Remember me
▼ Content

US Climate in June 2020



Page 2 of 3<123>
11-07-2020 23:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
duncan61 wrote: why is being warmer disappointing news.Its 4 degrees here in perth I would rather it was 6


Global Warming is a Marxist fear-mongering religion of hatred and intolerance. Everything about its message is intended to frighten you into submission.

Christians refer to their faith as "the good news" whereas everything about the Global Warming faith is "the bad news" ... about which you should PANIC and FEAR.

This is why Global Warming does not specifically either increase or decrease precipitation ... it specifically chooses which one will make any situation WORSE, e.g. it decreases precipitation to create droughts but increases precipitation to create floods. It's like Global Warming is aware of what would punish humanity the most and does that. The moment there is a heat wave, warmizombies are out in full force heralding the bad news of Global Warming. Of course, when Niagara Falls froze over, warmizombies were lightning fast to exclaim that "Global Warming foreboded this would happen." Global Warming is exclusively a form of punishment for humanity's carbon sins, i.e. it's a bad news thing.



This is why you will find warmizombies bemoaning the bad news of Global Warming whenever there is bad weather, while conversely claiming that Global Warming has nothing to do with any good weather.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-07-2020 23:23
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(286)
IBdaMann wrote:

Once again, post your valid datsets here in this thread along with your unambiguous definition of "Climate" and I'll be happy to take a look at it . .. and Harvey will be able to as well with his dial-up.

... and no, I cannot drop your video into a spreadsheet. Moron.



This website could not accommodate the data that goes into that report and I am fairly confident you would not know what to do with it even if it could.

But it is all available, just a click to two away. Just follow my reference and then you can download all the data (raw or otherwise) you want, fire up your super computer and analysis routines and get back to me in a few years if you find an error in the analysis.

If you are too lazy to loo up the reference I give, I am sure you are too lazy to analyze the output of thousands of weather monitors around the Continental US, and combine them into maps and then compare that to the 1600+ other monthly maps that you would have to generate. Doing that for each parameter - temperature, winds, precipitation, humidity, etc. would be instructive for you.

Have fun!

Let me know when you have done that and I'll give you links to Alaska and Hawaii.
11-07-2020 23:31
keepit
★★★★☆
(1620)
IBD,
You're even more full of baloney today than usual.
11-07-2020 23:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
keepit wrote: IBD, You're even more full of baloney today than usual.

I was tempted to explain how you were being more of a moron than usual ... except that "moron" is your baseline and there is not much below that ... kind of like a snake's belly.

I will say that since you have been posting on this site, you have successfully managed to get something correct. I forgot what it was but it was something and we need to recognize that.

So, keep trying. If "moron" is as high as you can get, don't worry, just keep trying. Who knows, maybe someone will provide you sufficient inspiration to successfully notch up to "dumbass."

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-07-2020 00:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
DRKTS wrote:... mean to spur debate ...
So lets debate DRKTS! I'm very interested in you thoughts on this.
I said:
tmiddles wrote:
It seems that the warming from 1910 to 1950 was likely not due to fossil fuel use would you agree?
So it seems that the distinction/discrimination between AGW and natural warming is missing from the video.

duncan61 wrote:
why is being warmer disappointing news.Its 4 degrees here in perth I would rather it was 6
You've made a number of statements that make it sound like you think human comfort, from a wardrobe choice and air conditioning POV, is even on the list of global warming concerns. It is not.

DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...post your valid datsets ...
This website could not accommodate the data...
IBD has been on this board over 5 years and has not once posted what he considers to be "valid data", done a single analysis with "valid data" or defined what he means by the term. Debunked in my sig.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
12-07-2020 00:39
keepit
★★★★☆
(1620)
IBD,
Let's see ... you called me a "moron, a snake, and a dumbass". That's how you communicate, huh. Are you proud of your self?
Where did you learn to talk like that? While you were getting your Ph.D?
12-07-2020 02:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
keepit wrote: IBD, Let's see ... you called me a "moron, a snake, and a dumbass".

No.

1. I only called you a moron because I like to be specific.
2. I did not call you a snake; I said there isn't much lower you can go.
3. I did not call you a dumbass; I said that you aspire to rise to the level of dumbass.

You did NOT do well on the SAT. Ask me how I know.

[hint: see point #1 above]

keepit wrote: That's how you communicate, huh.

It would be better to say that it is a good example of how you misinterpret because of your piss-poor reading comprehension.

Did we already cover you and the SAT?

I'll tell you what ... let me dumb it down for you:

Dumb-down: "Stupid is not good."

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-07-2020 03:37
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(465)
You've made a number of statements that make it sound like you think human comfort, from a wardrobe choice and air conditioning POV, is even on the list of global warming concerns. It is not.

The question is why is if it is getting warmer why is it a problem.Cyclones and tornados are down in intensity and amount.The sea ice in Hudson bay is going great and the polar bears are fat and happy sea levels have not gone anywhere.So at some point these things should be a problem but they are not.Do not mention the bush fires in Australia because all of them were deliberatly lit and the Green protestors stopped the back burning.Perth has been and still is back burning right now and not one Green protestor has tried to stop it lesson learned.It is unlikely that the handful of protestors that stopped the burn in Nerren will be living this time next year.The pictures posted showed them grinning at the Camera butnow it is all blocked of but someone will have the origional.
12-07-2020 03:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
duncan61 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:You've made a number of statements that make it sound like you think human comfort, from a wardrobe choice and air conditioning POV, is even on the list of global warming concerns. It is not.
...getting warmer why is it a problem....at some point these things should be a problem but they are not...
The proponents of Global Warming being an Emergency do not claim or demonstrate that there has already been a dangerous increase in temperature, so there would not yet be dire consequences.

If you believe that fossil fuel use causes warming then this is alarming. Note below:This being the temp record:

And this being the fossil fuel use record:


IF fossil fuel use is going to have an impact then it's obviously going to be more dramatic in the future based on the fossil fuel use pattern.

So Global Warming alarmism is not as you've described it in two ways:
1- They are worried about the future temperature being severe. Today it's estimated there has been a small increase of 1 degree. The predictions for 2100 are for ~2 more full degrees.
2- The impacts are NOT based on how they impact our weekend lifestyle. The worries are outlined here: link

My sense of it is that if it was going to take place over 100,000 years maybe alot of it would be fine. Coral reefs could slowly relocate and so on.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
12-07-2020 13:57
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(286)
tmiddles wrote:

It seems that the warming from 1910 to 1950 was likely not due to fossil fuel use would you agree?


No, I would not on several grounds.

1) The warming was not from 1910 to 1950. The warming period went from 1910 to about 1943. There was a very strong El Nino from 1940 - 1943 which if corrected for shows little or no warming through those years.

2) the wide spread us of oil started in 1910 plus world powers were gearing up for war which increased the use of coal.

So it seems that the distinction/discrimination between AGW and natural warming is missing from the video.


There is no conclusion based on that because the June data does not address that. It is a pure description of the climate status of the Continental US for June 2020. Contrary to some, the US does not approximate the globe (2%). To address global warming it would have to include an analysis of 20-30 years of such data from all round the world, which it did not. That will probably be the case when we have all the data from 2020 global report (January 2021)

You've made a number of statements that make it sound like you think human comfort, from a wardrobe choice and air conditioning POV, is even on the list of global warming concerns. It is not.


They are certainly well down the list of concerns.

IBD has been on this board over 5 years and has not once posted what he considers to be "valid data", done a single analysis with "valid data" or defined what he means by the term.


It is just another diversion, like so much of what he posts. He has never answered a direct scientific point yet, except with irrelevancies, nit picking, or semantics.
12-07-2020 14:04
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(286)
tmiddles wrote:
The predictions for 2100 are for ~2 more full degrees.


What people are forgetting is that the rise in temperatures does not magically stop in 2100, it continues for another 500 years.
12-07-2020 18:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
DRKTS wrote:It is just another diversion, like so much of what he posts. He has never answered a direct scientific point yet, except with irrelevancies, nit picking, or semantics.

You are just butt-hurt that I exposed you for being a dishonest loser who is desperate to be perceived as a superhero genius. You are butt-hurt that the only one you can get to play your imagination game of "invent creative explanations for something that isn't happening" is the dude that hasn't been honest since he joined this forum. You are butt-hurt that I have forced you to face the reality that you are a scientifically illiterate idiot pursuing advancement in a defunct religion.

You are a whining crybaby with the emotional maturity of an eight-year-old. Have fun pretending you are some sort of "scientist" who is saving the world. Don't be surprised when you get mocked for asking others to "come out and play."

I bet you also hate capitalism as much as tgoebbles as well.

.




.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-07-2020 19:11
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2189)
DRKTS wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
The predictions for 2100 are for ~2 more full degrees.


What people are forgetting is that the rise in temperatures does not magically stop in 2100, it continues for another 500 years.


No possible way of knowing that. Just like we have no way of knowing when cooling begins, for the next ice age. It's our first recordable interglacial. We can only speculate on how it works, or when.

Why is the focus on fighting fossil fuels, when CO2 is a trace gas, not even the most potent, planet frying, 'greenhouse gas'. Should the focus be on adaptation to a slightly warmer climate? Only a portion of the 'greenhouse gasses' are man-made, all of them occur naturally. Even if it were at all possible to end all of mankind's contributions, nature can and will make up the difference.

CO2 is vital for all life to exist on this planet. Being that it's a trace gas, it's completely stupid to mess with the one thing that we depend on most, for our very existence. All living things are based on carbon molecules. That carbon, for those life-vital molecules, only comes from CO2. Plants are the only organism, that can pull carbon, directly from the environment. Below 180 ppm CO2, plants start to starve and die. IPCC targets for reducing CO2, doesn't leave much margin of error, for plant health. Oddly enough, plants do incredibly well, at 800 ppm or more.

I'm no paleontologist, But gigantic reptiles, found in fossilized remains, would have required a warmer climate, and a hell of a lot of food, often. This alone, should indicate that we had warmer temperatures, and much higher levels of CO2, to support the needs of these huge beasts. Spend some time at a museum of natural history, that has actual fossils, or full size replicas. Pictures don't really give you an accurate feel for scale, on just how big most everything was. All those living things, were dependent on carbon-based molecules, a whole lot of CO2.
12-07-2020 22:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:You've made a number of statements that make it sound like you think human comfort, from a wardrobe choice and air conditioning POV, is even on the list of global warming concerns. It is not.
...getting warmer why is it a problem....at some point these things should be a problem but they are not...
The proponents of Global Warming being an Emergency do not claim or demonstrate that there has already been a dangerous increase in temperature, so there would not yet be dire consequences.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Mantra 25g.
tmiddles wrote:
If you believe that fossil fuel use causes warming then this is alarming. Note below:This being the temp record:
...deleted Holy Chart of random numbers...

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Mantras 25g...4a...4c...
tmiddles wrote:
And this being the fossil fuel use record:
...deleted Holy Chart of random numbers...

It is not possible to measure the amount of fuel used. Too many jurisdictions, and no one is monitoring it all. We don't burn fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn. Mantras 25g...22...
tmiddles wrote:
IF fossil fuel use is going to have an impact then it's obviously going to be more dramatic in the future based on the fossil fuel use pattern.

There is no 'pattern'. Fuels are sold by market demands. Markets shift and change constantly. That's why we have things like commodity markets. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. Mantras 22...22...20a1...20a2...20b...
tmiddles wrote:
So Global Warming alarmism is not as you've described it in two ways:
1- They are worried about the future temperature being severe. Today it's estimated there has been a small increase of 1 degree. The predictions for 2100 are for ~2 more full degrees.

Ignoring Holy Entrail prophecies. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Mantras 32...31...25g...
tmiddles wrote:
2- The impacts are NOT based on how they impact our weekend lifestyle. The worries are outlined here: ...deleted Holy List of Consequences...

Just the usual doom and gloom prophecies.
tmiddles wrote:
My sense of it is that if it was going to take place over 100,000 years maybe alot of it would be fine.

More useless prophecy.
tmiddles wrote:
Coral reefs could slowly relocate and so on.

More useless prophecy.

Answer the questions put to you.


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
Edited on 12-07-2020 22:21
12-07-2020 22:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
DRKTS wrote:
tmiddles wrote:

It seems that the warming from 1910 to 1950 was likely not due to fossil fuel use would you agree?


No, I would not on several grounds.

1) The warming was not from 1910 to 1950. The warming period went from 1910 to about 1943. There was a very strong El Nino from 1940 - 1943 which if corrected for shows little or no warming through those years.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Mantra 25g.
DRKTS wrote:
2) the wide spread us of oil started in 1910 plus world powers were gearing up for war which increased the use of coal.

CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth. Mantra 20a1...20a2...20b...
DRKTS wrote:
So it seems that the distinction/discrimination between AGW and natural warming is missing from the video.


There is no conclusion based on that because the June data does not address that.

There is no data. Random numbers are not data. Mantra 25g.
DRKTS wrote:
It is a pure description of the climate status of the Continental US for June 2020.

Climate is not temperature. Mantra 10b...22b...
DRKTS wrote:
Contrary to some, the US does not approximate the globe (2%). To address global warming it would have to include an analysis of 20-30 years of such data from all round the world, which it did not.

There is no data. Mantra 25g.
DRKTS wrote:
That will probably be the case when we have all the data from 2020 global report (January 2021)

There is no data. Mantra 25g.
DRKTS wrote:
You've made a number of statements that make it sound like you think human comfort, from a wardrobe choice and air conditioning POV, is even on the list of global warming concerns. It is not.


They are certainly well down the list of concerns.

Semantics fallacy. Mantras 4d...20a1...
DRKTS wrote:
IBD has been on this board over 5 years and has not once posted what he considers to be "valid data", done a single analysis with "valid data" or defined what he means by the term.


It is just another diversion, like so much of what he posts. He has never answered a direct scientific point yet, except with irrelevancies, nit picking, or semantics.

RQAA. Semantics fallacies. Mantras 21d...21e...

No argument presented. Semantics fallacies. RQAA. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics.


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
12-07-2020 22:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
DRKTS wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
The predictions for 2100 are for ~2 more full degrees.


What people are forgetting is that the rise in temperatures does not magically stop in 2100, it continues for another 500 years.


It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Mantras 25g. Prophecies.


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
13-07-2020 00:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
DRKTS wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...warming...not due to fossil fuel use ...

1) ...El Nino from 1940 - 1943...
But there was strong warming prior to 1940 so that doesn't really change the issue of their being warming what was about as rapid prior to higher CO2 right?

DRKTS wrote:2) ...the wide spread us of oil started in 1910...
But the theory is based on CO2 concentration and it was not elevated in that period:

Of course you see I'm simply getting at the issue of NON-AGW Warming in our recent history and you can arguably include the early 1900s. Getting into it like identifying the el Nino in 1940 for example is important. It's a bit like dealing with Covid-19 minimizers that want to talk about how the flue always kills people.

DRKTS wrote:
tmiddles wrote: IBD has ... not once posted what he considers to be "valid data"...
It is just another diversion, ....
Yes sabotaging/confusing an issue, as opposed to successfully arguing against it, can be just as successful in destroying the objective of your opponent. Of course it's a despicable tactic.

DRKTS wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
The predictions for 2100 are for ~2 more full degrees.
What people are forgetting is that the rise in temperatures does not magically stop in 2100, it continues for another 500 years.
Yes it seems people are so transparently self centered in just being sure their lifetime isn't impacted! My real concern is about hundred of years from now.

HarveyH55 wrote:
No possible way of knowing that.
When you say "knowing" what do you mean? To be 100% sure? 95%? What if we were 60% sure there would be devastating consequence for some course of action should we heed that? I would say yes.

HarveyH55 wrote:Why is the focus on...CO2... a trace gas,..
Because that is what is increasing. If it's not having an impact because it's a trace gas then someone should really get on proving that.

HarveyH55 wrote:Should the focus be on adaptation to a slightly warmer climate?
You mean us or the ecosystem? You going to have a coral reef training seminar?


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
13-07-2020 01:45
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(465)
OMG tmids your link went to SKS THE HIGH CHURCH OF DOOM.You are aware I was blocked from that site for asking where is the sea level rising.And once again its all going to happen later not now so I for one do not care.We survived a very near miss with the nuclear weapons era.That was very real this CO2 scare bollocks is just that Bollocks
13-07-2020 03:27
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(465)
tmiddles wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...warming...not due to fossil fuel use ...

1) ...El Nino from 1940 - 1943...
But there was strong warming prior to 1940 so that doesn't really change the issue of their being warming what was about as rapid prior to higher CO2 right?

DRKTS wrote:2) ...the wide spread us of oil started in 1910...
But the theory is based on CO2 concentration and it was not elevated in that period:

Of course you see I'm simply getting at the issue of NON-AGW Warming in our recent history and you can arguably include the early 1900s. Getting into it like identifying the el Nino in 1940 for example is important. It's a bit like dealing with Covid-19 minimizers that want to talk about how the flue always kills people.

DRKTS wrote:
tmiddles wrote: IBD has ... not once posted what he considers to be "valid data"...
It is just another diversion, ....
Yes sabotaging/confusing an issue, as opposed to successfully arguing against it, can be just as successful in destroying the objective of your opponent. Of course it's a despicable tactic.

DRKTS wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
The predictions for 2100 are for ~2 more full degrees.
What people are forgetting is that the rise in temperatures does not magically stop in 2100, it continues for another 500 years.
Yes it seems people are so transparently self centered in just being sure their lifetime isn't impacted! My real concern is about hundred of years from now.

HarveyH55 wrote:
No possible way of knowing that.
When you say "knowing" what do you mean? To be 100% sure? 95%? What if we were 60% sure there would be devastating consequence for some course of action should we heed that? I would say yes.

HarveyH55 wrote:Why is the focus on...CO2... a trace gas,..
Because that is what is increasing. If it's not having an impact because it's a trace gas then someone should really get on proving that.

HarveyH55 wrote:Should the focus be on adaptation to a slightly warmer climate?
You mean us or the ecosystem? You going to have a coral reef training seminar?


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN


Change the value to percent on the left hand column look at how it is graduated.From 250 -400ppm thats parts per million


duncan61
13-07-2020 09:36
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
duncan61 wrote:
...this CO2 scare bollocks is just that Bollocks
don't you believe it's possible to prove that point if it's true?

duncan61 wrote:
Change the value to percent on the left hand column look at how it is graduated.From 250 -400ppm thats parts per million
indeed. Remember I laid it all out here:link

Water vapor is usually just 2-3% which is 20,000 to 30,000 ppm
Is that also insignificant?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
13-07-2020 15:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
duncan61 wrote: Change the value to percent on the left hand column look at how it is graduated.From 250 -400ppm thats parts per million


Warmizombies are on an eternal fear-mongering mission to hype the BAD NEWS of Global Warming.

They insist that it is happening, without defining what "it" is.
They insist CO2 is the cause despite violating physics.

Ergo they are under immense pressure to fudge those CO2 numbers ... and fudge they do.

Nobody knows the percentage of atmospheric CO2 globally, but warmizombies are bound and determined to somehow show that the CO2 percentage is actually increasing, that they somehow "know" that the CO2 percentage is increasing and that you be made to believe that the CO2 percentage is increasing and that it causes the "problem" of Global Warming.

To accomplish this they fabricate percentages by contuinally increasing their previous fabrications, and making their base percentages off readings from the base of an active volcano (Mauna Loa) where CO2 levels are several times normal. So by continually fudging upward CO2 values that are already artifically inflated from the volcano ... we are told that atmospheric CO2 has reached 415 ppm! This is my clue that the actual global average is somewhere around the 280 ppm level.

If you think about it, any CO2 that is put into the atmosphere beyond 280 ppm will be instantly and greedily consumed by plants so it's difficult to understand why anyone would expect any rational human to believe that CO2 merely accumulates in the atmosphere and that plants would somehow reject it because it somehow is different because it was produced by "human activity."

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-07-2020 22:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted mantras 25g...16b...21d...30...17...25g...19...20a1...22a...16b...25g...


No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics.

Answer the questions put to you:

1) What are the unambiguous definitions of Global Warming, Climate
Change and Greenhouse Effect that neither violate nor deny physics?
[Status: Unanswered]
2) Why should any rational adult believe in either Global Warming,
Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect? [Status: Unanswered]
3) How can I unambiguously demonstrate to my children thermal energy
flowing from cooler to warmer? [Status: Unanswered]
4) How can I know the temperature of a large, unspecified volume,
e.g. Denver, to within, say, 10degF with only one temperature
measurement, e.g. the Denver airport? [Status: Unanswered]
5) What are the unambiguous definitions of "race," "negro," "black
people," "white people," "brown people," "white supremacy," "white
nationalsim," "white nationalist," "white supremacist," "black
supremacist" and "racist"? [Status: Unanswered]
6) Is there an official list of races? [Status: Unanswered]
- 6a) How do I determine my own race or that of my children? [Status: Unanswered]
7) Why should any rational adult believe that there is a problem of
racism in the United States? [Status: Unanswered]
8) Why should law abiding citizens be rendered defenseless before
rampant violent crime? [Status: Unanswered]
9) Where in the 1st Amendment is "hate" prohibited such that, if
shown, a prosecutor can throw someone in jail for having had that
emotion/thought? [Status: Unanswered]
10) Why do you claim that an atmosphere only makes a planet's or
moon's solid surface hotter since you are fully aware that no place at
the bottom of earth's atmosphere ever reaches anywhere close to the
daytime temperatures of the moon's atmosphereless solid surface?
[Status: Unanswered]
11) If we were to discover that Lisa Gherardini was actually a shitty
person, would that justify Black Lives Matter storming the Louvre to
destroy the Mona Lisa? [Status: Unanswered]
12) Why should we destroy artifacts and relics pertaining to history
that we never want to forget or repeat? [Status: Unanswered]
13) The Aztecs committed genocide of many other tribes and practiced
human sacrifice; should their artwork and artifacts be destroyed?
[Status: Unanswered]
14) Why would you or anyone pretend to be a judge of what history is
to be revised or destroyed? [Status: Unanswered]
15) In what substantive/meaningful way do the platforms of Black Lives
Matter, ANTIFA, The National Organization of Women, the DNC, Communist
Party USA and Socialist Party USA ... differ? [Status: Unanswered]


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
13-07-2020 22:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
...this CO2 scare bollocks is just that Bollocks
don't you believe it's possible to prove that point if it's true?

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Mantra 38b.
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Change the value to percent on the left hand column look at how it is graduated.From 250 -400ppm thats parts per million
indeed. Remember I laid it all out here:link

Water vapor is usually just 2-3% which is 20,000 to 30,000 ppm
Is that also insignificant?

Random numbers. Mantra 25g. Denial of science. Mantras 20a1...20a2...20b...


No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics.

Answer the questions put to you.


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
14-07-2020 03:09
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
Into the Night wrote:Answer ...
Response is here: link
14-07-2020 03:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
IBdaMann wrote:
Nobody knows the percentage of atmospheric CO2 globally,...they fabricate...
You left off the "to a useful margin of error" but then you're claiming everyone is lying so I guess it doesn't apply.

I'm curious: is there no one with equipment to do measurements to contradict this vast conspiracy you allege?

Maybe you could get some gear and do some measurements and debunk the fraud! Think about it IBD you'd be famous.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 14-07-2020 03:20
14-07-2020 04:20
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(465)
I looked at getting a CO2 meter for just that purpose however it cost $454 so I will need to save up or find a cheaper version.I followed a story where a bloke in the US was given one and he did some testing and found his bedroom in the morning was over 6000ppm and his work office was around 2000ppm as soon as you step outside it drops back to 300-400ppm.We do actualy exhale the stuff.I would like to do a busy elevator in the city
14-07-2020 04:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
tmiddles wrote: I'm curious: is there no one with equipment to do measurements to contradict this vast conspiracy you allege?

I'm not alleging any vast conspiracy. You are claiming that I am alleging a vast conspiracy.

That will count as today's bogus position assignment. Thank you. I was getting worried that you had forgotten about your responsibilities.

I'm curious: is there no one with equipment to do measurements in multiple open field locations somewhere NOT singularly at the base of an active volcano to provide some credibility to the WILD claim that atmospheric CO2 is somehow over 400 ppm?

Maybe you could get some gear and do some measurements that can be scrutinized, i.e. meet your burden of support for your affirmative claim.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-07-2020 08:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
duncan61 wrote: I looked at getting a CO2 meter for just that purpose however it cost $454 ...
So don't you find it implausible that all the data is being falsified as IBD claims? If for $454 someone can check the numbers?

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not alleging any vast conspiracy.
Oh? Well whatever one calls:
IBdaMann wrote:...that you be made to believe that the CO2 percentage is increasing ...To accomplish this they fabricate percentages by contuinally increasing their previous fabrications,..
So not "vast conspiracy" but "coordinated fabrication by government, academic and scientific institutions with the knowing participation of hundreds of individuals"? Doesn't matter what you call it your post was clear.

Also the reason we only talk about Mauna Loa is there is no need to question it's accuracy. This is because there are other stations and the data has been consistent. IF the "active volcano" BS theory were true other non-Volcano sites like this one in the southern hemisphere, New Zealand:
https://niwa.co.nz/climate/research-projects/carbonwatchnz/dailyco2measurements
Would show the discrepancy.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
14-07-2020 09:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Answer ...
Response is here: link


Evasion. Answer the questions put to you.


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
14-07-2020 09:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 10g...evasions....


Answer the questions put to you.


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
14-07-2020 09:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 25e...25g...38b...9b...30...
Also the reason we only talk about Mauna Loa is there is no need to question it's accuracy. This is because there are other stations and the data has been consistent. IF the "active volcano" BS theory were true other non-Volcano sites like this one in the southern hemisphere, New Zealand:
https://niwa.co.nz/climate/research-projects/carbonwatchnz/dailyco2measurements
Would show the discrepancy.


It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2. Mantra 25e.

No argument presented. Denial of mathematics. Bigotry.

Answer the questions put to you.


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
14-07-2020 10:09
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
Into the Night wrote:Answer ...
Response is here: link
14-07-2020 11:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
tgoebbles wrote: Oh? Well whatever one calls:

We have been over this. Yes, there does exist collusion between people for political purposes. Why you deny this remains a mystery.

You are under the strange impression that political appointees never pursue political agendas and that anyone who asserts otherwise is alleging a vast conspiracy.

You're a moron.

tgoebbles wrote: Also the reason we only talk about Mauna Loa is there is no need to question it's accuracy.

Correct. You only talk about Mauna Loa because its location gives very accurate invalid data because it happens to be at the base of an active volcano which spews out massive amounts of CO2 for Mauna Loa to accurately measure levels several times higher than the planetary average.

It's the dishonest people with political agendas who we must question because they fudge the numbers for maximum fear-mongering effect. Heck, you might very well be one of those people in question; you are certainly dishonest enough.

So what we have in Mauna Loa is already-too-high numbers being fudged upwards by dishonest weasels. We don't question it, we discard it.

tgoebbles wrote: IF the "active volcano" BS theory were true








You are a reality denier. You deny that political appointees play politics.
You deny CO2 from volcanoes. You deny the laws of thermodynamics. You deny math of all things. This is why you won't answer the simple, easy, straightforward questions posed to you, i.e. you don't want your dirty little secret of denial exposed.

I promise I won't tell anyone.

Moron.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-07-2020 15:11
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(286)
IBdaMann wrote:

You only talk about Mauna Loa because its location gives very accurate invalid data because it happens to be at the base of an active volcano which spews out massive amounts of CO2 for Mauna Loa to accurately measure levels several times higher than the planetary average.



I think it is fairly easy to establish who is the complete moron here.

Generally those who cry "moron" are the moronic ones without any valid information so over compensate with insults.

Its at the base of a volcano, is it? The ESRL Observatory is at about 11,000 ft in altitude - that is hardly the "base".

Contrary to myth, Volcanoes do not spew out massive amounts of CO2. The Mona Loa data detects any CO2 emissions and they are minor. The observatory only sees the volcanic emissions at certain times of day (early morning) or when the wind switches to come from the South. It can be seen in the data, for example.



So can be eliminated by a simple time and gradient filtering algorithm

Note also the low level of contamination at these times - <4 ppm - and for a relatively short period so even if it were not removed averaging over 24-hours would make it have little impact on the measurements.

Sorry to pierce your bubble (not really) but Mona Loa gets similar (+/- a few ppm) measurements to other remote sites such as (Barrow, Samoa, and the South Pole) so it does not get values "several times the planetary average.

Quit making stuff up!

"It's the dishonest people with political agendas who we must question because they fudge the numbers for maximum fear-mongering effect. Heck, you might very well be one of those people in question; you are certainly dishonest enough." IBDM should really not be talking to your reflection in your computer screen, suggest you get professional help with that.
14-07-2020 18:03
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2189)
So, averaging volcanic CO2, simply makes it disappear from the atmosphere? I guess you can average away the CO2 production of the other 6 islands in the chain. I don't know how many underwater volcanoes, or active vents, but there were quite a few, about 4 decades ago. There is volcanic activity all over the planet, to average away, into fantasy land. Basically, there is quite a natural production of volcanic CO2, all around the world. And that's during quite times. Eruptions spew a lot of gas, ash, an molten rock, for weeks.

Then, there are wildfires. Never really could get an estimate 'carbon-footprint' of California's contribution every year. Brasil does the same, pretty much every year.
14-07-2020 18:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
DRKTS wrote: I think it is fairly easy to establish who is the complete moron here.

Aaaah, so you actually took the time to read one of your own posts. That's a good first step.

Imagine, denying that volcanoes spew massive amounts of CO2! It takes a special type of moron for that. Too funny.

DRKTS wrote:Its at the base of a volcano, is it? The ESRL Observatory is at about 11,000 ft in altitude - that is hardly the "base".

OK, I'll gladly modify my wording based on your input.

The Mauna Loa observatory is situated right at an active volcano where CO2 levels are several times the global average. The observatory is run by people who fudge the data, effectively wasting the otherwise very accurate and useful equipment.

DRKTS wrote: Contrary to myth, Volcanoes do not spew out massive amounts of CO2.

I claim that volcanoes can spew millions of tons of CO2 within a few hours. I claim that Iceland's Katla, for example, spews about 20,000 metric tons of CO2 per day ... and it is topped over with a solid ice cap.

I wonder which one of us is correct.

DRKTS wrote:So can be eliminated by a simple time and gradient filtering algorithm

Exactly, the numbers can be fudged with plausible gibber-babble.

Otherwise the short answer is "NO!" ... nobody gets to just pretend Mauna Loa's CO2 was already present in the atmosphere, regardless of any claims of any algorithm, I'm sorry.

DRKTS wrote: Note also the low level of contamination at these times - <4 ppm - and for a relatively short period so even if it were not removed averaging over 24-hours would make it have little impact on the measurements.

I'm sorry, you are talking about fudged data. All conclusions thereof are discarded, especially self-serving conclusions that amount to "we fudge the data to make it more accurate and more valid."

DRKTS wrote: IBDM should really not be talking to your reflection in your computer screen, suggest you get professional help with that.

I'm not the one who is either 1) fear-mongering, 2) refusing to provide the raw data for my conclusions, 3) insisting people accept fudged numbers or 4) struggling tooth-n-nail to deny the CO2 emissions of volcanoes.

You are dishonest and scientifically illiterate. You are a fraud and a liar.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-07-2020 18:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
IBdaMann wrote:
... CO2 for Mauna Loa to accurately measure levels several times higher than the planetary average.
You have ignored my rebuttal:
IBdaMann wrote:...measurements... NOT singularly at the base of an active volcano to provide some credibility to the WILD claim that atmospheric CO2 is somehow over 400 ppm?...
tmiddles wrote:
.... there are other stations and the data has been consistent. IF the "active volcano" BS theory were true other non-Volcano sites like this one in the southern hemisphere, New Zealand:
https://niwa.co.nz/climate/research-projects/carbonwatchnz/dailyco2measurements
Would show the discrepancy.


DRKTS wrote:
...Mona Loa gets similar (+/- a few ppm) measurements to other remote sites such as (Barrow, Samoa, and the South Pole)
and as Duncan pointed out for a mere $475 anyone can get gear to show that the "several times" the planetary average is being claimed. Fame awaits that bold conspiracy theorist! It could be you IBD.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 14-07-2020 19:02
14-07-2020 19:07
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1094)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Nobody knows the percentage of atmospheric CO2 globally,...they fabricate...
You left off the "to a useful margin of error"

Violation of tmiddles ordinance:
Categories 1, 2, 3.

tmiddles wrote:
but then you're claiming everyone is lying so I guess it doesn't apply.

Violation of tmiddles ordinance:
Categories 1, 2.

tmiddles wrote:
I'm curious: is there no one with equipment to do measurements to contradict this vast conspiracy you allege?

Violation of tmiddles ordinance:
Categories 1, 2, 3.

tmiddles wrote:
Maybe you could get some gear and do some measurements and debunk the fraud! Think about it IBD you'd be famous.

Violation of tmiddles ordinance:
Categories 1, 2.


Continued evasion. Answer the questions put forward to you.
14-07-2020 19:08
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1094)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote: I looked at getting a CO2 meter for just that purpose however it cost $454 ...
So don't you find it implausible that all the data is being falsified as IBD claims? If for $454 someone can check the numbers?

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not alleging any vast conspiracy.
Oh? Well whatever one calls:
IBdaMann wrote:...that you be made to believe that the CO2 percentage is increasing ...To accomplish this they fabricate percentages by contuinally increasing their previous fabrications,..
So not "vast conspiracy" but "coordinated fabrication by government, academic and scientific institutions with the knowing participation of hundreds of individuals"? Doesn't matter what you call it your post was clear.

Also the reason we only talk about Mauna Loa is there is no need to question it's accuracy. This is because there are other stations and the data has been consistent. IF the "active volcano" BS theory were true other non-Volcano sites like this one in the southern hemisphere, New Zealand:
https://niwa.co.nz/climate/research-projects/carbonwatchnz/dailyco2measurements
Would show the discrepancy.

Violation of tmiddles ordinance. Continued evasion. Answer the questions put forward to you.
14-07-2020 19:09
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1094)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Answer ...
Response is here: link

Continued evasion. Answer the questions put forward to you.
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate US Climate in June 2020:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
JUNE 2020 GLOBAL CLIMATE4316-07-2020 19:31
Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June mel318-06-2019 06:22
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact