stefan boltzmann

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > stefan boltzmann > Page 4

Page 4 of 6

12-01-2021 00:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:Therefore it seems to me 1) and 2) would both have[ the same temperature, which is dominated by the absorption and emission of radiation by the black plate. Yes, but not just "dominated" but "equalizing.". Any energy not absorbed by either bottle is absorbed by the plate. Ergo both combinations must therefore have the same average temperature. Similarly, it does not matter what absorptivity CO2 has vs. O2. Whatever energy is not absorbed by the atmosphere is absorbed by either the earth's hydrosphere or the earth's solid surface. . Even though it seems you successfully dispute the absorptivity difference of CO2 vs O2 does not matter when the radiation absorbed by Earth is considered, IMO you still need to explain why data shows the Earth has gotten hotter. There is no data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Neither NASA, NOAA, nor anybody else has data on the temperature of the Earth. Random numbers are not data. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit 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
12-01-2021 00:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:... you still need to explain why data shows the earth has gotten hotter. You still need to show that the earth has gotten hotter. Hint: this is where you display utter mathematical incompetence and then feel insulted when I point it out. If you're up for it, provide, in this thread (cut-n-paste if necessary) the following: 1: what the earth's average temperature is currently 2: the quantity you claim the earth's average temperature has increased 3: the margin of error you are claiming, and 4: the valid dataset that supports the preceding I imagine you have all this at the ready since this is the only way you could have data showing "the earth has gotten hotter." I am genuinely eager to see your data. . It is not hard to find a multitude of sources. Here's one. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-1/ Pray tell, what is wrong with this chart? It is a chart of random numbers. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. 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
12-01-2021 00:47
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Spongy Iris wrote: You must know how to read a chart right??? I do. Spongy Iris wrote: Locations are cities, towns, bases, all around the world. Yup, those are all locations. Spongy Iris wrote: That is a good sample of locations which is reasonable to think represents global average temperature. No, it isn't. First off, those locations are NOT uniformly spaced NOR are they simultaneously read by the same observer. That means that there is both location and time bias present in such data, which is not allowed in any valid statistical summary. But let's just assume that these biases have indeed been removed. You quoted "thousands" of thermometers earlier, so let's go off of that... Let's use NASA's number of 7,500 thermometers in my brief and general explanation of why that isn't enough thermometers. Earth has about 197 million square miles of surface area. Divide that number by 7,500 thermometers and that means that there would be one thermometer for every 26,267 square miles of surface area, which is similar in size to the State of West Virginia, which is one of many States that I doubt will wish to remain a part of the SOA, but I digress... Variance is also important... Temperature has a very high variance value (ITN regularly quotes 20degF/mile, and I have personally experienced such temperature variances often enough while out on my hikes, so I support the use of that number). Given how high of a variance temperature has, it would take upwards of 200 million thermometers (or about one thermometer for every square mile of surface area) to even have any sort of an idea what Earth's temperature is at any given time. 7,500 is not upwards of 200,000,000... And that would only get us to about a +-10degF margin of error, of which I would not personally consider to be "accurate enough" for this purpose, but that would at least be an improvement from the +-131degF margin of error that we are currently stuck at. Spongy Iris wrote: Time I summarized here from the chart is 60 years, 1960 to 2019. That is a long enough time to observe if the change is significant or not. You think that a 60 year time period is significant in this case?? If radiometric dating were reliable (it isn't), Earth is estimated to be some 4.5 billion years old... 60/4.5 billion = 0.0000013% of Earth's existence... not at all significant in my mind... Even if the young earther estimate of about 6,000 years old is to be believed (I remain atheistic on the issue of Earth's age btw), 60/6,000 = 1% of Earth's existence... again, not at all significant in my mind. Why are you putting so much weight on 1% (or 0.0000013%) of Earth's existence while paying no mind to the other 99% (or 99.9999987%) of Earth's existence? Spongy Iris wrote: Again, you are dismissing the data for no good reason. Again, there has been no valid data set presented to me TO dismiss... I have even explained in more detail why there is no valid data set available. Now that you have been educated a bit, will you finally walk away from your fundamentalist style religion, or will you actually outright deny logic, mathematics, and science to remain in adherence to your fundamentalist style religion? My money is on the latter, although it isn't a meaningful bet because I have already observed your behavior on this forum...
12-01-2021 00:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Pray tell, what is wrong with this chart? 1. It's not pasted into this thread. I was very clear. It's your argument so you bear the full burden to support your claim. The least you could do is to post your support material. Otherwise, if I don't feel like chasing links (which I don't) then you are left without any support for your argument and you lose. 2. If it's a chart, it's not data. Here's where your mathematical incompetence is rushing to make its entrance. Charts are not data; they are graphics made from data. I don't want any graphics. I want the data. You will note that I cannot drop any chart into a spreadsheet and perform my analysis of the data. Get me the data that was used to make your chart. 3. You were overpowered by your mathematical incompetence which forced you to completely omit: a) what is the earth's average temperature right now b) how much has it increased c) what is your margin of error When you provide these necessary requirements, then you post the valid dataset that supports them. Are getting a sense of how this needs to work? You were the one that made the claim that you have "The Data" that shows the earth has gotten hotter. This is what you need to cough up. . A picture paints a thousand words. A chart is data which is easy to read. "Earth's global average surface temperature has risen as shown in this plot of combined land and ocean measurements from 1850 to 2019, derived from three independent analyses of the available data sets. The temperature changes are relative to the global average surface temperature of 1961−1990. Source: NOAA Climate.gov; data from UK Met Office Hadley Centre (maroon), US National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies (red), and US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Centers for Environmental Information (orange)." A large amount of observational evidence besides surface temperature records shows that Earth's climate is changing. For example, additional evidence of a warming trend can be found in the dramatic decrease in the extent of Arctic sea ice at its summer minimum (which occurs in September), the decrease in June snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere. Source: NOAA Climate.gov Math error: Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to select by randN. Failure to publish raw data. Logic error: Circular argument fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Base rate fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of Earth. It is not possible to measure the total ice and snow on Earth. It is not possible to measure the global sea level. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 concentration. It is not possible to measure the total precipitation on Earth. It is not possible to measure total storm activity on Earth. Anyone that is spewing values for these as 'data' is lying to you and ignoring statistical mathematics as well as the limits of our instrumentation. Quoting a summary without a margin of error as 'raw data' is a circular argument 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
12-01-2021 00:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Spongy Iris wrote: This is where IBDM loses scientific credibility because if the data contradicts his pre determined position, he denies the data, because he cannot admit being incorrect about his position. There is no data to deny. If YOU want to make such claims as knowing the temperature of the Earth, YOU must justify how you are measuring it. YOU must declare and justify the source of variance. YOU must calculate the margin of error value. YOU must show the raw data and YOU must show how it's free of biasing influences. YOU must show the math. A summary is not raw data. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). A summary without the margin of error is meaningless. This is where you attempt to force a negative proof...a 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 Edited on 12-01-2021 01:00

12-01-2021 01:02
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Total garbage posts from the top 3 trolls in here about temperature data. They are not in their right mind to dismiss the data, which is significant. and most certainly do so because it conflicts with their bias or interest.
12-01-2021 01:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: You are obviously lashing out because the observed data contradicts the model you picked as most applicable to the solar system. For your "The Data" to count for anything it has to be something more than totally imaginary. As such, you are going to have a rather difficult time posting it in this thread. Spongy Iris wrote: All the numbers and fields in the spreadsheet would be too much info to convey in a forum. Nope. No amount of totally imaginary "The Data" will comprise any information or consume any bandwidth. Spongy Iris wrote: The chart gives you the data to analyze. Nope. The chart provides a graphic, not the data used to make the graphic. I know third-graders that grasp this concept. Spongy Iris wrote:Here is the claim from the website from where the chart was gotten. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. We're still working on your claim and you are on tap to provide all the mandatory prerequisites and all the supporting data, none of which you have yet provided. I'm not inclined to chase links. Post your "The Data" here in this thread AFTER you post 1) the earth's current temperature, 2) the amount the earth's average temperature has increased and 3) your claimed margin of error. THEN ensure your "The Data" supports those claims. Let me know when something changes. . The chart shows average temperature in 2019 was about 1.7 F higher than the average temperature from 1960 to 1990. You can read that right? Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Argument from randU fallacy. There IS NO DATA. You chart is nothing but random numbers. 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
12-01-2021 01:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Spongy Iris wrote: duncan61 wrote: I am suspicious of charts as well.The data is homogenised to suit the agenda.Thermometers have been moved or built around.We had mercury then analog now digital.There is not enough to get the data to work with for a global average.Satellites can not read the surface temperature from 10,000 Kms away.A few read UV emissivity and are wildly inaccurate at best.Over 60% of the USA temperature recording devices are plus minus 5 degree very few are plus minus 1 degree.The list goes on. What agenda? Getting to "net zero" CO2 emissions? There is no such thing as a 'net emission'. Buzzword fallacy. CO2 has NO capability to warm the Earth., Zero. Zip. Nada. Nan. Nula. Nul. A summary is not data. A summary without the margin of error is not valid. You cannot use a summary as data. Tolerance is not margin of error. Math error: failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Attempt to use tolerance as margin of error. Failure to publish data. Failure to select by randN. Logic error: Base rate fallacy. Use of magick as science. Argument from randU fallacies. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Satellites are incapable of measuring an absolute temperature. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure that value either, since measuring emissivity requires knowing accurately the temperature of the emitting surface. Saying satellites can measure the temperature of the Earth is saying that satellites already know the emissivity of Earth, which requires the temperature of Earth to be accurately known in order to measure. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). 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
12-01-2021 01:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:The chart shows average temperature in 2019 was about 1.7 F higher than the average temperature from 1960 to 1990. My math is pretty good. I know that the only way one can determine that an average temperature has risen is to take the previous average temperature and perform what we mathematicians call "subtraction" on the current average temperature. Once we notice a positive result, we know that the average temperature has risen. Ergo, 1) what was earth's previous average temperature, and 2) what is its current average temperature? Once you give me the answers to those questions, that's when the discussion starts to get interesting. So what are those average temperatures? . Dude your question was answered! Average temperature in 2019 was about 1.7 F higher than the average temperature from 1960 to 1990. Base rate fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Math error. Spongy Iris wrote: You can be pretty sure the sample of temperature readings from around the world is thorough enough to represent a good sample. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalistm). Math error. Spongy Iris wrote: I'm not going to duplicate the efforts made by NASA, NOAA, and UK Met Office Hadley Centre. You dare doing exactly. that. They are making the same errors you are. Spongy Iris wrote: In statistics the margin of error from a good sample size is usually around 3%. Argument from randU fallacy. Math error. Math errors: Failure to show raw data. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to select by randN. Use of summary as raw data. Logic errors: False authority fallacies ('expert' worship). Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Base rate fallacy. Argument from randU 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
12-01-2021 01:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Spongy Iris wrote: You guys are the ones who suspect the data, summarized in a chart, is not an accurate history of average global temperature. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Spongy Iris wrote: I suspect it is pretty accurate. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Religion is not math. Spongy Iris wrote: It shows a small but significant increase in average global temperatures in the past 60 years. Base rate fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Spongy Iris wrote: I'm guessing the folks who compiled this data showed 1960 to 1990 as a baseline, Argument from randU fallacy. False authority fallacy. Spongy Iris wrote: because they had thorough data compiled for these years, Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). There is no data. Spongy Iris wrote: for which they could compare the more current 30 years, 1990 to 2020, and clearly see an increase in average global temperature. Base rate fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Math errors. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Spongy Iris wrote: If you don't think the chart is accurate, then why don't you draw a different chart with the data you have compiled. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. False dichotomy fallacy. Spongy Iris wrote: Instead it seems you just want the data dismissed because there is not 100% accuracy. Special pleading fallacy. Presecutor's fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Spongy Iris wrote: Could it be, the government has compiled this data because it is part of their actual agenda to protect and serve the people of Earth? What data? What makes you think the government's agenda is to protect and serve the people of Earth? Spongy Iris wrote: Could it be you guys are opposed to that agenda, Absolutely. Not the function of a legitimate government. You might want to study the Constitution of the United States, even though it's currently being ignored by Congress and the federal government. Spongy Iris wrote: because your agenda is to see the people of Earth destroyed? Extreme argument fallacy. Assignment fallacy. Spongy Iris wrote: Yes answers seem more likely to me than the loser conspiracy theories you guys are pushing. You have now admitted that the goals of the Church of Global Warming are political in nature. You have also now admitted essentially that the Church of Global Warming should be made a state religion, in violation of the 1st amendment of the Constitution of the United States and all State constitutions. You also continue to ignore statistical mathematics, continuing to make the same math errors over and over. 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
12-01-2021 01:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Spongy Iris wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: You guys are the ones who suspect the data, summarized in a chart, is not an accurate history of average global temperature. Of course I find such graphics to be suspect... as it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any usable accuracy with our current instrument infrastructure. Spongy Iris wrote: I suspect it is pretty accurate. ... only because you are scientifically and mathematically illiterate. Spongy Iris wrote: It shows a small but significant increase in average global temperatures in the past 60 years. Let's not get ahead of ourselves... You have yet to answer IBD's questions, as I outlined in my prior response to you. Spongy Iris wrote: I'm guessing the folks who compiled this data showed 1960 to 1990 as a baseline, because they had thorough data compiled for these years, for which they could compare the more current 30 years, 1990 to 2020, and clearly see an increase in average global temperature. I keep hearing about this mystery "data", otherwise referred to as The Data, but you nor anyone else has yet to provide any valid data set regarding Earth's average temperature. Spongy Iris wrote: If you don't think the chart is accurate, then why don't you draw a different chart with the data you have compiled. I am not claiming to know Earth's temperature, nor am I making any claims about how Earth's temperature has increased from one point in time to another, so I need not do anything. The burden of proof is YOURS... Spongy Iris wrote: Instead it seems you just want the data dismissed because there is not 100% accuracy. No. There is no data FOR me to dismiss (it has yet to be provided to me). I, on the other hand, dismiss on sight (and will continue to dismiss on sight) all random numbers provided to me, as random numbers are not data. You continue to ignore the questions asked of you (as I outlined in my prior response to you) Spongy Iris wrote: Could it be, the government has compiled this data What "data"? Could you please provide it? Spongy Iris wrote: because it is part of their actual agenda to protect and serve the people of Earth? Hahahahahahahaha... GOVERNMENT?? Protect and serve the people of Earth??? Hahahahahahahahaha now THAT was funny...... No, the agenda of government is to obtain power and control by whatever means necessary. That includes sewing fear, creating "problems" to "solve" for "your own good". That includes lies about the ozone layer "depleting", lies about the Earth warming via Greenhouse Effect, lies about ocean "acidification", lies about "coral bleaching", lies about virus behavior, and lies about who the citizens of the former USA (now SOA) advised their State legislatures to choose as Presidential electors. Spongy Iris wrote: Could it be you guys are opposed to that agenda, because your agenda is to see the people of Earth destroyed? I'm simply opposed to lies and manipulations (what I commonly refer to as "the ways of Satan"). Spongy Iris wrote: Yes answers seem more likely to me than the loser conspiracy theories you guys are pushing. Is "dismissal as conspiracy theory" the best you can do? Sad. Your and Bad Man's questions have been answered. Lie. Answer the questions put to you. Spongy Iris wrote: There are thousands of thermometers around the world Now many? Where are they? Location grouping is a biasing influence. When were they read? Time is a biasing influence. You cannot use biased raw data. Raw data MUST be free of biasing influences. Spongy Iris wrote: and sample data Data is not a sample. Sample is not data. Redefinition fallacy. Data is the result of an observation. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. Spongy Iris wrote: from them has been gathered, Failure to use unbiased raw data. Spongy Iris wrote: to estimate Earth's average temperature. Math error. Failure to use unbiased raw data. Failure to publish data. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error value. Failure to select by randN. Spongy Iris wrote: The history has been drawn into a chart for you, A chart of random numbers is not history. It is a chart of random numbers and nothing but. Spongy Iris wrote: and I have summarized the obvious differences in the past 60 years. Comparing random numbers is pointless. Spongy Iris wrote: That's how statistics works. Random numbers is not statistical mathematics. Math errors. Redefinition fallacy. Spongy Iris wrote: You are dismissing the data for no good reason. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Burden of proof fallacy. We don't need a reason. You MUST provide valid data and perform valid math upon it. Spongy Iris wrote: Perhaps you dismiss the data because it didn't come to you from ...The Voice of GOD. There is no data. You must be quoting the voice of God. 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
12-01-2021 01:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Spongy Iris wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: You guys are the ones who suspect the data, summarized in a chart, is not an accurate history of average global temperature. Of course I find such graphics to be suspect... as it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any usable accuracy with our current instrument infrastructure. Spongy Iris wrote: I suspect it is pretty accurate. ... only because you are scientifically and mathematically illiterate. Spongy Iris wrote: It shows a small but significant increase in average global temperatures in the past 60 years. Let's not get ahead of ourselves... You have yet to answer IBD's questions, as I outlined in my prior response to you. Spongy Iris wrote: I'm guessing the folks who compiled this data showed 1960 to 1990 as a baseline, because they had thorough data compiled for these years, for which they could compare the more current 30 years, 1990 to 2020, and clearly see an increase in average global temperature. I keep hearing about this mystery "data", otherwise referred to as The Data, but you nor anyone else has yet to provide any valid data set regarding Earth's average temperature. Spongy Iris wrote: If you don't think the chart is accurate, then why don't you draw a different chart with the data you have compiled. I am not claiming to know Earth's temperature, nor am I making any claims about how Earth's temperature has increased from one point in time to another, so I need not do anything. The burden of proof is YOURS... Spongy Iris wrote: Instead it seems you just want the data dismissed because there is not 100% accuracy. No. There is no data FOR me to dismiss (it has yet to be provided to me). I, on the other hand, dismiss on sight (and will continue to dismiss on sight) all random numbers provided to me, as random numbers are not data. You continue to ignore the questions asked of you (as I outlined in my prior response to you) Spongy Iris wrote: Could it be, the government has compiled this data What "data"? Could you please provide it? Spongy Iris wrote: because it is part of their actual agenda to protect and serve the people of Earth? Hahahahahahahaha... GOVERNMENT?? Protect and serve the people of Earth??? Hahahahahahahahaha now THAT was funny...... No, the agenda of government is to obtain power and control by whatever means necessary. That includes sewing fear, creating "problems" to "solve" for "your own good". That includes lies about the ozone layer "depleting", lies about the Earth warming via Greenhouse Effect, lies about ocean "acidification", lies about "coral bleaching", lies about virus behavior, and lies about who the citizens of the former USA (now SOA) advised their State legislatures to choose as Presidential electors. Spongy Iris wrote: Could it be you guys are opposed to that agenda, because your agenda is to see the people of Earth destroyed? I'm simply opposed to lies and manipulations (what I commonly refer to as "the ways of Satan"). Spongy Iris wrote: Yes answers seem more likely to me than the loser conspiracy theories you guys are pushing. Is "dismissal as conspiracy theory" the best you can do? Sad. Your and Bad Man's questions have been answered. No, they haven't. Please refer to the questions and answer them. Spongy Iris wrote: There are thousands of thermometers around the world That's not enough thermometers... Spongy Iris wrote: and sample data from them has been gathered, to estimate Earth's average temperature. Here, you are committing numerous math errors, including failure to remove biasing factors (in this case, time and location). Spongy Iris wrote: The history has been drawn into a chart for you, and I have summarized the obvious differences in the past 60 years. As I said, random numbers are not data. You have not provided anyone with any valid data set. Answer the questions put forward to you. Spongy Iris wrote: That's how statistics works. No, you have shown that you are completely illiterate in statistical mathematics. Spongy Iris wrote: You are dismissing the data for no good reason. There has been no valid data set presented to me TO "dismiss for no good reason"... Spongy Iris wrote: Perhaps you dismiss the data Again, no data has been presented to me TO dismiss... Spongy Iris wrote: because it didn't come to you from ...The Voice of GOD. YOU are the one appealing to "the Voice of GOD"... You call this god Climate, as defined in The Global Warming Mythology Reference Manual. I simply adhere to logic, mathematics, and science. You must know how to read a chart right??? Locations are cities, towns, bases, all around the world. That is a good sample of locations which is reasonable to think represents global average temperature. Time I summarized here from the chart is 60 years, 1960 to 2019. That is a long enough time to observe if the change is significant or not. Again, you are dismissing the data for no good reason. Logic errors: Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Base rate fallacy. Argument from randU fallacies. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Math errors: Failure to publish raw data. Failure to select by randN. Use of random numbers as data. Use of summary as data. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error value. 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
12-01-2021 01:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Spongy Iris wrote: Total garbage posts from the top 3 trolls in here about temperature data. They are not in their right mind to dismiss the data, which is significant. and most certainly do so because it conflicts with their bias or interest. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy. Insult fallacy. TATA. Buzzword fallacies. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Politicization of mathematics. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit 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
12-01-2021 02:14
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	7500 thermometers all around the world, recording every days high and low temperatures is a good enough sample size. You don't have to blanket the entire world in thermometers. You just need a large enough sample. And another point... You guys say global warming charts are just a power grab from governments. Then I say you guys are pushing loser conspiracy theories. And somehow Parrot extrapolates that from that back and forth, I have admitted global warming is political and religious? Talk about a stretch. I'm saying your theory is most certainly a losing position, due to it being preposterous. You can keep repeating your irrelevant crap over and over, and it will always be irrelevant.
12-01-2021 02:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	It has again become obvious how the level of illiteracy in statistical mathematics, probability mathematics, and random number mathematics is so high here among several users. It is not practical to publish books here on these subjects. However, in brief, statistical mathematics has specific requirements, which are often not met by government agencies, polling agencies, scientists (which often suck at math, contrary to public opinion of them), and adherents to religions such as the Church of Global Warming. In brief: To conduct a statistical analysis, the goal is to process unbiased published raw data into a summary and a margin of error value. Only unbiased raw data may be used. No cooked data is allowed in any form. Data MUST be selected from that raw data by randN, or the same type of random number as a deck of cards. Once a data point is picked, it cannot be picked again. A randN number is a random number that has a memory, until a reset event occurs, such as shuffling the cards. That data MUST be normalized against a paired randR, or the same type of random number as two or more dice. A randR is a type of random number that has no memory. (Note that randN is a randR with a memory component). This step in statistical math tosses out outlying data as insignificant to the resulting summary. The variance MUST be declared and justified. This is the possible variance the data may achieve, not the data itself. In the case of temperature, this takes for form of variance of temperature over distance and over time. In other words, a reading of a thermometer is good only for THAT thermometer and immediate material around that thermometer, and ONLY for that particular moment in time. So sticking a thermometer in a beaker of water to measure it's temperature is perfectly valid to help determine whether that water is about to boil or freeze, or whether it's at a temperature sufficient to dissolve something in it. Sticking a thermometer in a piece of meat in the oven is perfectly valid, so long as the thermometer is not touching bone or a void. The purpose of t his reading is to determine whether that meat has reached a temperature indicating a thorough cooking. It is not measuring the temperature of the oven, it is measuring the temperature at a SPECIFIC location in the piece of meat. When using temperature as data, you MUST remove all biasing influences. Location grouping is a significant biasing factor. Thermometers MUST be uniformly spaced. Currently, thermometers are located in cities and on roads only, since they must be serviced, and those at sea are near shipping lanes, since they too must be serviced. Time is significant. Thermometers MUST be read at the same time by the same authority (the one collecting the data). Storms move. Air moves. Water moves. The Earth rotates. The Sun does not illuminate or heat the Earth evenly and appears to move across the sky, and it's height above the horizon varies from season to season, even at the equator. Both time and location grouping influences are not allowed in the raw data AT ALL. You cannot cook the data. It MUST be raw data. For variance, I use 20 deg F per mile (sorry, I live in what was the U.S.). This level of variance is easily observed across fronts, as localized storms pass, where mountain wave compression is taking place, and even the difference from newly laid and a nice black asphalt surface of a road, and the grass just along the ditch of that same road. Satellites are no help. They depend on the emissivity of the emitting surface. The only way to measure that emissivity is to first know the temperature, which is the thing you are trying to determine with that satellite. Just as the temperature of Earth is unknown, the emissivity of Earth is unknown. Satellites are not magick. They are spacecraft with certain instrumentation aboard. There are limits to that instrumentation, like any instrumentation. It is not necessary to produce conflicting data to disprove data. That is a false dichotomy, and an attempt to force a negative proof, both fallacies (an error in logic, a closed system like mathematics). Statistical math, like probability math, makes use of random numbers. Their use removes the normal power of prediction inherent in mathematics. Example: you can calculate the odds of a coin toss, but you cannot predict the next coin toss. Similarly, you can perform an analysis in statistics, but it has nothing to do with a statistical summary EVEN OVER THE SAME RAW DATA and even with the same variances used. It has NO power of prediction. This is the math error often made by governments and news polls. They use statistics as some kind of Holy Oracle. It is not. It is a useful tool, to be sure, but it does not capable of predicting anything. It doesn't matter if it's a government agency like NASA, or NOAA, or the Royal Society, or anyone else. It is it is not possible to calculate the temperature of the Earth, or to measure it.

12-01-2021 02:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Spongy Iris wrote: 7500 thermometers all around the world, recording every days high and low temperatures is a good enough sample size. Discussed below. Argument from randU fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Spongy Iris wrote: You don't have to blanket the entire world in thermometers. Yes you do. Spongy Iris wrote: You just need a large enough sample. Define 'large enough'. Please show your math. Spongy Iris wrote: And another point... You guys say global warming charts are just a power grab from governments. No. They are simply charts of random numbers. You are attempting to politicize mathematics again. Spongy Iris wrote: Then I say you guys are pushing loser conspiracy theories. Math is not a conspiracy theory. The Democrat party is a conspiracy. Spongy Iris wrote: And somehow Parrot extrapolates that from that back and forth, I have admitted global warming is political and religious? Talk about a stretch. You have done it again...right here in this post. Argument of the stone fallacy. Spongy Iris wrote: I'm saying your theory is most certainly a losing position, due to it being preposterous. So you deny mathematics as 'preposterous'. Spongy Iris wrote: You can keep repeating your irrelevant crap over and over, and it will always be irrelevant. So you deny mathematics as 'irrelevant'. Now to your 7500 thermometers (which is the number that NASA claims to use). First, these thermometers are NOT read by the same authority. Different authorities have different standards for accepting valid data. Secondly, these thermometers are not read at the same time. Storms move. Air moves. Water moves. the Sun does not heat the Earth evenly and appears to move across the sky. Time is a significant biasing factor. This factor MUST be eliminated from the raw data. Thirdly, these thermometers are ALL located in cities and along roads, a mere 1% of the surface of the Earth. Now let's assume these thermometers are uniformly spaced (even though they aren't). Earth's surface is approximately 197 million square miles. 1.97 * 10^8 / 7.5 * 10^3 is 2.8266 * 10^4, or 28266 square miles per thermometer. This is approximately an area the size of West Virginia and Washington DC combined. In other words, you are using ONE thermometer to measure an area the size of the State of West Virginia. Temperature can easily vary as much as 20 deg F per mile. This means that in each square mile, you might see temperatures that vary as much as 20 deg F. I have already described why this value is justified. Over 28266 square miles, variance is extrapolated. It turns out that the potential variance is greater than the highest and lowest temperatures ever measured at ANY weather station on Earth. In other words, margin of error is greater than the entire range of observed temperatures on the surface of Earth. In other words, mathematically, you are guessing. The numbers specified as the average is a randU, a type of random number known as the 'psuedo' random number. This number is thought up in someone's mind, or by using an algorithm thought up in someones mind, such as the crappy random number generators common in computers that do not make use of any randR source. This is not theory. This is mathematics. Mathematics that YOU deny. As far as the data itself of anything is concerned, see the Data Mine thread for the standard I use for accepting ANY data as possibly valid. 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 12-01-2021 02:58
12-01-2021 03:17
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Look at a map dude. WV and DC are very small. They must have thermometers in all relevant climates across the world to give a good sense of average temperature. Expanding your crap which was already clear into the size of a novel does not make your absurd dismissal of the data any less irrelevant.
12-01-2021 03:53
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	GasGuzzler wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Why not net-zero peanut butter? Don't even THINK about it. Don't worry, my comment was in jest, of course, if perhaps in poor taste. This is my drug of choice: Peanut Butter Chicken https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_JKUrGIyB4 . 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
12-01-2021 04:13
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Spongy Iris wrote: Your and Bad Man's questions have been answered. You have now officially entered the Subduction Zone (don't ask). Your king is tipped. The moment you REFUSE to support your claim in the manner required, and instead demand others prove your beliefs FALSE ... you have admitted to having unsupported faith-based beliefs. I support the 1st Amendment and your freedom to worship any religion as you see fit. Spongy Iris wrote:There are thousands of thermometers around the world Woefully insufficient. This is why it is absolutely critical that your claimed margin of error be stated up front, and that you provide a valide dataset that supports that claimed margin of error. Failure to do so renders your claims immediately dismissed. . 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
12-01-2021 05:36
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	gfm7175 wrote:Yup, those are all locations. I looked them up and it turns out that every single one of them is a location. Every single one. Who knew? That's quite a coincidence. gfm7175 wrote: No, it isn't. First off, those locations are NOT uniformly spaced NOR are they simultaneously read by the same observer. I cannot sufficiently stress the amount of error this introduces to a system. gfm7175 wrote: Earth has about 197 million square miles of surface area. Divide that number by 7,500 thermometers and that means that there would be one thermometer for every 26,267 square miles of surface area, which is similar in size to the State of West Virginia The area of West Virginia totals 24,231 sq mi (62,758 sq km) The area of Denver totals 155 square miles (401 sq km) We know that Denver is one uniform temperature, so maybe West Virginia is one uniform temperature as well. Maybe we can ask someone who lives in West Virginia to just tell us the temperature of his house. gfm7175 wrote: Given how high of a variance temperature has, it would take upwards of 200 million thermometers (or about one thermometer for every square mile of surface area) to even have any sort of an idea what Earth's temperature is at any given time. Whoooaaa, easy there Tiger. That would give us a good idea of one elevation/altitued, i.e. at "sea level." We would still need another 230 million (or thereabouts) calibrated and synchronized thermometers to get a good idea of the earth's temperature at one mile above sea level. Actually, you might not believe this, but there are several other altitudes above that as well. Then there is the ocean, which has several depths actually. Ocean depths tend to be colder than the surface water that gets all the sunlight, believe it or not. gfm7175 wrote: 60/4.5 billion = 0.0000013% of Earth's existence... not at all significant in my mind... Good catch. Significance isn't attained until at least 0.0000078% gfm7175 wrote: I remain atheistic on the issue of Earth's age You get bonus points for using the word "atheistic" correctly. Well done. It doesn't mean that you are somehow not a Christian, just that you are not imposing any theism into the context of discussion. Well done. However, holding a belief on the age of the earth ... involves a belief that requires faith. I, for my part, am willing to go with the earth being 4.5 billion because it is so very plausible given the evidence AND it has zero effect on my life what I believe. Also, I believe that young-earthers have a lot to explain in the way of evidence that appears* to be older than they claim is the age of the earth and of Creation. Ergo, it all comes down to what each individual subjectively and theistically considers to be the most plausible. - radiometric dating and other speculation of the past is based on faith By the way, you can't very well claim that radiometric dating is "unreliable" if you don't accept the underlying premise in the first place. It would be like me (an atheist) claiming that Christian prophesy is "unreliable." Great post. Kudos. . 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
12-01-2021 05:59
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Ooops Attached image: Edited on 12-01-2021 06:00
12-01-2021 06:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	James___ wrote:Ooops Don't worry, I'm here. I got you covered. . Attached image:
12-01-2021 08:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Spongy Iris wrote: Look at a map dude. WV and DC are very small. No, they approximately 26,700 square miles in size. Are you going to actually try to argue that a SINGLE THERMOMETER in West Virginia can measure the WHOLE of West Virginia????? Spongy Iris wrote: They must have thermometers in all relevant climates across the world to give a good sense of average temperature. Define 'relative climate'. Climate has no temperature. Redefinition fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Spongy Iris wrote: Expanding your crap which was already clear into the size of a novel does not make your absurd dismissal of the data any less irrelevant. What data? YOU must provide valid data. You have not done so. See the Data Mine thread for what I consider data valid to consider. 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
12-01-2021 17:39
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: We know that Denver is one uniform temperature, so maybe West Virginia is one uniform temperature as well. Maybe we can ask someone who lives in West Virginia to just tell us the temperature of his house. Yup, and then I'll just extrapolate that data across the entire State of West Virginia, subsequently "adjust" it to account for variables, and then it'll become a part of "what we know"... Easy peasy! IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Given how high of a variance temperature has, it would take upwards of 200 million thermometers (or about one thermometer for every square mile of surface area) to even have any sort of an idea what Earth's temperature is at any given time. Whoooaaa, easy there Tiger. That would give us a good idea of one elevation/altitued, i.e. at "sea level." We would still need another 230 million (or thereabouts) calibrated and synchronized thermometers to get a good idea of the earth's temperature at one mile above sea level. Actually, you might not believe this, but there are several other altitudes above that as well. Then there is the ocean, which has several depths actually. Ocean depths tend to be colder than the surface water that gets all the sunlight, believe it or not. Thank you for this. This goes beyond what people (even myself) tend to think about (which is just the "surface level" elevation). Ultimately, the highest and lowest elevations of Earth are still a part of Earth and would still need to be addressed. That means that MANY more thermometers, WELL beyond the 200 million number that I threw out there for the surface area elevation of Earth, would be required to account for the temperature of Earth at all elevations. For purposes of combating warmizombies, I find that limiting the focus to the "surface area" elevation is sufficient to address why Earth's temperature is not known, let alone diving even deeper into it with your very good point about the additional heights and depths of Earth that would additionally need to be accounted for. BINGO! was his name-o... IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: 60/4.5 billion = 0.0000013% of Earth's existence... not at all significant in my mind... Good catch. Significance isn't attained until at least 0.0000078% IBdaMann wrote: Great post. Kudos. . I try. Sometimes I do okay.
12-01-2021 19:11
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Into the Night wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Look at a map dude. WV and DC are very small. No, they approximately 26,700 square miles in size. Are you going to actually try to argue that a SINGLE THERMOMETER in West Virginia can measure the WHOLE of West Virginia????? Spongy Iris wrote: They must have thermometers in all relevant climates across the world to give a good sense of average temperature. Define 'relative climate'. Climate has no temperature. Redefinition fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Spongy Iris wrote: Expanding your crap which was already clear into the size of a novel does not make your absurd dismissal of the data any less irrelevant. What data? YOU must provide valid data. You have not done so. See the Data Mine thread for what I consider data valid to consider. I am maintaining the position that they have had enough thermometers in just about every relevant climate on the Earth for at least the past 60 years to give a good enough sense of how much the average temperature of Earth has changed. Based on the charts, which compiled the data for me, I estimate the certainty that the average temperature of Earth has increased by almost 1 degree celsius in the past 60 years to be around 97%. Most indubitably.
12-01-2021 19:35
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Spongy Iris wrote:I am maintaining the position that they have had enough thermometers ... and those who are not mathematically incompetent are summarily dismissing your position. ... and those who are paying attention and noticing that you REFUSE to support your assertion as required are summarily dismissing your position. Once you state how much you claim the earth's temperature has increased and your claimed margin of error, then it becomes clear just how many thermometers are ACTUALLY needed. Is this the reason you REFUSE to specify your claims as required? . 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
12-01-2021 19:44
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:I am maintaining the position that they have had enough thermometers ... and those who are not mathematically incompetent are summarily dismissing your position. ... and those who are paying attention and noticing that you REFUSE to support your assertion as required are summarily dismissing your position. Once you state how much you claim the earth's temperature has increased and your claimed margin of error, then it becomes clear just how many thermometers are ACTUALLY needed. Is this the reason you REFUSE to specify your claims as required? . It costs too much to have absolute certainty. You should probably settle for 97% certainty IMO.
12-01-2021 21:37
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Spongy Iris wrote: I am maintaining the position that they have had enough thermometers in just about every relevant climate on the Earth for at least the past 60 years to give a good enough sense of how much the average temperature of Earth has changed. One thing is for certain... your faith in Global Warming Mythology is extremely steadfast, completely unshaken by logic, mathematics, and science. PRAISE CLIMATE!!! Spongy Iris wrote: Based on the charts, which compiled the data for me, Charts do not have the ability to compile data. In this case, there IS NO DATA. What is this The Data of which you speak?? Spongy Iris wrote: I estimate the certainty that the average temperature of Earth has increased by almost 1 degree celsius in the past 60 years to be around 97%. Most indubitably. IOW, you are just making schiff up again... random numbers are not data. Your faith remains unshaken by logic, science, and mathematics...
12-01-2021 21:54
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	gfm7175 wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: I am maintaining the position that they have had enough thermometers in just about every relevant climate on the Earth for at least the past 60 years to give a good enough sense of how much the average temperature of Earth has changed. One thing is for certain... your faith in Global Warming Mythology is extremely steadfast, completely unshaken by logic, mathematics, and science. PRAISE CLIMATE!!! Spongy Iris wrote: Based on the charts, which compiled the data for me, Charts do not have the ability to compile data. In this case, there IS NO DATA. What is this The Data of which you speak?? Spongy Iris wrote: I estimate the certainty that the average temperature of Earth has increased by almost 1 degree celsius in the past 60 years to be around 97%. Most indubitably. IOW, you are just making schiff up again... random numbers are not data. Your faith remains unshaken by logic, science, and mathematics... No my certainty remains unshaken by your faith in what appears to be a tiny shred of uncertainty. Charts are a compilation of data. Do you really not know that??? You top 3 trolls waste words trying to sow uncertainty, and that is what tips your king.
12-01-2021 23:32
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Spongy Iris wrote:It costs too much to have absolute certainty. You should probably settle for 97% certainty IMO. I'll be glad to. Once you state how much you claim the earth's temperature has increased and your claimed margin of error, then it becomes clear just how many thermometers are ACTUALLY needed to achieve 97% certainty. Is this the reason you REFUSE to specify your claims as required? Spongy Iris wrote: Based on the charts, which compiled the data for me, Too funny. In your world, charts gather data to create themselves, promptly lose all the data and then declare themselves to be the data ... upon which they themselves were created. Wow! That's totally credible. I'm soooo ready to believe. Spongy Iris wrote:. Charts are a compilation of data. Do you really not know that??? You are a moron. Charts are generated from data. Do you really not know this??? Assuming you are somewhat computer literate, go into your favorite chart-making application and have it make a chart for you with zero data ... you know, the chart itself will be the data, or it can compile The Data for you. Post that chart for us in this thread along with the data it compiles for you. I'm sure many would like to see it. I'm sure it will depict the earth's average temperature increasing. . 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

13-01-2021 00:06
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:It costs too much to have absolute certainty. You should probably settle for 97% certainty IMO. I'll be glad to. Once you state how much you claim the earth's temperature has increased and your claimed margin of error, then it becomes clear just how many thermometers are ACTUALLY needed to achieve 97% certainty. Is this the reason you REFUSE to specify your claims as required? Spongy Iris wrote: Based on the charts, which compiled the data for me, Too funny. In your world, charts gather data to create themselves, promptly lose all the data and then declare themselves to be the data ... upon which they themselves were created. Wow! That's totally credible. I'm soooo ready to believe. Spongy Iris wrote:. Charts are a compilation of data. Do you really not know that??? You are a moron. Charts are generated from data. Do you really not know this??? Assuming you are somewhat computer literate, go into your favorite chart-making application and have it make a chart for you with zero data ... you know, the chart itself will be the data, or it can compile The Data for you. Post that chart for us in this thread along with the data it compiles for you. I'm sure many would like to see it. I'm sure it will depict the earth's average temperature increasing. . Dude I'm not interested in having a spelling bee with you about how charts are drawn. NASA estimates the uncertainty of global average temperature since the 1940s to be less than 0.15 degrees Celsius. And I am pretty sure NASA really has ZERO interest in proving global warming. Thus, it looks like they are providing an obligatory public service. Edited on 13-01-2021 00:15
13-01-2021 00:42
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I would like to know what the global average is and what it should be?what do the charts say?
13-01-2021 00:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Spongy Iris wrote: Into the Night wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Look at a map dude. WV and DC are very small. No, they approximately 26,700 square miles in size. Are you going to actually try to argue that a SINGLE THERMOMETER in West Virginia can measure the WHOLE of West Virginia????? Spongy Iris wrote: They must have thermometers in all relevant climates across the world to give a good sense of average temperature. Define 'relative climate'. Climate has no temperature. Redefinition fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Spongy Iris wrote: Expanding your crap which was already clear into the size of a novel does not make your absurd dismissal of the data any less irrelevant. What data? YOU must provide valid data. You have not done so. See the Data Mine thread for what I consider data valid to consider. I am maintaining the position that they have had enough thermometers in just about every relevant climate on the Earth Define 'relevant climate'. Buzzword fallacy. Spongy Iris wrote: for at least the past 60 years to give a good enough sense of how much the average temperature of Earth has changed. Math errors. Base rate fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Spongy Iris wrote: Based on the charts, which compiled the data for me, I estimate the certainty that the average temperature of Earth has increased by almost 1 degree celsius in the past 60 years to be around 97%. Most indubitably. Charts don't compile data. Argument from randU fallacies. Math errors: failure to publish raw data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX. Denial of statistical math. Denial of probability math. 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
13-01-2021 00:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:I am maintaining the position that they have had enough thermometers ... and those who are not mathematically incompetent are summarily dismissing your position. ... and those who are paying attention and noticing that you REFUSE to support your assertion as required are summarily dismissing your position. Once you state how much you claim the earth's temperature has increased and your claimed margin of error, then it becomes clear just how many thermometers are ACTUALLY needed. Is this the reason you REFUSE to specify your claims as required? . It costs too much to have absolute certainty. You should probably settle for 97% certainty IMO. Math error: Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX. Denial of probability math. 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
13-01-2021 00:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Spongy Iris wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: I am maintaining the position that they have had enough thermometers in just about every relevant climate on the Earth for at least the past 60 years to give a good enough sense of how much the average temperature of Earth has changed. One thing is for certain... your faith in Global Warming Mythology is extremely steadfast, completely unshaken by logic, mathematics, and science. PRAISE CLIMATE!!! Spongy Iris wrote: Based on the charts, which compiled the data for me, Charts do not have the ability to compile data. In this case, there IS NO DATA. What is this The Data of which you speak?? Spongy Iris wrote: I estimate the certainty that the average temperature of Earth has increased by almost 1 degree celsius in the past 60 years to be around 97%. Most indubitably. IOW, you are just making schiff up again... random numbers are not data. Your faith remains unshaken by logic, science, and mathematics... No my certainty remains unshaken by your faith in what appears to be a tiny shred of uncertainty. Charts are a compilation of data. Do you really not know that??? You top 3 trolls waste words trying to sow uncertainty, and that is what tips your king. Charts do not compile data. They do not compile anything. Denial of statistical math. Denial of probability math. Inversion fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit 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
13-01-2021 00:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:It costs too much to have absolute certainty. You should probably settle for 97% certainty IMO. I'll be glad to. Once you state how much you claim the earth's temperature has increased and your claimed margin of error, then it becomes clear just how many thermometers are ACTUALLY needed to achieve 97% certainty. Is this the reason you REFUSE to specify your claims as required? Spongy Iris wrote: Based on the charts, which compiled the data for me, Too funny. In your world, charts gather data to create themselves, promptly lose all the data and then declare themselves to be the data ... upon which they themselves were created. Wow! That's totally credible. I'm soooo ready to believe. Spongy Iris wrote:. Charts are a compilation of data. Do you really not know that??? You are a moron. Charts are generated from data. Do you really not know this??? Assuming you are somewhat computer literate, go into your favorite chart-making application and have it make a chart for you with zero data ... you know, the chart itself will be the data, or it can compile The Data for you. Post that chart for us in this thread along with the data it compiles for you. I'm sure many would like to see it. I'm sure it will depict the earth's average temperature increasing. . Dude I'm not interested in having a spelling bee with you about how charts are drawn. Charts are not spelling. Spongy Iris wrote: NASA estimates the uncertainty of global average temperature since the 1940s to be less than 0.15 degrees Celsius. Math error: Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX. Argument from randU fallacies. NASA didn't exist in 1950. Spongy Iris wrote: And I am pretty sure NASA really has ZERO interest in proving global warming. Then you are naive. NASA is a government agency, like any other government agency, subject to the agendas and biases of that government. Spongy Iris wrote: Thus, it looks like they are providing an obligatory public service. Religions are not a public service. State religions are illegal. 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
13-01-2021 00:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	duncan61 wrote: I would like to know what the global average is and what it should be?what do the charts say? There is no 'should be' in a measurement. An average without a margin of error is useless. 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
13-01-2021 01:21
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	These top 3 trolls must really get off on the back and forth. To the Parrot, the one who is being naive is you, if you think NASA has an interest in publishing global temperature data, and other indications of global warming, to effectively falsify their supposed greatest feat And you are the one denying obvious indications of probability.
13-01-2021 01:23
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	duncan61 wrote: I would like to know what the global average is and what it should be?what do the charts say? Hey Duncan, Here is a chart. There are green bars estimating uncertainty. https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/388674main_portal2Huge.jpg Edited on 13-01-2021 01:24
13-01-2021 01:29
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Spongy Iris wrote: Dude I'm not interested in having a spelling bee with you about how charts are drawn. A spelling bee? ... about how charts are drawn? What a moron. So I was mistaken in assuming that you are even rudimentarily computer-literate. I understand why you such a grand repository of stupid ideas. Spongy Iris wrote: NASA estimates the uncertainty ... No they don't, and you don't speak for them. NASA manages projects that put things into orbit or into space. Global Warming is not in their purview. In fact, no religion is in their purview. They aren't trying to establish the certainty of Salvation either. ... but let's just keep it simple and focus on how no organization would retain you to be a spokesperson. Spongy Iris wrote: And I am pretty sure NASA really has ZERO interest in proving global warming. Your track record is pretty dismal. You tend to be certain of things that are absolutely FALSE, pretty much across the board. This is another excellent example of your confusion. NASA is a government agency and apparently you didn't know this. NASA is therefore headed by a political appointee and I see that you didn't know this either. The current NASA chief is a warmizombie who unfortunately imposes his religious views onto the organization, just as you clearly would were you the NASA chief. As you intimately know, warmizombies such as yourself are completely intolerant to opposing views, feel compelled to impose WACKY religious views onto others and fear both science and math. . 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

Page 4 of 6

Join the debate stefan boltzmann:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Surface temperature of earth according to Boltzmann law	56	10-05-2023 15:46
1st law, 2nd law, stefan boltzman, plank	17	11-06-2020 16:22
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law	743	22-11-2019 04:54
Stefan-Boltzmann Law At A Non-Vacuum Interface	20	20-10-2019 23:41
Stefan-Boltzmann and the Botlzmann Constant	83	12-10-2018 20:51