Remember me
▼ Content

Zombie apocolypse



Page 5 of 6<<<3456>
15-09-2020 04:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
tmiddles wrote:
You can believe the world if Flat with the strategy employed by a lot of people on this issues. It goes like this:
1- Absurd premise is presented
2- A "VILLIAN" power enough to perpetrate a great hoax is added to that story
3- Evidence contradicts the premise
4- It's claimed the "VILLIAN", with their great power, manufactured the evidence.


1. Hillary was winning in the polls; the election must have been rigged.
2. Russia!
3. Wait, you mean nobody actually liked Hillary whatsoever?
4. Russia is only saying that to hide how much they prefer Trump strongarming Europe into not buying Russian gas.

tgoebbles, you have a winner there.


.


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
15-09-2020 04:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
IBdaMann wrote:... the election must have been rigged.
2. Russia!...

No one believes Russia is so powerful they can erase all evidence of their activities (they were caught after all).

So you that doesn't fit the model at all.

You'd have to believe Putin has god like powers and no one believes that.
15-09-2020 04:59
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:... the election must have been rigged.
2. Russia!...

No one believes Russia is so powerful they can erase all evidence of their activities (they were caught after all).

So you that doesn't fit the model at all.

You'd have to believe Putin has god like powers and no one believes that.



In the election with Hillary, Russia did what? Sleep with Trump while his wife was pregnant? The Russia investigation was a joke It only served to make Trump stronger. It never compared to having sex with a prostitute because his wife was pregnant.
But all Democrats cans say is Russia and not he's against immigration but is married to an immigrant. He wants to make America Great Again but none of his kids have 2 American parents.
And we need to build a wall because immigrants are bad.
Did he build a wall to keep the mother of his children out? He became POTUS because everyone loves his WIFE. Yep, Americans love foreign women. At the same time my mother married a foreign national because he was simply better than an American. Go Trump!!!!!!!
15-09-2020 05:41
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
Yep. I love Trump. He knows foreign nationals are better. He's POTUS, right? And all of his kids say the same thing.. Their mother wasn't from America. They deserved better because their father wanted them to be GREAT!!!!
As a life long Democrat who has never voted for a Republican, saying a foreign national spouse is better is what will get me to vote for Trump. GO MAGA!!! GO MAGA!!! Marry a foreign national!!!
15-09-2020 06:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:... the election must have been rigged.
2. Russia!...

No one believes Russia is so powerful they can erase all evidence of their activities (they were caught after all).

So you that doesn't fit the model at all.

You'd have to believe Putin has god like powers and no one believes that.


No, That would be YOU.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
15-09-2020 07:02
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2120)
tmiddles wrote:
You can believe the world if Flat with the strategy employed by a lot of people on this issues. It goes like this:
1- Absurd premise is presented...
Yup. Earth has a fever and the Arctic is melting and the oceans will rise.
2- A "VILLIAN" power enough to perpetrate a great hoax is added to that story
Yup. Hello, Al Gore.
3- Evidence contradicts the premise
No rising seas and record Arctic ice coverage in 2014.
4- It's claimed the "VILLIAN", with their great power, manufactured the evidence.
Yup. There is no useful global temperature data. There are only estimates.
Therefore any global warming temperature "data" is purely manufactured.



Does this mean you believe the world is flat?


ANY mask is better than no mask, even if you have to resort to putting a tightly fit plastic bag over your head-COVIDEXPERTGFM

I don't have a GoFundMe, but I do have a PO Box (#666)-COVIDEXPERTGFM
15-09-2020 07:51
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
GasGuzzler wrote:...Al Gore...."data" is purely manufactured.

This is where it get's sort of amazing. You, GasGuzzler, believe that Al Gore has so much power he's able to "manufacture" data and get away with it?

Now keep in mind that you don't only claim that Earth data was "manufactured" but that data on Venus was as well.

Not to mention Denver.

So to sum up:
There is no data that was not manufactured which might contradict your conspiracy theory that AGW is not occurring.

That about right?
15-09-2020 17:23
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2120)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:...Al Gore...."data" is purely manufactured.

This is where it get's sort of amazing. You, GasGuzzler, believe that Al Gore has so much power he's able to "manufacture" data and get away with it?

Now keep in mind that you don't only claim that Earth data was "manufactured" but that data on Venus was as well.

Not to mention Denver.

So to sum up:
There is no data that was not manufactured which might contradict your conspiracy theory that AGW is not occurring.

That about right?

Still assigning positions I see.
Hey, what is the temperature of Denver? I don't need the whole year or even the last decade, just the temperature of Denver today.
...and don't be a dumbass and give me a temperature AT Denver....because only a gullible dumbass would believe that is the temperature OF Denver.


ANY mask is better than no mask, even if you have to resort to putting a tightly fit plastic bag over your head-COVIDEXPERTGFM

I don't have a GoFundMe, but I do have a PO Box (#666)-COVIDEXPERTGFM
15-09-2020 19:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:...Al Gore...."data" is purely manufactured.

This is where it get's sort of amazing. You, GasGuzzler, believe that Al Gore has so much power he's able to "manufacture" data and get away with it?

What power does one need to make up random numbers and call it data? You're a moron.
tmiddles wrote:
Now keep in mind that you don't only claim that Earth data was "manufactured" but that data on Venus was as well.

Not to mention Denver.
There is no data. Random numbers are not data.
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
So to sum up:
There is no data that was not manufactured which might contradict your conspiracy theory that AGW is not occurring.

That about right?

There is no data.

No argument presented. Argument from randU fallacy. Spam.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
02-11-2020 05:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...you...claim that Earth data was "manufactured" ...
...what is the temperature of Denver?...

When we use English in the modern era to describe the temperature of a geographical location we mean the temperature in the air roughly 2 meters above the ground. There never has been and there never will be any collection of molecules with a perfectly uniform distribution of thermal energy. So the temperature of a location is always a range.

Denver weather:
https://weather.com/weather/tenday/l/Denver+CO

So did you have a point?

"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
02-11-2020 14:34
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2120)
tmiddles wrote:
So the temperature of a location is always a range.

Yes, I agree with you!!

So, with said range, which you did not say, how can one measure the temperature of the Earth with any accuracy? We are told about global temperature measurements with accuracies to a tenth of a degree....no range or margin of error. I call bullshit.


ANY mask is better than no mask, even if you have to resort to putting a tightly fit plastic bag over your head-COVIDEXPERTGFM

I don't have a GoFundMe, but I do have a PO Box (#666)-COVIDEXPERTGFM
02-11-2020 22:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...you...claim that Earth data was "manufactured" ...
...what is the temperature of Denver?...

When we use English in the modern era to describe the temperature of a geographical location we mean the temperature in the air roughly 2 meters above the ground. There never has been and there never will be any collection of molecules with a perfectly uniform distribution of thermal energy. So the temperature of a location is always a range.

Denver weather:
https://weather.com/weather/tenday/l/Denver+CO

So did you have a point?


The temperature of Denver is unknown. The temperature at the Denver weather stations (located at Denver airport) is what is reported. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. The temperature of the air 2 meters above the surface is unknown.

Temperature is not a range. It's a scalar value.

Denial of mathematics. No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
03-11-2020 21:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
tmiddles wrote:When we use English in the modern era to describe the temperature of a geographical location we mean the temperature in the air roughly 2 meters above the ground.

Of course, I remember that definition from English composition class.

Science is determined by English teachers.

tmiddles wrote:There never has been and there never will be any collection of molecules with a perfectly uniform distribution of thermal energy.

... because you have checked them all ... and are omniscient about all future "collections" of molecules and their thermal energy distributions.

tmiddles wrote: So the temperature of a location is always a range.

This still doesn't make any sense. You do everything possible to explain how a temperature of a large volume is simply not known and then disagree vehemently when others point out that the temperature of large volumes is not known ... and you point to your undefined term "range" that means "the temperature is not known."

You are a moron.

Did you waste your vote yet?


tmiddles wrote:"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


Aaaah, the magical signature that has inspired so much. I don't believe I have properly thanked you.

Thank you.


.


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
03-11-2020 23:46
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2107)
I'm still waiting for him to answer the unanswered questions that this board has for him... Thankfully, I am not holding my breath...
04-11-2020 21:21
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
GasGuzzler wrote:...how can one measure the temperature of the Earth with any accuracy? We are told about global temperature measurements with accuracies to a tenth of a degree....no range or margin of error. I call bullshit.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are simply ignorant of the fact that there is always a margin of error in a determination like that. I've actually dug up and provided it here several times:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/it-is-not-possible-to-measure-the-temperature-of-the-earth-d6-e3190-s80.php
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:...I could not conclude the average temperature of the room I was in....
...I'm honestly on the fence as to how reliable today's measurements are to within the +/- 0.09 degree margin claimed.
See here:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201313/supplemental/page-1
"the 2013 temperature anomaly was reported as "0.62°C above the 20th century average, ±0.09°C....it is 95% likely that the value falls within this range. "...

I agree it's a disservice that the information isn't included in the media.

But you said "with any accuracy" similar to IBD constantly alluding too, but never defining a "usable" margin, and ITN simply pretending margins of error don't exist.

So do you actually think there is an infinite margin of error on determining the ground level temperature of a planet? That we have "no clue"?

As I said I'm skeptical of ±0.09°C on the true mean temp. I'm not so skeptical on being able to determine a change in the mean temp with that accuracy.

Determining to with ±10.0°C seems reliable doesn't it?

The statistics are well beyond my ability but I would like to understand them better.

"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 04-11-2020 21:30
04-11-2020 22:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:...how can one measure the temperature of the Earth with any accuracy? We are told about global temperature measurements with accuracies to a tenth of a degree....no range or margin of error. I call bullshit.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are simply ignorant of the fact that there is always a margin of error in a determination like that. I've actually dug up and provided it here several times:
...deleted circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism)...
You do not 'dig up' a margin of error. It is a calculated value from the possible variance. You have provided nothing but random numbers and false authorities.
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:...I could not conclude the average temperature of the room I was in....
...I'm honestly on the fence as to how reliable today's measurements are to within the +/- 0.09 degree margin claimed.
See here:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201313/supplemental/page-1
"the 2013 temperature anomaly was reported as "0.62°C above the 20th century average, ±0.09°C....it is 95% likely that the value falls within this range. "...

I agree it's a disservice that the information isn't included in the media.
No, you don't. You are quoting the media.
tmiddles wrote:
But you said "with any accuracy" similar to IBD constantly alluding too, but never defining a "usable" margin, and ITN simply pretending margins of error don't exist.
Lie. It does exist. You ignore it and make up a random number as 'margin of error'.
tmiddles wrote:
So do you actually think there is an infinite margin of error on determining the ground level temperature of a planet? That we have "no clue"?
RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
As I said I'm skeptical of ±0.09°C on the true mean temp. I'm not so skeptical on being able to determine a change in the mean temp with that accuracy.

Determining to with ±10.0°C seems reliable doesn't it?
No.
tmiddles wrote:
The statistics are well beyond my ability but I would like to understand them better.

RQAA.

Denial of mathematics. RQAA. False authorities.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
05-11-2020 00:51
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
If there is no warming is that problem solved.It all seems to revolve around warming
05-11-2020 04:09
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
duncan61 wrote:
If there is no warming is that problem solved.It all seems to revolve around warming


I've wondered if we would be taking about this if it was slowing a natural cooling. It could still pose the same problem but to the planet in the distant future.

In any case we should do our best to figure it out.
05-11-2020 05:02
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2107)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
If there is no warming is that problem solved.It all seems to revolve around warming


I've wondered if we would be taking about this if it was slowing a natural cooling. It could still pose the same problem but to the planet in the distant future.

In any case we should do our best to figure it out.

But isn't it part of "what we know"??
05-11-2020 06:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
tmiddles wrote:I've wondered if we would be taking about this if it was slowing a natural cooling.

You wouldn't be talking about it if you were talking physics. Abandoning science is the driver for discussing Global Warming.

tmiddles wrote: It could still pose the same problem but to the planet in the distant future.

There's no problem ... unless you abandon science.

tmiddles wrote:In any case we should do our best to figure it out.

That would require invoking science ... which makes the problem vanish.


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
05-11-2020 07:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
If there is no warming is that problem solved.It all seems to revolve around warming


I've wondered if we would be taking about this if it was slowing a natural cooling. It could still pose the same problem but to the planet in the distant future.

In any case we should do our best to figure it out.


Figure what out?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
05-11-2020 12:37
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
I am now 100% certain the only manmade thing is the theory of warming and CO2 is bad.The planet is in great shape and going to stay that way.Scaring small children in to believing the planet is going to burn up is someone elses fault.I did not do it.Shame on you Warmazombies
05-11-2020 18:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
...The planet is in great shape and going to stay that way....
Shouldn't that be an area of constant research and vigilance? Shouldn't we be constantly challenging and proving that the environmental conditions we depend on are going to continue to be reliable?

IF a false case has been made where is the counter argument?


Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Answer the questions put to you.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
05-11-2020 19:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
duncan61 wrote:
...The planet is in great shape and going to stay that way....
Shouldn't that be an area of constant research and vigilance? Shouldn't we be constantly challenging and proving that the environmental conditions we depend on are going to continue to be reliable?

IF a false case has been made where is the counter argument?

"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
05-11-2020 20:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
tmiddles wrote:But you said "with any accuracy" similar to IBD constantly alluding too, but never defining a "usable" margin,

You are lying once again, specifically to cover for your refusal to walk down the path of proving you are incorrect. I'm sure this does not come as any surprise to anyone.

Usability is determined by the application and must be determined prior to commencement. The data collection plan will be based on that determination. This is by no means the first time I have said this. In fact, during May of this year you and I had a thorough discussion on this point which makes your lying all the more obvious and brazen. On 21 May 2020 I wrote to you specifically:

IBdaMann wrote:What I will spell out for you one final time is that margin of error is initially a target that must be specified at the beginning of a data collection effort which determines the methodology for the measurement ... and then becomes a requirement at the end for any conclusions to be considered "valid." So the next time you want to discuss something with data as a basis (instead of your omniscience) you must LEAD with your intended target margin of error so that your eventual conclusions can be dismissed up front without wasting anyone's time if your target margin of error isn't going to support your argument. Do you see how that works? If you are going to make an argument then you bear the full responsibility of supporting that argument, and if the support for that argument involves data then part of your argument must be your target margin of error. The tighter your target margin, the more data you are going to need. The looser your target margin, the less you are going to be able to support and the less specific will be your conclusions.

Nonetheless, on 25 May 2020 I wrote the following to you:

IBdaMann wrote:So, when someone wants to know a temperature of a volume, the first thing is to establish the margin of error that he wants. It's a desire thing. It's what is wanted. It is determined up front.

Why is this important?

It determines whether you can just take one thermometer and be satisfied with the single answer you get ... or whether you need to gather many data points, and where you need to gather them.

You skip the most important part every time.

...

Whatever you do, your target margin of error determines your data collection method.

Oh, and if you ever present anyone a temperature value ... he has every right to ask for your data ... your raw data, in fact ... so as to scrutinize whether your value aligns with his margin of error.

Then two days later I explained to you the following:

IBdaMann wrote:The process needs to be as follows:

1) You decide what area or volume you wish to measure.
2) You establish the minimum acceptable margin of error.
3) Based on your target margin of error you develop your data collection plan.
4) From your data collection plan you can determine in advance what your actual margin of error will be, but you can also wait and compute it after you have gathered your data, just as you would if all you were to receive is raw data from someone else. If the actual margin of error falls below your required target, you must either reaccomplish your data collection plan or accept the previously "unacceptable" margin of error.
* Without the raw data you cannot do anything; you are dead in the water.

On 17 June 2020 I explained all of this to DRKTS:

IBdaMann wrote:The person seeking the value determines the acceptable margin of error. I don't define it. You don't define it. The person seeking the temperature makes that determination. However, the entire reason for seeking say, a temperature value, exists because of some need for that information, i.e. the purpose. The purpose is what demands a specific margin of error and the person desiring a value establishes the required margin of error as the target ... which then determines requirements for the collection method from which a data collection plan is devised, i.e. the data collection plan is devised such that the resulting value conforms to the required margin of error.

In the case of the earth, there are no purposes that can benefit from an earth's temperature at the very large margin of error to which humanity is limited.

...

I'm not interested in what anyone else claims is the margin of error. Nobody is. Everyone cares only about the margin of error supported by the data so as to gauge the conclusions garnered thereof. Ergo, everyone is interested in the raw data from which the true margin of error can be derived by anyone and the claimed margin of error can be verified.

The next day I elaborated:

IBdaMann wrote:Well, it's the purpose that determines the requirement in the first place. The analysis merely determines whether the data meet that requirement. If the analysis determines that the margin of error meets the requirement THEN the margin of error is determined to be usable for that purpose. If not then new data must be collected and possibly the data collection plan needs to be reworked.

20 June 2020 is when you made it clear that you were resolved to EVADE being walked through the math because you could not allow your egregious errors and doublespeak to be openly revealed:

IBdaMann wrote:You are a liar. You are the one ducking and avoiding and EVADING my questions. You do that whenever you feel your WACKY religious dogma being threatened.

...

We also both know that you are feeling your dogma being severely threatened by my offer to walk you through the math ... which is why you know I've gone through it ... and why you will do everything humanly possible to get out going through the math and being faced with the incontrovertible truth that nobody can know the earth's average global temperature to any usable accuracy ... and that you aren't actually omniscient.

I also included some additional clarification:

IBdaMann wrote: Yes, everyone declares his/her own target, determined by some original requirement for doing the measuring in the first place.

On 23 June 2020 I asked you one more time to select a target usability (i.e. there is no "wrong" answer; you get to arbitrarily choose what it is) so we could close out this point and you EVADED.

IBdaMann wrote:You are going to STFU and pick an application of your choice that requires the earth's temperature to some accuracy ... and I'm going to walk you through the math, which is rather easy, as to how you can devise a data collection plan that meets the target you set to meet the requirements.

If you're not going to do that then you can always just tip your king and admit that you are WRONG! again and we can close this out.

...

I'm trying to directly answer your question by walking you through the math ... that is the ONLY way to answer your question ... but you are balking because of the threat level you perceive to your WACKY faith (which you should be ditching in the first place).

Proceed with picking an application that requires the earth's temperature to some accuracy, any you want, so I can proceed with explaining what you want to know.

Please get to it.

This will be made crystal clear when we walk through our example. In fact I somewhat answered your question above but let's get going with our walk-through so everything will be amazingly clear.

Of course you only had one job, i.e. to pick an application requiring the earth's average global temperature and to arbitrarily pick its target margin of error (which in turn defines usability) but you of course EVADED.

Additionally, it was the central point in my conversation with DRKTS on 28 June 2020:

IBdaMann wrote:So, assuming that you have actually seen Climate data being collected, what is the target margin of error for measuring the Climate? How was the data collection plan formulated?

On 14 August I reiterated to gfm7175:

IBdaMann wrote:More importantly, no target margin of error was determined. Researchers establish a target margin of error as the very first order of business; that is determined by the requirements of the project, i.e. the reason for the measuring in the first place. If the project's success hinges on knowing the earth's temperature to within four degrees Celsius then their target margin of error is +/-4C. This, in turn, determines the collection plan.

Has DRATS made any mention of the collection plan and subsequently the target margin of error driving the collection methodology?


Let's just take a moment and relish your insistence that I merely allude to but never define "usable margin." Let me bask in the scintillating light of your total honesty.






.
Attached image:

05-11-2020 20:48
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
IBdaMann wrote:
Usability is determined by the application ...


Great so what is it according to you for the ground level mean temperature of Earth? What is "useable"?

You had a very long post without actually getting to it.

What does it need to be and what is it now?

"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[/quote]
05-11-2020 20:56
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3400)
My whole problem with all this eco-terrorism, is simply silly to believe we actually have the capacity to fight the huge-ass planet, and could actually have any effect at all. Consider this covid virus crap. We tried hiding in the basement. We wore masks. We social distance. Soon, we will get stabbed in the arm, injected with the holy-vaccine. They better bring help, I don't intend to be peaceful about. Still, thousands of people die everyday. Nothing new, about 2.4 million Americans die every year. Some get a little help, some help themselves... We have no control over a cold virus. We have no control over life and death. We only occupy just a small portion, of just the surface of this planet. Basically, we take, what ever nature throws at us, and deal with it, the best we can. We survive, by adapting to the conditions, not by trying to change nature.

If it's going to get scorching hot on the surface, we've got plenty of ocean, and we can go underground. Or just build a better air conditioner. Wonder if we could re-purpose all those basically useless windmills, and turn them into fans.
05-11-2020 21:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
tmiddles wrote: Great so what is it according to you for the ground level mean temperature of Earth? What is "useable"?

Your question makes it clear that you didn't read for comprehension.

The question is for you to answer. What is the required accuracy for your application?

tmiddles wrote:You had a very long post without actually getting to it.

You didn't read it. Answer the question.


.


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
05-11-2020 21:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
IBdaMann wrote:...your application? ....


I don't have an application. NASA does. The information, from them, is in my earlier post.

So no answer from you then?

You can really say something is all wrong but you can't even identify what that something is? Interesting.

Another empty post from IBD.

"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
06-11-2020 19:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...your application? ....

I don't have an application.

Invent one as a thought exercise so we can walk through the math. Pick an application and select a maximum margin of error which establishes whether results will be usable or not. You can use the NASA application or any one you wish, real or fictitious.

Stop EVADING.


.


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
06-11-2020 21:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Usability is determined by the application ...


Great so what is it according to you for the ground level mean temperature of Earth? What is "useable"?

You had a very long post without actually getting to it.

What does it need to be and what is it now?


It is not possible to measure the temperature of the surface of Earth.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
07-11-2020 03:13
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
NASA do not tell the truth.Type Hudson bay polar bears in to a search engine and you will get NASA declaring there is no ice and all the polar bears are going to die,directly below is a link to Canadian ice reports that states that the East coast of Hudson bay is freezing over and the polar bears are out hunting.The complete opposite.I am going with the people who are looking at it not some ****wit organisation that takes pictures from space and has a major propaganda agenda
07-11-2020 11:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
duncan61 wrote:
NASA do not tell the truth...
Well that makes it easy to rest comforatably in your own conclusions.

If information contradicts you? Well it's bogus right? Part of the GRAND CONSPIRACY

On that note:
IBdaMann wrote:]
Invent one....

Follow along IBD:
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:...I could not conclude the average temperature of the room I was in....
...I'm honestly on the fence as to how reliable today's measurements are to within the +/- 0.09 degree margin claimed.
See here:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201313/supplemental/page-1
"the 2013 temperature anomaly was reported as "0.62°C above the 20th century average, ±0.09°C....it is 95% likely that the value falls within this range. "...

Are you saying the above information from the noaa is bogus?
And your entirely personal/private/manufactured rules for how to go about measuring the world around us are of no interest to me.
If you have an argument as to why the NOAA information is false or unreliable fire 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[/quote]
07-11-2020 12:21
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
NASA NOAA and IPCC all require funding from the public purse so will have to say there is a problem to survive.I can not so easily dismiss my own personal findings.The PH of the ocean at Trigg beach is 8.4 because I took a sample and tested it.I have sent the picture to IBDM to post as I am having trouble doing it.I have seen recent photos of the great barrier reef where the bleaching occured and it has all grown back.Am I supposed to claim it is still bleached when it is not.Some organisations claim polar bears are in danger yet people are out observing healthy females with cubs all over the place.Why must you maintain there is a problem when there is not.The planet has never been greener this century.The Sahara is shrinking as there is more rainfall in central Africa and some claim this is a problem you puny humans are f%^$ed
07-11-2020 12:32
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
duncan61 wrote:...The PH of the ocean at Trigg beach is 8.4 ...


Ocean PH changes due to AGW are, in theory, really small.

https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification

In 200 years..."the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units"

Do they claim it's not 8.4 where you are?

But again that's 0.1 in 200 years so don't hold your breath waiting to confirm it's not changing!
07-11-2020 13:51
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
Does this mean the acidification of the sea is not bleaching the coral or dissolving seashells
07-11-2020 14:25
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
I went to the NOAA Lînk and that's exactly the rubbish they spread.
07-11-2020 20:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
NASA do not tell the truth...
Well that makes it easy to rest comforatably in your own conclusions.

If information contradicts you? Well it's bogus right? Part of the GRAND CONSPIRACY

It is bogus. It is part of the grand conspiracy of the Democrats. The temperature of the Earth is unknown and it cannot be measured.
tmiddles wrote:
On that note:
IBdaMann wrote:]
Invent one....

Follow along IBD:
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:...I could not conclude the average temperature of the room I was in....
...I'm honestly on the fence as to how reliable today's measurements are to within the +/- 0.09 degree margin claimed.
See here:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201313/supplemental/page-1
"the 2013 temperature anomaly was reported as "0.62°C above the 20th century average, ±0.09°C....it is 95% likely that the value falls within this range. "...

Are you saying the above information from the noaa is bogus?

Yes. That is what he is saying. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
And your entirely personal/private/manufactured rules for how to go about measuring the world around us are of no interest to me.

Not his personal rules. Denial of mathematics. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
If you have an argument as to why the NOAA information is false or unreliable fire away.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. The information is false AND unreliable because it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. This 'data' is random numbers.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
07-11-2020 20:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:...The PH of the ocean at Trigg beach is 8.4 ...


Ocean PH changes due to AGW are, in theory, really small.
Argument from randU fallacy. Define 'global warming'. Denial of acid-base chemistry.
tmiddles wrote:
https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification

False authority fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans.
tmiddles wrote:
In 200 years..."the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units"

Random numbers. Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans.
tmiddles wrote:
Do they claim it's not 8.4 where you are?

The pH of the oceans is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
But again that's 0.1 in 200 years so don't hold your breath waiting to confirm it's not changing!

Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers and using them as 'data'. The pH of the oceans is unknown.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 07-11-2020 20:40
07-11-2020 20:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
duncan61 wrote:
Does this mean the acidification of the sea is not bleaching the coral or dissolving seashells


It is not possible to acidify the sea. The oceans are alkaline. You can't acidify an alkaline.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Page 5 of 6<<<3456>





Join the debate Zombie apocolypse:

Remember me

▲ 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