Yahoo Answers is shutting down on 4 May 2021 (Eastern Time) and, as of 20 April 2021 (Eastern Time), the Yahoo Answers website will be 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.

Lv 7
Jim2 asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 2 weeks ago

So, I keep seeing comments about Science based answers that debunk Standard, accepted global warming theory. Can I SEE....?

Some of these science based answers? I have been trying for two months to see a valid, scientific, mature, adult, refutation of AGW. So far I have not seen one, ever.

Global warming theory, probably oversimplified, but here it is:

"Earth transforms sunlight’s visible light energy into infrared light energy, which leaves Earth slowly because it is absorbed by greenhouse gases. When people produce greenhouse gases, energy leaves Earth even more slowly – raising Earth’s temperature." 

We are running out of time! Time to stop playing around.


I want to hear from those that honestly think accepted global warming theory is wrong, and can scientifically refute the simple explanation I provided, which comes from the internet.

Update 2:

I probably won't agree. But I want to see some ... SCIENCE!

Update 3:
Update 4:

I will ask another question pertaining to the actual Mechanism of the accepted science of Global warming.

Update 5:

Thank you. LOL. I like simple explanations that I can understand! Perhaps this explanation is more accurate?

"The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earth's surface. When the Sun's energy reaches the Earth's atmosphere, some of it is reflected back to space and the rest is absorbed and re-radiated by greenhouse gases. ... The absorbed energy warms the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth." Although, you'd think they would say the absorbed AND re-radiated energy warms etc.

Update 6:

I think I get it. It's confusing to say 'Slows down'. Nevertheless, can we not say that a greenhouse, a thermos, and the earth with its atmosphere full of greenhouse gasses SLOW the rate of heat transfer-- That it takes longer to establish an energy balance-- between these three systems and what lies outside of them? (The walls of the thermos and the glass greenhouse slow the transfer of heat to the atmosphere, and the greenhouse gasses of the earth slow the transfer of heat to space) ? 

3 Answers

  • 2 weeks ago
    Favourite answer

    Another EDIT: My answer is getting a bit long, so rather than expound some more here, feel free to write to me at or maybe ask another question.

    EDIT for Jim2: Thanks for sharing the link.  Yes, I've seen and heard many people use that explanation, but I still say it is incorrect. Ultimately the energy coming in and energy going out from the Earth system will come to equilibrium--actually, the SAME equilibrium with or without global warming. With global warming, the surface temperature rises while the effective radiating height goes up.  So the internal equilibrium changes with global warming.  While the planet is warming the Earth is not in equilibrium--there is less energy leaving than there is coming in. However, once equilibrium is reestablished it can persist at the higher temperature--it does not matter whether the speed of light is 300,000 km/sec or 1 km/sec, so slowing down doesn't enter into it, just energy balance. If you'll check on the author of that explanation, you'll find that he's trained in psychology, not physics or climate. I'm not sure that matters, though, one of my teachers was a very famous climate scientist, and he used to use incorrect explanations for lay audiences too. It's easy to mess it up unless you can't write down the equilibrium relations, but that's kind of beyond the lay explanation.

    There been anything like that in here for a long time. You'll see fake questions that purport to refute some aspect of the theory, but almost invariably they are asked by some Joker who blocks anyone trained in science from answering. Any sort of valid argument should stand up to scrutiny from EVERYONE--not just the other member of the Delusional Conservatism movement.

    On the other hand, I saw your description of global warming as a "slowing down" of energy leaving Earth a month or two ago, and I very much wanted to answer but didn't think it was worth creating a new account or reviving the Dirac account.  Now that YA is closing and I've created this new account, I will say that I think that is the WRONG way to look at it.  The greenhouse effect comes about because there are things in the atmosphere that absorb longwave radiation and redirect some of it back toward the surface. What happens at the surface with global warming is that the terms that enter into the equilibrium there (shortwave in, reflection, longwave out, longwave in from atmosphere, convection and latent heat transfer) will change, which changes the equilibrium surface temperature.  There is no "slowing down" involved. The radiative processes take place at the speed of light, and even if they were INFINITELY fast there would still be global warming due to increased greenhouse gases.

  • 2 weeks ago

    Dirac, It's funny how all your supporters abandoned you.  Elizabeth no longer bothers defending you.  I know you and Georgie were at odds, and frankly, I think he got sick of you.  Even the vitriolic and nasty Skeptik stopped supporting you.  

  • Kitty
    Lv 5
    2 weeks ago

    It’s ok let it be lol.   

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.