Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 24, 2020 1:00:48 GMT
Uh it gave plenty of numbers:
"Growth in CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel use slowed to around 1% per year in the past decade, down from 3% during the 2000s. An unprecedented decline is expected in 2020, due to the COVID-19 economic slowdown. Daily CO₂ fossil fuel emissions declined by 17% in early April at the peak of global confinement policies, compared with the previous year. But by early June they had recovered to a 5% decline.
"
"Current concentrations in the atmosphere are, respectively, 147%, 259% and 123% of those present before the industrial era began in 1750.
"Concentrations measured at Hawaii's Mauna Loa Observatory and at Australia's Cape Grim station in Tasmania show concentrations continued to increase in 2019 and 2020. In particular, CO₂ concentrations reached 414.38 and 410.04 parts per million in July this year, respectively, at each station.
"
"The global average surface temperature from 2016 to 2020 will be among the warmest of any equivalent period on record, and about 0.24℃ warmer than the previous five years.
"
"This five-year period is on the way to creating a new temperature record across much of the world, including Australia, southern Africa, much of Europe, the Middle East and northern Asia, areas of South America and parts of the United States."
"Another problem is those two dimensional temperature "maps." Guess what? The world is three dimensional. The highest clouds are five miles high. The arctic might seem warmer merely because it lacks clouds to block IR.
"
Wait, are you unironically writing off temperature maps because they don't look like the actual earth? You realize these are just models to show the data that has already been gathered, right? Do you think climate scientists make little flat earth maps and do their "research" on those? Holy shit, are you really this smooth brained?None or your "numbers" recognize any geographic location. Although concentrations of various gases might be somewhat more dependably dispersed throughout the entire atmosphere, temperature obviously gets concentrated in small parts of it, however mobile, unpredictable and beyond measure. The news reports of weather are off by 5 to 10 degrees every day and you still believe they know the temperature of the planet to 2 degrees?
The "data" has three dimensions whether it's the entire data or a model. Since you do not show how you measured three dimensions (height = several miles, cloud cover = sporadic) I cannot assume you did.
Another one of your weird tangents that has nothing to do with anything.
"None or your "numbers" recognize any geographic location. "
Concentrations measured at Hawaii's Mauna Loa Observatory and at Australia's Cape Grim station in Tasmania show concentrations continued to increase in 2019 and 2020. In particular, CO₂ concentrations reached 414.38 and 410.04 parts per million in July this year, respectively, at each station.
In Antarctica, summer sea ice reached its lowest and second-lowest extent in 2017 and 2018, respectively, and 2018 was also the second-lowest winter extent.
At Earth’s mid-latitudes, the hottest days will be up to 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter at 1.5 degrees Celsius warming and up to 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer at 2 degrees Celsius warming. The warmest extreme temperatures will be in Central and Eastern North America, Central and Southern Europe, the Mediterranean (including Southern Europe, Northern Africa and the near-East), Western and Central Asia and Southern Africa. Longer warm spells will affect many densely populated regions. At warming above 1.5 degrees Celsius, twice as many megacities as today are likely to become heat stressed, potentially exposing 350 million more people by 2050.
"The news reports of weather are off by 5 to 10 degrees every day and you still believe they know the temperature of the planet to 2 degrees?
"
Idiotic comparison, that's like saying the Lakers won't win most of their games because sports analysts don't predict exactly how much they win every game by. You realize their is a big difference between making exact short term predictions every single time and long terms predictions that have overhwhelming data that point in a certain general direction, right?
The "data" has three dimensions whether it's the entire data or a model. Since you do not show how you measured three dimensions (height = several miles, cloud cover = sporadic) I cannot assume you did.
Why would I show how "I" measured it? Obviosuly I didn't, climate scientists (people far more qualified on the topic than you) did.