|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 24, 2020 0:10:22 GMT
There are no numbers for any of those things. You need those numbers. Remember now? 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.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 24, 2020 0:22:52 GMT
There are no numbers for any of those things. You need those numbers. Remember now? 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. "There are no numbers for any of those things. You need those numbers. Remember now?" 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?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 24, 2020 0:45:40 GMT
There are no numbers for any of those things. You need those numbers. Remember now? 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. "There are no numbers for any of those things. You need those numbers. Remember now?" 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? It should be obvious now that Trump would have won another term if not for the pandemic, which by the way has nothing to do with climate. Retarded kids on the internet who believe they know the temperature of the entire planet cannot be taken seriously. 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.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 24, 2020 1:00:48 GMT
"There are no numbers for any of those things. You need those numbers. Remember now?" 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? It should be obvious now that Trump would have won another term if not for the pandemic, which by the way has nothing to do with climate. Retarded kids on the internet who believe they know the temperature of the entire planet cannot be taken seriously. 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. "It should be obvious now that Trump would have won another term if not for the pandemic, which by the way has nothing to do with climate. Retarded kids on the internet who believe they know the temperature of the entire planet cannot be taken seriously." 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.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 24, 2020 1:08:50 GMT
It should be obvious now that Trump would have won another term if not for the pandemic, which by the way has nothing to do with climate. Retarded kids on the internet who believe they know the temperature of the entire planet cannot be taken seriously. 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. "It should be obvious now that Trump would have won another term if not for the pandemic, which by the way has nothing to do with climate. Retarded kids on the internet who believe they know the temperature of the entire planet cannot be taken seriously." 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. Knock me over with a feather. Here's the problem, you need to convince others you are right. Some people do not automatically accept what the read as you obviously and admittedly did. It isn't enough just to be right. You and they have to show your work.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 24, 2020 2:24:40 GMT
"It should be obvious now that Trump would have won another term if not for the pandemic, which by the way has nothing to do with climate. Retarded kids on the internet who believe they know the temperature of the entire planet cannot be taken seriously." 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. Knock me over with a feather. Here's the problem, you need to convince others you are right. Some people do not automatically accept what the read as you obviously and admittedly did. It isn't enough just to be right. You and they have to show your work. This is beyond idiotic, even by your low standards. By your reasoning if I showed pictures of the earth taken by NASA to a flat earther and their response is "Well you didn't take these photos yourself, you have to show your own actual work, some people don't automatically accept what they're shown like you do!" that would be a perfectly argument. Does that mean I have to fund a space shuttle program and go take the pictures of earth myself? Do you see why this is a crippingly stupid?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 24, 2020 7:54:52 GMT
Knock me over with a feather. Here's the problem, you need to convince others you are right. Some people do not automatically accept what the read as you obviously and admittedly did. It isn't enough just to be right. You and they have to show your work. This is beyond idiotic, even by your low standards. By your reasoning if I showed pictures of the earth taken by NASA to a flat earther and their response is "Well you didn't take these photos yourself, you have to show your own actual work, some people don't automatically accept what they're shown like you do!" that would be a perfectly argument. Does that mean I have to fund a space shuttle program and go take the pictures of earth myself? Do you see why this is a crippingly stupid? You are not reading anything with any comprehension. Please take my advice and put things in your own words to ensure that you comprehend them. I wasted time with you anyway seeing you cannot read, other people don't have that much time. It isn't about taking your own pictures. It is about being able to comprehend what pictures might indicate.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 24, 2020 11:54:05 GMT
"It should be obvious now that Trump would have won another term if not for the pandemic, which by the way has nothing to do with climate. Retarded kids on the internet who believe they know the temperature of the entire planet cannot be taken seriously." 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. Knock me over with a feather. Here's the problem, you need to convince others you are right. Some people do not automatically accept what the read as you obviously and admittedly did. It isn't enough just to be right. You and they have to show your work. There will always be climate change deniers, even in the face of work shown. But the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that the world is getting warmer and that a major contributor to this is man-made. As you have told us, science is not a democracy, while no one appointed you an expert. Perhaps you can convince others and show work yourself? Please link to any authoritative scientist who has published peer-reviewed evidence that the world is not warming up? Evasion will be noted.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 24, 2020 12:31:54 GMT
Knock me over with a feather. Here's the problem, you need to convince others you are right. Some people do not automatically accept what the read as you obviously and admittedly did. It isn't enough just to be right. You and they have to show your work. There will always be climate change deniers, even in the face of work shown. But the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that the world is getting warmer and that a major contributor to this is man-made. As you have told us, science is not a democracy, while no one appointed you an expert. Perhaps you can convince others and show work yourself? Please link to any authoritative scientist who has published peer-reviewed evidence that the world is not warming up? Evasion will be noted. Is that why you don't show any? We'll never know what people will deny till you do.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 24, 2020 12:40:23 GMT
There will always be climate change deniers, even in the face of work shown. But the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that the world is getting warmer and that a major contributor to this is man-made. As you have told us, science is not a democracy, while no one appointed you an expert. Perhaps you can convince others and show work yourself? Please link to any authoritative scientist who has published peer-reviewed evidence that the world is not warming up? Evasion will be noted. Is that why you don't show any? We'll never know what people will deny till you do. I think in our previous exchanges generated through your climate change denial I did just that, to little effect. And on this thread it's been carefully demonstrated to you again by another. Your evasion noted.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 24, 2020 12:44:30 GMT
Is that why you don't show any? We'll never know what people will deny till you do. I think in our previous exchanges generated through your climate change denial I did just that, to little effect. And on this thread it's be carefully demonstrated to you again by another. No you did not and evidently no you cannot. You might think you did because you are unable to read with comprehension. Remember and please follow my advice to put things in your own words to ensure you understand what you read.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 24, 2020 12:48:37 GMT
This is beyond idiotic, even by your low standards. By your reasoning if I showed pictures of the earth taken by NASA to a flat earther and their response is "Well you didn't take these photos yourself, you have to show your own actual work, some people don't automatically accept what they're shown like you do!" that would be a perfectly argument. Does that mean I have to fund a space shuttle program and go take the pictures of earth myself? Do you see why this is a crippingly stupid? You are not reading anything with any comprehension. Please take my advice and put things in your own words to ensure that you comprehend them. I wasted time with you anyway seeing you cannot read, other people don't have that much time. It isn't about taking your own pictures. It is about being able to comprehend what pictures might indicate. Why would I need to "put things in my own words" for it to be true? That would be like if I cited geographers on the shape of the earth and a flat earther wrote it off because "it's not in my own words" Again, this is beyond idiotic.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 24, 2020 12:52:08 GMT
You are not reading anything with any comprehension. Please take my advice and put things in your own words to ensure that you comprehend them. I wasted time with you anyway seeing you cannot read, other people don't have that much time. It isn't about taking your own pictures. It is about being able to comprehend what pictures might indicate. Petty insults don't count as an argument, evasion noted. You don't count as a judge of anything.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 24, 2020 12:54:38 GMT
Petty insults don't count as an argument, evasion noted. You don't count as a judge of anything. Another non argument. Pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 24, 2020 12:59:07 GMT
You don't count as a judge of anything. Another non argument. Pathetic. Who?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 24, 2020 13:03:07 GMT
Another non argument. Pathetic. Who? Evasion still noted.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 24, 2020 13:08:43 GMT
I think in our previous exchanges generated through your climate change denial I did just that, to little effect. And on this thread it's be carefully demonstrated to you again by another. No you did not and evidently no you cannot. You might think you did because you are unable to read with comprehension. Remember and please follow my advice to put things in your own words to ensure you understand what you read. Evasion noted. And you are mistaken, whether deliberately or otherwise. For instance this, from our last exchanges over this subject back on August 4: That was not the only substantiation I offered in that exchange. It may be noted that, as per usual, you offered none then either. For those who wish to check see IMDB2.freeforums.net/thread/235642/school-cancels-bible-class-interestAs for putting things in my own words, well I leave that sort of creative writing to you. I prefer to link to people who know what they are saying just as you have been provided with earlier on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 24, 2020 13:10:36 GMT
I note how you evade describing how you took the temperature of the atmosphere throughout it's several miles of height. And of course anything else that requires you using English.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 24, 2020 13:15:42 GMT
I note how you evade describing how you took the temperature of the atmosphere throughout it's several miles of height. And of course anything else that requires you using English. Why would I need to describe how I "took the temperature" for it to be true? That would be like if I cited studies by geographers on the shape of the earth and a flat earther wrote them off because I didn't do the studies myself. Again, this is beyond idiotic.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 24, 2020 13:37:28 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [ full text here] < clip >
As for putting things in my own words, well I leave that sort of creative writing to you. I prefer to link to people who know what they are saying just as you have been provided with earlier on this thread. I would assure you that I am among the few people who have time for your nonsense. You might not think my advice can lead you to a larger audience, but it can as time only will tell. Intelligent people switched the topic to the pandemic knowing full well Trump would have won easily if Democrats wallowed in that "temperature of the planet" blather all day. It is convincing to you because you are an idiot who accepts anything superficially scientific. Other people have no blind faith in science and are not convinced. That's where actually understanding it becomes necessary to convince anyone. In real schools where people actually learn anything teachers tell their students exactly what I'm telling you. You cannot expect to be effective by simply linking arguments you obviously do not understand. Your vote doesn't matter. It is not politics. It is science. There is an automatic failing grade for treating science like politics.
|
|