Remember me
▼ Content

Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?



Page 14 of 26<<<1213141516>>>
23-02-2020 03:49
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
keepit wrote:
...temp is defined as the average kinetic energy of all the components and that implies a range ...
Well said.

IBD is pretending "measurement of temperature" = "temperature"

Once again defying the dictionary and common understanding of the word.

He's just trying to duck a real debate by running to semenatic problems of his own creation:
IBdaMann wrote:
.. you have been told just as repeatedly that... No temperature is a range...
just a waste of his own time.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: The average/mean temperature of Venus at the bottom of it's atmosphere is estimated at ~460C.

Tell me, how do estimates come about? [hint: there's a dataset involved]

Not my work or my skill set. I freely admit I accept the work of the CCCP, NASA and Japan's NAL as competent and I allege no fraud.

Ludwig Boltzmann accepted the work of John Tyndall as a foundation for his own work.

If you want to allege fraud, in the 1970s, by "warmazombies" or commies, youre free to do so.

But the question is:
Do you believe we leared anything about the temperature of Venus?

I'm not the one with doubts about that. You are.

IBdaMann wrote:
The FIRST question to start your argument is what margin of error do you find acceptable?
I told you +/- 200 works fine. I've said that from the beginning.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 23-02-2020 03:51
23-02-2020 05:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7060)
tmiddles wrote: Not my work or my skill set.

At least you admit to the faith-based nature of your religious beliefs.

tmiddles wrote: I freely admit I accept the work of the CCCP, NASA and Japan's NAL as competent and I allege no fraud.

You freely admit to readily buying into their political propaganda and to regurgitating it as instructed.

tmiddles wrote: Ludwig Boltzmann accepted the work of John Tyndall as a foundation for his own work.

That's a stupid misuse of the word "accepted." One does not "accept" one's inspiration. One is inspired by one's inspiration. Do you see how that works?

Yes, Tyndall worked. He did not produce any science. His work, however, inspired Boltzmann. You might notice that Boltzmann's science contains none of Tyndall's work.

tmiddles wrote:But the question is:
Do you believe we leared anything about the temperature of Venus?

EVASION on your part.

Define "the temperature of Venus" and then we'll address "what we know" about it.

tmiddles wrote: I'm not the one with doubts about that.

There are two ways to address questions:

The conservative's method: Answer the questions honestly.
The leftists method: Brainwash the gullible into not asking those questions, and instead be "certain" of the propaganda they are to regurgitate.

I am absolutely certain that you have no doubts about what you regurgitate.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The FIRST question to start your argument is what margin of error do you find acceptable?
I told you +/- 200 works fine. I've said that from the beginning.

For all temperatures?

If that's the case then do you accept that your expectation of any given temperature at the bottom of Venus' atmosphere is one that is roughly 200 degrees colder than the planet's equilibrium temperature?


.


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
23-02-2020 06:42
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Not my work or my skill set.

At least you admit to the faith-based nature of your religious beliefs....Yes, Tyndall worked. He did not produce any science. His work, however, inspired Boltzmann...
OK, don't call it science, Tyndall took measurements and Boltzmann trusted and used them. How is that any different and why doesn't that make you accuse Ludwig of having a "religious belief" in Tyndall?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I freely admit I accept the work of the CCCP, NASA and Japan's NAL as competent and I allege no fraud.

You freely admit to readily buying into their political propaganda...
Uh... What was the agenda? You aren't seriously claiming there was a "warmazombie" global warming conspiracy in the 1970s which conspired to falsify the temperature of Venus are you? (not to mention it would have been a cold war joint operation by the US and USSR?!?)

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:But the question is:
Do you believe we leared anything about the temperature of Venus?

EVASION on your part.

Define "the temperature of Venus" and then we'll address "what we know" about it.
We are talking about the measurements taken by the landers while on the ground. The bottom of the atmosphere as you like to call it. That is a location on Venus planet wide and it has a temperature.

I'd also like to point out I'm not your Papa or your professor. You pretend to be interested in science so show a little initiative. I don't need to spoon feed you.

Here is the chart from the report, Venera 8: Measurements of Temperature,, you dismissed as
IBdaMann wrote:a text document of someone's notes.
It is actually JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES and the work of Marov, Avduevsky, Kerzhanovich, Rozhdestvensky, Prodin and Ryabov of the Academy of Sciences, Moscow, USSR 1973:

Comments? : )

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...+/- 200 works fine.
...you accept that your expectation of any given temperature at the bottom of Venus' atmosphere is one that is roughly 200 degrees colder than the planet's equilibrium temperature?
That is very poorly worded to the point of being wrong.

I expect that the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere, or ground level, of Venus will be more than 200 degrees hotter than the equilibrium temperature for Venus.

I'm not saying it's close to 200, it's not, I'm saying it's over. I'm not saying that it is the equilibrium temperature that Venus actually has, I don't know what that is as I don't know how you could measure that (maybe it's easy, I just don't know). I'm saying it's the equilibrium temperature for Venus which is based only on calculating the energy Venus receives from the sun.

Also, while it may have been intentional, you ignored this entirely:
tmiddles wrote:...As 0K isn't possible and Venus isn't hotter than the Sun, we can know Venus has no locations outside of the 0K to 15700000K range. Are you unsure of a +/- 700 degree margin of error IBD? You think they measured 713K but it's really an average of 12K or less?

What communists say:
https://www.nytimes.com/1971/01/27/archives/soviet-says-craft-landed-on-venus-and-radioed-data-unmanned-ship.html

After just the first landing those comunists in russia claimed "It was 475 degrees Centigrade, with a margin of error of 20 degrees in either direction. "

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 23-02-2020 06:46
23-02-2020 07:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7060)
tmiddles wrote: Tyndall took measurements and Boltzmann trusted and used them.

Nope. Once again, Boltzmann's science contains none of Tyndall's work, nor does it contain any contemporary literature, food recipes, Polish jokes, or anything other than Boltzmann's science.

What part of that gives you problems?

tmiddles wrote: We are talking about the measurements taken by the landers while on the ground.

Post the raw data.

tmiddles wrote: Here is the chart from the report,

This is the point at which I remind you that warmizombies are some of the planet's most gullible morons. Any nutjob can claim to have "data" and then hand obvious non-data to a warmizombie and that warmizombie will rush to post it on the internet.

I have known that you aren't the sharpest tack in the box but it never ceases to amaze me how you and other warmizombies presume that everyone else is just as stupid. That chart ... is a chart! It's not data. You posted it under the mistaken impression that I would accept it as a valid raw dataset because you were told that the chart is "The Data."

Can you drop that chart into an Excel spreadsheet and run a few pivot tables?

Let's review. Scientists/Researchers are expected to publish their raw data for scrutiny to allow the rest of the world to validate the conclusions that are supposedly drawn from the raw data.

Scheisters, on the other hand, present conclusions without supporting data and expect the gullible to fall in line and OBEY like sheep.

When you were asked for the raw data, you presented only this text document that provides conclusions.

[url=https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281973%29030%3C1210%3AVMOTPA%3E2.0.CO%3B2]

You tried to pawn this text document off as "data" because the title includes the word "measurements."

One more time ... post the raw data and we'll discuss.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...+/- 200 works fine.
...you accept that your expectation of any given temperature at the bottom of Venus' atmosphere is one that is roughly 200 degrees colder than the planet's equilibrium temperature?
That is very poorly worded to the point of being wrong.[/quote]
Then you have no idea what "margin of error" means and you need to start over from the beginning. This is exactly to what you were trying to get me to commit, just in the "hotter" direction rather than "colder."

tmiddles wrote: I expect that the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere, or ground level, of Venus will be more than 200 degrees hotter than the equilibrium temperature for Venus.

Exactly. If you object to my statement above then you have a faulty understanding of the terms you are trying to use.

Back to square #1, and this time you need to learn what "margin of error" means because your conclusions will be tied directly to the one you establish. If we establish a very lax margin of error, e.g. +/- 200C then our conclusions need to include the colder end as well. That's what the minus sign in the "+/-" means. If the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere COULD be 200C colder than what was measured, our expectations must include the temperature possibly being far colder than the planet's equilibrium temperature ... because we established that at the very beginning when we allowed for such a huge margin of error.



.


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
23-02-2020 10:09
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Tyndall took measurements and Boltzmann trusted and used them.
Nope. Once again, Boltzmann's science contains none of Tyndall's work,...
Now here you go again. I said exactly this:
tmiddles wrote:OK, don't call it science, Tyndall took measurements and Boltzmann trusted and used them
Because I know only ITN loves the game of picking your own weird definition of science and then playing "science"/"not science" as a way to dodge the debate.

Tyndall measured the infrared emission by a platinum filament and the corresponding color of the filament. (link) Josef Stefan deduced the fourth power of the absolute temperature on the basis of Tyndall's measurements.

There is zero formal difference between that and my using the measurements by the CCCP taken of Venus. None.

If I'm religious for doing it so was Josef (and I erred it was Stefan no Boltzmann I was referring to).

IBdaMann wrote:
Post the raw data.



IBdaMann wrote:That chart ... is a chart! It's not data.
A chart of data is NOT data. Hmmmm.

From something called the "The Data Mine"
Into the Night wrote:


Data collection began...Included to get this out of the way up front.
I'm pretty sure that's ITN with an example of how it SHOULD be done, and that that graph, a "chart" if you will, is data, to him at least, at the time of that posting. Your comment on it was:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I have already presented the data from Mauna Loa. This is the form and support I would expect of any data. Use that as a 'form guide' if you wish, remembering the rules I set up.

Into the Night, I was wondering if you had any suggestion on acquiring global humidity and atmospheric water vapor data to analyze the following.

The claim has been made on this site that:

CO2 causes Global Warming, and...
Global Warming causes increased humidity/water vapor, and ...
Increased humidity/water vapor causes increased precipitation globally.
...
You don't sound like you have a problem with ITN's Moana Loa graph (or "chart" if you prefer).

IBdaMann wrote: ... post the raw data and we'll discuss.
So....let's discuss.

IBdaMann wrote:If we establish a very lax margin of error, e.g. +/- 200C then our conclusions need to include the colder end as well.

Not the "colder" end since we are comparing temperatures but the "other" end.

And sure we can do that if you want. The estimate is 460C, +/-200 gives us 260C up to 660C. That's the other end, way way hotter. The emissivity of Venus is less than 1.0. The equilibrium temperature is 328K/55C for an emissivity of 1.0, so Venus has an equilibrium temperature of <55C.

So the two ends of our margin for the amount the ground level temp is above the 55C equilibrium temp are:
260C-55C = 205C on the low end
660C-55C = 605C on the high end

So shall we discuss that now?
Edited on 23-02-2020 10:37
23-02-2020 10:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7060)
tmiddles wrote: Tyndall measured the infrared emission by a platinum filament and the corresponding color of the filament.

Two words: "no science."

No matter how many ways you try to approach the issue, none of Tyndall's work is in Boltzmann's science.



tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:That chart ... is a chart! It's not data.
A chart of data is NOT data. Hmmmm.

Correct. It is not the raw data which is the requirement.

Post the raw data.

tmiddles wrote: You don't sound like you have a problem with ITN's Moana Loa graph (or "chart" if you prefer).

Neither Into the Night nor I support Mauna Loa data.



tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:If we establish a very lax margin of error, e.g. +/- 200C then our conclusions need to include the colder end as well.

Not the "colder" end since we are comparing temperatures but the "other" end.

This makes no sense. You chose your acceptable margin of error so your conclusions must fall in line with that, i.e. a wide range colder or hotter than calculated.

tmiddles wrote:So the two ends of our margin for the amount the ground level temp is above the 55C equilibrium temp are:
260C-55C = 205C on the low end
660C-55C = 605C on the high end

This is bogus math; you don't know what you are doing.

Let me know when you want to start over and do it correctly. In the meantime, decide what you consider to be an acceptable margin of error.




.


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
23-02-2020 10:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
IBdaMann wrote:
No matter how many ways you try to approach the issue, none of Tyndall's work is in Boltzmann's science.
OK
But Stefan (again I erred I meant Josef Stefan) used the measurements. He trusted them. So I fail to see your point.

IBdaMann wrote:
It is not the raw data which is the requirement.
Required by who or what exactly?

Also I'm curious has what you call "raw data" ever been posted here? Have you ever posted any?

Does it have to be notarized?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So the two ends of our margin for the amount the ground level temp is above the 55C equilibrium temp are:
260C-55C = 205C on the low end
660C-55C = 605C on the high end

This is bogus math; you don't know what you are doing.

What exactly is "bogus" about it. It's pretty much 4th grade math.

They have the estimate at 460 right?

+/- 200

460 + 200 = 660

460 - 200 = 260

Good so far?

The equilibrium temperature is <55C.

660-55= 605

260-55= 205

?

I mean I don't really know how to write it simpler than that. I think you thought my 200 degree disparity was the hot end but it was the cold end of the range. Yes Venus is that Fing hot!

IBdaMann wrote:
Neither Into the Night nor I support Mauna Loa data.

You sure didn't say that when he represented it as a model of how to present data here. Did you say in the data mine thread "That's not data it's a chart!" or something similar? I mean you can appreciate how this looks pretty inconsistent by your own standards.

But you didn't say: Are you alleging a consipiracy/fraud/nefarious activity by the CCCP, NASA and Japan? Was there a plot afoot in the 1970's to dupe us all?

Help me out here IBD.

Better yet just debate me and stop dodging.
Edited on 23-02-2020 10:56
23-02-2020 11:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7060)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
It is not the raw data which is the requirement.
Required by who or what exactly?

You want to get to "what is known" and what conclusions we can draw ... so you need to produce the raw data and you need to determine your acceptable margin of error which will, in turn, determine the limits of your conclusions.

tmiddles wrote: Also I'm curious has what you call "raw data" ever been posted here? Have you ever posted any?

It has been discussed extensively. Check my signature, the leafsdude quote in particular.

If you are presenting data as support for your conclusions, you need to present the raw data, not cooked/processed/tweaked/weighted/altered data. I'm sure you can understand why.

tmiddles wrote:Does it have to be notarized?

Notarized is good. If you can get Deloitte to certify it, even better. The more credible the data the better. Remember, you WANT people to accept your data and you don't want to give anyone reason to discard your data and your conclusions as "invalid."

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Neither Into the Night nor I support Mauna Loa data.

You sure didn't say that when he represented it as a model of how to present data here.

Refresh my memory, who determines my position? It's on the tip of my tongue, could you help me out?

I might be willing to discuss an instance of you taking something out of context concerning someone else ... but I think we kind of need to go with whatever I say is my position. Wouldn't you agree with that? ... or are you having that urge to assign another bogus position to me?


.


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
23-02-2020 11:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
It is not the raw data which is the requirement.
Required by who or what exactly?
You want to get to "what is known"...
That didn't answer the question remotely. I already gave you the margin and you need to explain why you doubt the data so thoroughly.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Also I'm curious has what you call "raw data" ever been posted here? Have you ever posted any?
It has been discussed extensively.
But you can't be bothered to answer the question now?

IBdaMann wrote:...you need to present the raw data, not cooked/processed/tweaked/weighted/altered data. I'm sure you can understand why.
Why are you alleging that the data presented by the CCCP is altered? They could just alter the raw data and release a corrupt copy. Right? If it's a vast conspiracy and all the space agencies are lying then you can trust nothing. What is your theory here?

But you didn't say: Are you alleging a consipiracy/fraud/nefarious activity by the CCCP, NASA and Japan? Was there a plot afoot in the 1970's to dupe us all?

IBdaMann wrote:The more credible the data the better.
And how credible do you find the data supplied by the Russians?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Neither Into the Night nor I support Mauna Loa data.

You sure didn't say that when he represented it as a model of how to present data here.

Refresh my memory, who determines my position? It's on the tip of my tongue, could you help me out?
You do and you didn't say sqwat about ITN's post being invalid. He presented that as the model. Your acceptance was implicit. But I linked to the thread. It's all there, or not there, as the case may be.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 23-02-2020 11:48
23-02-2020 20:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
keepit wrote:
Tmid,
I think that's a relevant point about every thing with a temperature has a range and an average. I don't see how anyone could complain about it, after all, temp is defined as the average kinetic energy of all the components and that implies a range unless every molecule has the exact same kinetic energy. It seems so fundamental that i hesitate to even discuss it here.


Mantra 25j


The Parrot Killer
23-02-2020 20:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:
...temp is defined as the average kinetic energy of all the components and that implies a range ...
Well said.
...deleted Mantras 25j...4b...35b2...24...25...34a...4b...34a...4b...34a...4b...34a...4c...34a...4c...35a...25c...25g...29...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
23-02-2020 21:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Not my work or my skill set.

At least you admit to the faith-based nature of your religious beliefs....Yes, Tyndall worked. He did not produce any science. His work, however, inspired Boltzmann...
OK, don't call it science, ...deleted Mantras 21...4c...15...35a...31...25c...1...25c...4a...34a...37a...25c...20b...25k...25c...25f...25a...25c1...


No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer
23-02-2020 21:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 20e1...30...29...37a...15...15...25c...25g...
From something called the "The Data Mine"
Into the Night wrote:


Data collection began...Included to get this out of the way up front.
I'm pretty sure that's ITN with an example of how it SHOULD be done, and that that graph, a "chart" if you will, is data, to him at least, at the time of that posting.
...deleted Mantras 25c...25g...25g...25f...25k...25g...25g...


This graph is data as published by the Mauna Loa observatory. According to the rules of the Data Mine, the source is known, the dates of collection or known, and the authority by which is collected is known. The instrumentation itself is described, and the source of the calibration reference is described by the observatory. Thus this data does pass the requirements of the Data Mine.

BUT

It is not valid data for use in statistics. It is cooked data. Only raw data may be used. It does not indicate global atmospheric CO2 content. It only indicates what they claim to have measured (and 'adjusted for anomalies').

Yes, data can appear in chart form, BUT it must be valid RAW data for the purposes of statistical math.

It also has NOTHING to do with the problems of measuring the temperature of Venus.

Mantras 25c...25e...25g...15...25c


The Parrot Killer
24-02-2020 03:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
Into the Night wrote:...data can appear in chart form, BUT it must be valid RAW data for the purposes of statistical math. It also has NOTHING to do with the problems of measuring the temperature of Venus.
Source: Venera 8: Measurements of Temperature,
So you posted this in the Data Mine 4 years ago, excerpts below.
Into the Night wrote:
Data collection began in 1958....

IBD accepted the data as useful/valid/legit as it was presented.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I have already presented the data from Mauna Loa. This is the form and support I would expect of any data....
...I was wondering if you had any suggestion on acquiring global humidity and atmospheric water vapor data...

ITN you go on to use the data in your arguments and conclusions:
Into the Night wrote:
trafn wrote:...2. To you, how does this data impact questions concerning GHG's...
I also posted another set of data (...does not allow me to post the actual plots...) concerning the temperature ...near Seattle...I see no correlation with the temperatures in Seattle to the increase of carbon dioxide. I have examined charts...As far as I have been able to determine, there is no effective correlation between the two at all.
Into the Night wrote:
climate scientist wrote:...Just because you do not see a correlation ...does not mean that they are not linked.
Actually, yes it does. It exactly means they are not linked.

IBD posted some data and you certainly sound as though you are referring back to your own Moana Loa data as "reliable and verifiable data"..
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
For example:...data...
10/21/2300Z 82.926°N 85.428°W -24.1°C 1001.7mb...
10/21/2200Z 82.926°N 85.428°W -23.7°C 1001.6mb
....Thank you for providing another source of reliable and verifiable data.

You indicate that the government has collected "reilable data":.
Into the Night wrote:Reliable data goes back to 1944 when we first started flying aircraft into hurricanes.

You use this data you consider reliable to make arguments again:
Into the Night wrote:As you can see, by any measure, hurricane activity seems to have NO correlation with either CO2 concentration, temperature...

You make a claim very similar to my own here, in insisting that data is available so let's proceed with a debate:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
What is the source of your data?

IBdaMann wrote:
My source is terrible. If you don't accept it, I'll understand. I grabbed the first datums I encountered.

Surface Detail wrote:
Just provide a link to the source of your data, please.

You have the data in both Atlantic and Pacific basins. You no longer have an excuse to evade the conversation. Stop calling people names and proceed with your discussion.....You have been EVADING a sensible conversation by ...demanding data to be formatted in a particular way...Start having a discussion about the meaning of the data you have!

At no point do you seem to lose confidence in the Moana Loa chart, saying toward the end of the thread:
Into the Night wrote:
You might also note that a lot of data that conformed to the rules has been presented other than the individual station data. The Mauna Loa data, for example, has been presented in a form that completely follows the rules set up for the data mine.

So ITN. IBD has stated:
IBdaMann wrote:
That chart ... is a chart! It's not data. You posted it under the mistaken impression that I would accept it as a valid raw dataset because you were told that the chart is "The Data."

You have now said:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not valid data for use in statistics. It is cooked data. ... it must be valid RAW data for the purposes of statistical math.

So I have 3 questions:
1- Do either of you allege some type of plot or fraud by the USSR, USA and JAPAN with the Venus data provided?
2- What is the difference between Moana Loa data and Venera data? Is Venera data also "reliable data" ? Do you have confidence in both, in neither?

Also do your comments here:
25) Math Error or Argument by RandU,
c) Margin of Error Failure (Statistics)
e) Cooked or otherwise Bogus Data Source (Statistics)
g) argument by randU as data (use of random numbers made up out of someone's head or an algorithm out of someone's head)

Do they apply to JUST the Venera Chart or to the Moana Loa Chart as well?

3- In your views did the lander missions accomplish anything in discovering what the ground level temperature of Venus is?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 24-02-2020 04:18
24-02-2020 21:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...data can appear in chart form, BUT it must be valid RAW data for the purposes of statistical math. It also has NOTHING to do with the problems of measuring the temperature of Venus.
Source: Venera 8: Measurements of Temperature,
So you posted this in the Data Mine 4 years ago, excerpts below.
Into the Night wrote:
Data collection began in 1958....

IBD accepted the data as useful/valid/legit as it was presented.

You don't get to speak for IBD. You only get to speak for you. He accepted the source of the data, the described instrumentation used, and the date of the data, not the data itself. This is still his position as I understand it.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I have already presented the data from Mauna Loa. This is the form and support I would expect of any data....
...I was wondering if you had any suggestion on acquiring global humidity and atmospheric water vapor data...

ITN you go on to use the data in your arguments and conclusions:

Again, he is accepting the source, the dates, and the instrumentation descriptions used, not the data itself.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
trafn wrote:...2. To you, how does this data impact questions concerning GHG's...
I also posted another set of data (...does not allow me to post the actual plots...) concerning the temperature ...near Seattle...I see no correlation with the temperatures in Seattle to the increase of carbon dioxide. I have examined charts...As far as I have been able to determine, there is no effective correlation between the two at all.
Into the Night wrote:
climate scientist wrote:...Just because you do not see a correlation ...does not mean that they are not linked.
Actually, yes it does. It exactly means they are not linked.

IBD posted some data and you certainly sound as though you are referring back to your own Moana Loa data as "reliable and verifiable data"..

Nope. We were talking about local weather station logs vs NOAA "averaging" at the time. This had nothing to do with CO2 or Mauna Loa.

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
For example:...data...
10/21/2300Z 82.926°N 85.428°W -24.1°C 1001.7mb...
10/21/2200Z 82.926°N 85.428°W -23.7°C 1001.6mb
....Thank you for providing another source of reliable and verifiable data.

You indicate that the government has collected "reilable data":.

It sometimes does. It many times doesn't.

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Reliable data goes back to 1944 when we first started flying aircraft into hurricanes.

You use this data you consider reliable to make arguments again:
Into the Night wrote:As you can see, by any measure, hurricane activity seems to have NO correlation with either CO2 concentration, temperature...

You make a claim very similar to my own here, in insisting that data is available so let's proceed with a debate:
...deleted redundancy and repetition...

Not Mauna Loa data. That is eastern seaboard hurricane data, collected by the National Hurricane Center in Florida. Before 1944, hurricane data was just local observations from stations that it hit (at least until the stations themselves lost their instruments!). After 1944, we started flying aircraft into hurricanes to get more reliable data as a profile of the hurricane itself.

NONE of this has anything to do with the measurement of the temperature of Venus, which is not possible. Mantra 25c.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 24-02-2020 21:20
24-02-2020 22:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
Into the Night wrote:
NONE of this has anything to do with the measurement of the temperature of Venus, which is not possible. Mantra 25c.
ITN you're skipping ahead. I'm not even there yet with you or IBD. Of course Venera 8 was one location on Venus for only about 1 hour. Just as Mauna Loa is just one location. So please answer my questions. I think it's obvious that your answers to them cannot be inferred from seemingly contradictory statements.

IBD has stated that what I presented, the Venera chart, is not data at all. You've been a bit unclear on what you think.
IBdaMann wrote:
Neither Into the Night nor I support Mauna Loa data.
Is that true? You can see how that doesn't seem to be reflected in your posts in the Data Mine thread right?

This comes before any discussions on what can be determined with the data.
This is precisely the moment of "EVASION" you described to Surface Detail:
Into the Night wrote:You have been EVADING a sensible conversation by ...demanding data to be formatted in a particular way...Start having a discussion about the meaning of the data you have!

You've left my 3 questions unanswered:
tmiddles wrote:
So I have 3 questions:
1- Do either of you allege some type of plot or fraud by the USSR, USA and JAPAN with the Venus data provided?
2- What is the difference between Moana Loa data and Venera data? Is Venera data also "reliable data" ? Do you have confidence in both, in neither?

Also do your comments here:
25) Math Error or Argument by RandU,
c) Margin of Error Failure (Statistics)
e) Cooked or otherwise Bogus Data Source (Statistics)
g) argument by randU as data (use of random numbers made up out of someone's head or an algorithm out of someone's head)

Do they apply to JUST the Venera Chart or to the Moana Loa Chart as well?

3- In your views did the lander missions accomplish anything in discovering what the ground level temperature of Venus is?


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 24-02-2020 22:39
24-02-2020 23:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7060)
tmiddles wrote: IBD has stated that what I presented, the Venera chart, is not data at all. You've been a bit unclear on what you think.

He doesn't need to "think" anything. Remember, it is you who has seen fit to lump the two of us together as though we are the same person. I judge for myself what data I accept; I make my own charts and perform my own analyses. Into the Night is perfectly well within his rights to accept any charts he believes answers his questions about the data that was used to make the chart. I, on the other hand, need the raw data that was used to make the chart. If you present a chart, the chart had to have been made from some data, presumably raw data. That data is what I need.

I am certain that Into the Night does not accept Mauna Loa data, so if he is accepting a chart then he is accepting format and presentation. I am also certain that if he accepts data that it has sufficiently adhered to the rules of the Data Mine. I am further certain that if Into the Night accepts conclusions that are drawn from data that it adheres to generally accepted statistical methods. If I have never mentioned it before then I will mention it now ... you should learn statistics.


.


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
24-02-2020 23:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 15...25c...TMSa7...29...15...21...35a...29...25c...25c...29...25c...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
25-02-2020 01:51
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
Into the Night wrote:...RQAA.
ITN I have asked a number of questions and you have no response?

A "Mantra" cannot respond to a question.

The Data Mine is your creation. It's your choice not to clarify directly conflicting statements you've made.

What is the difference between Moana Loa data and Venera data? Is Venera data also "reliable data" ? Do you have confidence in both, in neither?

IBdaMann wrote:...it is you who has seen fit to lump the two of us together as though we are the same person.
I am not the one doing that here:
IBdaMann wrote:
Neither Into the Night nor I support Mauna Loa data.
IBdaMann wrote: I am certain that Into the Night does not accept Mauna Loa data, ...
Yet he used the data to argue his points.

IBdaMann wrote: ... you should learn statistics.
I've tutored statistics. I could take you down easy. I'm beginning to realize you don't actually know how to do elementary thermodynamic problems. (ITN tried once and failed miserably). You have struggled with 4th grade math in this thread. Those points you're dodging still. (260C-55C = 205C on the low end
660C-55C = 605C on the high end)

So IBD you have simply ignored all of my questions:
1- Do either of you allege some type of plot or fraud by the USSR, USA and JAPAN with the Venus data provided? Keep in mind you have discussed corruption plenty on this board.
2- What is the difference between Mauna Loa data and Venera data? Is Venera data also "reliable data" ? Do you have confidence in both, in neither?
3- In your views did the lander missions accomplish anything in discovering what the ground level temperature of Venus is?

I get it. You both know that to deal with Venus at all is to be proven wrong. What you don't get is that the real prize here is your display of shameless dishonesty in pretending to have coherent rules for data being acceptable.

In the words of ITN:
Into the Night wrote: You have been EVADING a sensible conversation by ...demanding data to be formatted in a particular way...Start having a discussion about the meaning of the data you have!

Can we say ANYTHING about the bottom of the atmosphere on Venus planet wide? Anything at all? Or do you both think that's impossible?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 25-02-2020 02:03
25-02-2020 03:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 29...30...]
The Data Mine is your creation. It's your choice not to clarify directly conflicting statements you've made.
...deleted Mantras 29...25c...29...lie...15...30...

There are no conflicting statements.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: ... you should learn statistics.
I've tutored statistics.
...deleted Mantras 7...20e1...20a2...20b...30...29...10 (randU<->math)...15...evasion...29...35a...25c...29...25c...29...25c...29...7...30...15...25c...29...25c...29...29...

Lie. It is obvious you don't know the first thing about statistical math. You simply deny it outright.

RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
25-02-2020 03:49
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
Into the Night wrote:
There are no conflicting statements.


Into the Night wrote:
I have already presented the data from Mauna Loa. This is the form and support I would expect of any data....reliable and verifiable data.

Into the Night wrote:
It is not valid data for use in statistics. It is cooked data

How is that not contradictory?

Oh and you continue to refuse to answer this simple question:
What is the difference between Moana Loa data and Venera data? Is Venera data also "reliable data" ? Do you have confidence in both, in neither?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
25-02-2020 04:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There are no conflicting statements.


Into the Night wrote:
I have already presented the data from Mauna Loa. This is the form and support I would expect of any data....reliable and verifiable data.

Into the Night wrote:
It is not valid data for use in statistics. It is cooked data

How is that not contradictory?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Oh and you continue to refuse to answer this simple question:
What is the difference between Moana Loa data and Venera data? Is Venera data also "reliable data" ? Do you have confidence in both, in neither?

RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
25-02-2020 05:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7060)
tmiddles wrote: How is that not contradictory?

You have to be pretending to be that stupid.

If I show you all the specs of my latest high-tech measuring equipment, then you can feel confident that I can provide reliable data.

However, if I nonetheless lie, and fabricate numbers because the numbers produced by my equipment isn't supporting my predetermined conclusions, then you nonetheless discard my "data" along with my predetermined conclusions.

Mauna Loa has great equipment ... but for some reason they fudge the numbers because they are under pressure to produce certain "results" that support predetermined conclusions.

If any other facility (that wasn't located right next to a damned volcano) with all of their equipment were to produce honest measurements then yes, you should be able to depend on their data. People such as myself, however, would still demand the raw data instead of processed data, e.g. pretty charts.


tmiddles wrote: Oh and you continue to refuse to answer this simple question:
What is the difference between Moana Loa data and Venera data?

I'll be happy to answer that.

Mauna Loa suffers from an insurmountable problem: location. It is situated at a volcano. We are expected to believe that it represents average atmospheric CO2 levels. Volvanoes spew out CO2 in ungodly quantities. If you wanted to measure atmospheric CO2 levels, the only reason you could possibly have for taking your measurements at a volcano would be to pursue a political agenda of hyping fear of high atmospheric CO2 levels. When people quote atmospheric CO2 levels of 440+, they are citing Mauna Loa data, which is measuring artificially high levels to begin with ... and then Mauna Loa inflates those numbers even further for political purposes. Ergo, the air you breath outdoors on a normal day is in the mid-300's ppm. Nontheless all discussions presume the Wikipedia misinformation in the high 400's ppm. Stupid.

But Mauna Loa and Venera are opposites. The Mauna Loa facility is an entire facility with outstanding equipment and the ability to take as many controlled, precise measurements as desired. Unfortunately, the facility is manned by liars pursuing a political agenda. What a shame. The facility, if combined with other such facilities, could render values with a usable margin of error. Nonetheless, the dishonesty gets all results and conclusions tossed.

Venera (Венера in cyrillic, which translates to "Venus") fortunately has no dishonesty involved. There are no humans cooking that data (at least on the Venus end). Unfortunately, CCCP could not send an entire facility to Venus. They could only send one light (not heavy) measuring device through a rough journey through space. No calibration was performed once it left earth and the stresses of space flight, and of the extreme heat of Venus, took an unknown toll on the calibration of that device. Additionally, Венера was extremely limited in the measurements it could take, and its lifespan was doomed to be short, if it wasn't destroyed in the first place. Венера was doomed to having an extremely high margin of error that could not be forthwith corrected.





.


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
25-02-2020 12:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...data....reliable and verifiable data.
Into the Night wrote:
It is not valid data ...
How is that not contradictory?
You have to be pretending to be that stupid.
Your full response does nothing this clarify why you think I'm "stupid" to find the above statements by ITN, about the same data, contradictory. But really it's ITN who should clarify his own record.

IBdaMann wrote:Mauna Loa...pursue a political agenda of hyping fear...Mauna Loa inflates those numbers even further for political purposes...
IBdaMann wrote:Venera... fortunately has no dishonesty involved.
A clear answer to an important question. So fraud/dishonesty is not an issue in your view with Venera. It sounds like it's fair to say you find Venera to be MORE reliable than Mauna Loa?

So you see the possibility that the measurements were thrown off by:
IBdaMann wrote:the extreme heat of Venus, took an unknown toll on the calibration of that device.
IBdaMann wrote:doomed to having an extremely high margin of error that could not be forthwith corrected.
OK, what margin of error?

Also in terms of "raw data": The Venera missions lasted at most 127 minutes on the ground.
Venera 7 lasted 23 minutes on th surface
Venera 8 50 minutes, 11 seconds
Venera 9 53 minutes
Venera 10 65 minutes
Venera 11 95 minutes
Venera 12 110 minutes
Venera 13 127 minutes
Venera 14 57 minutes

The temperatures, as provided by the Russians, did not vary during those time frames. What problem do you have with accepting the temperatures provided by the Russian's for the ground level (bottom of the atmosphere) for those landings? Since a broad margin of error will be applied anyway it seems to me we can proceed with a +/- 200 degree margin with your full confidence can we not?

Another point that is relevant. A Venutian day is 127 Earth days long, but the atmosphere mixes across the entire planet in just 4 days, because "winds move up to 60 times the speed of the planet's rotation, whereas Earth's fastest winds are only 10-20% of the planet's rotational speed. ". Also "it's axial tilt is the one of the lowest in the Solar System", 2.64°, another reason that: "the planet experiences a mean temperature of 735 K ...with very little change between day and night, or between the equator and the poles.". Now this has been observed from orbit but also the multiple landers have verified this consistency in temperature. All landed at different locations, some on the dark side.

You and ITN would agree we can be confident in general statements about the bottom of the atmosphere on Venus as long as we aren't pretending we have a narrow margin of error right? Like you said "the extreme heat of Venus", confident in that statement.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 25-02-2020 12:26
25-02-2020 19:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 29...25c...25c...25c...25f...25c...25c...25f...31...31...25c...25f...TMSa7...


No arguments presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
25-02-2020 23:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7060)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:the extreme heat of Venus, took an unknown toll on the calibration of that device.
IBdaMann wrote:doomed to having an extremely high margin of error that could not be forthwith corrected.
OK, what margin of error?

I don't know. It's not "what we know." Your question is a great one and I'd like to know the asnwer as well because then we would know just how far off the Venera data is, yes? ... and then we could calculate the exact data values, yes? That would be totally awesome! ... but alas, we don't know the margin of error.

tmiddles wrote: Since a broad margin of error will be applied anyway it seems to me we can proceed with a +/- 200 degree margin with your full confidence can we not?

The "confidence" of which you speak is intended for your conclusions. That will be determined by the "validity" of your data to support your conclusions.

Ergo, what you should do FIRST is present your hypothesis, i.e. the conclusion you are looking to test. That way you can determine if the data you have will afford confidence in your conclusions.

What is your hypothesis? What conclusions are you projecting?

... THEN we can proceed without being confusing.

tmiddles wrote: A Venutian day is 127 Earth days long

It sort of make you wonder who made the claim that Venus' nighttime temperature is the same as its daytime, right? How could anyone know? There has never been any probe taking measurements in the same spot for 127 earth days, right?



.


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
26-02-2020 00:18
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
Into the Night wrote:
No arguments presented. RQAA.
Total cop out ITN. The hypocrisy and BS you have presented reeks. You have had no answer for it. Probably because it is the dishonesty it appears to be.

IBdaMann wrote:...alas, we don't know the margin of error.
The Venera chart shows a 95% margin of error. Do you allege they are incompetent? We have established you don't think they are lying.

Do you trust any data at all we could use as a basis for comparison? As in "With Venera we don't know but with __________ we do". Because seeing the margin of error in the chart works for me.

Did you need more details on the thermometers used to accept a +/- 200 degree margin? Really?

IBdaMann wrote:...what you should do FIRST is present your hypothesis, i.e. the conclusion you are looking to test. That way you can determine if the data you have will afford confidence in your conclusions.
My hyposthesis is that the ground level of Venus is more than 200 degrees hotter than the equilibrium temperature of the planet. I have stated that a number of times.

IBdaMann wrote:
It sort of make you wonder who made the claim that Venus' nighttime temperature is the same as its daytime, right?
Landers took measurements from the dark side as well. So that answers your question does it not? It wasn't a "claim" it was a direct measurement of the dark side temperature.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/venera7.html

"On December 15, the Venera-7 lander separated from its cruise stage and plunged into the planet's atmosphere on the dark side of the planet, "

This is real IBD. It's actually really incredible work that was done.

I'm glad you don't think they are liars but do you seriously allege they are incompetent?

Still unanswered by you or ITN:
tmiddles wrote:You and ITN would agree we can be confident in general statements about the bottom of the atmosphere on Venus as long as we aren't pretending we have a narrow margin of error right? Like you said "the extreme heat of Venus", confident in that statement.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
26-02-2020 03:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 23...17...1...25...25c...35a...4b...25c...25j...25c...29...25c...4a...4c...37a...35a...29...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
26-02-2020 03:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
Into the Night wrote:
No ...

ITN take your own advice already:
Into the Night wrote: You have been EVADING a sensible conversation by ...demanding data to be formatted in a particular way...Start having a discussion about the meaning of the data you have!

Can we say ANYTHING about the bottom of the atmosphere on Venus planet wide? Anything at all? Or do you both think that's impossible?
26-02-2020 03:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 22...25c...29...25c...29...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
26-02-2020 03:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
Come on ITN. Just answer. Why don't you want to debate?

This is Climate-Debate.com you know.
26-02-2020 03:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted 6...17...

No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer
26-02-2020 05:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7060)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...what you should do FIRST is present your hypothesis, i.e. the conclusion you are looking to test. That way you can determine if the data you have will afford confidence in your conclusions.
My hyposthesis is that the ground level of Venus is more than 200 degrees hotter than the equilibrium temperature of the planet. I have stated that a number of times.

With a margin of error of +/- 200 degrees, the conclusion supported is that the ground level of Venus could very well be the same temperature as the planet's average temperature.

Is this the conclusion you are shooting for? If not, then you might want to change something.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
It sort of make you wonder who made the claim that Venus' nighttime temperature is the same as its daytime, right?
Landers took measurements from the dark side as well. So that answers your question does it not? It wasn't a "claim" it was a direct measurement of the dark side temperature.

This response was so stupid that it HAD to be the result of you feeling obligated to kneejerk a quick response without giving it any thought.

First, you fell back to your asinine claim that there is only one "dark side temperature."

Second, the similarity of the temperatures was likely a coincidence of location.

Are earth's daytime and nighttime temperatures essentially the same? According to you they are.

10 February 2018:

Retalhuleu, Guatemala: 12:00 pm (72F) - 3:00 pm (68F)
Santiago, Chile: 12:00 am (72F) - 3:00 am (65F)

Chihuahua, Mexico: 12:00 pm (72F) - 3:00 pm (75F)
Barranquilla, Colombia: 12:00 am (77F) - 3:00 am (77F)



.


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
26-02-2020 06:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:My hyposthesis is that the ground level of Venus is more than 200 degrees hotter than the equilibrium temperature of the planet. I have stated that a number of times.

With a margin of error of +/- 200 degrees, the conclusion supported is that the ground level of Venus could very well be the same temperature as the planet's average temperature.
Ha ha, playing dumb. With a margin of error of +/- 200 degrees on the ground level temperature of Venus. That allows me to be VERY confident that the ground level is MORE THAN 200 degrees hotter than the equilibrium temperature.

But you know that. You're just dodging.

IBdaMann wrote:...your asinine claim that there is only one "dark side temperature."
Nope. As you know I don't believe that matter EVER has a single temperature and ALWAYS has a range of temperatures.

Venus has been measured many time, on the dark and light side, and the estimate is 462C at ground level. I have proposed to give THAT estimate a wide margin of +/- 200 degrees ONLY to set aside baseless quibbling about "can it be known" but here we are doing just that.

So IBD, what do YOU think YOU can be confident of in YOUR knowledge about the temperature of VENUS?

I don't own the planet. Show some initiative.

IBdaMann wrote:...the similarity of the temperatures was likely a coincidence of location.
The locations were somewhat random and the Venera program alone measured 8 locations with 8 landers. That doesn't include the Vega 1 and Vega 2 landers in 1984 or all of the orbiter and weather balloon missions that would certainly be able to determine inconsistencies in weather on Venus.

But again the pretense that this amazing work was somehow incompetent is simply your desperate attempt to avoid a debate where I will destroy your BS arguments.

IBdaMann wrote:
Are earth's daytime a....Guatemala...Colombia: 12:00 am (77F) ...
What? That made no sense.

Continually ignored question by ITN and IBD:
tmiddles wrote:You and ITN would agree we can be confident in general statements about the bottom of the atmosphere on Venus as long as we aren't pretending we have a narrow margin of error right? Like you said "the extreme heat of Venus", confident in that statement.

Can we say ANYTHING about the bottom of the atmosphere on Venus planet wide? Anything at all? Or do you both think that's impossible?

You said "the extreme heat of Venus" IBD, how do you know that's true?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
26-02-2020 06:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7060)
tmiddles wrote: Ha ha, playing dumb.

Fair enough. I won't take the time to write out posts addressing your questions.


Let me know when something changes.



.


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
26-02-2020 06:21
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
IBdaMann wrote:I won't take the time to write...
That was a nothing post. You in full capitulation mode now IBD? ITN has been for a long time.



You've been challenged to test your BS, and you run away.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 26-02-2020 06:28
26-02-2020 17:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7060)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:I won't take the time to write...
That was a nothing post. You in full capitulation mode now IBD? ITN has been for a long time.



You've been challenged to test your BS, and you run away.


Did you essentially ignore everything I wrote and declare victory?

Well then, allow me to congratulate you on a fine win. Well played! I take it this is a single-elimination tournament so I'm out I suppose.

Who is your next opponent on the bracket?


.


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
26-02-2020 17:45
James___
★★★★★
(2836)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:My hyposthesis is that the ground level of Venus is more than 200 degrees hotter than the equilibrium temperature of the planet. I have stated that a number of times.

With a margin of error of +/- 200 degrees, the conclusion supported is that the ground level of Venus could very well be the same temperature as the planet's average temperature.
Ha ha, playing dumb. With a margin of error of +/- 200 degrees on the ground level temperature of Venus. That allows me to be VERY confident that the ground level is MORE THAN 200 degrees hotter than the equilibrium temperature.

But you know that. You're just dodging.

IBdaMann wrote:...your asinine claim that there is only one "dark side temperature."
Nope. As you know I don't believe that matter EVER has a single temperature and ALWAYS has a range of temperatures.

Venus has been measured many time, on the dark and light side, and the estimate is 462C at ground level. I have proposed to give THAT estimate a wide margin of +/- 200 degrees ONLY to set aside baseless quibbling about "can it be known" but here we are doing just that.

So IBD, what do YOU think YOU can be confident of in YOUR knowledge about the temperature of VENUS?

I don't own the planet. Show some initiative.

IBdaMann wrote:...the similarity of the temperatures was likely a coincidence of location.
The locations were somewhat random and the Venera program alone measured 8 locations with 8 landers. That doesn't include the Vega 1 and Vega 2 landers in 1984 or all of the orbiter and weather balloon missions that would certainly be able to determine inconsistencies in weather on Venus.

But again the pretense that this amazing work was somehow incompetent is simply your desperate attempt to avoid a debate where I will destroy your BS arguments.

IBdaMann wrote:
Are earth's daytime a....Guatemala...Colombia: 12:00 am (77F) ...
What? That made no sense.

Continually ignored question by ITN and IBD:
tmiddles wrote:You and ITN would agree we can be confident in general statements about the bottom of the atmosphere on Venus as long as we aren't pretending we have a narrow margin of error right? Like you said "the extreme heat of Venus", confident in that statement.

Can we say ANYTHING about the bottom of the atmosphere on Venus planet wide? Anything at all? Or do you both think that's impossible?

You said "the extreme heat of Venus" IBD, how do you know that's true?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN



I posted something that gave a different reason for Venus being so hot. It was also accepted mainstream physics but was ignored. While Venus is hot, it might not be because of CO2. This gets into conservation of energy and with saying 15 angstroms and CO2, that really isn't discussed. You do need to account for atmospheric pressure on Venus and how that applies to PV = NkT.
Myself, I think this is when science becomes fun

This is meant to give you and IBDM something more in-depth to discuss. That's because I like you guys
26-02-2020 19:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7060)
James___ wrote:You do need to account for atmospheric pressure on Venus and how that applies to PV = NkT.
Myself, I think this is when science becomes fun

This is meant to give you and IBDM something more in-depth to discuss. That's because I like you guys

James__, I appreciate that immensely. If you wouldn't mind, would you take over for me on this discussion with tmiddles? I have already "lost" and you are well on track.

Thanks.


.


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
26-02-2020 21:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 25f...25c...25f...25c...31...17...25j...25c...35b2...29...25c...25c...35a...7...25c...TMSa7...29...29...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
Page 14 of 26<<<1213141516>>>





Join the debate Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why can't you say Venus is hotter than Mercury because Venus got CO2?12919-12-2019 17:10
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof509-10-2019 03:15
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus8826-09-2019 05:49
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus and Mercury418-09-2019 22:37
There is no evidence water vapor makes things hotter018-09-2019 21:34
▲ 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