Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

ZenMode said:
Sorry, I'm not responding to any more of your questions or claims until you provide evidence/proof for these:

- climate can't change
- CO2 can't trap light
- Temperature can't be measured from a distance (except when it can)
- the Earth's temperature can't be measured
- CO2 levels in the atmosphere can't be measured
- the temperature of Venus is unknown
- there aren't enough temperature stations
- temperature stations aren't spaced correctly
- temperature stations aren't read at the right intervals
- temperature stations aren't read by the right people
- all of the experiments showing how CO2 interacts with infrared energy are parlor tricks
Click to expand...
Already been answered and explained numerous times. Ignoring the answers/explanations that you receive doesn't make them go away.
 
ZenMode said:
Sorry, I'm not responding to any more of your questions or claims until you provide evidence/proof for these:

- climate can't change
- CO2 can't trap light
- Temperature can't be measured from a distance (except when it can)
- the Earth's temperature can't be measured
- CO2 levels in the atmosphere can't be measured
- the temperature of Venus is unknown
- there aren't enough temperature stations
- temperature stations aren't spaced correctly
- temperature stations aren't read at the right intervals
- temperature stations aren't read by the right people
- all of the experiments showing how CO2 interacts with infrared energy are parlor tricks
Click to expand...

RQAA.

It is obvious that you simply want to ignore English, and attempt to redefine 'climate', 'heat', etc. Your word games aren't working.
It is also obvious that you simply want to ignore statistical math.
It is also obvious that you simply want to ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
It is also obvious that you simply want to ignore logic. I do not have to prove a negative. I do not have to prove any theory of science. I do not have to prove any branch of mathematics.

Your mindless repetition of questions that have already been answered is YOUR PROBLEM. Only YOU can do anything about it.
Your continued denial of your own posts is YOUR PROBLEM. Only YOU can do anything about it.
 
Last edited:
Into the Night said:
RQAA.
Click to expand...

lol... and I'm supposedly the liar!

giphy.gif
 
ZenMode said:
lol... and I'm supposedly the liar!
Click to expand...
You are correct. You are.

You lie about your own posts.
You lie about what has been explained to you.
You lie about your own religion.
You lie about 'The Data'.
You lie when you try to redefine words using your word games.

It is not possible to warm the Earth using a Magick Holy Gas.
E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 'U' is work (or force over time), and 't' is time. The presence of any gas (including Magick Holy Gas) is not work, so E(t+1) = E(t) - 0. No Magick Holy Gas can create energy out of nothing. To increase the temperature of Earth, you NEED ADDITIONAL ENERGY beyond what the Sun is putting out (assuming constant solar output).

It is not possible to heat the warmer surface using a colder gas.
e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. You cannot make heat flow 'backwards'. You cannot make hot coffee with a piece of ice. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap heat. You cannot reduce entropy in any way...ever. No Holy Magick Gas has the capability to heat the surface in any way. It is COLDER than the surface.

r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance (light) measured in watts/square area for all frequencies combined, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant (you need the accurate temperature of the radiating surface to measure it!!), and 't' is temperature in deg K. You cannot trap light. You can never make temperature and radiance move in opposite directions...ever. No Magick Holy Gas has the capability to make temperature and radiance move in opposite directions. No Magick Holy Gas has the capability to suspend this law.

You cannot change any of these equations or suspend them for any length of time.

Earth radiates 24/7 according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You cannot stop it. You cannot 'slow' it. You cannot reduce it without reducing the temperature of Earth.

I am not going to produce a book on statistical mathematics here for you. Go learn statistical mathematics. You cannot create 'data' out of nothing. You cannot measure the temperature of the Earth using the number of thermometers available.

You claim 'the Data' exists, but you have not shown your work. You never specified the variance or justified it. You never produced unbiased raw data. You never provided the margin of error value or calculated it. If you want to claim you know the temperature of the Earth, SHOW YOUR WORK.

That means YOU must provide the raw data. That raw data MUST be unbiased. Location grouping is significant. That bias MUST be eliminated. Time bias is significant. That bias MUST be eliminated. Until you have unbaised raw data, you have NOTHING. You cannot claim NOTHING is something. You MUST provide the margin of error value. You MUST calculate that value and it MUST accompany any statistical summary.

You cannot use statistical mathematics to predict. It is not a crystal ball. That's like predicting the next roll of the dice using probability.

It is YOU denying mathematics.
It is YOU denying theories of science (two of which I provided AGAIN in this post, which are the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law that YOU ignore).

These are YOUR problems. You continue to deny your own posts. You continue to deny the content of this very thread, where all this was explained to you.

You're a liar, dude.
 
Last edited:
Into the Night said:
You are correct. You are.

You lie about your own posts.
You lie about what has been explained to you.
You lie about your own religion.
You lie about 'The Data'.
You lie when you try to redefine words using your word games.

It is not possible to warm the Earth using a Magick Holy Gas.
E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 'U' is work (or force over time), and 't' is time. The presence of any gas (including Magick Holy Gas) is not work.

It is not possible to heat the warmer surface using a colder gas.
e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. You cannot make heat flow 'backwards'. You cannot make hot coffee with a piece of ice. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap heat. You cannot reduce entropy in any way...ever.

I am not going to produce a book on statistical mathematics here for you. Go learn statistical mathematics. You cannot create 'data' out of nothing. You cannot measure the temperature of the Earth using the number of thermometers available.

You claim 'the Data' exists, but you have not shown your work. You never specified the variance or justified it. You never produced unbiased raw data. You never provided the margin of error value or calculated it. If you want to claim you know the temperature of the Earth, SHOW YOUR WORK.

That means YOU must provide the raw data. That raw data MUST be unbiased. Location grouping is significant. That bias MUST be eliminated. Time bias is significant. That bias MUST be eliminated. Until you have unbaised raw data, you have NOTHING. You cannot claim NOTHING is something. You MUST provide the margin of error value. You MUST calculate that value and it MUST accompany any statistical summary.

You cannot use statistical mathematics to predict. It is not a crystal ball. That's like predicting the next roll of the dice using probability.

It is YOU denying mathematics.
It is YOU denying theories of science (two of which I provided AGAIN in this post, which are the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics that YOU ignore).

These are YOUR problems. You continue to deny your own posts. You continue to deny the content of this very thread, where all this was explained to you.

You're a liar, dude.
Click to expand...

I feel sorry for you.
 
Into the Night said:
You are correct. You are.

You lie about your own posts.
You lie about what has been explained to you.
You lie about your own religion.
You lie about 'The Data'.
You lie when you try to redefine words using your word games.

It is not possible to warm the Earth using a Magick Holy Gas.
E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 'U' is work (or force over time), and 't' is time. The presence of any gas (including Magick Holy Gas) is not work, so E(t+1) = E(t) - 0. No Magick Holy Gas can create energy out of nothing. To increase the temperature of Earth, you NEED ADDITIONAL ENERGY beyond what the Sun is putting out (assuming constant solar output).

It is not possible to heat the warmer surface using a colder gas.
e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. You cannot make heat flow 'backwards'. You cannot make hot coffee with a piece of ice. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap heat. You cannot reduce entropy in any way...ever. No Holy Magick Gas has the capability to heat the surface in any way. It is COLDER than the surface.

r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance (light) measured in watts/square area for all frequencies combined, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant (you need the accurate temperature of the radiating surface to measure it!!), and 't' is temperature in deg K. You cannot trap light. You can never make temperature and radiance move in opposite directions...ever. No Magick Holy Gas has the capability to make temperature and radiance move in opposite directions. No Magick Holy Gas has the capability to suspend this law.

You cannot change any of these equations or suspend them for any length of time.

Earth radiates 24/7 according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You cannot stop it. You cannot 'slow' it. You cannot reduce it without reducing the temperature of Earth.

I am not going to produce a book on statistical mathematics here for you. Go learn statistical mathematics. You cannot create 'data' out of nothing. You cannot measure the temperature of the Earth using the number of thermometers available.

You claim 'the Data' exists, but you have not shown your work. You never specified the variance or justified it. You never produced unbiased raw data. You never provided the margin of error value or calculated it. If you want to claim you know the temperature of the Earth, SHOW YOUR WORK.

That means YOU must provide the raw data. That raw data MUST be unbiased. Location grouping is significant. That bias MUST be eliminated. Time bias is significant. That bias MUST be eliminated. Until you have unbaised raw data, you have NOTHING. You cannot claim NOTHING is something. You MUST provide the margin of error value. You MUST calculate that value and it MUST accompany any statistical summary.

You cannot use statistical mathematics to predict. It is not a crystal ball. That's like predicting the next roll of the dice using probability.

It is YOU denying mathematics.
It is YOU denying theories of science (two of which I provided AGAIN in this post, which are the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law that YOU ignore).

These are YOUR problems. You continue to deny your own posts. You continue to deny the content of this very thread, where all this was explained to you.

You're a liar, dude.
Click to expand...

All you're doing is restarting all the things you've stated before and expecting me to accept them as true despite there being no support.

Here's an example of what you're doing, using an example of a topic I've been reading about recently: 9/11.

Me: 9/11 was an inside job. The steel supports from a fire caused by an airplane cannot melt steel and cause a collapse.

You: Based on what do you claim that a fire couldn't have caused the steel supports to melt and the buildings to collapse.

Me: You can't melt steel supports with the fire caused by jet fuel!

You: Based on what????

Me: RQAA
 
ZenMode said:
All you're doing is restarting all the things you've stated before and expecting me to accept them as true despite there being no support.
Click to expand...
I listed the laws of physics you want to ignore. I don't have to prove them True. They are theories of science. You just want to ignore them.
I do not have to prove statistical math true either. It's mathematics. You just want to ignore it.
ZenMode said:
Here's an example of what you're doing, using an example of a topic I've been reading about recently: 9/11...
Click to expand...
Pivot fallacy. This is a discussion about the Church of Global Warming and it's claims. It is not a discussion about the World Trade Center or engineering or 9/11. I will not discuss those here. Start a thread about it if you want to.
 
Into the Night said:
I listed the laws of physics you want to ignore. I don't have to prove them True. They are theories of science. You just want to ignore them.
I do not have to prove statistical math true either. It's mathematics. You just want to ignore it.

Pivot fallacy. This is a discussion about the Church of Global Warming and it's claims. It is not a discussion about the World Trade Center or engineering or 9/11. I will not discuss those here. Start a thread about it if you want to.
Click to expand...

Nope. You have not provided proof or evidence of anything other than your ability to repeat the same claims over and over.

There aren't enough temperature stations.

Based on what?

Math?

What math? Show me the evidence. Show me the math.

RQAA

giphy.gif
 
ZenMode said:
Nope. You have not provided proof or evidence of anything other than your ability to repeat the same claims over and over.

There aren't enough temperature stations.

Based on what?

Math?

What math? Show me the evidence. Show me the math.
Click to expand...
Related question: Can ONE thermometer at 'X location' within West Virginia accurately measure the temperature of anywhere within the entire State of West Virginia? Yes or No.
 
Last edited:
gfm7175 said:
Related question: Can ONE thermometer at 'X location' within West Virginia accurately measure the temperature of anywhere within the entire State of West Virginia? Yes or No.
Click to expand...

Obviously not. Why do you ask?
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
Obviously not. Why do you ask?
Click to expand...
I ask because, even if 7,500 temperature stations were uniformly spaced across the lower part of Earth's troposphere, and even if they were all simultaneously read by the same observer, that would amount to one thermometer for every roughly 26,000 sq miles of surface area, or roughly the size of the entire State of West Virginia.

Ergo, according to what you've just admitted here, NASA's current temperature station system "obviously [can]not" accurately measure the temperature of the entire Earth.
 
gfm7175 said:
I ask because, even if 7,500 temperature stations were uniformly spaced across the lower part of Earth's troposphere, and even if they were all simultaneously read by the same observer, that would amount to one thermometer for every roughly 26,000 sq miles of surface area, or roughly the size of the entire State of West Virginia.

Ergo, according to what you've just admitted here, NASA's current temperature station system "obviously [can]not" accurately measure the temperature of the entire Earth.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between measuring every square inch of the earth, or a state, vs having enough data to have draw conclusions. I assume you don't have thermostats covering every square inch of your house to have an "accurate" measure of the temperature inside your house?
 
ZenMode said:
There's a difference between measuring every square inch of the earth, or a state, vs having enough data to have draw conclusions.
Click to expand...
Ummmmmm, there's absolutely ZERO difference between "1 thermometer per roughly 26,000 sq miles" and "1 thermometer per roughly 26,000 sq miles".

When I asked you this accuracy question re: West Virginia, you had responded "obviously not [accurate]", but now when I make use of the exact same thermometer to sq mile ratio but now make reference to the entire Earth instead of just the State of West Virginia, you now all of a sudden have a complete change of heart about your prior answer.

Your stupid religion has you held COMPLETELY by the BALLS, dude......... You're now resorting to giving two completely different answers to the EXACT SAME thermometer to sq mile ratio in order to keep desperately clinging to your stupid religion..............

ZenMode said:
I assume you don't have thermostats covering every square inch of your house to have an "accurate" measure of the temperature inside your house?
Click to expand...
No, I'm not going to get diverted into discussing the temperature of my house unless and until you feel like explaining to me precisely how "1 thermometer per 26,000 sq miles of surface area" (re: West Virginia) is somehow different than "1 thermometer per 26,000 sq miles of surface area" (re: Earth). How can you claim that the first case re: West Virginia is "obviously not [accurate]" yet the second case re: Earth is "enough data to draw conclusions"?? It's the EXACT SAME THING, dude.....

The floor is yours.
 
Last edited:
gfm7175 said:
Ummmmmm, there's absolutely ZERO difference between "1 thermometer per roughly 26,000 sq miles" and "1 thermometer per roughly 26,000 sq miles".

When I asked you this accuracy question re: West Virginia, you had responded "obviously not [accurate]", but now when I make use of the exact same thermometer to sq mile ratio but now make reference to the entire Earth instead of just the State of West Virginia, you now all of a sudden have a complete change of heart about your prior answer.

Your stupid religion has you held COMPLETELY by the BALLS, dude......... You're now resorting to giving two completely different answers to the EXACT SAME thermometer to sq mile ratio in order to keep desperately clinging to your stupid religion..............


No, I'm not going to get diverted into discussing the temperature of my house unless and until you feel like explaining to me precisely how "1 thermometer per 26,000 sq miles of surface area" (re: West Virginia) is somehow different than "1 thermometer per 26,000 sq miles of surface area" (re: Earth). How can you claim that the first case re: West Virginia is "obviously not [accurate]" yet the second case re: Earth is "enough data to draw conclusions"?? It's the EXACT SAME THING, dude.....

The floor is yours.
Click to expand...

You're looking for a gotcha that isn't there. You could put tens of thousands of thermometers in any state and you could still find that one square foot somewhere that isn't measured. Measuring temperature trends isn't based on measuring every square foot of a given space. Do you think the news, when they say "today's temperature is xx number of degrees above/below average" are just throwing darts at a dart board in the back room? Come on.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top