Climate Change - Yet another UN report

[IBDaMann]

And Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't apply to the earth since we are NOT a blackbody radiator only.

You just announced to the world that you don't understand Stefan-Boltzmann.

We have greenhouse gases in our atmosphere which cause our surface temperature to be about 30degC higher than it would be on average based solely on the S-B calculation.

You really are a scientifically illiterate moron.

To the rest of JPP who observed me give you the benefit of the doubt, I am truly embarrassed. I thought you might actually have some science background, but you really do simply regurgitate what you are told to believe.

Oh, and "statistical mathematics"? I'd be willing to bet most of my paycheck that he couldn't do statistics on a dataset let alone actually understand time-series analyses.

You say this like you firmly believe that it means something. I know how to perform all sorts of analyses, but I fully admit to hating number crunching as much as the next guy. The smart ones are those who get analytics software and let it quickly provide the prominent insights ... and then spend the rest of their day doing something they enjoy.

IntoTheNight just likes to think he sounds smart.

He likes money. He doesn't make it by being stupid or by relying on Wikipedia to sound smart.

All you need to do is ask him what he means by these things and you'll see he hasn't a clue.

That's not what I see. I see that you throw a temper tantrum and become desperate to change the subject when you are asked to provide examples of what you claim.

[Into the Night]

You just announced to the world that you don't understand Stefan-Boltzmann.


You really are a scientifically illiterate moron.

To the rest of JPP who observed me give you the benefit of the doubt, I am truly embarrassed. I thought you might actually have some science background, but you really do simply regurgitate what you are told to believe.


You say this like you firmly believe that it means something. I know how to perform all sorts of analyses, but I fully admit to hating number crunching as much as the next guy. The smart ones are those who get analytics software and let it quickly provide the prominent insights ... and then spend the rest of their day doing something they enjoy.


He likes money. He doesn't make it by being stupid or by relying on Wikipedia to sound smart.


That's not what I see. I see that you throw a temper tantrum and become desperate to change the subject when you are asked to provide examples of what you claim.

You gave him more than a fair chance. Something you usually accuse me of!

I learned long ago that he's just a poser. He claims to be a chemist and a geologist, then turns right around and states that quantum mechanics is the heart of the chemistry and is now denying physics and mathematics again here in this thread.

[Saint Guinefort]

You just announced to the world that you don't understand Stefan-Boltzmann.

Then tell me where I'm wrong.

He likes money. He doesn't make it by being stupid or by relying on Wikipedia to sound smart.

Is that what you do?

That's not what I see. I see that you throw a temper tantrum and become desperate to change the subject when you are asked to provide examples of what you claim.

LOL. You mean nothing to me, so I don't really much care what you think about me.

[Saint Guinefort]

You gave him more than a fair chance. Something you usually accuse me of!

I learned long ago that he's just a poser. He claims to be a chemist and a geologist, then turns right around and states that quantum mechanics is the heart of the chemistry and is now denying physics and mathematics again here in this thread.

You would do well to NOT take your lead from Cypress. He doesn't know much more chemistry and geology than YOU do. Just a pro-tip

[Into the Night]

Then tell me where I'm wrong.

I already did. RQAA.

Is that what you do?

I own and operate a business that makes sensors for industrial, medical, aerospace, and entertainment use. Yes...I like money. I know how to make it too. I don't need Wikipedia to sound smart like you do.
Oh...I ship product all over the world. That makes me an 'evil international corporation' and an 'evil capitalist'.

LOL. You mean nothing to me, so I don't really much care what you think about me.

Just another way of making an argument of the Stone fallacy and a bulverism fallacy.
Of course, you are lying. You care quite a lot about IBdaMann. That's why you responded to him.

[Into the Night]

You would do well to NOT take your lead from Cypress. He doesn't know much more chemistry and geology than YOU do. Just a pro-tip

You are not a pro. You can't give out 'pro' tips. I am not taking my lead from Cypress. The laws of thermodynamics speak for themselves. You just ignore them. The Stefan-Boltzmann law speaks for itself. You just ignore it.
Statistical mathematics speaks for itself. You just ignore it.

[T. A. Gardner]

My problem with the graphs presented is this:

Yes, you can measure the temperature of the planet at specific points and with enough data points estimate (note that) the temperature of the planet. The IPCC and other Gorebal Warming acolytes then estimate the CO2 (and maybe--MAYBE--) other potential greenhouse gasses. They then estimate the amount of anthropogenic Gorebal Warming from these estimates.

That is, they are making estimates, from which they derive other estimates. This is a huge no-no in statistics. It is akin to a car manufacturer estimating they will need to make 300,000 cars in the next year based on previous sales. From this, they estimate they need between 1,080,000 and 1,320,000 tires for these cars. This is a bullshit estimate. They need 1,200,000 tires, or 4 per car. They don't have to estimate that. They know it.

Every time you estimate from a previous estimate something you increasingly introduce errors into the system. With climate change, the people pushing this the hardest are ones that are estimating effects from estimates of estimates that were estimated. Their science is utter and complete bullshit.

[IBDaMann]

You gave him more than a fair chance. Something you usually accuse me of!

Yes I accuse you of that, nowhere nearly as often as I should because you're a softie who has to give everyone about twenty more chances than they deserve, and I just find that it gets old after, say, about the first time ... so what was I thinking?

For a moment I thought it was a joke. I thought that he had perused previous discussions on Climate-Debate and was just going down the list of the stereotype moron responses just to get a rise out of me, and then say "SURPRISE! I was just joking!"

... but no ... he's a stereotype moron. He actually used the "the earth is 30C warmer than it otherwise should be" line, it HAD to be a joke, right? Who is THAT stupid?

Well, suffice to say that I was disappointed in both me and him.

[IBDaMann]

My problem with the graphs presented is this:

Yes, you can measure the temperature of the planet at specific points and with enough data points estimate (note that) the temperature of the planet. .

I'm afraid I have to stop you right there. You are doing what all the warmizombies do, i.e. totally ignore margin of error, like there is no such thing.

The correct answer is that humanity does not yet possess the ability to estimate the Earth's average global temperature to within any usable margin of error.

The invariable response from those who have no grasp of instrumentation tolerances or of statistical math is a knee-jerk "of course it can be done" or even "NASA does it all the time with SATELLITES!" or even "You can Google it on Wikipedia. RELIABLE measurements of Earth's average global temperature have been taken since the moment the Communist Manifesto was published and WHAT WE KNOW is that Earth's average global temperature is increasing by 0.2C annually. Look it up" ... and the predictably scriptable exchange will ensue, and will end only after many technical explanations are given.

[T. A. Gardner]

I'm afraid I have to stop you right there. You are doing what all the warmizombies do, i.e. totally ignore margin of error, like there is no such thing.

The correct answer is that humanity does not yet possess the ability to estimate the Earth's average global temperature to within any usable margin of error.

The invariable response from those who have no grasp of instrumentation tolerances or of statistical math is a knee-jerk "of course it can be done" or even "NASA does it all the time with SATELLITES!" or even "You can Google it on Wikipedia. RELIABLE measurements of Earth's average global temperature have been taken since the moment the Communist Manifesto was published and WHAT WE KNOW is that Earth's average global temperature is increasing by 0.2C annually. Look it up" ... and the predictably scriptable exchange will ensue, and will end only after many technical explanations are given.

You totally missed my point. I pointed out that estimating things from other estimates induces increasing levels of error into the outcome to the point where the whole exercise is meaningless. It gets worse when those making such estimates have a predetermined outcome in mind.

I would think that today we probably can get enough data points of the Earth's temperature and estimate a global temperature from that data. What we cannot do is attribute changes to some single cause.

Look at the hole in the ozone layer. That was supposed to be gone by now if we eliminated CFC's. We did that. Now we find that the original hole is still there, still about the same size, and worse, have found larger holes in it we previously didn't know existed. This points out the absurdity of the "science" on temperature change. The scientists simply don't know enough to make accurate predications.

[Lightbringer]

You totally missed my point. I pointed out that estimating things from other estimates induces increasing levels of error into the outcome to the point where the whole exercise is meaningless. It gets worse when those making such estimates have a predetermined outcome in mind.

I would think that today we probably can get enough data points of the Earth's temperature and estimate a global temperature from that data. What we cannot do is attribute changes to some single cause.

Look at the hole in the ozone layer. That was supposed to be gone by now if we eliminated CFC's. We did that. Now we find that the original hole is still there, still about the same size, and worse, have found larger holes in it we previously didn't know existed. This points out the absurdity of the "science" on temperature change. The scientists simply don't know enough to make accurate predications.

Yep.

[Into the Night]

My problem with the graphs presented is this:

Yes, you can measure the temperature of the planet at specific points

False equivalence fallacy. A point on the surface of Earth is not the entire Earth.

and with enough data points estimate (note that) the temperature of the planet.

Nope. This causes math errors and denies statistical math. Any guess of the temperature of Earth is simply that...a guess. This is a random number of type randU.

The IPCC and other Gorebal Warming acolytes then estimate the CO2 (and maybe--MAYBE--) other potential greenhouse gasses.

This simply ignores the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

They then estimate the amount of anthropogenic Gorebal Warming from these estimates.

Which is simply guessing using a guess as a base rate, and applying a magickal property to a gas by ignoring physics. This is the heart of the Church of Global Warming.

That is, they are making estimates, from which they derive other estimates. This is a huge no-no in statistics.

Statistical math has nothing to do with any of this.
Guessing is not part of statistical math.

Any statistical analysis requires the use of unbiased raw data. For temperature data applied across the globe, there are two biasing factors that must be eliminated from the method of collecting the raw data (you cannot use cooked data):
1) Location grouping. 100 thermometers in a city tell you nothing about anywhere outside the city or in any other city. To blindly include all them in raw data is biasing the data toward those 100 thermometers located in one small area. To eliminate this factor, thermometers MUST be uniformly spaced. Currently, they aren't. By this factor alone, there is no unbiased raw data to conduct a statistical analysis for. To try to conduct an analysis on such data is failing to select the data by randN.

2) Time. Since the atmosphere is constantly in motion, storms and weather fronts are in motion, the Sun is constantly warming different parts of the Earth as the Earth turns, thermometer measurements taken at different times or by different authorities are simply trying to measure a moving target, literally. This introduces bias based on the sequence of reading which thermometers and when. The effect of time MUST be eliminated. Thermometers MUST be read at the same time and by the same authority, and those measurements must be made at multiple times per day due to the moving nature of what you are trying to measure. Currently, thermometers are NOT read at the same time by the same authority. Attempting a statistical analysis on such biased data again fails to select the data by randN.

Statistical math requires the use of raw data. You cannot use cooked data. Cooking data is based on a 'previous run' of a statistical analysis, which hasn't occurred. Further, a statistical analysis on the SAME DATA can result in a different summary. Looping such output around to input only causes bias by randU.

Every statistical analysis requires a margin of error to accompany the average in the summary. To determine this value, one must consider the possible range of data (not the data itself). For temperature variance per mile, a difference of 20 deg F per mile is not unusual. Such differences are commonly seen across storm fronts, asphalt vs grass or trees vs bodies of water, compression wave effects on the lee side of mountains and mountain ranges, etc.

Assuming that 20,000 thermometers (the current number NASA claims to use), are read at the same time by the same authority (they aren't) and uniformly spaced (they aren't). These readings will be spread over a surface area of 197 million square miles (ignoring anything underground or in the atmosphere which is part of Earth). Effectively then, this is ONE thermometer for every 9850 square miles, or an area about the size of Maryland.

Since temperature can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile, the margin of error is higher than the highest and lowest temperatures ever measured on Earth, so those become the limiting fences. Effectively, then, statistical math says any claim of a temperature of the Earth is just guessing. Remember, there are very few thermometers not on the surface. Earth is a complete thing. Atmosphere, oceans from the surface to their greatest depth, and land to the center of the Earth. Almost all the thermometers used by NASA are about 4 to six feet above the surface. They are grouped along roads and shipping lanes (they must be serviced). The are not read at the same time by the same authority.

There is no data for the global temperature and never has been. Even today, it is not possible to measure the surface of the Earth.

Measuring CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is even worse. Only a few hundred stations are measuring this at all, and the usual station quoted at Mauna Loa in Hawaii is mounted on an active volcano (which puts out CO2). CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. ALL the stations are on the surface. Again, it's just guessing.

Anyone that tells you they know the temperature of Earth (it has one, it's just not known) is full of BS. They are making up numbers.
Anyone that tells you they know the global atmospheric concentration of CO2 is full of BS. They are making up numbers.

Putting made up numbers in pretty little graphs and being printed by a government (which has an agenda) does not make them anything but made up numbers.

The Church of Global Warming (and the government routine does also) ignores statistical math and makes up numbers. They are 'estimating'. They are guessing. Using this guessing, and ignoring physics as they do, they use this as an excuse and justification to implement tyranny. The Church of Global Warming is inherently a fundamentalist style religion. To speak out against it is to be condemned as evil, as a 'Satan'. It is to be despised, insulted, censored, etc.

It is akin to a car manufacturer estimating they will need to make 300,000 cars in the next year based on previous sales.

Such estimates actually have a base...the sales figures from the last year and in previous years. It is a guess, but it is a guess based on actual hard figures. There never was any hard figure for the temperature of Earth or for the global concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

From this, they estimate they need between 1,080,000 and 1,320,000 tires for these cars. This is a bullshit estimate. They need 1,200,000 tires, or 4 per car. They don't have to estimate that. They know it.

This part is correct. It's silly to conduct an estimate from an estimate.

Every time you estimate from a previous estimate something you increasingly introduce errors into the system.

Not really, it is simply ignoring the first estimate and making a 2nd estimate using a different unit.

With climate change, the people pushing this the hardest are ones that are estimating effects from estimates of estimates that were estimated. Their science is utter and complete bullshit.

The Church of Global Warming routinely ignores the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics (many also ignore the 0th law of thermodynamics) and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. They deny physics, and science with it. They try to portray their religion as 'sCiEnCe'. This is a common tactic with the left, using a buzzword like this to try to legitimize their religion. Other favorite buzzwords are 'expert', 'scientists', 'fact', 'proof', 'established'. They also like to use buzzwords like 'trigger', 'tipping point', '10 years', and their favorite, the Holy 'data'.

Gfm7175 has built a list of collected buzzwords that Democrats and other leftists like to use. It's quite extensive now. You can find it at the forum link in my sig.
IBdaMann has built a manual specifically describing the Church of Global Warming and it's beliefs. You can find that reference at the same forum.
Because the types of arguments leftists make is so repetitive, I myself have built a list of numbered 'Mantras' they tend to use. It can also be found at the same forum.

The theories of science and their equations can also be found there, along with a copy of the Communist Manifesto (both the original and translated to English versions), and of course a copy of the Constitution of the United States and other useful references.

IBdaMann and I created this forum, initially to have a place to discuss politics, but it became more of a place to store various references and various lists the three of us have built. IBdaMann did most of the work collecting references and in getting the forum set up initially, while I and gfm7175 have contributed our small part to it.

A copy of an old thread called the "Data Mine" that I started is also there. The OP of that thread lists the criteria I use to even to begin to consider 'data'. The most important being:
* I must know the method of collecting the data, who collected it, when it was collected, and for what purpose.
* I must know the instrumentation used, if any, and how it was calibrated and when.
* The data must be raw data. I have already described why.
* The data must be published. No restrictions, paywalls, etc.

Too many people just toss numbers around, particularly on political sites like this one.

[IBDaMann]

You totally missed my point.

That can happen. I appreciate you pointing it out if I do.

I pointed out that estimating things from other estimates induces increasing levels of error

Actually, it renders the claim invalid. An estimate calculated from other estimates is simply stripping away the original raw data. At that point, all that remains is an unfalsifiable claim that no rational adult should accept on it face.

It gets worse when those making such estimates have a predetermined outcome in mind.

I really wouldn't use the wording "it gets worse." A predetermined conclusion becomes an invalid conclusion, from the start. It starts out invalid and just doesn't get any better. It is to be summarily dismissed with extreme prejudice.

I would think that today we probably can get enough data points of the Earth's temperature and estimate a global temperature from that data.

You are objectively incorrect and I am not missing your point.

First, you just did it again. There is absolutely no mention of margin of error in your statement here. I want to be polite, but your omission makes your statement very stupid and naive, and broadcasts that you have absolutely no understanding of the math involved. If you had made your statement with the addition of "to within 4C margin of error" for examle, you would have had to justify why you believe that by showing your math. Upon trying to support your assertion with the approriate math, you would have realized the impossibility of achieving any temerature within any usable margin of error.

Second, I realize that you believe that today it should be possible to get enough data points, but just as in point 1, you haven't run any numbers. At this moment, you are imagining a concerted effort to collect tens of thousands of temperature measurements, which is doable. However, your margin of error would be at least in the +/-70C range, but likely much higher. And now you're thinking "No way, how can that be?" and all I can do is tell you to brush up on your statistical math. The correct answer is that you would need various layers of hundreds of millions of synchronized and calibrated temerature measurements, all across the globe, to include over the ocean, at different altitudes within the atmosphere and various depths of the ocean, to reach a margin of error in the single digits Celsius. Again, you are thinking "No way, how can that be?" and the answer is "take a statistical math class."

I really wish to impress upon you the necessity of including margin of error in your discussions if you want to set yourself apart from the warmizombies who babble their religious dogma. You could grab one, single thermometer, go somewhere outdoors, read the temperature and claim that is the temperature of the earth. Your estimate would be just as valid as anyone else's who similarly provided no margin of error.

Now, the whole topic of margin of error is itself a long and comlicated one. If you have never followed or created a data collection plan, you might not see right away how it fits into the overall grand scheme of things, but it is very much worth learning. Into the Night would be a good source for information on instrumentation tolerances (I would just tell you that every instrument has one).

Look at the hole in the ozone layer.

There's no ozone hole. I just wanted to warn you before Into the Night beats you up for claiming that there is.

The sun creates ozone from atmosheric O2 via the Chapman cycle. There is always an ozone "hole" over the pole that is currently in winter (extended nighttime). As long as there is a functioning sun, if we were to totally eliminate all the ozone in the atmosphere, it would all be back to normal in 24 hours. Do not fear. Do not panic.

[Into the Night]

I'm afraid I have to stop you right there. You are doing what all the warmizombies do, i.e. totally ignore margin of error, like there is no such thing.

The correct answer is that humanity does not yet possess the ability to estimate the Earth's average global temperature to within any usable margin of error.

The invariable response from those who have no grasp of instrumentation tolerances or of statistical math is a knee-jerk "of course it can be done" or even "NASA does it all the time with SATELLITES!" or even "You can Google it on Wikipedia. RELIABLE measurements of Earth's average global temperature have been taken since the moment the Communist Manifesto was published and WHAT WE KNOW is that Earth's average global temperature is increasing by 0.2C annually. Look it up" ... and the predictably scriptable exchange will ensue, and will end only after many technical explanations are given.

Usually it ends with their mindless insults.

[Into the Night]

You totally missed my point. I pointed out that estimating things from other estimates induces increasing levels of error into the outcome to the point where the whole exercise is meaningless. It gets worse when those making such estimates have a predetermined outcome in mind.

I would think that today we probably can get enough data points of the Earth's temperature and estimate a global temperature from that data. What we cannot do is attribute changes to some single cause.

Look at the hole in the ozone layer. That was supposed to be gone by now if we eliminated CFC's. We did that. Now we find that the original hole is still there, still about the same size, and worse, have found larger holes in it we previously didn't know existed. This points out the absurdity of the "science" on temperature change. The scientists simply don't know enough to make accurate predications.

No, you are guessing.

Theories of science describe nature. Then transcribed into mathematical form, 'laws' of science accurately predict nature.

Science is not scientists. Science is not people at all. It has no religion, no politics, is not part of any government, is not a data set, and is not any kind of 'expert', degree, license, certification, or any other sanctification.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Ozone does not react with CFCs. You can put CFCs into a tank of ozone and nothing happens. The Church of the Ozone Hole is no different from the Church of Global Warming or the Church of Green or the Church of Covid. The 'solution' is always they same: tyranny. The leaders of these religions are all the same: leftists.

You are an accomplished electrician. You use principles of science in your work. Don't fall for this trash.