• Is "Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought," as new research suggests?

    Best answer: I kind of like Roy Spencer's analogy of "The Empire Strikes Back" : http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/cracks-in-the-empires-armor-appear/ Looks like climate science is crossing over to "The Dark Side". Do you think the Climate Clowns at Skeptical Science will change their "climate... show more
    Best answer: I kind of like Roy Spencer's analogy of "The Empire Strikes Back" : http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/crac...

    Looks like climate science is crossing over to "The Dark Side".

    Do you think the Climate Clowns at Skeptical Science will change their "climate sensitivity to raised CO2 levels" calculations and send Roy an apology? : https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate...

    One step at a time they will have to concede the obvious mistakes they continue to make.
    24 answers · Global Warming · 5 days ago
  • How many Global Warming Alarmists really understand the "Greenhouse Effect"?

    Best answer: The IPCC Greenhouse Effect is based on “Flat Earth Physics” and is Alarmist Sophistry. The real power of sunshine is this value we call “P”. It has a numerical value of about 1370 Watts per square meter. This is the real power of sunshine and it can be converted into a temperature, which has a value of 121... show more
    Best answer: The IPCC Greenhouse Effect is based on “Flat Earth Physics” and is Alarmist Sophistry.

    The real power of sunshine is this value we call “P”. It has a numerical value of about 1370 Watts per square meter. This is the real power of sunshine and it can be converted into a temperature, which has a value of 121 degrees Celsius – boiling hot! Some of this sunshine power is actually reflected by the Earth though, about 30%, and therefore doesn’t cause any heating; when you factor this in, the real power of sunshine is about 960 W/m2 which is a temperature of about 88C.

    IPCC Climate scientists take the real power of sunshine, of P = 960 W/m2, equal to +88 Celsius, but divide the power by the number 4 so that they can make the Earth flat and get rid of day and night – for convenience. When they do this, they artificially (it is artificial because it is no longer real, and only a mathematical simplification to make the Earth flat) decrease the power of sunshine to 960/4 = 240 W/m2 which is equal to minus 18C.

    After having taken a real number, and then converted it into something which is not real – the flat Earth approximation – IPCC climate scientists then go on to think that the power of sunshine is far too cold to heat anything by itself because it is only as strong as -18C. They forget that the simplification they made doesn’t actually correspond with reality, because they’ve taken the real numbers which are actually from reality in the first place, but then mathematically diluted them into very small numbers which aren’t actually found or measured in real-life.

    This puts IPCC climate scientists into a predicament, of having to figure out why it actually feels so warm under the Sun, and why the temperatures are far above -18C for most of the planet, particularly on the day-time side where there is actual real sunshine. Instead of questioning if their approximation of no day and night and a flat Earth with cold sunshine is valid or not, IPCC climate scientists instead invent an internal mechanism for the surface and atmosphere to self-amplify their own temperatures. This mechanism is called the “Greenhouse Effect”, even though this effect doesn’t actually have anything to do with how a real greenhouse works. They just used the same name for this effect they invented, that makes you think of something else that is warm. But the climate science “Greenhouse Effect” and a real greenhouse do not actually work the same way in any way at all.
    To distinguish the effect of what happens in a real greenhouse, versus the effect that IPCC climate science invented that isn’t actually the same as a real greenhouse, we will call the IPCC climate science version the “Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect”, or “AGHE”, for clarity.

    “Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect”, or “AGHE”, for clarity.
    The disparity between this IPCC climate-science approximation and the real-world is so great, that IPCC climate scientists have to postulate that the atmosphere provides twice as much heating power to warm itself up than they think the cold sunshine does in the first place. They even publish this result in their “peer-reviewed” journals, such as this paper - http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/TrenberthEditedv1_APS.pdf (see the last page).

    Nowhere else in science can a substance heat itself up without having a source of chemical or nuclear or other energy, but in IPCC climate science a gas can warm itself up spontaneously with its own passive energy by warming up an already-warmer ground surface by some mysterious recycling of its own internal energy. Everybody outside of IPCC climate science knows that this is wrong, because you can never get more work (i.e. more heating) out of the energy than what you initially put in and the first time it is used, from the sunshine. So because this is obviously ridiculous, but IPCC climate scientists have never been able to either admit or discover their original mathematical error, they have created terms such as “greenhouse effect”, “back-radiation heating”, “delayed cooling”, and many others, to explain this phantom self-heating process they were accidentally forced to invent. This is a result of the AGHE not being based in reality but based on a fictional approximation of a flat earth and cold sunshine, and so by its very nature you can make up almost anything you want to say about it because there is no actual reality-based single way that it exists.
    23 answers · Global Warming · 6 days ago
  • Why do conservatives refuse to follow the money on agw skeptics like Patrick Moore?

    Patrick Moore hasnt been a scientist for decades. He currently works as a PR consultant to asia pulp and paper, a logging company.
    Patrick Moore hasnt been a scientist for decades. He currently works as a PR consultant to asia pulp and paper, a logging company.
    14 answers · Global Warming · 5 days ago
  • How can anyone keep arguing that climate change isn't real?

    Best answer: We've also been without a hurricane actually making landfall in the US for the previous 12 years! As for climate change, we are only arguing about if man is responsible. Everyone realizes that climate changes. Oh, and FYI, the climate has been on a warming trend since the 1860s, when there were less than 1... show more
    Best answer: We've also been without a hurricane actually making landfall in the US for the previous 12 years!

    As for climate change, we are only arguing about if man is responsible. Everyone realizes that climate changes.

    Oh, and FYI, the climate has been on a warming trend since the 1860s, when there were less than 1 Billion people on the planet, when there wasn't 1% of the industry we have now, and long long before the invention of the SUV!
    20 answers · Green Living · 5 days ago
  • Why does it seem like everyone accepts climate change as a fact?

    Best answer: I don't think very many deny climate change. The dispute is the cause. Is it created by humans? What about past climate change like the ice age or the climate change that ended the ice age, there were no humans then. So would this climate change that is happening now still be happening if we were not here?... show more
    Best answer: I don't think very many deny climate change. The dispute is the cause. Is it created by humans? What about past climate change like the ice age or the climate change that ended the ice age, there were no humans then. So would this climate change that is happening now still be happening if we were not here? Evidence says yes.
    46 answers · Global Warming · 1 week ago
  • Will anthropogenic global warming soon be universally accepted as a scam?

    Best answer: There will be 2 items up and coming that may sway a few people towards acceptance. 1) Michael Mann's lawsuit in Canada where he was instructed by the court to present his data 2) The RED/BLUE debate Scott Pruitt is putting together. We should be finding out something about Mann's lawsuit sometime soon.... show more
    Best answer: There will be 2 items up and coming that may sway a few people towards acceptance.

    1) Michael Mann's lawsuit in Canada where he was instructed by the court to present his data

    2) The RED/BLUE debate Scott Pruitt is putting together.

    We should be finding out something about Mann's lawsuit sometime soon. Scott Pruitt should have that RED/BLUE debate going within the year.
    28 answers · Global Warming · 1 week ago
  • If man made climate change is made up how do you explain the evidence that supports it?

    If man made climate change is made up how do you explain the evidence that supports it?

    I didn't pull this up from some half baked conservative website on the fringe of the internet. This information is directly from NASA: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
    I didn't pull this up from some half baked conservative website on the fringe of the internet. This information is directly from NASA: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
    18 answers · Global Warming · 1 week ago
  • Why is Greenland ice growing at a record pace and why do leftist trolls try to censor people by moving questions?

    Best answer: Asking why leftist trolls try to censor people is like asking why the sun shines, why wolves hunt, why rain falls, etc. They are what they are.
    Best answer: Asking why leftist trolls try to censor people is like asking why the sun shines, why wolves hunt, why rain falls, etc. They are what they are.
    18 answers · Global Warming · 6 days ago
  • Why is there so many natural disasters at the moment?

    Best answer: Because the Bible predicts more and bigger natural disasters in the latter days.
    Best answer: Because the Bible predicts more and bigger natural disasters in the latter days.
    24 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 4 days ago
  • Have Climate Change scientists finally admitted their models are wrong?

    Best answer: There used to be a YouTube video of Myles Allen claiming that the temperature increase this century could be 11 degrees. I think that was degrees C, as well, but I can no longer find the video to check. In only a few more years, if the Allen trend continues, he will be in negative territory and the global cooling... show more
    Best answer: There used to be a YouTube video of Myles Allen claiming that the temperature increase this century could be 11 degrees. I think that was degrees C, as well, but I can no longer find the video to check.

    In only a few more years, if the Allen trend continues, he will be in negative territory and the global cooling meme will be upon us - well, upon Oxford University, anyway.
    16 answers · Global Warming · 4 days ago
  • Given that the left hates nuclear power, how could global warming be a left wing invention?

    Best answer: it maybe a solution for climate. Try to find investors and banks willing to bankroll new plants. Nuclear is too expensive
    Best answer: it maybe a solution for climate. Try to find investors and banks willing to bankroll new plants. Nuclear is too expensive
    14 answers · Global Warming · 6 days ago
  • Is the Pope correct that people have a moral duty to act on global warming?

    Best answer: The Pope has the moral duty to steer people away from scientific blasphemy coming from scientific prophets! From your link : " ... "Those who deny this must go to the scientists and ask them. They speak very clearly," he said, referring to experts who blame global warming on man-made activities.... show more
    Best answer: The Pope has the moral duty to steer people away from scientific blasphemy coming from scientific prophets!

    From your link :

    " ... "Those who deny this must go to the scientists and ask them. They speak very clearly," he said, referring to experts who blame global warming on man-made activities. ... "

    The temperature record is what is in question at this moment. Michael Mann is currently in a lawsuit that he started, and was ordered by the court to present his phony temperature record data in order to make his case. He still has not presented it. His "Hockey Stick Graph" was used by the UN IPCC as proof of profound "anthropogenic" (man-made) global warming. It followed the rise in CO2 levels.

    I don't think the Pope understands how hard it is to establish an accurate accounting of surface temperature. He can accept the opinions of false prophets all he wants, but don't shove his own opinions that are based upon false and misrepresented facts. I will gladly consider him as one who has joined the "Climate Clown Fan Club".

    I'm wondering if he understands the basis of the temperature record and how inaccurate it really is? Our best measuring of the lower troposphere is being done since the beginning of the satellite era, and has been enhanced somewhat by new ARGO Data sets, but it is still far from perfect. Neither NOAA nor NASA has revised their MOE (margin of error) of ~ 0.25C in any monthly data set. Does the Pope understand what MOE stands for? I'm sure his experts could explain it to him if he really wanted to know.

    The Medieval Warming Period was totally erased by Mann, yet we know the Vikings established themselves in Greenland for a couple of centuries. Greenland just set a "record low" temperature of -33C in the Northern Hemisphere for the month of August and surface ice/snow has increased profoundly. NOAA and NASA temperature data is highly suspect.

    Temperatures in the Midwestern and Eastern United States use to always be well into the 100s during the 30s. I live in the Midwest and temperatures don't even come close to staying in the 90s for any length of time for as long as I've known. I recently exchanged my local weather data (AccuWeather is the "Official" temperature data) with poster "James" representation of NOAA's data for the same city. We compared the "daily maximum temperature average" for the same time period of August 2016 to July 2017. There was a 1.5F verifiable difference. NOAA's data was 1.5F (35%) higher than local documentation. NOAA's and NASA's Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data is highly suspect as it should be. It was compiled mostly with an environmental extremist/zealot, James Hansen, in charge of the data.

    Hansen claimed in 2008 that Arctic Sea Ice would be gone in 5 to 10 years. Currently, Arctic Sea Ice is the same extent as it was at the time Hansen made this stupendous/stupid claim. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1...

    I really do think the Pope needs to heed to the warnings of skeptics, and not fall towards the tyrannical views and tyrannical solutions of the false prophets of science.

    ***** Thanks to Tony Heller for the Google link! *****

    I reposted my answer.

    Your question still exists in my answered questions as a "Global Warming" question.

    I have no clue why things disappear.
    21 answers · Global Warming · 1 week ago
  • Does global warming hysteria rely on a false greenhouse gas premise?

    http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/01/3-chemists-conclude-co2-greenhouse-effect-is-unreal-violates-laws-of-physics-thermodynamics/#sthash.pkF2HLqm.LLE36PRc.dpbs " ... Conclusion The various stated definitions of the greenhouse effect have been subjected to the rigorous scrutiny and application of the... show more
    http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/01/3-che... " ... Conclusion The various stated definitions of the greenhouse effect have been subjected to the rigorous scrutiny and application of the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics. They were found to be unreal, and unless some new definition can be put forward that satisfies and complies with those laws, it can only be concluded that the concept of a ‘greenhouse gas’ or a ‘greenhouse effect’ has not been demonstrated and is thus without merit. ... " I copied this from another question - https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
    17 answers · Global Warming · 6 days ago