Monthly Archives: January 2019

Are ‘historic’ low temperatures a positive step for global warming?

climate

https://www.quora.com/Are-historic-low-temperatures-a-positive-step-for-global-warming/

https://www.quora.com/Are-historic-low-temperatures-a-positive-step-for-global-warming/answer/TL-Winslow

My reply:

What global warming? It’s a hoax based on tricked-up computer-generated statistics of a non-physical make-believe “global average temperature”. The Northern Hemisphere is currently going through its coldest winter in recorded history, not because of some side-effect of global warming, but because there’s a huge amount of cold air that CO2 has no effect on. If CO2 really caused any kind of warming there wouldn’t be any cold air in the first place, and winters would be snow-free. That shows up the CO2 global warming hoaxers as the emperor with no clothes, and gives them away as con artists out to get into your pocket to slay an imaginary dragon. Summers aren’t really that hot compared to the 1930s, but the super-cold winters seem more indicative of a coming mini ice age than a catastrophic runaway global warming. Trouble is by the time it’s indisputable the U.N. IPCC extortionists plan to already have bilked the Western world of trillions to give to Africa et al. with alarmists predictions set decades in the future that never come true.

It’s basic physics that CO2 in the atmosphere can’t warm the surface, because no body can warm itself with its own heat, which includes the Earth as a whole, and no cooler body like the atmosphere can warm a hotter body like the surface because the opposite will happen instead. Only the sun heats the surface, and all the atmosphere does is take the heat up and out to space. The Byzantine mathematical con game called radiative forcing is one of the scandals of science history, and an entire generation of climate science grads needs to demand their money back and train for useful careers.

Here’s my explanation of the CO2 global warming hoax in simple terms for all who want to know:

TLW’s Climatescope™, by T.L. Winslow (TLW), “The Historyscoper”™

(http://www.historyscoper.com/climatescope.html)

Scientists and engineers have urged a re-evaluation of nuclear power as a source of energy, and have suggested that this area may help us to reduce the impact of climate change in the future. Do you think is time to reconsider the nuclear power?

climate

https://www.quora.com/Scientists-and-engineers-have-urged-a-re-evaluation-of-nuclear-power-as-a-source-of-energy-and-have-suggested-that-this-area-may-help-us-to-reduce-the-impact-of-climate-change-in-the-future-Do-you-think-is-time-to

Is the rise in temperature that occurs during the day of a sunny day occur because of direct radiant solar heating of the air or of heating of the land and sea which then causes convective heating of the air above it?

climate

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-rise-in-temperature-that-occurs-during-the-day-of-a-sunny-day-occur-because-of-direct-radiant-solar-heating-of-the-air-or-of-heating-of-the-land-and-sea-which-then-causes-convective-heating-of-the-air-above/

My reply:

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-rise-in-temperature-that-occurs-during-the-day-of-a-sunny-day-occur-because-of-direct-radiant-solar-heating-of-the-air-or-of-heating-of-the-land-and-sea-which-then-causes-convective-heating-of-the-air-above/answer/TL-Winslow

NASA states the current density of CO2 is 435 parts per million and that mankind accounts for about 2% of total emissions. Thus, humans account for about 1 particle in 115,000. Is the whole premise of climate change without foundation in physics?

climate

https://www.quora.com/NASA-states-the-current-density-of-CO2-is-435-parts-per-million-and-that-mankind-accounts-for-about-2-of-total-emissions-Thus-humans-account-for-about-1-particle-in-115-000-Is-the-whole-premise-of-climate-change