Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:10:44 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:59:09 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 04:08:57 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

And I also believe in a Higher Power which many today have
disowned.

This delusion is shared by almost every AGW science denier. Not
surprising, since both are symptomatic of the same mental
dysfunctions.

I would say that YOU are the delusional one as it is arrogance that
drives
your beliefs.

The arrogant one here is you since you claim to know the
psychological motivations of people you've never met.


To believers, the atheist and the religiously corrupt boil down
to the same person, the self-righteous: one denies Truth to fit
his own agenda; the other manipulates Truth to fit his own agenda.=

Actually,, it is those people who make such claims which are
self-righteous. And arrogant.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 22:25:43 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 18:35:39 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I base my beliefs on evidence.

You have NO evidence for atheism.

Atheism isn't a belief. It doesn't require evidence. It's simply the
default position when there's no evidence for any deities. Which, of
course, there is not.

You are confusing atheism with agnosticism...

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:25:45 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 18:35:39 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I base my beliefs on evidence.

You have NO evidence for atheism.

Atheism isn't a belief.

Of COURSE it is.

It doesn't require evidence. It's simply the
default position when there's no evidence for any deities. Which, of
course, there is not.

Of COURSE there is evidence. You just refuse to accept it.

It's really interesting that the two CHRISTophers (or is it Christian) here
are zealous self-proclaimed and (self-righteous) atheists.

https://www.behindthename.com/name/christopher

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 1:49:59 AM UTC-6, Martin Brown wrote:

On 24/04/2018 23:13, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 6:55:58 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

Increased cloud cover cools the Earth by day but warms at night.

Not so. Increased cloud cover reduces the cooling effect at night.
But if there is less heat entering the system during the day, temps
will trend lower.

That is only true for dense low altitude cloud cover and it does as Mike
says cool the Earth in daytime but also significantly slows the escape
of heat at night. Any astronomer knows that clear nights are colder.

Indeed.

Very dense cumulonimbus thunder clouds are roughly neutral - they
prevent most light from reaching the ground and heat from escaping too.

Over long periods (years), there is less heat to escape.

However, thin high cirrus cloud barely makes a dent in the insolation
perhaps reflecting 10% of the incoming solar radiation

10% is a BIG effect.

but it is
optically dense in the thermal IR band so it slows down escaping heat
making it warmer at ground level both day and night.

Don't take my word for it:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds/

https://www.earthobservatory.nasa.go...ds/clouds3.php

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Still, if there is less insolation, the result is lower temperature in
the long run. Unless you are thinking of clouds preventing earth's
internal heat from escaping? :-)

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 2:46:54 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 11:26:24 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

An increase in cloud cover ought to reduce, not increase, the
warming, right? We observe a warming. If this warming occurs despite
increased cloud cover, this implies that the CO2 effect of the
warming is even larger...

Did you even LOOK at the second chart in

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...tures/70004226

There are no charts on that page, only text, pictures, and links to other
pages.

Funny. I see them.

However, I did check out the first chart on this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

and it does indeed show a temperature drop during the latest year shown
on that chart.

But a global temperature drop in recent years can be expected, since the
years 2014 and 2015 were El Niño years and they are often followed by
somewhat lower temperatures a few years afterwards. Or, more properly, El
Niño years have temporarily unusually high global mean temperatures and
compared to that, the following years which are closer to the long term
trend will appear somewhat less warm.

1998 was another year with a strong El Niño and also a temporarily
unusually high global mean temperature. And up to a decade or so
afterwards, AGW deniers got very excited and shouted and yelled that now
the global warming trend had ceased. Well, it didn't cease -- about a
decade later the warming trend had caught up so that what was an isolated
extraordinary warm year in 1998 had become a normal temperature in 2008.

So the global mean temperature has dropped during the latest two or so
years. But it's not because of changing cloud cover, it's because of the
El Niño in 2014 and 2015. DO you think this very recent and so far short
trend of a temperature drop will continue during the next 20 or 30 years?
I say it won't -- within a few years the global warming trend will
resume. What do you say?

I don't know. I also haven't found a good source that shows cloud cover
over time. Something like that ought to be available with the satellite
systems we have today. I have merely pointed out some problems with the
climate science that should moderate the overbearing zeal with which many
advocates display.

that I posted April 22nd? It shows global temperatures dropping
significantly for the past two years.

We're not talking about weather here. Indeed we cannot predict the
weather even a month in advance. But in climatology thes no need
to predict the weather on individual days. In climatology we're
interested in long term averages

Not sure what you're smoking here, but the chart I referenced isn't
about monthly temperatures.

Those long term averages also makes temperatures during one or a few
individual years quite insignificant. But if the trend continues over
decades, then it becomes climatologically significant.

Maybe they are and maybe they aren't.

Check the history of the global mean temperature curve.

You don't seem to be able to see the charte on

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...tures/70004226

It sets variation at zero for 1880 and shows the highest temperature as
~ +1.8 degrees 3 years ago. Over the last two years, however, it has
dropped 0.6 degrees: one-third of the amount it has gained over the past
137 years!

What has happened
in recent years is extremely likely a repetition of what happened from
1998 and a decade onwards. So don't get too excited yet, first wait 20 or
so years to see if the cooling continues (hint: it won't -- but check for
yourself to be convinced).

I'm willing to wait. The zealotry is on the side of those not willing
to wait :-)

So instead of focusing on the last two years, you should instead focus
on the last 20-50 years. Don't throw away half a century of data just
because of temporary short term deviations recently.

The short-term deviations ARE significant if a new factor is in play.
We may want a little extra greenhouse gas if we're heading toward another
another Little Ice Age:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

And more cloud cover implies more water vapor in the air, which is the
greatest greenhouse gas of them all.

Water vapor is routinely measured at thousands of meteorological stations
all over the world. A long term trend in increased water vapor therefore
ought to be visible in those measurements. SInce you claim this might be
happening, what does these measurements say?

Good point.

The takeaway from this is that the
LIA resulted in torrential rains that washed out crops in the summer which
was too short to grow abundant crops anyway. I think we may fare better
if this occurs again, but people would still starve. Many countries in
Europe lost 10% of their populations, a significant amount when you
consider that the Plague killed about 30%. And isn't it interesting that
the plague occurred after the Medieval Warm Period when global
temperatures were falling? Maybe some of those deaths could have been
avoided if folks had good food?

Back then people were unaware of bacteria and other microbes. Wastes from
both humans and cattle were left in the streets and were cleaned away
only when they became too severe physical obstacles whe some dignitary
was to visit the city's major or king. Vastly improved personal hygiene
is the reason we don't see plague outbreaks today. And we won't see them
either, ven if the little ice age should recur. After all, there's no
plague in Greenland, on Svalbard or in northern Canada, is it?

Look, I believe in being a good steward of the earth, trying to curb
excesses, keeping the environment clean and all that. But I also believe
in people and that we all have a responsibility there, too. And I also
believe in a Higher Power which many today have disowned. One of the
consequences of that is a vaunting arrogance that WE can handle the
situation. Maybe the solution isn't where some believe it to be ...

The solution is definitely not in trusting that some "higher power" will
help. Of course there are "higher powers" we cannot control, like the
force of gravity or the forces of electromagnetism which can cause
disasters if handled improperly. Immight add the weather as something we
cannot control, and that is true to a large extent. However, mankind has
now reached a situation were we do noticeably influence the climate due
to AGW. And here we do have a choice of how to act in the future.

And don't be mislead by a temporary drop in the global mean temperature
due to e.g. the El Niño, which is a well-known but unpredicatable
phenomenon.

The trend over the past 40 years is concerning, of course. The recent
drop does give us some respite. It will be interesting to see what the
future brings.

The arrogant one here is you since you claim to know the psychological
motivations of people you've never met.

I was merely replying to one who was overzealous in doing the very same
thing you are accusing me of. So I guess the pot and the kettle are
sooty :-)

Thank you, BTW, for having a reasonable discussion about GW/AGW. There
are only a couple of others here who are so inclined.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 12:27:10 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 22:25:43 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 18:35:39 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I base my beliefs on evidence.

You have NO evidence for atheism.

Atheism isn't a belief. It doesn't require evidence. It's simply the
default position when there's no evidence for any deities. Which, of
course, there is not.

You are confusing atheism with agnosticism...

I certainly am not. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities.
Agnosticism addresses knowledge, not belief. There are agnostic
theists and there are agnostic atheists. I lean towards the latter,
believing the question is potentially knowable, although it many not
be.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 03:58:09 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

It doesn't require evidence. It's simply the
default position when there's no evidence for any deities. Which, of
course, there is not.

Of COURSE there is evidence. You just refuse to accept it.

In for a penny, in for a pound with nonsensical ideas.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 06:55:42 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
You are confusing atheism with agnosticism...

I certainly am not. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities.
Agnosticism addresses knowledge, not belief. There are agnostic
theists and there are agnostic atheists. I lean towards the latter,
believing the question is potentially knowable, although it many not
be.

Then, what is the difference between atheism and nontheism?

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 16:13:19 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 06:55:42 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
You are confusing atheism with agnosticism...

I certainly am not. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities.
Agnosticism addresses knowledge, not belief. There are agnostic
theists and there are agnostic atheists. I lean towards the latter,
believing the question is potentially knowable, although it many not
be.

Then, what is the difference between atheism and nontheism?

The prefix? I've seen the term used in philosophical discussions
occasionally, but it's really not in common use, and I don't know
anybody who uses "nontheist" as a personal label.

On 24/04/2018 21:16, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:16:10 AM UTC-6, Martin Brown wrote:

On 23/04/2018 01:07, Gary Harnagel wrote:

That's an unsubstantiated assertion since the effects of increased cloud
cover due to cosmic ray nucleation have not been quantified.

It is small enough correction that it isn't going to radically alter the
answers. The 0.1% change in solar output over an 11 year sunspot cycle
is barely noticeable in the climate record (but is detectable).

The effect is NOT about solar output. It's about earth's albedo.

It is all about the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of
the Earth and being thermalised balanced against the thermal IR band
radiation escaping back out into space.

Time will tell. Your argument is essentially because every last possible
detail isn't tied down we should ignore the major factor we can control
which is altering the Earth's climate. The inexorable rise of CO2.

So you believe the Little Ice Age was just a little detail?

Pretty much. And I very much doubt that cosmic ray induced cloud
formation played much of a part in that event. It seems more likely that
the sun itself dimmed slightly when lacking sunspots and faculae. The
active sun with its spots is generally brighter than a placid sun.

We shouldn't have too long to wait before the Little Ice Age fantasy can
be conveniently debunked since Zharkova et all have nailed their colours
to the mast for a Little Ice age by 2030-40.

https://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/...e-age-by-2030/

I am always suspicious of anyone who uses PCA to get their "results" it
is clear evidence of not understanding what is physically going on.

GW Bush did his damnedest to discontinue funding monitoring of CO2 by
Keeling et al but in the end was forced to give him a congressional
science medal. Science deniers are once again being promoted to
positions of real power in the Trump administration so we expect more
trash the planet for fun and profit policies going forward.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/t...medal-science/

I'm not supporting such a thing. You are doing straw man bull plop by
falsely attributing that stuff to me.

So what do you believe then? The US has elected a president who is the
*most* anti-science populist moron ever elected to high office.

Flat-earther.

Repeated slurs only weaken your already weak responses. You should give
it a rest.

It is pretty much a good description of your position.

I could say the same things about you that I said to Peterson.

Only the wilfully
ignorant and professional deniers for hire claim that AGW is not real
today. The latter usually have previous for claiming that smoking
tobacco doesn't cause cancer and that CFC's don't damage the ozone
layer. (it is quite a good litmus test for prostitute scientists)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

And there goes the same old straw man baloney. You guys are really a
bunch of brown-shirts. Oh, hey, I guess your name says that :-)
Take a look at who you are in bed with as an AGW denier.

I note that you have *NOT* replied to the post where I pointed out your
*deliberate* cherry picking of recent data at the highest point to
"prove" that the temperature has gone down in the last couple of years.

The long term average trend in global temperature increase still stands
remarkably steady rising at 0.2C/decade since the 1970's.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown