How does the flat earth impact AGW?

So, the release of massive amounts of CO2 result in the trapping of IR radiation, which makes the earth hotter than it would be without the human produced CO2.  Well, that's how it works on a globe earth.  Will it work the same way on a flat earth?  Do we need to do the same things to mitigate this, or does the flat earth reduce the impact of all the CO2 we release in our industrial society? 

At a simple level, I would say it does impact it, but in a complex manner.
There is the issue of the area of Earth, where the FE has a larger area, meaning more CO2 is needed to get the same concentration in the atmosphere.
On the other hand, the change from flat to spherical means a different amount of re-emitted radiation escapes to space vs goes back down to Earth.

But I'm sure most FEers would claim global warming is fake.

Global warming is two lies combined.

No globe and no warming planet is going on.

The easiest way to prove the temperatures of Earth have never changed over time, is looking at temperature records over hundreds of years, or just a hundred years.

All of our cities throughout the world, and many other areas on Earth, like deserts and so on, have been measuring temperatures for centuries, or at least a century or more.

The global warmers don’t ever mention our historical records over the world, of course.

When you look at our past temperature records over the last 100 years or so, from any city on Earth, you’ll find that they are the very same over the years, just vary in cycles or patterns

They first called it global warming, and later changed it to climate change, and use one or the other term which fits better at the time.

They love to cry about ‘greenhouse gases’ are warming up the planets temperatures, and is melting the ice caps of the ball Earth poles, causing our oceans to rise higher and higher, so it’s very horrific!

Another great lie, a ruse to create fear and insecurity, and control of the flock, who pay money to stop the great peril to Earth, by taxing their gas pumps, and everything else afterwards too.

They tax us for carbon, which is a natural element of Earth and all life on Earth, and is the food of planetary life on Earth, which is their source of life, as air is to us.

Carbon is not spewing over Earth and making it warmer and so on.

It is not a pollutant, man-made chemicals are pollutants of air, killing life and causing diseases, that’s the only dangers to us and Earth.

If you don’t believe it’s a lie, look at our historical records of temperatures in cities, you’ll see they’ve been the same as ever.

Global warming is two lies combined.

Nope, but your rejection of it is.

The easiest way to prove the temperatures of Earth have never changed over time, is looking at temperature records over hundreds of years, or just a hundred years.

Which shows a rise in the global average temperature.
Great job refuting yourself.

e.g. here is central park:
https://www.weather.gov/media/okx/Climate/CentralPark/monthlyannualtemp.pdf

While it goes up and down, you can clearly see an upwards trend.

Going to admit you were lying?

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 07, 2024, 10:32:02 PM

Global warming is two lies combined.

Nope, but your rejection of it is.

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 07, 2024, 10:32:02 PM

The easiest way to prove the temperatures of Earth have never changed over time, is looking at temperature records over hundreds of years, or just a hundred years.

Which shows a rise in the global average temperature.
Great job refuting yourself.

e.g. here is central park:
https://www.weather.gov/media/okx/Climate/CentralPark/monthlyannualtemp.pdf

While it goes up and down, you can clearly see an upwards trend.

Going to admit you were lying?

AGW stands for Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming.  You can't use temperatures from any single location to "prove" it is happening, especially temperatures from the middle of a dense urban environment.   

Quote from: JackBlack on June 08, 2024, 03:44:07 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 07, 2024, 10:32:02 PM

Global warming is two lies combined.

Nope, but your rejection of it is.

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 07, 2024, 10:32:02 PM

The easiest way to prove the temperatures of Earth have never changed over time, is looking at temperature records over hundreds of years, or just a hundred years.

Which shows a rise in the global average temperature.
Great job refuting yourself.

e.g. here is central park:
https://www.weather.gov/media/okx/Climate/CentralPark/monthlyannualtemp.pdf

While it goes up and down, you can clearly see an upwards trend.

Going to admit you were lying?

AGW stands for Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming.  You can't use temperatures from any single location to "prove" it is happening, especially temperatures from the middle of a dense urban environment.

Can I ask where you obtained your expertise from on this subject. At times it seams that people just pull alleged knowledge out their ass holes and expect people to believe it.

Firstly obtaining data on the changing climate is a complex affair. Do you yourself have stations all over the world where you obtain your data or are you like many of the folk here talking out your ass hole.

Collecting the data is only the beginning as making sense of it is complex. May I ask what your credentials are and where you house your super computer or are you as I suspect just talking out your hairy ass hole.

Its strange how people can have opinions on subjects like climate change which they can have, in reality, no hope in hell of forming any opinion thats worth more than a tinkers cuss.

I would say anything you have to say on the subject of climate change is as useful as a bowl of dog shit mixed with a liberal amount of dog sick.

Lets be real about this and not pretend that you know anything of worth about this subject,  for if you did you would not be coming out with all the crap you currently are.

Quote from: gnuarm on June 08, 2024, 05:53:26 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on June 08, 2024, 03:44:07 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 07, 2024, 10:32:02 PM

Global warming is two lies combined.

Nope, but your rejection of it is.

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 07, 2024, 10:32:02 PM

The easiest way to prove the temperatures of Earth have never changed over time, is looking at temperature records over hundreds of years, or just a hundred years.

Which shows a rise in the global average temperature.
Great job refuting yourself.

e.g. here is central park:
https://www.weather.gov/media/okx/Climate/CentralPark/monthlyannualtemp.pdf

While it goes up and down, you can clearly see an upwards trend.

Going to admit you were lying?

AGW stands for Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming.  You can't use temperatures from any single location to "prove" it is happening, especially temperatures from the middle of a dense urban environment.

Can I ask where you obtained your expertise from on this subject. At times it seams that people just pull alleged knowledge out their ass holes and expect people to believe it.

Firstly obtaining date on the changing climate is a complex affair. Do you yourself have stations all over the world where you obtain your data or are you like many of the folk here talking out your ass hole.

Collecting the data is only the beginning as making sense of it is complex. May I ask what your credentials are and where you house your super computer or are you as I suspect just talking out your hairy ass hole.

Its strange how people can have opinions on subjects like climate change which they can have, in reality, no hope in hell of forming any opinion thats worth more than a tinkers cuss.

I would say anything you have to say on the subject of climate change is as useful as a bowl of dog shit mixed with a liberal amount of dog sick.

Lets be real about this and not pretend that you know anything of worth about this subject,  for if you did you would not be coming out with all the crap you currently are.

Just to be clear, you don't actually disagree with what I wrote, right?  You just want to stand on the street corner and yell at all the people driving by in cars, correct?

So, the release of massive amounts of CO2 result in the trapping of IR radiation, which makes the earth hotter than it would be without the human produced CO2.  Well, that's how it works on a globe earth.  Will it work the same way on a flat earth?  Do we need to do the same things to mitigate this, or does the flat earth reduce the impact of all the CO2 we release in our industrial society?

get a ton of nuke, make a hole in the dome, and we're pretty much done I guess?

Quote from: Timeisup on June 08, 2024, 08:41:09 AM

Quote from: gnuarm on June 08, 2024, 05:53:26 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on June 08, 2024, 03:44:07 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 07, 2024, 10:32:02 PM

Global warming is two lies combined.

Nope, but your rejection of it is.

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 07, 2024, 10:32:02 PM

The easiest way to prove the temperatures of Earth have never changed over time, is looking at temperature records over hundreds of years, or just a hundred years.

Which shows a rise in the global average temperature.
Great job refuting yourself.

e.g. here is central park:
https://www.weather.gov/media/okx/Climate/CentralPark/monthlyannualtemp.pdf

While it goes up and down, you can clearly see an upwards trend.

Going to admit you were lying?

AGW stands for Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming.  You can't use temperatures from any single location to "prove" it is happening, especially temperatures from the middle of a dense urban environment.

Can I ask where you obtained your expertise from on this subject. At times it seams that people just pull alleged knowledge out their ass holes and expect people to believe it.

Firstly obtaining date on the changing climate is a complex affair. Do you yourself have stations all over the world where you obtain your data or are you like many of the folk here talking out your ass hole.

Collecting the data is only the beginning as making sense of it is complex. May I ask what your credentials are and where you house your super computer or are you as I suspect just talking out your hairy ass hole.

Its strange how people can have opinions on subjects like climate change which they can have, in reality, no hope in hell of forming any opinion thats worth more than a tinkers cuss.

I would say anything you have to say on the subject of climate change is as useful as a bowl of dog shit mixed with a liberal amount of dog sick.

Lets be real about this and not pretend that you know anything of worth about this subject,  for if you did you would not be coming out with all the crap you currently are.

Just to be clear, you don't actually disagree with what I wrote, right?  You just want to stand on the street corner and yell at all the people driving by in cars, correct?

That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is a uniformed opinion such as yours on a complex subject is worth as much as a fart in a storm.

That’s unless you have spent a career in that particular discipline, which I doubt.

What makes you think your opinion on this subject is worth more that that expelled arse air I referred to eastlier?

You after all are the one pontificating on a subject you know nothing about.

AGW stands for Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming.  You can't use temperatures from any single location to "prove" it is happening, especially temperatures from the middle of a dense urban environment.

I'm demonstrating they are full of shit.
That the records they are appealing to which they claim should show no change, instead show a clear upwards trend.

Quote from: gnuarm on June 08, 2024, 05:53:26 AM

AGW stands for Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming.  You can't use temperatures from any single location to "prove" it is happening, especially temperatures from the middle of a dense urban environment.

I'm demonstrating they are full of shit.
That the records they are appealing to which they claim should show no change, instead show a clear upwards trend.

I've explained to you why this is not at all valid.  Why do you not understand?  Do you think I'm lying?  Do you not agree that temperature data from one location can't tell you anything about the global temperature trends?

Quote from: gnuarm on June 08, 2024, 09:05:15 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on June 08, 2024, 08:41:09 AM

Quote from: gnuarm on June 08, 2024, 05:53:26 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on June 08, 2024, 03:44:07 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 07, 2024, 10:32:02 PM

Global warming is two lies combined.

Nope, but your rejection of it is.

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 07, 2024, 10:32:02 PM

The easiest way to prove the temperatures of Earth have never changed over time, is looking at temperature records over hundreds of years, or just a hundred years.

Which shows a rise in the global average temperature.
Great job refuting yourself.

e.g. here is central park:
https://www.weather.gov/media/okx/Climate/CentralPark/monthlyannualtemp.pdf

While it goes up and down, you can clearly see an upwards trend.

Going to admit you were lying?

AGW stands for Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming.  You can't use temperatures from any single location to "prove" it is happening, especially temperatures from the middle of a dense urban environment.

Can I ask where you obtained your expertise from on this subject. At times it seams that people just pull alleged knowledge out their ass holes and expect people to believe it.

Firstly obtaining date on the changing climate is a complex affair. Do you yourself have stations all over the world where you obtain your data or are you like many of the folk here talking out your ass hole.

Collecting the data is only the beginning as making sense of it is complex. May I ask what your credentials are and where you house your super computer or are you as I suspect just talking out your hairy ass hole.

Its strange how people can have opinions on subjects like climate change which they can have, in reality, no hope in hell of forming any opinion thats worth more than a tinkers cuss.

I would say anything you have to say on the subject of climate change is as useful as a bowl of dog shit mixed with a liberal amount of dog sick.

Lets be real about this and not pretend that you know anything of worth about this subject,  for if you did you would not be coming out with all the crap you currently are.

Just to be clear, you don't actually disagree with what I wrote, right?  You just want to stand on the street corner and yell at all the people driving by in cars, correct?

That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is a uniformed opinion such as yours on a complex subject is worth as much as a fart in a storm.

That’s unless you have spent a career in that particular discipline, which I doubt.

What makes you think your opinion on this subject is worth more that that expelled arse air I referred to eastlier?

You after all are the one pontificating on a subject you know nothing about.

What is it that you think I said that could be called "pontificating"?  I am simply pointing out that you can't measure the global temperature by using data from one location.  There's nothing "complex" about that.

Or is being insulting your default remark to everyone on this forum?

Being insulting is definitely his default. He doesn't want people to debate anything on this forum.

I've explained to you why this is not at all valid.  Why do you not understand?

Did you even bother reading what I said?
If you did, did you even attempt to understand it?
Do you understand what it was made in response to?
Maybe you should go back and read that, try to understand the statement made in context, and respond to that.

That is a point for you to start:
What was my post made in response to?

I'll give you a clue, it is here:

The easiest way to prove the temperatures of Earth have never changed over time, is looking at temperature records over hundreds of years, or just a hundred years.
All of our cities throughout the world, and many other areas on Earth, like deserts and so on, have been measuring temperatures for centuries, or at least a century or more.
The global warmers don’t ever mention our historical records over the world, of course.
When you look at our past temperature records over the last 100 years or so, from any city on Earth, you’ll find that they are the very same over the years, just vary in cycles or patterns
...
If you don’t believe it’s a lie, look at our historical records of temperatures in cities, you’ll see they’ve been the same as ever.

Now do you understand?

Quote from: gnuarm on June 08, 2024, 03:30:28 PM

I've explained to you why this is not at all valid.  Why do you not understand?

Did you even bother reading what I said?

What you wrote, is not responsive to what I had posted.  Here it is again.

AGW stands for Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming.  You can't use temperatures from any single location to "prove" it is happening, especially temperatures from the middle of a dense urban environment.

Then Timeisup started talking nonsense about me not being an expert on AGW.  Now, you are doubling down on your original post that I replied to.  Do you not understand what I was saying about temperatures in any one location being meaningless in a discussion of AGW? 

I know that you were replying to a post that talked about temperatures in cities.  That's not actually relevant.  Why would you want to make the same mistake that Turbonium did?  He also mentioned temperatures in deserts.  Where's your desert temperature data? 

What you wrote, is not responsive to what I had posted.  Here it is again.

Great job showing the problem with your statement.
You are not responding to what I have posted in context.
Instead you have entirely ignored the context to make a useless point.
He is claiming you can look at any city and see the temperature is the same. That is wrong.
The first one I found showed an increase, demonstrating they are lying.

That is the point.

Saying that alone doesn't prove anthropogenic global warming is irrelavent.

Quote from: gnuarm on June 08, 2024, 11:21:19 PM

What you wrote, is not responsive to what I had posted.  Here it is again.

Great job showing the problem with your statement.
You are not responding to what I have posted in context.
Instead you have entirely ignored the context to make a useless point.
He is claiming you can look at any city and see the temperature is the same. That is wrong.
The first one I found showed an increase, demonstrating they are lying.

That is the point.

Saying that alone doesn't prove anthropogenic global warming is irrelavent.

Who said AGW is irrelevant? 

If you want to make some statement, other than, "you are a poopyhead", maybe you should try to actually make a useful statement.  Just arguing with people, trying to be the one who is "right" is pretty pointless in this forum.  But, if that's entertainment to you, enjoy!

Being insulting is definitely his default. He doesn't want people to debate anything on this forum.

Who are you talking about?  Maybe it would be clear if we knew who you are talking to?

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 08, 2024, 04:02:23 PM

Being insulting is definitely his default. He doesn't want people to debate anything on this forum.

Who are you talking about?  Maybe it would be clear if we knew who you are talking to?

Well, if you read the post just above mine, you will see that I am replying to you - "Or is being insulting your default remark to everyone on this forum?" You asked that question in your reply to Timmy. Should be pretty easy to figure out that I am talking about Timmy. 

Quote from: gnuarm on June 09, 2024, 08:05:05 AM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 08, 2024, 04:02:23 PM

Being insulting is definitely his default. He doesn't want people to debate anything on this forum.

Who are you talking about?  Maybe it would be clear if we knew who you are talking to?

Well, if you read the post just above mine, you will see that I am replying to you - "Or is being insulting your default remark to everyone on this forum?" You asked that question in your reply to Timmy. Should be pretty easy to figure out that I am talking about Timmy.

Isn't that why we have quotes... to remove the ambiguity?   

Posting in forums is not really like a conversation where context is obvious (well... mostly) from the juxtaposition.  In these forums, people often reply to other posts that may be anywhere in the thread.  But, I would not expect to need to tell you that.  I also don't expect you will change the way you post.  Lots of people here seem to be too lazy to even use capitals or spell correctly.  Maybe that's on purpose. 

If you reply directly under someone else's post, then anyone reading along would not find any ambiguity. It's not my fault you can't remember the things you posted.

If you reply directly under someone else's post, then anyone reading along would not find any ambiguity. It's not my fault you can't remember the things you posted.

Thank you, for pointing out my deficiency. 

You're welcome!

Who said AGW is irrelevant? 

If you want to make some statement, other than, "you are a poopyhead", maybe you should try to actually make a useful statement.  Just arguing with people, trying to be the one who is "right" is pretty pointless in this forum.  But, if that's entertainment to you, enjoy!

And I did make a useful statement, by pointing out their claim is a blatant lie which is trivial to refute.
The data from cities shows warming, not the same.
You not liking that doesn't change it.

Considering the topic was not about if global warming is occuring or not, or if it is man made or not, the further discussion and proof of it occuring is irrelevant.
My point was not to prove it was happening, but to prove they were wrong.

Quote from: gnuarm on June 09, 2024, 08:03:29 AM

Who said AGW is irrelevant? 

If you want to make some statement, other than, "you are a poopyhead", maybe you should try to actually make a useful statement.  Just arguing with people, trying to be the one who is "right" is pretty pointless in this forum.  But, if that's entertainment to you, enjoy!

And I did make a useful statement, by pointing out their claim is a blatant lie which is trivial to refute.
The data from cities shows warming, not the same.
You not liking that doesn't change it.

Considering the topic was not about if global warming is occuring or not, or if it is man made or not, the further discussion and proof of it occuring is irrelevant.
My point was not to prove it was happening, but to prove they were wrong.

That's what I said, you didn't want to provide any useful information.   You just wanted to make someone wrong.  That is why this forum is so crappy.  It is not about exchanging information.  It's about proving other people wrong about anything and everything.  Some people are easy to entertain.

That's what I said, you didn't want to provide any useful information.   You just wanted to make someone wrong.  That is why this forum is so crappy.  It is not about exchanging information.  It's about proving other people wrong about anything and everything.  Some people are easy to entertain.

I provided the useful information in a previous post.
Again, the topic is not if AGW is happening. It is how would a FE impact it.
So proving AGW is happening is not useful for this discussion.

Also, notice that you are now basically describing your own actions?
Just what do you think you have done that is useful here? Because you seem to just want to say I'm wrong.

Quote from: gnuarm on June 09, 2024, 03:33:47 PM

That's what I said, you didn't want to provide any useful information.   You just wanted to make someone wrong.  That is why this forum is so crappy.  It is not about exchanging information.  It's about proving other people wrong about anything and everything.  Some people are easy to entertain.

I provided the useful information in a previous post.
Again, the topic is not if AGW is happening. It is how would a FE impact it.
So proving AGW is happening is not useful for this discussion.

Also, notice that you are now basically describing your own actions?
Just what do you think you have done that is useful here? Because you seem to just want to say I'm wrong.

Now you are just trying to make me wrong.  At least we know what to expect of you. 

Quote from: JackBlack on June 10, 2024, 02:25:03 AM

Quote from: gnuarm on June 09, 2024, 03:33:47 PM

That's what I said, you didn't want to provide any useful information.   You just wanted to make someone wrong.  That is why this forum is so crappy.  It is not about exchanging information.  It's about proving other people wrong about anything and everything.  Some people are easy to entertain.

I provided the useful information in a previous post.
Again, the topic is not if AGW is happening. It is how would a FE impact it.
So proving AGW is happening is not useful for this discussion.

Also, notice that you are now basically describing your own actions?
Just what do you think you have done that is useful here? Because you seem to just want to say I'm wrong.

Now you are just trying to make me wrong.  At least we know what to expect of you.

No, I'm calling out your hypocrisy, that isn't trying to make you wrong.
Trying to make you wrong would mean misquoting you or otherwise misrepresenting you to make you seem wrong when you aren't.

If you would like an example of that, that is where you take this statement:
"Saying that alone doesn't prove anthropogenic global warming is irrelavent."
And representing it as:
"Who said AGW is irrelevant?"

But I notice you don't have any objection to it.
Is it because you know you were doing what you were complaining about?

You made several posts which basically ammounted to saying I am wrong, while ignoring the context of why I posted what I did.
So as you said:
If you want to make some statement, other than, "you are a poopyhead", maybe you should try to actually make a useful statement.  Just arguing with people, trying to be the one who is "right" is pretty pointless in this forum.  But, if that's entertainment to you, enjoy!

Quote from: gnuarm on June 10, 2024, 04:21:04 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on June 10, 2024, 02:25:03 AM

Quote from: gnuarm on June 09, 2024, 03:33:47 PM

That's what I said, you didn't want to provide any useful information.   You just wanted to make someone wrong.  That is why this forum is so crappy.  It is not about exchanging information.  It's about proving other people wrong about anything and everything.  Some people are easy to entertain.

I provided the useful information in a previous post.
Again, the topic is not if AGW is happening. It is how would a FE impact it.
So proving AGW is happening is not useful for this discussion.

Also, notice that you are now basically describing your own actions?
Just what do you think you have done that is useful here? Because you seem to just want to say I'm wrong.

Now you are just trying to make me wrong.  At least we know what to expect of you.

No, I'm calling out your hypocrisy, that isn't trying to make you wrong.
Trying to make you wrong would mean misquoting you or otherwise misrepresenting you to make you seem wrong when you aren't.

If you would like an example of that, that is where you take this statement:
"Saying that alone doesn't prove anthropogenic global warming is irrelavent."
And representing it as:
"Who said AGW is irrelevant?"

But I notice you don't have any objection to it.
Is it because you know you were doing what you were complaining about?

You made several posts which basically ammounted to saying I am wrong, while ignoring the context of why I posted what I did.
So as you said:
If you want to make some statement, other than, "you are a poopyhead", maybe you should try to actually make a useful statement.  Just arguing with people, trying to be the one who is "right" is pretty pointless in this forum.  But, if that's entertainment to you, enjoy!

You seem to have significant limitations in understanding what others have said.  This is no different.  I simply pointed out that it is never valid to attempt to make a case regarding AGW using data from only one area of the world.  Even though you were replying to a specific statement by someone, it is still not a valid point. 

I've made my statement and you have turned it into an argument.  With that, I will not continue to discuss this with you.  We have both presented our points, and no agreement was found.  Typical for a flat earth discussion group, I expect.

semantically specific.

if you understand that some people here are hung up on definitions and single statements then you need to be semantically specific.
it's not in general that jackB is saying everytning you said was wrong, it was that a specific phrasing of what you said was "wrong".
so if you focus up, you can get out of this brain fart.