stefan boltzmann

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > stefan boltzmann > Page 3

Page 3 of 6

09-01-2021 21:56
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1514)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:Can't seem to get a straight answer, what has more emissivity, CO2 or O2? Neither has an emissivity value. Emissivity applies to a "body of matter" and covers all wavelengths. Materials/substances have absorptivity/radiativity values for specified wavelengths. Spongy Iris wrote: We know it takes less heat to raise the temp of CO2 than it does O2. Aahhh, using the word "heat" without having any idea what it means. How amusing. Hint: A specific amount of energy, not of "heat", is required to increase the temperature of a substance one degree. Don't you think you should learn what " heat" means BEFORE you use it? Spongy Iris wrote: Thus, with constant sunlight, one must assume, if O2 decreases and CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the atmosphere would increase in temperature. Nope. Only a scientifically illiterate moron would assume a violation of physics. Seems pretty basic. Can the trolls dispute? . Gaslighting lowers your credibility. But if you must know it all, please answer my below question. If the same amount of sun light energy is radiated upon separate sealed containers of O2 and CO2, would the contained CO2 heat up faster?
09-01-2021 22:26
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:Can't seem to get a straight answer, what has more emissivity, CO2 or O2? Neither has an emissivity value. Emissivity applies to a "body of matter" and covers all wavelengths. Materials/substances have absorptivity/radiativity values for specified wavelengths. Spongy Iris wrote: We know it takes less heat to raise the temp of CO2 than it does O2. Aahhh, using the word "heat" without having any idea what it means. How amusing. Hint: A specific amount of energy, not of "heat", is required to increase the temperature of a substance one degree. Don't you think you should learn what " heat" means BEFORE you use it? Spongy Iris wrote: Thus, with constant sunlight, one must assume, if O2 decreases and CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the atmosphere would increase in temperature. Nope. Only a scientifically illiterate moron would assume a violation of physics. Seems pretty basic. Can the trolls dispute? . Technically speaking, to quote ITN, heat is the flow energy. All this means is that energy is electromagnetic radiation. To get away from that definition you'd probably need to get into plasma physics. Just trying to be helpful.
10-01-2021 00:12
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	I guess I owe you guys an apology. The mass of a molecule is conserved or stored "heat" content. Because a molecule is composed of atoms, an atom's mass will change. A CO2 molecule can't be less reactive than O2 and C unless it's mass increases. Just basic physics. With O2, it's more reactive because it lacks the same ability to conserve "heat" content. Instead of conserving "heat" content, it merely becomes more active as far as its emissions are considered. Like Einstein said, E = MC^2 and the energy has to go somewhere, right? Basically energy not emitted is absorbed.
10-01-2021 01:11
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Here's a basic example; 1/2mc^2 = 3/2kT = KE http://www.columbia.edu/itc/chemistry/chem-c2407_archive/slides/LectureSlides2.pdf With CO2, it could be said that it's resistance increases at a greater rate than O2 does. This is because it's mass would be increasing at a greater rate. With heat passing through a physical body, with the heat index, 1 square meter on all 6 sides. If you pass heat (1/2mv^2 or 3/2kT) through one side, what's not emitted by the other side is absorbed and is conserved as mass. Why different gasses have different values in a heat index. Edited on 10-01-2021 01:32
10-01-2021 01:42
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	If I were an American, life could be good; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dscfeQOMuGw

10-01-2021 02:17
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	This is where we get into the "God" particle. In plasma physics, energy exists outside of a state of matter. E = MC^2 only matters in what is needed to create an energy form with mass. ie., thus the "God Particle" exists. The "God particle" is a state of matter with energy but no mass. It exists yet we cannot define it. While the "Top Quark" is the "Holy Grail" in physics, no one seeks out the "God Particle". Yet when something gains mass and become less reactive such as CO2, why? This is the effect of the "God Particle". It exists yet the laws of physics cannot explain it. Edited on 10-01-2021 02:34
10-01-2021 03:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21290)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:Can't seem to get a straight answer, what has more emissivity, CO2 or O2? Neither has an emissivity value. Emissivity applies to a "body of matter" and covers all wavelengths. Materials/substances have absorptivity/radiativity values for specified wavelengths. Spongy Iris wrote: We know it takes less heat to raise the temp of CO2 than it does O2. Aahhh, using the word "heat" without having any idea what it means. How amusing. Hint: A specific amount of energy, not of "heat", is required to increase the temperature of a substance one degree. Don't you think you should learn what " heat" means BEFORE you use it? Spongy Iris wrote: Thus, with constant sunlight, one must assume, if O2 decreases and CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the atmosphere would increase in temperature. Nope. Only a scientifically illiterate moron would assume a violation of physics. Seems pretty basic. Can the trolls dispute? . Technically speaking, to quote ITN, heat is the flow energy. Never said any such thing. James___ wrote: All this means is that energy is electromagnetic radiation. WRONG. Energy takes many forms. James___ wrote: To get away from that definition you'd probably need to get into plasma physics. Just trying to be helpful. You are denying science again. 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
10-01-2021 03:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (21290)	James___ wrote: Here's a basic example; 1/2mc^2 = 3/2kT = KE http://www.columbia.edu/itc/chemistry/chem-c2407_archive/slides/LectureSlides2.pdf With CO2, it could be said that it's resistance increases at a greater rate than O2 does. This is because it's mass would be increasing at a greater rate. With heat passing through a physical body, with the heat index, 1 square meter on all 6 sides. If you pass heat (1/2mv^2 or 3/2kT) through one side, what's not emitted by the other side is absorbed and is conserved as mass. Why different gasses have different values in a heat index. You can't make mass out of nothing. Gunk science. You deny science. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit 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
10-01-2021 03:37
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14205)	Spongy Iris wrote: Gaslighting lowers your credibility. I don't need credibility. I have science. Hence I am free to gaslight to my heart's content. Unfortunately there are too many people like you in the world that think science is some sort of subjective matter of opinion, or a religious matter of consensus. This is why people like you are continually making stupid comments and placing your unquestioning faith in the violations of physics you are ordered to believe by the slavemasters who do your thinking for you. So, let's review. You asked a question. I gave you the correct answer. You denied the answer along with a whole bunch of science, thus effectively tipping your king. Spongy Iris wrote: ... please answer my below question. If the same amount of sun light energy is radiated upon separate sealed containers of O2 and CO2, would the contained CO2 heat up faster? I'll answer your question more appropriately with another question for you to ponder. If both bottles have an energy backstop, e.g. a large black plate, that absorbs all energy not absorbed by the antepositioned bottle ... which combination results in a higher average temperature: 1) the O2 bottle + backstop or 2) the CO2 bottle + backstop? Your question does not involve anything other than the bottles and the point you are trying to make is rendered invalid. Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff. . 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
10-01-2021 03:43
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14205)	James___ wrote: Technically speaking, to quote ITN, heat is the flow energy. Into the Night is correct. "Heat" is a flow of energy, specifically thermal energy. James___ wrote: All this means is that energy is electromagnetic radiation. You are close, ... just put it the other way around, i.e. electromagnetic radiation is energy. It is not thermal energy, though. . 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
10-01-2021 03:50
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: Technically speaking, to quote ITN, heat is the flow energy. Into the Night is correct. "Heat" is a flow of energy, specifically thermal energy. James___ wrote: All this means is that energy is electromagnetic radiation. You are close, ... just put it the other way around, i.e. electromagnetic radiation is energy. It is not thermal energy, though. . It's nice that you tried IBDM. There is a difference between son and brother (you're brother). In here, energy is relative to KE or kinetic energy. How does this relate to heat? That gets complicated. If our atmosphere where a prism, then it's becoming denser would increase its warming potential. Just nothing extraordinary there. It's possible that ITN is brother. Still, how to allow for what is known? Edited on 10-01-2021 04:04
10-01-2021 04:38
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	CO2 hangs in the air just like a brick doesnt
10-01-2021 04:57
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	duncan61 wrote: CO2 hangs in the air just like a brick doesnt We don't need smart people in this forum.
10-01-2021 08:39
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1514)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: [quote]Spongy Iris wrote: If the same amount of sun light energy is radiated upon separate sealed containers of O2 and CO2, would the contained CO2 heat up faster? I'll answer your question more appropriately with another question for you to ponder. If both bottles have an energy backstop, e.g. a large black plate, that absorbs all energy not absorbed by the antepositioned bottle ... which combination results in a higher average temperature: 1) the O2 bottle + backstop or 2) the CO2 bottle + backstop? Your question does not involve anything other than the bottles and the point you are trying to make is rendered invalid. . Hmm... I think the black plate would absorb and emit the most sun light radiation of all the material used in this experiment. Wouldn't the radiation absorbed and emitted from the black plate overpower the radiation absorbed and emitted from both the CO2 and O2? Anyway, what is your point? That the land and sea absorbs and emits more radiation than the atmosphere?
10-01-2021 08:55
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14205)	Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: I'll answer your question more appropriately with another question for you to ponder. If both bottles have an energy backstop, e.g. a large black plate, that absorbs all energy not absorbed by the antepositioned bottle ... which combination results in a higher average temperature: 1) the O2 bottle + backstop or 2) the CO2 bottle + backstop? Your question does not involve anything other than the bottles and the point you are trying to make is rendered invalid. Hmm... I think the black plate would absorb and emit the most sun light radiation of all the material used in this experiment. You did not answer the question asked and instead you answered a question that was not asked. Try again. Which combination will have the higher average temperature? 1) A bottle of CO2 and a black plate, or 2) A bottle of O2 and a black plate ...second attempt ... . . 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

10-01-2021 09:12
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1514)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: I'll answer your question more appropriately with another question for you to ponder. If both bottles have an energy backstop, e.g. a large black plate, that absorbs all energy not absorbed by the antepositioned bottle ... which combination results in a higher average temperature: 1) the O2 bottle + backstop or 2) the CO2 bottle + backstop? Your question does not involve anything other than the bottles and the point you are trying to make is rendered invalid. Hmm... I think the black plate would absorb and emit the most sun light radiation of all the material used in this experiment. You did not answer the question asked and instead you answered a question that was not asked. Try again. Which combination will have the higher average temperature? 1) A bottle of CO2 and a black plate, or 2) A bottle of O2 and a black plate ...second attempt ... . . I think the black plate would absorb and emit the most sun light radiation of all the material used in this experiment. Wouldn't the radiation absorbed and emitted from the black plate overpower the radiation absorbed and emitted from both the CO2 and O2?... I think it would. 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.
10-01-2021 21:58
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14205)	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. . . 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 Edited on 10-01-2021 22:00
11-01-2021 00:03
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1514)	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. Edited on 11-01-2021 00:05
11-01-2021 00:15
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14205)	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. . 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
11-01-2021 00:27
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1514)	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?
11-01-2021 00:47
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14205)	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. . 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
11-01-2021 01:18
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1514)	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 Edited on 11-01-2021 01:24
11-01-2021 01:32
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1514)	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.
11-01-2021 02:54
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14205)	Spongy Iris wrote: This is where IBDM loses scientific credibility 1. You need to first explain how science has lost any credibility. 2. At the moment we're talking about mathematics and your complete and utter incompetence. 3. You STILL have not posted your data, along with the mandatory prerequisites, here in this thread. You are just a whining snivelling crybaby at this point. You have been informed as to what you need to provide but thus far you have come up goose eggs. . 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
11-01-2021 03:08
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14205)	Spongy Iris wrote: [quote]IBdaMann wrote: 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. Spongy Iris wrote: A picture paints a thousand words. A chart is data which is easy to read. Wow. You can't read. Try again. 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. My spreadsheet awaits your data so I can run a regression and verify your claims. Spongy Iris wrote: A large amount of observational evidence besides surface temperature records shows Are you hesitant to show your "The Data" because it's loaded with "proxy measures" which are immediately discarded by the scientific method? Spongy Iris wrote: ... that Earth's climate is changing. Which one? The earth has many millions of climates and you chose to use the definite article "the." Of which climate do you speak? Spongy Iris wrote: 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 Sea ice is irrelevant, and you never even know its volume. Greenland ice sheet is accumulating ice at a rate of meters per year. Claims that Greenland ice is somehow disappearing all come from people who have never been to Greenland and are believed by people who have never been to Greenland. Ditto for Antarctica. . 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
11-01-2021 04:40
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1514)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: This is where IBDM loses scientific credibility 1. You need to first explain how science has lost any credibility. 2. At the moment we're talking about mathematics and your complete and utter incompetence. 3. You STILL have not posted your data, along with the mandatory prerequisites, here in this thread. You are just a whining snivelling crybaby at this point. You have been informed as to what you need to provide but thus far you have come up goose eggs. . You are obviously lashing out because the observed data contradicts the model you picked as most applicable to the solar system. All the numbers and fields in the spreadsheet would be too much info to convey in a forum. The chart gives you the data to analyze. If you have different data measured, which you can chart for us, which contradicts this, please provide it Here is the claim from the website from where the chart was gotten. "The clearest evidence for surface warming comes from widespread thermometer records that, in some places, extend back to the late 19th century. Today, temperatures are monitored at many thousands of locations, over both the land and ocean surface. Indirect estimates of temperature change from such sources as tree rings and ice cores help to place recent temperature changes in the context of the past. In terms of the average surface temperature of Earth, these indirect estimates show that 1989 to 2019 was very likely the warmest 30-year period in more than 800 years; the most recent decade, 2010-2019, is the warmest decade in the instrumental record so far (since 1850)."
11-01-2021 06:38
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14205)	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. . 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
11-01-2021 07:50
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1514)	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?
11-01-2021 08:17
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	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.
11-01-2021 08:20
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1514)	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? Edited on 11-01-2021 08:30

11-01-2021 16:12
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14205)	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? . Attached image:
11-01-2021 16:23
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14205)	Spongy Iris wrote: What agenda? The agenda is the generation of standard Marxist fear and anxiety to the point of hopelessness in order to incite the general population to panic into ceding greater and greater power (and more and more of their wealth) to the government. Spongy Iris wrote: Getting to "net zero" CO2 emissions? Why net-zero emissions specifically? Why not net-zero peanut butter? Why not net-zero glass? There are so many chemical compounds from which to choose, why select a life-essential compound needed by all plant life on the globe? We depend on plant life for our survival and we actually want more of it in the atmosphere, not less. . 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
11-01-2021 17:20
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2867)	IBdaMann wrote: Why not net-zero peanut butter? Don't even THINK about it. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
11-01-2021 18:14
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1514)	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. You can be pretty sure the sample of temperature readings from around the world is thorough enough to represent a good sample. I'm not going to duplicate the efforts made by NASA, NOAA, and UK Met Office Hadley Centre. In statistics the margin of error from a good sample size is usually around 3%.
11-01-2021 19:56
gfm7175★★★★★ (3299)	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! No. He asked you multiple questions and you have yet to answer any of them beyond providing him with random numbers without also providing him with the valid data set that supports your assertions. Spongy Iris wrote: Average temperature in 2019 was about 1.7 F higher than the average temperature from 1960 to 1990. I have a question of my own here. Why did you choose '1960-1990' as the average temperature "baseline"? Why did you choose that specific set of years as opposed to choosing any other specific set of years? Of course, that question is moving beyond the fact that "1.7 F higher" is a completely random number since the temperature of the Earth cannot be measured in any meaningful way using our current instrumentation infrastructure. That returns us back to IBD's questions to you: [1] What is Earth's average temperature currently? What was Earth's previous average temperature? Both parts of this question remain unanswered [2] The quantity you claim it has increased. 1.7degF higher than "the 1960-1990 baseline", however, it has yet to be disclosed precisely how those quantities were supposedly measured and subsequently calculated into a 30-year average [3] The margin of error that you are claiming. This question remains unanswered [4] The valid data set that supports the preceding. This data set remains unprovided Unfortunately, you have yet to answer questions 1, 3 and 4... 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. I'm not going to duplicate the efforts made by NASA, NOAA, and UK Met Office Hadley Centre. Actually, I can be completely and utterly sure that they AREN'T thorough enough... Ask me how I know... Spongy Iris wrote: In statistics the margin of error from a good sample size is usually around 3%. No, the question was: What margin of error are YOU claiming? Edited on 11-01-2021 20:01
11-01-2021 20:48
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1514)	You guys are the ones who suspect the data, summarized in a chart, is not an accurate history of average global temperature. I suspect it is pretty accurate. It shows a small but significant increase in average global temperatures in the past 60 years. 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. If you don't think the chart is accurate, then why don't you draw a different chart with the data you have compiled. Instead it seems you just want the data dismissed because there is not 100% accuracy. 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? Could it be you guys are opposed to that agenda, because your agenda is to see the people of Earth destroyed? Yes answers seem more likely to me than the loser conspiracy theories you guys are pushing.
11-01-2021 22:03
gfm7175★★★★★ (3299)	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.
11-01-2021 22:31
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1514)	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. There are thousands of thermometers around the world and sample data from them has been gathered, to estimate Earth's average temperature. The history has been drawn into a chart for you, and I have summarized the obvious differences in the past 60 years. That's how statistics works. You are dismissing the data for no good reason. Perhaps you dismiss the data because it didn't come to you from ...The Voice of GOD.
11-01-2021 22:48
gfm7175★★★★★ (3299)	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. Edited on 11-01-2021 22:50
11-01-2021 23:10
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1514)	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.

Page 3 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