about VENUS than you do about Earth ITN. This is your quote, undoctored and linked to the source: Into the Night wrote:...The Venusian ...surface pressure is 90 times the surface pressure on Earth. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:...cimate means the weather over a span of time. Nope. 'A long time' is not a specific value. Yeah and that's why it's specified along with the subject matter. If I say "the Climate" there is always more info coming just as if I said "the specs". You'll know what I'm talking about when I'm done. Get over it ITN, you don't get to define words for other people. If you'd like to discuss my definition or the dictionary definition (same) for climate please do. If you want to pretend your odd definition is universal I can't help you with that. So the Climate of Earth being the weather conditions at the bottom of the atmosphere annually has a mean temperature which can change year to year. "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 24-05-2020 06:34
24-05-2020 06:46
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote: The temperature of Earth can not be known end of story... Care to identify something we can know the temperature of and explain the difference? We can know the temperature at all the weather stations in Australia and divide all the time frames and assemble the results.I went to school before computers and could do this with a pencil and piece of paper.My claim is it is not possible to know the temperature every where on the planet and calculate it to an average and then claim it is changing.I will copy and post Lindsay Little July 5, 2017 at 9:26 am \| # I certainly do not claim to be Australia's leading climatologist, but I am able to do my own research, something many of these esteemed scientific societies fail to do. They preferably blindly to follow the likes of conniving con men the like of Michael Mann. Once again early this year we were lambasted with the incredible statement that globally 2016 was the hottest year on record. Now no one would dispute Australia is a very large continent, and yet records collected by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology show that for past four years,2013 to 2016 inclusive annual average temperatures throughout Australia, have declined. To say that 2016 globally was the "hottest on record" is disingenuous. Why do I believe this person?? duncan61
24-05-2020 08:59
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote: We can know the temperature at all the weather stations in Australia and divide all the time frames and assemble the results....it is not possible to know the temperature every where on the planet and calculate it to an average and then claim it is changing. So you haven't told me what you can determine the temperature of. This is the question: "Can you determine the mean temperature of Earth" right? Now if the answer is that you cannot determine the mean temperature of Denver, your own house or anything then that is the answer (not just for Earth both for everything). You shouldn't then say "You can't determine the temperature of Earth" but rather "temperature cannot be known". If you CAN determine the temperature of say, your house, but with Earth for some reason is not possible because it's different in some fundamental way, then that is what should be described. I would say determining the mean temperature always involves a range of temperature for molecules at different locations within the subject as well as at different times and you always have a margin of error as well. That said you do know someting about the temperature. It is false to say that you cannot have a clue.
24-05-2020 10:53
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I have read your reply 5 times and do not understand what you are stating.What is the average Temperature of the entire Earth right now?You do not know because you can not know.You can know the temperature at the bulb of the thermometer you are looking at in Denver but it will be different than the temperature of the sheet metal roof down the street so what is the temperature.Remember the fraudsters are trying to convince the world its .8 degree warmer everywhere.How can this be known??
24-05-2020 13:33
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote:...You can know the temperature at the bulb of the thermometer you are looking at in Denver but it will be different than the temperature of the sheet metal roof down the street... So let's go with something no reasonable person would find the claim "I have no clue" credible shall we? The interior of your home. Do you duncan "know" the temperature of your own homes interior? Do you "have a clue"? Someone, if they wanted to say something stupid, might say "No you don't know exactly". What would that mean? I know the mean annual temp of my home is 24.5C, that it is 24.50203948200239C ? It's a stupid requirement because "exactly" does not exist outside of abstraction. You noted you could find a lot of different temperatures of objects but let's settle on the temperature of the air within your home, all the rooms, averaged over the course of the entire year. Do you think you could, without taking any measurements at all, be 95% confident on a margin of error for that value? Are you 95% confident (as in there is less than a 1/20 chance you are wrong) that the mean temp of your home annually is between 0C and 50C? 10 and 35? 20 and 30? Is it "impossible" to figure out? No of course not. Particularly if you had instruments measuring and recording all year at some locations. Mathematically this is done with statistics and the "confidence" is not an emotional state but a probability. We will never ever ever know the temperature of ANYTHING with complete precision. We will always have a margin of error. Also everything has a range of temperature over time and from one cluster of molecules to the next. Temperature can be fairly even within a subject. Venus at ground level has a freakishly narrow range of temperatures day or night (dark side or light side) and regardless of the latitude. Thermal energy will try to even out and the entire atmosphere of Venus circles the planet every 4 Earth days (while the rotation of Venus takes 243 Earth days). These are the measurements we have from a variety of location, dark side and light side: Venera 7 475C (landed on dark side) Venera 8 470C Venera 9 485C Venera 13 457C Venera 14 465C But professionals who know how to do this are conducting the work. Questioning their performance is legitimate but it's not as though they do not exist and their work was never performed. Did they have a motive to lie? Are they incompetent? Is the work beyond human ability? and so on. duncan61 wrote:What is the average Temperature of the entire Earth right now?You do not know because you can not know. I personally don't do this work. Does someone "know"? Yes, yes they do. To some margin of error of course. It is no more fundamentally "unknowable" than the temperature of anything. Edited on 24-05-2020 14:00
24-05-2020 22:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:...You can know the temperature at the bulb of the thermometer you are looking at in Denver but it will be different than the temperature of the sheet metal roof down the street... So let's go with something no reasonable person would find the claim "I have no clue" credible shall we? The interior of your home. Do you duncan "know" the temperature of your own homes interior? Do you "have a clue"? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Someone, if they wanted to say something stupid, might say "No you don't know exactly". What would that mean? I know the mean annual temp of my home is 24.5C, that it is 24.50203948200239C ? It's a stupid requirement because "exactly" does not exist outside of abstraction. RQAA. Mantras 25c1...25j...25l...10g... tmiddles wrote: You noted you could find a lot of different temperatures of objects but let's settle on the temperature of the air within your home, all the rooms, averaged over the course of the entire year. Do you think you could, without taking any measurements at all, be 95% confident on a margin of error for that value? Mantra 25c...25f... tmiddles wrote: Are you 95% confident (as in there is less than a 1/20 chance you are wrong) that the mean temp of your home annually is between 0C and 50C? 10 and 35? 20 and 30? Probability is not margin of error or a temperature measurement. Mantra 25n...25c... tmiddles wrote: Is it "impossible" to figure out? No of course not. Yes. Argument from randR fallacy. Void equation. Conflations of probability and margin of error and tolerance and measurement. Mantra 25h...25o... tmiddles wrote: Particularly if you had instruments measuring and recording all year at some locations. Mathematically this is done with statistics and the "confidence" is not an emotional state but a probability. You are denying statistical math as well as probability math. At this point you are denying algebra also, having never constructed an equation for relating probability to margin of error or any fabricated data point. tmiddles wrote: We will never ever ever know the temperature of ANYTHING with complete precision. We will always have a margin of error. Mantra 25c1. tmiddles wrote: Also everything has a range of temperature over time and from one cluster of molecules to the next. Mantra 25j. A scalar is not a set. tmiddles wrote: Temperature can be fairly even within a subject. Venus at ground level has a freakishly narrow range of temperatures day or night (dark side or light side) and regardless of the latitude. Thermal energy will try to even out and the entire atmosphere of Venus circles the planet every 4 Earth days (while the rotation of Venus takes 243 Earth days). These are the measurements we have from a variety of location, dark side and light side: Venera 7 475C (landed on dark side) Venera 8 470C Venera 9 485C Venera 13 457C Venera 14 465C You can't measure the temperature of a planet with a single thermometer no matter where it's placed. Mantra 25c... tmiddles wrote: But professionals who know how to do this are conducting the work. 'Expert' worship. You cannot use bad math by claiming 'experts'. Mantra 4f. tmiddles wrote: Questioning their performance is legitimate but it's not as though they do not exist and their work was never performed. Mantra 15...30... tmiddles wrote: Did they have a motive to lie? Are they incompetent? Mantra 15...30... tmiddles wrote: Is the work beyond human ability? and so on. You cannot wander off topic to justify your bad math either. tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:What is the average Temperature of the entire Earth right now?You do not know because you can not know. I personally don't do this work. Obviously. It is not possible to measure the temperature of Earth. tmiddles wrote: Does someone "know"? Yes, yes they do. No. Mantra 4d. tmiddles wrote: To some margin of error of course. Mantra 25g...25c... Margin of error is not a random number. tmiddles wrote: It is no more fundamentally "unknowable" than the temperature of anything. Mantras 25l...9a...39j...39q... Math errors. Redefinitions. Invalid proof by bad math and compositional errors. No argument presented. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 24-05-2020 22:51
25-05-2020 02:58
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I forgive your use of RQAA ITN I am probably going to start doing it myself.No matter how it is logicaly explained this nutjob just keeps twisting it
25-05-2020 04:36
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote: The temperature of Earth can not be known end of story... Care to identify something we can know the temperature of and explain the difference? RQAA. God this feels good. It really is so much easier. Tell duncan that it has already been explained to you about a billion times that when you omit "margin of error" your question is gibberish. You REFUSE to state any TARGET margin of error because you KNOW that ends up destroying your fragile bubble of Global Warming. Oooops! What was that "POP!"? Was that the plausability of Global Warming bursting? Was that validity of Climate Change as a belief system evaporating? gfm7175 and I found the target margin of error and you were nowhere to be found. Attached image: Edited on 25-05-2020 04:37
25-05-2020 04:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	duncan61 wrote: I forgive your use of RQAA ITN I am probably going to start doing it myself.No matter how it is logicaly explained this nutjob just keeps twisting it Bingo. He's been doing it for years. May I recommend my numbered list of Mantras as well? You can find it here. I usually just delete his repetitive inanity and use the numbered lists to show what repetitive inanity it was. I have lately been keeping his post intact in my responses so you can see how the numbered mantras form and the fallacies they are based upon. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

25-05-2020 11:45
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:You can't measure the temperature ... What CAN you measure the temperature of ITN? A real example let's have it. And no you never have answered that questions. And I mean a subject, not an infinitesimal point. duncan61 wrote: I forgive your use of RQAA ITN I am probably going to start doing it myself.No matter how it is logicaly explained this nutjob just keeps twisting it Are you calling me a nutjob twisting things Duncan? If so I'd appreciate a more detailed argument. tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:...You can know the temperature at the bulb of the thermometer you are looking at in Denver but it will be different than the temperature of the sheet metal roof down the street... So let's go with something no reasonable person would find the claim "I have no clue" credible shall we? The interior of your home. ...It is no more fundamentally "unknowable" than the temperature of anything. And were you just ignoring my entire post to you? You might find: the echo chamber interesting. IBdaMann wrote:when you omit "margin of error" your question is gibberish. Are you talking about what? The margin of error for the temperature inside Duncan's home? Earth? Venus? I have been clear that I personally don't know how to do the statistical math. You and ITN clearly don't know how either as you never have and it's come up a lot. I have also been clear that I am persuaded by Pat Franks that the 1C or 0.1C margin required to support the graph of the Earth temperature the last 100 years are exceeded by the margin of error. He DOES know how to do the satistics and I find him very convincing. I have also been clear that almost every argument you've made about thermodynamics the last 5 years is destroyed by VENUS being hotter than it's equilibrium temp. The "target margin" there is all that I need to establish that disparity, +/-300C. IBdaMann wrote:Oooops! What was that "POP!"? Was that the plausability of Global Warming bursting? Was that validity of Climate Change as a belief system evaporating? So here you're clearly talking about Earth. Wow you do not pay attention. PAT FRANKS! I am convinced by his argument. HOWEVER not being able to measure something to the precision required does not mean that it ceases to exist. NO, not being able to determine a 0.25 degree change over 50 years for the entire planet using thermometer readings does not mean that Global Warming is debunked. It simply means that we are not able to determine a 0.25 degree change over 50 years for the entire planet using thermometer readings. The temperature record was never the basis for the Global Warming theory it was supposed to be the report card. "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 25-05-2020 11:52
25-05-2020 14:57
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote: Are you talking about what? The margin of error for the temperature inside Duncan's home? Earth? Venus? I have answered this many times. For any temperature of a volume. Do you understand volume or not? Do you understand wanting to understand the correct average temperature of something to within a given margin of error? ... or do you think that possibly being off by many orders of magnitude suffices for knowing the temperature? So, when someone wants to know a temperature of a volume, the first thing is to establish the margin of error that he wants. It's a desire thing. It's what is wanted. It is determined up front. Why is this important? It determines whether you can just take one thermometer and be satisfied with the single answer you get ... or whether you need to gather many data points, and where you need to gather them. You skip the most important part every time. tmiddles wrote: I have been clear that I personally don't know how to do the statistical math. You and ITN clearly don't know how either as you never have and it's come up a lot. This is where your argument ends. You realize that you've run yourself into a brick wall by never learning the statistical math that we've been telling you about since you arrived at this site. You could have learned the basics at least so that you wouldn't ask those really stupid questions, over and over and over, ... and you wouldn't say those really stupid things, over and over and over. Oh, in reference to your statement that Into the Night and I "clearly don't know how either" ... were you trying to fool me? You'd be really stupid to be trying to tell me what I do and do not know ... or did that never really occur to you? You know you could look up statistics software that will do all the heavy lifting for you (it's what I do) while you simply read up on the fundamental components to get a basic understanding of what is going on under the hood. Whatever you do, your target margin of error determines your data collection method. Oh, and if you ever present anyone a temperature value ... he has every right to ask for your data ... your raw data, in fact ... so as to scrutinize whether your value aligns with his margin of error. tmiddles wrote:I have also been clear that I am persuaded by Pat Franks that the 1C or 0.1C margin required to support the graph of the Earth temperature the last 100 years are exceeded by the margin of error. He DOES know how to do the satistics and I find him very convincing. Right. You are gullible. You probably NEVER demanded Pat Franks provide you with his raw data. You just obey whatever your church leaders tell you to believe. Of course, once you step outside your church sanctuary and enter the dangerous internet, you are likely to encounter people who are not gullible and who want to see the data that supposedly supports the conclusions you are asking them to believe (on faith) ... but you never have any because you never ask for it yourself ... because you don't believe any of that crap anyway ... and you know that none of the faithful in your church either have any data or believe in the religion because the entire congregation is really only looking for attention and to fulfill personal fantasies of being superheroes in the Justice League who are going to save the planet and to render judgement on those not in the church as being "the bad guys" that need to be thwarted. tmiddles wrote: I have also been clear that almost every argument you've made about thermodynamics the last 5 years is destroyed by VENUS being hotter than it's equilibrium temp. You haven't said anything coherent about Venus. You don't even know what you think you mean. You certainly don't have a clue that none of your gibberish challenges any science ... because you think it does. For today's giggles and chuckles, what specific argument that I have actually made do you believe in your heart of hearts is challenged by your gibberish on Venus? Pick one. p.s. as long as you remain mortally terrified of the Ideal Gas law, you aren't going to get anywhere with Venus. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-05-2020 23:16
JackFou ★☆☆☆☆ (114)	Into the Night wrote: Lie. You used 'global climate'. You used 'global warming'. You used 'greenhouse effect'. You used 'greenhouse gas'. You still continue to use them as your arguments. Now you quibble about what you have already said??? Denial of self fallacy. You have used all those terms as well just now. What a pointless exercise. Context matters. Into the Night wrote: JackFou wrote: Funny you'd mention "heat" because your understanding of what it means doesn't line up with how the term is used in physics. Yes it does. Show me some physics textbooks that use "heat" for "energy transfer". Not "heat transfer" or "flow of heat" or anything like that but just "heat". Into the Night wrote: It has only one specific meaning in physics and chemistry. It is not context dependent. Strawman fallacy. Redefinition fallacy. (heat->void, temperature->void). Void authority fallacy. T=dS/dU; That's one definition of temperature. "Measure of average thermal energy" is another. "Temperature is the property two objects have in common after they have been in contact for a third time" is another one. The simplest one is probably "Temperature is that which is measured by a thermometer". Into the Night wrote: JackFou wrote: It's any gas in the atmosphere which absorbs and emits EM radiation within the spectrum of radiance from earth's surface. So...any gas. Riiiight. In principle yes. If earth was hot enough to radiate most it its of energy in the visible range, any gas absorbing in the visible range would add significantly to the greenhouse effect. As it stands, earth mostly emits IR and therefore IR active gases are mostly responsible for the greenhouse effect. Into the Night wrote: No, it doesn't. The 1st law of thermodynamics (a theory of science) says you cannot create energy out of nothing. Earth is not an isolated system, the energy comes from the sun. Into the Night wrote: The 2nd law of thermodynamics (also a theory of science) says you can't heat the surface using a colder gas. You can't reduce entropy in any given system. The sun heats the earth, the gas just reduces its capacity to cool itself. It's like a blanket but for radiative energy transfer. Do blankets also violate the 2nd law? Does the cold blanket heat my warm body somehow? Or does it just partially prevent energy transfer away from the body which results in a higher temperature of the body? The 2nd law of thermodynamics is the same in both cases. The 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't care whether you energy transfer is radiative or conductive. Into the Night wrote: The Stefan-Boltzmann law (a theory of science) states that radiance is proportional to the temperature of a radiating surface. There is no sequence. There is no frequency term in the law. You cannot suspend this law...not even for a microsecond. So if the blackbody radiance of a surface is higher now than it was before, that means the surface must be warmer than it was before, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. That's exactly how the atmospheric greenhouse effect works, thank you confirming it, again. More incoming radiance means more outgoing radiance means higher temperature. I'm explaining a logical sequence, not that one happens after the other. I know that logic is really, really challenging for you but if you try enough you might eventually get it. Into the Night wrote: I have read Marx. I don't believe you. Into the Night wrote: JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: Like me, he understands what capitalism really is: the creation of wealth. Meaningless buzzword fallacy. "Capitalism" is an economic system, defined by private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. This is the only system that can create wealth. Both definitions are essentially equivalent for that reason. No they are not. Capitalism is an economic system, nothing else. You're trying to redefine words to your liking again. You should really consider replacing your profile picture with something more accurate: Edited on 25-05-2020 23:17
26-05-2020 00:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 29...29...30...29...29...29...29...4a...29...29...29...25c...31...29...4c...25g...25g...25f...29...lie...4b...20a1...20a2...20b...25g...29...lie...22a...25c...39j...39i...39m...39f...39c...39a... No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of science. Bad math. Lies. False and void authority fallacies. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-05-2020 00:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: Lie. You used 'global climate'. You used 'global warming'. You used 'greenhouse effect'. You used 'greenhouse gas'. You still continue to use them as your arguments. Now you quibble about what you have already said??? Denial of self fallacy. You have used all those terms as well just now. What a pointless exercise. Context matters. Yes it does. I used these terms as the meaningless phrases they are. Contextomy fallacy. Mantra 16c. You still use them as if they had an actual meaning. JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: JackFou wrote: Funny you'd mention "heat" because your understanding of what it means doesn't line up with how the term is used in physics. Yes it does. Show me some physics textbooks that use "heat" for "energy transfer". Not "heat transfer" or "flow of heat" or anything like that but just "heat". See the 2nd law of thermodynamics and how it defines 'heat'. JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: It has only one specific meaning in physics and chemistry. It is not context dependent. Strawman fallacy. Redefinition fallacy. (heat->void, temperature->void). Void authority fallacy. T=dS/dU; That's one definition of temperature. Not the definition of temperature. Temperature is not random equation. JackFou wrote: "Measure of average thermal energy" is another. The only definition used in physics and chemistry. JackFou wrote: "Temperature is the property two objects have in common after they have been in contact for a third time" is another one. Define 'a third time'. Define the temperature of a single object, not in contact with any other object. JackFou wrote: The simplest one is probably "Temperature is that which is measured by a thermometer". That's like saying an inch is defined by the ruler. It is not. JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: JackFou wrote: It's any gas in the atmosphere which absorbs and emits EM radiation within the spectrum of radiance from earth's surface. So...any gas. Riiiight. In principle yes. No. No gas or vapor is capable of creating energy out of nothing or heating a warmer surface. JackFou wrote: If earth was hot enough to radiate most it its of energy in the visible range, any gas absorbing in the visible range would add significantly to the greenhouse effect. Absorption by any gas does not heat the surface. It does not trap light, heat, or thermal energy either. JackFou wrote: As it stands, earth mostly emits IR and therefore IR active gases are mostly responsible for the greenhouse effect. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Mantras 20a1...20a2...20b...20v... JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: No, it doesn't. The 1st law of thermodynamics (a theory of science) says you cannot create energy out of nothing. Earth is not an isolated system, the energy comes from the sun. The Sun/-Earth-space system is an isolated system. You cannot compare two different systems as the same system. Mantras 20h...20i... JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: The 2nd law of thermodynamics (also a theory of science) says you can't heat the surface using a colder gas. You can't reduce entropy in any given system. The sun heats the earth, the gas just reduces its capacity to cool itself. It's like a blanket but for radiative energy transfer. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy. You cannot trap light. There is no Magick Blanket. No gas or vapor has this magick property. JackFou wrote: Do blankets also violate the 2nd law? No. You are comparing your own ability to generate thermal energy to an Earth which does not generate it's own thermal energy. It is heated by the Sun. Mantras 20h...20i...20a1... JackFou wrote: Does the cold blanket heat my warm body somehow? No. JackFou wrote: Or does it just partially prevent energy transfer away from the body which results in a higher temperature of the body? It doesn't. You body temperature is maintained by your own body. You are warm blooded. The blanket does not make you warmer. All it does is decouple some heat from your body to the surrounding environment so you don't need to generate as much thermal energy to maintain your own body temperature. Put a blanket on a rock. Does it warm the rock? Put it on a dead body. Does it warm the body? No. In both cases, the Sun can no longer heat the rock or the dead body as effectively, making them colder than otherwise. There is no Magick One Way Blanket. Mantra 20a1. JackFou wrote: The 2nd law of thermodynamics is the same in both cases. It is the same, but your examples are not consistent. You cannot compare two different systems as the same system. Earth does not heat itself.[/quote] Mantra 20a1...20h...20i... JackFou wrote: The 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't care whether you energy transfer is radiative or conductive. Not all light is absorbed. Not all light that is absorbed is converted to thermal energy. Light is not heat. Mantras 20q1...20q2...20g... JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: The Stefan-Boltzmann law (a theory of science) states that radiance is proportional to the temperature of a radiating surface. There is no sequence. There is no frequency term in the law. You cannot suspend this law...not even for a microsecond. So if the blackbody radiance of a surface is higher now than it was before, that means the surface must be warmer than it was before, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. That's exactly how the atmospheric greenhouse effect works, thank you confirming it, again. More incoming radiance means more outgoing radiance means higher temperature. There is no sequence. Mantra 20b3... JackFou wrote: I'm explaining a logical sequence, not that one happens after the other. There is no sequence. Mantra 20b3... JackFou wrote: I know that logic is really, really challenging for you but if you try enough you might eventually get it. Mantra 8. You deny logic. JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: I have read Marx. I don't believe you. Fine. Go read it yourself. I have already provided you with some handy links. JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: Like me, he understands what capitalism really is: the creation of wealth. Meaningless buzzword fallacy. "Capitalism" is an economic system, defined by private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. This is the only system that can create wealth. Both definitions are essentially equivalent for that reason. No they are not. Capitalism is an economic system, nothing else. It is an economic system. It is not a government or form of government. We agree here. JackFou wrote: You're trying to redefine words to your liking again. ...deleted Mantra 1... No, you are trying to build a false dichotomy. Mantra 24a... No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of logic. Strawman fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-05-2020 02:06
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	JackFou wrote:T=dS/dU; That's one definition of temperature. How about you give us your definition of "Temperature." That should make things a lot easier, yes? We can consider your definition and just use that going forward ... presuming it is externally consistent, of course. JackFou wrote: The simplest one is probably "Temperature is that which is measured by a thermometer". Except that if you have no other definition as a basis, then every thermometer is 100% accurate, despite many different thermometers providing vastly different values for the exact same thing. That sort of precludes it from being a "definition." JackFou wrote: As it stands, earth mostly emits IR and therefore IR active gases are mostly responsible for the greenhouse effect. As long as you are wandering into science fiction, how do photon torpedoes and dilithium crystals constribute as well? JackFou wrote:Earth is not an isolated system, the energy comes from the sun. That meaningless retort may very well serve to reveal your lack of understanding of thermodynamics but it does not serve as an explanation for violating the 1st law of thermodynamics. There does not exist any circumstance by which you can just create energy out of nothing. Just because there is a current amount of power coming from the sun, you don't get to increase the amount of that power without explaining from where the additional energy comes. If the sun is producing more of it then you need to show that, but you must explain any and all increases in the amount of energy, which include increases in the amount of radiance, power and temperature (per implication). So, let's take a step back to his question. You were in the process of explaining a temperature increase, which necessarily requires additional energy, and he simply asked from where this additional energy comes and your answer is ...what ? JackFou wrote: Meaningless buzzword fallacy. "Capitalism" is an economic system, defined by private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Incorrect. Capitalism = sound economics. Marx H-A-T-E-D the principles of economics out of sheer envy, because he was a lazy loser who wanted everything handed to him for free while he contributed nothing of value to society. As such, he loathed successful people and became a bigot ... specifically a deeply envious bigot. He coined a slur for "economics", i.e. "capitalism" and he called all people engaging in the underlying law of supply and demand "capitalists." As a means of belittlng those he could not bully, he constantly referred to them as being "exploited" and as being "slaves" ... except that he explained how slaves have it better. He belittled all successful people as "slave-masters." Karl Marx was a firebrand religious preacher of hatred and intolerance. I see you have joined the church of his legacy. Are you ready for a rude awakening? Marxist indoctrination is incompatible with economics, i.e. you must really suck at economics. Then again, you think that animals turn into petroleum when they die. JackFou wrote:Capitalism is an economic system, nothing else. Nope. "Capitalism" is economics, based on the law of supply and demand. Marxism is a religion which preaches bogus maxims that run counter sound economic principles. Other Marxist religions like Global Warming and Climate Change preach maxims that run counter to science. "Marxist" is sort of like a prefix for misinformation. Attached image:
26-05-2020 04:46
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:when you omit "margin of error" your question is gibberish. Are you talking about what? The margin of error for the temperature inside Duncan's home? Earth? Venus? I have answered this many times. For any temperature of a volume. And I have not "omitted" margin of error at all. Note the question WAS about what the margin of error could be for Duncan's home using only his own knowledge of it. The question is entirely about what the margin of error is for the ground level of Earth (I am deferential to Pat Franks conclusions there and his entire thesis is on the margin of error). And I have been very clear with you that a +/-300C margin of error for Venus is the target for us to discuss Venus exceeding it's equilibrium temp because it does so by 500 degrees. So how am I NOT including margin of error when it is central to every one of the three? IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: I have been clear that I personally don't know how to do the statistical math. ...you've run yourself into a brick wall by never learning the statistical math... Not at all. You and ITN can't do it and you are able to consider these topics as well. I'm not a well qualified Virologists, none of us are, but we should certainly consider the Covid-19 issue. If not being able to personally perform the research, investigation and assessment was a "brick wall" barrier to thinking about well, I guess you'd have your dream of not being able to discuss anything on this board. IBdaMann wrote: You could have learned the basics at least so that you wouldn't ask those really stupid questions, over and over and over, I do know the basics. I have tutored beginning college statistics. I don't have the ability to apply the knowledge well. I'm just being honest about that. IBdaMann wrote:Whatever you do, your target margin of error determines your data collection method. And you can go the other way. Take the data that is a available and produce a margin. We aren't always going on a measurement expedition. Sometimes we are simply working with what is available. IBdaMann wrote:Oh, and if you ever present anyone a temperature value ... he has every right to ask for your data ... OK. But as you are well aware you aren't personally doing the research anymore than I am. We are limited to what is available online. You have rejected raw data every time it's been presented to you:no data is valid for IBD Since you claim to know how to do the statistics why don't you explain how it is that a +/- 300 degree margin of error is not within reach for the temp of Venus with the chart from Venera 8 alone? IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:I have also been clear that I am persuaded by Pat Franks .... Right. You are gullible. You probably NEVER demanded Pat Franks provide you with his raw data. His paper has all the data. Go look for yourself. You actually don't seem to realize he makes your point, and ITN's point, that the margin of error makes the 1/2 degree claims bogus. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: I have also been clear that almost every argument you've made about thermodynamics the last 5 years is destroyed by VENUS being hotter than it's equilibrium temp. You haven't said anything coherent about Venus....what specific argument that I have actually made do you believe in your heart of hearts is challenged by your gibberish on Venus? Pick one. Oh I've got three you've ignored: Misuse of the 1st LTD, Plancks Law/SB Law, and glaring hypocrisy of "Valid Data" exposed: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s720.php#post_53762 75 days with no reply Here: Debating "photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object." and that the a light bulb absorbs the radiance from an oven, IBD claims "go ahead ... I'm ready to debate it.": https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-radiative-greenhouse-effect-does-not-exist-d10-e3047-s40.php#post_53357 82 days with no reply And Here: 2nd Law and disproving IBD's confusion about Earth being a isolated system: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2nd-law-d6-e3030-s80.php#post_53063 88 days with no reply You and ITN keep hiding behind pretending we don't know Venus is hotter than it's equilibrium temp. It is 500 degrees hotter, you've both basically acknowledged is very hot in statements, yet you keep ducking behind "it is unknown". Each one of the the three topics is responding to YOUR claims IBD, not my own. I have debunked you and you have not had a rebuttal. "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
26-05-2020 06:50
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote: The question is entirely about what the margin of error is for the ground level of Earth OK ... what is your target? tmiddles wrote: So how am I NOT including margin of error when it is central to every one of the three? I explained this. Before you gather data, what is your target margin of error which you will consider unacceptable if not met? tmiddles wrote:And you can go the other way. Take the data that is a available and produce a margin. We aren't always going on a measurement expedition. Sometimes we are simply working with what is available. But you never provide any data, or when you do, it is not the raw data. Sometimes, as in the case of Venus, you offer for discussion a handfull of temperature readings of questionable accuracy of unknown locations on an entire planet ... and then expect others to accept wild conclusions that you imagine while claiming that your imagination was inspired by those values. When you therefore accede that Venus' actual average planetary temperature could be +/- 300degC ... you don't seem to take the news very well that such information is of no value to anyone. The margin of error renders the data useless. So then you announce that you have an amazing theory that Venus' average temperature at the bottom of its atmosphere is higher than its average planetary temperature. Great. I don't think you are going to get much argument from anyone. However ... you then jump to the conclusion that your "theory" (which is a pretty straightforward and intuitive conclusion) somehow falsifies classical phsyics. It does not. tmiddles wrote: OK. But as you are well aware you aren't personally doing the research anymore than I am. We are limited to what is available online. ... or to what's in a library, or to what is accessible under FOIA, or any other authoritative source of information. tmiddles wrote: You have rejected raw data every time it's been presented to you I claim that that has never happened. I claim that you present fabricated crap as "valid data" just to perpetuate your delusion of omniscience. Whenever you developa need to "know" something that you merely imagine, you devise ways to present your imagination as something that "we know." When your fabrications are rejected, you pretend that "valid data" was rejected. That situation is entirely between you and your therapist. The Data Mine explains what you need for data to be valid. Go get some valid data. If you can't get a valid dataset then it's OK to say that that is something that we do not know ... and no one will accuse you of claiming that nothing is ever knowable. tmiddles wrote: His paper has all the data. Go look for yourself. How much data is there? Could you cut-n-paste it all with the notes in one or two posts right here in this thread? tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:[quote]tmiddles wrote: ...what specific argument that I have actually made do you believe in your heart of hearts is challenged by your gibberish on Venus? Pick one. Oh I've got three you've ignored: Misuse of the 1st LTD, Plancks Law/SB Law, and glaring hypocrisy of "Valid Data" exposed: You are wrong on all three counts. Let's pick one and analyze. Since you aren't very good at picking just one, I'll pick one for you ... the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. How does what you claim about Venus disprove the 1st Law of Thermodynamics? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-05-2020 14:30
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: The question is entirely about what the margin of error is for the ground level of Earth OK ... what is your target? There are two: 1- The News Worthy +/- 0.25 degree change that is used looking at just a 5 or 10 year period as evidence of global warming. As I said Pat Franks and others well qualified in the field dispute this. I don't know that I'm right to agree with him but it's certainly doubtful. 2- The +/- 30 degrees which demonstrates that Earth is warmer at ground level than it's equilibrium temperature. This simply shows that Joseph Fourier was right in 1824 in noting that our atmosphere traps thermal energy. AND of course Alternate 2- If anyone wants to quible about +/-30 degrees for Earth we've got Venus, a planet roughly the same size and a bit closer to the same sun with a 500 degree gap between it's equilibrium and ground level temps. As I said a +/-300 degree margin works fine for Venus. IBdaMann wrote:Before you gather data, ... I'm not gathering data IBD. I know you think everyone has to start from scratch but I consider that to be a ploy to derail debate. Just as Josef Stefan used Tyndalls measurements to draw his conclusions I will be borrowing the work of others. IBdaMann wrote:...you never provide any data, or when you do, it is not the raw data. Debunked thoroughly: no data is valid for IBD IBdaMann wrote:...Venus' ...+/- 300degC ... The margin of error renders the data useless. Not at all, it puts the lower end of that range for the ground level temperature well above the equilibrium temp. For our purposes (addressing your take on planetary thermodynamics in which thermal energy is never trapped, energy cannot be created because you think it's an isolated system, and so on) it works just fine. IBdaMann wrote:...that your "theory" ....falsifies classical physics. It does not. The entirely unique, and false, version of thermodynamics you and ITN have adopted is contradicted by every published work on the subject. Every one (I found TWELVE REFERENCES, the first 12 I looked at). It is far from "classical". IBdaMann wrote:How much data is there? Could you cut-n-paste it all No thanks look into it if you choose to. You ignored the topic for nearly a year now. IBdaMann wrote:...I'll pick one for you ... the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. To respect the board I will reply in the thread you've identified. See you there. link "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 26-05-2020 14:41
26-05-2020 17:44
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote: The temperature of Earth can not be known end of story... Care to identify something we can know the temperature of A specific location within a freshly cooked chicken breast. tmiddles wrote: and explain the difference? What "difference"?
26-05-2020 18:13
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote: We can know the temperature at all the weather stations in Australia and divide all the time frames and assemble the results....it is not possible to know the temperature every where on the planet and calculate it to an average and then claim it is changing. So you haven't told me what you can determine the temperature of. Even though this is a RQAA, one possible answer to your question would be a specific location within a freshly cooked chicken breast. tmiddles wrote: This is the question: "Can you determine the mean temperature of Earth" right? Even though this is yet another RQAA, I would say that, while this determination technically CAN be done, we unfortunately do not have enough thermometers to yield us any meaningful results. Thus, speaking practically, this determination cannot be done. tmiddles wrote: Now if the answer is that you cannot determine the mean temperature of Denver, your own house Correct. We don't know those temperatures. See above. tmiddles wrote: or anything Even though this is yet another RQAA, We CAN know the temperature of some things, such as the temperature of a specific location within a freshly cooked chicken breast. tmiddles wrote: then that is the answer (not just for Earth both for everything). You shouldn't then say "You can't determine the temperature of Earth" but rather "temperature cannot be known". Already explained this, even again within this very response. Yet another RQAA. tmiddles wrote: If you CAN determine the temperature of say, your house, but with Earth for some reason is not possible because it's different in some fundamental way, then that is what should be described. This has already been described for you ad nauseum, even within this very response. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: I would say determining the mean temperature always involves a range of temperature for molecules at different locations within the subject as well as at different times and you always have a margin of error as well. A temperature measurement is not a range. tmiddles wrote: That said you do know someting about the temperature. It is false to say that you cannot have a clue. "The temperature" of WHAT, exactly? Earth? Denver? My house? A precise coordinate at a precise moment in time? A specific location within a freshly cooked chicken breast? You keep (purposely) bouncing around between numerous different things.
26-05-2020 18:48
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:...You can know the temperature at the bulb of the thermometer you are looking at in Denver but it will be different than the temperature of the sheet metal roof down the street... So let's go with something no reasonable person would find the claim "I have no clue" credible shall we? The interior of your home. Do you duncan "know" the temperature of your own homes interior? Do you "have a clue"? Nope. And this is yet another RQAA on your part. tmiddles wrote: Someone, if they wanted to say something stupid, might say "No you don't know exactly". You are confusing "stupid" with "intelligent". tmiddles wrote: What would that mean? That they are knowledgeable and honest individuals. tmiddles wrote: I know the mean annual temp of my home is 24.5C, that it is 24.50203948200239C ? It's a stupid requirement because "exactly" does not exist outside of abstraction. Use whatever precision your "omniscience" is good for, whether that be 24.5C, 24.50203948200239C, or even 25C. tmiddles wrote: You noted you could find a lot of different temperatures of objects but let's settle on the temperature of the air within your home, all the rooms, averaged over the course of the entire year. Already discussed ad nauseum. tmiddles wrote: Do you think you could, without taking any measurements at all, be 95% confident on a margin of error for that value? Margin of error is a calculation, dude. tmiddles wrote: Are you 95% confident (as in there is less than a 1/20 chance you are wrong) that the mean temp of your home annually is between 0C and 50C? 10 and 35? 20 and 30? Probability is not a margin of error nor is it a temperature measurement. tmiddles wrote: Is it "impossible" to figure out? No of course not. Yes, it is. tmiddles wrote: Particularly if you had instruments measuring and recording all year at some locations. Mathematically this is done with statistics and the "confidence" is not an emotional state but a probability. More denial of mathematics. tmiddles wrote: We will never ever ever know the temperature of ANYTHING with complete precision. We will always have a margin of error. Confusion of "margin of error" and "tolerance". tmiddles wrote: Also everything has a range of temperature over time and from one cluster of molecules to the next. Confusion of scalar with set. tmiddles wrote: Temperature can be fairly even within a subject. Venus at ground level has a freakishly narrow range of temperatures day or night (dark side or light side) and regardless of the latitude. Thermal energy will try to even out and the entire atmosphere of Venus circles the planet every 4 Earth days (while the rotation of Venus takes 243 Earth days). These are the measurements we have from a variety of location, dark side and light side: Venera 7 475C (landed on dark side) Venera 8 470C Venera 9 485C Venera 13 457C Venera 14 465C You can't measure the temperature of Venus with a single thermometer. tmiddles wrote: But professionals who know how to do this are conducting the work. Questioning their performance is legitimate but it's not as though they do not exist and their work was never performed. Did they have a motive to lie? Are they incompetent? Is the work beyond human ability? and so on. Appealing to "experts" does not magickally transform bad mathematics into valid mathematics. tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:What is the average Temperature of the entire Earth right now?You do not know because you can not know. I personally don't do this work. Does someone "know"? Yes, yes they do. To some margin of error of course. It is no more fundamentally "unknowable" than the temperature of anything. Bad mathematics already addressed. Edited on 26-05-2020 18:49
26-05-2020 18:51
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	duncan61 wrote: I forgive your use of RQAA ITN I am probably going to start doing it myself.No matter how it is logicaly explained this nutjob just keeps twisting it I don't blame him for using it either, as I have already been making use of his term from time to time for quite some while now.
26-05-2020 19:02
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote: The temperature of Earth can not be known end of story... Care to identify something we can know the temperature of and explain the difference? RQAA. God this feels good. It really is so much easier. Tell duncan that it has already been explained to you about a billion times that when you omit "margin of error" your question is gibberish. You REFUSE to state any TARGET margin of error because you KNOW that ends up destroying your fragile bubble of Global Warming. Oooops! What was that "POP!"? Was that the plausability of Global Warming bursting? Was that validity of Climate Change as a belief system evaporating? gfm7175 and I found the target margin of error and you were nowhere to be found. Yet another beautiful illustration on your part IBD! Usually, I am found hiding in thickets, but in this case, I realize that I am safe from the grasp of tmiddles while perched magnificently on top of the target margin of error... He'll now try to stretch my response to him into "the whole chicken breast" without mentioning a target margin of error.
26-05-2020 19:10
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: I have also been clear that I am persuaded by Pat Franks that the 1C or 0.1C margin required to support the graph of the Earth temperature the last 100 years are exceeded by the margin of error. He DOES know how to do the satistics and I find him very convincing. How do you know that he knows how it's done, given your own admission that YOU don't know how it's done?

27-05-2020 01:17
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	We are all agreeing on the same quote which is THE EARTHS AVERAGE TEMPERATURE CAN NOT BE ACCURATLY DETERMINED.Which proves we can not be reliably informed it is getting warmer or cooler.AGW/CC theory gone,lack of proof.Lots of evidence of fudged data.I mean the people doing it admit they alter the data like its perfectly normal.Tmiddles is making argument like a lawyer regardless of the facts.Its a forum who cares
27-05-2020 22:36
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote:...identify something we can know the temperature of A specific location... So you are taking the position that we can't know the temperature of any volume of matter. So the Earth is no different for you than anything else. A consistent theme of NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN! And when I say "know" I mean to be 95% or 99% confident. You can't be 100% on almost anything, just ask Descartes. gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:We can know .... So you haven't told me.... ... this is a RQAA, .... I was asking Duncan so there is no way it's already been answered (RQAA) by him. gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: "Can you determine the mean temperature of Earth" ...we unfortunately do not have enough thermometers to yield us any meaningful results.... How many would be enough to determining the mean to within+/- 30 degrees because that is meaningful. How about for Venus to within +/- 300 degrees, also meaningful. In both cases it shows that the planets far exceed their equilibrium temps at ground level. gfm7175 wrote:A temperature measurement is not a range. And a temperature is. See the difference? A "temperature measurement" and "temperature of the subject" are distinguishable. There are always a range of temperatures from one group of molecules to the next and a single average of all of that thermal energy for the total you identify as your subject. gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: That said you do know something about the temperature. It is false to say that you cannot have a clue. "The temperature" of WHAT, exactly? Anything you're taking temperature measurements of. gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Do you think you could, without taking any measurements at all, be 95% confident on a margin of error for that value? Margin of error is a calculation, dude. Yes it is and I was asking Duncan if he thought it was possible that it was achievable. gfm7175 wrote:Probability is not a margin of error nor is it a temperature measurement. Ah! You don't know statistics. Yes it is a probability. Study up. gfm7175 wrote: You can't measure the temperature of Venus with a single thermometer. Why would you say that when we had 13 years of measurements from multiple locations using multiple thermometers? But then you have denied that the temperature of ANYTHING can be determined beyond a single point. gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote:...Pat Franks.... How do you know that he knows how it's done,... Once again to "know" is to be confident (95 or 99%). I'm 99% that Pat Franks, based on his credentials, knows statistics well. Your argument "but you can't know 100%" is fully agreed to. Move on. duncan61 wrote: We are all agreeing on the same quote which is THE EARTHS AVERAGE TEMPERATURE CAN NOT BE ACCURATLY DETERMINED.... No duncan I would not agree with that. You've used the word "accurately" which does not have a standed value or meaning. "accurately" for what? I would agree with Pat Franks that past temperature values don't allow us to be confident of a 1 degree increase over the last 100 years. I don't know about comparing the last 20 or 30 with today. It's an interesting question. Of course it makes sense to first ask the question "can you have a clue about the temperature of anything at all beyond a single point?" If the answer to that is "No" as it is for gfm then there is a far more fundamental inability to engage with NASA numbers than anything specifically related to global warming. But you clearly are a man in search of a predetermined answer to your question Duncan so carry on. "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
27-05-2020 23:53
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote:...identify something we can know the temperature of A specific location... So you are taking the position that we can't know the temperature of any volume of matter. As I thought... Yet another classic example of you "pulling a tmiddles"... This is where we start getting into that pesky little "margin of error" bit which you so desperately keep trying to run away from... tmiddles wrote: So the Earth is no different for you than anything else. A consistent theme of NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN! Vain repetitions. tmiddles wrote: And when I say "know" I mean to be 95% or 99% confident. You can't be 100% on almost anything, just ask Descartes. Vain repetitions. Confidence is not margin of error. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:We can know .... So you haven't told me.... ... this is a RQAA, .... I was asking Duncan so there is no way it's already been answered (RQAA) by him. It's already been answered by others. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: "Can you determine the mean temperature of Earth" ...we unfortunately do not have enough thermometers to yield us any meaningful results.... How many would be enough to determining the mean to within+/- 30 degrees because that is meaningful. How about for Venus to within +/- 300 degrees, also meaningful. In both cases it shows that the planets far exceed their equilibrium temps at ground level. More than what we currently have available to us. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote:A temperature measurement is not a range. And a temperature is. See the difference? A "temperature measurement" and "temperature of the subject" are distinguishable. There are always a range of temperatures from one group of molecules to the next and a single average of all of that thermal energy for the total you identify as your subject. Do try to stay focused... tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: That said you do know something about the temperature. It is false to say that you cannot have a clue. "The temperature" of WHAT, exactly? Anything you're taking temperature measurements of. Of what, exactly? tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Do you think you could, without taking any measurements at all, be 95% confident on a margin of error for that value? Margin of error is a calculation, dude. Yes it is and I was asking Duncan if he thought it was possible that it was achievable. Your question to Duncan has already been answered. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote:Probability is not a margin of error nor is it a temperature measurement. Ah! You don't know statistics. Yes it is a probability. Study up. No, that's your issue. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: You can't measure the temperature of Venus with a single thermometer. Why would you say that when we had 13 years of measurements from multiple locations using multiple thermometers? But then you have denied that the temperature of ANYTHING can be determined beyond a single point. I see you're "pulling a tmiddles" again... Randomly timed measurements at random locations cannot be "averaged together" into "the temperature of Venus". tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote:...Pat Franks.... How do you know that he knows how it's done,... Once again to "know" is to be confident (95 or 99%). I'm 99% that Pat Franks, based on his credentials, knows statistics well. Knowledge is not confidence, nor does knowledge result from credentials. tmiddles wrote: Your argument "but you can't know 100%" is fully agreed to. Move on. You're "pulling a tmiddles" again... tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote: We are all agreeing on the same quote which is THE EARTHS AVERAGE TEMPERATURE CAN NOT BE ACCURATLY DETERMINED.... No duncan I would not agree with that. You've used the word "accurately" which does not have a standed value or meaning. "accurately" for what? I would agree with Pat Franks that past temperature values don't allow us to be confident of a 1 degree increase over the last 100 years. I don't know about comparing the last 20 or 30 with today. It's an interesting question. Of course it makes sense to first ask the question "can you have a clue about the temperature of anything at all beyond a single point?" If the answer to that is "No" as it is for gfm then there is a far more fundamental inability to engage with NASA numbers than anything specifically related to global warming. But you clearly are a man in search of a predetermined answer to your question Duncan so carry on. "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 No, that's YOUR issue tmiddles... Edited on 27-05-2020 23:55
28-05-2020 14:25
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote:So you are taking the position that we can't know the temperature of any volume of matter. ..."margin of error" bit which you so desperately keep trying to run away from... The question was for you GFM so don't you run away from it. Can we know the temperature of a volume of matter beyond a single location at a single instant? I completely agree there would be a margin of error. I do not agree that is is only possible to "not have a clue" as you seem to indicate. But please do better than seeming to indicate something and answer the question. gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:We can know .... So you haven't told me.... ... this is a RQAA, .... I was asking Duncan so there is no way it's already been answered (RQAA) by him. It's already been answered by others. It has not and "others" don't speak for Duncan. gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: "Can you determine the mean temperature of Earth" ...we unfortunately do not have enough thermometers to yield us any meaningful results.... How many would be enough ...+/- 300 degrees, ... More than what we currently have available to us. Ah so you don't know. gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote:A temperature measurement is not a range. And a temperature is. See the difference? A "temperature measurement" and "temperature of the subject" are distinguishable. There are always a range of temperatures from one group of molecules to the next and a single average of all of that thermal energy for the total you identify as your subject. Do try to stay focused... Did you disagree with what I said? gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: That said you do know something about the temperature. It is false to say that you cannot have a clue. "The temperature" of WHAT, exactly? Anything you're taking temperature measurements of. Of what, exactly? All matter has a temperature so my statement applies to all matter. If you'd like an example I'll repeat the gas volume which is the interior of your own home, or Duncan's, or mine. gfm7175 wrote:Your question to Duncan has already been answered. You can't answer questions for other people. He has not replied at all. gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote:...13 years of measurements from multiple locations using multiple thermometers... ...Randomly timed measurements at random locations cannot be "averaged together" into "the temperature of Venus". What could be? But I'll make it easier. What could be done to determine the temperature of the gas inside your home? Is it possible? Also "random" is a good thing in taking sample measurements. "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
28-05-2020 23:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote:So you are taking the position that we can't know the temperature of any volume of matter. ..."margin of error" bit which you so desperately keep trying to run away from... The question was for you GFM so don't you run away from it. He has already answered your question. So have I. So has IBdaMann. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Can we know the temperature of a volume of matter beyond a single location at a single instant? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: I completely agree there would be a margin of error. Mantra 25c1...22 (margin of error as random number)... tmiddles wrote: I do not agree that is is only possible to "not have a clue" as you seem to indicate. But please do better than seeming to indicate something and answer the question. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:We can know .... So you haven't told me.... ... this is a RQAA, .... I was asking Duncan so there is no way it's already been answered (RQAA) by him. It's already been answered by others. It has not and "others" don't speak for Duncan. It has, liar. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: "Can you determine the mean temperature of Earth" ...we unfortunately do not have enough thermometers to yield us any meaningful results.... How many would be enough ...+/- 300 degrees, ... More than what we currently have available to us. Ah so you don't know. The highest temperature recorded on Earth's surface was 134.1 degF. The lowest temperature recorded on Earth's surface was -128.6 degF. These measurements form the limits of variance, not the margin of error. It is not unusual for temperature to vary as much as 20 deg F per mile. Such times can take place across weather fronts, within range of mountain compression waves, or even the difference between a hot parking lot and a cool forest nearby. I use this value for the variance itself. With a single thermometer, therefore, using these numbers and limits of variance, it's accuracy of measurement is +-131 deg F. Using 10000 thermometers gives the same margin of error. We simply do not have enough thermometers in the world to reduce the margin of error below this value. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote:A temperature measurement is not a range. And a temperature is. See the difference? A "temperature measurement" and "temperature of the subject" are distinguishable. Mantra 25j. tmiddles wrote: There are always a range of temperatures from one group of molecules to the next and a single average of all of that thermal energy for the total you identify as your subject. Do try to stay focused... Did you disagree with what I said? Mantra 25j...20h... tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: [quote]gfm7175 wrote: [quote]tmiddles wrote: That said you do know something about the temperature. It is false to say that you cannot have a clue. "The temperature" of WHAT, exactly? Anything you're taking temperature measurements of. Of what, exactly? All matter has a temperature so my statement applies to all matter. If you'd like an example I'll repeat the gas volume which is the interior of your own home, or Duncan's, or mine. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote:Your question to Duncan has already been answered. You can't answer questions for other people. He has not replied at all. He has. So have I. So has gfm. So has IBdaMann. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote:...13 years of measurements from multiple locations using multiple thermometers... ...Randomly timed measurements at random locations cannot be "averaged together" into "the temperature of Venus". What could be? But I'll make it easier. What could be done to determine the temperature of the gas inside your home? Is it possible? RQAA. No argument presented. Math errors. False equivalence fallacy. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-05-2020 01:42
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	What could be? But I'll make it easier. What could be done to determine the temperature of the gas inside your home? Is it possible? No it can not be measured for everywhere Now do not ask again or infer I did not respond.I am still waiting for an explaination of the sea levels on the before after pictures you posted months ago
29-05-2020 06:22
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote: This simply shows that Joseph Fourier was right in 1824 in noting that our atmosphere traps thermal energy. If Joseph Fourier made that claim then in 1824 Joseph Fourier was mistaken. You see, if big names can make mistakes with all their amazing credentials, you can understand how there might be certain misunderstandings by which you operate despite your amazing art credentials. tmiddles wrote: Alternate 2- If anyone wants to quible about +/-30 degrees for Earth we've got Venus, a planet roughly the same size and a bit closer to the same sun with a 500 degree gap between it's equilibrium and ground level temps. This horse never even gets out of the starting gate. This is not a valid statement. tmiddles wrote: I'm not gathering data IBD. So we're done. I appreciate you not wasting any more time on nonsense. tmiddles wrote: To respect the board I will reply in the thread you've identified. You were fine with showing disrespect to the board by posting this material in this thread up to this point. What changed? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-05-2020 17:09
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	And, once again, ITN was kind enough to do tmiddles' homework FOR him (this time, regarding variance limits, variance, margin of error, etc...). And, once again, tmiddles will likely be unable to read and comprehend it. Edited on 29-05-2020 17:11
29-05-2020 17:18
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	duncan61 wrote: What could be? But I'll make it easier. What could be done to determine the temperature of the gas inside your home? Is it possible? No it can not be measured for everywhere Now do not ask again or infer I did not respond.I am still waiting for an explaination of the sea levels on the before after pictures you posted months ago Was this post directed to me? I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-05-2020 07:35
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	No Tmiddles posted that question

Page 2 of 7

Join the debate Satellites:

Threads	Replies	Last post
METHANE-TRACKING SATELLITES	1	30-05-2023 22:50
GRACE satellites to be shut down	1	16-09-2017 22:11