- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 60,458
- Reaction score
- 12,357
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
"So if you’re about 80 kilometres up, you actually are seeing the sky falling. It’s going down by a number of kilometres.”
:lamo
"So if you’re about 80 kilometres up, you actually are seeing the sky falling. It’s going down by a number of kilometres.”
There is no "vast majority of meteorological scientists say(ing) there is global warming". Click on my link. If you disagree, I need you to try to debunk the facts, not just criticize the source.Who needs Al Gore when the vast majority of meteorological scientists say there is global warming; that's my point. :shrug:
There is no "vast majority of meteorological scientists say(ing) there is global warming". Click on my link. If you disagree, I need you to try to debunk the facts, not just criticize the source.
Anthropogenic Global Warming: 5 Debunked Facts About Climate Change
You didn't follow my instructions.Newsmax versus NASA
Now that's a TOUGH choice.
You didn't follow my instructions.
Global alarmists didn't follow the rules. Many of their confirming scientists have nothing to do with climate.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.
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.
Not tough for me.Newsmax versus NASA
Now that's a TOUGH choice.
Neither did NASA.You didn't follow my instructions.
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"
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"
So true.
Treating a majority opinion as fact, is not science. It's politics.
Thanks, I had the feeling you knew little about science, and you keep proving you know less than that.
Wow...
Statistics make facts?
Really?
Can you cite the paper proving it?
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's not in the article.
Source?
"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.”
Direct quote from the article:
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.
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.
So when actual Scientist whose specializations are in the climate sciences produce findings different from that of the current dogma,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.