Remember me
▼ Content

US climate for July 2020


US climate for July 202009-08-2020 00:12
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
Report on July 2020 US climate data - all the data is referenced and readily available as are the analysis methods referenced in peer-reviewed papers.

Enjoy .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL59ROH8GLQ
09-08-2020 00:30
keepit
★★★★☆
(1687)
DRKTS,
Some of the posters on this website have an AGENDA that prevents them from engaging in the knowledge that you impart. And thank you for the information.
09-08-2020 00:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
keepit wrote: DRATS, Some of the posters on this website have an AGENDA that prevents them from engaging in the knowledge that you impart. And thank you for the information.

Sadly, it has reached the most pathetic point possible. Only the internet's dumbest poster supports DRATS.

This show has become too painful to watch.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-08-2020 03:05
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote: DRATS, Some of the posters on this website have an AGENDA that prevents them from engaging in the knowledge that you impart. And thank you for the information.

Sadly, it has reached the most pathetic point possible. Only the internet's dumbest poster supports DRATS.

This show has become too painful to watch.


.


Agreed... all the popcorn in the world can't keep me in front of this shit show...

I Can't Watch This
09-08-2020 04:01
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
I watched it twice and loved it.I am going to watch it again.I have a question does it set a record because it was recorded and what is it recorded against.I have recently proved the Australian BOM homogenize the data to show a warming instead of a cooling at many of the automatic sites.I wonder if that happens in the U.S?.How many storms became hurricanes.I thought because we have warmed the ocean so much the lobsters are precooked that every low pressure system would turn in to a people killing cyclone.More information required?who peer reveiwed it because I would like IBDM to check it out.I have learned how the pretty colour maps are made by the computer models.They give you what you put in them and if that data is not 100% correct you can see the doubt.Lets recap
.Micheal Mann was caught making it up
.Some countries homogenize the data.Australia and US that I know of .Russia most of Europe and England do not and publish the true data from long term records.They do not keep moving and changing the type and position of the stations then fudging past results
.The models will show you what you wish them to
.Time will prove all and in 50 years when nothing has happened like nothing has happened in the last 50 years we will all have a good laugh about it
09-08-2020 04:25
James___
★★★★★
(3172)
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote: DRATS, Some of the posters on this website have an AGENDA that prevents them from engaging in the knowledge that you impart. And thank you for the information.

Sadly, it has reached the most pathetic point possible. Only the internet's dumbest poster supports DRATS.

This show has become too painful to watch.


.


Agreed... all the popcorn in the world can't keep me in front of this shit show...

I Can't Watch This



5717mfg, don't you like science and math?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9qYF9DZPdw

or is the simpler life more to your liking?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOfZLb33uCg
Edited on 09-08-2020 04:32
09-08-2020 05:11
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
That was good stuff James
09-08-2020 05:28
James___
★★★★★
(3172)
duncan61 wrote:
That was good stuff James


Thanks duncan. If you can understand the math, then the past is the future;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEcjgJSqSRU
09-08-2020 13:55
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
keepit wrote:
DRKTS,
Some of the posters on this website have an AGENDA that prevents them from engaging in the knowledge that you impart. And thank you for the information.


Yes, I have observed that. The best antidotes to such agendas are facts. I find are allergic to them and go into anaphylactic shock. The symptoms of which are ever more bazaar denials of even basic physical laws and common sense which erodes their credibility with each iteration.

Recently one of them was driven to denying heat was energy!
09-08-2020 14:06
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
Any opinion on the homogenized data or the fact nothing predicted has happened even if we are warming.Do not get into mud slinging lets try to debate the reality of the manmade Climate Issue.
my personal list of bizzare claims are in order of bizzareness
.1 There is a relationship between CO2 and bushfires.Its not the people charged with lighting them or the reduction in backburning but .9 degrees warming somewhere

.2 Sea level rise .The claim is made half the ice has melted and the sea has gone up.To this point I can not find anywhere that the sea has risen in the entire world and if you send me pretty pictures from NASA,NOAA or the IPCC we are done.I need you standing with a measuring tape and showing me where it was and where it is and why.
09-08-2020 14:10
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
duncan61 wrote:
I watched it twice and loved it.I am going to watch it again.I have a question does it set a record because it was recorded and what is it recorded against.I have recently proved the Australian BOM homogenize the data to show a warming instead of a cooling at many of the automatic sites.I wonder if that happens in the U.S?.How many storms became hurricanes.I thought because we have warmed the ocean so much the lobsters are precooked that every low pressure system would turn in to a people killing cyclone.More information required?who peer reveiwed it because I would like IBDM to check it out.I have learned how the pretty colour maps are made by the computer models.They give you what you put in them and if that data is not 100% correct you can see the doubt.Lets recap
.Micheal Mann was caught making it up
.Some countries homogenize the data.Australia and US that I know of .Russia most of Europe and England do not and publish the true data from long term records.They do not keep moving and changing the type and position of the stations then fudging past results
.The models will show you what you wish them to
.Time will prove all and in 50 years when nothing has happened like nothing has happened in the last 50 years we will all have a good laugh about it


Glad you enjoyed it.

Most of the things you list as problems are merely accusations that I have seen no scientifically viable proof to support. The data is all available in its raw form, station by station, minute by minute, 24-7-365. You can go to the NCDC and request copies of it.

I am not sure what you mean by homogenization - there are set, proven statistical analysis methods that are used by all of these groups. Some of them make the data sets available at each stage of the analysis - usually: stage 0 is raw data; stage 1 is digital data turned into scientific units with bad-checksum data removed; stage 2 data is fully calibrated data; and stage 3 data is the final product (maps, light curves, etc). The error analysis is propagated through each stage.
09-08-2020 14:10
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
I can send you pictures of me standing at the port 50 years ago and again last week and there has been zero difference in sea level.Its all theory so the working man will need a bit more to go on than computer generated pictures.You will scare the kids and young women,well done.I visited a friend with 3 young boys and I asked do they teach you this stuff at school and they do.How dare you lie to the children again
09-08-2020 14:13
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
duncan61 wrote:
I can send you pictures of me standing at the port 50 years ago and again last week and there has been zero difference in sea level.Its all theory so the working man will need a bit more to go on than computer generated pictures.You will scare the kids and young women,well done.I visited a friend with 3 young boys and I asked do they teach you this stuff at school and they do.How dare you lie to the children again


Remember to verify the tide, note the Moon only repeats its cycle every 18.6 years so that is going to be hard.
09-08-2020 14:26
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
duncan61 wrote:

.1 There is a relationship between CO2 and bushfires.Its not the people charged with lighting them or the reduction in backburning but .9 degrees warming somewhere


Higher temperatures - lower soil moisture content - makes plants dry out more quickly - so are more vulnerable to fire.

.2 Sea level rise .The claim is made half the ice has melted and the sea has gone up.To this point I can not find anywhere that the sea has risen in the entire world and if you send me pretty pictures from NASA,NOAA or the IPCC we are done.I need you standing with a measuring tape and showing me where it was and where it is and why.


Who claims half the ice has melted? Strawman argument.

If you cannot find a place in the entire world where sea level has risen then you are not looking. the satellite data for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:NASA-Satellite-sea-level-rise-observations-1993-Nov-2018.jpg

Look at Miami during King Tides - now flooding is so often occurring that they are spending $Bs to raise the roads and increase pumping capacity.
09-08-2020 15:04
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
Satelittes have no ability to measure sea levels NASA do not have the ability to measure to that degree of accuracy.do not quote NASA NOAA or IPCC they are the perpertrators of the whole scam and the main organisations to benefit from the scam.Can we shut down these insiduous organisations and actually get on with out them I vote yes
09-08-2020 15:06
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
Harvey if you are out there.What is happening in Miami
09-08-2020 15:43
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
I researched Miami and it is built on a porous limestone shist and is sinking back in to the sea at about 3 mm per annum the Island is valuable enough to build it up and keep functioning like Holland did
09-08-2020 15:56
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
Are you familiar with Nils Axel Morner and his work on sea levels.If we are going to have a debate I will cut a deal now.You do not show workings or links to anything from NASA NOAA or IPCC and I will not quote Greta it was she who claimed half the ice has melted
09-08-2020 17:07
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2403)
duncan61 wrote:
Harvey if you are out there.What is happening in Miami


I don't live even close to Miami, but if there were a serious problem there, most of the state would be having the same problems. During the rainy season, we get a lot of rain, quickly. Hurricanes, even if they don't make landfall dump a lot of rain. We do get some flooding in areas, but doesn't usually last long. Beach erosion is a constant battle, every hurricane season. The bigger storms pull a lot of sand out to sea as they pass.

Most of Florida is low lying land, and always has been. Most of the developed land, had to be built up quite a bit, and use to be swamp. We have to work, to manage storm water. We don't get a hard freeze, so vegetation grows constantly, and clogs everything frequently. It's a constant battle to clear blockage. It gets done, but there are problems occasionally. Unlike most states, we get a lot of rain, quickly, so we see the results of not maintaining the storm water management system. There are states, that seldom get hit by big storms, and neglect theirs, to save money. Besides, if they do get hit hard, they declare a state of emergency, and get federal relief money... Something that should be limited a little, since some of these states, have the same problems, and do nothing with the federal money to prevent future occurrences. California wildfires or a big example of the abuse of emergency relief funds. They use to do prescribed burns, cleared fire breaks, and had fewer major wildfires. The activists complained about air quality during prescribed burns. The rich land owners didn't like looking at bare land, cleared to keep fires from spreading. Politicians didn't like spending money, to clear brush, specially when the could get a bigger check every year from the federal government. If they want to let nature burn off the under brush, that's fine, but the federal government should be picking up the tab, for that choice.
09-08-2020 23:01
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
HarveyH55

Try https://www.miamigov.com/Government/ClimateReadyMiami/Flooding

or, https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/florida-flooding-miami/

or, https://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/10/17/rising-water-cause-flood-of-trouble-on-miami-beach/

or, .....
09-08-2020 23:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
DRKTS wrote:
Report on July 2020 US climate data - all the data is referenced and readily available as are the analysis methods referenced in peer-reviewed papers.

Enjoy .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL59ROH8GLQ


No data. Random numbers. Math isn't by peer review. It does not use consensus.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-08-2020 23:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
keepit wrote:
DRKTS,
Some of the posters on this website have an AGENDA that prevents them from engaging in the knowledge that you impart. And thank you for the information.


He is not imparting information. Neither are you.

Void argument fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-08-2020 23:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
DRKTS wrote:
keepit wrote:
DRKTS,
Some of the posters on this website have an AGENDA that prevents them from engaging in the knowledge that you impart. And thank you for the information.


Yes, I have observed that.

You are not presenting information. Random numbers are not information.
DRKTS wrote:
The best antidotes to such agendas are facts.

Random numbers are not fact either. Learn what 'fact' means. It does not mean 'proof' or 'Universal Truth'.
DRKTS wrote:
I find are allergic to them and go into anaphylactic shock.

No one here is in shock, dumbass.
DRKTS wrote:
The symptoms of which are ever more bazaar denials of even basic physical laws and common sense which erodes their credibility with each iteration.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that denies science.
DRKTS wrote:
Recently one of them was driven to denying heat was energy!

Heat is not energy. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-08-2020 23:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
DRKTS wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
I watched it twice and loved it.I am going to watch it again.I have a question does it set a record because it was recorded and what is it recorded against.I have recently proved the Australian BOM homogenize the data to show a warming instead of a cooling at many of the automatic sites.I wonder if that happens in the U.S?.How many storms became hurricanes.I thought because we have warmed the ocean so much the lobsters are precooked that every low pressure system would turn in to a people killing cyclone.More information required?who peer reveiwed it because I would like IBDM to check it out.I have learned how the pretty colour maps are made by the computer models.They give you what you put in them and if that data is not 100% correct you can see the doubt.Lets recap
.Micheal Mann was caught making it up
.Some countries homogenize the data.Australia and US that I know of .Russia most of Europe and England do not and publish the true data from long term records.They do not keep moving and changing the type and position of the stations then fudging past results
.The models will show you what you wish them to
.Time will prove all and in 50 years when nothing has happened like nothing has happened in the last 50 years we will all have a good laugh about it


Glad you enjoyed it.

Most of the things you list as problems are merely accusations that I have seen no scientifically viable proof to support.

Science has no proofs. It does have theories, though. Theories that you are denying.
DRKTS wrote:
The data is all available in its raw form, station by station, minute by minute, 24-7-365. You can go to the NCDC and request copies of it.

Invalid data. It is not collected in an unbiased manner. It is insufficient. Location grouping is significant. Time is significant.
DRKTS wrote:
I am not sure what you mean by homogenization - there are set, proven statistical analysis methods that are used by all of these groups.

Lie. All of these groups are denying statistical math, just as you do.
* data MUST be collected by a means that removes all bias.
* selection of data for analysis MUST be by randN.
* cooked data cannot be used.
* the variance has not yet been declared and justified.
* the margin of error value has not been calculated to accompany the summary. That value MUST accompany the averages.
DRKTS wrote:
Some of them make the data sets available at each stage of the analysis - usually: stage 0 is raw data; stage 1 is digital data turned into scientific units

Temperature is already a scientific unit. Nothing to convert. Unfortunately, the data is collected in a biased manner. Location grouping is significant. Time is significant. There is also insufficient data. Temperature varies as much as 20 deg F per mile.
DRKTS wrote:
with bad-checksum data removed;

Data has no checksum. An instrument reporting a bad checksum is no data at all.
DRKTS wrote:
stage 2 data is fully calibrated data;

Temperature is already calibrated. You are describing the cooking of data. Not allowed in statistical math.
DRKTS wrote:
and stage 3 data is the final product (maps, light curves, etc).

Pretty maps of random numbers is still random numbers. It is not data.
DRKTS wrote:
The error analysis is propagated through each stage.

Lie. The variance has not been declared and justified.


Denial of mathematics. False authority fallacy. Use of proof in open functional system.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 09-08-2020 23:44
09-08-2020 23:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
DRKTS wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
I can send you pictures of me standing at the port 50 years ago and again last week and there has been zero difference in sea level.Its all theory so the working man will need a bit more to go on than computer generated pictures.You will scare the kids and young women,well done.I visited a friend with 3 young boys and I asked do they teach you this stuff at school and they do.How dare you lie to the children again


Remember to verify the tide, note the Moon only repeats its cycle every 18.6 years so that is going to be hard.


The Earth rotates beneath the uneven tidal forces once a day, producing two low and two high tides per day.

The Moon's sidereal period is 29.5 days. This is the period that determines the Moon's influence on tides. It is the time between, say, a New Moon. Note this is longer than the orbital period of the Moon, and is due to orbiting a planet that is in turn orbiting the Sun.

The Sun also influences the tides. So do each of the planet (far less so). Due to the tilt of the Earth, the northern hemisphere will see higher tides in the winter, and lower tides in the summer.

In addition, storm activity will modify the level of tide, due to pressure differences around at the time.

Because of storm activity being essentially random, there is no repeat of the cycle of tides, other than the factors I have already mentioned.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-08-2020 23:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
DRKTS wrote:
duncan61 wrote:

.1 There is a relationship between CO2 and bushfires.Its not the people charged with lighting them or the reduction in backburning but .9 degrees warming somewhere


Higher temperatures

The temperature of Earth is unknown.
DRKTS wrote:
- lower soil moisture content

The soil moisture content of Earth is unknown.
DRKTS wrote:
- makes plants dry out more quickly - so are more vulnerable to fire.

Summer isn't happening everywhere on Earth at the same time.

DRKTS wrote:
.2 Sea level rise .The claim is made half the ice has melted and the sea has gone up.To this point I can not find anywhere that the sea has risen in the entire world and if you send me pretty pictures from NASA,NOAA or the IPCC we are done.I need you standing with a measuring tape and showing me where it was and where it is and why.


Who claims half the ice has melted? Strawman argument.

The Church of Global Warming. Not a strawman. Fallacy fallacy.
DRKTS wrote:
If you cannot find a place in the entire world where sea level has risen then you are not looking. the satellite data for example:
...deleted Holy Link to Wikipedia...

Satellites are incapable of measuring global sea level. There is no valid reference point. It is not possible to measure a global sea level.
DRKTS wrote:
Look at Miami during King Tides - now flooding is so often occurring that they are spending $Bs to raise the roads and increase pumping capacity.

Nope. Same flooding. Same Miami. The only difference now is the number of houses in the area, creating impervious surfaces for water runoff. Miami has also finally decided to improve it's road system.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-08-2020 23:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
DRKTS wrote:
HarveyH55

Try https://www.miamigov.com/Government/ClimateReadyMiami/Flooding

or, https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/florida-flooding-miami/

or, https://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/10/17/rising-water-cause-flood-of-trouble-on-miami-beach/

or, .....


Try making your own argument instead of using Holy Links to fake news and religious sites.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-08-2020 03:02
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
Go ITN you covered it all.I like the holy sites analogy.The internet is full of random stuff.I ask show me where the sea level rising and I get Miami.Next I will get Bangladesh.Check who made up the first link NOAA and IPCC. And even they are 50% out with each other.I will be getting a delivery from Aus post today and I hope its the CO2 meter not the parts for my Honda
10-08-2020 04:00
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2403)
I've lived in Florida for quite a while. Pretty sure if Miami was having major problems, and wanting substantial money to fix it, study it, it would be on the local news, least occasionally. Other than weather related issues, common throughout the state, there has been any pressing long term problems with sinking or flooding. Al Gore's prediction was way off.
10-08-2020 13:46
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
Into the Night wrote:

Lie. All of these groups are denying statistical math, just as you do.
* data MUST be collected by a means that removes all bias.
* selection of data for analysis MUST be by randN.
* cooked data cannot be used.
* the variance has not yet been declared and justified.
* the margin of error value has not been calculated to accompany the summary. That value MUST accompany the averages.

No data is without bias, they just have to be identified, quantified, and corrected for which scientists call 'data analysis' and you call 'cooked'
The uncertainty is calculated and published, just not in the summary data (that is why it is a summary), as I said before you need to read the published papers describing the analysis methods.

Temperature is already a scientific unit. Nothing to convert. Unfortunately, the data is collected in a biased manner. Location grouping is significant. Time is significant. There is also insufficient data. Temperature varies as much as 20 deg F per mile.

Demonstrating scientific incompetency again? No instrument directly measures temperature, the scale on a thermometer has to be calibrated whether it relies on the expansion of mercury, the difference in expansion of two metals, resistance, or spectral emissions. The calibration shifts with time, requiring constant attention to re-establishing the calibration with respect to an absolute standard.


Data has no checksum. An instrument reporting a bad checksum is no data at all.

Again a checksum error does not mean all the data from an instrument is invalid. It means that one or more bits has been flipped in transmission. So that one data packet is considered suspect. It is usually obvious which bit was flipped because that data is oddly large or small compared to the previous and next packages. Most often this occurs in the housekeeping data (engineering data) of each data packet, which often takes up more telemetry than the actual data itself.


Temperature is already calibrated. You are describing the cooking of data. Not allowed in statistical math.


See above.

Pretty maps of random numbers is still random numbers. It is not data.


what a silly thing to say!

Lie. The variance has not been declared and justified. Denial of mathematics. False authority fallacy. Use of proof in open functional system.


Again read the papers that describe the process and get back to us when you understand what they have done and can point out specific problems with those long-established and standard analysis methods.

You are the one denying math. Willful ignorance is still ignorance but of a worse kind.
10-08-2020 17:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
DRKTS wrote: No data is without bias, they just have to be identified, quantified, and corrected for which scientists call 'data analysis' and you call 'cooked'

Nope. You have no data. All you have is propaganda by fabrication.

I love to watch you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to find spurious excuses to avoid simply posting your raw data or your unambiguous definition of Climate. You clearly can't afford for it to be revealed that you don't have any valid raw data or unambiguous definition of Climate.

DRKTS wrote: The uncertainty is calculated and published,

No, no, no, .... accuracy and margin of error need to be published.

"Uncertainty" only enters the picture AFTER you have a valid conclusion that follows from your raw data.

Using "uncertainty" in the manner you do, as a substitute for accuracy because you entirely fabricated your data is the kind of lying the IPCC does. Such dishonesty becomes expressed as the level of certainty that something is possible, and it's always stupid, e.g. "we are 97% certain that a result of a "2" is possible when rolling a six-sided die. That figure increases to a 98% chance that a summed result of six is possible when rolling two dice."

You have yet to say anything that is true.


DRKTS wrote: Temperature is already a scientific unit. Nothing to convert.

So it's only a one-step process to fabricate temperature "data."

DRKTS wrote: Unfortunately, the data is collected in a biased manner.

Fabricated numbers are not data and they are not "collected." They are generated.

DRKTS wrote:Demonstrating scientific incompetency again? No instrument directly measures temperature,

Non sequitur.

Temperature can vary by 20F over a distance of one mile. Address it.

I love to watch you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to find spurious excuses to avoid simply posting your raw data or your unambiguous definition of Climate. You clearly can't afford for it to be revealed that you don't have any valid raw data or unambiguous definition of Climate.


DRKTS wrote: Again read the papers that describe the process and get back to us

No, no, no ... that's not how it works. He who makes the affirmative claim bears the full responsibility to support the claim.

How about we continue dismissing everything you post until you ditch the dishonesty and start explaining to our satisfaction?

Yes, I think I shall.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-08-2020 18:56
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
IBdaMann wrote:


You quoted several things I did not say.
10-08-2020 21:02
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


You quoted several things I did not say.

No, you said all those things. You are now denying yourself.
10-08-2020 23:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
duncan61 wrote:
Go ITN you covered it all.I like the holy sites analogy.The internet is full of random stuff.I ask show me where the sea level rising and I get Miami.Next I will get Bangladesh.Check who made up the first link NOAA and IPCC. And even they are 50% out with each other.I will be getting a delivery from Aus post today and I hope its the CO2 meter not the parts for my Honda

You can use the CO2 meter to see if the parts on your Honda work.



The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-08-2020 23:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I've lived in Florida for quite a while. Pretty sure if Miami was having major problems, and wanting substantial money to fix it, study it, it would be on the local news, least occasionally. Other than weather related issues, common throughout the state, there has been any pressing long term problems with sinking or flooding. Al Gore's prediction was way off.


Most of these idiots have no idea where Miami is, or what is right next to it.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-08-2020 00:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Lie. All of these groups are denying statistical math, just as you do.
* data MUST be collected by a means that removes all bias.
* selection of data for analysis MUST be by randN.
* cooked data cannot be used.
* the variance has not yet been declared and justified.
* the margin of error value has not been calculated to accompany the summary. That value MUST accompany the averages.

No data is without bias,
Mantras 25d...25e...
Lie. A measurement is not a bias.[/quote]Mantra 25e.
DRKTS wrote:
they just have to be identified, quantified, and corrected for which scientists call 'data analysis' and you call 'cooked'
Lie. You cannot use cooked data in statistical analysis. You can only use raw data. That data must be collected in a manner that is unbiased.
DRKTS wrote:
The uncertainty is calculated and published, just not in the summary data (that is why it is a summary), as I said before you need to read the published papers describing the analysis methods.

Denying math by referring to 'published papers' is still denying math.[/quote]Mantras 4d...4f...
DRKTS wrote:
Temperature is already a scientific unit. Nothing to convert. Unfortunately, the data is collected in a biased manner. Location grouping is significant. Time is significant. There is also insufficient data. Temperature varies as much as 20 deg F per mile.

Demonstrating scientific incompetency again?
No science here. You are denying mathematics here. Mantra 20j.
DRKTS wrote:
No instrument directly measures temperature,

Thermometers.
DRKTS wrote:
the scale on a thermometer has to be calibrated

It is.
DRKTS wrote:
whether it relies on the expansion of mercury, the difference in expansion of two metals, resistance, or spectral emissions.
It is.
DRKTS wrote:
The calibration shifts with time,
Nope. Water still freezes at 0 deg C and boils at 100 deg C under standard conditions of pressure (14.7apsi). That still corresponds to 32 deg F and 212 deg F. Nothin' has changed. Mantras 20z1...
DRKTS wrote:
requiring constant attention to re-establishing the calibration with respect to an absolute standard.
The freezing and boiling point of water under standard pressure IS the absolute standard for thermometers. Mercury and alcohol thermometers, once constructed and checked, don't change their calibration, unless the thermometer itself is broken somehow. The scales on these devices is painted on the class of the thermometer itself. It's not moving around.
DRKTS wrote:

Data has no checksum. An instrument reporting a bad checksum is no data at all.

Again a checksum error does not mean all the data from an instrument is invalid.
Yes it does. Obviously you know nothing about computers and telegraphy either.
DRKTS wrote:
It means that one or more bits has been flipped in transmission.
That makes the entire packet invalid.
DRKTS wrote:
So that one data packet is considered suspect.
Nope. It's invalid. It must be discarded. That means NO DATA.
DRKTS wrote:
It is usually obvious which bit was flipped because that data is oddly large or small compared to the previous and next packages.
Nope. MRC does NOT determine which bit was flipped. The entire packet must be discarded. NO DATA. You cannot create data out of different data.
DRKTS wrote:
Most often this occurs in the housekeeping data (engineering data) of each data packet, which often takes up more telemetry than the actual data itself.
Irrelevant. The entire packet must be discarded. NO DATA.
DRKTS wrote:

Temperature is already calibrated. You are describing the cooking of data. Not allowed in statistical math.

See above.

See above.
DRKTS wrote:

Pretty maps of random numbers is still random numbers. It is not data.

what a silly thing to say!

What a silly thing to do, making pretty maps of random numbers and calling it 'data'.
DRKTS wrote:
Lie. The variance has not been declared and justified. Denial of mathematics. False authority fallacy. Use of proof in open functional system.

Again read the papers that describe the process

Papers are not a mathematical proof. Papers are not statistical mathematics. Mantra 4d.
DRKTS wrote:
and get back to us when you understand what they have done
I know what they have done. They have denied statistical mathematics.
DRKTS wrote:
and can point out specific problems
I already have. RQAA.
DRKTS wrote:
with those long-established and standard analysis methods.
Deny statistical mathematics. Mantras 25c1...25c2...25c3...25d...25e...39j...
DRKTS wrote:
You are the one denying math.
Inversion fallacy. Mantra 17.
DRKTS wrote:
Willful ignorance is still ignorance but of a worse kind.

Assumed victory fallacy. Inversion fallacy. Mantras 17...7...


No argument presented. Denial of mathematics. RQAA. False authorities. Use of 'math' as 'science'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-08-2020 00:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


You quoted several things I did not say.


Lie. Denial of self.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 11-08-2020 00:06




Join the debate US climate for July 2020:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
July 2020 - Feeling the Heat?7604-09-2020 05:45
July 2020: the second warmest July on Record.2615-08-2020 23:14
Alaska, July, hottest month every recorded...119-08-2019 07:13
Bernie Sanders & Al Gore Discuss Climate Change and Renewables (July 2017)918-12-2017 23:54
July hottest month since records began say nasa5424-02-2017 06:14
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact