• Jimmy Hansen wishes he was wrong about Global Warming. Did he get his wish?

    Best answer: When a religion is based on lies and leftism is certainly a religion dependent on spreading lies, they are bound to be wrong far more than they are right. It isn't like there aren't good examples to learn from but some people, particularly alarmunists, have a great difficulty due presumably to their... show more
    Best answer: When a religion is based on lies and leftism is certainly a religion dependent on spreading lies, they are bound to be wrong far more than they are right. It isn't like there aren't good examples to learn from but some people, particularly alarmunists, have a great difficulty due presumably to their learning disorder which is primarily caused by their tendencies to believe in fairy tales.

    Added
    The problems with alarmists is they have no memory. They live in a bubble that keeps their memories cleaned of unpleasant contradictions such as the Pause that happened for most of the last 20 years. I know it is inconvenient and it doesn't help promote their Cause. Jimmy Hansen didn't predict it at all. In fact, the Pause pretty much proved that Jimmy's predictions are worth less than zilch zero nada. That is what the actual science tells us. Should we believe the NASA back then or the corrected versions?
    8 answers · 6 days ago
  • If the world’s highest and lowest annual temperatures were doubled, how much would sea level rise and fall each year?

    From what I’ve read, sea levels currently fluctuate by 80mm annually due to seasonal temperatures (see graph at link below) but I assume this figure wouldn’t simply be doubled. Please note I’m not enquiring with regards to climate change year by year in this instance - this is solely relating to inter-annual... show more
    From what I’ve read, sea levels currently fluctuate by 80mm annually due to seasonal temperatures (see graph at link below) but I assume this figure wouldn’t simply be doubled. Please note I’m not enquiring with regards to climate change year by year in this instance - this is solely relating to inter-annual effects of extreme seasons.
    6 answers · 6 days ago
  • What happened in the past when CO2 levels in the atmosphere were over 500ppm?

    Best answer: I've not read my skeptical colleagues answers just yet but I'll have a stab at guessing what argument they've put forward. It probably goes something like ... 'CO2 levels were WAY higher than they are now. Like, they were 1000s of ppm. And during those times plant life was amazingly abundant,... show more
    Best answer: I've not read my skeptical colleagues answers just yet but I'll have a stab at guessing what argument they've put forward.

    It probably goes something like ... 'CO2 levels were WAY higher than they are now. Like, they were 1000s of ppm. And during those times plant life was amazingly abundant, ecosystems thrived. It was close to paradise! This piddling little 400 or 500 ppm level of CO2 we're experiencing today is tiny in comparison, nothing to worry about, and hence the implication I'm making is that we don't have to do anything about so-called "global warming"'.

    Now let me read some of the answers. Ok, I'm not too far off the mark. Now let me paraphrase that argument in different terms ...

    'There was an earthquake in California that was really, really big. But Californians thrived despite it. Look at them there with their toned bodies, high incomes, and a State economy equivalent to entire nations! A piddling little earthquake is nothing to worry about, and the implication I'm making is that we shouldn't spend any money on protecting buildings against smaller earthquakes'.

    Now Solar Wind, my old mate my old pal, has kindly provided a graph showing you the last 600 million years with the aim of trying to convince you that there is no relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. Of course, no one, including Solar Wind argues that temperatures are ONLY dependent on CO2 - during that 600 million year timespan we've had changes in the output of the sun and changes in the earth's orbit. This is why you get those dips in temperature. What the graph also doesn't really show is the rate of change of CO2. These sorts of natural processes result in changes of 100 parts per million in CO2 concentrations over periods of many thousands or even tens of thousands of years. We've changed the CO2 concentration by 100 ppm in 120 years.

    So it's pretty irrelevant because

    a) we are living at a time when solar output and the orbital dynamics of the planet are going to be pretty stable over the next few hundred to a few thousand years
    b) under these stable conditions (like the 50 million year bit in the graph between 250 and 200 million years ago) CO2 levels are well correlated with temperature changes
    c) we've changed the CO2 concentration by 100 parts per million in 120 years, a rate which is nowhere reflected on this graph

    So, at the present time, if we increase CO2 levels to 500 ppm the planet will get warmer and this warming will occur on century timescales not millions of years. What happened in the past isn't important in terms of global warming today because there weren't 7 billion people distributed across the planet.
    12 answers · 5 days ago
  • Do you hate people that complain about the weather as much as I do ?

    Best answer: I don't hate I just have fun about such people.
    Best answer: I don't hate I just have fun about such people.
    9 answers · 5 days ago
  • How would the lapse rate change in a warning world?

    Best answer: The lapse rate is actually pretty complicated so let's go through it ... The basic explanation for the lapse rate involves modelling a parcel of air rising in our atmosphere. When you do this involving dry air, and you assume the atmosphere is in hydrostatic equilibrium (the flow velocity is constant over... show more
    Best answer: The lapse rate is actually pretty complicated so let's go through it ...

    The basic explanation for the lapse rate involves modelling a parcel of air rising in our atmosphere. When you do this involving dry air, and you assume the atmosphere is in hydrostatic equilibrium (the flow velocity is constant over time), you can derive an equation which tells you the lapse rate is dependent on only the specific heat capacity of air (about 1000 J / kg K) and the acceleration due to gravity (about 9.8 m/s^2). Dividing 9.8 m/s^2 by 1000 J/ kg K and you get 9.8 C per km, or a drop of about 1 degree for every 100 metres you climb.

    This is complicated by the addition of water vapour. If you consider a parcel of moist air, you now have to account for the latent heat of vaporization of the water and how the drop in temperature affects that water vapour. To put the equation in simple terms, let's imagine you have a parcel of moist air rising. At some point you'd have saturation, and as the parcel gets cooler still you'd have condensation of that water vapour, producing a cloud which extracts heat from the parcel of air. Since this is temperature dependent there's no fixed lapse rate but a reasonable value could be a drop of 5 C for each km of height gained. However, it's important to note that what you'd actually see is a transition - the air would follow the dry lapse rate before saturation, then start to follow this moist lapse rate afterwards.

    Now, you can keep adding complexity to try to get better models but the point is that these describe the lapse rate in the troposphere where temperature drops as you increase in altitude. As you move into the stratosphere the exact opposite happens, and temperatures increase as you increase in altitude due to the effect of ozone. As I said, the lapse rate isn't simple and it isn't just due to gravity.

    In any case, let's imagine you have a warm troposphere which decreases in temperature as you increase in height and a colder stratosphere that increases in temperature as you increase in height. The temperature of the troposphere is ultimately dependent on how much energy it radiates out into space. As we increase our CO2 emissions, the temperature of the troposphere at the equator would increase but that increase in temperature occurs higher up in the troposphere, resulting in more energy being radiated into space. This reduces the lapse rate since the troposphere is warmer higher up (the lapse rate is large if there is a large temperature gradient between ground and top of troposphere) and represents a negative feedback which reduces the impact of global warming. As you move towards the poles, that warming occurs lower in the troposphere and increases the lapse rate, which represents a positive feedback. What happens at the tropics tends to dominate, so what we see is a reduction in the lapse rate and a negative feedback on warming.

    These processes are included in the IPCC models.

    Additional: Just in response to your update ... yep. That's one way of looking at it. The other way is, if you imagine you have a warmer troposphere, that means as you increase the altitude of your parcel of air, it doesn't expand by as much as with the cooler troposphere because the warmer atmosphere exerts a higher pressure on it. This balances out so you get the same lapse rate. Remember, the dry adiabatic lapse rate just tells you if you have a certain gas and a certain gravitational pull, what the temperature decrease would be as a function of height. It doesn't care what the initial temperature is. So cold or hot atmosphere, you'd get the same lapse rate.

    BUT, as I said in my original answer, this isn't how the real atmosphere behaves. It's a reasonable approximation. The lapse rate is the end result of processes occurring in the atmosphere (of which the change in pressure as a function of altitude is one factor). Global warming must change the lapse rate if the troposphere warming is not evenly distributed throughout it. This factor isn't included in the simple model of lapse rate because that process is modeled as being adiabatic - there is no heat loss from the modeled 'parcel' of air to its surroundings.
    4 answers · 1 week ago
  • Why is Arctic sea ice at record low extent?

    Arctic sea ice extent for May 2018 was 12.2 million square kilometers (4.7 million square miles). This was the second lowest May extent in the 39-year satellite record http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
    Arctic sea ice extent for May 2018 was 12.2 million square kilometers (4.7 million square miles). This was the second lowest May extent in the 39-year satellite record http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
    7 answers · 1 week ago
  • Provide five different types of information that can be gathered as evidence of climate change.?

    Best answer: Earth’s average surface air temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) since 1900, with much of this increase taking place since the mid-1970s. A wide range of other observations such as reduced Arctic sea ice extent and increased ocean heat content and indications from the natural world such as poleward... show more
    Best answer: Earth’s average surface air temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) since 1900, with much of this increase taking place since the mid-1970s.

    A wide range of other observations such as reduced Arctic sea ice extent and increased ocean heat content and indications from the natural world such as poleward shifts of temperature-sensitive species of fish, mammals, insects, etc together provide incontrovertible evidence of planetary-scale warming.
    6 answers · 6 days ago
  • Why do Gores alarmunist disciples lie about not having satellite data before 1979?

    Best answer: Why do Gores alarmunist disciples lie... You can stop right there. They lie to push their alarmunism... Elitist leftists pushing for increasing the power of the state to enrich themselves and control the behavior of everyone else. It is a very old game. I checked page 224 and it does show what a convenient year... show more
    Best answer: Why do Gores alarmunist disciples lie...
    You can stop right there. They lie to push their alarmunism...
    Elitist leftists pushing for increasing the power of the state to enrich themselves and control the behavior of everyone else. It is a very old game.

    I checked page 224 and it does show what a convenient year 1979 is. Alarmists love to make graphs that look bad. They play games with the scale and color. It is a PR game and it is amazing how many clowns they get to fall for it. It is sad, really. All you have to do is say it is science. They love to think of themselves as up to date on the latest science.

    Hillary illegally keeps her server unsecure with classified information so that she can keep the cash flowing into her slush fund and they took millions and millions from the Russian, trading away national interests with Uranium assets (maybe more), and now these same useful idiot alarmists think Trump is colluding with the Russians. It is just mind numbing stupidity.
    6 answers · 1 week ago
  • Why do humans mess up the Earth and then complain about it?

    Best answer: It is well known in the scientific community that every species on Earth, humans included, will reproduce until their population exceeds the resources needed to sustain it (food, space, etc.) unless something else trims its numbers. It is natural and it has occurred often with humans in historical times.... show more
    Best answer: It is well known in the scientific community that every species on Earth, humans included, will reproduce until their population exceeds the resources needed to sustain it (food, space, etc.) unless something else trims its numbers. It is natural and it has occurred often with humans in historical times. Occurrences of human overpopulation have been local but is now worldwide.

    It is also part of nature that after overextending the population, corrections will follow, often by famine during less than optimal seasons of food supply, along with other deaths caused by a weakened population and by acts of desperation. This also has happened with humans and will continue to occur.

    For people, famine is only one possibility from a long list of natural and man-made disasters, at least one of which will destroy a very large percentage of the population.

    Our population WILL be reduced, that is a certainty. When it occurs, for humans it will be the most terrible tragedy in recorded history.
    For nature, it will just be normal processes.
    17 answers · 2 weeks ago
  • Do you believe in Global Warming? Why?

    47 answers · 2 weeks ago
  • Will the Sun melt and get rid of all the ice on earth?

    Best answer: It's not the sun as much as it is the greenhouse gasses trapping the heat that our planet gets from both the sun and the earth's molten core. The heat on earth should gradually dissipate into space but greenhouse gasses trap the heat so it can't escape the earth's atmosphere.
    Best answer: It's not the sun as much as it is the greenhouse gasses trapping the heat that our planet gets from both the sun and the earth's molten core. The heat on earth should gradually dissipate into space but greenhouse gasses trap the heat so it can't escape the earth's atmosphere.
    14 answers · 2 weeks ago
  • Like Dennis Ridd, wouldn't you be fired from your job if you accused your coworkers of fraud?

    Best answer: The case (Peter Ridd against James Cook University) is in court and tomorrow the judge might have something to say about it. In the mean time we have JimZ on record supporting the firing of scientists for party political reasons. As if we needed any more evidence that his denial of AGW is not based on science or... show more
    Best answer: The case (Peter Ridd against James Cook University) is in court and tomorrow the judge might have something to say about it. In the mean time we have JimZ on record supporting the firing of scientists for party political reasons. As if we needed any more evidence that his denial of AGW is not based on science or logic, but on ideology.
    5 answers · 1 week ago
  • Did Tim Ball Manipulate data?

    Best answer: Looks like a Canadian judge thought Tim Ball is either an incompetent idiot or someone pretending to be an incompetent idiot. He seems to be another one of those young earth creationists, and I care about the scientific opinions of young earth creationists as much as I care about the opinions of flat earthers. (I... show more
    Best answer: Looks like a Canadian judge thought Tim Ball is either an incompetent idiot or someone pretending to be an incompetent idiot. He seems to be another one of those young earth creationists, and I care about the scientific opinions of young earth creationists as much as I care about the opinions of flat earthers. (I ignore them)


    And JimZ pou might want to spell the name of the course that you claim you went on correctly. Your bosses might think you didn't pay attention, or worse that you didn't go.
    5 answers · 1 week ago
  • Is ocean water temperature increase caused by climate change permanent?

    Is the damage to the ocean that we can no longer fix?
    Is the damage to the ocean that we can no longer fix?
    14 answers · 2 weeks ago
  • How would you rate yourself for CLIMATE CHANGE?

    Best answer: 3 - There is a lot that can be done, but most needs to be done by the government and industry. Individuals don't have that much of an impact.
    Best answer: 3 - There is a lot that can be done, but most needs to be done by the government and industry. Individuals don't have that much of an impact.
    13 answers · 2 weeks ago
  • What should happen to Scott Pruitt, given that he has declared war on the war on lead?

    Best answer: Scott Pruitt is having all sorts of problems, his security in his first year cost the EPA well over 3 million. He is the head of a government agency charged with protecting human health and the environment. but he is dismantling that agency. Two of the aides he brought with him from Oklahoma, just handed in... show more
    Best answer: Scott Pruitt is having all sorts of problems, his security in his first year cost the EPA well over 3 million.

    He is the head of a government agency charged with protecting human health and the environment. but he is dismantling that agency. Two of the aides he brought with him from Oklahoma, just handed in their resignations and he had given them a huge pay raise through a loophole in the safe drinking water act. The act allows hiring people in the case of an emergency, but contacting a business on behalf of his wife, who wanted to open a franchise, is hardly an emergency.

    As for lead, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and that he wants to be seen to do the right thing there. His problem is that he saw the need for a soundproof phone booth in his office and wants to us to believe he wants to do away with "secret science". His staff at the EPA are suing him to produce evidence for his AGW denial.

    I understand that living in Washington is expensive, I am not complaining that he is enlisting his staff to help find him an apartment, a mattress, or that he dines in the White House mess more than he should. What I do have a problem with is his conspiracy theories and his dismantling of the EPA.

    For JimZ:

    Most business owners will do the right thing and environmental regulation is there to allow the honest businesses to be able to compete on a fair basis with the unscrupulous, who are willing to cut corners and have no care if people get hurt. Those regulations need to be enforced or they are meaningless. JimZ is complaining about this regulation, but dismantling the EPA is just dumb. Remember that the EPA was created in part because the Cuyahoga river was so polluted that it "caught fire". I also dislike paperwork (with a passion), but I understand why it is needed.

    This has nothing to do with left wing, right wing politics, a reasonable person would agree that pollution is bad, even if you disagree with the scientific community. One would even expect that conservatives would be all for protecting the environment and do so with a passion, while progressives would be less enthusiastic. Right now it is the progressives that are proposing (half heart-ed) measures while the conservatives busy themselves denying the science.
    10 answers · 2 weeks ago