The Definition of an Average Climate

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > The Definition of an Average Climate

Page 1 of 2

The Definition of an Average Climate15-07-2020 18:35
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	Languages have words that have specific and accepted meanings as defined in dictionaries. We don't have the authority to change those definitions to suit our purposes otherwise others will not be able to understand what we are saying and will misinterpret what we are doing. Those definitions can only be modified somewhat in specialist situations such as in scientific usage, where the definition becomes more specific and clearly only applies to the current circumstances. In those situations, reverting to the colloquial definitions, is at best confusing and at worst deliberately deceptive. For example "theory" in the common usage is often taken to mean "hypothesis" or "conjecture" or "speculation" whereas in scientific parlance it means a hypothesis that has gained significant observational, theoretical, or mathematical evidence to support it. In other words is in science, a theory has been tested and found to be viable. "Climate" in the scientific context means the weather at a defined location averaged over a defined period of time (usually decades) in a specified parameter. It can be narrowed further by specifying a specific time period (such as a day, month, or season). It can be broadened from a specific location to include the averages taken over a county, state, country, continent, or planet. So you could have the average rainfall in the month of May in Maine over the last 50 years. The most common parameters for characterizing climate are temperature, precipitation, and wind. Others such as humidity, pressure, cloudiness, etc. can also be derived. As all these parameters can be defined and measured, by definition, climate is quantifiable. Some people cannot wrap their heads around the concept of averaging over an area with a non-uniform gridded measurements. There are thick statistical analysis text books describing multiple approaches on how this can be done reliably and standard routines developed to do this. When I did this sort of thing many years ago we used 2D splines or Fourier image analysis techniques. We checked the results using Monte Carlo techniques, for example. But we were then dealing with Fortran and computers with the computing capability of a modern smart phone. Now they have super computers that would have given my old IBM360 a headache just thinking about. Provided the averaging methods are described such that others can test them and the uncertainties are properly propagated through the analysis (also those techniques are well established) the average is meaningful.
15-07-2020 18:57
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	I prefer to keep things simple. There is tropical, temperate and arctic. Then land and it's terrain or even the lack of land can influence the weather just as ocean currents and trade winds have an influence. An example of this is the slowing of the Gulf Stream and Europe becoming warmer during the summer. It's an observable trend. Things do lend themselves more to an astronomical and astrophysical causation. A pattern has been suggested to the long term patterns (hundreds of years) as to such causation being a significant contributor to episodic warming and cooling periods. With the Gulf Stream, it is known that tectonic plate rebound causes the arctic to rise while, say latitude of England sinks. This would influence the North Atlantic Current flowing into the Arctic as well as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Basically water from the arctic is moving further south to maintain sea levels. And I would say that what set this in motion is found in astronomy. With regional variation, Seattle, Wa. shows this because of how different it's regional climate is when compared to Spokane, Wa. In the summer, the Cascades dries out the air so eastern Washington has much drier air, ie., less rainfall. Then in the winter, the polar jet stream helps to pull warm moist air north which then moves into eastern Washington from Canada. Jet streams help to separate the 3 basic climatic regions from one another. This in a way shows a change in incoming solar IR and air circulation.
15-07-2020 19:36
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	DRKTS wrote: Languages have words that have specific and accepted meanings as defined in dictionaries. We don't have the authority to change those definitions to suit our purposes otherwise others will not be able to understand what we are saying and will misinterpret what we are doing. Those definitions can only be modified somewhat in specialist situations such as in scientific usage, where the definition becomes more specific and clearly only applies to the current circumstances. In those situations, reverting to the colloquial definitions, is at best confusing and at worst deliberately deceptive. For example "theory" in the common usage is often taken to mean "hypothesis" or "conjecture" or "speculation" whereas in scientific parlance it means a hypothesis that has gained significant observational, theoretical, or mathematical evidence to support it. In other words is in science, a theory has been tested and found to be viable. "Climate" in the scientific context means the weather at a defined location averaged over a defined period of time (usually decades) in a specified parameter. It can be narrowed further by specifying a specific time period (such as a day, month, or season). It can be broadened from a specific location to include the averages taken over a county, state, country, continent, or planet. So you could have the average rainfall in the month of May in Maine over the last 50 years. The most common parameters for characterizing climate are temperature, precipitation, and wind. Others such as humidity, pressure, cloudiness, etc. can also be derived. As all these parameters can be defined and measured, by definition, climate is quantifiable. Some people cannot wrap their heads around the concept of averaging over an area with a non-uniform gridded measurements. There are thick statistical analysis text books describing multiple approaches on how this can be done reliably and standard routines developed to do this. When I did this sort of thing many years ago we used 2D splines or Fourier image analysis techniques. We checked the results using Monte Carlo techniques, for example. But we were then dealing with Fortran and computers with the computing capability of a modern smart phone. Now they have super computers that would have given my old IBM360 a headache just thinking about. Provided the averaging methods are described such that others can test them and the uncertainties are properly propagated through the analysis (also those techniques are well established) the average is meaningful. Climate is not quantifiable... There is no such thing as "less climate" or "more climate" or an "increase in climate". There is simply "climate", such as "desert climate", "marine climate", "polar climate"...
15-07-2020 19:47
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	DKRTS, I used the word "rollover" in an economic sense. It can be used to describe the rolling of a car, the failure of a criminal to stand up, and a large number of other meanings.
15-07-2020 19:55
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Averaging, and a few other mathemagic tricks are fine to fill in a few small gaps in data. It's not fine, to use mathemagic to create the majority of the data points. The need for super-computers, should be a strong indicator, that the data is suspicious, at best, if not completely bogus. The margin of error grows with each manipulation, and every estimated data point added.

15-07-2020 22:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	DRKTS wrote: Languages have words that have specific and accepted meanings as defined in dictionaries. Dictionaries do not define words. No dictionary owns any word or language. Mantras 4d...4b... DRKTS wrote: We don't have the authority to change those definitions to suit our purposes otherwise others will not be able to understand what we are saying and will misinterpret what we are doing. WRONG. Words are defined by people, not dictionaries. There is no other authority. Justifying redefinitions and undefinitions of words is what you are trying to do here. You are also trying to justify buzzwords as having an actual meaning. DRKTS wrote: Those definitions can only be modified somewhat in specialist situations such as in scientific usage, where the definition becomes more specific and clearly only applies to the current circumstances. In those situations, reverting to the colloquial definitions, is at best confusing and at worst deliberately deceptive. Nope. They do not change. Denial of etymology (history). Mantra 21d. DRKTS wrote: For example "theory" in the common usage is often taken to mean "hypothesis" 'Theory' does not mean 'hypothesis' and never has. DRKTS wrote: or "conjecture" 'Theory' does not mean 'conjecture' and never has. DRKTS wrote: or "speculation" 'Theory' does not mean 'speculation' and never has. Try English. It works better. DRKTS wrote: whereas in scientific parlance it means a hypothesis that has gained significant observational, theoretical, or mathematical evidence to support it. A hypothesis does not have observations. A hypothesis is not a theory. A hypothesis does not use evidence. It needs nothing to support it. Example: the null hypothesis of a theory. DRKTS wrote: In other words is in science, a theory has been tested and found to be viable. WRONG. Viability of a theory is inherent in the theory itself. A theory of science requires tests designed to destroy a theory (the test is against the null hypothesis of a theory). It must be available, practical, specific, and produce a specific result. If the theory survives, it is automatically a theory of science. Theories that are not testable in this way remain nonscientific theories, and the circular arguments they began as. DRKTS wrote: "Climate" in the scientific context means the weather at a defined location averaged over a defined period of time (usually decades) From when to when? Why are those two points in time significant? Why are any other two points in time NOT significant? Why is any particular period of time significant? Why is any other period of time NOT signifcant? DRKTS wrote: in a specified parameter. There are no parameters in 'climate'. 'Climate' is a subjective word, describing subjective things, such as a 'desert climate' or a 'marine climate'. There is no 'global climate'. Earth is made up of many climates. DRKTS wrote: It can be narrowed further by specifying a specific time period (such as a day, month, or season). It can be broadened from a specific location to include the averages taken over a county, state, country, continent, or planet. So the time is undefined. Sorry, you can't define a word using undefined words. DRKTS wrote: So you could have the average rainfall in the month of May in Maine over the last 50 years. Fine. Average is meaningless by itself. DRKTS wrote: The most common parameters for characterizing climate are temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate has no parameters. You are describing parameters of weather. DRKTS wrote: Others such as humidity, pressure, cloudiness, etc. can also be derived. None of these are derived. They are all measured values. DRKTS wrote: As all these parameters can be defined and measured, by definition, climate is quantifiable. No. WEATHER is quantifiable. Climate is not. DRKTS wrote: Some people cannot wrap their heads around the concept of averaging over an area with a non-uniform gridded measurements. Averaging by itself is meaningless. Obviously, you don't know anything about statistical math, since you are denying it. DRKTS wrote: There are thick statistical analysis text books describing multiple approaches on how this can be done reliably and standard routines developed to do this. Guess you didn't read them. Averaging by itself is meaningless. DRKTS wrote: When I did this sort of thing many years ago we used 2D splines or Fourier image analysis techniques. We checked the results using Monte Carlo techniques, for example. But we were then dealing with Fortran and computers with the computing capability of a modern smart phone. Now they have super computers that would have given my old IBM360 a headache just thinking about. Irrelevant. Averaging by itself is meaningless. Statistical summaries require not only the average, but also the margin of error value, the declaration of variances and their justifications, the use of raw data only, the publication of that data, and the selection from that raw data by randN. The normalization of the selections by paired randR, and THEN and only then can you average anything. Remember the margin of error value must also accompany the summary, or the average is meaningless. DRKTS wrote: Provided the averaging methods are described such that others can test them and the uncertainties are properly propagated through the analysis (also those techniques are well established) the average is meaningful. You seem to be confusing tolerance with margin of error. This is common, especially with liberals trying to deny statistical mathematics to justify their religion. Mantra 10g. Denial of mathematics. Semantics fallacies. False authorities. 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
15-07-2020 22:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	keepit wrote: DKRTS, I used the word "rollover" in an economic sense. No, you used it as a buzzword. keepit wrote: It can be used to describe the rolling of a car, the failure of a criminal to stand up, and a large number of other meanings. Irrelevance fallacy. No argument presented. Semantics fallacies. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-07-2020 22:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	HarveyH55 wrote: Averaging, and a few other mathemagic tricks are fine to fill in a few small gaps in data. It's not fine, to use mathemagic to create the majority of the data points. The need for super-computers, should be a strong indicator, that the data is suspicious, at best, if not completely bogus. The margin of error grows with each manipulation, and every estimated data point added. You are not allowed to add 'estimated data points' to data in statistical mathematics. This is just adding random numbers of type randU to the data, invalidating it. 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
16-07-2020 03:44
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	DRKTS wrote: Languages have words that have specific and accepted meanings as defined in dictionaries. Nope. Dismissed. By the way, how many languages do you speak? DRKTS wrote: We don't have the authority to change those definitions to suit our purposes ... Exactly, no dictionary has the authority to define any word. DRKTS wrote: In those situations, reverting to the colloquial definitions, is at best confusing and at worst deliberately deceptive. You must be pretty pissed at tgoebbles then, yes? DRKTS wrote: For example "theory" in the common usage is often taken to mean "hypothesis" or "conjecture" or "speculation" whereas in scientific parlance it means a hypothesis that has gained significant observational, theoretical, or mathematical evidence to support it. Nope. You are a fraud. Science cares nothing for supporting evidence. Start dropping things and gather lots of corroborating evidence for gravity and see who cares. Science cares only about falsifying evidence. Find just one example whereby E does not equal mc^2 and you will become famous. Everybody even remotely affiliated with science knows this. You, on the other hand, are clearly scientifically illiterate. DRKTS wrote:* In other words is in science, a theory has been tested and found to be viable. Nope. In science, a theory is a falsifiable model that predicts nature, but until it passes the scrutiny of the scientific method, it is not a Jedi yet! Once it survives the battery of the scientific method, a falsifiable model ascends to the rank of science. DRKTS wrote: "Climate" in the scientific context means the weather at a defined location averaged over a defined period of time (usually decades) in a specified parameter. Nope. I checked all of science and there is no science that either recognizes or supports this. Of course, since you are scientifically illiterate, you can't possibly know this. DRKTS wrote: It can be narrowed further by specifying a specific time period (such as a day, month, or season). "It" cannot be "narrowed" until "It" is unambiguously defined, something you have never even attempted despite having ample opportunity and virtually unlimited time. It's almost as if you are simply preaching some freaky cult religion or something. DRKTS wrote: It can be broadened from a specific location to include the averages taken over a county, state, country, continent, or planet. It's like "It" is some sort of deity that watches over the planet and all life on earth. Wait, where have I heard something like that? From The MANUAL: Climate: proper noun The heroine of the Global Warming mythology,Climate is the Democratic People's Goddess. Born out of the Scientific Consensus, She oversees the central planning and administration of all weather, ecosystems, and local climates across the globe, as well as all interactions thereof. Climate is responsible for the care and well-being of all life on earth. In other faiths She is called Gaia, Durga, Mother Nature, et. al. Note: Climate, by her nature, never changes but she is believed to be constantly changing, thus forming the grand mystery of the Global Warming faith. This is a core tenet of Settled Science. DRKTS wrote:So you could have the average rainfall in the month of May in Maine over the last 50 years. I don't believe anyone is questioning the infinite mathematical calculations that can be performed on numbers stemming from measured weather parameters. The question remains: Which calculation yields Climate? i.e. Climate = [ what? ] Could you just answer that one question before you go on to anything else. It would sure help to make sense out of the current gibberish that you are using to waste this site's bandwidth. DRKTS wrote: Some people cannot wrap their heads around the concept of averaging over an area Stefan-Boltzmann DRKTS wrote: There are thick statistical analysis text books describing multiple approaches on how this can be done reliably and standard routines developed to do this. So what is your excuse for not having read them? DRKTS wrote: Provided the averaging methods are described such that others can test them and the uncertainties are properly propagated through the analysis (also those techniques are well established) the average is meaningful. Whether or not an average is meaningful, what is the calculation for Climate? i.e. Climate = [ what? ] . 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
16-07-2020 04:09
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: DRKTS wrote: Languages have words that have specific and accepted meanings as defined in dictionaries. Nope. Dismissed. Dictionaries are one thing, the people who speak the language, something else. I remember in junior high school letting my American classmates copy my paper. They had no interest in learning Engleske. They could play with words but you had to be in their specific social group which was social studies to understand what they were saying. Those are 2 different things and yet universities do not link social studies and linguistics. The video is an example of a Rock/pop song expressed differently from a different cultural perspective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbhjEDH4pIk And in the original version, he's singing to a little girl; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCTBuOheUpE Is he a pedophile or is that how he sees his girlfriend? At least with the first link, it's a college frat party getting crashed. All adults So what do the words mean? Context matters. Someone pursuing an education might not want to go "Goth" while a little girl or a woman perceived as a little girl might not like grown or dominating men. It's all the same words but from the perspective of the female, they can have very different meanings. BTW, ITN invited me to a cook out. He told me that he has some "HOT" Oscar Mayer wieners just waiting to be tasted. What does he mean? And what is an "Oscar Mayer" wiener? There is no unambiguous definition. With that said, unless a specific context is given, words have no meaning because it is in the way and with the intent that they are used that defines them. So the only thing that can be defined unambiguously is the word unambiguous. A singular definition. All other words, sayings and phrases have multiple definitions because some people at some point in time learned to speak more than one language or to understand more than one custom. Edited on 16-07-2020 04:25
16-07-2020 09:12
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	DRKTS wrote:...change...definitions...others will not be able to understand... If your goal is to create confusion and sabotage communication then it's an easy strategy to do so. ITN/IBD have one goal here: to destroy debate itself. DRKTS wrote:...When I did this sort of thing many years ago we used 2D splines or Fourier image analysis techniques. We checked the results using Monte Carlo techniques, for example. The technique for obtaining the average can be tested against a known example too right? Sort of like calibrating your method. gfm7175 wrote:...There is simply "climate", such as "desert climate",... Continue to believe that. You can simply recognize others define words differently, or not. We almost exclusively discuss temperature and that's really the only word required for that discussion. Of course your goal is to avoid discussion. keepit wrote:"rollover" ... economic sense. ...rolling of a car, the failure of a criminal to stand up... Good example. It's of course easy enough to find out what someone meant if they are trying to communicate. You ask them and they tell you. HarveyH55 wrote:...mathemagic tricks...completely bogus.... Do you think it's dishonesty, incompetence or both Harvey? Into the Night wrote: DRKTS wrote:For example "theory" in the common usage is often taken to mean "hypothesis" 'Theory' does not mean 'hypothesis' and never has. DRKTS just to give you a bit more context on ITN (I too gave him far more credit for being informed than he deserves) here he is on the subject of statistics: Into the Night wrote:There is no such thing as a 'confidence interval'. from: link He is just a nutter. IBdaMann wrote: DRKTS wrote: Some people cannot wrap their heads around the concept of averaging over an area Stefan-Boltzmann Again! That response reveals real ignorance. SB has nothing to do with averaging over an area. IBD just tried to say that margin of error was founded on the Heizenberg Uncertainty Principle here: link IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:There is always a range of uncertainty about the true mean temperature of anything. ...Heisenberg already beat you to it....the Uncertainty Principle. That's just...dumb! The only value I see in IBD/ITN/GFM is they are lab rats here that represent a sizable mob of armchair science quacks who actually do a tremendous amount of damage encouraging the public to embrace conspiracy theories and discard well tested science (Covid 19 is a perfect example). "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 16-07-2020 09:32
16-07-2020 10:09
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	See IBDM? Understanding economic depression before it happens is easier than figuring out the previous post. And for my post previous to it, only those within a group truly understand the dialogue/communications of that group. This in a way is why moving from one part of the US to another can be problematic. It is the perception of that which is perceived which matters most. It is how something is inferred that matters and not how it is intoned. And this is why words,expressions and sayings have multiple meanings. The Tower of Babel is the reason given for no ambiguous meanings except for the word ambiguous itself. The exception to the rule if you will.
16-07-2020 11:02
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Math is simple a tool, something primates are really good at making and using. Most tools have a multitude of possible uses. Climate change, has a lot in common with building a perpetual motion machine, or 'free energy' device. Hard to tell if the goal is sincere, or a fraud, either way, the device is a failure. The tools are used, to build something that just is not possible.
16-07-2020 12:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted IAW tmiddles ordinance #1...Mantras 30...17...25c...22...22...22b...30...17...30...30...29...15a...15b...1...22...20b...21...30...15a...4a...4c...20q8...20e1...32...35a...31...39l... No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of math. Denial of science. Semantics fallacies. Spamming. Insults. False authorities. 'Science' as buzzword. Invalid proof. Bulverism. Answer the questions put to you. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-07-2020 16:53
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote:... deleted EGREGIOUS violation of tmiddles ordinance... Summarily dismissed. Answer the questions asked of you.

16-07-2020 17:26
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote:... deleted EGREGIOUS violation of tmiddles ordinance... Summarily dismissed. Answer the questions asked of you. Well said. Somehow you acquired tgoebbles' permission to think for yourself: tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote:...There is simply "climate", such as "desert climate",... Continue to believe that. All I get from tgoebbles is insistence that I deny science, deny math, deny logic, hate myself, hate humanity and panic in abject fear over empty buzzwords. What's your secret? How did you get tgoebbles to consider it OK for you to be rational? There might be a book deal in it for you. . Attached image:
16-07-2020 19:45
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	gfm7175 wrote: Climate is not quantifiable... There is no such thing as "less climate" or "more climate" or an "increase in climate". There is simply "climate", such as "desert climate", "marine climate", "polar climate"... You can have higher or lower temperatures, humidity, and rainfall - each quantifiable - degrees, %, and mm, respectively. You can have stronger or weaker winds - quantifiable by kph - and the prevailing wind direction can change - quantifiable by an angle. All of these can be measured over time and if the average shifts then the climate has changed by a measurable amount. Do all deserts have the same climate? No. Do all areas of the ocean have the same climate? No. Do all polar areas have the same climate? No. Each is different, how do we know because we measure the average conditions there. So its quantifiable.
16-07-2020 19:53
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	HarveyH55 wrote: Averaging, and a few other mathemagic tricks are fine to fill in a few small gaps in data. It's not fine, to use mathemagic to create the majority of the data points. The need for super-computers, should be a strong indicator, that the data is suspicious, at best, if not completely bogus. The margin of error grows with each manipulation, and every estimated data point added. Averaging is not a trick but a defined statistical procedure. Who is creating "the majority of data points"? Refernce please. The need for a supercomputer is merely a function of the quantity and precision of the data. The need to do Monte Carlo analysis - thousands of them - on billions of measurements requires a supercomputer to do it in a reasonable time. NOAA and other groips usually take two weeks to gather the data, calibrate it, intercalibrate it, alias bad measurements, and regrid the data on to a uniform map distribution on a globe (a complex spherical trigonometry problem). You seem to think this can be done with an abacus. Errors are propagated through the same process so the uncertainty on th e measurement is known at every stage.
16-07-2020 22:04
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	DRKTS wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Climate is not quantifiable... There is no such thing as "less climate" or "more climate" or an "increase in climate". There is simply "climate", such as "desert climate", "marine climate", "polar climate"... You can have higher or lower temperatures, humidity, and rainfall - each quantifiable - degrees, %, and mm, respectively. Indeed, but none of those things are climate. Rather, they (in combination with other atmospheric measures) make up what we call 'weather'. While not quantifiable in and of itself ("more weather"?, "less weather"?, "increase in weather"?, etc...), weather is indeed made up of quantifiable elements, such as temperature, humidity, rainfall, etc... DRKTS wrote: You can have stronger or weaker winds - quantifiable by kph - and the prevailing wind direction can change - quantifiable by an angle. See above. DRKTS wrote: All of these can be measured over time See above. DRKTS wrote: and if the average shifts An average by itself?? Meh... DRKTS wrote: then the climate You haven't been talking about climate, you've been talking about the elements that make up weather. DRKTS wrote: has changed by a measurable amount. Those elements of weather are changing, not climate. Define 'climate'. How does one go about measuring 'climate' to determine a "change" in 'climate'? DRKTS wrote: Do all deserts have the same climate? No. A desert climate is still a desert climate. It doesn't matter whether a location within a desert is very hot ("tropical desert") or very cold ("polar desert"); it is still a desert climate. The climate has not changed. DRKTS wrote: Do all areas of the ocean have the same climate? No. A marine climate is still a marine climate. The climate has not changed. DRKTS wrote: Do all polar areas have the same climate? No. A polar climate is still a polar climate. The climate has not changed. DRKTS wrote: Each is different, how do we know because we measure the average conditions there. So its quantifiable. No it isn't. See above.
16-07-2020 22:05
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	DRKTS wrote: Averaging is not a trick but a defined statistical procedure. Averaging is well defined in math. So is addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and other operations. None of them are substitutes for raw data. You are a fraud. DRKTS wrote: Who is creating "the majority of data points"? Refernce please. Who's claiming to have raw data from which valid conclusions are being drawn? Raw data please. DRKTS wrote:The need for a supercomputer is merely a function of the quantity and precision of the data. Paper and pencil is fine when there is no raw data. Raw data please. DRKTS wrote: NOAA and other groips usually take two weeks to gather the data, calibrate it, intercalibrate it, alias bad measurements, and regrid the data on to a uniform map distribution on a globe (a complex spherical trigonometry problem). They have no data. Raw data please. DRKTS wrote:You seem to think this can be done with an abacus. Absolutely, when there is no raw data, sure. Raw data please. So, this is where we stand ... you have no raw data from which to draw any conclusions, so a paper and pencil is sufficient to write "You are a fraud." Yes, that would be difficult on an abacus. Similarly, you have no unambiguous definition for either Global Warming, Climate, Climate Change or Greenhosue Effect. Ergo, you have no falsifiable theory for anything about which you are babbling and as such, you have no science supporting that about which you are babbling. Have I omitted anything? * F - R - A - U - D * . 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
16-07-2020 22:10
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote:... deleted EGREGIOUS violation of tmiddles ordinance... Summarily dismissed. Answer the questions asked of you. Well said. Somehow you acquired tgoebbles' permission to think for yourself: tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote:...There is simply "climate", such as "desert climate",... Continue to believe that. All I get from tgoebbles is insistence that I deny science, deny math, deny logic, hate myself, hate humanity and panic in abject fear over empty buzzwords. What's your secret? How did you get tgoebbles to consider it OK for you to be rational? There might be a book deal in it for you. . Maybe he just let that little beauty slip out during a bout of frustration? I'll have to look into it more and get back to you...
16-07-2020 22:16
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: DRKTS wrote: Averaging is not a trick but a defined statistical procedure. Averaging is well defined in math. So is addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and other operations. None of them are substitutes for raw data. You are a fraud. DRKTS wrote: Who is creating "the majority of data points"? Refernce please. Who's claiming to have raw data from which valid conclusions are being drawn? Raw data please. DRKTS wrote:The need for a supercomputer is merely a function of the quantity and precision of the data. Paper and pencil is fine when there is no raw data. Raw data please. DRKTS wrote: NOAA and other groips usually take two weeks to gather the data, calibrate it, intercalibrate it, alias bad measurements, and regrid the data on to a uniform map distribution on a globe (a complex spherical trigonometry problem). They have no data. Raw data please. DRKTS wrote:You seem to think this can be done with an abacus. Absolutely, when there is no raw data, sure. Raw data please. So, this is where we stand ... you have no raw data from which to draw any conclusions, so a paper and pencil is sufficient to write "You are a fraud." Yes, that would be difficult on an abacus. Similarly, you have no unambiguous definition for either Global Warming, Climate, Climate Change or Greenhosue Effect. Ergo, you have no falsifiable theory for anything about which you are babbling and as such, you have no science supporting that about which you are babbling. Have I omitted anything? * F - R - A - U - D * . You seem to be rather fixated on this whole 'raw data' "nonsense"... or as tgoebbles puts it, the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!
16-07-2020 22:34
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	gfm7175 wrote:You seem to be rather fixated on this whole 'raw data' "nonsense"... or as tgoebbles puts it, the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. HOW DARE YOU!!!!!! Have you noticed how hoping to get raw data from DRATS or tgoebbles is like hoping to catch a glimpse of the monster at Loch Ness, or of sighting Bigfoot while hiking in Montana, or of snaring the Chupacabra in one of the farms in Oaxaca, or in photographing the Yeti in Nepal? There is no end to the assurances of existence from people selling things but anything you might get is guaranteed to be vague and blurry. Note: I just got a complaint from bigfoot about the implication that Global Warming is somehow as real as he is. My apologies to Sasquatch, that was not the intention. I will be more sensitive in the future. . 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
16-07-2020 23:23
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: A marine climate is still a marine climate. The climate has not changed. And the weather is still the weather. The Earth's weather cannot change into something other than the Earth's weather. The Earth's mean temperature at ground level (bottom of the atmosphere) cannot change into something other than Earth's mean temperature at ground level. So your point is meaningless. It has all the significance of: Wherever you go there you are. And other less than useful information like who is buried in Grant's tomb. IBdaMann wrote:...None of them are substitutes for raw data....to have raw data ...Raw data please....there is no raw data....Raw data please....Raw data please....no raw data, sure....Raw data please... you have no raw data It's going on 6 years and IBD has never once produced, used or identified "raw data" Debunked in my sig. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
16-07-2020 23:47
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:You seem to be rather fixated on this whole 'raw data' "nonsense"... or as tgoebbles puts it, the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. HOW DARE YOU!!!!!! Have you noticed how hoping to get raw data from DRATS or tgoebbles is like hoping to catch a glimpse of the monster at Loch Ness, or of sighting Bigfoot while hiking in Montana, or of snaring the Chupacabra in one of the farms in Oaxaca, or in photographing the Yeti in Nepal? There is no end to the assurances of existence from people selling things but anything you might get is guaranteed to be vague and blurry. Note: I just got a complaint from bigfoot about the implication that Global Warming is somehow as real as he is. My apologies to Sasquatch, that was not the intention. I will be more sensitive in the future. . I have definitely noticed this... I think I'm going to urge DRATS and tgoebbles to accept the Christian God or else be damned to the lake of fire for all eternity... At least Christianity allows its followers to adhere to logic, science, and mathematics... Edited on 16-07-2020 23:48
16-07-2020 23:58
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: A marine climate is still a marine climate. The climate has not changed. And the weather is still the weather. Indeed it is. tmiddles wrote: The Earth's weather cannot change into something other than the Earth's weather. Indeed. tmiddles wrote: The Earth's mean temperature at ground level (bottom of the atmosphere) cannot change into something other than Earth's mean temperature at ground level. Violation of tmiddles ordinance. Summarily dismissed. tmiddles wrote: So your point is meaningless. It has all the significance of: Wherever you go there you are. And other less than useful information like who is buried in Grant's tomb. Not in the slightest bit. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...None of them are substitutes for raw data....to have raw data ...Raw data please....there is no raw data....Raw data please....Raw data please....no raw data, sure....Raw data please... you have no raw data It's going on 6 years and IBD has never once produced, used or identified "raw data" Debunked in my sig. Violation of tmiddles ordinance. Summarily dismissed.
17-07-2020 00:12
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: The Earth's weather cannot change into something other than the Earth's weather. Indeed. Great so we can move on. Climate is no more or less problematic a word than Weather. Neither word is particularly useful and I see no reason to use them. We have been and continue to use the word "temperature". A fine word!
17-07-2020 00:23
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: The Earth's weather cannot change into something other than the Earth's weather. Indeed. Great so we can move on. Climate is no more or less problematic a word than Weather. I have no issues with either word, as they are defined in English. tmiddles wrote: Neither word is particularly useful and I see no reason to use them. Liar. tmiddles wrote: We have been and continue to use the word "temperature". A fine word! Okay then. I am willing to more forward with a discussion involving the word 'temperature'. To begin the discussion, please present your definition of the word 'temperature' as you are going to be using it in this discussion with me. Edited on 17-07-2020 00:26
17-07-2020 01:28
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	tmiddles wrote: Debunked in my sig. Too funny. I should put this in my signature. Only a psychotic mind would believe that your "sig" debunks anything or that BLM looting and firebombing is peaceful protest. Let's take a look: "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Oh look, it solves world hunger too. . 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
17-07-2020 02:02
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	The fiction, is in trying to change a small, local variable, into something that applies on a global scale. It's 92 F and sunny, in Central Florida. That isn't the same, for the entire planet. Not to mention, it would be an extremely rare event in some places on the planet. You can create numbers and terms to describe anything you can imagine. And that is all it's ever going to be, imagination, a fiction. Those terms and numbers don't actually have any use or value. What good is declaring a global average temperature, if that temperature rarely, if ever applies to the place where you live? Consider the average global speed on the roadways, is 38 MPH. Does that really matter? It doesn't spare you a ticket, in a school zone, or many residential areas. Probably get you into trouble on the interstate. You can't, or usually wouldn't drive the average global speed. Global warming is the same way. You can declare it, but it doesn't actually apply to anything useful, or even real, it's pure fiction. A lot of popular science fiction books and movies, were actual loosely inspired by actual science. Imagination can be a great thing most of the time. We have quite a few technological advances, inspired by fiction of the past.

17-07-2020 02:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	DRKTS wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Climate is not quantifiable... There is no such thing as "less climate" or "more climate" or an "increase in climate". There is simply "climate", such as "desert climate", "marine climate", "polar climate"... You can have higher or lower temperatures, humidity, and rainfall - each quantifiable - degrees, %, and mm, respectively. Yup. We call it 'weather'. DRKTS wrote: You can have stronger or weaker winds - quantifiable by kph - and the prevailing wind direction can change - quantifiable by an angle. Yup. We also call that 'weather'. DRKTS wrote: All of these can be measured over time and if the average shifts then the climate has changed by a measurable amount. Time is unspecified. Define 'climate change'. DRKTS wrote: Do all deserts have the same climate? No. WRONG. All deserts are a desert climate. DRKTS wrote: Do all areas of the ocean have the same climate? No. WRONG. All oceans have an marine climate. DRKTS wrote: Do all polar areas have the same climate? No. WRONG. All polar areas have a polar climate. DRKTS wrote: Each is different, how do we know because we measure the average conditions there. So its quantifiable. What is quantifiable about 'desert climate'? 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
17-07-2020 02:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	DRKTS wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Averaging, and a few other mathemagic tricks are fine to fill in a few small gaps in data. It's not fine, to use mathemagic to create the majority of the data points. The need for super-computers, should be a strong indicator, that the data is suspicious, at best, if not completely bogus. The margin of error grows with each manipulation, and every estimated data point added. Averaging is not a trick but a defined statistical procedure. Averaging is not statistical math. Failure to declare variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. DRKTS wrote: Who is creating "the majority of data points"? Refernce please. There are none. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. DRKTS wrote: The need for a supercomputer is merely a function of the quantity and precision of the data. The need to do Monte Carlo analysis - thousands of them - on billions of measurements requires a supercomputer to do it in a reasonable time. What measurements? There are not billions of measurements. DRKTS wrote: NOAA and other groips usually take two weeks to gather the data, What data? DRKTS wrote: calibrate it, You don't 'calibrate' data. It is just data. DRKTS wrote: intercalibrate it, A nonsense word. Try English. It works better. DRKTS wrote: alias bad measurements, A nonsense phrase. Try English. It works better. DRKTS wrote: and regrid the data on to a uniform map distribution on a globe (a complex spherical trigonometry problem). Math error. You cannot 'regrid' data. Collected temperature data must be uniformly spaced to begin with. DRKTS wrote: You seem to think this can be done with an abacus. It cannot be done wtih an abacus, pocket calculator, slide rule, or a supercomputer. DRKTS wrote: Errors are propagated through the same process so the uncertainty on the measurement is known at every stage. Mantra 10g. Margin of error is not tolerance. No arguments presented. Denial of mathematics. Word salad. 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
17-07-2020 02:41
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	DRATS wrote: NOAA and other groips usually take two weeks to gather the data, calibrate it, intercalibrate it, alias bad measurements, and regrid the data ... I'd just like to point out to everyone that this is the official Climate Scientist data fudging process. None of this is acceptable in science. You analyze the data, you don't craft something out of it. In science, any raw data that is modified is discarded along with any derived conclusions. The raw data must be published unaltered with the conclusions. DRATS is a fraud. He clearly knows nothing of science. . 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
17-07-2020 03:18
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	tgoebbles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: DRKTS wrote: Some people cannot wrap their heads around the concept of averaging over an area Stefan-Boltzmann Again! That response reveals real ignorance. SB has nothing to do with averaging over an area. Too funny! According to Mr. Moron, Radiance is somehow NOT Power normalized over Area. Of course, we shouldn't expect much else from a self-loathing Marxist who cheers on his fellow BLM thugs into shooting a young woman for saying "All Lives Matter," leaving her 3-year-old son without a mother. I bet it was just peaceful protest after all, right? Radiance is Power divided by Area. You don't get to change that. . Attached image: Edited on 17-07-2020 03:20
17-07-2020 04:40
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: I bet it was just peaceful protest after all, right? . It was a MOSTLY peaceful protest, as someone with a press pass (such as tmiddles) would spin it... Looting, arson, assault/battery, vandalism, murder... yup, all "mostly peaceful" things according to tmiddles.......... Edited on 17-07-2020 04:41
17-07-2020 05:03
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: I bet it was just peaceful protest after all, right? . It was a MOSTLY peaceful protest, as someone with a press pass (such as tmiddles) would spin it... Looting, arson, assault/battery, vandalism, murder... yup, all "mostly peaceful" things according to tmiddles.......... In Texas, two (Latino) cops were killed via ambush. The teenage daughter of one of the slain cops tweeted a memorial tweet of her father with #bluelivesmatter. BLM troglodytes like tmiddles flooded her with taunts, HATE and mockery of her father ... until she took it down. I guess the absolute schit of our society gravitates towards Black Lives Matter. . Attached image:
17-07-2020 11:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: I bet it was just peaceful protest after all, right? . It was a MOSTLY peaceful protest, as someone with a press pass (such as tmiddles) would spin it... Looting, arson, assault/battery, vandalism, murder... yup, all "mostly peaceful" things according to tmiddles.......... In Texas, two (Latino) cops were killed via ambush. The teenage daughter of one of the slain cops tweeted a memorial tweet of her father with #bluelivesmatter. BLM troglodytes like tmiddles flooded her with taunts, HATE and mockery of her father ... until she took it down. I guess the absolute schit of our society gravitates towards Black Lives Matter. . One in Washington was also killed (in Bothell). His partner was grazed. The killer said he simply hated cops. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 17-07-2020 11:22
17-07-2020 13:49
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	[quote]Into the Night wrote: WRONG. All deserts are a desert climate. [quote] Really? So, is the climate of the Antarctic desert the same as that of the Sahara? No. So, is the climate of the Atacama desert the same as that of the Sonoran Desert? No. So, is the climate of the Katpana desert the same as that of Death Valley? No. So, is the climate of the Shoyna desert the same as that of the Kalahari? No. So, is the climate of the Pearyland desert the same as that of the Australian desert? No. So, is the climate of the Patagonian desert the same as that of the Gobi desert? No. And each of these is different in one or more climate parameter than all the others. Seems you need to do a little research before posting. Same applies for the rest of your responses.
17-07-2020 15:05
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	DRATS wrote: Into the Night wrote:WRONG. All deserts are a desert climate. Really? Yep, really. They both share the same dearth of liquid water, i.e. the definition of a "desert." DRATS wrote:So, is the [desert] climate of the Antarctic desert the same as that of the Sahara? Yep, really. They both share the same dearth of liquid water, i.e. the definition of a "desert." DRATS wrote:So, is the [desert] climate of the Atacama desert the same as that of the Sonoran Desert? Yep, really. They both share the same dearth of liquid water, i.e. the definition of a "desert." DRATS wrote:So, is the [desert] climate of the Katpana desert the same as that of Death Valley? Yep, really. They both share the same dearth of liquid water, i.e. the definition of a "desert." DRATS wrote:So, is the [desert] climate of the Shoyna desert the same as that of the Kalahari? Yep, really. They both share the same dearth of liquid water, i.e. the definition of a "desert." DRATS wrote:So, is the [desert] climate of the Pearyland desert the same as that of the Australian desert? Yep, really. They both share the same dearth of liquid water, i.e. the definition of a "desert." DRATS wrote:So, is the [desert] climate of the Patagonian desert the same as that of the Gobi desert? Yep, really. They both share the same dearth of liquid water, i.e. the definition of a "desert." DRATS wrote:And each of these is different in one or more climate parameter than all the others. However the topic was desert climates before you tried to shift the goalposts to identical climates, hoping no one would notice you pulling a 15c. 15) Pivot Fallacy or Non-sequitur Statement c) Goalpost or special pleading fallacy. Seems you need to get a little bit of an education before posting. Same applies for the rest of your gibberish. . 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
17-07-2020 16:41
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: I bet it was just peaceful protest after all, right? . It was a MOSTLY peaceful protest, as someone with a press pass (such as tmiddles) would spin it... Looting, arson, assault/battery, vandalism, murder... yup, all "mostly peaceful" things according to tmiddles.......... In Texas, two (Latino) cops were killed via ambush. The teenage daughter of one of the slain cops tweeted a memorial tweet of her father with #bluelivesmatter. BLM troglodytes like tmiddles flooded her with taunts, HATE and mockery of her father ... until she took it down. I guess the absolute schit of our society gravitates towards Black Lives Matter. . Obviously so... That's sad to see... and too bad that she took it down. Just shows how morally depraved people like them are though that they can't even offer their condolences to her... religious fundamentalism sure brings out the evil in people...

Page 1 of 2

Join the debate The Definition of an Average Climate:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Definition of a Troll	56	27-11-2023 13:07
80 year moving average data	88	13-05-2020 01:32
Here Is Precisely How To Measure Global Average Temperature	7	14-02-2020 01:33
Definition of heat and heat pump	40	21-01-2020 18:21
Definition of Climate Change	99	10-12-2019 17:21