Zombie apocolypse

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.

IBdaMann wrote:... the election must have been rigged.
2. Russia!...

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.

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.

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.

GasGuzzler wrote:...Al Gore...."data" is purely manufactured.

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?

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?

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?

GasGuzzler wrote:

tmiddles wrote:...you...claim that Earth data was "manufactured" ...

...what is the temperature of Denver?...

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

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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. "...

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)...

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. "...

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.

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"?

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?

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

duncan61 wrote:
If there is no warming is that problem solved.It all seems to revolve around warming

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.

tmiddles wrote:I've wondered if we would be taking about this if it was slowing a natural cooling.

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

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

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.

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?

duncan61 wrote:
...The planet is in great shape and going to stay that way....

tmiddles wrote:But you said "with any accuracy" similar to IBD constantly alluding too, but never defining a "usable" margin,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

IBdaMann wrote:
Usability is determined by the application ...

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

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

IBdaMann wrote:...your application? ....

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...your application? ....

I don't have an application.

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?

duncan61 wrote:
NASA do not tell the truth...

IBdaMann wrote:]
Invent one....

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. "...

duncan61 wrote:...The PH of the ocean at Trigg beach is 8.4 ...

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

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?

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.

tmiddles wrote:
If you have an argument as to why the NOAA information is false or unreliable fire away.

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.

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

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

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

tmiddles wrote:
But again that's 0.1 in 200 years so don't hold your breath waiting to confirm it's not changing!

duncan61 wrote:
Does this mean the acidification of the sea is not bleaching the coral or dissolving seashells