Global Warming, er, Climate Change is omnipotent – it has now destroyed April Fools Day

Tipping point CO2 threshold to cause Earths’ axial tilt to tilt some more or less with medium certainty. Also imminently pressing concern is the rotation of the earth will stop and reverse direction. Gravity will fail and everything not secured to bedrock will float to the edge of space. Cats will bark. Computer models will speak Klingon. Elvis sightings will intensify…..

I think I recognize the type that would make this joke. And if I thought there was anything going on under the surface with these people, it would encourage me.
But I don’t think there is. A joke like this – I think that’s all they got.
They natural release of humor requires swimming in deeper water/having self-awareness and that’s not them.
[“The” natural release of humor? Mod]

Not before time …
http://www.timeanddate.com/news/time/paris-meridian-gmt-obsolete.html

What is this Ship of Fools Day everyone is talking about? I heard the joke was performed by a crew from the U of NSW in Antarctic waters late last year and early this year. It was a gas. They are going to have a hard time besting this gag.

TobiasN, I am sorry for your loss.
Sincerely,
Don

That sound you hear is not the earth exploding. It is the sound of billions of skeptics breaking out in explosive laughter.
John

Human methane emissions to be regulated: every human to be fitted and required to wear an anal cork.

When your credibility has sunk to the level of self-parody, it’s time to prepare for richly deserved oblivion.

No, it was the world that was fooled by climatologists, but not for much longer …
The argument that planets are still cooling off, or are somehow generating internal energy that maintains their existing temperature is not valid because …
(1) Every planet cools on its dark side at a rate which could easily have enabled it to cool right down (even in its core) to about the temperature supported by any external radiation. Venus cools about 5 degrees in 4 months, Earth cools by about 10 degrees in 12 hours etc. In other words, if the Sun existed but emitted no significant energy, it would appear that all planets in our Solar System could have cooled down close to absolute zero.
(2) So it must be energy from the Sun which is maintaining the existing temperatures on all planets and satellite moons, even down to their cores, and it must be doing so by raising the temperatures back up again by the amount equal to the cooling the night before. Why, for example, is the core of our Moon so much hotter than the surface ever is?
(3) Hence we require an explanation as to how the necessary energy gets into the lower troposphere, the surface and even below the surface of a planet or moon in order to maintain the current temperatures. In general, radiation from a colder atmosphere cannot actually add net thermal energy to a warmer surface and thus contribute to raising its temperature, because that would decrease entropy. This is established by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
(4) The original NASA net energy budgets for Earth did not show radiative energy transfers by the atmosphere to the surface, but they then found that the radiation from the Sun alone does not explain the mean surface temperature when using Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. Such calculations are inappropriate anyway, because what is effectively “the surface” is a very thin layer (let’s say 1cm thick) and about 70% of this thin 1cm layer is transparent water. A black or gray body is not transparent by definition, and so S-B should not be applied to a thin 1cm layer of transparent water. The mean temperature of the ocean thermocline (all of which is absorbing the solar radiation but not back radiation) is about 8 to 10 degrees below the mean surface temperature.
(5) Whilst for Earth climatologists and IPCC authors then claimed to overcome this shortage of direct solar radiation by adding back radiation, you cannot possibly imagine that this would “work out” on Venus. Such back radiation cannot participate in any raising of the temperature of the Venus surface and, even if you think it could, you would have to explain how it could be over 16,000 watts per square meter, somehow multiplying the energy in the incident solar radiation (20 watts per square meter at the surface) by nearly 1,000-fold. If you shine a light such that it reflects multiple times between parallel mirrors, do you create more energy? That is what the radiative greenhouse conjecture is implying can happen with radiation back and forth between the surface and the atmosphere.
(6) Between the base of the nominal Uranus troposphere and the TOA there is a mean thermal gradient which is very close to the usual calculated value (for the “Dry adiabatic lapse rate”) which is the negative quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. On Venus (as on Earth) the effective (environmental) lapse rate (thermal gradient) is reduced by about 25% to 35% by inter-molecular radiation between carbon dioxide molecules on Venus, and water molecules on Earth, together with some release of latent heat on Earth which may play a small part in producing the “wet adiabatic lapse rate” though not the major part. So, why is it so? Is it just a coincidence that the base of the nominal Uranus troposphere is 320K (hotter than Earth’s surface) which is just the right amount for the correct thermal gradient to exist in the 350Km of troposphere above, such that the temperature at the so-called radiating altitude is just right at around 60K? Likewise on Venus and other planets?