Any -43 temps would make a person question global warming issues. I have to agree with you.
Any -43 temps would make a person question global warming issues. I have to agree with you.
Where's The Global Warming? wrote:
hmmmmmmm wrote:
It is fvcking winter, dipshit. Do you understand how the whole "Earth tilting on its axis" thing works? The town I live in just south of the U.S. border with Alberta recorded its first day ever of 100 degrees last summer.
Do you understand how freezing cold -43 degrees Celsius is?
Did you ever think of the heat island effect of buildings as the reason why you got higher temperatures in town? It's why your statistics are so messed up and not because of a Global Warming Boogeyman. Would you mind bringing some of that heat up here?
I live in a town of 2,700 people. There are no buildings taller than three stories in a four hour proximity to me. Where is this heat island effect you speak of?
Have to agree with you wrote:
Any -43 temps would make a person question global warming issues. I have to agree with you.
Are you going to continue your questioning this summer when we see record high temperatures (again) across the Northern Hemisphere, or are you going to wait until winter to hawk-watch for freezing temperatures above the Arctic Circle to reinforce your idiocy?
You realize your attitude is the single reason Donald Trump was elected, right?
You realize that the genuine lack of education, ignorance, and gullibility of the OP and the rest of his pseudonyms on this thread were the real reasons Donald Trump was elected, right?
hmmmmmmm wrote:
I live in a town of 2,700 people. There are no buildings taller than three stories in a four hour proximity to me. Where is this heat island effect you speak of?
This shows your ignorance of what the heat island effect is. It is not just buildings but everything man made, like the roads. And 3 story buildings still contribute to the heat island effect. Have you ever measure the temperature of an asphalt road during summer? There's your "Global Warming" right there.
hmmmmmmm wrote:
Have to agree with you wrote:
Any -43 temps would make a person question global warming issues. I have to agree with you.
Are you going to continue your questioning this summer when we see record high temperatures (again) across the Northern Hemisphere, or are you going to wait until winter to hawk-watch for freezing temperatures above the Arctic Circle to reinforce your idiocy?
There goes your ignorance again. Red Deer, Alberta is not anywhere close to the Article Circle.
Where's The Global Warming? wrote:
hmmmmmmm wrote:
I live in a town of 2,700 people. There are no buildings taller than three stories in a four hour proximity to me. Where is this heat island effect you speak of?
This shows your ignorance of what the heat island effect is. It is not just buildings but everything man made, like the roads. And 3 story buildings still contribute to the heat island effect. Have you ever measure the temperature of an asphalt road during summer? There's your "Global Warming" right there.
One can presume that a lack of buildings should correlate to a lack of man-made installations (roads, bridges, parking lots, etc.). You are trying really hard, aren't you?
Done posting here, but it is embarrassing and discouraging to think that there are people like you thinking and living in our country.
Oh Dear wrote:
Where's The Global Warming? wrote:
So where's the global warming when Red Deer, Alberta just set a new record low temperature for this time of year with a -43 degrees Celsius? According to Weather Canada, the previous record low was -40.6 degrees Celsius set back in 1950.
This is so cold your spit will freeze before it hits the ground.
https://www.reddeeradvocate.com/news/red-deer-still-one-of-the-coldest-places-on-earth/Please tell me you don't actually think global warming means is always going to be warmer, everywhere, all the time?
No climate scientist is drawing conclusions based on localized weather phenomena, they're using metadata.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/2019 was the 2nd warmest year on record.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/2019-was-second-warmest-year-on-record-federal-climate-scientists-say-1157910599010 of the warmest years on record (140 recorded years) have occurred since 2005.
The 6 warmest years on record have been 2014-2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years
Why don't you say the 6 warmest years since 1880? You are misleading when saying "on record." The "record" only goes back 140 years and the Earth is 4.6 billion years. And also, why not point out that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages. Your name should be misleader.
It's called "weather" when the event contradicts the narrative. When it is a bushfire or hurricane it's a global warming event.
If we are having all these record warm years and extreme (so cold too) temperatures more often then apparently the United States is exempt from all this.
Most of the state high temperature records were set in the 1930's and 1980's. ONLY TWO in the 2000s, 2010s. That makes no sense if the climate is warming.
I've read the IPCC reports and the scientists who work with it admit that the media is grossly exaggerating the threat. Also this black/white, you either believe or don't is ridiculous. We nearly all agree with change, that man contributes, but after that there is no consensus on the gravity of the situation.
By the way that 97% of scientists meme? What question were they asked that 97% agreed on? OH right, it wasn't a poll, it was a cursory online review of publications.
Many of the more hysterical groups claim human extinction, cities under water (half the state of Florida), all within a short time frame (by 2100).
How many predictions have been correct in the past? And if you're so damn sure why can't you give us real numbers in these predictions instead of vague allusions to disasters?
Read between the lines, look carefully at climate alarmists and their agenda. If it is honest, they will not rule out legitimate solutions like carbon capture, nuclear, natural gas, etc. If it's dishonest it will be an excuse to raise taxes, centralize control and diminish capitalism (some openly admit that environmentalism is a good way to implement socialism).
The point still stands, the odds of 6 of the last 140 years being the highest 6 on record by random chance is 0.0000000107% or 1 in 10,000,000,000.
Any reasonable person would recognize immediately, that the warming is not due to random chance.
Math: (6/140)*(5/139)*(4/138)*(3/137)*(2/136)*(1/135)
Oh Dear wrote:
The point still stands, the odds of 6 of the last 140 years being the highest 6 on record by random chance is 0.0000000107% or 1 in 10,000,000,000.
Any reasonable person would recognize immediately, that the warming is not due to random chance.
Math: (6/140)*(5/139)*(4/138)*(3/137)*(2/136)*(1/135)
Meant to say *the odds of the most recent 6 years being the hottest 6 on record
Oh Dear wrote:
The point still stands, the odds of 6 of the last 140 years being the highest 6 on record by random chance is 0.0000000107% or 1 in 10,000,000,000.
Any reasonable person would recognize immediately, that the warming is not due to random chance.
Math: (6/140)*(5/139)*(4/138)*(3/137)*(2/136)*(1/135)
Looks like you've never studied spurious correlations or why there are trends even in the lottery!
Helpful guide:
Warm temperatures? Proof of climate change
Cold temperatures? Proof of climate change
Mild temperatures? Proof of climate change
Terrorism and poverty? Caused by climate change
Illegal immigration? Caused by climate change
Arson? Climate change
Oh Dear wrote:
The point still stands, the odds of 6 of the last 140 years being the highest 6 on record by random chance is 0.0000000107% or 1 in 10,000,000,000.
Any reasonable person would recognize immediately, that the warming is not due to random chance.
Math: (6/140)*(5/139)*(4/138)*(3/137)*(2/136)*(1/135)
You'll have to forgive Sally - the only defense she ever uses is that weather has only been recorded for 140 years. She doesn't handle math very well.
Oh Dear wrote:
The point still stands, the odds of 6 of the last 140 years being the highest 6 on record by random chance is 0.0000000107% or 1 in 10,000,000,000.
Any reasonable person would recognize immediately, that the warming is not due to random chance.
Math: (6/140)*(5/139)*(4/138)*(3/137)*(2/136)*(1/135)
Any reasonable person would also recognize that the Earth, over its 4.6 billion years, has gone through periods of cooling and periods of warming. The recent warming is likely to be followed by a period of cooling and this current Global Warming crap is just that, crap. Would you, as a reasonable person, agree with that?
Where's The Global Warming? wrote:
Oh Dear wrote:
The point still stands, the odds of 6 of the last 140 years being the highest 6 on record by random chance is 0.0000000107% or 1 in 10,000,000,000.
Any reasonable person would recognize immediately, that the warming is not due to random chance.
Math: (6/140)*(5/139)*(4/138)*(3/137)*(2/136)*(1/135)
Looks like you've never studied spurious correlations or why there are trends even in the lottery!
From the idiot who posted one day's temperature in one location as an argument for global warming not existing lolololololol
Remember after Hurricane Katrina the Global Alarmists were promising more frequent hurricanes? Well the last Cat 3 hurricane was Wilma in 2004 and there was not one single Cat 3 in over 10 years. But Global Alarmists don't consider the facts. They deal in alarmism and nothing else. Al Gore's tipping point of 2016 was 4 years ago. Al, what happened?
conservative straw man tactic wrote:
Where's The Global Warming? wrote:
Looks like you've never studied spurious correlations or why there are trends even in the lottery!
From the idiot who posted one day's temperature in one location as an argument for global warming not existing lolololololol
Asking one thing of you. Just one. Will you admit that climate "scientists" in the past have manipulated the data to fit their narrative? Can you admit that? I am talking about Mann and that group as just one example.