• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"The Sky is Falling" says NASA's Gavin Schmidt

"So if you’re about 80 kilometres up, you actually are seeing the sky falling. It’s going down by a number of kilometres.”
Click to expand...

:lamo
 
gmeyers1944 said:
You didn't follow my instructions.
Click to expand...

You didn't follow the rules, scientists determine what a science says. It's like sports, if you tried to get on the field, you'd be politely escorted out.

Ya ain't a player, kid.
 
late said:
You didn't follow the rules, scientists determine what a science says. It's like sports, if you tried to get on the field, you'd be politely escorted out.

Ya ain't a player, kid.
Click to expand...
Global alarmists didn't follow the rules. Many of their confirming scientists have nothing to do with climate.
 
gmeyers1944 said:
Please consider this.
'Global warming the greatest scam in history' claims founder of Weather Channel | Clarifications and Corrections | News | Daily Express
Click to expand...

He's not a climate scientist, and that's just an old joke that was flushed down the crapper years ago.

Since you are new to the planet, this popped up in the 80s (the 70s is more typing than I want to do). There was a massive fight during the 90s, and the climate scientists reached consensus in the next decade. The overall scientific community came to support it a few years later.

It's a done deal.

Now we are relocating people off islands that are in the process of going underwater, and wondering what we're going to do about a variety of other problems this is creating.
 
late said:
He's not a climate scientist, and that's just an old joke that was flushed down the crapper years ago.

Since you are new to the planet, this popped up in the 80s (the 70s is more typing than I want to do). There was a massive fight during the 90s, and the climate scientists reached consensus in the next decade. The overall scientific community came to support it a few years later.

It's a done deal.

Now we are relocating people off islands that are in the process of going underwater, and wondering what we're going to do about a variety of other problems this is creating.
Click to expand...

I am not new to the planet. I am 72 years old and remember when alarmists were warning us of "GLOBAL COOLING". What a joke. By it's very nature, science cannot have "consensus"
 
Last edited:
gmeyers1944 said:
I am not new to the planet. I am 72 years old

and remember when alarmists were warning us of "GLOBAL COOLING".

By it's very nature, science cannot have "consensus"
Click to expand...

I stand corrected.

That was one paper by 2 scientists who had to quickly retract their paper, and suffered rather a lot of grief over it. All this happened BEFORE the popular media picked up the story.
Moral of the Story: Fox and popular Mechanics ain't all that.

Science has it's own definition of consensus. If you take a position and lose, there is nothing saying you have to change. This happens all the time. All the kids and the money go to where the action is. For example, when Einstein rejected statistics, physics left him behind.
 
gmeyers1944 said:
I am not new to the planet. I am 72 years old and remember when alarmists were warning us of "GLOBAL COOLING". What a joke. By it's very nature, science cannot have "consensus"
Click to expand...

So true.

Treating a majority opinion as fact, is not science. It's politics.
 
late said:
Thanks, I had the feeling you knew little about science, and you keep proving you know less than that.
Click to expand...

Wow...

Statistics make facts?

Really?

Can you cite the paper proving it?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Wow...

Statistics make facts?

Really?

Can you cite the paper proving it?
Click to expand...

You also prove it by asking off the wall questions that have less than zero relevance.

This is a nonissue among scientists. It's the way things have been since scientific communities formed (after Christians stopped trying to kill them).
It's not about opinion, it's about the work.

No offense, but you are faking it badly in a number of ways. You haven't got a freaking clue.
 
late said:
You also prove it by asking off the wall questions that have less than zero relevance.

This is a nonissue among scientists. It's the way things have been since scientific communities formed (after Christians stopped trying to kill them).
It's not about opinion, it's about the work.

No offense, but you are faking it badly in a number of ways. You haven't got a freaking clue.
Click to expand...

Well, with my reference to consensus, and not being factual, is real. The indoctrinated simply don't see it. They believe the pundits are representing the science correctly, but they are not.

Those using the consensus argument claiming 97% believe man is contributing "MOST" of the warming is a lie. I have broken down several papers use to make this claim. I have shown why it is wrong, yet people still believe it. In one study, the first of of seven groups was the only once that could be used to qualify that statement, but thay added up three groups. This changed it to include scientists that may have only agreed greenhouse gasses warm the atmosphere. Another study used the word "significant" for warming caused by man, which unless given a quantity is generally treated as the 5% mark. So a scientist who believed man only contributed to 5% of the warning would be compelled to agree.
 
Lord of Planar said:
1) Well, with my reference to consensus, and not being factual, is real. The indoctrinated simply don't see it. They believe the pundits are representing the science correctly, but they are not.

2) Those using the consensus argument claiming 97% believe man is contributing "MOST" of the warming is a lie. I have broken down several papers use to make this claim. I have shown why it is wrong, yet people still believe it. In one study, the first of of seven groups was the only once that could be used to qualify that statement, but that added up three groups. This changed it to include scientists that may have only agreed greenhouse gasses warm the atmosphere. Another study used the word "significant" for warming caused by man, which unless given a quantity is generally treated as the 5% mark. So a scientist who believed man only contributed to 5% of the warning would be compelled to agree.
Click to expand...

1) You don't get to change science, they have their way of doing things, and it's been that way for centuries.

2) That's not what scientists say. Btw, most of those studies are utter crap done by oil companies.

You keep going round in circles, but that's not making your case, it's just chasing your tail.
 
late said:
1) You don't get to change science, they have their way of doing things, and it's been that way for centuries.

2) That's not what scientists say. Btw, most of those studies are utter crap done by oil companies.

You keep going round in circles, but that's not making your case, it's just chasing your tail.
Click to expand...

You are new and haven't seen me the time I take on new topics. Right now, you only get a few sentences from me, because I don't like rehashing past arguments, and you have had no interesting arguments for me.

I don't care what you think of me. I'm a confident grown man. I have no desire wasting my time on another misguided warmer.

I've seen nothing to indicate you are worth debating in any serious manner.

You can scan my past posts here. I have nothing to go by for you.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You are new and haven't seen me the time I take on new topics. Right now, you only get a few sentences from me, because I don't like rehashing past arguments, and you have had no interesting arguments for me.

I don't care what you think of me. I'm a confident grown man. I have no desire wasting my time on another misguided warmer.

I've seen nothing to indicate you are worth debating in any serious manner.

You can scan my past posts here. I have nothing to go by for you.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the entertainment.
 
late said:
That's not in the article.

Source?
Click to expand...

Direct quote from the article:

"Carbon dioxide cools the stratosphere and when the stratosphere cools, it actually shrinks the size of the atmosphere," Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told National Observer. "So if you’re about 80 kilometres up, you actually are seeing the sky falling. It’s going down by a number of kilometres.”
Click to expand...
 
CycloneWanderer said:
Part of me wonders if the globe as a whole represents not a homeostatic system centered around current atmospheric conditions, but a more allostatic one sustaining climate parameters in a way that continues to support life. What I mean is that life has survived on this planet for a rather long time and I find it difficult to believe that such a large and developed system could evolve to the point of being quickly (relative) broken from changes internal to that system. Current shifting conditions could be a naturally-occurring, systemically benign allostatic response that ends up maintaining a life-supportive system despite a change in how we currently understand the atmosphere to work. Granted, I'm no climatologist or physicist; just an organizational psychologist with a curiosity in systems theories. It seems like most people assume that changes in various individual climate variables are intrinsically bad and I'm not sure that is always a valid assumption.

Again, I haven't studied climate in any level of detail; I'm just looking at this information through a lens of what I am familiar with. If my wonderings listed above are completely and patently incorrect to those here on the board who actually do know about the specifics of climate systems I would welcome the correction and the corresponding dialogue.
Click to expand...

I would say you need to find out for yourself. And that depends on how much
time and effort you want to invest. For some things you have to take the word
of the science community as you have no way of verifying what they say, but for
other areas raw data is available for anyone to do their own analysis and compare
to what they're being told.

Here are some links for sea level

Colorado University's Sea Level Research Group:
CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado

Internet Archives WayBack Machine for Satellite data comparison over time:
https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (Tide Gauges):
Obtaining Tide Gauge Data

For temperature & Precipitation:

NOAA's Climate at a Glance:
Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
Interesting factoids can be found. Uses homogenized data

WoodForTrees Interactive Graphs:
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
Really nice website for plotting temperature trends.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Table data and other time series. Uses homogenized temperature data

Old GISS data can be found at the Internet Archives WayBack Machine - For example:
https://web.archive.org/web/19970301013001/http://www.giss.nasa.gov/Data/GISTEMP/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

By no means a complete list (-:
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
If the sky is falling, then that means there is global cooling instead of warming.

Maintaining the same pressure, as you cool a gas, it contracts. As you warm a gas, it expands. Simple physics.
Click to expand...

Oversimplified physics, actually, leading you to the wrong conclusion.

The sharper temperature gradient leads to a lower tropopause.
 
late said:
You didn't follow the rules, scientists determine what a science says. It's like sports, if you tried to get on the field, you'd be politely escorted out.

Ya ain't a player, kid.
Click to expand...
So when actual Scientist whose specializations are in the climate sciences produce findings different from that of the current dogma,
are you prepared to accept those findings?
Many of the IPCC AR5 lead authors put out an article showing the best estimate of ECS, that did not make it into the report.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
Their research shows a lower finding of ECS, with a best estimate around 2 C.
Or the Lewis Curry paper, Peer reviewed and published in Climate Dynamics in 2014,
https://niclewis.files.wordpress.co..._clim-dyn2014_accepted-reformatted-edited.pdf
Lewis and Curry found an ECS of 1.64 C.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom