Yet more proof.

[Nick]

They are in charge of timekeeping and maintain one of the clocks that provides coordinated universal time.

And (shock) you are massively out of date with your information.

Selective Availability (the degradation to the GPS signal available to civilians) was turned off over 20 years ago. Accuracy is now down to 3m.

Shock, you are massively naive that you think this control mechanism has been removed. Who told you this was removed?

[BeElBeeBub]

Oh, really, so the fire at WTC7 was so incredible, it "took out" the support columns?  The irony is you call me ignorant, but I didn't build those towers.  The ignorance is that you think you know better than those engineers.  The ignorance is that you think the fire only burned on the outside at Grenfell, but in fact it burned for 60 hours, and the cladding was only how it spread so quickly, not WHERE it spread to. 

The ignorance is you think WTC7 was somehow missing something which made it dangerous, but in fact "The building was designed to be a steel-framed structure with a reinforced concrete core."  Just because you are so ignorant of the facts, and assume things, does not mean you can go spouting rubbish about the end of the world like a lunatic.

You seem to be confusing WTC1 & 2 (the "twin towers") with WTC7 (the small one nobody remembers).

WTC7 collapsed after being hit by WTC1 and burning for 7 hours.

WTC1 & 2 had steel cores which were fireproofed with spray on insulation and essentially very thick plasterboard. This was easily dislodged by a jet crashing into them.

An hour or intense fuel fire would easily have softened the steel to the point of collapse because jet fuel fire can soften steel beams.

Grenfell was an entirely different construction with reinforced concrete columns which are considerably more fire resistant.

[Scott777]

I assume that climate scientists around the world are more trustworthy and knowledgeable than a bloke who can't do basic maths or understand how blacksmithing works.

Yes, exactly, and your entire climate fantasy is based on that assumption, not actual science.

[Scott777]

Buildings regularly fall within their own footprint if you take out the support columns. The WTC towers were particularly prone to this due to their construction, and in particular the connection between the floors and the external steel skeleton.

Grenfell was a different construction (reinforced concrete columns) and the fire was (famously) in the outside cladding.

Again, your ignorance of construction shows. That structure was a steel portal frame. Those main beams would be 10mm or more steel beams.

Just because you can't understand something doesn't make it untrue.

Oh, really, so the fire at WTC7 was so incredible, it "took out" the support columns?  The irony is you call me ignorant, but I didn't build those towers.  The ignorance is that you think you know better than those engineers.  The ignorance is that you think the fire only burned on the outside at Grenfell, but in fact it burned for 60 hours, and the cladding was only how it spread so quickly, not WHERE it spread to.  

The ignorance is you think WTC7 was somehow missing something which made it dangerous, but in fact "The building was designed to be a steel-framed structure with a reinforced concrete core."  Just because you are so ignorant of the facts, and assume things, does not mean you can go spouting rubbish about the end of the world like a lunatic.

[BeElBeeBub]

Oh right, so you ASSUMED it's the mean, because it usually is.  Do you assume lots of things when it comes to climate change?

I assume that climate scientists around the world are more trustworthy and knowledgeable than a bloke who can't do basic maths or understand how blacksmithing works.

[BeElBeeBub]

Financial interests don't have to be in accuracy, they can also be in the switch from oil and gas to electric.  That's politically useful and profitable.

Yes, i'm sure you are right, it's easy to soften steel columns so the building disappears almost into its own footprint at free fall.  We know it happens all the time.  Look at Grenfell.  Straight down like a house of cards.  Oh, hang on a second.  🤔  Oh, well, maybe not Grenfell, but there's loads of tower blocks and sky scrapers that did this, isn't there, even though your picture does not show anything which collapsed, and it appears to be a roof which doesn't need anything strong.  Hmmmm.

Just go and talk to a civil engineer about steel failure in fires.


Buildings regularly fall within their own footprint if you take out the support columns. The WTC towers were particularly prone to this due to their construction, and in particular the connection between the floors and the external steel skeleton.

Grenfell was a different construction (reinforced concrete columns) and the fire was (famously) in the outside cladding.

Again, your ignorance of construction shows. That structure was a steel portal frame. Those main beams would be 10mm or more steel beams. 

Just because you can't understand something doesn't make it untrue.

[BeElBeeBub]

How do they possibly make sure that GPS is accurate when the US military deliberately add an error to it, and they vary that error?

They are in charge of timekeeping and maintain one of the clocks that provides coordinated universal time.

And (shock) you are massively out of date with your information.

Selective Availability (the degradation to the GPS signal available to civilians) was turned off over 20 years ago. Accuracy is now down to 3m.

[Nick]

Mean is the usual, mean is what they use specifically for monthly calculations.

You think they would switch to the mode? What possible use would that be?

The median would actually be useful.

Whichever one they used the fact each one was rising in each period shows you that using any other baseline period would make the anomaly worse.

If we ignore night time we might have this scenario.

If its cloudy in the morning the temperature is 15 degrees from 8am until 11am, the clouds burn off and its then 27 degrees from midday until 8pm. According to you the average temperature is (15+27)/2 is 21 degrees using max and min. The mean is 21.75, but the median and mode are both 27 degrees. So your min max has already produced a 0.75 degree error over the mean average and that's before we even add into it the fact that the person taking a reading from a column of mercury might not have been particularly diligent or understood what parallax angle was.

And just to add another ingredient to the mix, Sunspot cycles. When Sunspot cycles increase we get less cloud cover and therefore increased temperature, as per the below graph. If you look at the volume under the graph you will see that since the 1900's we have had a large increase in Sunspots. And bless my cotton socks if we don't see an increase in temperature and CO2.

So we have orbital variations, we have Sunspots, and potentially something that happened 800 years that warmed the oceans. Add to that the fact that the earth is now covered in Concrete that retains heat, errors in readings from 100 years ago and you are telling us that that a 1 degree MEASURED increase in temperature is down to human activity? Until about 20 years ago the Met Office couldn't get the weather right for the next day and we are supposed to believe a climate model that has massive flaws in it?

It's like trying to converse with some kind of cult!!

[Scott777]

Mean is the usual, mean is what they use specifically for monthly calculations.

You think they would switch to the mode? What possible use would that be?

The median would actually be useful.

Whichever one they used the fact each one was rising in each period shows you that using any other baseline period would make the anomaly worse.

Oh right, so you ASSUMED it's the mean, because it usually is.  Do you assume lots of things when it comes to climate change?

[Scott777]

Financial interest in making sure measurements are accurate?  These are they guys that enure we can measure things correctly. They are the people responsible for making sure we keep time accurately so little things like GPS and the internet work correctly.
No, you re the person who failed to understand engineering and construction.

It is hard to melt steel columns, but it's easy to soften them.  Just ask a blacksmith

If steel beams were so fireproof, why does every building code specify they are protected from fire?

Here is a graph of the relative strength of structural steel Vs temperature.



A steel beam loses half it's strength at 600C or so. A jet fuel fire can easily exceed this. A house fire can easily exceed this.

Here's a steel structure in the aftermath of a fire.  It was storing woodchips.




So a fire will

Financial interests don't have to be in accuracy, they can also be in the switch from oil and gas to electric.  That's politically useful and profitable.

Yes, i'm sure you are right, it's easy to soften steel columns so the building disappears almost into its own footprint at free fall.  We know it happens all the time.  Look at Grenfell.  Straight down like a house of cards.  Oh, hang on a second.  🤔  Oh, well, maybe not Grenfell, but there's loads of tower blocks and sky scrapers that did this, isn't there, even though your picture does not show anything which collapsed, and it appears to be a roof which doesn't need anything strong.  Hmmmm.

[Nick]

They are the people responsible for making sure we keep time accurately so little things like GPS and the internet work correctly.

How do they possibly make sure that GPS is accurate when the US military deliberately add an error to it, and they vary that error?

[BeElBeeBub]

And?  Have you never heard of different ways to find averages?  Median?  Mode?

Mean is the usual, mean is what they use specifically for monthly calculations.

You think they would switch to the mode? What possible use would that be?

The median would actually be useful.

Whichever one they used the fact each one was rising in each period shows you that using any other baseline period would make the anomaly worse.

[BeElBeeBub]

And what does it tell you that they are multi million £ organisations?  That they tell the truth?  Or maybe they are biased by financial interests?  

Financial interest in making sure measurements are accurate?  These are they guys that enure we can measure things correctly. They are the people responsible for making sure we keep time accurately so little things like GPS and the internet work correctly.

Isn't NIST the company that failed to explain how Building 7 World Trade Centre collapsed from "office fires"? Someone should tell them it's quite hard to melt steel columns.

No, you re the person who failed to understand engineering and construction.

It is hard to melt steel columns, but it's easy to soften them.  Just ask a blacksmith 

If steel beams were so fireproof, why does every building code specify they are protected from fire?

Here is a graph of the relative strength of structural steel Vs temperature.



A steel beam loses half it's strength at 600C or so. A jet fuel fire can easily exceed this. A house fire can easily exceed this.

Here's a steel structure in the aftermath of a fire.  It was storing woodchips.




So a fire will 

[Scott777]

There are huge multi million £ organisations like the NPL in the UK or NIST in the US whose job it is

And what does it tell you that they are multi million £ organisations?  That they tell the truth?  Or maybe they are biased by financial interests?  Isn't NIST the company that failed to explain how Building 7 World Trade Centre collapsed from "office fires"?  Someone should tell them it's quite hard to melt steel columns.

[Scott777]

Yeah but the table is titled "average tables" so there is that.

And?  Have you never heard of different ways to find averages?  Median?  Mode?