The Data Mine

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:I would appreciate it if you could either refrain from posting to me, in response to anything I post, or at least make your posts smaller when you feel you must post.

You don't get to decide that. I do.

tmiddles wrote:
Off topic Trolls

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Off topic

Into the Night wrote:


Data collection began in 1958 and continues through today. This data is compensated for using reference stations away from volcanic plumes to remove the effects of local Mauna Loa volcanic activity. Data collected by NOAA and the Mauna Loa observatory. This graph shows CO2 content has increased from 318ppm to 400ppm (an increase of 22ppm over a span of 57 years). The increase is amazingly smooth, with variations due to seasonal changes.

The metholodogy of collection is to slowly pump air through a small cylindrical cell with flat windows on both ends. Infrared light is transmitted through one window, through the cell, through the second window, and is measured by a detector that is sensitive to infrared radiation. Calibration of the instrument is against references of known CO2 concentration samples.

Included to get this out of the way up front.

IBdaMann wrote:
I had to dig up the Data Mine and make an entry. It's a related mix of science and data. I want to make a post that covers the evaporation of moisture droplets.

My main objective is to give a quick reference for moisture droplets relative size and evaporation rates (see attached below):

Notice that when discussing COVID and "moisture droplets" ... the context is between 10 - 40 microns.

So when someone talks about facemasks as though they halt the progress of viruses in moisture ... as though that moisture never evaporates ... and thus facemasks somehow "help" ... you can remind him that water still evaporates and that the small percentage of viruses that happen to be in droplets are only "delayed" momentarily per the above charts roughly.




If you are interested in mathematical models, look at the following:

This DOCUMENT contains a crapload of mathematical models for evaporation rates that consider the size and stationary/velocity of a droplet along with the temperature, pressure and humidity of the surrounding atmosphere.

It is exceedingly boring, ... but it has the models.

... and if you enjoyed that one, you'll LOVE This ONE.

HarveyH55 wrote:
If you are still able to breath with the mask on, then the virus has a path. What a mask will do, is catch some larger particles in the air, so the virus has a quicker path into your lungs. Less crap to get stuck in the mucus coating to cough up more frequently. Our body, if healthy, and well hydrated, has a great, built in filtration system. Like anything else, if you don't maintain it, it falters and fails. Masks were a stupid idea, and more of a health crisis, than the virus. They restrict airflow, and volume, both in and out. We need to move a certain volume of air, depending on the activity. How many athletes wear masks while competing? Performers? Politicians are the exception, since masks help hide the facial indications, that they are lying to you. Biden, triple vaccinated, still wears a mask, when reading lies off the teleprompter screen. Mask-less, he's rambling, and mumbling, as expected of a man his age...

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:


Data collection began in 1958 and continues through today. This data is compensated for using reference stations away from volcanic plumes to remove the effects of local Mauna Loa volcanic activity. Data collected by NOAA and the Mauna Loa observatory. This graph shows CO2 content has increased from 318ppm to 400ppm (an increase of 22ppm over a span of 57 years). The increase is amazingly smooth, with variations due to seasonal changes.

The metholodogy of collection is to slowly pump air through a small cylindrical cell with flat windows on both ends. Infrared light is transmitted through one window, through the cell, through the second window, and is measured by a detector that is sensitive to infrared radiation. Calibration of the instrument is against references of known CO2 concentration samples.

Included to get this out of the way up front.

Welcome to CLIMATE-DEBATE.COM

Let's keep things on topic

Above ITN presents some ON TOPIC Data.

Into the Night wrote:
I decide what is on topic and no one else.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I decide what is on topic and no one else.

Only because the board lacks a moderator.
...deleted off topic irrelevancy...

Into the Night wrote:...I am the moderator of this thread.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:...I am the moderator of this thread.

...deleted off topic material...

tmiddles wrote:And we have no active mod or you'd have been banned long ago.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:And we have no active mod or you'd have been banned long ago.

Incorrect. Wrong words, as usual.

You mean "And we have no Leftist censor or you'd have been banned long ago."

We do, in fact, have a moderator, Branner, who does a great job. He allows free-flowing communication without censorship. He even permits you to waste this board's bandwidth disrupting discussion while adding no value.

If he didn't, you'd have been banned long ago.

Into the Night wrote:The Data Mine is the topic. You obviously have no data.

IBdaMann wrote:
...request for valid data, ...

Into the Night wrote:


Data collection began in 1958 and continues through today. This data is compensated for using reference stations away from volcanic plumes to remove the effects of local Mauna Loa volcanic activity. Data collected by NOAA and the Mauna Loa observatory. This graph shows CO2 content has increased from 318ppm to 400ppm (an increase of 22ppm over a span of 57 years). The increase is amazingly smooth, with variations due to seasonal changes.

The metholodogy of collection is to slowly pump air through a small cylindrical cell with flat windows on both ends. Infrared light is transmitted through one window, through the cell, through the second window, and is measured by a detector that is sensitive to infrared radiation. Calibration of the instrument is against references of known CO2 concentration samples.

Included to get this out of the way up front.

tmiddles wrote:
Here you go:

Into the Night wrote:

Data collection began in 1958 and continues through today. This data is compensated for using reference stations away from volcanic plumes to remove the effects of local Mauna Loa volcanic activity. Data collected by NOAA and the Mauna Loa observatory. This graph shows CO2 content has increased from 318ppm to 400ppm (an increase of 22ppm over a span of 57 years). The increase is amazingly smooth, with variations due to seasonal changes.

The metholodogy of collection is to slowly pump air through a small cylindrical cell with flat windows on both ends. Infrared light is transmitted through one window, through the cell, through the second window, and is measured by a detector that is sensitive to infrared radiation. Calibration of the instrument is against references of known CO2 concentration samples.

Included to get this out of the way up front.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:...Included to get this out of the way up front.

...cooked data ....

IBdaMann wrote:That chart ... is a chart! It's not data.

tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 10j...lie...39n...39p...10j...

tmiddles wrote:Yes we've been through this. ITN presented what you call cooked data, though never mentioned it at the time.

On 18-12-2018 Into the Night wrote: Mauna Loa in particular has an additional problem. It is know that they are cooking their data.

On 25-03-2019 Into the Night wrote: What record? Oh...you mean that cooked data Mauna Loa is putting out?

23-01-2020 Into the Night wrote concerning the Mauna Loa chart:
Cooked data. Useless. Volcanic activity in the area is not showing on the graph.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Yes we've been through this. ITN presented what you call cooked data, though never mentioned it at the time.

Who do you think is going to believe you?

On 18-12-2018 Into the Night wrote: Mauna Loa in particular has an additional problem. It is know that they are cooking their data.

On 25-03-2019 Into the Night wrote: What record? Oh...you mean that cooked data Mauna Loa is putting out?

23-01-2020 Into the Night wrote concerning the Mauna Loa chart:
Cooked data. Useless. Volcanic activity in the area is not showing on the graph.

Into the Night has always maintained that the instrumentation at the Mauna Loa observatory is spectacular for its accuracy, but that the people cook the data and produce garbage to be used by political actors for political purposes.

Once you realized that you weren't going to confuse anyone by conflating the accuracy of the equipment with the doctoring of the data by people, you pivoted and demanded Into the Night explain why he chose the accurate equipment at Mauna Loa as examples of accurate instrumentation when people were thereafter cooking the resulting data.

Boy was that stupid on your part.

So here we are again, with you attempting round #2 of the exact same conflation to see if you can fool ... who?

Do you think you're going to fool me? You know that I'm going to explain this everywhere you try to be dishonest on this topic.

.

Into the Night wrote:
It has occurred to me that there is a lot of numbers being thrown around to prove this or prove that. This thread will concentrate on presenting data that either support or falsifies whether global warming is taking place, and if so, by how much.

A few rules (as always!):

1. Since anyone can make up numbers or quote numbers from someone else that did, any data presented here must conform to the following limitations:
a. the source must be known. It does not have be well known, but it must be known.
b. the data must be in raw form (no fudging allowed, and no composites of data allowed) unless you can show the equation the modification used and the justification for that equation. Note that composite data such as central NOAA composite temperatures are not admissible here. Individual station data, however, is.
2. the data must be presented in the actual forum. A link may be used to back up the quotation, but a copy of the data must be here for all to see without using the link.
3. The methodology of collecting the data must be available. In other words, how was the data actually collected (the mechanisms, the instrumentation, etc). Be prepared to produce that information on demand. It would be best to show it up front.
4. The range of the data must be shown. The range of collection period, in other words.
5. The reliability of the data collection apparatus must be shown. Data collected over a long period of time is particularly susceptible to equipment failures or failures related to influences not part of the collection methodology.
6. If a plot is used, the scales must be linear (unless the units themselves are logarithmic), and must be referenced against a zero for the ground reference (axis reference).
7. Computed or modeled data is not data and is therefore not admissible.
8. Conclusions based on the data should be restricted to that data only. No conclusions from conclusions. In other words, you can show a town is warming, but concluding that proves global warming is not permissible. Neither is listing or conjecturing catastrophes that will result from a particular plot or dataset. This leaves the reader free to determine their own conclusion of the data from the actual data, not unrelated conclusions presented with it.

In my own experience I have found numbers thrown out there a lot. I suspect all numbers until I know where the number came from, who generated it, how the number was generated, and for what purpose. Until I know these things, the number is nothing more than a random number to me.

These rules may seem stringent, and they are. I believe they are necessary at the least, however, to cut through the wad of random numbers that keep getting thrown around.

The floor is open to contributors.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It has occurred to me that there is a lot of numbers being thrown around to prove this or prove that. This thread will concentrate on presenting data that either support or falsifies whether global warming is taking place, and if so, by how much.

A few rules (as always!):

1. Since anyone can make up numbers or quote numbers from someone else that did, any data presented here must conform to the following limitations:
a. the source must be known. It does not have be well known, but it must be known.
b. the data must be in raw form (no fudging allowed, and no composites of data allowed) unless you can show the equation the modification used and the justification for that equation. Note that composite data such as central NOAA composite temperatures are not admissible here. Individual station data, however, is.
2. the data must be presented in the actual forum. A link may be used to back up the quotation, but a copy of the data must be here for all to see without using the link.
3. The methodology of collecting the data must be available. In other words, how was the data actually collected (the mechanisms, the instrumentation, etc). Be prepared to produce that information on demand. It would be best to show it up front.
4. The range of the data must be shown. The range of collection period, in other words.
5. The reliability of the data collection apparatus must be shown. Data collected over a long period of time is particularly susceptible to equipment failures or failures related to influences not part of the collection methodology.
6. If a plot is used, the scales must be linear (unless the units themselves are logarithmic), and must be referenced against a zero for the ground reference (axis reference).
7. Computed or modeled data is not data and is therefore not admissible.
8. Conclusions based on the data should be restricted to that data only. No conclusions from conclusions. In other words, you can show a town is warming, but concluding that proves global warming is not permissible. Neither is listing or conjecturing catastrophes that will result from a particular plot or dataset. This leaves the reader free to determine their own conclusion of the data from the actual data, not unrelated conclusions presented with it.

In my own experience I have found numbers thrown out there a lot. I suspect all numbers until I know where the number came from, who generated it, how the number was generated, and for what purpose. Until I know these things, the number is nothing more than a random number to me.

These rules may seem stringent, and they are. I believe they are necessary at the least, however, to cut through the wad of random numbers that keep getting thrown around.

The floor is open to contributors.

AWESOME!

Im a BM wrote:
Awesome because it lays down the rules for how people should be allowed to post during discussion at this website.

Im a BM wrote:
23,443 posts by Into the Night. One single member posted more than one in five of ALL POSTS ever put up on this site of 1737 members.

If anyone has the right to lay down the rules for appropriate discussion, it would have to be the MOST PROLIFIC TROLL.

Some of the rules are hilarious.

"no fudging allowed" is my favorite.

Into the Night doesn't just "fudge". He just MAKES SHIT UP habitually.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Awesome because it lays down the rules for how people should be allowed to post during discussion at this website.

No, just this thread, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
23,443 posts by Into the Night. One single member posted more than one in five of ALL POSTS ever put up on this site of 1737 members.

If anyone has the right to lay down the rules for appropriate discussion, it would have to be the MOST PROLIFIC TROLL.

Some of the rules are hilarious.

"no fudging allowed" is my favorite.

Into the Night doesn't just "fudge". He just MAKES SHIT UP habitually.

I don't make up numbers or fudge numbers, Robert.

BTW, thanks for bumping the Data Mine.

Im a BM wrote:
Don't worry!

As soon as Branner FINALLY reads his email or PM messages, he'll remove all the more than 100 threads from the newest version of the New Messiah...

I'll go ahead and email him about it AGAIN after this post...

Once Branner clears the deck, I'll "bump" all the biogeochemistry threads back up to the home page.

Im a BM wrote:
I'll even UPDATE them, including more new papers that cite my work because of its relevance to any legitimate "climate debate".

Im a BM wrote:
Your genius thread will be up there too, for all to see. HOORAY!

Maybe you will finally get the discussion you wanted, following the rules you established for your thread, with more enthusiasm than the first time you tried.

Im a BM wrote:
"The Data Mine" could be where you "debunk" the alarmists who believe that climate CAN change. Of COURSE we all know that "climate cannot change".