• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"The Sky is Falling" says NASA's Gavin Schmidt

Yes, there is global warming. Just not enough to be all Chicken Little about it.

Meaning there is nothing we need to do about it? It appears the deniers are heading in your direction. They are morphing from the more and more obvious lie that warming does not exist, to warming is a good thing or not important enough to worry about. It is just more denial mostly because they are too selfish to make what they perceive as sacrifices to help people that are not born yet.
 
I do get a chuckle when people start talking about Global Warming ( or Climate change ( being PC))

Al Gore rants and raves about it,, But his limo's are always running because he hate's to get into a cold/Hot car.. So he's doing his bit to help..
De Caprio rants and Raves about it, But he flies private jets everywhere he goes.. so he's doing his bit to help..


Just 30,000 years ago there was a glacier in Yosemite Valley, There in not one there now, why not? Man was not prevalent then.

The world has been around for billions of years, going through many iterations of climate changes (own it's own ) I might add.

I am not saying that it does not exist, BUT, IF IT DOES exist, and WE Are causing it, the only solution is the annihilation of mankind. Right?

Maybe if all of those that insist we are the cause would do the noble thing, Well, I never hear any volunteers.

djl
 
Yes, there is global warming. Just not enough to be all Chicken Little about it.
I don't know about that because I'm not a scientist. I just believe what the vast majority of what the people that have credentials have to say about global warming.

What are your credentials in telling me that there just is not enough of global warming to not be concerned?
 
I do get a chuckle when people start talking about Global Warming ( or Climate change ( being PC))
Actually, both terms have been around for decades and have nothing to do with political correctness. I do get a chuckle when people like you don't know that.

Al Gore rants and raves about it,, But his limo's are always running because he hate's to get into a cold/Hot car.. So he's doing his bit to help..
De Caprio rants and Raves about it, But he flies private jets everywhere he goes.. so he's doing his bit to help..
Carbon dioxide does not care about perceived hypocrisy. Its behavior is not dictated by anyone's opinion. Physics is funny that way.

Just 30,000 years ago there was a glacier in Yosemite Valley, There in not one there now, why not? Man was not prevalent then.

The world has been around for billions of years, going through many iterations of climate changes (own it's own ) I might add.
Ahh yes. Yet another climate change "skeptic" who thinks pointing out "climate has changed before" is some stunning revelation that all the proponents are ignoring or denying. Yeah, buddy, we know. Climate changes on its own.

Volcanoes affect climate. Therefore the sun doesn't affect climate.

Wait a minute, that doesn't make any sense! Of course more than one variable can influence climate. Natural or otherwise. Carbon dioxide doesn't care whether it came out of a car's tailpipe or a volcano. Changing the quantity of atmospheric gasses can change climate, regardless of why the quantity changed.

I am not saying that it does not exist, BUT, IF IT DOES exist, and WE Are causing it, the only solution is the annihilation of mankind. Right?

Maybe if all of those that insist we are the cause would do the noble thing, Well, I never hear any volunteers.

djl

Um. What? To protect humanity from negative effects of changing climate, you're proposing extinction of humanity?

Dude. What? Are you suggesting that's really the only possible solution? Couldn't we, you know, just reduce the amount we impact climate? Did that not occur to you?
 
Meaning there is nothing we need to do about it? It appears the deniers are heading in your direction. They are morphing from the more and more obvious lie that warming does not exist, to warming is a good thing or not important enough to worry about. It is just more denial mostly because they are too selfish to make what they perceive as sacrifices to help people that are not born yet.
Consider, what we would or could do about it, vs what will likely happen any way.
If the goal of the AGW proponents, Is to reduce CO2 emissions.
Laws passed in the US would have little global effect.
The only way to move people off of fossil fuel, it to provide a naturally lower cost alternative.
Since the technology is already being developed, and the cost curves are already converging,
Carbon neutral man made fuels, will likely start replacing fossil fuels within 10 to 20 years, likely sooner.
What we really need is an energy source, that we can store in the man made fuel.
I see the main problem with AGW, is they identified the wrong problem.
We have a very real energy problem in our (global) future.
Our modern first would life styles, are only possible with the solar energy that have been concentrated
in organic hydrocarbons. The cheap easy hydrocarbons, have already been exploited, leaving
only the expensive difficult ones behind.
Solar power (which includes wind) have an energy and density problem,
hydrocarbon storage could easily be the solution to that problem.
It would allow low density, poor duty cycle energy to be concentrated for when it is needed.
But all of this will happen without any government involvement.
When the price of oil get between $90 and $100 a barrel, it will be less expensive for the
refineries to make their own feedstock, than to buy the organic oil from the market.
The Government does need to do something, and that is unify the home power generation laws,
so they are fair for both the homeowner and the utility.
 
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.
Planet behavior changes?

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.
There are those who out there, and I tend to agree, that the planet stabilized itself at a min and max range of temperatures. At the coldest end, it is dominated by black body radiation calculations. At the warmest end, the stabilization is dominated by cloud feedback. The warmer it gets, the more moisture and clouds we get, reflecting the solar input more, keeping the temperature from a runaway condition. If you know anything about feedback amplification, then you know the idea that water vapor causes more than a 50% net feedback to CO2 spectra is impossible. If it did, we would have had a scorched earth millions of years ago, and no life. The pundits like to claim H2O his a very high feedback. It does, but only in laboratory conditions. You have to pretend there is no negative cloud feedback in the net climate result to get alarming results.

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.
I have read several studies. What most have in common is starting the study with wording like "If we assume..." The science itself is pretty good, except researchers write for what a grant will pay them.

Follow the money... who controls it... The warmers will cite corporations like Exxon on the good papers, but ignore the fact that the government agencies spends (grants) 50 times or more money for alarmist research.

Now these papers almost always incorporate the RCP 8.5 modelling, to get dramatic results. The pundits then report in a skewed manner as to what it all means.

The "If we assume" is almost always unrealistic, but the results are the reported as alarmist fact by the pundits.
 
Last edited:
Planet behavior changes?

This made me chuckle a bit. The analogy is rough, but I don't think it ridiculous considering many allostatic responses in humans are autonomic. An argument can be made that there are some global examples of "behavior" change with regards to atmospheric adjustments around what people believe related to climate change (e.g., CO2 levels and plant growth). There is an astounding level of complexity in the interconnected systems of the human body in how they vary in relation to each other to hold levels of specific variables within life-sustaining values. I imagine natural systems both living and non-living related to the planet would be no less complex. Part of me thinks it is logical that organic systems would "evolve" in a way that interconnects supportively with natural systems, accounting for natural variances in climate variables.

If you believe that evolution is how life started on the planet then it would seem necessary that variables within geological/atmospheric systems naturally fluctuate in ways that created and continue to maintain conditions beneficial to life (as it would need to in order to give organisms time to develop and evolve into an ecosystem that supports their own survival). Perfect environmental homeostasis has been shown to be detrimental to the development of life. Regular environmental change, within the limits of survivability (and those boundaries can sometimes be moved over time), is necessary in such systems.

I don't think the average person, or even individual experts, would be able to understand the entire realm of variables that would come into play in these interconnected systems. Heck, we don't fully understand the intricacies of the systems of the human body and that's a heck of a lot easier to study empirically than something so large as the climate of an entire planet.
 
This made me chuckle a bit. The analogy is rough, but I don't think it ridiculous considering many allostatic responses in humans are autonomic. An argument can be made that there are some global examples of "behavior" change with regards to atmospheric adjustments around what people believe related to climate change (e.g., CO2 levels and plant growth). There is an astounding level of complexity in the interconnected systems of the human body in how they vary in relation to each other to hold levels of specific variables within life-sustaining values. I imagine natural systems both living and non-living related to the planet would be no less complex. Part of me thinks it is logical that organic systems would "evolve" in a way that interconnects supportively with natural systems, accounting for natural variances in climate variables.

If you believe that evolution is how life started on the planet then it would seem necessary that variables within geological/atmospheric systems naturally fluctuate in ways that created and continue to maintain conditions beneficial to life (as it would need to in order to give organisms time to develop and evolve into an ecosystem that supports their own survival). Perfect environmental homeostasis has been shown to be detrimental to the development of life. Regular environmental change, within the limits of survivability (and those boundaries can sometimes be moved over time), is necessary in such systems.

I don't think the average person, or even individual experts, would be able to understand the entire realm of variables that would come into play in these interconnected systems. Heck, we don't fully understand the intricacies of the systems of the human body and that's a heck of a lot easier to study empirically than something so large as the climate of an entire planet.

I had too look "allostatic" word up before responding, as I am not a medical professional. Lead me to allostasis with the auto correct when I wasn't paying close enough attention.

I though it was funny, and not sure what you meant. Of course, nature will adjust in her own way.
 
I had too look "allostatic" word up before responding, as I am not a medical professional. Lead me to allostasis with the auto correct when I wasn't paying close enough attention.

I though it was funny, and not sure what you meant. Of course, nature will adjust in her own way.

I enjoyed the humor and understood how you got there. :) It's not a word most people are aware of.
 
I enjoyed the humor and understood how you got there. :) It's not a word most people are aware of.

So...

What is your take on my insistence that words have meaning, and need be properly applied in science related topics?
 
Did pretty good for himself now didn't he?

Some smart people cannot tolerate how slow the learning is in a college.

Sure did. He's made lots of money spewing out nonsense and hatred for people of lower intelligence to swallow. It's a gift but one I don't find honorable.
 
Sure did. He's made lots of money spewing out nonsense and hatred for people of lower intelligence to swallow. It's a gift but one I don't find honorable.

He is excessive on the bullying side, but he is rarely wrong about what he says.
 
That's not in the article.

Source?

Then I must be hallucinating:


"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.”

The sky is literally falling because of climate change, says top NASA scientist | National Observer
 
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.
 
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.

"The only problem with most theories is that they are wrong."

But goofy also works.
 
"The only problem with most theories is that they are wrong."

But goofy also works.
Shouldn't that read:

"The only problem with most theories {hypothesis} is that they are wrong."
 
He is excessive on the bullying side, but he is rarely wrong about what he says.

He makes his living off being wrong.

Back when he started, there were a number of journalists and academic studies that wrote about how often he was wrong.

But they stopped when they realised that anyone that gave a rats accuracy wouldn't listen, and that anyone that did listen was getting the BS they wanted.

What you want...
 
Back
Top Bottom