Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[Into the Night]

It seems we've got an impasse. You, IDM and gfm have a laundry list of claims you can't support, that you want me to believe and I'm not going to believe your laundry list of claims you can't support.

TTFN

Inversion fallacy. RQAA.
You just want to deny statistical math. You just want to deny theories of science. This is YOUR problem. It is YOU making stupid claims and paradoxes.

I know I can't change your religion. I am not posting to change your religion. I am posting to point out the ridiculousness of your religion to others.

I do not need to prove the 1st law of thermodynamics to you. You simply wish to ignore it and create energy out of a Magick Holy Gas.

I do not need to prove the 2nd law of thermodynamics to you. You simply wish ignore it and try to tell me that you can heat a warmer surface using a colder Magick Holy Gas.

I do not need to prove the Stefan-Boltzmann law to you. You simply wish to ignore it and try to tell me that radiance and temperature move in opposite directions due the presence of a Magick Holy Gas.

I do not need to prove statistical mathematics to you. You simply wish to ignore it and try to tell me you have a Holy Omniscience to declare the temperature of the Earth.

These are YOUR problems. It is YOU making wild claims over and over.
But you won't change. Your attempt to prove your religion True is only showing your fundamentalism. You will ignore mathematics and theories of science to conduct your 'proof'. You now try to blame YOUR problem on others. It won't work.

YOU must come to terms with your denial. It is YOUR problem.

 

[ZenMode]

Inversion fallacy. RQAA.
You just want to deny statistical math. You just want to deny theories of science. This is YOUR problem. It is YOU making stupid claims and paradoxes.

I know I can't change your religion. I am not posting to change your religion.

You still haven't provided math. You repeatedly claimed math as showing the issue, but that's it. I mean, that's literally all you done is claim, claim, claim. No math. No supporting data or evidence. You've provided absolutely nothing but lots and lots and lots of words.

 

[Into the Night]

You still haven't provided math.

I am not going to write a math book on JPP.

You repeatedly claimed math as showing the issue, but that's it.

I am not going to write a math book on JPP.

I mean, that's literally all you done is claim, claim, claim. No math.

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy. Trying to blame YOUR problem on me or anyone else won't work.

No supporting data or evidence.

I'm not trying to claim data. YOU ARE. Random numbers are NOT 'data'.

You've provided absolutely nothing but lots and lots and lots of words.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again. This is YOUR problem. You can't lay YOUR problem on me or anyone else.

 

[ZenMode]

Already did. RQAA.

No evidence. No information about how many there are, how many are needed at what distance apart.

Only claim after claim after claim after claim

 

[ZenMode]

I am not going to write a math book on JPP.

I am not going to write a math book on JPP.

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy. Trying to blame YOUR problem on me or anyone else won't work.

I'm not trying to claim data. YOU ARE. Random numbers are NOT 'data'.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again. This is YOUR problem. You can't lay YOUR problem on me or anyone else.

I'm not asking you to write a math book. Just provide something other claim after claim after claim after claim....

Which we both know you can't do. Just like you can't provide a scrap of evidence to support your "climate can't change" claim....'cause all you got are claims.....

 

[Into the Night]

No evidence. No information about how many there are, how many are needed at what distance apart.

Only claim after claim after claim after claim

I am not trying to claim data, dumbass. YOU ARE.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not asking you to write a math book.

Yes you are.

Just provide something other claim after claim after claim after claim....

I don't have to prove mathematics to you.

Which we both know you can't do.

I don't have to. You just want to deny mathematics.

Just like you can't provide a scrap of evidence to support your "climate can't change" claim....'cause all you got are claims.....

I don't have to prove an English word to you. You just want to redefine it.

Inversion fallacies. Word games. Its not going to work, dude.

 

[IBDaMann]

You're looking for a gotcha that isn't there.

He "gotcha" quite effectively. You were the one who contradicted himself. This brings us back to your mathematical incompetence. The earth has a surface area of 510 million square kilometers. If you had 10,000 synchronized thermometers evenly spaced around the globe at the bottom of the atmosphere, you would have one thermometer for every 51,000 square kilometers, roughly the size of Vermont + New Hampshire + Rhode Island. Across an area that size over land, temperatures regularly differ more than 10 degrees Celsius, often due to changes in elevation as well as cloud cover and differing weather. Over the ocean, despite there being no changes in elevation, temperatures over such an area will differ drastically due to storms, cloud cover, constant but uneven evaporation/convection, strong wind currents and persistent underlying water currents.

Ergo, even if you had 10,000 evenly spaced, synchronized thermometers at the bottom of the atmosphere, the margin of error for that dataset would be closer to 20°C. Unfortunately, it gets a lot worse. You are supposed to be calculating the average temperature for the earth, not the average temperature only at the bottom of the atmosphere. You would have no data for the average atmospheric temperature at one kilometer altitude. That kills your accuracy by adding 20°C to 30°C to your error margin because you don't even have any data at all. You similarly don't have any data for any temperatures at 2 kilometers altitude, but there is less atmosphere at that altitude and the added error is substantially less. Ditto for 3 kilometers, 4 kilometers, etc ...

You also have no valid temperature data for the ocean, from the surface down to about 300 meters (top part of the thermocline) in increments of about 20 meter depths. This is what you would need to get an accurate measure of the average ocean temperature, closely and evenly spaced synchronized readings, ... but you have none.

In short, your average global temperature calculation will be meaningless because your error margin will be unknown except for it being in excess of +/- 50°C. Of course, you're going to bitch and whine that there can't possibly be that much error, forcing me to remind you that you are mathematically incompetent and know nothing about the statistical math which you are pretending to discuss with authority.

Learn statistical math before you engage in discussions based on statistical math.

 

[IBDaMann]

Just like you can't provide a scrap of evidence to support your "climate can't change" claim.

Incorrect. "Climate can't change" is not a claim; it is a valid conclusion drawn from the observation that climates are subjective characterizations without any numerical values/data that can change. You tipped your king several times on this issue by continually failing to produce any counterexamples.

You are the one making the affirmative "Climate Change" argument that you have never supported. Nobody else is making any affirmative claims, only rebuttals that you can verify independently.

Enjoy.

 

[ZenMode]

Yes you are.

I don't have to prove mathematics to you.

I don't have to. You just want to deny mathematics.

I don't have to prove an English word to you. You just want to redefine it.

Inversion fallacies. Word games. Its not going to work, dude.

"I don't have to" = "I can't".....which is why you don't.

 

[gfm7175]

There are 12 thermometers in WV.

Sooooooooooo what you're telling me here is that you honestly believe that ONE thermometer within the State of Delaware can accurately measure the temperature anywhere within the entire State of Delaware?!??!!?!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA TOO FUNNY!!!!!!

 

[gfm7175]

Claim after claim after claim after claim after claim that you still can't support with facts. You are an absolute waste of time. You bring nothing to the discussion but opinion.

I very clearly provided you with the mathematics re: the spacing of thermometers. Mathematics is not "my opinion". You have already openly admitted to this forum that using one single thermometer to measure the temperature of anywhere within the entire State of West Virginia is "obviously not [accurate]". You've already made my point for me right then and there. There's no getting away from it now.

I've already shown how the above example is equivalent to the example re: Earth as a whole (roughly 197 million sq miles of surface area / 7,500 thermometers = 26,266 sq miles per thermometer, or roughly the size of West Virginia) --- IOW, 1 thermometer per 26,000 sq miles is equivalent to 1 thermometer per 26,000 sq miles. You have already openly proclaimed this particular ratio of thermometers to sq miles to be "obviously not [accurate]". You've already openly stepped into the "gotcha" for all to see. There's no turning back from it now.

And even making use of 20,000 thermometers instead of only 7,500 would only be equivalent to ONE single thermometer for the entire State of Vermont. You think THAT'S accurate!?!?!?! hahahahahahahaha

But no, keep pretending that I "can't support [my claims]"... keep pretending that I haven't provided you with any of the math or any of the logic. Just keep trying to pretend all away......

 

[gfm7175]

You are uninformed. The quantity and location of thermometers is available on line. For the love of God, man, educate yourself!

This is how I know full well that the thermometers being used aren't uniformly spaced nor simultaneously read by the same observer, which means that location and time biases are present when trying to pretend that "the temperature of the Earth" is being accurately measured by said thermometers.

You know, that darn math that you keep outright denying in a desperate attempt to cling to your silly religion.

PS. You should take your own advice.

 

[gfm7175]

Then show your evidence of how the location and quantity is a statistical issue.

I already dabbled into this with you. I already asked you if ONE single thermometer at 'X location' in West Virginia would be enough to accurately measure the temperature of anywhere within the entire State of West Virginia, and you responded to me with a very clear and unambiguous "obviously not".

You've already admitted that location and quantity are both relevant. You've already admitted that NASA's current system is "obviously not" accurate with regard to measuring Earth's temperature.

 

[gfm7175]

You still haven't provided math.

1 thermometer per roughly 26,000 sq miles is NOT math?!?!?!?!?!?

197,000,000 sq miles of surface area divided by 7,500 thermometers does NOT equal roughly 26,000 sq miles?!?!!?!?

 

[Into the Night]

"I don't have to" = "I can't".....which is why you don't.

I don't have to. You do not get to wordstuff.
I am not going to conduct a proof of mathematics here for you.
I don't have to conduct a proof of the English language here for you. It's nonsensical.

You just want to deny mathematics and you don't know English.

 

[IBDaMann]

Then show your evidence of how the location and quantity is a statistical issue.

It's not a question of "evidence" and it's not a subjective matter of speculation. Instead of demanding that math be explained to you as though you are the professor grading the exam, you should be listening to the people who are correcting your gross misunderstandings and who are providing you the correct answers free of charge.

Quantity: If you have one thermometer covering a particular area (or sample one data point for a particular value field) then the other values within that area/field can be expected to differ more greatly the further away they are from the thermometer/sample. The temperatures/values most physically distant be expected to differ the most and will carry the highest error margins, typically on the order of N[sup]2[/sup]. Normally an average of the standard deviations will serve as a measurement's/sample's margin of error.

... but ... if you add a second thermometer/data point for a given area/field, you reduce the distance points are to the thermometer/sample and thus you reduce the margin of error for that area/field to roughly the square root[sup]*[/sup] of the previous value, i.e. additional points reduce the margin of error. A reduced quantity of points, however, correspondingly increases the average distance and thus increases the error margin.

Location: If your thermometers are not evenly spaced, you get spatial bias. If your thermometers are clumped in one area, the error is reduced around the clump of thermometers but is increased over a larger area, i.e. the highest margin of error occurs over the largest area.

Example:
Thermometer set A has three thermometers, evenly spaced, with each covering an area 12 km[sup]2[/sup].
Thermometer set B has three thermometers, unevenly distributed, one covering 9 km[sup]2[/sup], one covering 12 km[sup]2[/sup] and one covering 15 km[sup]2[/sup].

Assume expected temperature gradients in this region of only one degree Celsius per kilometer.

Set A will have a margin of error of +/-3C for each partition, and will thus have a +/-3C for the entire 36 km[sup]2[/sup].
Set B will have three different error margins: +/-2.25C for 9 km[sup]2[/sup], +/-3C for 12 km[sup]2[/sup] and +/-3.75C for 15 km[sup]2[/sup], for an error margin of +/-3.125C over the entire 36 km[sup]2[/sup].

Ergo, +/-3C vs. +/-3.125C ... and this is using an unrealistically small temperature gradient over a very small area (size of Rosamond lake bed).

[sup]*[/sup] - the "square root" is to help you visualize only and is not intended to serve as any sort of rule for calculation.

 

[gfm7175]

Wow... ZenMode got VERY quiet all of a sudden.............

 

[Into the Night]

Wow... ZenMode got VERY quiet all of a sudden.............

He said he gave up. He can't counter science and mathematics any longer.

 

[martin]

It's not a question of "evidence" and it's not a subjective matter of speculation. Instead of demanding that math be explained to you as though you are the professor grading the exam, you should be listening to the people who are correcting your gross misunderstandings and who are providing you the correct answers free of charge.

Quantity: If you have one thermometer covering a particular area (or sample one data point for a particular value field) then the other values within that area/field can be expected to differ more greatly the further away they are from the thermometer/sample. The temperatures/values most physically distant be expected to differ the most and will carry the highest error margins, typically on the order of N[sup]2[/sup]. Normally an average of the standard deviations will serve as a measurement's/sample's margin of error.

... but ... if you add a second thermometer/data point for a given area/field, you reduce the distance points are to the thermometer/sample and thus you reduce the margin of error for that area/field to roughly the square root[sup]*[/sup] of the previous value, i.e. additional points reduce the margin of error. A reduced quantity of points, however, correspondingly increases the average distance and thus increases the error margin.

Location: If your thermometers are not evenly spaced, you get spatial bias. If your thermometers are clumped in one area, the error is reduced around the clump of thermometers but is increased over a larger area, i.e. the highest margin of error occurs over the largest area.

Example:
Thermometer set A has three thermometers, evenly spaced, with each covering an area 12 km[sup]2[/sup].
Thermometer set B has three thermometers, unevenly distributed, one covering 9 km[sup]2[/sup], one covering 12 km[sup]2[/sup] and one covering 15 km[sup]2[/sup].

Assume expected temperature gradients in this region of only one degree Celsius per kilometer.

Set A will have a margin of error of +/-3C for each partition, and will thus have a +/-3C for the entire 36 km[sup]2[/sup].
Set B will have three different error margins: +/-2.25C for 9 km[sup]2[/sup], +/-3C for 12 km[sup]2[/sup] and +/-3.75C for 15 km[sup]2[/sup], for an error margin of +/-3.125C over the entire 36 km[sup]2[/sup].

Ergo, +/-3C vs. +/-3.125C ... and this is using an unrealistically small temperature gradient over a very small area (size of Rosamond lake bed).

[sup]*[/sup] - the "square root" is to help you visualize only and is not intended to serve as any sort of rule for calculation.

In the way I can’t demonstrate the moon is not a floating ball of cheese, I’m unable to dispute the criteria of climate change denial. I can disrespect the certainty you express favoring it, however. You proclaim it as if the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion is with you and not against you.