Remember me
▼ Content

The Global Temperature Model



Page 1 of 212>
The Global Temperature Model24-06-2016 13:35
fcimeson
☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
I have some questions about the model they use to predict temperatures.

1. If we were to magically remove all humans from the earth. What would the model predict for global temperatures for the next 10, 100, 1000 years?

2. Has the predictive model been validated at all? If so how tight is the confidence interval as function of time (future predictions) in years?

If the answers to question 1 is that the temperature will be constant or random, then how can we possibly suggest that it's useful for predicting the causation of warming from CO2? And if the answer to 2 is that the predictive confidence is low or the model hasn't been validated, then I repeat my statement of how can we possibly suggest that it's useful for predicting the causation of warming from CO2?

Thanks in advance for your attention.
25-06-2016 02:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
fcimeson wrote:
I have some questions about the model they use to predict temperatures.

1. If we were to magically remove all humans from the earth. What would the model predict for global temperatures for the next 10, 100, 1000 years?

2. Has the predictive model been validated at all? If so how tight is the confidence interval as function of time (future predictions) in years?

If the answers to question 1 is that the temperature will be constant or random, then how can we possibly suggest that it's useful for predicting the causation of warming from CO2? And if the answer to 2 is that the predictive confidence is low or the model hasn't been validated, then I repeat my statement of how can we possibly suggest that it's useful for predicting the causation of warming from CO2?

Thanks in advance for your attention.


Question 1 actually depends on question 2.

If the predictive model has not been validated, then question 1 is simply proposing a variation on the invalid model in the first place, producing meaningless results.

So...the question centers around 2: Has the predictive model been validated at all? Is it possible to do so?

To consider this question, one must first determine what the method of validation is going to be. It is then required to build a theory that can be translated into the world of mathematics since mathematics contains the sole power of prediction for something like this.

One commonly accepted argument for the validation method is to compare today's simulation results against the weather of today. Since these simulations concern global temperature and precip patterns, it is necessary to be able to measure these values today.

This resolves down to how to measure these values. There are some that believe if you scatter thermometers around the world unevenly and average them together using some weighted method, you can come up with a useful result.

The problem with this method is that temperature can vary by as much as 20 degrees or so simply by moving in some direction about a mile or so. Altitude changes, cloud cover differences, pressure differences are factors in this.

Since many places on the surface of the Earth don't have thermometers at all, the average has such a large source of error as to be basically meaningless. Too many points are missing. Indeed, despite the large number of thermometers in the world, there are very few data points at all.

Historical data is also required. Data that requires thermometers to have existed in the same places and averaged the same way. Measurement stations come and go. New ones are built, others are destroyed. The historical information is much worse than any current measurement.

Compounding this is the measurement above the surface at all altitudes (very few thermometers exist here!). We also must measure the sea not only at the surface, but in it's depths.

Another problem is one of definition. Do you include the high temperatures experienced deep in the Earth also? If not, how deep do you go?

Precip patterns are even worse. We have far fewer rain gauges, and an intense shower can be little more than a square mile.

So the basic problem is that we don't have a global temperature or a global precip value. Historical values are even worse. It is not possible to validate any simulation that produces these values as a result. Therefore, such a simulation produces nothing more than essentially random numbers.

Now comes the problem of applying these numbers to the future. As I've described, mathematics does have the power of prediction, but there is one branch that does not. That is statistical analysis. This branch of mathematics is essentially a summarization tool that can only work with data that has already occurred. It cannot predict any future behavior.

Statistics often get used as a modern version of the chicken entrails that people used to predict the future with. It is commonly misused this way for everything from global warming to financial predictions. Like the computer simulation, when it doesn't work, they will go and 'adjust' for the error, not realizing the true source of the error.

Therefore, the answer to question 2 is no. It is not possible to validate any simulation of this sort.

Therefore, question 1 becomes meaningless.


The Parrot Killer
27-06-2016 05:20
fcimeson
☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
Thanks for the response, however it is possible to validate a model like this but the time scale may be too long. I understand that these models are predicting more than just temperature, but it is conceivable that temperature is the only variable we are interested in (perhaps just my local thermometer). In that case one would just need to test the predictive power of the model, by possibly using past data and then the true test would be if it continues to successfully predict the future.

So if anyone knows of any steps to validate the model please provide references.

PS. The model doesn't need to be mathematical, the model could be a hamster pointing to a temperature. Predictions are predictions.
27-06-2016 10:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
fcimeson wrote:
Thanks for the response, however it is possible to validate a model like this but the time scale may be too long. I understand that these models are predicting more than just temperature, but it is conceivable that temperature is the only variable we are interested in (perhaps just my local thermometer). In that case one would just need to test the predictive power of the model, by possibly using past data and then the true test would be if it continues to successfully predict the future.

So if anyone knows of any steps to validate the model please provide references.

PS. The model doesn't need to be mathematical, the model could be a hamster pointing to a temperature. Predictions are predictions.


No, it is not possible to validate a model like this. Time scale has nothing to do with it.
While the hamster is not mathematical, the validation method must be. There is no way to measure a thing called a global temperature, even with the thousands of thermometers in the world.

Worse, statistics has no power of prediction, even if it comes from a hamster. Comparing two summarizations does not make it possible to validate any predictive nature of the model. All you can show this way is that the past correlates or not. There is nothing in statistics that says the future must correlate the same way as the past, or even can give a probability for it.

The probability side of statistics can only apply to a closed system such as randU, randN, or randR. Climate is not a closed system.


The Parrot Killer
27-06-2016 15:04
fcimeson
☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
I would ask you to please stay on topic to answer one or both of my original questions. At this point you seem like a troll, but for the sake of others whom may visit this site in the future I'll try to clarify a few things.

Validation:
A model without validation is not a useful for science. All models need or at least should be validated before publishing. Here is a quick example of how the hamster model could be validated. I give the hamster a date and a he gives me a temperature, I use statistics to see if there is a correlation between the predicted temperature and the actual temperature. If the date is in the future, I have to wait for the actual temperature measurement.

For the global temperature model, one could simply provide evidence that it is able to predict past temperature measurements for Texas or some other subset of temperatures around the world. Then the insinuation would be that the model would have some measure of predictive power for the non-validated locations.

Global Temperature
There definitely is a way to measure global temperature. We use devices that can measure temperature such as thermometers, thermocouples,... and we place them around the world to get a global average. Just because we can't measure temperature everywhere on the earth exactly doesn't mean our measured result is meaningless. People seem to be relatively happy with one thermostat in their house. I see no reason why we should tell people their thermostat is meaningless and that it is in fact impossible to measure the real average temperature of their house.

Statistics:
I'm not really sure why you are so adamant about talking about statistics, to me it seems well off topic. You are correct that statistics has no predictive power but no one was saying that it did. In this context, statistics is the tool that is used to compare the measured results to predictions, i.e., measure how successful the models predictions are.

Original Questions:

1. My first question was about the versatility of the model, i.e., does the model's predictive power cover the input where humans have been magically removed. In general models have a limited range for their predictions, otherwise I could use the global temperature model to predict the stock market, use it to bet on horses or predict that the "The Parrot Killer" will try and argue this point as well.

2. I'm trying to understand the validation process that these models have gone through and what were the results. I would very much like to get some references to articles published in scientific journals that document this process.
27-06-2016 20:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
fcimeson wrote:
I would ask you to please stay on topic to answer one or both of my original questions. At this point you seem like a troll, but for the sake of others whom may visit this site in the future I'll try to clarify a few things.
Fine. I am staying on topic, though it doesn't appear that way to you, apparently.
fcimeson wrote:
Validation:
A model without validation is not a useful for science. All models need or at least should be validated before publishing. Here is a quick example of how the hamster model could be validated. I give the hamster a date and a he gives me a temperature, I use statistics to see if there is a correlation between the predicted temperature and the actual temperature. If the date is in the future, I have to wait for the actual temperature measurement.

The hamster does not have a power of prediction. No statistical method does. You are using the hamster as a statistical source, then comparing it to another statistical source that has nothing to do with the hamster (unless your hamster can control the weather!).
fcimeson wrote:
For the global temperature model, one could simply provide evidence that it is able to predict past temperature measurements for Texas or some other subset of temperatures around the world. Then the insinuation would be that the model would have some measure of predictive power for the non-validated locations.
Such an insinuation would be a mathematical error. It is not possible even to get a valid temperature measurement of the State of Texas.
fcimeson wrote:
Global Temperature
There definitely is a way to measure global temperature. We use devices that can measure temperature such as thermometers, thermocouples,... and we place them around the world to get a global average. Just because we can't measure temperature everywhere on the earth exactly doesn't mean our measured result is meaningless.

Actually, it does. We have no thermometers in the middle of the Sahara sand dunes, for instance. There are none in mountain ranges except for a few selected spots near major roads. Even in the lowlands, you will find none in the middle of large swampy areas.

Thermometers are useful instruments, but one must realize the limitations of any instrument or collection of instruments. No manufactured data for the missing areas is sensible. Averaging the thermometers you have in this way is literally manufacturing data to 'fill in the holes'.

Temperature can vary widely in the space of a mile or so...even by as much as 20 degrees. Differences in cloud cover, pressure waves descending from mountain regions, airflow modifications around mountainous regions, the effects of nearby water, asphalt, etc. ALL are major factors on the temperature of a particular spot.

This is a good thing...it makes non-powered aircraft (gliders) work. For building your average though, it's a bad thing.

fcimeson wrote:
People seem to be relatively happy with one thermostat in their house. I see no reason why we should tell people their thermostat is meaningless and that it is in fact impossible to measure the real average temperature of their house.

The thermostat is not perfect. In any house there are warm spots and cold spots. The thermostat is set to the desired temperature of your most lived in spots by trial and error. It is not capable of measuring the temperature of your whole house (not even possible). It is only capable of measuring the temperature of the spot on the wall where it is located.
fcimeson wrote:
Statistics:
I'm not really sure why you are so adamant about talking about statistics, to me it seems well off topic.
It is because you are using it for your hamster to try to predict an open model.
fcimeson wrote:
You are correct that statistics has no predictive power but no one was saying that it did.
You haven't said exactly this word for word, but you are trying to use statistics this way.
fcimeson wrote:
In this context, statistics is the tool that is used to compare the measured results to predictions, i.e., measure how successful the models predictions are.
This is where you trying to use statistics to predict.
fcimeson wrote:
Original Questions:

1. My first question was about the versatility of the model, i.e., does the model's predictive power cover the input where humans have been magically removed. In general models have a limited range for their predictions, otherwise I could use the global temperature model to predict the stock market, use it to bet on horses or predict that the "The Parrot Killer" will try and argue this point as well.
Question 1 was rendered irrelevant by the failure of question 2. There is no logical ability for question 1 to stand on it's own. Question 2 must first be resolved.
fcimeson wrote:
2. I'm trying to understand the validation process that these models have gone through and what were the results. I would very much like to get some references to articles published in scientific journals that document this process.

There is no validation for any of these models. Any model based on statistical prediction has not been validated.

Validation means the model can be used to predict. However, science has no predictive power at all. It must turn to mathematics. The reason is that mathematics is a closed system while science is not.

The predictive power of mathematics comes from the axioms it is made up of that specify a closed system. Equations such as y = mx + b give me the ability to predict what y value a line will pass through knowing the x and b. It is the fixed formula (such as this one) that gives mathematics this predictive power.

Statistics (and probability which goes with it) is a summarization tool. It uses a series of rules to condense large amounts of data (such as that coming from your hamster or from the weather) into a more condensed form. In the process, you lose information. Because the process involves conversion from a high resolution system down to a lower one, you have introduced an element of randomness in the result. It 'kind of' represents the full data, but not quite. This is why every average includes a deviation value, which indicates the random element.

When you gather data from your hamster (or any other source of data), then summarize it to produce some kind of average, you are using statistics. This is why it is not off topic.

Comparing two unrelated sources of data (the hamster and the weather in this case), may produce an interesting correlation, but does not provide the connection required to use one to predict the other. They will always be separate things. Using statistics to predict in this way is not possible mathematically.

That doesn't stop people from trying! It just never works.

(pardon the wall of text...explaining the concept of why statistics is involved and how it is misused can be bulky.)


The Parrot Killer
27-06-2016 20:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
fcimeson wrote: I would ask you to please stay on topic to answer one or both of my original questions. At this point you seem like a troll, but for the sake of others whom may visit this site in the future I'll try to clarify a few things.

I would ask you to stop babbling. Your jibberish is painful to read. At this point YOU are nothing but a warmizombie troll preaching WACKY dogma while pretending it to be "settled science."

If you want something that is useful for science, then start by clarifying what you need to clarify, i.e.

1) Define everything that is included in your "average global temperature." Does yours include the earth's core? Probably not, but only you know what you imagine is included, and there is roughly a 0% probability that it matches the guy I pull off the street who has his own notion of what is included. Be specific,...very specific.

2) What margin of error is acceptable? This is an absolute must. A threshold tolerance for error must be established in order to claim that a model is valid (by meeting the threshold). Be careful, the moment you specify a required margin of error less than 10 deg C you are looking at a requirement for many millions of thermometers placed over oceans, in deserts and in many places where there currently is no infrastructure.

So get over yourself and start discussing science...or go troll somewhere else.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
27-06-2016 21:54
spot
★★★★☆
(1204)
Your being trolled fcimeson there is no moderation on this board and this pair of clowns have it as there personal cess pool. If you want a really good laugh wait till they invoke the laws of thermodynamics.
27-06-2016 22:05
fcimeson
☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
Ya I gathered that much. It is good for a laugh tho, I was thinking about responding to goad them on but then I feel bad about helping to bring down the integrity of this website. What do you think spot? Is this website already in the crapper or should we try to refrain from talking to the three year olds trying to pretend they are scientists?
27-06-2016 22:15
spot
★★★★☆
(1204)
Its down the crapper I don't know if the moderator is inactive or what.
27-06-2016 22:18
fcimeson
☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
Thanks man, I'll have some fun with them later.
27-06-2016 22:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
spot wrote:
Your being trolled fcimeson there is no moderation on this board and this pair of clowns have it as there personal cess pool. If you want a really good laugh wait till they invoke the laws of thermodynamics.


You have a problem with the laws of thermodynamics?


The Parrot Killer
27-06-2016 22:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
fcimeson wrote:
Thanks man, I'll have some fun with them later.


Enjoy yourself.


The Parrot Killer
28-06-2016 01:34
fcimeson
☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
Alright IBaWoMann lets have some fun and perhaps I'll even repost some of our correspondence in a blog titled "Arguing with idiots".

Ok, you dropped some doozies, so... where do we start.... how about this one:

science has no predictive power at all. It must turn to mathematics


Yep this one is my favourite one. Let's assume you are right and ask math a question:

Me: Hey math tell me what will happen to this ball if I drop it.
Math: 000111101.
Me: OK, math, your such a kidder.

You see math can't predict gravity, science does. One scientific prediction de-void of math is that things fall towards the earth. And yes we also have a mathematical model that has been validated to actually predict more precisely for how things fall towards the earth.

The statistical hamster
Ok... what next.... lets revisit your hard on for the statistical argument. First of all my hamster is very insulted that you called him a statistical source. I don't think you really understand what statistics is. Statistics is an analysis tool, it is not a random generator and it is not a cute little hamster model. There are a number of non-mathematical models out there, such as my hamster or the small model planes and cars they put in wind tunnels to measure aero dynamics.

Texas
Such an insinuation would be a mathematical error. It is not possible even to get a valid temperature measurement of the State of Texas.


You sound like a computer... are you a computer? Bad computer! Humans are ok with impreciseness, as long as the numbers are still meaningful in some sense, i.e., a rough average.

Thermometers
Thermometers are useful instruments, but one must realize the limitations of any instrument or collection of instruments.


I'm enjoying riding you, I hope I don't exceed your limitations.

I Be A WoMann
Temperature can vary widely in the space of a mile or so...even by as much as 20 degrees. Differences in cloud cover, pressure waves descending from mountain regions, airflow modifications around mountainous regions, the effects of nearby water, asphalt, etc. ALL are major factors on the temperature of a particular spot.

This is a good thing...it makes non-powered aircraft (gliders) work. For building your average though, it's a bad thing.


You are so S-M-R-T!

I would ask you to stop babbling. Your jibberish is painful to read. At this point YOU are nothing but a warmizombie troll preaching WACKY dogma while pretending it to be "settled science.


You hurt my feelings. I'm gonna to tell on you!

If you want something that is useful for science, then start by clarifying what you need to clarify, i.e.

1) Define everything that is included in your "average global temperature." Does yours include the earth's core? Probably not, but only you know what you imagine is included, and there is roughly a 0% probability that it matches the guy I pull off the street who has his own notion of what is included. Be specific,...very specific.

2) What margin of error is acceptable? This is an absolute must. A threshold tolerance for error must be established in order to claim that a model is valid (by meeting the threshold). Be careful, the moment you specify a required margin of error less than 10 deg C you are looking at a requirement for many millions of thermometers placed over oceans, in deserts and in many places where there currently is no infrastructure.

So get over yourself and start discussing science...or go troll somewhere else.


I'm not sure what you mean by get over yourself. You need to be specific... very very specific.
28-06-2016 03:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
fcimeson wrote:
Alright IBaWoMann lets have some fun and perhaps I'll even repost some of our correspondence in a blog titled "Arguing with idiots".

Ok, you dropped some doozies, so... where do we start.... how about this one:

science has no predictive power at all. It must turn to mathematics


Yep this one is my favourite one. Let's assume you are right and ask math a question:

Me: Hey math tell me what will happen to this ball if I drop it.
Math: 000111101.
Me: OK, math, your such a kidder.

You see math can't predict gravity, science does.

A scientific theory cannot predict anything until it is formalized into mathematical form. This is the boundary where science and mathematics meet. Science must use mathematics to make any prediction, even about gravity.
fcimeson wrote:
One scientific prediction de-void of math is that things fall towards the earth.

I can float that away in a single object: hot air balloons. Look out for that falling moon!
fcimeson wrote:
And yes we also have a mathematical model that has been validated to actually predict more precisely for how things fall towards the earth.

It has not been validated. No scientific theory is ever proven correct. The current theories and math formulas they have been formalized into our understanding of gravity work good enough for now for most cases. There are cases where they don't apply.
fcimeson wrote:
The statistical hamster
Ok... what next.... lets revisit your hard on for the statistical argument. First of all my hamster is very insulted that you called him a statistical source. I don't think you really understand what statistics is.

I understand exactly what statistics is, even if your hamster does not.
fcimeson wrote:
Statistics is an analysis tool,

to be more precise it is a summarizing tool.
fcimeson wrote:
it is not a random generator

No, but misuse of it can make one. Statistics is also coupled with probability, which is the study of closed random systems.
fcimeson wrote:
and it is not a cute little hamster model.

Never said a hamster was statistics. Your use of him as a data source makes use of him this way.
fcimeson wrote:
There are a number of non-mathematical models out there, such as my hamster or the small model planes and cars they put in wind tunnels to measure aero dynamics.

First, observation is not science. Second, you CAN predict a lot of the behavior of many kinds of shapes in wind tunnels through the use of fixed equations. The wind tunnel covers that part you have no model for yet.
fcimeson wrote:
Texas
Such an insinuation would be a mathematical error. It is not possible even to get a valid temperature measurement of the State of Texas.


You sound like a computer... are you a computer? Bad computer! Humans are ok with impreciseness, as long as the numbers are still meaningful in some sense, i.e., a rough average.

Every time you talk about an average, you talk about a margin of error. There are not enough thermometers in Texas (or even in Dallas) to reduce the margin of error to an acceptable value. The rough number you have is so imprecise it is not sensible.

Take the temperature at Dallas Ft Worth airport, for example. It might deviate by several degrees by the time you get to east Dallas, or even by the time you get off the airport feeder highway, simply because you passed under a cloud.
fcimeson wrote:
Thermometers
Thermometers are useful instruments, but one must realize the limitations of any instrument or collection of instruments.


I'm enjoying riding you, I hope I don't exceed your limitations.

I see you enjoy using the argument of the Stone.
fcimeson wrote:
I Be A WoMann
Temperature can vary widely in the space of a mile or so...even by as much as 20 degrees. Differences in cloud cover, pressure waves descending from mountain regions, airflow modifications around mountainous regions, the effects of nearby water, asphalt, etc. ALL are major factors on the temperature of a particular spot.

This is a good thing...it makes non-powered aircraft (gliders) work. For building your average though, it's a bad thing.


You are so S-M-R-T!

Another example of the argument of the Stone.
fcimeson wrote:
I would ask you to stop babbling. Your jibberish is painful to read. At this point YOU are nothing but a warmizombie troll preaching WACKY dogma while pretending it to be "settled science.


You hurt my feelings. I'm gonna to tell on you!

Go ahead. Personally, I thought you would be above a childish thought like this.
fcimeson wrote:
If you want something that is useful for science, then start by clarifying what you need to clarify, i.e.

1) Define everything that is included in your "average global temperature." Does yours include the earth's core? Probably not, but only you know what you imagine is included, and there is roughly a 0% probability that it matches the guy I pull off the street who has his own notion of what is included. Be specific,...very specific.

2) What margin of error is acceptable? This is an absolute must. A threshold tolerance for error must be established in order to claim that a model is valid (by meeting the threshold). Be careful, the moment you specify a required margin of error less than 10 deg C you are looking at a requirement for many millions of thermometers placed over oceans, in deserts and in many places where there currently is no infrastructure.

So get over yourself and start discussing science...or go troll somewhere else.


I'm not sure what you mean by get over yourself. You need to be specific... very very specific.


Since you have indicated a certain amount of illiteracy in science, mathematics, and logic already, you probably should revisit these concepts.


The Parrot Killer
28-06-2016 05:50
fcimeson
☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
Oh, ah, you got me..... arrrrgggg. That gravity comment really did me in... I'm floating away....

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by Stone but ya.... As for me being scientific, I may try to entice you here and there with some science tid bits but this is now just entertainment for me.

Riddle me this, how is a small little wooden car model mathematical? It can be used to predict aero dynamics such as more or less drag and one would need sensors and experiments to make measure those predictions and..... yes we would ideally validate the predictions with statistics. But what you don't seem to understand, is that we would only validate the use of the model or a wooden model once and then we would continue to re-use wooden models to gain further measurements/insights without statistics.

PS. Please feel free to correct me on all science, mathematical and logical inaccuracies.

Hugs and kiss, your new best friend.
28-06-2016 06:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
fcimeson wrote:PS. Please feel free to correct me on all science, mathematical and logical inaccuracies.

I'd be here all day and I don't have anywhere near that kind of time.

Anyway, you've been informed of what you need to specify to have a useful science measure.

Have a great day.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
28-06-2016 08:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
fcimeson wrote:
Oh, ah, you got me..... arrrrgggg. That gravity comment really did me in... I'm floating away....

Sorry about that. You did specify an incorrect principle. I only showed a couple of examples of why it's wrong.
fcimeson wrote:
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by Stone
The argument of the Stone is a fallacy in informal logic. It derives from formal logic's Law of Identity.

Basically, the argument of the Stone is discarding an argument without a counter-argument or declaration of fallacy and the mechanism for it. In simpler terms, it's equivalent to a child sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling, "nanananananana! I can't HEAR YOU!". The adult version usually attempts to redirect the argument somewhere else, or flatly denies it without any counter-argument or fallacy declaration. To deny an argument this way is a fallacy.
fcimeson wrote:
but ya.... As for me being scientific, I may try to entice you here and there with some science tid bits but this is now just entertainment for me.
I hope you are enjoying yourself.
fcimeson wrote:
Riddle me this, how is a small little wooden car model mathematical?

To calculate the drag of the car, use the equation D = Cd * A * .5 * r * V^2
where A is the area the model presents to the airstream,
r is the density of the air,
V is the velocity of the car,
Cd is a coefficient of drag. This is determined experimentally using similar shapes in wind tunnels.

The lift generated by the car uses a similar equation: L = Cl * A * .5 * r * V^2
where all variables mean the same thing except for Cl, the coefficient of lift, again derived from similar shapes in wind tunnels, then corrected by the Reynolds number which helps to determine the drag induced by lifting effects.

The Reynolds number itself may be calculated using the equation:Re = (r * V * L) / mu
where: r is density,
V is velocity,
L is length of the car, and
mu dynamic boundary layer velocity coefficient, usually determined experimentally by wind tunnel tuft tests.

The combined drag on the car is the profile drag (the 1st equation) plus the induced drag (determined by the 2nd and 3rd equations) plus mechanical drag caused by friction of the wheels on the surface and the friction of the wheel bearings themselves.

Mechanical friction can be calculated using equations from classical mechanics, but the number of friction sources make this tedious. Usually it's just measured experimentally as combinations of major components.

Knowing the total drag effects and the weight of the car, the force required to move can be determined from Newton's law of motion, F=mA.

These same equations work for all cars, boats, submarines, aircraft, anything that moves through a fluid medium.

Well...you did ask.

fcimeson wrote:
It can be used to predict aero dynamics such as more or less drag and one would need sensors and experiments to make measure those predictions and..... yes we would ideally validate the predictions with statistics.
Actually, you don't. The purpose of the wind tunnel is to determine coefficients for the above equations, and for structural and harmonic testing. Harmonic testing is used to determine the resonant frequencies of an object as it is affected by aeolian oscillations. This too, is calculable using the equation f=1/2*pi*sqrt(t*r), where t is the stiffness of the structure, and r is the springiness of the structure. Since only part of the structure may be involved, multiple resonant frequencies may be found.
fcimeson wrote:
But what you don't seem to understand, is that we would only validate the use of the model or a wooden model once and then we would continue to re-use wooden models to gain further measurements/insights without statistics.
Again, statistics are not used. It is coefficients that are being measured.

The only place statistics are used at all with wind tunnels is with tuft tests.
fcimeson wrote:
PS. Please feel free to correct me on all science, mathematical and logical inaccuracies.

I can answer specific questions for you. Teaching you all of science, mathematics, and formal and informal logic, including the philosophies behind them, would require a very thick book.
fcimeson wrote:
Hugs and kiss, your new best friend.

My best friends agree with me.


The Parrot Killer
28-06-2016 14:54
fcimeson
☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
Oh you two are just too smart for me but you know what my mom is calling so I can't play with you much longer
And besides she says if I continue to play with idiots then everyone else will think I'm an idiot too. But before I go let give you one last opportunity for you to stroke your big ego all over me again.

Surely you can use your expert diversion tactics and vast knowledge of science to explain how instead of using a complex math model for how the fluids flow over the car surface we are instead using a small physical system (the wooden model and the wind tunnel) to model the larger version of the car.

Your true love,
The Parrot Killer
28-06-2016 19:36
spot
★★★★☆
(1204)
Into the Night wrote:
My best friends agree with me.


Liar you don't have friends.
28-06-2016 20:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
fcimeson wrote: Oh you two are just too smart for me

You only just noticed?

You still have not defined what is included in your "average global temperature." That speaks volumes.

You still have not addressed an acceptable margin of error. That too speaks volumes.

It's no wonder you spend your time playing with idiots. Smart people ask you such annoying QUESTIONS.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
28-06-2016 20:07
fcimeson
☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
It's like I'm talking with some crazy homeless guy... at some point you just have to let them shit their pants and walk away.
28-06-2016 22:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
fcimeson wrote:
Oh you two are just too smart for me but you know what my mom is calling so I can't play with you much longer
And besides she says if I continue to play with idiots then everyone else will think I'm an idiot too. But before I go let give you one last opportunity for you to stroke your big ego all over me again.

Surely you can use your expert diversion tactics and vast knowledge of science to explain how instead of using a complex math model for how the fluids flow over the car surface we are instead using a small physical system (the wooden model and the wind tunnel) to model the larger version of the car.

Your true love,
The Parrot Killer


Using a model car in a wind tunnel like this won't work without going through the math I just described above.


The Parrot Killer
28-06-2016 22:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
My best friends agree with me.


Liar you don't have friends.


Liar. You have no idea how many friends I have.


The Parrot Killer
28-06-2016 22:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
fcimeson wrote:
It's like I'm talking with some crazy homeless guy... at some point you just have to let them shit their pants and walk away.


Forfeit accepted. Play again?


The Parrot Killer
28-06-2016 22:26
fcimeson
☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
Hahahaha so funny! I love you guys.

Tell me more about your friends or your white trash ways.
28-06-2016 22:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
fcimeson wrote:
Hahahaha so funny! I love you guys.

Tell me more about your friends or your white trash ways.


Only when you tell me about the school you flunked out of.


The Parrot Killer
28-06-2016 22:55
fcimeson
☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
I flunked out of Parrot Killer school, clearly I wasn't stupid enough.

Now tell me, have you slept with anyone who wasn't your blood relative?
28-06-2016 23:36
spot
★★★★☆
(1204)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
My best friends agree with me.


Liar you don't have friends.


Liar. You have no idea how many friends I have.


Liar. I do none.
28-06-2016 23:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
Ah yes...now that neither fcimeson or spot have any arguments anymore, the ad hominems start coming out.

*yawn*
28-06-2016 23:56
spot
★★★★☆
(1204)
If its so boring why keep posting here you ****nugget?
29-06-2016 04:41
fcimeson
☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
Hey Spot,

Don't worry about these two guys. They can't post on popular sites because they are overwhelmed by people calling them stupid ass-holes, so they come here where they can be King Duffus and Queen Dorcus. Shit runs down hill, they get shit on everywhere else, so they come here to shit on others.

But the joke is on them, because they are the only ones who think they are winning. This should be a place for knowledge, instead these two dingle bats think they know everything and all that's left is to prove everyone else wrong. That's basically how a three year old acts when you give him a police badge, he runs around arresting people thinking that he is king shit, while the grown ups pat him on the head and say that's right Jimmy you're such a cute sheriff.

The thing is, the smart people don't act like this only dumb people do and that's why it's fun to egg them on and see what they say.

"The more you know, the more you realize how much you don't know – the less you know, the more you think you know."
David T. Freeman
30-06-2016 19:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
fcimeson wrote:But the joke is on them, because they are the only ones who think they are winning.

The joke is on you. You came here to preach your WACKY religion and to find other gullible dupes to help you achieve a Global Warming high...but you chose the wrong forum and ran smack into a cold science shower.

Now you can't play pretend scientist so you can only pout and cry like a baby.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
01-07-2016 06:11
fcimeson
☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
Awwww, isn't IBaBoy so cute ^_^.

22-07-2016 13:11
eheat
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
Into the Night wrote:


So the basic problem is that we don't have a global temperature or a global precip value. Historical values are even worse. It is not possible to validate any simulation that produces these values as a result. Therefore, such a simulation produces nothing more than essentially random numbers.


What about 288K?
It is part of the reason that is the base in GH-theory. Now it doesn't exist?

Forget about precip values, get one thing right first before adding unknowns to the problem.


Therefore, the answer to question 2 is no. It is not possible to validate


The only thing we need is the mean temperature.

What fluxdensity is needed from what heat source to produce that temperature?

~1000W/m^2
There is only one heat source, the sun, therefore the sun gives a 1000W/m^2.

There it is, all validated and nice.

Why would anyone think that the temperature of 288K comes from something else than the sun?
Edited on 22-07-2016 13:12
22-07-2016 13:48
eheat
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
fcimeson wrote:


But the joke is on them, because they are the only ones who think they are winning. This should be a place for knowledge, instead these two dingle bats think they know everything and all that's left is to prove everyone else wrong. That's basically how a three year old acts when you give him a police badge, he runs around arresting people thinking that he is king shit, while the grown ups pat him on the head and say that's right Jimmy you're such a cute sheriff.


Wow, good thinking. Remember that internet never forgets what you write.



"The more you know, the more you realize how much you don't know – the less you know, the more you think you know."
David T. Freeman


That explains why someone buys into a theory that use the mathematical model to calculate temperature of earth, and when the resulting number differ from observation comes to the conclusion that the laws of nature is wrong and we must use fantasy instead.

You seem really proud of your defense of a theory that use cold air as a heat source. I would be a little more humble if I was using that theory.

The fact that you question Planck&co before checking for problems with the method used for calculation is not something to be proud of.

Because your theory relies to 100% on that the calculation of earth surface temperature to 255K is proof that natures laws for radiation does not apply for earth.

I would say that if your theory is based on a conclusion that Boltzmanns or Plancks model for radiating bodys can't be used for earth, you should be kept away from all scientific diskussion forever.

Your argument is entirely based on that natures laws can't be used for temperature of earth. And that you know why. Because cold air.

Wouldn't it be very embarrasing if you were totally wrong when you saying that natures laws does not apply for earth?

Espescially when the thing you should have done was to look for errors in your calculation?

It's not even hard to find where things got retarded and why, in the calculation of surface temp to 255K.

Climate science-GH-theory. The theory that takes advantage of it's surplus of chromosomes. What otherwise would have been a failure is turned into possibilities when you can bypass the laws of radiation with cold air. Using a model of earth that has four cold cold rocks in darkness of space that invalidate laws of nature for one sun with enormous power.
22-07-2016 13:55
eheat
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
fcimeson wrote:
Awwww, isn't IBaBoy so cute ^_^.



This is not a place for selfies, go back to instagram and facebook.
22-07-2016 20:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
eheat wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


So the basic problem is that we don't have a global temperature or a global precip value. Historical values are even worse. It is not possible to validate any simulation that produces these values as a result. Therefore, such a simulation produces nothing more than essentially random numbers.


What about 288K?
It is part of the reason that is the base in GH-theory. Now it doesn't exist?

Forget about precip values, get one thing right first before adding unknowns to the problem.


Therefore, the answer to question 2 is no. It is not possible to validate


The only thing we need is the mean temperature.

What fluxdensity is needed from what heat source to produce that temperature?

~1000W/m^2
There is only one heat source, the sun, therefore the sun gives a 1000W/m^2.

There it is, all validated and nice.

Why would anyone think that the temperature of 288K comes from something else than the sun?

So...according to your calculations, the temperature in Seattle should equal the temperature in Honolulu at all times?

Your number is just more random shit. It has no useful value, since the surface it is striking may be clouds, denser atmosphere, water, desert, vegetation, ice, or any number of things, all of which absorb energy differently using different colors of light.

Then there is the night side of the planet. All of these materials are still warm from the day and lose that energy at different rates at night.

Using the Kelvin scale makes no difference. It is just another temperature scale.

The only one spouting bullshit is you, figuring you can calculate these numbers.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 22-07-2016 20:23
23-07-2016 00:43
eheat
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
Into the Night wrote:
So...according to your calculations, the temperature in Seattle should equal the temperature in Honolulu at all times?


Umm...no?
How do you come to that conclusion?
According to my calculations greenhouse effect is a big pile of crap that grows on a total lack of understanding of temperature and it´s relationship with matter.

The exact same pile of shit that gives nutrient to your interpretation that there is relevance in the temperature difference between two random cities.

Your number is just more random shit. It has no useful value, since the surface it is striking may be clouds, denser atmosphere, water, desert, vegetation, ice, or any number of things, all of which absorb energy differently using different colors of light.


And the assumption that when calculating earth bb-temperature and it produce a value that is different from measurements by a very large amount, is that earth does not follow laws of nature for radiation. It is the first and only example where it has happened, and that is proof of cold gas heating a warm surface.

That assumption is NOT random shit?

Actually, it´s not random, it´s a very special kind of precision-shit. This special shit goes by the name bullshit.

All of you greenhouse-priests looks at the greenhouse-calculation that gives 255K, and the first thing you come up with to explain the difference to observed values, is that Planck&Boltzmann was wrong. They just overlooked the fact that water and tracegasses will turn the whole concept of blackbodyradiation upside down, so that a planet can be heated backwards.

The first thing a scientist would do, is to check for mistakes in the calculations. Which apparently was not done, because it is very obvious where the problem lies.

Then there is the night side of the planet. All of these materials are still warm from the day and lose that energy at different rates at night.


So, when studying how the atmosphere affects temperature with it´s ability to absorb radiation, we should consider what happens on the side that is NOT irradiated?

Is it not more logical thinking that since about 400W is gone from TSI when it arrives at the surface, that energy has been cooled off? And that the cold air cools surface even more? And that air can move independant of the surface, so lots of heat form the suns heating rays must be transported to the dark side where there is only cooling happening? Instead of only radiation as the possible cooling feature, air must add to the ability too cool off?

Using the Kelvin scale makes no difference. It is just another temperature scale.


You make a very sharp analysis here. I wonder what you were trying to achieve?

Shall I be impressed?

The only one spouting bullshit is you, figuring you can calculate these numbers.


If a calculation of irradiation is equal to a sun radiating at 255K when trying to apply blackbodycalculation to earth. And that means that earth is bathed in the very dark light from a sun that doesn´t even reach a redhot temperature, which means that earth resides in a very cold, dark corner of space, we can be very sure of that the people in greenhouse-theory science, are the ones that can´t calculate these numbers.

The fact that you don´t even take notice of the difference between the model you make with 255K, and observed 288K, is proof of how little science there is in the climatescaring religious movement.

When trying to build a blackbody-model of the sun heating earth, and you don´t even take a look at what the result was, a sun(or 4) that is a cold rock with no light, you really suck at this.

The model should be giving 1000W at the surface, from 1370W at TOA. Does it really seem that impossible that the needed amount of 1000W at the surface, probably is what we are getting? Is it really so beyond comprehension that 1370W/m^2 from TSI is capable of giving that amount, so it is a much more logic solution to build a model where the heat source is icecold air instead of that weak-ass sun?

No it´s not. Incompetence is the cause of greenhouse-effect. And all people defending that bullshit have to be blamed for all the problems that it is causing in society, when enourmos amounts of resources is used in politics that use GH to gain power.
Edited on 23-07-2016 00:45
23-07-2016 01:58
eheat
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
eheat wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
So...according to your calculations, the temperature in Seattle should equal the temperature in Honolulu at all times?


.


I think I have mistaken you for a Planckdenier, but I see that you have worked hard to defend science against the religious retards in co2-doomsdaychurch.

The last posts I blame on not reading carefully enough since this is not my first language. I'm used to being surrounded by idiots in these discussion
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate The Global Temperature Model:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Welcome to model-land!031-10-2019 16:20
What makes you think CO2 increases temperature?508-10-2019 19:13
Earth surface temperature measurements9325-09-2019 19:46
There is no valid physics that can show CO2 increases temperature2917-09-2019 22:35
If CO2 have higher temperature than O2 and N2 in the air?317-09-2019 00:37
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact