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".

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:
From October, 2015 - Into the Night's first thread at climate-debate.com

In the last 11 years, Into the Night has racked up 24,267 posts at this website.

Into the Night, alone, accounts for more than 1 in 5 of ALL POSTS EVER by all 1745 members ever to join climate-debate.com

As the most prolific poster, Into the Night has contributed more than any other to making this discussion as attractive and popular as it is.

The Data Mine (thread) presented a daunting challenge that none would rise to.

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.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Sounds like you desperately are looking for a kiddie pool to play in. Snowflakes like you live in illiteracy and paranoia, knowing there are people that actually know the science and mathematics out there.

Enjoy playing with the kiddies.

Maybe Branner would like to create a "Kiddie Pool" section in which certain posters promise to not go. I realize that didn't work out for trafn who couldn't handle the comments elsewhere to what was discussed in his kiddie pool.

Maybe kiddie pools follow the Communism model, i.e. they only work if it encompasses the entire world with no separate, independent nations in there anywhere.

It must totally suck being a snowflake.

Im a BM wrote:
Well, at least the two of you have each other for comfort and reassurance that you really are the only ones in the world who know what "science" is.

Im a BM wrote:
You can still jerk each other off, as needed.

But no new prey is going to stumble into another "Define your terms, you scientifically illiterate moron Communist worshipper of a WACKY religion" ambush anymore.

Im a BM wrote:
You guys made this place so ATTRACTIVE and POPULAR during the 11 years that you have dominated the discussion, with nearly 40% of ALL POSTS EVER on this website (by all 1745 members) by just the two of you.

Into the Night wrote:

climate scientist wrote:

Sorry, but this is the Data Mine. None of these links satisfy the requirements of this thread. See the first post for the rules of Data Mine.

More than half the posts in this thread do not abide by your 'rules'. This is a poor response.

More than half the posts in this thread are not presenting data. You tried to, but not in accordance with the rules. If you are going to present data in any thread, you should try to follow these rules in general if you want credibility in the data you present. Unless I know where the numbers come from and how, to me they are just random numbers. The methodology of obtaining such numbers is at least as important as the numbers themselves.

Here in the Data Mine, these rules are more strictly enforced, and I will continue to call you on them.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

climate scientist wrote:

Sorry, but this is the Data Mine. None of these links satisfy the requirements of this thread. See the first post for the rules of Data Mine.

More than half the posts in this thread do not abide by your 'rules'. This is a poor response.

More than half the posts in this thread are not presenting data. You tried to, but not in accordance with the rules. If you are going to present data in any thread, you should try to follow these rules in general if you want credibility in the data you present. Unless I know where the numbers come from and how, to me they are just random numbers. The methodology of obtaining such numbers is at least as important as the numbers themselves.

Here in the Data Mine, these rules are more strictly enforced, and I will continue to call you on them.

"Here in the Data Mine, these rules are more strictly enforced, and I will continue to call you on them." - Into the Night

Damn!

I wish that I had thought of that for MY threads!

Strictly enforced rules..

For example, if you don't even know what a term means, don't use it or waste bandwidth commenting on its use.

For example, if you don't even believe that there is "such a thing" as "biogeochemistry", then do NOT troll and pester and heckle about something you know nothing about.

If you don't even know the definition of the term, don't project your ignorance and go ahead and make an idiot of yourself trying to comment about it.

Someone who actually studied science DOES know what that "gibber babble" comprised of "meaningless buzzwords" actually MEANS.

Shut the pHuck up about stuff you don't have a clue about.

And expect to get called out as a scientifically illiterate liar FRAUD if you pretend to be a "chemist" but you don't have a pHucking clue what a chemical IS.

Tim the plumber wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
Hi Into the Night

Anyone who knows anything about science, will know that correlation and causation do not always go hand in hand see:

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Just because you do not see a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature, it does not mean that they are not linked.

But the onus is on you to show that they are linked in some way.

It is you that is making the positive claim and this requires some sort of evidence based support.

Im a BM wrote:
October, 2015, and less than a week after Into the Night started this thread, there were multiple members even discussing "The Data Mine".
...deleted remaining off topic whining...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
October, 2015, and less than a week after Into the Night started this thread, there were multiple members even discussing "The Data Mine".
...deleted remaining off topic whining...

So you have no data to present. Whining isn't data.

Im a BM wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
Hi Into the Night

Anyone who knows anything about science, will know that correlation and causation do not always go hand in hand see:

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Just because you do not see a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature, it does not mean that they are not linked.

But the onus is on you to show that they are linked in some way.

It is you that is making the positive claim and this requires some sort of evidence based support.

October, 2015, and less than a week after Into the Night started this thread, there were multiple members even discussing "The Data Mine".

Going back through the website archives to October, 2015, one can see that "The Data Mine" was just one of many threads being discussed by multiple members. Other threads had far higher rates of participation by more members. One can see from the introductory thesis post by Into the Night (page 1) why the majority of active members at the time found it to be of little interest or worthy of reply.

Climate Scientist gets this response from Tim the Plumber, to what Climate Scientist wrote in response to Into the Night's "The Data Mine" thesis post.

Very different, those two, but they both got driven away by the inexcusable trolling and doxing by IBdaMann.

Climate Scientist was a PhD climate scientist who posted in good faith, in the interest of sharing accurate scientific information about a most important topic.

Tim the Plumber was a militant "skeptic", and presumably a brother in arms with IBdaMann in the struggle to "debunk" manmade climate change. But only one fish can be the biggest in the toilet, and Tim the Plumber did not kiss the ring.

As of October, 2015, IBdaMann hadn't poisoned the well badly enough yet to drive them all away. His eleven year trolling rampage had only begun near the end of September, 2015.

But it didn't take a lot longer for IBdaMann to make things so ugly that Tim the Plumber and Climate Scientist both stopped participating.

Into the Night hung in there, with popular and informative threads such as this.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted whining and ranting...

Branner does not. In one case Branner DID remove some of the posts in which IBdaMann doxed another member, including information about several of my family members. Actually scared the shit out of my son, who believed the guy wasn't just an ugly troll, but probably a dangerous pychopath who wanted the world to know he knew exactly where we lived so we could be harmed.

It worked. My son was so spooked by the ugly-clowns-killing-people videos that IBdaMann posted for me that he insisted I stop posting here. But after a two month pause, I convinced my son there was no need to fear IBdaMann, and I started posting again.