Yahoo Answers is shutting down on 4 May 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Which is the least likely ...?
That Greenhouse effect "skeptics" will come up with credible alternative explanations for Earth's equilibrium temperature and the current warming trend?
Or that Donald Trump will concede defeat in a fair election?
Both pretty unlikely, but which is the least likely?
Please feel free to elaborate on either topic. Thanks in anticipation ...
Obi wan; the Greenhouse Effect IS the credible explanation.
I see that Obi wan has deleted his answer, as has the deluded troll. Probably the same person!
Solar; you haven't answered the question. I take it that, in your view, you HAVE come up with credible alternatives (elsewhere not here) and therefore, Donald Trump conceding that he has been beaten in a fair election is the least likely.
Thanks Dirac. I agree it is highly unlikely that DT will concede that he lost a fair election; he has invested too much of his reputation on claims it would be/was rigged, to change his mind now. Perhaps he knew it would be his last roll of the dice and used it to create a lingering doubt, in the minds of his supporters at least, on the legitimacy of Biden's victory. The events of the last few weeks have been truly astonishing from our perspective here in the UK, as has his whole presidency.
Thanks also for spelling out the energy balance diagram. It's not difficult to follow unless, as you say, the follower doesn't want to understand it.
You would think that "skeptics" would come up with their own version if they had a good alternative explanation. Or perhaps "skepticism" is less about explanation, more about creating doubt.
Actually Solar, the reason for dividing by 4 is simply that the amount of solar radiation intercepted by the Earth is the same as that which would fall on a disc of the same diameter, perpendicular to the direction of that radiation, whilst the energy leaving the Earth does so from its (approximately) spherical surface. So energy in is proportional to πr^2, the area of a circle, whilst energy out is proportional to 4πr^2, the area of a sphere. Honestly, it's not difficult!
Thanks everyone.
On re-reading my explanation to Solar Wind, the word "proportinal" was poorly chosen. Obviously energy in will be equal to energy out; the point being that the intensity of the energy out is 1/4 of the incoming, because the radiating surface is 4 times greater. Average values of course. Hope that is clear.
7 Answers
- Anonymous5 months agoFavourite answer
I doubt that Trump will concede. I'm sure he knows he lost, but if he admits it then his marks will lose faith in him, and that would interfere with his future income, and that is all that's really important to him.
It's hard for me to believe that there is anyone with any scientific training that rejects the greenhouse effect, although JimZ has seemed dubious of it at times.
Solar Wind has had the energy balance diagram explained to him numerous times, but I doubt that he's ever actually tried to understand it. It simply shows the equilibrium terms at various heights in the atmosphere. He mentions the terms at the surface, but then ignores many of them. The downwelling ones are (all in watts per square meter) are 161 from solar radiation and 333 radiation from the atmosphere. Add those together and you get 494. The outgoing terms are 396 radiation from the surface, 17 for thermals and 80 for evapotranspiration. Add those together and you get 493. The difference, about one watt per square meter downward (at the time the diagram was made), is what's heating the surface. You can do the same sort of analysis in the atmosphere or at the top and see the equilibrium those places, too.
The upward radiation from the warm surface exceeds the downward radiation from the cooler atmosphere, so the Second Law is not violated There is a continuous flow of low entropy energy into the system (from the sun) so there is no perpetual motion machine of the first kind, either. I don't think Solar Wind is dumb, but I do think that he has no interest in actually understanding this diagram.
- catwhisperer07Lv 65 months ago
Government involvement in determining climate science and supporting unproven science is the real disaster.
Both the global warming hoax and the COVID fiasco originated from an United Nations think group. Is this coincidental or a planned agenda?
- garryLv 65 months ago
ask the sceptics one thing will they stop using cars , no wood for houses , no coal or other green house gas makers , no metal , you have to have electricity to melt it .. seems the skeptics have no answer do they , ..theres no answer for green house gases , just the governments taking the tax and give nothing back . and will he concede , who says he has too , after all he is the president till 19th january .biden still hasnt been sworn in yet ..
- ?Lv 65 months ago
As was pointed out in the K/W energy budget diagram that you alarmists use to portray the unproven greenhouse effect. I have shown where your equilibrium temperature is false.
The diagram shows 161 watts/sq meter (-18 C) being absorbed and over 394 watts/sq meter being emitted, then 333 watts / sq meter being reflected back from the top of the atmosphere.
Where is your equilibrium? This by passes Planck's Black body law, the S/B law. Now look at the back radiation of 333 watts from 15 km elevation which is the top of the atmosphere where the temperature is -50 C.
Where is the energy source to be able to warm the air and re-heat the Earth's surface. Analogy: Mt Everest is 8 km high and climbers wear hi tech winter clothes and air packs to survive, where is all this trapped heat?
This nothing more than made up pseudoscience. Dirac is a fraud, who has never given an explanation regarding how the greenhouse effect works. He just parrots skeptical science's meager rebuffs that are easily debunked.
There has been new science discoveries regarding the solar forcing and galactic cosmic ray forcing that has been ignored by political climate science.
Update: Just the sophistry I expected from Dirac, the impostor. Look closely at the diagram it is for a FLAT Earth. The incoming solar radiation should be x 4 or in this case 1362 (which is low) watts/sq meter. The alarmist's divide by 4 which puts the Sun twice as far from Earth, the sleight of hand is to bring the incoming solar radiation to register -18 C, therefore without the fake greenhouse effect there would be a "snow ball" Earth. This puts the hoax in motion.
- Anonymous5 months ago
No, they'll just continue waffling about Obama's beachfront property or Al Gores SUV
