Remember me
▼ Content

There is no evidence there is global warming, either natural or man made



Page 2 of 3<123>
30-07-2019 02:57
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
tmiddles wrote:
This is a good link for his work on the reliability of temperature data:
systematic-error-in-climate-measurements

Really a topic of it's own.

tmiddles wrote:
Dr. Pat sums up his talk by saying that basically there is no scientific credibility to the computer modeling that tells us humans have influenced the temperature so far.


He does not say we can't conclude anything. I think the question of what we can know with how much confidence is key. There are a lot of things that stem from temperature. He mentions looking at how far forests are able to grow into the north as an indicator. Apparently trees were able to grow further during the midevil warming than today which would be evidence it was warmer then.

What's sad is to see two extremes:
A. Lie and say you know everything with 100% certainty
B. Lie and say you know nothing with 100% certainty

In his talk he is pretty exasperated to be dealing with such a politicized issue.


Trees are fairly tolerant to temperature. We could get a feel for what sort of temperature range, from the types of trees, and what they typically can tolerate. It's a large range though, and there are other factors. Trees would need only a few years of warm, to get established, then they could tolerate more cold/heat. Of course, there wouldn't be any trees, without seeds. They also need regular water, until they develop a good root system, and are able to store some water. Tree rings can tell the age of a tree, the thickness of each ring, indicate the growing conditions. We can't tell the temperature, rainfall, bugs, or wildfires from tree rings. We wouldn't know how long an area was just sitting there, with good growing conditions, before some seeds got dropped. Young trees are vulnerable, no telling how long it took, before enough survived, to reproduce. Could have taken a decade, could have been a century. Nobody was there to observe it.

I don't watch a lot of video online, very slow internet here (dial-up, ancient tech). Even website with a lot of graphics are slow. It's fine for me, since I don't use the internet for entertainment (generally). Sure, I miss out on some stuff occasionally, but it's not really worth the extra hassles and expenses. I could get higher speed, for not a lot more, but leads to other issues. My computer is also old tech, about 14 years. The software to support the higher speed, may not run. Certainly the required anti-virus software won't (already had to deal with that a couple of times). My browsers are mostly out of date, and can't upgrade on this computer. An issue with some websites, and I get denied. Basically, going to a higher speed, means moving to a new computer. I do have a Windows 10 laptop, and a desktop, I've never hooked up. The laptop is pretty much useless for internet, since Windows wants constant updates. I can't install the software I use on my current computer, would need to buy the most recent versions, are find similar and learn to use those, likely losing a lot of years of work. I don't spend even 30 minutes watching anything on TV, I know I'm not going to watch long videos online, seldom any need for speed for anything else. The higher speed would just give other programs more room to play in the background, unnoticed. I lost a lot, when I had to upgrade from Windows XP, not looking to do that again, by choice. Sort of getting to that point though.
30-07-2019 11:30
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
HarveyH55 wrote: We could get a feel for what sort of temperature range, from the types of trees, and what they typically can tolerate.


I think there are a lot of ways to get at the truth, even about what happened millions of years ago.

What I wish happened routinely was some sort of indication of the confidence level in a "scientific" assertion.

It really erodes understanding and confidence when it's all presented as "we know this".

Sometime we REALLY know and sometimes it's a REALLY wild guess.

But I think we can be pretty confident of some conclusions using clever evidence like tree lines.


30-07-2019 18:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: We could get a feel for what sort of temperature range, from the types of trees, and what they typically can tolerate.


I think there are a lot of ways to get at the truth, even about what happened millions of years ago.

Nope. The only way to find out is to travel back in time.
tmiddles wrote:
What I wish happened routinely was some sort of indication of the confidence level in a "scientific" assertion.

Science has NO theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable. The only way to test them is to go back in time to see what actually happened.
tmiddles wrote:
It really erodes understanding and confidence when it's all presented as "we know this".

Basic clue: We don't.
tmiddles wrote:
Sometime we REALLY know and sometimes it's a REALLY wild guess.

It is ALL a wild guess.
tmiddles wrote:
But I think we can be pretty confident of some conclusions using clever evidence like tree lines.

Not a bit of it. Trees don't indicate temperature.


The Parrot Killer
02-08-2019 18:56
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(103)
The single GHE falsification chart..
Attached image:


Edited on 02-08-2019 18:57
02-08-2019 22:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5229)
Leitwolf wrote: The single GHE falsification chart..

Would you care to present the falsifiable model of Global Warming so that we can see how this chart falsifies it?


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
02-08-2019 23:05
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
I guess I need to go to church more... I real got nothing out of that graph. Wish they go back to hockey-sticks, didn't agree with them, but at least I could read them.

What do the numbers on the left represent? I don't know any of those three letter designations. GHE, Green House Effect.
03-08-2019 00:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I guess I need to go to church more... I real got nothing out of that graph. Wish they go back to hockey-sticks, didn't agree with them, but at least I could read them.

What do the numbers on the left represent? I don't know any of those three letter designations. GHE, Green House Effect.


The numbers on the left are in deg C. I assume some surface measurement.

The designations for each column are standard 3 letter abbreviations for sky coverage of clouds.

CLR - clear sky
FEW - few clouds, less than 10% coverage, but not clear.
SCT - scattered clouds, 10-50% coverage.
BKN - broken clouds, 50-90% coverage.
OVC - overcast skies. Greater than 90% coverage.

The red portion is supposedly what was measured for a temperature at the surface for each sky condition.

The blue portion is a theorized model of what it would have been had precipitation not occurred.

In other words, it's all guessing. It is not possible to determine what the temperature would have been had the clouds not been present for each sky condition 'measurement'; other than CLR.

For those types of nerds that can actually read a METAR or TAF directly (like me!
) you will see these abbreviations used constantly.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-08-2019 00:45
03-08-2019 01:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
Science has NO theories about past unobserved events.


"observable" we have theories about distant stars, the light from them actually being from the past when it reaches us. Theories about the past based on the artifacts and evidence we find. And really, without much difference, theories about the present in our immediate environment. Because all we ever have are clues to what is happening and we must try to piece them together.

A physical sensor only gives us incomplete data at best.

Science is organizing, theorizing, and making solid arguments for how the few facts we ever have can be organized and rationalized:
"a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws"

And just because you cannot be 100% certain doesn't mean you give up.
03-08-2019 01:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Science has NO theories about past unobserved events.


"observable" we have theories about distant stars, the light from them actually being from the past when it reaches us.

The light from anything you see is from past, even that traffic light you stop for.
tmiddles wrote:
Theories about the past based on the artifacts and evidence we find.

There are no theories about any unobserved past event.

An observation is not a theory.

tmiddles wrote:
And really, without much difference, theories about the present in our immediate environment. Because all we ever have are clues to what is happening and we must try to piece them together.

An observation is not a theory.
tmiddles wrote:
A physical sensor only gives us incomplete data at best.

Data is the result of an observation. An observation is not a theory.
tmiddles wrote:
Science is organizing, theorizing, and making solid arguments for how the few facts we ever have can be organized and rationalized:
"a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws"

This definition can apply to any branch of knowledge. Not good enough.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more, nothing less.
tmiddles wrote:
And just because you cannot be 100% certain doesn't mean you give up.

Science isn't about certainty. Science is about falsifiable theories.


* A falsifiable theory is a theory that can be tested against the null hypothesis of that theory using a test that is definable, available, practical to conduct, specific, and produces a specific result.

* A theory is an explanatory argument.
* An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion.
* A predicate is an assumed condition as True or False.
* A conclusion is a proposed True or False.

All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are not a proof. They are not used in science except as evidence only. Science uses no supporting evidence. Only religions do that. Science uses only conflicting evidence.

Data is the result of an observation.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-08-2019 02:00
03-08-2019 02:36
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
This definition can apply to any branch of knowledge.

Science uses only conflicting evidence.



Yes but it sounds sometimes like you're saying that's not science there is ONLY science. Sometimes it's not science but it's still knowledge. It's still useful.

Making the distinction requires more detail than Science or NotScience.

We are all here, I would argue, in the "bullshit" or "not bullshit" debate in the quest of "Useful" knowledge. Some "not bullshit" useful knowledge is in fact not Science as you've defined it. When someone LIES and claims it science you should call them on it but re-categorize it properly not just call it "NotScience".

Almost like calling someone on saying "literally" when they are being hyperbolic. It doesn't make what they said false.

"Hitler was literally an A hole"
OK, not factually correct. But if you hear that, discount it entirely, and hire Hitler to run your HR department you'd be discounting the statement too entirely.

People often come to a sound conclusion based on empirical evidence and articulate it poorly. You would be wise to still value their input.

C S Lewis (Lion the witch and the wardrobe author and famous Christian apologist/philosopher) had an example. A little girl claimed some pills were not poison because she saw them broken open and there were not little red mean things crawling around inside. She had imagined thats what poison looked like. CS Lewis made the point that if you were about to eat something and that same little girl said it was poison you'd be fool to eat it anyway. Is she uneducated? You bet, little kid. But she may have good reason for saying it's poison.

"Science" is sometimes, unavoidably, in a position of having little to work with. To discard everything that isn't 100% certain though is to discard almost everything we know.
Edited on 03-08-2019 02:39
03-08-2019 02:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5229)
tmiddles wrote:"observable" we have theories about distant stars, the light from them actually being from the past when it reaches us. Theories about the past based on the artifacts and evidence we find. And really, without much difference, theories about the present in our immediate environment. Because all we ever have are clues to what is happening and we must try to piece them together.

Yes. We humans have lots of theories. We don't need our arms twisted to concoct ever more of them.

The operative word was "science" doesn't have anything that speculates about the past. The Big Bang theory speculates about the past and it is not science. Darwin's theory of evolution speculates about things that happened in the past ... and that isn't science either.

tmiddles wrote: Science is organizing, theorizing, and making solid arguments for how the few facts we ever have can be organized and rationalized:"

Nope. Science is not a verb. Science is not any person performing any specific activity. Science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature.

Take Stefan-Boltzmann for example.

RADIANCE = KELVINS^4 * EMISSIVITY * BOLTZMANN

This is science. Notice that this is not a person. Science is not people. Notice that there is no data. Notice that there are no activities. Notice that there are no opinions or anything subjective. "Confidence levels" do not apply. It was not created by any consensus of any group or by any democratic vote.

Also, please note that it cannot tell you anything about the past. Theories can only be judged by whether they are consistent with the body of science or whether they violate it.

All theories of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect violate science in some way.

tmiddles wrote:And just because you cannot be 100% certain doesn't mean you give up.

Just because you don't know something doesn't mean you fabricate a fantasy and claim that it is "what we know."


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
03-08-2019 02:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:Science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature.

Take Stefan-Boltzmann for example.

RADIANCE = KELVINS^4 * EMISSIVITY * BOLTZMANN


Accepted! No problem. HOWEVER see my post above.

What would you call the applied use of science in creating theories/models/ect.

It's the operative useful side of the application of science from which any plan for pollution management would come.

Now Violating a scientific formula/model that has never been falsified (and could have been) should cause someone who's done so with some theory to slink off and go back to their drawing board I agree.
03-08-2019 03:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
This definition can apply to any branch of knowledge.

Science uses only conflicting evidence.



Yes but it sounds sometimes like you're saying that's not science there is ONLY science. Sometimes it's not science but it's still knowledge. It's still useful.

Fallacy fallacy. A theory is either a scientific one or it isn't. It IS a valid dichotomy.
tmiddles wrote:
Making the distinction requires more detail than Science or NotScience.

Nope. It's a valid dichotomy.
tmiddles wrote:
We are all here, I would argue, in the "bullshit" or "not bullshit" debate in the quest of "Useful" knowledge. Some "not bullshit" useful knowledge is in fact not Science as you've defined it. When someone LIES and claims it science you should call them on it but re-categorize it properly not just call it "NotScience".

Nope. It is a valid dichotomy.
tmiddles wrote:
Almost like calling someone on saying "literally" when they are being hyperbolic. It doesn't make what they said false.

No. I makes what they said invalid. You are describing a non-sequitur.
tmiddles wrote:
"Hitler was literally an A hole"
OK, not factually correct. But if you hear that, discount it entirely, and hire Hitler to run your HR department you'd be discounting the statement too entirely.

Non-sequitur fallacy. Strawman fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
People often come to a sound conclusion based on empirical evidence and articulate it poorly.

Nonsense statement. Try English. It works better.
tmiddles wrote:
You would be wise to still value their input.

What input? Void argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
C S Lewis (Lion the witch and the wardrobe author and famous Christian apologist/philosopher) had an example. A little girl claimed some pills were not poison because she saw them broken open and there were not little red mean things crawling around inside. She had imagined thats what poison looked like. CS Lewis made the point that if you were about to eat something and that same little girl said it was poison you'd be fool to eat it anyway. Is she uneducated? You bet, little kid. But she may have good reason for saying it's poison.

A demonstration of the problems of phenomenology.
tmiddles wrote:
"Science" is sometimes, unavoidably, in a position of having little to work with.

Science doesn't 'work with' anything. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. It is nothing else.
tmiddles wrote:
To discard everything that isn't 100% certain

Science isn't about certainty. Science is not probability math. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
tmiddles wrote:
though is to discard almost everything we know.

Science does not discard any theory unless it has been falsified. Science is not the only form of knowledge.


The Parrot Killer
03-08-2019 03:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature.

Take Stefan-Boltzmann for example.

RADIANCE = KELVINS^4 * EMISSIVITY * BOLTZMANN


Accepted! No problem. HOWEVER see my post above.

He did. He responded to it.
tmiddles wrote:
What would you call the applied use of science in creating theories/models/ect.

Applied science. Some people call this engineering. They would be wrong.
tmiddles wrote:
It's the operative useful side of the application of science from which any plan for pollution management would come.

Void argument fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. Define 'pollution'.
tmiddles wrote:
Now Violating a scientific formula/model that has never been falsified (and could have been) should cause someone who's done so with some theory to slink off and go back to their drawing board I agree.

You cannot falsify a theory with another theory. A theory is not a proof, nor is it conflicting evidence.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-08-2019 03:21
03-08-2019 03:31
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
A theory is either a scientific one or it isn't. It IS a valid dichotomy.


I totally accept that.

But a valid dichotomy shouldn't be where we stop talking is my argument.

We can't get anywhere by restricting ourselves to only science.

The amazing world of knowledge humans have built has been because of the ability to apply science with a theory.

This reminds me of the Silicon Valley app "See Food" that would only identify hotdog or "not hot dog"
03-08-2019 04:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
A theory is either a scientific one or it isn't. It IS a valid dichotomy.


I totally accept that.

But a valid dichotomy shouldn't be where we stop talking is my argument.

Then you don't totally accept that.
tmiddles wrote:
We can't get anywhere by restricting ourselves to only science.

If you are going to claim something is scientific, you are talking about science. You are not talking about anything else.
tmiddles wrote:
The amazing world of knowledge humans have built has been because of the ability to apply science with a theory.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You don't apply a theory of science with a theory of science. That is nonsensical.
tmiddles wrote:
This reminds me of the Silicon Valley app "See Food" that would only identify hotdog or "not hot dog"

Irrelevant. I never saw the app. An app is not Identity.


The Parrot Killer
03-08-2019 04:44
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
If you are going to claim something is scientific, you are talking about science....I never saw the app. An app is not Identity.


The "App" was a joke in the HBO show Silicon Valley. It was supposed to identify all food but could only do "Hotdog" and "Not Hotdog".

I think you hone in on vocabulary use but don't do enough to suggest alternatives.

How can we talk about most things? "Knowledge", "Credible theory", "Reasonable argument", "Unreasonable doubt"?

A lawyer in a court of law isn't using "Science" exclusively either right?
03-08-2019 18:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
If you are going to claim something is scientific, you are talking about science....I never saw the app. An app is not Identity.


The "App" was a joke in the HBO show Silicon Valley. It was supposed to identify all food but could only do "Hotdog" and "Not Hotdog".

I think you hone in on vocabulary use but don't do enough to suggest alternatives.

How can we talk about most things? "Knowledge", "Credible theory", "Reasonable argument", "Unreasonable doubt"?

A lawyer in a court of law isn't using "Science" exclusively either right?


Neither have I. I use science, mathematics, logic, and philosophy.

When you call something 'science' and it isn't, I will call you on it.
When you call something 'math' and it isn't, I will call you on it.
When you call something 'logic' and it isn't, I will call you on it.
When you call something 'philosophy' and it isn't, I will call you on it.
When you call something 'history' and it isn't, I will call you on it.

It really is pretty simple.


The Parrot Killer
03-08-2019 19:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5229)
tmiddles wrote:Accepted! No problem. HOWEVER see my post above.

What would you call the applied use of science in creating theories/models/ect.

Engineering.

Humans *need* to understand and control their environment.

Science enables people to predict nature.

Engineers apply science to develop technology.

Technology enables people to control nature.

tmiddles wrote:Now Violating a scientific formula/model that has never been falsified (and could have been) should cause someone who's done so with some theory to slink off and go back to their drawing board I agree.

... *or* to show how the existing science is, in fact, false so that new science can be created!


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
04-08-2019 05:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
... *or* to show how the existing science is, in fact, false so that new science can be created!


True true
Einstein war right about relativity and wrong about the big bang
no one should be trusted blindly

Into the Night wrote:
Neither have I. I use science, mathematics, logic, and philosophy.


At the end of the day if you're talking about "what should we all do about that" we should be honest about how certain we can be about the facts and then we have to go with out best guess.

People have been executed for crimes they didn't commit, false gods sacrificed, a whole lot of blood letting, and now policy about what does and does not matter in human's relationship with the ecosystem.

Saying "we can't be certain" helps to counter those falsely claiming to be certain but it shouldn't be the end of the discussion.
Edited on 04-08-2019 05:11
04-08-2019 05:13
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Leitwolf wrote:
The single GHE falsification chart..


Leitwolf,

So basically clouds totally screw up the ability to play with the numbers like this right?

Can you post the text that goes with that graph?
04-08-2019 18:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
... *or* to show how the existing science is, in fact, false so that new science can be created!


True true
Einstein war right about relativity and wrong about the big bang
no one should be trusted blindly

Into the Night wrote:
Neither have I. I use science, mathematics, logic, and philosophy.


At the end of the day if you're talking about "what should we all do about that" we should be honest about how certain we can be about the facts and then we have to go with out best guess.

People have been executed for crimes they didn't commit, false gods sacrificed, a whole lot of blood letting, and now policy about what does and does not matter in human's relationship with the ecosystem.

Saying "we can't be certain" helps to counter those falsely claiming to be certain but it shouldn't be the end of the discussion.


If:
the concept of a greenhouse gas violates the laws of physics,
we don't know the temperature of the Earth,
we don't know the global sea level,
we don't know the total amount of ice and snow on the Earth,
we don't know how many storms on Earth occur,
we don't know the global CO2 content,
we have no definition for 'global warm',
we have no definition for 'climate change',

what is there to discuss?


The Parrot Killer
04-08-2019 18:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
tmiddles wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
The single GHE falsification chart..


Leitwolf,

So basically clouds totally screw up the ability to play with the numbers like this right?

Can you post the text that goes with that graph?


I already gave the meanings of the abbreviations. They are standard abbreviations used by the weather service in their telegraph systems, which is why they show up in METAR and TAF reports.

Basically all this graph shows is that someone noticed at some location in the tropics that cloudy days tend to be a bit cooler then sunny days.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-08-2019 18:35
04-08-2019 20:22
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I guess I need to go to church more... I real got nothing out of that graph. Wish they go back to hockey-sticks, didn't agree with them, but at least I could read them.

What do the numbers on the left represent? I don't know any of those three letter designations. GHE, Green House Effect.


The numbers on the left are in deg C. I assume some surface measurement.

The designations for each column are standard 3 letter abbreviations for sky coverage of clouds.

CLR - clear sky
FEW - few clouds, less than 10% coverage, but not clear.
SCT - scattered clouds, 10-50% coverage.
BKN - broken clouds, 50-90% coverage.
OVC - overcast skies. Greater than 90% coverage.

The red portion is supposedly what was measured for a temperature at the surface for each sky condition.

The blue portion is a theorized model of what it would have been had precipitation not occurred.

In other words, it's all guessing. It is not possible to determine what the temperature would have been had the clouds not been present for each sky condition 'measurement'; other than CLR.

For those types of nerds that can actually read a METAR or TAF directly (like me!
) you will see these abbreviations used constantly.


Thanks for the clarifications. I was being a little sarcastic, since he threw up a graph, and nothing else, like it was the ultimate proof. Graphs and charts usually come with explanations, qualifiers, legends. Fine to leave out, in a slideshow presentation, where there is someone speaking, and able to answer questions.
04-08-2019 21:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I guess I need to go to church more... I real got nothing out of that graph. Wish they go back to hockey-sticks, didn't agree with them, but at least I could read them.

What do the numbers on the left represent? I don't know any of those three letter designations. GHE, Green House Effect.


The numbers on the left are in deg C. I assume some surface measurement.

The designations for each column are standard 3 letter abbreviations for sky coverage of clouds.

CLR - clear sky
FEW - few clouds, less than 10% coverage, but not clear.
SCT - scattered clouds, 10-50% coverage.
BKN - broken clouds, 50-90% coverage.
OVC - overcast skies. Greater than 90% coverage.

The red portion is supposedly what was measured for a temperature at the surface for each sky condition.

The blue portion is a theorized model of what it would have been had precipitation not occurred.

In other words, it's all guessing. It is not possible to determine what the temperature would have been had the clouds not been present for each sky condition 'measurement'; other than CLR.

For those types of nerds that can actually read a METAR or TAF directly (like me!
) you will see these abbreviations used constantly.


Thanks for the clarifications. I was being a little sarcastic, since he threw up a graph, and nothing else, like it was the ultimate proof. Graphs and charts usually come with explanations, qualifiers, legends. Fine to leave out, in a slideshow presentation, where there is someone speaking, and able to answer questions.


It still isn't an ultimate proof of anything. It's simply what someone noticed. That's all. It's an observation, subject to all the problems in phenomenology of any observation.


The Parrot Killer
05-08-2019 00:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:

we don't know the temperature of the Earth,
we don't know the global sea level,
...

what is there to discuss?


Like it or not you and I are both paying taxes based on whatever policy relating to this our respective governments enact as well as being forced by law to obey any regulations.

Choosing to not argue the issue is always an option but I want to argue it.

Humans never will have "all the facts". I think when policy is totally based on feelings and misrepresentations that something is science it should be exposed by contrasting it with an example of sound policy development.

But you sometimes sound like you'd still have DDT on the market.

Banning DDT was sound policy development.
05-08-2019 00:23
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:

Basically all this graph shows is that someone noticed at some location in the tropics that cloudy days tend to be a bit cooler then sunny days.


Got it thanks

Yeah clouds seem to be the wild variable that would make exact temperature measurement useless in making predictions even if we did have them.
05-08-2019 19:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

we don't know the temperature of the Earth,
we don't know the global sea level,
...

what is there to discuss?


Like it or not you and I are both paying taxes based on whatever policy relating to this our respective governments enact as well as being forced by law to obey any regulations.

Fair enough.
tmiddles wrote:
Choosing to not argue the issue is always an option but I want to argue it.

Given what you've already admitted, what is left to discuss?
tmiddles wrote:
Humans never will have "all the facts". I think when policy is totally based on feelings and misrepresentations that something is science it should be exposed by contrasting it with an example of sound policy development.

Which we've done.
tmiddles wrote:
But you sometimes sound like you'd still have DDT on the market.

It IS still on the market in some places, just not in the United States and a few other nations that got scared of the stuff because they believed a propaganda book. I believe it should on the market everywhere. It works.
tmiddles wrote:
Banning DDT was sound policy development.

No. It was banned on a propaganda book called "Silent Spring", written by a devout member of the Church of Green. Banning DDT has killed millions. It is still the best way to deal with those little flying hypodermic dirty needles, the mosquito. DDT does nothing to birds or their eggs.

The book itself was written to attack the chemical industry, or 'Big Chemical'. It was driven by Marxism.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-08-2019 19:19
05-08-2019 19:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Basically all this graph shows is that someone noticed at some location in the tropics that cloudy days tend to be a bit cooler then sunny days.


Got it thanks

Yeah clouds seem to be the wild variable that would make exact temperature measurement useless in making predictions even if we did have them.


Statistical math does not have the power of prediction normally inherent in mathematics.

This is because of its use of random numbers. Probability math has the same problem. It too does not have the power of prediction.

The 'wild variable' in performing a summary resulting in Earth's temperature is simply the failure to collect unbaised raw data, the failure to select by randN, and the failure to calculate the margin of error.

Clouds themselves have no known effect on temperature. It is unknown whether the cloud caused cooler temperatures or they formed simply because you have cooler temperatures.

There is no way to tell what the temperature would have been without the cloud, since you can't just move them around at will.


The Parrot Killer
05-08-2019 22:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5229)
Into the Night wrote:Statistical math does not have the power of prediction normally inherent in mathematics.

Correct.

Into the Night wrote:This is because of its use of random numbers. Probability math has the same problem. It too does not have the power of prediction.

Close. The answer is simpler and more straightforward.

When one is speaking of probabilities, one is specifically defining that which is not known, = NOT(computed answer) = NOT(prediction).

Statistical math defines what is not known, which is valuable information. It transitions you from not knowing what you don't know to knowing what you don't know. You can then endeavor to learn what you don't know.

Note: I can discuss probabilities without ever calling random numbers. Stochastic systems are the only systems that require random numbers as far as I can tell, with the simple radnom number generator being the null stochastic system.


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
05-08-2019 23:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
Statistical math does not have the power of prediction normally inherent in mathematics.


Yes I believe it's a well supported argument you can't make precise predictions with a wide variable at play. You can however still analyze and theorize that something is happening. It's not a "oh well we can't know, time to go home" when you don't have all the information you'd like.

OK so DDT is not dangerous and should be on the market in your view. Let's try this: What's an example of the people getting it right in regulating something that was a threat to the eco-system?
05-08-2019 23:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5229)
tmiddles wrote:What's an example of the people getting it right in regulating something that was a threat to the eco-system?

Trick question.

1) "people" don't regulate, the government does.

2) the government should not be interfering in otherwise free markets just to push a leftist political agenda.

I can think of many "good intentions" on the part of the government but I am having difficulty recalling any examples whereby the government got it right.


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
05-08-2019 23:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Statistical math does not have the power of prediction normally inherent in mathematics.

Correct.

Into the Night wrote:This is because of its use of random numbers. Probability math has the same problem. It too does not have the power of prediction.

Close. The answer is simpler and more straightforward.

When one is speaking of probabilities, one is specifically defining that which is not known, = NOT(computed answer) = NOT(prediction).

Statistical math defines what is not known, which is valuable information. It transitions you from not knowing what you don't know to knowing what you don't know. You can then endeavor to learn what you don't know.

Note: I can discuss probabilities without ever calling random numbers. Stochastic systems are the only systems that require random numbers as far as I can tell, with the simple radnom number generator being the null stochastic system.


Please show any probability calculation that does not involve random numbers, other than 100% probability or 0% probability.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-08-2019 23:35
05-08-2019 23:35
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
I can think of many "good intentions" on the part of the government but I am having difficulty recalling any examples whereby the government got it right.


I think that's a good place to start. You also believe DDT should be legal I take it.

And there are more than "leftist" agendas. Big pharma has an agenda that would make something non FDA approved or prescription only for example.
05-08-2019 23:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5229)
tmiddles wrote:I think that's a good place to start. You also believe DDT should be legal I take it.

I don't have much of an opinion on this issue but I believe the government botched it.

We all know the way it works. Some wack-o liberal organization picks a protest cause du jour and protests. Along comes a politician who wants their votes so he pretends to get worked up over the issue, promising change. Said politician succeeds in gettiing the object of the protests banned. The wack-o liberals rejoice. The "history" is written that the ban was based on "settled science" but it is obvious that there wasn't any science involved, just emotional pleas by wack-o liberals in staged photographs with sad-looking animals or crying children, followed by cries for monetary donations.

tmiddles wrote: Big pharma has an agenda that would make something non FDA approved or prescription only for example.

Big pharma resides with Santa Claus in non-existenceville.

How much to value Wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Pharma_conspiracy_theory

.


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
06-08-2019 00:05
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
Big pharma resides with Santa Claus in non-existenceville.


Business interests can and due manipulate regulations to gain an advantage over competitors and/or customers.

OK I got one for you and ITN: Leaded Paint

Now illegal.

Good move?
06-08-2019 00:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Big pharma resides with Santa Claus in non-existenceville.


Business interests can and due manipulate regulations to gain an advantage over competitors and/or customers.

OK I got one for you and ITN: Leaded Paint

Now illegal.

Good move?


Leaded paint is legal. You can still buy it today.


The Parrot Killer
06-08-2019 01:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5229)
tmiddles wrote:OK I got one for you and ITN: Leaded Paint. Now illegal. Good move?

I am against the government making things illegal.

I believe the government should be informing the public, i.e. serving We the People, and not lording over us as though We the People exist to serve the government.

The government is doing its job in warning us about the dangers of lead-based paint. The government is exceeding its mandate by telling me what paint I can and cannot use.

In my home we have a cleaning lady. She routinely informs my family and I of misplaced items, supplies of which we are running short, things she has found, etc... She does not get to tell me what furniture I am allowed to use.


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
06-08-2019 08:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
I am against the government making things illegal.


I got you but it's easy to say that. Would you actually do that?

Everything would be legal?

Would there be some violent enforcement other than the government?

Should monopolys be legal in business? Collusion? Insider trading? Fraud?
06-08-2019 18:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5229)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I am against the government making things illegal.


I got you but it's easy to say that. Would you actually do that?

Everything would be legal?

No. In IBDaMann's ideal USA, the CDC would be a much bigger player while the FCC would be whittled down to just an office that simply manages frequency bands.

An IBDaMann-CDC would have liaison offices with all Sheriff departments and would form a persistent, ready network to immediately inform the public of all health related issues, to enlist the Sheriff's office to quarantine and/or limit/restrict movement if needed and ... to directly address your point, recommend Congress ban/outlaw things of imminent danger to public health, which would outlaw enriched nuclear materials, the bringing into the country infectious diseases, dangerous animals, space alien chemicals and technology, etc...

In an IBDaMann-USA, the true intention of the 2nd Amendment would be an underpinning principle in all legislation and all courts: no government agency is above We the People. If it's legal for the police or the military then it's legal for everybody.

tmiddles wrote: Should monopolys be legal in business? Collusion? Insider trading? Fraud?

No. These should not be legal. Laws should be for We the People. We the People are consumers. Our laws should ensure that We the People are protected as consumers, which means not interfering in our free markets and it means outlawing other entities from interfering in free markets.

Protect consumers. Protect the free markets that benefit We the People.


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
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate There is no evidence there is global warming, either natural or man made:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N225312-12-2019 23:43
A Part of Natural Climate Variation?827-11-2019 22:29
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or5625-11-2019 15:53
Does anyone knew that plastic bags were made to save the planet ?215-11-2019 02:19
Evidence of rapid climate change!012-10-2019 06:09
▲ 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