Continuation of >>14111102
>>14111535
>Were those rural stations not urbanized since then?
No, they used historical data and several proxies to determine whether a station is rural.
>I didn't find that in their work and my sensations tell it was inevitable no matter what they'd say really, because I know what it's worth.
What?
>Tell me how that article of yours proves it.
Proves what? That the greenhouse effect works during both night and day? That's trivial. That night should warm faster than days? That's because during the night the boundary-layer is reduced, so radiative forcing has a larger effect.
>Give me facts, I'm not reading it
I did, your refusal to read them is not my problem.
>Bring me some debate where those guys are exposed as frauds or something.
Why would you want a debate when I gave you scientific analysis?
>But until you guys avoid fee debates and prefer to use political means instead, I'm not taking you seriously
No political means were used, just science. Do you have an actual argument?
>Living in an urban area, I'm telling you it's not CO2 that concerns me the most.
Irrelevant.
>Don't you know trees grow on CO2?
The trees seem to be done with or without our massive CO2 emissions. Only focusing on one effect is silly.
>Are you some lizard people, infected with the desert curse, praying to your desert gods, praying of the destruction, is it where believing in the afterlife leads you?
Did you forget to take your meds?
>>14111535
>Were those rural stations not urbanized since then?
No, they used historical data and several proxies to determine whether a station is rural.
>I didn't find that in their work and my sensations tell it was inevitable no matter what they'd say really, because I know what it's worth.
What?
>Tell me how that article of yours proves it.
Proves what? That the greenhouse effect works during both night and day? That's trivial. That night should warm faster than days? That's because during the night the boundary-layer is reduced, so radiative forcing has a larger effect.
>Give me facts, I'm not reading it
I did, your refusal to read them is not my problem.
>Bring me some debate where those guys are exposed as frauds or something.
Why would you want a debate when I gave you scientific analysis?
>But until you guys avoid fee debates and prefer to use political means instead, I'm not taking you seriously
No political means were used, just science. Do you have an actual argument?
>Living in an urban area, I'm telling you it's not CO2 that concerns me the most.
Irrelevant.
>Don't you know trees grow on CO2?
The trees seem to be done with or without our massive CO2 emissions. Only focusing on one effect is silly.
>Are you some lizard people, infected with the desert curse, praying to your desert gods, praying of the destruction, is it where believing in the afterlife leads you?
Did you forget to take your meds?
