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.

I base my beliefs on evidence. That's the opposite of delusion. You
believe things without evidence, and even in the face of opposing
evidence. That's the definition of delusion.

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:06:19 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Position? What position is that?

The position that it's arrogant for us to think that we humans are the ones
who had better solve the problem of global warming, if there is such a
problem.

As for Chicken Little: if it was only environmental activists, that would be
possible. When it's the consensus of the scientific community, it isn't
doomsaying, it's fact. Or at least as close to fact as we mortals can come.

That *dealing* with this will be very difficult, though, is clear enough. Keeping the poor as they are will seem like one of the most painless options to avoiding growth in energy use to those who are already rich, and combined with the irrational fear of nuclear power (and the real danger of nuclear weapons proliferation that does limit where it can be used)... yes, finding a good way of dealing with this is a maze.

But since it's a difficult problem to deal with, our societies have to start
working to find a reasonable way to deal with it. Avoiding the issue so as
not to disconcert Big Oil campaign donors is not the right way.

The Democrats and the Republicans both agreed we had to send American boys to
fight in Vietnam, and so if there can be bipartisan support for doing what is
necessary to fight the Cold War, even when it's unpleasant, it is not
impossible for the same thing to happen when it comes to global warming.

Democracy can be messy, it's not as "efficient" as a one-man dictatorship,
but it used to be capable of getting the job done when it needs to be done,
while retaining its other important advantages. Something has gone sour in
the political process lately, and even if we didn't have a crisis to face, it
needs to be fixed.

John Savard

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:06:19 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

The holocaust was not the greatest loss of life by a factor of 10.

But unlike the Great Leap Forward, it happened right in the West's own
backyard, and, thus, it has profoundly affected the basic outlook on life of
many people in the Western world. The Holocaust, and not the even larger
brutalities of Communism, is one of the major factors that shaped people's
thinking in the West so as to bring about many of the developments during the
decade of the 1960s.

John Savard

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:54:51 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

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.

I base my beliefs on evidence.

You have NO evidence for atheism.

That's the opposite of delusion.

And you have NO evidence that there will be a tomorrow. You PROJECT that
there will be, and that has worked so far, but ...

You believe things without evidence,

Wrong. It's that our sensitivities to the evidence are different.

and even in the face of opposing evidence. That's the definition of delusion.

And I consider your faith in AGW should be moderated by the opposing evidence.
So WHO is delusional here? :-)

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 7:18:15 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:06:19 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Position? What position is that?

The position that it's arrogant for us to think that we humans are the ones
who had better solve the problem of global warming, if there is such a
problem.

Ah, THAT position. Well, perhaps I exaggerated a bit. I was thinking of
those Chicken Littles who demand immediate imprudent action and rail against
anyone who disagrees with them.

As for Chicken Little: if it was only environmental activists, that would be
possible. When it's the consensus of the scientific community, it isn't
doomsaying, it's fact. Or at least as close to fact as we mortals can come.

It's the C.L.'s that drive the popular debate, and some of those ARE in
the scientific community.

That *dealing* with this will be very difficult, though, is clear enough.
Keeping the poor as they are will seem like one of the most painless
options to avoiding growth in energy use to those who are already rich,

Oh, that won't be AT ALL painless.

and combined with the irrational fear of nuclear power (and the real
danger of nuclear weapons proliferation that does limit where it can
be used)... yes, finding a good way of dealing with this is a maze.

But since it's a difficult problem to deal with, our societies have to start
working to find a reasonable way to deal with it.

Agreed.

Avoiding the issue so as not to disconcert Big Oil campaign donors is not
the right way.

PLEASE don't fall back on THAT canard.

The Democrats and the Republicans both agreed we had to send American boys
to fight in Vietnam, and so if there can be bipartisan support for doing
what is necessary to fight the Cold War, even when it's unpleasant, it is
not impossible for the same thing to happen when it comes to global warming.

It seems to me that we're moving forward on CO2 control at a reasonable
rate in the developed countries. Development of 3rd world countries is
another matter. Things ARE going to get worse before they get better.

Democracy can be messy, it's not as "efficient" as a one-man dictatorship,
but it used to be capable of getting the job done when it needs to be done,
while retaining its other important advantages. Something has gone sour in
the political process lately, and even if we didn't have a crisis to face,
it needs to be fixed.

John Savard

It would seem that the C.L.'s are in favor of dictatorial brown-shirt tactics.

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.

On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 06:25:45 UTC+2, 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 seem to be trying to have a logical discussion with a self-confessed sucker. One who appeals to Nazi imagery to support his completely insupportable delusions and patent [faith based] immorality. I would contend that he is as unfit for this discussion as are smokers and the chronically obese for a discussion on marathon running. It makes no sense. At all. There is no level to which this user name will not sink to claim personal victory in any argument. It's a DNA flaw usually associated with hypocrisy and tunnel vision in lower functioning sociopaths.

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.

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

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

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


"The Earth's climate system constantly adjusts"

They mean the Earth's atmosphere constantly adjusts as climate is fixed by the degree of inclination. All planets possess a core climate due to their inclination regardless of distance from the Sun or composition so long as a planet has an atmosphere.

Planetary climate is the rate of change in conditions across half an orbit or across a full orbit as the full picture. The Earth's 66 1/2 degree inclination relative to the orbital plane generates a relatively smooth transition across 6 months across most latitudes, the 87 degree inclination of Jupiter relative to the orbital plane generates little or no difference, while the 8 degree inclination of Uranus relative to the orbital change generates abrupt changes across almost all latitudes.

If modelers want to be useful they should apply different inclinations to the Earth in order to understand why planetary climate is a rate of change between absolute polar climate ( 90 degrees relative to the orbital plane) and an equatorial climate (0 degrees or coincident with the orbital plane).

Of course axial precession as it is understood has to go insofar as it is a 100% observational certainty that the North and South poles turn across the fully illuminated face of the Earth -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFrP6QfbC2g&t=95s

Be useful with the rest of your lives and at least try to get out of the bandwagon rut that destroyed climate research.

In article ,
says...

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

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 17:07:00 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

In today's world, GW is almost entirely AGW. That is a fact.

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

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.

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?


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. 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).

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?

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.