|
Post by IB DaMann on May 15, 2019 23:15:37 GMT
I have a relative who retired from NASA, and he grudgingly admitted that he thought that a solar grand minimum might overwhelm C02 warming. He believes that AGW is a real problem, but he also recognizes a likely correlation between solar activity and the climate on earth. I guess that if his bosses knew about his heretical doubts, they would have him in the stocks. He believes in CO2 warming, despite science clearly showing that to not be possible? Don't they use science at NASA any more?
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on May 15, 2019 23:17:26 GMT
This fits with the use of the mean of max temp and min temp as the ' average temp' then claiming that the average temperature is rising. Well it is - but not because it is getting hotter but because it is not getting as cold at night. But then they proceed to take the max temps and add the increase in 'average temps' to that and start a global panic. What are these supposedly the temperatures of?
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on May 15, 2019 23:19:23 GMT
Latest global temp +0.44degC from Dr Spencer's blog. Would be nice to know where the warmth was mostly located, or is it just an El Nino effect? What is the margin of error for this measurement?
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on May 15, 2019 23:24:51 GMT
Yep it definitely is IMO. The other half may be momentum of the solar grand maximum that we still are not sure is complete. No substance traps heat. Thermal energy pours freely out of all matter depending only on its temperature, per Stefan-Boltzmann. There is no such thing as momentum of solar change.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on May 16, 2019 0:29:18 GMT
I have a relative who retired from NASA, and he grudgingly admitted that he thought that a solar grand minimum might overwhelm C02 warming. He believes that AGW is a real problem, but he also recognizes a likely correlation between solar activity and the climate on earth. I guess that if his bosses knew about his heretical doubts, they would have him in the stocks. He believes in CO2 warming, despite science clearly showing that to not be possible? Don't they use science at NASA any more? He seems to believe that the ends justify the means. He has lofty ideals. The truth is a variable which can be manipulated. Talking with him, I think I might have gained some understanding of the workings of the liberal, AGW mind. But, every answered question and insight invited new questions. I am now more puzzled about how they think than I was before. He and his wife have visited a couple of times. He has invited us to visit them in SF, but we have not been to see them yet.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on May 16, 2019 0:36:21 GMT
I have a relative who retired from NASA, and he grudgingly admitted that he thought that a solar grand minimum might overwhelm C02 warming. He believes that AGW is a real problem, but he also recognizes a likely correlation between solar activity and the climate on earth. I guess that if his bosses knew about his heretical doubts, they would have him in the stocks. He believes in CO2 warming, despite science clearly showing that to not be possible? Don't they use science at NASA any more? There are many physicists, climatologists and other scientists who would disagree with that statement. They do not only believe CO2 warming is possible, but that it is inevitable. As a matter of fact I would go as far as to say the vast majority of the scientific community concurs with the IPCC.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on May 16, 2019 1:42:49 GMT
I think that is correct but it lives in the space called "materiality".
And that does demand proof with an accompanying cost benefit analysis.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 16, 2019 9:08:27 GMT
"Portuguese man o' war From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on May 16, 2019 17:22:32 GMT
There are many physicists, climatologists and other scientists who would disagree with that statement. I couldn't care less about any losers' opinions. Science is very clear on the matter, the Stefan-Boltzmann law in particular. If someone denies science, he isn't much of a scientist now is he? They do not only believe CO2 warming is possible, but that it is inevitable. Obviously they are not scientists. Show me someone who believes in Greenhouse Effect and I'll show you someone who is either scientifically illiterate or who is a flat out science denier. As a matter of fact I would go as far as to say the vast majority of the scientific community concurs with the IPCC. That shows how naive you are. The IPCC is a religio-political organization. There is no science supporting any of their dogma. None.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on May 16, 2019 17:37:50 GMT
He believes in CO2 warming, despite science clearly showing that to not be possible? Don't they use science at NASA any more? He seems to believe that the ends justify the means. He has lofty ideals. The truth is a variable which can be manipulated. Talking with him, I think I might have gained some understanding of the workings of the liberal, AGW mind. But, every answered question and insight invited new questions. I am now more puzzled about how they think than I was before. He and his wife have visited a couple of times. He has invited us to visit them in SF, but we have not been to see them yet. Religions fill a need in human society. Humans need to feel "in control" and to understand their environment. To this end, many turn to religion. Global Warming and Climate Change are religions just like Christianity, Islam, the Greek myths, Hinduism, etc... There is no science supporting any of them *HOWEVER* the Global Warming / Climate Change worshipers have been hoodwinked; their religious dogma mandates belief that the religion is not a religion, but is settled science. Warmizombies and Climate Lemmings wander through life in a confused stupor believing that their WACKY beliefs are part of the body of science. You have to feel sorry for them. They think the IPCC is a physics lab rather than realizing that it is isomorphic to the Vatican. Whereas Christians typically hold community events after a church service, warmizombie community events are typically of the ANTIFA/BLM/Occupy variety. Like I've said before, show me someone who believes in man-made Global Warming and I'll show you a scientifically illiterate moron who thinks he's a scientific genius. He's probably a dunce at economics as well but imagines that he's qualified to run the Fed.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 17, 2019 13:00:08 GMT
I know, don't "believe" mankind has an effect on climate change.
I am neither a dunce nor poor at economics.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on May 17, 2019 15:39:43 GMT
I know, don't "believe" mankind has an effect on climate change. I am neither a dunce nor poor at economics. Forgive me, but you don't even know what "Climate" is. How embarrassing is that? Who do you imagine could possibly take your statement seriously? Given that, who do you think is going to buy your claim that you somehow are competent in economics? Do you think we should tax people for behaviors that you claim affect your religious myth? I bet you think that makes great economics sense.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 17, 2019 22:43:20 GMT
You make no sense. You could gain from taking the Dunce cap off and putting your thinking cap on.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 18, 2019 6:51:59 GMT
I know, don't "believe" mankind has an effect on climate change. I am neither a dunce nor poor at economics. Forgive me, but you don't even know what "Climate" is. How embarrassing is that? Who do you imagine could possibly take your statement seriously? Given that, who do you think is going to buy your claim that you somehow are competent in economics? Do you think we should tax people for behaviors that you claim affect your religious myth? I bet you think that makes great economics sense. Ya know, arguing for arguments sake is a bit tacky.... Not believing in science is correct, science is proof not belief. Not being poor at something is probably sufficient, competence may be unnecessary depending on the requirement of understanding in a subject to discuss it at a certain, but relevant, level.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on May 18, 2019 11:07:59 GMT
You make no sense. You could gain from taking the Dunce cap off and putting your thinking cap on. I don't make any sense to you because your fundamentalist Global Warming religion is based on hatred and intolerance. It appeals to the scientifically illiterate who are desperate to fantasize that they are Einsteins who are saving humanity, i.e. they are losers who are desperate to feel smart and important. Your Global Warming religion does not make you smart but rather to the contrary. Go learn actual science. Oh, and you *do* think it makes economic sense to tax behaviors that rile your religious Global Warming sensitivities, right? I think we can rule you out as an economics guru as well.
|
|