Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MrTLegal, Feb 10, 2020.

  1. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    43,494
    Likes Received:
    7,338
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did no such thing - is that so hard ?
     
  2. jay runner

    jay runner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,261
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course. They come with precision thermometers, barometers, and windsocks.
     
  3. DivineComedy

    DivineComedy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    6,685
    Likes Received:
    557
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reminds me of this time in Sociology 101, when I said "I wouldn't send a hamburger to India" if they were starving to death, and the Black teacher got all upset. I was thinking of this picture my father brought back from India where this woman was holding an infant that was starving to death and in the picture were animals, lots of animals, FOOOD, oh, wait, BEEF, Holy Cow.
     
    Giftedone and jay runner like this.
  4. BuckyBadger

    BuckyBadger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    10,014
    Likes Received:
    9,521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I doubt it. 40 pages in and he is still spewing nonsense.
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  5. BuckyBadger

    BuckyBadger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    10,014
    Likes Received:
    9,521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pure comedy. Thanks for the laugh.
     
  6. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    2,139
    Likes Received:
    590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I was in the process of it until you decided to stop following along.

    No thank you. You've shown that you aren't interested in learning about logic, science, nor mathematics.

    I've explained many times why it is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth, measure global CO2 content, measure global sea level, etc... One of the bigger issues, a prime example being within the title of this thread, is the issue of people attempting to equate a part of something as if it were the whole.
     
    BuckyBadger likes this.
  7. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    2,139
    Likes Received:
    590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So this is the part of The Church mantra where we pivot over to "anomalies", since all else has failed?
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2020
    BuckyBadger likes this.
  8. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    35,941
    Likes Received:
    21,432
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I quoted their numbers too AND I can actually understand the numbers. But you know how I know you also possess that capacity?

    Because you refuse to quote any other portion of the article.

    Go ahead. Quote the rest of the article Guava. You clearly have the ability to quote 12 paragraphs of an article. You did it again, here, for some ****ing dumb reason.

    You know I how know you dont believe your bullshit? You have to use an emoji and say dumb **** like "Busted."

    But the post that you been referenced multiple times is post #643.

    You have the ability to go look up a post after being given the post citation, right?

    Also, "fix your quotes."

    We have presented multiple pieces of evidence and sources to support that claim.



    I already did. You ignored it. Go read it again.

    Post # 971

    Why are you incapable of understanding a citation? Perhaps you need me to put the citation into a Google box for you? It is ****ing lazy.

    I will not. Use the citations I gave you and Google it for yourself.
     
  9. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    2,139
    Likes Received:
    590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    RQAA.
     
    BuckyBadger likes this.
  10. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    58,546
    Likes Received:
    6,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Incoherent rambling
     
  11. BuckyBadger

    BuckyBadger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    10,014
    Likes Received:
    9,521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have the patience of a Saint. After waxing the floor with his original claims, I just stuck to those facts. You brought up a lot more interesting things. Thanks. Good reading. (You, not the other guy.)
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  12. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    2,139
    Likes Received:
    590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Correct. You did say that.

    Half correct, depending on how ticky-tacky you wanna be with the word "confirmed". It is correct that a set of falsifiable theories has not been confirmed. Science does not have the power of proof. Any theory of science could be falsified tomorrow. Any theory that has been "disconfirmed" (falsified) is no longer a theory of science. One such example is the Theory of Natural Selection.

    Nope. One can gain knowledge about science, but science is not knowledge. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

    I don't understand what you're saying here. Science does not confirm (prove) anything. It only disproves via testing against a null hypothesis (and internal consistency testing via logic).

    False Authority Fallacy. Dictionaries do not define words. They standardize word spelling and pronunciation. Regarding the example word meanings provided within, dictionaries often times contradict each other. They are not an authoritative source of word definitions.

    Define "climate change".
     
    BuckyBadger likes this.
  13. BestViewedWithCable

    BestViewedWithCable Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    48,281
    Likes Received:
    6,951
    Trophy Points:
    113
    2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + Energy
     
  14. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    35,941
    Likes Received:
    21,432
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Still waiting on you to link a single person or article that backs up your interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics as it relates to AGW.
     
  15. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    35,941
    Likes Received:
    21,432
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The sun uses fission to turn hydrogen into helium. So where do you think the sun is emitting hydrogen?
     
  16. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    35,941
    Likes Received:
    21,432
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Still waiting on you to answer a couple of basic questions.
     
  17. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    14,819
    Likes Received:
    5,069
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But, but your laws of thermodynamics.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  18. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    11,890
    Likes Received:
    8,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are the one disputing my numbers taken from your article. Go on Legal, give us the total CO2 by humans in the atmosphere from your own article vs all others.

    If you had it you would have already quoted it and we both know it :)

    And you just proved me right again. I challenged you to quote it where it states all produced CO2 over the last 150 is man made. A laughable and ridiculous claim and just like clockwork you ran away from proving your flat earth theory once again :)

    LOL!! Your own flat earther link doesn't even back youir BS claim. All I have to do is quote it:

    Given that "About 40% of these anthropogenic CO2 emissions have remained in the atmosphere (880 ± 35 GtCO2) since 1750" and given that the CO2 concentration has risen about 280ppm to ~405ppm (Figure 1.3 below) and that the amount of CO2 from 1750 to 1950 rose a total of 30 points, it is a conservative estimate to say that approximately 25% of the total CO2 concentration is human added.

    Psst 40% is not 100% Legal! hahahaha Busted again and once again with your own flat earther link!

    And anthropogenic CO2 is NOT all CO2 Legal. You couldn't even be honest enough about the question could you?

    And its not even accurate!


    The research conducted by Dr Wolfgang Knorr of the University of Bristol shows that since 1850 approximately 54% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are absorbed by natural carbon sinks (i.e. plants, oceans) irrespective of the total volume of emissions…

    [​IMG]
    Figure 1. The annual increase in atmospheric CO2 (as determined from ice cores, thin dotted lines, and direct measurements, thin black line) has remained constantly proportional to the annual amount of CO2 released by human activities (thick black line). The proportion is about 46% (thick dotted line). (Figure source: Knorr, 2009)

    The point is that no matter how much CO2 humans emit, from 8 tons to 8 gigatons, 44% of it is taken up by natural carbon sinks. Mankind accounts for about 6 gT’s of atmospheric carbon (primarily CO2) each year. The natural variability of Earth’s carbon cycle is 6 to 7 times as large as current anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

    [​IMG]
    Mankind accounts for 5-6 Gt of CO2 emissions per year. Natural sources account for 190-225 Gt per year. The natural variability of 35 Gt is 6 to 7 times as large as the total anthropogenic emissions.

    In other words, there is no such thing as a natural balance between carbon sources and sinks. Most geoscientists already knew that was the case, because there is no such thing as a natural balance of anything. If there was such a thing, the Earth’s atmosphere would have long ago run out of CO2; and we would be on a pathway to running out again in 25 million years…

    [​IMG]


    So not only did you make a laughably false claim your own link wouldn't support, I've debunked your flat earther article quite easily :)

    https://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/how-much-of-the-atmospheric-co2-is-anthropogenic/

    Absoltuely! And I love it when you can't even read your own data right much less the flat earthers even getting it right! :)

    Let's hope this time your own link won't contradict your flat earther logic.

    LOL You have ZERO evidence to support your claims in 971. You quote no data that proves the studies were 97% or even 7% supporting the flat earther theory that man is responsible for climate change. Nothing. Zip. Nada.

    And you think that would fly Legal? Just baseless opinion by you? lol Not by a longshot.

    But go ahead, quote ANYTHING from that post of yours (remember its 971) that provides evidence Cook was right. Go ahead. We both know its nothing but worthless unsupported opinion :)

    Thanks for once again proving you cannot dispute my facts and the flagrant lies by Cook in how many of those studies actually supported his flat earther theories :)

    Actually using your own links to prove your own claims false is fun :)

    Post 971 is pure unsupported opinion unlike the facts I gave you about the lies Cook told but as always when you are challenged to back up your unsupported opinions, you run. Right on time :)
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  19. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    35,941
    Likes Received:
    21,432
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FFS guava, the 40% refers to the amount of CO2 produced by humans which has remained in the atmosphere. That's why the post says, "About 40% of these anthropogenic CO2 emissions have remained in the atmosphere ."

    Learn to read before resorting to laughing or using a ****ing emoji.
     
  20. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,551
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And yet, total water volume doesn’t increase or decrease according to NASA.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2020
    drluggit likes this.
  21. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    14,819
    Likes Received:
    5,069
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah. I seems most of the hydrogen for the fuel cells come from some form of splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen.
     
  22. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    11,890
    Likes Received:
    8,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm sorry laugh but its just too funny when your own links betray you :)

    And I already provided you the link - multiple times to back up the claim that approximately all of the accumulated CO2 over the last 150 years is man made.

    And you pointed to your flat earther link that didn't back up a word of what you just claimed.

    And of course it was equally wrong as I proved with real science



    The research conducted by Dr Wolfgang Knorr of the University of Bristol shows that since 1850 approximately 54% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are absorbed by natural carbon sinks (i.e. plants, oceans) irrespective of the total volume of emissions…

    [​IMG]
    Figure 1. The annual increase in atmospheric CO2 (as determined from ice cores, thin dotted lines, and direct measurements, thin black line) has remained constantly proportional to the annual amount of CO2 released by human activities (thick black line). The proportion is about 46% (thick dotted line). (Figure source: Knorr, 2009)

    The point is that no matter how much CO2 humans emit, from 8 tons to 8 gigatons, 44% of it is taken up by natural carbon sinks. Mankind accounts for about 6 gT’s of atmospheric carbon (primarily CO2) each year. The natural variability of Earth’s carbon cycle is 6 to 7 times as large as current anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

    [​IMG]
    Mankind accounts for 5-6 Gt of CO2 emissions per year. Natural sources account for 190-225 Gt per year. The natural variability of 35 Gt is 6 to 7 times as large as the total anthropogenic emissions.

    In other words, there is no such thing as a natural balance between carbon sources and sinks. Most geoscientists already knew that was the case, because there is no such thing as a natural balance of anything. If there was such a thing, the Earth’s atmosphere would have long ago run out of CO2; and we would be on a pathway to running out again in 25 million years…

    [​IMG]


    So not only did you make a laughably false claim your own link wouldn't support, I've debunked your flat earther article quite easily :)

    https://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/how-much-of-the-atmospheric-co2-is-anthropogenic/

    But of course you ran away from the rest of my post since it exposed your failed dogma for what it is :)

    Pro Tip: Before you refer to an old post actually check to see if it supporters what your new face is saying now. :)
     
    gfm7175, drluggit and dbldrew like this.
  23. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    59,207
    Likes Received:
    39,582
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Riiiiiiight

    A blog

    Making wild unsubstantiated claims

    Most of its references are to Twitter!

    I did find ONE citation though - to a COMMENT in the journal nature and even THAT they misrepresented
     
    MrTLegal likes this.
  24. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    59,207
    Likes Received:
    39,582
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    This too is a BLOG

    Question

    Do you know what a systematic review of literature is?
     
  25. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    14,819
    Likes Received:
    5,069
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Could you somehow separate your comments from your sources?
    You replies are long and by mixing the 2 very hard to follow.
     
    MrTLegal likes this.

Share This Page