Greta Thunberg warns of ‘catastrophic‘ climate crisis at England‘s Glastonbury Festival, says we need to ‘prioritize people over profit and greed’
- Thread starter oil&gas
- Start date
Oh, we now measure the severity of weather events by the length of the human life. Go away.Once again you cannot decipher as a "regular" occurrence vs "unprecedented" during the monsoon season!!
If this was a regular "occurrence" over the years we would have seen hundreds of millions of homes destroyed and thousands of lives lost as a result of it!!
‘I’ve Never Seen a Flood Like This’: Bangladesh Reels From Heavy Rains
South Asia is used to downpours, and occasional floods, during monsoon season. But this year’s flooding has been extreme, especially in Bangladesh.
‘I’ve Never Seen a Flood Like This’: Bangladesh Reels From Heavy Rains (Published 2022)
South Asia is used to downpours, and occasional floods, during monsoon season. But this year’s flooding has been extreme, especially in Bangladesh.www.nytimes.com
Maybe you have seen worse while living in Bangladesh!!
Here's something interesting. I checked Ontario's elementary school curriculum.
The equation with decimals that Frankfooter got 150% wrong is something a student should be able to successfully calculate by the end of Grade 5.
BTW, I wonder what bver_hunter thinks about so-called science expert Frankfooter has been having a total psychotic meltdown ("Bwahahahahaha!").
The equation with decimals that Frankfooter got 150% wrong is something a student should be able to successfully calculate by the end of Grade 5.
BTW, I wonder what bver_hunter thinks about so-called science expert Frankfooter has been having a total psychotic meltdown ("Bwahahahahaha!").
Last edited:
You are pedantic.
In this post you support the numbers NASA posts as accurate (while also idiotically cherry picking dates to make a false claim about the size of warming)
In this post you also confirm you support the NASA numbers.
In this post I posted a chart from NASA that compares the warming you have agreed is happening to the projections by the IPCC.
This confirms that you have agreed that the planet is warming, that the numbers NASA presents are accurate and that therefore when you put those with NASA's post comparing their global temp numbers against the IPCC projections it shows that the IPCC projections have been spectacularly accurate.
All you are doing now is whining in a petty manner that just because you agree with the NASA numbers doesn't somehow means you don't agree with the NASA numbers.
You've done it, you've posted and agreed to the figures that show the planet is warming just as much as the IPCC has said it would.
You have personally proven that the IPCC projections are accurate by confirming the planet has warmed as much as they said it would.
Yes, and its an incredibly idiotic statement.
First you have stated that NASA's global temps are accurate.
Then you that the projections look spectacularly wrong against NASA's numbers.
Bullshit. Once again, no source for this alleged IPCC prediction and no source for this claim that I said the IPCC's prediction (if it even exists) was accurate.
To update the list:
- Frankfooter posted a bullshit claim that I called for Biden to cut the gas tax.
- Frankfooter posted a bullshit claim that I predicted the Earth's temperature would "go down."
- Frankfooter posted a bullshit claim that I denied the planet had experienced warming since the late 19th century.
- Frankfooter once again posted a bullshit claim that I said the IPCC's predictions were accurate.
Question to bver_hunter: Would a sane person behave this way?
In the interest of science, I would love to see your response.
"Yes," indeed.
That didn't take long. Frankfooter has now confirmed that his post about the IPCC is bullshit and I very clearly did not say the IPCC's predictions were accurate.
In fact, as Frankfooter has also now confirmed, I actually said the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong.
Last edited:
You are literally replying to a post with a chart that posts the NASA numbers you say are accurate against IPCC projections that show that the projections are accurate.
You can't say both that the NASA numbers are accurate but they aren't accurate when NASA compares them to IPCC projections.
That would be idiotic.
Oh wait, that's what you just did.
Bwahahahaha!!!!
Oh, and the 'no source claim'?
Also idiotic as it was posted in the same post as this chart.
Bwhahahahaha!!!
Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right - NASA Science
A new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth's future global average surface temperature finds that most have been quite accurate.
climate.nasa.gov
Yes, you keep making this incredibly idiotic claim with nothing but your own precious feelies to back you up.
Bwahahahaha!!!!
Sorry dude, the NASA numbers you confirmed are on the NASA posted chart that shows that the IPCC projections are very fucking accurate.
I have a family of them in my backyard. They are good at getting rid of garbage but they can be messy about it.
An interesting update: bver_hunter was twice asked if he believes mathematically challenged Frankfooter's posts are the types of posts that would be written by a rational person.
There was no response.
His silence speaks volumes.
I don't recall actually saying that but let's not quibble. Assuming we want to use NASA's numbers, let's look at what they show.
- 2001 temperature anomaly: 0.54ºC.
- 2021 temperature anomaly: 0.85ºC.
Global Surface Temperature | NASA Global Climate Change
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.
The increase over 20 years: 0.31ºC.
If that trend line continues for the next 80 years, the total increase from 2001 to the end of the century would be 1.55ºC.
In 2001, the IPCC predicted the temperature could increase by as much as 6ºC over that 100-year time period:
Warming could be worst in 10,000 years
An international group of scientists has confirmed the worst fears of environmentalists: the Earth's atmosphere could soar by almost 6C by 2100 - a rise unprecedented in the past 10,000 years.
www.theguardian.com
Apparently, a possible increase of 1.55ºC compared against a prediction of 6ºC fulfils Frankfooter's definition of "spectacularly accurate." After all, it's only off by nearly 300%.
Mathematically challenged?An interesting update: bver_hunter was twice asked if he believes mathematically challenged Frankfooter's posts are the types of posts that would be written by a rational person.
There was no response.
His silence speaks volumes.
Someone who still can't understand the basics of stats, including the term 'cherry picking' of data is someone who is mathematically challenged.
You are still 'cherry picking' data.
Are you so unable to learn that you can't understand this basic stats concept?
7 years ago you couldn't understand it, today you can't understand it.
I've explained it to you so many times and yet here you are using the same, incredibly stupid, stats cheat.
(including showing you how incredibly fucking mathematically challenged and stupid it is to use cherry picking)
For instance, if I move your cherry picked dates one year:
- 2000 temperature anomaly: 0.39ºC.
- 2020 temperature anomaly: 1.02ºC.
The increase over 20 years: 0.63ºC.
Your numbers are idiotically stupid cherry picking.
I've shown you how stupid this is over and over again for 7 years and you still can't understand how stupid it is.
Its a basic concept, moviefan. Basic.
I even showed in picture form, using a graph with red lines being trends and blue lines being the cherry picked dates you keep using.
Why can't you understand even basic concepts like this?
And if you can't understand basics, how the fuck do you think you can understand the science?
Hmm. The so-called expert in "settled science" has now calculated the temperature difference starting from a La Nina year that was artificially below temperature trends. It doesn't look like he knows the difference between climate and weather.
The temperatures I cited were within the normal range of temperatures and are the numbers we must stick with.
As noted, the IPCC's prediction was off by nearly 300%. That sure doesn't seem "spectacularly accurate" to me.
BTW, Frankfooter's artificially inflated number is still only a little more than half of what the IPCC predicted. According to Frankfooter, a prediction that is off by nearly 100% is "spectacularly accurate."
The temperatures I cited were within the normal range of temperatures and are the numbers we must stick with.
As noted, the IPCC's prediction was off by nearly 300%. That sure doesn't seem "spectacularly accurate" to me.
BTW, Frankfooter's artificially inflated number is still only a little more than half of what the IPCC predicted. According to Frankfooter, a prediction that is off by nearly 100% is "spectacularly accurate."
Last edited:
