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

[late]

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.

Doesn't matter.

Scientists are always doing that. What matters is the community, the accepted theory.

The gold standard in science is prediction. They nailed it.

If you really don't know anything about science, and want to say 'but this, and but that'. No buts. They predicted warming, we got warming.

All this crap is just a bunch of excuses to crawl away from the responsibility of dealing with the problem(s). Time to face the music.

 

[longview]

Doesn't matter.

Scientists are always doing that. What matters is the community, the accepted theory.

The gold standard in science is prediction. They nailed it.

If you really don't know anything about science, and want to say 'but this, and but that'. No buts. They predicted warming, we got warming.

All this crap is just a bunch of excuses to crawl away from the responsibility of dealing with the problem(s). Time to face the music.

Please state what you think the accepted theory is?
And also which prediction you think they nailed!

 

[late]

Please state what you think the accepted theory is?
And also which prediction you think they nailed!

More silly games... bluffing is one thing, but this ended when Cheney was president.

 

[longview]

More silly games... bluffing is one thing, but this ended when Cheney was president.

No you stated in post # 76,
"Scientists are always doing that. What matters is the community, the accepted theory."
So I am asking what you think the accepted theory is?
It is not difficult, not a silly game, you made a statement without qualification, I am asking you to qualify
your statement!

 

[late]

No you stated in post # 76,
"Scientists are always doing that. What matters is the community, the accepted theory."
So I am asking what you think the accepted theory is?
It is not difficult, not a silly game, you made a statement without qualification, I am asking you to qualify
your statement!

Nope, time to man up.

 

[longview]

Nope, time to man up.

Same to you, If you cannot define this theory you claim exists, you should stop saying it is accepted.

 

[late]

Same to you, If you cannot define this theory you claim exists, you should stop saying it is accepted.

I don't have any say about what theories are accepted, and neither do you.

After decades of BS, it's way past time to give it a rest.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Doesn't matter.

Scientists are always doing that. What matters is the community, the accepted theory.

The accepted theory is pretty much limited to the basics. The quantification of net heat values is not settled by any means.

The gold standard in science is prediction. They nailed it.

No they didn't.

If you really don't know anything about science, and want to say 'but this, and but that'. No buts. They predicted warming, we got warming.

Then why are you involved?

You cant understand simple word meaning. No way you know anything about science.

All this crap is just a bunch of excuses to crawl away from the responsibility of dealing with the problem(s). Time to face the music.

The first world nations have done quite well at mitigation. Any farther efforts of higher costs now, is pointless until we get other nations to change their ways. No sense in throwing money away now, when future technology will be better yet.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Please state what you think the accepted theory is?
And also which prediction you think they nailed!

What is it?

About 5% are nailed?

I guess that is a significant start!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Nope, time to man up.

We are waiting for you to do just that!

I have in past post taken the time to explain things. You only have weasel words.

 

[LittleNipper]

While I do my best not to be wasteful (I'm really very frugal, love nature, animals, and people too) I find that the hysteria with regard to the environment is really just that ----- hysteria. Such is generated by people who do not for the most part have any idea regarding GOD, His plan and His abilities.

It also comes from the total acceptance that the environment has been slowly changing over 100's of millions of years. Any notion that the environment can change overnight is mindboggling to those that cannot believe that a 6000 to 10,000 year old earth is a reality, let alone an historic Deluge/Flood, or that God (if He does exist) really is in command and interactive with the environment.

As a youngster, I didn't worry regarding the Cuban Missal Crisis. I knew that GOD was in charge and He had no intention to destroy the entire world just yet (The rapture hasn't happened and the Millennial Kingdom is yet to be). That may not comfort you; however, it does comfort me and millions of others who place their faith in an Almighty Lord and Savior --- and not whether Mrs. Clinton or Trump becomes President.

 

[Lord of Planar]

While I do my best not to be wasteful (I'm really very frugal, love nature, animals, and people too) I find that the hysteria with regard to the environment is really just that ----- hysteria. Such is generated by people who do not for the most part have any idea regarding GOD, His plan and His abilities.

It is hysteria indeed.

We have a dramatic effect on numerous small regions of the planet. It's called land use changes. The loss of the natural evapotranspiration in and around metropolitan areas is dramatic. The changes from greenhouse gasses are minimal. Now when they go to measure the increasing temperature, very few of these meteorological stations are free from the warming caused by the loss of evaporating water.

It also comes from the total acceptance that the environment has been slowly changing over 100's of millions of years. Any notion that the environment can change overnight is mindboggling to those that cannot believe that a 6000 to 10,000 year old earth is a reality, let alone an historic Deluge/Flood, or that God (if He does exist) really is in command and interactive with the environment.

We can alter nature, and dramatically. I believe the most dramatic sign is the loss of Arctic ice. However, it is not greenhouse gasses doing it! Again, they have a minor role. In these areas, we have soot on ice. The heat absorption of the ice, from radiant energy, is doubled, tripled, or more where the soot falls out of the sky. Asia is not taking any effective efforts to scrub the aerosols out of their coal plants. The polar cell, and norther Asia proximity does a very good job of circulating that soot over the norther ice.

Funny how if it was caused by greenhouse gas increases, that the Antarctic ice refuses to comply...

 

[Steve Case]

We can alter nature, and dramatically. I believe the most dramatic sign is the loss of Arctic ice. However, it is not greenhouse gasses doing it! Again, they have a minor role. In these areas, we have soot on ice. The heat absorption of the ice, from radiant energy, is doubled, tripled, or more where the soot falls out of the sky. Asia is not taking any effective efforts to scrub the aerosols out of their coal plants. The polar cell, and norther Asia proximity does a very good job of circulating that soot over the norther ice.

Funny how if it was caused by greenhouse gas increases, that the Antarctic ice refuses to comply...

Excellent point. Now if I can only find that "Like" button (-:

 

[Lord of Planar]

Whether or not polar ice is decreasing is immaterial because it does not prove that is caused by man.

So true, but from what I have seen, we do significantly melt the ice with our soot.

 

[gmeyers1944]

So true, but from what I have seen, we do significantly melt the ice with our soot.

It seems that most global warming alarmists tell us that it IS caused by greenhouse gasses. That is why so many coal fired power plants have ben shut down. I live near Dunkirk New York where a coal fired power plant was shut down. They did a fine job of removing soot.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It seems that most global warming alarmists tell us that it IS caused by greenhouse gasses. That is why so many coal fired power plants have ben shut down. I live near Dunkirk New York where a coal fired power plant was shut down. They did a fine job of removing soot.

If the world were to learn that there are forces more powerful than CO2 driving climate, they might start a witch-hunt for the likes of Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, etc.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It seems that most global warming alarmists tell us that it IS caused by greenhouse gasses. That is why so many coal fired power plants have ben shut down. I live near Dunkirk New York where a coal fired power plant was shut down. They did a fine job of removing soot.

Eliminating coal plants will give the illusion that reduce CO2 helps, when it is the soot causing the problems.

I'll bet snow sticks around longer by the reduced "sootfall."

Am I right?

 

[Threegoofs]

Limbaugh, that great scientist with the single semester of community college under his belt.

Well, that's more education than most of our resident deniers.

 

[Threegoofs]

Stratosphere cooling? Wait. What? I thought global warming would heat the air? Eh?

Climatology is hard.

There's lots you don't know.

But that doesn't stop you from spouting....

 

[Lord of Planar]

Climatology is hard.

There's lots you don't know.

But that doesn't stop you from spouting....

How many times have I asked you to stop talking into the mirror?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

This is one of many reasons why a real discussion on climate change is impossible now.

BTW, Rush Limbaugh has zero interest in the discussion. His interest is what it always is, applying a business model of making a decreasing demographic increasingly scared and angry at opposition then turning around and calling it "informing."

While I do not listen to Rush, never have but on a stray occasional basis, just wondering...what is your intellectual foundation behind such pop psyche nonsense as you are spouting?

 

[OrphanSlug]

While I do not listen to Rush, never have but on a stray occasional basis, just wondering...what is your intellectual foundation behind such pop psyche nonsense as you are spouting?

After listening occasionally to what Rush says, it is an accurate assessment of his intentions.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

After listening occasionally to what Rush says, it is an accurate assessment of his intentions.

It is simply an uninformed and biased opinion based on no facts... where are the decreasing demographics of which you speak? Secondly, what do you know of his true interest or non interest?

That is just your own idiot opinionated crap and I think you are well aware of it.

 

[OrphanSlug]

It is simply an uninformed and biased opinion based on no facts... where are the decreasing demographics of which you speak? Secondly, what do you know of his true interest or non interest?

That is just your own idiot opinionated crap and I think you are well aware of it.

So you say.

But, it would be foolish and misleading of you to assert that Rush's target audience is other than the older, white, mostly male, and likely very social conservative demographic. Which happens to be that decreasing demographic I am talking about. The nation is becoming more diverse, it is only a matter of time now when minorities become the majority, and Rush's brand of social conservatism is headed downward. Lastly, he has a tendency to use the same ad hominem you have decided to go with illustrating with perfection that mentality I am talking about.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

So you say.

But, it would be foolish and misleading of you to assert that Rush's target audience is other than the older, white, mostly male, and likely very social conservative demographic. Which happens to be that decreasing demographic I am talking about. The nation is becoming more diverse, it is only a matter of time now when minorities become the majority, and Rush's brand of social conservatism is headed downward. Lastly, he has a tendency to use the same ad hominem you have decided to go with illustrating with perfection that mentality I am talking about.

Ad hom?

Here you are using pop psychology to attack Limbaugh and try to say you know why he does certain things? Things you don't personally like and agree with and those being things you cannot reach inside his head to find out. Its just your stupid opinion. So, that is a factual description and not an ad hom attack. Unless you can find some source where he has admitted to such silliness. Have at it, lets see the source and then I will admit to guilt as to an ad hom attack.

In the absence of such proof, your opinions remain stupid and biased... as you well know, or, as you are hiding even from yourself. By the way, even diverse groups grow older, wiser and subsequently/consequently more conservative.

Most of us anyhow. We lucky ones.