50 years of failed eco predictions
- Thread starter tsuke
- Start date
You don't even understand Stefan-Boltzmann and think you can apply it to individual molecules while at the same time claiming it applies to the earth as a whole. And you want us to believe you understand sampling?
The temperature datasets can be found here.
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/c...mperature-data-sets-overview-comparison-table
You just have to have enough intelligence to follow the links. The data is free for personal use.
Into the Night
Verified User
R = C * e * t^4 where 'R' is radiance in watts per square area (usually in meters), 'C' is a natural constant (it basically converts the relation to our units of measure), 'e' is a measured constant known as 'emissivity', or how well a surface radiates (or absorbs) light, and 't' is temperature in deg K.
It applies to all masses.
I understand it very well. I also understand statistical math and it's requirements very well. Among the requirements in statistical math:
* you must use published data.
* You must use unbiased raw data. No cooked data allowed.
* You must declare the boundary.
* You must declare and justify your variance.
* You must calculate and publish the margin of error value along with the summary.
* You must select from the data by randN.
* You must normalize the data by paired randR.
* You must calculate and publish the average along with the summary.
Statistical math is not capable of prediction normally inherent in mathematics, due to the importation and use of random numbers.
Insufficient data. Also, NONE of this data is unbiased. Time is a significant biasing factor. It must be eliminated. All thermometers MUST be read simultaneously by the same authority. Location grouping is a significant biasing factor. Thermometers MUST be uniformly spaced.
Insufficient and biased data. You'll have to do better than this.
From you.
Do you have insurance?
Insult fallacy. Trolling.
The climate change predictions are coming true. There is lots of evidence showing it is correct. The forest fires and rising water are simply facts. The increases in storm power were also predicted. Who thought Oregon would get a string of 100 plus temperatures. The globe temperature is rising.
So tell us how you can define the earth and its atmosphere as a black body, apply Stefan-Boltzmann and claim changes of temperature at the earth's surface violate Stefan-Boltzmann. Watts per square meter can only occur on the surface of a black body. It tells us nothing of the temperature within the black body. The minute you split the Earth up into its component parts then Stefan-Boltzmann only applies the the parts. The minute you combine the parts, Stefan-Boltzmann only applies to the whole and no longer to the parts.
It only applies to the surface of any mass since it is 'R' is radiance in watts per square area
ROFLMAO. I want to see where any statistics course requires you only use published data to make a calculation. Next you'll be telling us that algebra can only use numbers published in Pravda. I am curious what you think Hadcrut or GISTEMP is 'predicting' when they statistically calculate the current and past daily temperature of the earth.
The datasets are published and available. Your refusal to look for them does not make them disappear.
The methods uses and margin of error are also published. Your refusal to look for them does not make them disappear.
I find this one rather ironic after you have spent all this time arguing you can't normalize the data. It seems you don't even understand what you write.
So let me get this straight. You are claiming that in order to do any time series with data, one must collect all the data at the exact time? Do you not know how time works? Could you be any more idiotic?
Basically you are saying if I want to see the temperature changes over 24 hours, I would have to take the temperature every hour at exactly noon? That would be the only way to take the readings simultaneously. You do like to prove you are an idiot.
Or if I want to find the daily high temperature in Phoenix and Tokyo on Oct 12, 2021, the only way I could do that is take the reading at 3PM Phoenix Time and 7AM in Tokyo so I am taking them at the exact same time? You do like to prove you are a complete and total idiot, don't you.
It seems you didn't bother to actually look at the data. Not only that, you don't know how to read the data since you don't understand what the data includes but instead have made a straw man argument against what you want to pretend the data is.
ok? so your saying that whatever bullshit science you throw at me now can change. Which is fine. But it can change so much that it would miss an ice age. or it would miss islands sinking but are still here?
Lets say I need to choose a number between 1 and a 100. If science could narrow my choices to the range of 40 -50 or 60-70 then that would be useful as the range i now need to pick from is only 10 numerals.
If however science is going to say "well the number can be anything from 1-100" then whats the fucking use of it? I might as well just get a fortune teller.
Im not saying science has to be 100% correct. But at least can you make sure you are at least in the right century when you predict an ice age?
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Well, if the range of possible numbers was from -1,000,000 to + 1,000,000 in the issue at hand then 1 - 100 is a pretty good starting point...
Warning people about something and they heed, is it a failure?
if it was sure but in my hypothetical it was 1-100.
My main point is these predicitons are so bad that if the range of the problem is -1000000 to + 1000000 like you said Science would still present me a choice between -1000000 and + 1000000 which makes it useless.
So we shouldn't have various insurance rates?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Yeh, who would have thought Pendleton, Oregon could reach a temperature of 119F in 1898 on the 10th August to be precise. But Prineville did it first, on July 29, in that same year. What’s up with 1898?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_territory_temperature_extremes
https://www.kgw.com/mobile/article/...orld/283-cd666eca-83b3-48d0-94a8-c03afb27d20a
Last edited:
Old Trapper
Verified User
First off, I am not sure what "ice age" you are referring to.
Second, the islands are not sinking, just as Miami is not sinking,. The water is rising as more glaciers melt thus causing flooding. Here in Oregon we have lost over half of our glaciers.
Third, perhaps you really need to look at what is happening globally. Floods, and fires, along with diseases, and then there is the loss of animal life.
Science cannot do it all, and has never claimed it could. Some people do learn, others just follow.
https://theconversation.com/as-the-world-changes-science-does-too-and-thats-a-good-thing-152688
no worries
Verified User
No, one is as clueless as Dotard.
January 10 2019
"I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall," President Donald Trump said on June 16, 2015, when he announced his White House run.
"Mark my words," he said.
"When during the campaign, I would say Mexico is going to pay for it, obviously I never said this. I never meant they're going to write out a check," Trump told reporters at the White House Thursday.
Dotard thinks China is paying for US tariffs.
Even more clueless, Dotard's cult, who bought it, hook, line and sinker.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Mr. Prime Bullshitter has run away again!
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don't try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. "The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength."