when we look at the daily fluctuating temperature, we see the days are consistently hotter than night and equally nights are consistently cooler than day. simply d>n therefore n<d.
we can predict that the sun adds heat... duh. obviously... until we realize that would refute global warming claims. then the cult mentality takes over with name calling and can't "oppose science".
it seems, the atheists need some blind faith and having rejected god still have the need therefore in global warming... just kidding to lighten up the DRY statistics.
if we imagine two people with bias and know the fact... the fact is the nights are less warm than the historical average then we can predict the bias. bias: the one wanting to prove global warming says, "look at the days SO HOT." to show heat. and we expect the opposition to look at the night "less hot" to oppose but objectively we can measure as above the sun adds heat "obviously" so the "cause is the direct rays of sun." period. that is the CAUSE for heat.
especially the fuss about GREENHOUSE gas that can only be measured without the cause of the sun to CHECK if trap heat or not, so the "concerned" scientist who should focus on facts not emotions, who publish videos the ice melting in Antarctica in November ... you think you feel cold? even when you are cold ice melts! see? global warming... but there not winter duh.
instead should test IF the gas traps heat or not.
if the "lows" are warmer that would be a test... at night is the heat trapped? more than past? and is that occurrence phenomenon global? that would test but instead of observation, kuz science is observation, the concerned scientists exited its own limits to make predictions in ten years... they saw in "the computer model" they observed it... after they programmed the computer haha.
one website i tested made predictions for hot days and consistently the actual temperature each days high [even highest] was less warm, even during day, under sun, than their prediction so the prediction is just for sensation not science.
when they make predictions, opposing global warming predictions is not opposing real science. similarly how animals evolved in the past is not observation therefore not true science and never observed any ape birth a human. claims without observation is not even science. real science is now improve the jet engine but not past history nor future predictions.
but instead they talk about "calving" glaciers that means solid ice it does not mean melt but birth solid which is CAUSED by added snow so much added the weight pressures the ice out despite ice solid that must be lots of snow the opposite of melting because calving is solid.
they know their followers are scared to "oppose science" and RELY on that to say all 3, calving and antarctica in November and measure during the time of sun rays. only i dare to point these out because i can't have my professor job cancelled by cancel culture.
so i measure the lows, why? due to bias? no but due to testing the GAS... when the heat DOES escape AS USUAL DAILY in the evening how much heat is trapped.
if EVEN ONE city is less warm, then the warming is "not global" refuting the "global" part, so no need to prove every city unless claiming "global cooling" but opposing them is not claiming global just opposing global warming so easier, their claim global would need to test every city and therefore is easy to refute because even one exception is not only not "global" but also shows the amount of heat is not trapped despite greenhouse gas.
the fact is in one place the lows at night are LESS WARM than the historical average. gasp
so what? just one place? burden me to check more? no need because they claim global... remember? the warming is not really global.
nor is the gas trapping the day heat... less trapping heat than the historical average and much MORE of the heat, than past, escaped as we see the difference by 9 degrees Fahrenheit less warm so more heat is escaping... not just a bit more escape, but lots more nine D.F. now despite all the added co2 from trucks since last year... it does trap heat but LESS than previous years and less warm than historical average and by a large amount too because August is usually hotter in north hemisphere and despite August and despite added co2 from trucks millions of trucks day after day month after month hundreds of days since last year added, and less trees to convert it to oxygen, due to harvesting lumber and fires huge fires destroying innumerable trees... still the heat is less trapped and not by a bit warmer or even a bit less warm which would be stable but by NINE degrees fahrenheit that is much more heat escaping than the past.
now reply but only in the topic but no name calling.
Most Helpful Opinions