July 4, 2023 - Hottest day ever recorded

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > July 4, 2023 - Hottest day ever recorded > Page 7

Page 7 of 8

08-06-2024 03:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (22414)	Im a BM wrote: keepit wrote: ibd, Really. Can't you start to make some SUBSTANTIAL points rather than just petty name calling and semantic arguments, and lies and inaccuracies. Well, as IBdaMann put it, "Watch out for trolls who hide behind word games.." One of the more transparent word games might be called "Obfuscation fallacy". A simple question can't be answered in a direct way. Instead, they will answer a question that nobody asked using a shift in wording... Radium is not helium. Hydrogen is not a proton. Change to the acid. There is no intellectual honesty in the obfuscation fallacy. And the point is to ensure that there is no way to pin them down for any specific assertion, which would otherwise be easily debunked. Add petty personal insults and false accusations to the mix liberally, and don't forget that anyone outside of their Church is actually a Marxist with evil intentions to harm humanity. Why do you insist on semantic argument fallacies concerning radium, helium, hydrogen, protons, and acids? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-06-2024 23:56
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1097)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: keepit wrote: ibd, Really. Can't you start to make some SUBSTANTIAL points rather than just petty name calling and semantic arguments, and lies and inaccuracies. Well, as IBdaMann put it, "Watch out for trolls who hide behind word games.." One of the more transparent word games might be called "Obfuscation fallacy". A simple question can't be answered in a direct way. Instead, they will answer a question that nobody asked using a shift in wording... Radium is not helium. Hydrogen is not a proton. Change to the acid. There is no intellectual honesty in the obfuscation fallacy. And the point is to ensure that there is no way to pin them down for any specific assertion, which would otherwise be easily debunked. Add petty personal insults and false accusations to the mix liberally, and don't forget that anyone outside of their Church is actually a Marxist with evil intentions to harm humanity. Why do you insist on semantic argument fallacies concerning radium, helium, hydrogen, protons, and acids? Nobody can stop you from trolling and spamming and trolling and spamming... more than 22,000 posts of parrot poop, and the number keeps rising.
09-06-2024 09:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (22414)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: keepit wrote: ibd, Really. Can't you start to make some SUBSTANTIAL points rather than just petty name calling and semantic arguments, and lies and inaccuracies. Well, as IBdaMann put it, "Watch out for trolls who hide behind word games.." One of the more transparent word games might be called "Obfuscation fallacy". A simple question can't be answered in a direct way. Instead, they will answer a question that nobody asked using a shift in wording... Radium is not helium. Hydrogen is not a proton. Change to the acid. There is no intellectual honesty in the obfuscation fallacy. And the point is to ensure that there is no way to pin them down for any specific assertion, which would otherwise be easily debunked. Add petty personal insults and false accusations to the mix liberally, and don't forget that anyone outside of their Church is actually a Marxist with evil intentions to harm humanity. Why do you insist on semantic argument fallacies concerning radium, helium, hydrogen, protons, and acids? Nobody can stop you from trolling and spamming and trolling and spamming... You are describing yourself again. You cannot blame your problem on me or anybody else. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-06-2024 20:04
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1097)	If the trolls are correct, average temperatures on Earth have NOT increased significantly in recent decades. Therefore, the laws of physics must have suddenly changed. The air isn't any warmer, but it holds more water vapor now. Ice melts at a lower temperature than before. Because it isn't any warmer than it used to be. BIOLOGY Let's pretend that the world's top scientists are huddled to discuss the huge problems with the temperature data set. Let's pretend that two groups of scientists have come up with two different sets of numbers. One set of numbers says that temperatures in the last 40 years are not significantly higher than previous centuries. The other set of numbers says that temperature keeps creeping up higher. What OTHER data could settle the dispute? How about altitude range of forest pests? If there has been no increase in temperature, then there must have been a sudden leap in evolution. The higher altitude zones are just as cold as they used to be. Very rapid adaptation has enabled bark boring beetles, etc., to thrive in colder temperatures, at higher altitude than before. How about the latitude range of boreal forest trees? If there has been no increase in temperature, then there must have been a sudden leap in evolution. The higher latitude zones are just as cold as they used to be. Very rapid adaptation has enabled boreal forest trees to thrive in colder temperature, at latitudes further north than before. How about the elevation range of plant communities of all types? If there has been no increase in temperature, then there must have been a sudden leap in evolution. It is just as cold as it used to be at higher altitude. Very rapid adaptation has enabled multiple kinds of plant communities to thrive in colder temperature, at higher elevation than before. But there IS no group of scientists with alternative temperature data showing no significant increase in the last 40 years. Just internet trolls who pretend to understand science. Could go on about agricultural pest species range shifting to where it has gotten warmer, snow lines, tree lines, biome boundaries. Mother Nature provides a whole lot of temperature evidence that doesn't require a thermometer. In this case, I would say that the Earth's evidence overrules human data sets if there is truly a dispute about whether or not global warming is occurring. But there is no such dispute among real world scientists.[/quote]
09-06-2024 21:03
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14831)	Im a BM wrote: If the trolls are correct, average temperatures on Earth have NOT increased significantly in recent decades. You are misrepresenting the position of those you call "trolls." They correctly state that no rational adult has any rational basis for believing the claims you make (or better yet, for believing the sermons you preach). Add to that their observations that you refuse to clarify any specifics of your claims, presumably because you know you are egregiously in error, because of your intense shame at holding the stupid, physics-violating beliefs that you hold, and because of your fear of bursting your delicate fantasy of being a thuper-thmart thientific geniuth ... and any rational adult can understand that you simply refer anyone as a "troll" for whose independent thinking and science acumen you have seething envy and thus hold in contempt. Im a BM wrote: Therefore, the laws of physics must have suddenly changed. It must be a truly rude awakening to realize that all of the Climate Change "thettled thienth" under which you were indoctrinated is nothing more than WACKY religious dogma that totally crucifies any science credibility you might have otherwise had. Im a BM wrote: The air isn't any warmer, but it holds more water vapor now. Your misguided sarcasm aside, it must sting like a bitch knowing that the people you trusted, who made you learn this crap, were simply lying to you the whole time. Im a BM wrote: Ice melts at a lower temperature than before. I'd be fascinated to learn how you were convinced that the earth somehow has less ice now than at any point in the past. Im a BM wrote: Because it isn't any warmer than it used to be. I'd be fascinated to learn how you were convinced that you would become omniscient merely by believing in the Climate Change faith. Im a BM wrote: Let's pretend that the world's top scientists are huddled to discuss the huge problems with the temperature data set. I'd be fascinated to learn how you were convinced that there exists this valid global temperature dataset without you ever demanding to actually see it and perhaps run your own linear regression to verify its validity. You are too stupid and gullible to ever be labelled as a scientist, although you make for a good thettled-thientitht.
10-06-2024 05:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (22414)	Im a BM wrote: If the trolls are correct, You can't blame your problem on anybody else. Im a BM wrote: average temperatures on Earth have NOT increased significantly in recent decades. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Im a BM wrote: Therefore, the laws of physics must have suddenly changed. The laws of thermodynamics hasn't changed. You just want to ignore them. Im a BM wrote: The air isn't any warmer, but it holds more water vapor now. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the humidity of the Earth. Im a BM wrote: Ice melts at a lower temperature than before. I don't think you understand the conditions on when water freezes or thaws. Im a BM wrote: Because it isn't any warmer than it used to be. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it. Im a BM wrote: Let's pretend that the world's top scientists are huddled to discuss the huge problems with the temperature data set. There is no data set. Im a BM wrote: In this case, I would say that the Earth's evidence overrules human data sets There is no data set. Im a BM wrote: if there is truly a dispute about whether or not global warming is occurring. Not possible. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Im a BM wrote: But there is no such dispute among real world scientists. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-06-2024 20:21
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14831)	[quote]Into the Night wrote:It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. [quote] I can. All I need is just one thermometer and I don't even need to leave my home. I did it just yesterday. The thermometer showed me that the earth's temperature is 68F.
13-06-2024 22:18
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1097)	Debunking the Global Warming "Hoax" Hoax In 2024 there is still a very small minority among the population who remain convinced that Global Warming is a "hoax". The assertion is that average temperatures in the air, sea, and soil have not increased significantly in the last 50 years. Three fields of science provide evidence that temperature related conditions have changed significantly in the last 50 years. For these irrefutably identified changes to have occurred WITHOUT average temperatures having increased would, INDEED, violate the laws of thermodynamics. METEOROLOGY The frequency and intensity of storms, floods, droughts, heat waves, tornadoes, atmospheric rivers, polar vortices, tidal surges, and other extreme weather events has INCREASED. For this increase to have occurred WITHOUT average temperatures of air, sea, and soil having increased absolutely violates the laws of thermodynamics. One way to phrase it is, "You cannot create energy out of nothing". It takes energy to power the weather. More powerful weather that is NOT driven higher temperature requires that energy be created out of nothing. PHYSICS The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere has significantly INCREASED. For this increase to have occurred WITHOUT average temperatures of air, sea, and soil having increased absolutely violates the laws of thermodynamics. Energy is consumed by the phase change as liquid water becomes water vapor. For air to hold so much more water vapor without it being driven by higher temperatures requires that energy be created out of nothing. The melting of ice, in glaciers, in sea ice, snowmelt, Arctic permafrost, and elsewhere has significantly INCREASED. For this increase to have occurred WITHOUT average temperatures of air, sea, and soil having increased absolutely violates the laws of thermodynamics. Energy is consumed by phase change as solid ice becomes liquid water. For ice to be melting so much more without it being driven by higher temperature requires that energy be created out of nothing. BIOLOGY If there has been no increase in temperature, then there must have been a sudden leap in evolution. The higher altitude zones are just as cold as they used to be. Very rapid adaptation has enabled bark boring beetles, etc., to thrive in colder temperatures, at higher altitude than before. How about the latitude range of boreal forest trees? If there has been no increase in temperature, then there must have been a sudden leap in evolution. The higher latitude zones are just as cold as they used to be. Very rapid adaptation has enabled boreal forest trees to thrive in colder temperature, at latitudes further north than before. How about the elevation range of plant communities of all types? If there has been no increase in temperature, then there must have been a sudden leap in evolution. It is just as cold as it used to be at higher altitude. Very rapid adaptation has enabled multiple kinds of plant communities to thrive in colder temperature, at higher elevation than before. Could go on about agricultural pest species range shifting to where it has gotten warmer, snow lines, tree lines, biome boundaries. Mother Nature provides a whole lot of temperature evidence that doesn't require a thermometer. In this case, I would say that the Earth's evidence overrules human acquired temperature data sets if there is truly a dispute about whether or not global warming is occurring. Refusing to believe that it is NOT a hoax is becoming a more and more lonely position to take.
14-06-2024 01:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (22414)	Im a BM wrote: Debunking the Global Warming "Hoax" Hoax You can't. Im a BM wrote: In 2024 there is still a very small minority among the population who remain convinced that Global Warming is a "hoax". You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Im a BM wrote: The assertion is that average temperatures in the air, sea, and soil have not increased significantly in the last 50 years. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Argument from randU fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Three fields of science provide evidence that temperature related conditions have changed significantly in the last 50 years. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Argument from randU fallacy. Base rate fallacy. Im a BM wrote: For these irrefutably identified changes to have occurred WITHOUT average temperatures having increased would, INDEED, violate the laws of thermodynamics. Attempted proof by void. Im a BM wrote: METEOROLOGY The frequency and intensity of storms, floods, droughts, heat waves, tornadoes, atmospheric rivers, polar vortices, tidal surges, and other extreme weather events has INCREASED. It is not possible to measure all weather activity. Argument from randU fallacy. The National Hurricane data center shows no increase in tropical storms or hurricanes. Im a BM wrote: For this increase to have occurred WITHOUT average temperatures of air, sea, and soil having increased absolutely violates the laws of thermodynamics. Attempted proof by void. Im a BM wrote: One way to phrase it is, "You cannot create energy out of nothing". It takes energy to power the weather. More powerful weather that is NOT driven higher temperature requires that energy be created out of nothing. Define 'more powerful weather'. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Argument from randU fallacies. Buzzword fallacy. Im a BM wrote: PHYSICS The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere has significantly INCREASED. It is not possible to measure the global humidity. Argument from randU fallacy. Im a BM wrote: For this increase to have occurred WITHOUT average temperatures of air, sea, and soil having increased absolutely violates the laws of thermodynamics. Attempted proof by void. Im a BM wrote: Energy is consumed by the phase change as liquid water becomes water vapor. Water vapor is not steam. Im a BM wrote: For air to hold so much more water vapor without it being driven by higher temperatures requires that energy be created out of nothing. Water vapor is not steam. Im a BM wrote: The melting of ice, in glaciers, in sea ice, snowmelt, Arctic permafrost, and elsewhere has significantly INCREASED. It is not possible to measure the global level if ice and snow on Earth. Argument from randU fallacies. Im a BM wrote: For this increase to have occurred WITHOUT average temperatures of air, sea, and soil having increased absolutely violates the laws of thermodynamics. Energy is consumed by phase change as solid ice becomes liquid water. For ice to be melting so much more without it being driven by higher temperature requires that energy be created out of nothing. Attempted proof by void. Im a BM wrote: BIOLOGY If there has been no increase in temperature, then there must have been a sudden leap in evolution. Evolution has no temperature. Redefinition fallacy. Im a BM wrote: The higher altitude zones are just as cold as they used to be. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Argument from randU fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Very rapid adaptation has enabled bark boring beetles, etc., to thrive in colder temperatures, at higher altitude than before. Before what? Im a BM wrote: How about the latitude range of boreal forest trees? What about it? Im a BM wrote: If there has been no increase in temperature, then there must have been a sudden leap in evolution. The higher latitude zones are just as cold as they used to be. Very rapid adaptation has enabled boreal forest trees to thrive in colder temperature, at latitudes further north than before. Before what? Im a BM wrote: How about the elevation range of plant communities of all types? What about it? Im a BM wrote: If there has been no increase in temperature, then there must have been a sudden leap in evolution. It is just as cold as it used to be at higher altitude. Very rapid adaptation has enabled multiple kinds of plant communities to thrive in colder temperature, at higher elevation than before. Before what? Im a BM wrote: Mother Nature provides a whole lot of temperature evidence that doesn't require a thermometer. You have not listed any evidence. You simply made shit up and called it a result of rising temperatures. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Argument from randU fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentatlism). Im a BM wrote: In this case, I would say that the Earth's evidence overrules human acquired temperature data sets if there is truly a dispute about whether or not global warming is occurring. There is no data set. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Im a BM wrote: Refusing to believe that it is NOT a hoax is becoming a more and more lonely position to take. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Attempted proof by populum. Making up all kinds of 'data' to prove rising temperature 'data' is not going to prove any 'data'. Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is a fallacy, called an argument from randU fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-06-2024 18:29
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (3032)	Im a BM wrote: METEOROLOGY The frequency and intensity of storms, floods, droughts, heat waves, tornadoes, atmospheric rivers, polar vortices, tidal surges, and other extreme weather events has INCREASED This is particularly offensive if you are asking me to believe it and should be deleted immediately. However, if you can explain how an imaginary warmer earth produces more wet and dry, and more hot and cold, then I will immediately apologize. That won't be happening though as you don't understand any of the bullshit you pluck from Google and post up here. You are a gullible moron. Im a BM wrote: It takes energy to power the weather. More powerful weather that is NOT driven higher temperature requires that energy be created out of nothing. Most impactful weather is created by temperature differential. Are you claiming that some areas are immune to warming creating this sharp differential? Are you aware that it takes an assload COLD air to create a storm? My state got baseball size hail yesterday. Um, didn't happen because of hot air. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
15-06-2024 05:46
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14831)	Robup Northert: Debunking the Global Warming "Hoax" Hoax Let's take a moment to mock the remaining scientific illiterates who cling to their religious Climate indoctrination ... and who believe that their WACKY opinions are somehow shared by the rest of the world. Robup Northert: In 2024 there is still a very small minority among the population who remain convinced that Global Warming is a "hoax". In 2024, only a small lunatic fringe remain dedicated to their slave-masters who order them to believe in WACKY, science-defying Climate dogmas that violate Stefan-Boltzmann and the laws of thermodynamics. The dogmas mandate rigid belief that the dogmas are thettled thienth and that their science illiteracy is actually thienth geniuth. We're talking about some very stupid people who hopefully do not have any children. Robup Northert: The assertion is that average temperatures in the air, sea, and soil have not increased significantly in the last 50 years. Correction: the assertion is that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature has not changed discernibly since the Industrial Revolution. The assertion does not deny the possibility of non-discernible local average temperature changes or that weather can change on a regular basis. Robup Northert: Three fields of science provide evidence that temperature related conditions have changed significantly in the last 50 years. Too funny. Only a scientifically illiterate moron would refer to science as providing "evidence." Either science predicts a specific effect or it does not. Are all biogeocomics as scientifically illiterate as you are? Robup Northert: For these irrefutably identified changes to have occurred WITHOUT average temperatures having increased would, INDEED, violate the laws of thermodynamics. Too funny! You haven't identified any changes whatsoever! Did you catch that? You irrefutably did not identify any changes that occurred, because no such discernible changes have ever been observed. Robup Northert: The frequency and intensity of storms, floods, droughts, heat waves, tornadoes, atmospheric rivers, polar vortices, tidal surges, and other extreme weather events has INCREASED. Robup Northert: The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere has significantly INCREASED. Robup Northert: The melting of ice, in glaciers, in sea ice, snowmelt, Arctic permafrost, and elsewhere has significantly INCREASED. You have not shown any of this. You pulled all of this out of your azz. I imagine this is why you NEED your own censored forum so that you can delete all the posts that point out that you have nothing that you don't pull out of your azz. Robup Northert: The higher altitude zones are just as cold as they used to be. Very rapid adaptation has enabled bark boring beetles, etc., to thrive in colder temperatures, at higher altitude than before. This is called "making the case for rapid adaptation of the bark boring beetle" and not "making the case for physics violations." As most leftists, you are logically inept. Robup Northert: How about the elevation range of plant communities of all types? Are you talking about a complex mix of many localized changes involving adaptation? It would appear that you are, and that you haven't the slightest ability to apply any sort of critical reasoning and to draw rational conclusions. Robup Northert: Could go on about agricultural pest species range shifting to where it has gotten warmer, snow lines, tree lines, biome boundaries. Are you implying that species can adapt? Whoa! No way! Robup Northert: Mother Nature provides a whole lot of temperature evidence that doesn't require a thermometer. It is stupid to assert that Ma Nature provides temperature evidence when Ma Nature is providing the temperature. Who calls the temperature "temperature evidence"? When you get around to it, make a rational point, please.
15-06-2024 06:08
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14831)	GasGuzzler wrote:My state got baseball size hail yesterday. Um, didn't happen because of hot air. Wait a minute, that might have been extreme hail. Global Warming predicts increasing hail temperatures and we find that these changes everywhere are accelerating more rapidly than everywhere else, moreso than scientists previously feared. When hail reaches a certain temperature, it begins to release methane and organic carbon. This does not sit well with the polyphenols that are trying to restore the ocean's alkalinity. So yes, you owe Robert's mangrove an apology ... unless I somehow got some of the details wrong.
16-06-2024 07:46
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (3032)	IBdaMann wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:My state got baseball size hail yesterday. Um, didn't happen because of hot air. Wait a minute, that might have been extreme hail. Global Warming predicts increasing hail temperatures and we find that these changes everywhere are accelerating more rapidly than everywhere else, moreso than scientists previously feared. When hail reaches a certain temperature, it begins to release methane and organic carbon. This does not sit well with the polyphenols that are trying to restore the ocean's alkalinity. So yes, you owe Robert's mangrove an apology ... unless I somehow got some of the details wrong. What is quite alarming is that Robert poked some of the hail stones with the gamma and sure as shit there was unprecedented trace amounts of helium. Robert was the first to discover the undeniable scientific fact that as the escape velocity helium was absorbed by the storm, it gave the smaller hailstones the necessary kick needed to achieve the altitude to reach never before seen since Tuesday baseball size hail. What you are not getting is that when tremendous amounts of ice fall from the sky, it accelerates global warming past the tipping point. It's probably already too late if it's not already too late as we are bracing for even more polar vortices next winter. It really getting bad out there evidenced by the fact that there is temperature out there. Not to worry though, my solar powered toaster with windmill backup system is almost finished. Soon I'll be enjoying peanut butter toast and hanging out all day on the troll free sub forum with a thousand new members. It going to be great! Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
16-06-2024 09:36
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14831)	GasGuzzler wrote:What is quite alarming is that Robert poked some of the hail stones with the gamma and sure as shit there was unprecedented trace amounts of helium. No shit, Sherlock! Why do you think hail floats out into space? It's precisely these kinds of Climate-denying comments that put us in the position of needing Robert's censorship. Oh, by the way, hail is just the coke, or "hailcoke" from the refinement of helium. When you look up, do you see a sky full of hail? Of course not. It all floated away ... from the pull of the magnetosphere, but this gets into the inverse-square law. How do you not know this? GasGuzzler wrote: Robert was the first to discover the undeniable scientific fact that as the escape velocity helium was absorbed by the storm, it gave the smaller hailstones the necessary kick needed to achieve the altitude to reach never before seen since Tuesday baseball size hail. I have to give credit where it's due. If I ever need someone to testify in court that organic carbon is organic carbon, Robert Northup is my go-to guy. I would only need to put him on the witness list and the other side will settle. GasGuzzler wrote: What you are not getting is that when tremendous amounts of ice fall from the sky, it accelerates global warming past the tipping point. Fck, I forgot about that! It's already too late, isn't it? If it's not, it's definitely much later than it otherwise should be. GasGuzzler wrote:* It's probably already too late if it's not already too late as we are bracing for even more polar vortices next winter. This winter is projected to be the THIRD hottest of the top twelve hottest winters in excess of the estimated weighted average of all even-year winters between 1956 - 1984. This is more catastrophic than the catastrophic average of every third week of April for the last twenty years! GasGuzzler wrote: It really getting bad out there evidenced by the fact that there is temperature out there. Tell me about it. My thermometer has been non-stop since I took it out of its packaging. GasGuzzler wrote: Not to worry though, my solar powered toaster with windmill backup system is almost finished. How's the Bessler power backup attachment coming along? Did you figure out how to connect it? I still don't know why you don't just use grAvity To powEr your appliances. GasGuzzler wrote: Soon I'll be enjoying peanut butter toast and hanging out all day on the troll free sub forum with a thousand new members. It going to be great! I envy you. You probably heard that I won the "Top Troll" award, which comes with a prohibition against posting on censored sub-fora, or from posting links from the internet that were put there by others.
17-06-2024 18:35
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1097)	Debunking the Global Warming "Hoax" Hoax In 2024 there is still a very small minority among the population who remain convinced that Global Warming is a "hoax". In some Internet rabbit holes, they may even represent majority opinion. The assertion is that average temperatures in the air, sea, and soil have not increased significantly in the last 50 years. Three fields of science provide evidence that temperature related conditions have changed significantly in the last 50 years. For these irrefutably identified changes to have occurred WITHOUT average temperatures having increased would, INDEED, violate the laws of thermodynamics. METEOROLOGY The frequency and intensity of El Nino, La Nina, "super" storms, floods, droughts, heat waves, tornadoes, atmospheric rivers, polar vortices, tidal surges, and other extreme weather events has INCREASED. For this increase to have occurred WITHOUT average temperatures of air, sea, and soil having increased absolutely violates the laws of thermodynamics. One way to phrase it is, "You cannot create energy out of nothing". It takes energy to power the weather. A LOT of energy, in fact. More powerful weather that is NOT driven by higher temperatures or greater temperature differences than before requires that energy be created out of nothing. Warmer sea surface water has more energy to drive a more powerful hurricane. Getting a more powerful hurricane without warmer water requires magic. PHYSICS The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere has significantly INCREASED. For this increase to have occurred WITHOUT average temperatures of air, sea, and soil having increased absolutely violates the laws of thermodynamics. Energy is consumed by the phase change as liquid water becomes water vapor. For air to hold so much more water vapor without it being driven by higher temperatures requires that energy be created out of nothing. The melting of ice, in glaciers, in sea ice, snowmelt, Arctic permafrost, and elsewhere has significantly INCREASED. For this increase to have occurred WITHOUT average temperatures of air, sea, and soil having increased absolutely violates the laws of thermodynamics. Energy is consumed by phase change as solid ice becomes liquid water. For ice to be melting so much more without it being driven by higher temperature requires that energy be created out of nothing. BIOLOGY If there has been no increase in temperature, then there must have been a sudden leap in evolution. The higher altitude zones are just as cold as they used to be. Very rapid adaptation has enabled bark boring beetles, etc., to thrive in colder temperatures, at higher altitude than before. How about the latitude range of boreal forest trees? If there has been no increase in temperature, then there must have been a sudden leap in evolution. The higher latitude zones are just as cold as they used to be. Very rapid adaptation has enabled boreal forest trees to thrive in colder temperature, at latitudes further north than before. How about the elevation range of plant communities of all types? If there has been no increase in temperature, then there must have been a sudden leap in evolution. It is just as cold as it used to be at higher altitude. Very rapid adaptation has enabled multiple kinds of plant communities to thrive in colder temperature, at higher elevation than before. Could go on about agricultural pest species range shifting to where it has gotten warmer, snow lines, tree lines, biome boundaries. Mother Nature provides a whole lot of temperature evidence that doesn't require a thermometer. In this case, I would say that the Earth's evidence overrules human acquired temperature data sets if there is truly a dispute about whether or not global warming is occurring. Refusing to believe that it is NOT a hoax is becoming a more and more lonely position to take.[/quote]
20-06-2024 06:45
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (3032)	IBdaMann wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:What is quite alarming is that Robert poked some of the hail stones with the gamma and sure as shit there was unprecedented trace amounts of helium. No shit, Sherlock! Why do you think hail floats out into space? What makes you think I actually think? On the contrary, I BELIEVE what I am told to believe by the experts and dutifully preach eternal damnation in hell for extreme carbon sins. My audience is quite often north of three. IBdaMann wrote: It's precisely these kinds of Climate-denying comments that put us in the position of needing Robert's censorship. I have NEVER denied the global climate, except for Saudi. Someone said it got hot over there last week? Crazy shit right there, bro! IBdaMann wrote: Oh, by the way, hail is just the coke, or "hailcoke" from the refinement of helium. When you look up, do you see a sky full of hail? Of course not. It all floated away ... from the pull of the magnetosphere, but this gets into the inverse-square law. How do you not know this? When I look up, I mostly see climate...and no, I don't know the reverse square law. Thermodynamics really aren't my thing. I focus more on global change science. IBdaMann wrote: I have to give credit where it's due. If I ever need someone to testify in court that organic carbon is organic carbon, Robert Northup is my go-to guy. I would only need to put him on the witness list and the other side will settle. Great! Frank was just asking me if I knew of a good witness for his Hexavalent Chromium lawsuit. Robert Northup would be fantastic. I'll pay him a visit. Do you have his address? IBdaMann wrote: Fck, I forgot about that! It's already too late, isn't it? If it's not, it's definitely much later than it otherwise should be. I think it was a bit too late much earlier. IBdaMann wrote:* This winter is projected to be the THIRD hottest of the top twelve hottest winters in excess of the estimated weighted average of all even-year winters between 1956 - 1984. This is more catastrophic than the catastrophic average of every third week of April for the last twenty years! You are just cherry picking. IBdaMann wrote: My thermometer has been non-stop since I took it out of its packaging. Wait!... Could this be the future holy grail of free energy?! IBdaMann wrote: How's the Bessler power backup attachment coming along? Did you figure out how to connect it? Hell no, and Besslers don't exactly come with instructions. I'm done trying to reinvent the Bessler wheel. Trying to use gravity as energy has "forced" me to go solar. IBdaMann wrote: You probably heard that I won the "Top Troll" award. Now I've got to call you out on this one before your heads swells to extreme and unprecedented levels. You are taking credit for a title you did not earn. I know Into the Night got totally snubbed, but the title you were crowned with was "senior troll". So ITN is still in the running for "top" spot and Robert basically called you and old troll. Sorry, I tried to let you down easy, but the helium! So damn much helium! Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
20-06-2024 10:00
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14831)	GasGuzzler wrote: I have NEVER denied the global climate, except for Saudi. Someone said it got hot over there last week? Crazy shit right there, bro! When it comes to the global climate, we don't consider what happens on other planets, so everything that happens on Saudi is immaterial. I will admit, however, that those sand forcings, camel feedbacks and hijab oscillations are pretty mysterious. GasGuzzler wrote: When I look up, I mostly see climate...and no, I don't know the reverse square law. Thermodynamics really aren't my thing. I focus more on global change science. Now you are denying Staplegun-Boltcutter. You can't claim an increase in adhesion with a corresponding removal of the chain. GasGuzzler wrote: Great! Frank was just asking me if I knew of a good witness for his Hexavalent Chromium lawsuit. Robert Northup would be fantastic. I'll pay him a visit. Do you have his address? I don't think he wants me giving out his phone number. GasGuzzler wrote: I think it was a bit too late much earlier. ... but as we get closer to the tipping point at a million times the speed of light, we arrive earlier and earlier until all moraines are ice free within 30 years, or by the end of the century, whichever is unprecedented. GasGuzzler wrote: You are just cherry picking. Which is why I picked just one. Now I'm thinking that that wasn't such a great idea. GasGuzzler wrote: IBdaMann wrote: My thermometer has been non-stop since I took it out of its packaging. Wait!... Could this be the future holy grail of free energy?! It will be when we attach my thermometer to your Bessler wheel and invent warp drive. Of course, we'll be competing with quantum computing. GasGuzzler wrote: Now I've got to call you out on this one before your heads swells to extreme and unprecedented levels. Too late. GasGuzzler wrote: You are taking credit for a title you did not earn. Them's fight'n words. GasGuzzler wrote: I know Into the Night got totally snubbed, but the title you were crowned with was "senior troll". Yessssshhhh.... GasGuzzler wrote: So ITN is still in the running for "top" spot and Robert basically called you and old troll. Old age and treachery will defeat youth and skill every time ... except in an MMA cage.
20-06-2024 16:45
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1097)	Debunking the Global Warming "Hoax" Hoax In 2024 there is still a very small minority among the population who remain convinced that Global Warming is a "hoax". In some Internet rabbit holes, they may even represent majority opinion. The assertion is that average temperatures in the air, sea, and soil have not increased significantly in the last 50 years. Three fields of science provide evidence that temperature related conditions have changed significantly in the last 50 years. For these irrefutably identified changes to have occurred WITHOUT average temperatures having increased would, INDEED, violate the laws of thermodynamics. METEOROLOGY The frequency and intensity of El Nino, La Nina, "super" storms, floods, droughts, heat waves, tornadoes, atmospheric rivers, polar vortices, tidal surges, and other extreme weather events has INCREASED. For this increase to have occurred WITHOUT average temperatures of air, sea, and soil having increased absolutely violates the laws of thermodynamics. One way to phrase it is, "You cannot create energy out of nothing". It takes energy to power the weather. A LOT of energy, in fact. More powerful weather that is NOT driven by higher temperatures or greater temperature differences than before requires that energy be created out of nothing. Warmer sea surface water has more energy to drive a more powerful hurricane. Getting a more powerful hurricane without warmer water requires magic. PHYSICS The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere has significantly INCREASED. For this increase to have occurred WITHOUT average temperatures of air, sea, and soil having increased absolutely violates the laws of thermodynamics. Energy is consumed by the phase change as liquid water becomes water vapor. For air to hold so much more water vapor without it being driven by higher temperatures requires that energy be created out of nothing. The melting of ice, in glaciers, in sea ice, snowmelt, Arctic permafrost, and elsewhere has significantly INCREASED. For this increase to have occurred WITHOUT average temperatures of air, sea, and soil having increased absolutely violates the laws of thermodynamics. Energy is consumed by phase change as solid ice becomes liquid water. For ice to be melting so much more without it being driven by higher temperature requires that energy be created out of nothing. BIOLOGY If there has been no increase in temperature, then there must have been a sudden leap in evolution. The higher altitude zones are just as cold as they used to be. Very rapid adaptation has enabled bark boring beetles, etc., to thrive in colder temperatures, at higher altitude than before. How about the latitude range of boreal forest trees? If there has been no increase in temperature, then there must have been a sudden leap in evolution. The higher latitude zones are just as cold as they used to be. Very rapid adaptation has enabled boreal forest trees to thrive in colder temperature, at latitudes further north than before. How about the elevation range of plant communities of all types? If there has been no increase in temperature, then there must have been a sudden leap in evolution. It is just as cold as it used to be at higher altitude. Very rapid adaptation has enabled multiple kinds of plant communities to thrive in colder temperature, at higher elevation than before. Could go on about agricultural pest species range shifting to where it has gotten warmer, snow lines, tree lines, biome boundaries. Mother Nature provides a whole lot of temperature evidence that doesn't require a thermometer. In this case, I would say that the Earth's evidence overrules human acquired temperature data sets if there is truly a dispute about whether or not global warming is occurring. Refusing to believe that it is NOT a hoax is becoming a more and more lonely position to take.
21-06-2024 07:46
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (3032)	Can we assume you are blaming the following on hypothetical global warming? Im a BM wrote: The frequency and intensity of El Nino, La Nina has INCREASED Yes, and regular exercise has increased the amount of both curly and straight hair. Im a BM wrote: The frequency and intensity of floods, droughts has INCREASED Yes, and peanut butter consumption has increased both dry and oily skin. Im a BM wrote: The frequency and intensity heat waves, polar vortices (hot and cold weather?) has INCREASED. Yes, and wind power usage has increased both higher and lower electric bills. I know this all sounds CRAZY but you just need to BELIEVE it! I would ask you to explain how it is possible that one action could possibly have so many opposite reactions, but everyone knows you are preaching without a clue and your response will only result in more spam and a bump to the top in a pathetic attempt to cover your up your total ignorance and lack of any logical thought process or common sense...unless I'm totally off my rocker here and you would like to explain? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
21-06-2024 08:01
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14831)	GasGuzzler wrote:...unless I'm totally off my rocker here and you would like to explain? [crickets] I feel some more spam on the way.
21-06-2024 22:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (22414)	Im a BM wrote: Debunking the Global Warming "Hoax" Hoax ...deleted remaining spam... Stop spamming. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-06-2024 02:34
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1097)	HURRICANES There are two basic forces making today's hurricanes more powerful than those of previous centuries. 1. Warmer surface water in tropical seas. Higher vapor pressure driving water molecules into the air from the sea. 2. Warmer atmosphere above. The water holding capacity of the atmosphere is greater at higher temperature. Water vapor emitted from the sea surface pushes into an atmosphere that can pull up a lot more of it than before. Bigger load of water in the atmosphere for a bigger hurricane. BUT if Global Warming is a "hoax", and the sea and air are not really warmer than before. WTF? How the hell did hurricanes become so much more frequent and intense? Because they did.
23-06-2024 09:24
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14831)	Im a BM wrote: There are two basic forces making today's hurricanes more powerful than those of previous centuries. Today's hurricanes are identical to the hurricanes of previous centuries. If they were different, we wouldn't be able to predict nearly as much about them as we do. Im a BM wrote: 1. Warmer surface water in tropical seas. Higher vapor pressure driving water molecules into the air from the sea. The ocean hasn't changed temperature discernibly. Im a BM wrote: 2. Warmer atmosphere above. If this were the case, it would eliminate hurricanes, not make them stronger. Descending cold air is needed to create the funnel. Warm air above won't descend and create any funnel. You weren't very good in science. Ask me how I know. You are seriously gullible and will believe everything you are told to regurgitate. Ask me how I know. Im a BM wrote: The water holding capacity of the atmosphere is greater at higher temperature. Water vapor emitted from the sea surface pushes into an atmosphere that can pull up a lot more of it than before. Nope. The atmosphere still works the same as it always has, and atmospheric temperatures have not changed discernibly since the Industrial Revolution. Im a BM wrote: Bigger load of water in the atmosphere for a bigger hurricane. Water does not a hurricane make. You're a nutcase. Cold air makes hurricanes and windy conditions. The windiest place on earth is in the Antarctic desert. Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune, which have almost zero water and are colder than a witch's crotch, have storm activity that makes earth's hurricanes look like a slight draft in the room. If you are going to argue that earth's hurricanes are becoming stronger, you need to be arguing colder temperatures, not warmer temperatures, and water vapor has nothing to do with wind speed. I can see that you're a PhD. Truly. Im a BM wrote: BUT if Global Warming is a "hoax", and the sea and air are not really warmer than before. Correct. Im a BM wrote: How the hell did hurricanes become so much more frequent and intense? They're neither more frequent nor more intense. Why do you claim that they are?
02-07-2024 20:38
sealover ★★★★☆ (1731)	July 2, 2024 10:29 a.m. PDT NEW WEATHER RECORD - Earliest Category 5 Hurricane Ever Recorded As hurricane season begins with an early bang, yet another weather record has been broken. President Biden just gave a brief address about climate change. He made excellent points about the STUPIDITY of climate change denial. And he also noted that it is dangerous, deadly, and irresponsible to pretend that climate change is not really occurring. There are still those who make it their mission to prevent any action from being taken to address the obvious problem. There is legitimate debate about the most cost effective or environmentally friendly approach to address climate change. But there is NO legitimate debate about whether or not climate change is occurring right now. It cannot be wished away with word games. Even if it can be bullied away by preventing any discussion of it on this website. HURRICANES There are two basic forces making today's hurricanes more powerful than those of previous centuries. 1. Warmer surface water in tropical seas. Higher vapor pressure driving water molecules into the air from the sea. 2. Warmer atmosphere above. The water holding capacity of the atmosphere is greater at higher temperature. Water vapor emitted from the sea surface pushes into an atmosphere that can pull up a lot more of it than before. Bigger load of water in the atmosphere for a bigger hurricane. BUT if Global Warming is a "hoax", and the sea and air are not really warmer than before. WTF? How the hell did hurricanes become so much more frequent and intense? Because they did.
02-07-2024 22:50
keepit ★★★★★ (3330)	I've been hearing on tv that climate change is causing the jet stream to speed up and this is causing more turbulence for airliners. That's heading towards a serious problem.
03-07-2024 06:16
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (3032)	keepit wrote: I've been hearing on tv that climate change is causing the jet stream to speed up and this is causing more turbulence for airliners. That's heading towards a serious problem. That is hilarious!!!! I was hearing on TV about a year ago that climate change was causing just the opposite. The general idea was that jet stream speed is determined by temperature differential. The colder the arctic air on the north side the faster the jet stream speed. Since the arctic is warming faster than everywhere else, the temperature differential isn't nearly as great and I remember the quote..."it's as if climate change is slamming on the breaks, causing the jet stream to buckle resulting in extreme heat and cold and severe weather events". Total bullshit, as is the idea that there is any increased turbulence. But is does raise a very good point to those of you, and you know who you are, that like to point the stupidity finger at someone for not just BELIEVING what Google has to say about ANYTHING. @keepit If you would like to Google it just type in "lazy jet stream" and you're on your way to your wonderful world of blissful ignorance. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
03-07-2024 07:16
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14831)	sealover wrote: He made excellent points about the STUPIDITY of climate change denial. What unambiguous definition did Biden use for the global Climate? Please tell me that he defined all his terms and wasn't merely trolling US voters with stupid word games as you do constantly. sealover wrote: And he also noted that it is dangerous, deadly, and irresponsible to pretend that climate change is not really occurring. That settles it. Surely he defined his terms unambiguously so that everyone could understand concretely the very real dangers involved here. What were those definitions? When very real dangers are involved, we can't be playing stupid word games in which we leave everyone guessing as to whether anyone is actually saying anything at all. Joe Biden's definitions, please ... sealover wrote: There is legitimate debate about the most cost effective or environmentally friendly approach to address climate change. Nope. Without unambiguous definitions, there can be no legitimate discussions, period; only dishonest gibberish is possible. sealover wrote: But there is NO legitimate debate about whether or not climate change is occurring right now. Quite right. It is not possible to legitimately argue that "Climate Change" is somehow occurring as it stands right now without any formal, unambiguous definitions. All you have are dishonest fukwits who try to push their Marxist crap behind absurd pretenses of being scientists who don't even understand physics fundamentals. All you have are scientifically illiterate morons who can only cry and bitch and whine and snivel to have others censored for not groveling at the feet of stupidest trolls on the internet who turn to spamming as a first resort. It would seem that two years isn't long enough for a brain-dead idiot who aspires to achieve the cognitive prowess of a door-stop, to learn the fundamentals of thermodynamics and of Stefan-Boltzmann, even with others actively teaching him everything he needs to know. I can't imagine how long it would take for such a brainless twit to learn that he has to define his terms or whether the universe would first die a heat death. Can we PLEASE get this tree stump his own censored forum and a large box of crayons ASAP? sealover wrote:[spam deleted] When spam is all a troll has ...
03-07-2024 18:59
keepit ★★★★★ (3330)	Gas, I read the "lazy jet stream" article. Anyway, what do you think is causing all the turbulence?
03-07-2024 19:49
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (3032)	keepit wrote: Gas, I read the "lazy jet stream" article.dverse Anyway, what do you think is causing all the turbulence? Before we go into any deep dive into the subject, can we all agree that climate change is the cause of any and all miserably adverse and even deadly weather conditions on this overheating ball we call Earth? Good. Now here is the sticky part. Climate change is far too complex for the average citizen of Earth to comprehend like you and I, so we will not even try to define it as this will cause mass confusion...wait! We could blame the mass confusion on climate change and call it a positive feedback loop. What you you think? I gotta go, I'm all out of baloney. I got nothing more. I don't know how you do it all day. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 03-07-2024 20:49
03-07-2024 19:53
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1097)	keepit wrote: Gas, I read the "lazy jet stream" article. Anyway, what do you think is causing all the turbulence? The turbulence is not imaginary. The increase in the frequency of such heavy turbulence incidents on airplanes has been very apparent JUST IN THE PAST YEAR. Perhaps there was a massive conspiracy to hide such incidents from public view in the past, but it is no longer effective. Perhaps the media is conspiring with the Marxists and fake scientists to pretend that these incidents are occurring now with much greater frequency than before. Or maybe it is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with climate change. Any OTHER explanation requires convoluted logic and a religious faith conviction that all the OBVIOUS EVIDENCE is something other than exactly what it is. Try invoking "thermodynamics" to convince people not to believe their own lying eyes about what is happening all around them.
03-07-2024 20:10
keepit ★★★★★ (3330)	im a bm, I don't think turbulence was hidden in the old days. It would be hard to hid deaths on airplanes and hospitalization from turbulence. I never experienced any severe turbulence except for once i though my fillings were going to pop out.
04-07-2024 06:07
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14831)	sealover wrote: NEW WEATHER RECORD - Earliest Category 5 Hurricane Ever Recorded ... only if you conflate "weather" with "climate", right? sealover wrote: As hurricane season begins with an early bang, yet another weather record has been broken. Isn't funny how only weather records are broken, but there are never any climate records broken? It's almost as if climate doesn't change. Hmmmm. You were about to explain why I should conflate "weather" and "climate" long enough to believe in Global Warming ... sealover wrote: President Biden just gave a brief address about climate change. ... and the entire world is characterizing it as an unpardonable gaffe that has the DNC pondering the fastest way to remove Biden as the Presidential candidate. sealover wrote: He made excellent points about ... Biden can barely eke out half a sentence coherently before going silent and wandering off. Yet, you idolize Joe Biden as the kind of scientist you aspire to become.
04-07-2024 06:11
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (3032)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote: NEW WEATHER RECORD - Earliest Category 5 Hurricane Ever Recorded ... only if you conflate "weather" with "climate", right? sealover wrote: As hurricane season begins with an early bang, yet another weather record has been broken. Isn't funny how only weather records are broken, but there are never any climate records broken? It's almost as if climate doesn't change. Hmmmm. You were about to explain why I should conflate "weather" and "climate" long enough to believe in Global Warming ... sealover wrote: President Biden just gave a brief address about climate change. ... and the entire world is characterizing it as an unpardonable gaffe that has the DNC pondering the fastest way to remove Biden as the Presidential candidate. sealover wrote: He made excellent points about ... Biden can barely eke out half a sentence coherently before going silent and wandering off. Yet, you idolize Joe Biden as the kind of scientist you aspire to become. Great post, especially this.... IBdaMann wrote: Isn't funny how only weather records are broken, but there are never any climate records broken? It's almost as if climate doesn't change. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 04-07-2024 06:11
05-07-2024 18:48
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1097)	GasGuzzler wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote: NEW WEATHER RECORD - Earliest Category 5 Hurricane Ever Recorded ... only if you conflate "weather" with "climate", right? sealover wrote: As hurricane season begins with an early bang, yet another weather record has been broken. Isn't funny how only weather records are broken, but there are never any climate records broken? It's almost as if climate doesn't change. Hmmmm. You were about to explain why I should conflate "weather" and "climate" long enough to believe in Global Warming ... sealover wrote: President Biden just gave a brief address about climate change. ... and the entire world is characterizing it as an unpardonable gaffe that has the DNC pondering the fastest way to remove Biden as the Presidential candidate. sealover wrote: He made excellent points about ... Biden can barely eke out half a sentence coherently before going silent and wandering off. Yet, you idolize Joe Biden as the kind of scientist you aspire to become. Great post, especially this.... IBdaMann wrote: Isn't funny how only weather records are broken, but there are never any climate records broken? It's almost as if climate doesn't change. Gosh... does temperature count as "weather" or "climate"? Is precipitation "weather" or "climate"? Well, whatever you want to call it, it is setting more new records very close to where I live. Fire season got off to an early start. Again. The smoke from the newest nearby wildfire (the "Thompson Fire") will block enough sun to keep it from getting TOO much above 100 degrees F today. Semantics about "weather" versus "climate" don't alter reality. Such semantics don't even alter PERCEPTION of reality, unless one has a predisposition to seek ANY WAY OUT of becoming conscious of the change that is obviously occurring all around. Will I choke less on the smoke today if I tell myself that it is all just "weather" and that climate cannot change? Will it make me feel cooler this afternoon when the heat kicks in big time if I keep telling myself that it is not possible to accurately measure temperature? Besides, isn't there some old record somewhere when it got even HOTTER than this? This argument was made very frequently 20 or 30 years ago. There was usually some old record of when that calendar date was even HOTTER, or a storm that dumped even MORE rain, or a drought that was even MORE severe, sometime in the recorded history. But very few such records remain unbroken today. We are in uncharted territory. Unfortunately, there is no good reason to believe that it will not continue to get worse. And then worse. And even worse after that. Pray it away. The Church of Thermodenial offers you its protection from any inconvenient consciousness of reality.
06-07-2024 02:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (22414)	Im a BM wrote: Gosh... does temperature count as "weather" or "climate"? Climate has no temperature. Im a BM wrote: Is precipitation "weather" or "climate"? Climate has no precipitation. Im a BM wrote: Well, whatever you want to call it, it is setting more new records very close to where I live. Climate has no records. There are no records of the temperature of the Earth. Im a BM wrote: Fire season got off to an early start. Again. Sucks that you have so many arsonists and a lousy power company. Im a BM wrote: The smoke from the newest nearby wildfire (the "Thompson Fire") will block enough sun to keep it from getting TOO much above 100 degrees F today. Blame the power company. It's their lines. Smoke does not destroy energy. It is not possible to destroy energy. No gas, vapor, or particulate has this capability. Im a BM wrote: Semantics about "weather" versus "climate" don't alter reality. They are YOUR semantic fallacies, Robert. Only YOU are responsible for them. Im a BM wrote: Such semantics don't even alter PERCEPTION of reality, Buzzword fallacy (reality). Inversion fallacy. Im a BM wrote: unless one has a predisposition to seek ANY WAY OUT of becoming conscious of the change that is obviously occurring all around. Base rate fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. KSAC is not the Earth, Robert. Im a BM wrote: Will I choke less on the smoke today if I tell myself that it is all just "weather" and that climate cannot change? Smoke is not weather or climate. Climate cannot change. [quote]Im a BM wrote: Will it make me feel cooler this afternoon when the heat kicks in big time Heat has no temperature. Im a BM wrote: if I keep telling myself that it is not possible to accurately measure temperature? It is, but it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, or even of Sacramento. Im a BM wrote: Besides, isn't there some old record somewhere when it got even HOTTER than this? There is no record. Im a BM wrote: This argument was made very frequently 20 or 30 years ago. There is no record. Im a BM wrote: There was usually some old record of when that calendar date was even HOTTER, There is no record. Im a BM wrote: or a storm that dumped even MORE rain, There is no record. It is not possible to measure the amount of rain dropped by a storm. Im a BM wrote: or a drought that was even MORE severe, The drought in the SDTC is self inflicted. You really should build water collection systems. Im a BM wrote: sometime in the recorded history. But very few such records remain unbroken today. There is no record. Im a BM wrote: We are in uncharted territory. There is no territory. Im a BM wrote: Unfortunately, there is no good reason to believe that it will not continue to get worse. And then worse. And even worse after that. Pray it away. Pascal's Wager fallacy. Im a BM wrote: The Church of Thermodenial offers you its protection from any inconvenient consciousness of reality. Buzzword fallacy (reality). Learn what this word means and how it's defined. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-07-2024 10:18
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14831)	Im a BM wrote: Gosh... does temperature count as "weather" or "climate"? Shouldn't you know the answer to this? Did you claim to be a thientitht? Im a BM wrote: Is precipitation "weather" or "climate"? You don't know this either? Im a BM wrote: Well, whatever you want to call it, it is setting more new records very close to where I live. I'm not the one who has invented a magical-spiritual "it" that I need to name. So, we have yet another undefined buzzword coming from you, and this one you are just referring to as "it." Well, here goes ... What is your unambiguous definition of "it"? Would I be correct in surmising that you are hijacking the word "it"? Do you now believe that you own the word "it"? Im a BM wrote: Fire season got off to an early start. Again. Nope. All year round is now "fire season" in California due to California's deliberate mismanagement of California's forests, just as a play on California's gullible morons (such as you) who fall for every claim of "Climate Change." California is chock-full of such dumbasses; the UC system cranks out mindless zombies like a mass production line. Im a BM wrote: The smoke from the newest nearby wildfire (the "Thompson Fire") will block enough sun to keep it from getting TOO much above 100 degrees F today. Spoken like a true product of the UC system. Of course you don't think that by "blocking" sunlight that the smoke is actually absorbing that solar energy and making the atmosphere warmer all the same, right? Since your mind was drained by the UC system, you don't understand that altering the distribution of thermal energy means that the average temperature remains exactly the same. California deserves people like you. Im a BM wrote: Semantics about "weather" versus "climate" don't alter reality. Spoken like a true product of the UC system. Semantics are everything, so of course you need to dismiss the concept as unimportant, as an attempt to conceal the fact that you haven't the vaguest clue of what you speak. Im a BM wrote: Such semantics don't even alter PERCEPTION of reality, Semantics are absolutely critical in discussing anything. You have no intention of discussion anything. Ask me how I know. Im a BM wrote: Will I choke less on the smoke today if I tell myself that it is all just "weather" and that climate cannot change? Will you appear as much less of a stupid troll if you stop conflating "weather" and "climate," if you perhaps learn about water evaporation, if you maybe learn to define all of your terms, if you stop trying to impose your religion onto others, if you perhaps learn and understand the Fischer-Tropsh process, if you learn that all carbon atoms are equivalent ... and stop spamming the board? Im a BM wrote: Will it make me feel cooler this afternoon when the heat kicks in big time if I keep telling myself that it is not possible to accurately measure temperature? Will it make you feel cooler to go to the top of Mt. Whitney? Im a BM wrote: Besides, isn't there some old record somewhere when it got even HOTTER than this? Are you once again reaching for your weather/climate conflation? It's all you can do, right? Im a BM wrote: But very few such records remain unbroken today. Countless records remain unbroken. Im a BM wrote: We are in uncharted territory. We are in fully charted territory. Perhaps you just haven't been paying attention. Im a BM wrote: Unfortunately, there is no good reason to believe that it will not continue to get worse. Interesting wording. People should be pessimistic and simply believe that things will get WORSE ... whatever that means. I know that you don't know what that means because you have no idea what you're babbling about. Your ilk claims that Climate will necessarily make things "worse" because She is punishing humanity for our carbon sins. You are scientifically illiterate and can't plausibly support how your religion either increases precipitation or decreases precipitation, for example, so you simply claim that your religion will make things "worse", i.e. where there is little precipitation, your religion will make it worse, and where there is much preciptiation, your religion will make it worse. You've already thrown science into the toilet. Im a BM wrote: And then worse. And even worse after that. Pray it away. How easy was it to get you to fall for this?
12-07-2024 16:10
sealover ★★★★☆ (1731)	From the Washington Post, July 10, 2024 Extreme heat has killed at least 28 in the past week - and the toll is rising. By Anna Phillips Historically, heat related deaths have been under reported. Including long before there was any significant anthropogenic global warming. One paragraph from this article particularly stood out with an impact that I am not aware of having been reported on in the past. "Since July began, hundreds of heat records have been set in the United States, many in the West. Temperatures have been so high that some rescue helicopters have been unable to fly, since the air has become too thin for chopper blades to grab onto." Maybe it would be easier for those not well versed in science to understand if the term "weather change" were adopted in place of "climate change". It is not the change in weather since yesterday or last week. Global "weather change" would refer to change in weather since last decade or the decade before that. Shifting trends in weather patterns are more intuitively obvious in people's daily experience than the more abstract concept of "climate change".
13-07-2024 01:30
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14831)	sealover wrote: Historically, heat related deaths have been under reported. Robert, why should anyone believe anything in particular about the reporting of heat-related deaths? By the way, do "heat related" deaths include deaths by burns, deaths by hypothermia, deaths by lightning, etc.? Your article doesn't define any of its terms. sealover wrote: Including long before there was any significant anthropogenic global warming. There is no such thing as your undefined "orthopedic globe warning" and certainly no resulting deaths. sealover wrote: One paragraph from this article particularly stood out with an impact that I am not aware of having been reported on in the past. "Since July began, hundreds of heat records have been set in the United States, many in the West. This is the same standard disinformation used by warmizombies for more than three decades. Maybe it would be easier for those not well versed in science to understand if the all weather records were published instead of only records involving high temperatures or bad weather. sealover wrote: It is not the change in weather since yesterday or last week. Global "weather change" would refer to change in weather since last decade or the decade before that. This is entirely stupid. You might as well have written that it is not the change in the result of the coin flip that just happened, but the change in the results between 2,000 and 3,000 flips prior. Stupid. sealover wrote: Shifting trends in weather patterns This statement simply confirms your egregious mathematical incompetence. There are no patterns in random events. You really should hang it up. I'll be eagerly awaiting the next time you pretend to declare that someone else is somehow not a scientist.
17-09-2024 18:01
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1097)	It is not official yet. But all indications are that when the data is all compiled, it will show: July 4, 2023 was the hottest day ever recorded. ------------------------------------- This is OLD news now. That record was broken two more times within three days. And a year later, July 2024, yet another hottest day ever recorded. The Carolinas are experiencing a "once in a thousand years" storm/flood event. The West had a "thousand year drought" and "thousand year floods" have been happening all over the place. The calculations are based on the OLD climate regime. Events like this really would have been about a thousand years apart in the climate history of the OLD climate regime. Some places in the US have had three "500 year floods" in the last 20 years. Climate change is kicking in faster than the 1980s models predicted. If this website had a moderator to allow free discussion of climate change, the almost daily headlines of some new extreme weather event would get mentioned at least as often as "Is climate a lesbian?" or "Climate Marxism".
18-09-2024 01:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (22414)	sealover wrote: From the Washington Post, July 10, 2024 Extreme heat has killed at least 28 in the past week - and the toll is rising. By Anna Phillips Historically, heat related deaths have been under reported. Argument from randU fallacy. Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is a fallacy. sealover wrote: Including long before there was any significant anthropogenic global warming. What 'global warming'? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. sealover wrote: One paragraph from this article particularly stood out with an impact that I am not aware of having been reported on in the past. "Since July began, hundreds of heat records have been set in the United States, many in the West. Thousands of them didn't change either. sealover wrote: Temperatures have been so high that some rescue helicopters have been unable to fly, since the air has become too thin for chopper blades to grab onto." What are you using for 'rescue helicopters'? Robinson R44s? sealover wrote: Maybe it would be easier for those not well versed in science to understand if the term "weather change" were adopted in place of "climate change". Climate cannot change. sealover wrote: It is not the change in weather since yesterday or last week. Yes it is. It is the change since the last hour and minute. sealover wrote: Global "weather change" There is no such thing as 'global weather'. sealover wrote: would refer to change in weather since last decade or the decade before that. Weather always changes. sealover wrote: Shifting trends in weather patterns There is no 'trend'. Weather is always changing. sealover wrote: are more intuitively obvious in people's daily experience than the more abstract concept of "climate change". Climate cannot change. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 7 of 8

Join the debate July 4, 2023 - Hottest day ever recorded:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Why are earthquakes more likely to occur at night than during the day	17	09-11-2023 12:39
Book your bargain rate Israeli Tel Aviv or Jerusalem vacation now, free 4th of July style fireworks inclu	1	18-10-2023 05:25
Present temperature spike July '23	31	27-09-2023 00:27
Is Edward Snowden a hero? Should all of your personal phone calls be recorded?	41	15-07-2023 20:36
Happy fourth of July. I wonder how many liberals are eating carbon cooked burgers	1	06-07-2023 23:52