|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#371
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 6:52:01 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
"Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, So it is. How much water vapor is in the atmosphere, and what controls that? Answer: the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is determined by evaporation from the world's oceans, which is determined by global temperatures. So there's nothing we can do about water vapor, it's part of the *feedback loop* for global warming. What determines which way things go are the additional contributions to the greenhouse effect that aren't strictly determined by the global temperature, but which could add to it, or not, depending on something changeable. While we can't control, oh, say, volcanoes... we certainly can control our own fossil fuel consumption. That's a push on the system which water vapor helps to amplify. John Savard |
#372
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
I have seen the rise of pseudo-Christians in the newsgroups over the years, they could just as easy call themselves empiricists or atheists but then they wouldn't stand out which is the whole purpose of the exercise.
The pseudo-Christians jump between pre-Christian and Christian literature in support of their conclusions even when common sense would intervene, after all, the Bible in not one book nor is it a monolithic work - it is a combination of books from many different traditions that are often at variance with one another and that includes the Christian narratives. Being beggars at the gates of astronomy, nobody here experiences the astronomical import of the description in the Book of Job even though it may not be a Hebrew work - "Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?" Book of Job The first annual appearance of the star Mazzaroth swells my heart with pride in humanity but not in this era where people lack the patience,discipline, dignity and integrity to put that observation on a timekeeping footing or even a modern context of planetary orbital dynamics which causes that star to appear in its season - "On account of the delay in the first annual appearance of Mazzaroth by one day in the course of 4 years therefore it shall be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the New Year" Canopus Decree, 236 BC (Paraphrased to mesh with the Book of Job and orbital dynamics) Not only the foundation of timekeeping but proof of the orbital motion of the Earth and the relationship between the planet's daily/annual cycles with terrestrial sciences is bound up in the observation. |
#374
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
I feel sorry for many here who imagine sin is a moral issue as to whether one goes to heaven or hell after death rather than sin is just an expression of finding heaven on Earth either in their own lives or that of the Earth,solar system,galaxy and the Universe. To think that all the immeasurable components or motions from the largest to the smallest make individual life possible so sin is only trying to discover answers elsewhere in money,political power or even fanciful distortions of the universe and objects in it.
Everyone dies but not all live with a balance of head and heart. |
#375
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 7:35:46 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 6:52:01 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: "Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, So it is. How much water vapor is in the atmosphere, and what controls that? Answer: the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is determined by evaporation from the world's oceans, which is determined by global temperatures. So there's nothing we can do about water vapor, True. it's part of the *feedback loop* for global warming. Or global cooling. More water vapor in the air also means more potential cloud cover, which can increase earth's albedo or decrease outgoing radiation. A complicated issue. Now add the nucleation of clouds by cosmic rays into the mix and it is VERY complicated. No wonder those who construct the climate models choose to treat it in a secondhand manner. What determines which way things go are the additional contributions to the greenhouse effect that aren't strictly determined by the global temperature, but which could add to it, or not, depending on something changeable. That's my point exactly: I hear the abysmally-stupid cries from the AGW advocates that "the science is settled" when it is obvious to anyone with a modicum of sense that it is not. And the further cries that demand immediate action and anyone who disagrees must be silenced confirms that "climate science" is an ideology, not science. While we can't control, oh, say, volcanoes... we certainly can control our own fossil fuel consumption. That's a push on the system which water vapor helps to amplify. John Savard And I'm okay with that as long as reason holds sway rather than the knee-jerk insanity and character assassinations bandied about by the zealots who see phantasms lurking under their beds. I attended a lecture at the local university a few years ago given by someone who presented climate information contrary to the party line. I sat behind a man who was quite apoplectic about what was being said. I was afraid he was going to have a heart attack! I recall reading a psychological study with rodents. A bell would ring and a short time later they would get a shock. But some of them had a button they could touch which would prevent the looming shock. The ones that had no button behaved normally and accepted the inevitable, but the ones who had the button suffered serious anxiety symptoms and behaved in abnormal manners. That's not a one-to-one relationship with AGW advocates, but it might explain their animosity toward those who disagree with them. They realize that they are personally powerless to do anything substantial toward solving the "problem" but maybe they can beat down the opposition with whatever tools they have, including personal slurs and other vicious behavior. Gary |
#376
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 11:30:16 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:
In article , says... .... OK, so you are trying to become a better person? Good -- just don't set your goal impossibly high so you can never reach it. Never reaching your goal will just be frustrating. If you don't stretch yourself, you WILL fall short. There is no shame in doing the best you can, but there IS in failing to do your best. "The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark." --Michelangelo .... I noticed your final smiley. But it is obvious that you think all others must be like yourself. Surprise - they aren't! Well, some are of course, but not all. And you think everyone must believe as you believe or you zealously attack them. Pot, kettle, black. Nope. I merely responed to your zealous attacks. I don't recall making ANY "zealous attacks." I have merely pointed out deficiencies in the "climate science" and criticized those who excoriate dissenters. "One of the truest signs of maturity is the ability to disagree with someone while still remaining respectful." -- Dave Willis “Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.” -- Ralph Waldo Emerson |
#377
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
In article ,
says... On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 11:30:16 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote: In article , says... .... OK, so you are trying to become a better person? Good -- just don't set your goal impossibly high so you can never reach it. Never reaching your goal will just be frustrating. If you don't stretch yourself, you WILL fall short. There is no shame in doing the best you can, but there IS in failing to do your best. If you don't even want to try to understand what you critizise, you're certainly not doing the best you can, are you? "The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark." --Michelangelo .... I noticed your final smiley. But it is obvious that you think all others must be like yourself. Surprise - they aren't! Well, some are of course, but not all. And you think everyone must believe as you believe or you zealously attack them. Pot, kettle, black. Nope. I merely responed to your zealous attacks. I don't recall making ANY "zealous attacks." I have merely pointed out deficiencies in the "climate science" and criticized those who excoriate dissenters. I understand. It's comfortable for you to "forget" them. That's probably why you edited away almost all of our conversation here, just when the discussion was zooming in on relevant details. So now I know who you are -- someone who runs away whenever the discussion is perceived as too uncomfortable. Conclusion: you have zero credibility when you critizise what you don't understand and what you even DON'T WANT TO TRY to understand. So why not stay away from it and leave it to the experts? It's no shame to acknowledge you're not an expert in everything. |
#378
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
|
#379
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 18:41:10 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote: The future cloud cover is indeed an uncertainty. But what is your contribution to solve that problem here? As far as I can see, you're just whining about things you don't understand and don't even WANT TO understand. Surely you've recognized by now that you're dealing with someone who is pathologically incapable of accepting scientific fact. You might as well argue with Gerald about the period of Earth's rotation. |
#380
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 8:06:54 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Surely you've recognized by now that you're dealing with someone who is pathologically incapable of accepting scientific fact. You might as well argue with Gerald about the period of Earth's rotation. You lads are having a ball with your own outlook on life and the Universe and all derived from an astronomer (Flamsteed) rather than a theorist (Sir Isaac), unfortunately the conclusion which equates a rotating celestial sphere with a rotating Earth (RA/Dec) is like building a pyramid on its apex. The Earth has two distinct surface rotations to the Sun, one equable and one variable (in response to variable orbital speed) hence the variations in the passage of the Sun as it crosses the observer's meridian each day. By one of those exquisite and fortuitous things, the Equation of Time evens out the variable surface rotation to a constant thereby allowing daily rotation to remain anchored to noon. Just a short step to transferring the average 24 hour day to the Lat/Long system at a constant rotation rate of 15 degrees per hour and by logic turning a full 360 degrees in 24 hours. Like all things of value it sits inside a more expansive view of life on Earth as without the larger motions every individual participates in from the planet's daily surface rotation, its orbital surface rotation as a function of the planet's orbital motion (responsible for the polar day/night cycle), the orbit of the Sun, the galactic orbit of the solar system around the galaxy or any greater motion then life would be impossible on Earth. You do realize that you will be eventually identified as a distinct people within human history in future and certainly as a cautionary lesson. Considering all the speculative science out there and you poor folk chain yourselves to a clockwork solar system, that remains the surprising thing for me - rather than be creative and productive in a meaningful way, you choose to spend your lives chasing rainbows at the expense of genuine astronomy. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Thermodynamics: Dismal Swamp of Obscurity or Just Dead Science? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | November 27th 17 11:41 AM |
Thermodynamics: Dismal Swamp of Obscurity | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 4 | October 1st 17 06:05 PM |
Clifford Truesdell: Thermodynamics Is a Dismal Swamp of Obscurity | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 2nd 17 05:12 PM |
REPLY TO GLOBAL WARMING DENIER | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 15 | May 29th 07 05:25 AM |
STERN REPLY TO GLOBAL WARMING DENIER | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 11 | March 4th 07 12:42 AM |