It’s intuitively obvious to the casual observer!

The reason why the NASA report on this was suppressed is rather interesting. Next week: proof that this theory is “totally wrong,” supplanted by new theory. Following week: That theory is “totally wrong,” …

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations “Totally Wrong”

Miklós Zágoni isn’t just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.

That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Langley Research Center.
[…]
“Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations,” Miskolczi states.

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution [which] ignored boundary conditions by assuming an “infinitely thick” atmosphere.




  1. Mister Catshit says:

    #61, J,

    I’m thinking pedro might be correct and you are dumb. But geeze, so many of the deniers, including pedro, are sure making you look brilliant. (LOL)

    A tip of my hat for the very well made posts you and some others have made. All of you know who you are.

  2. #43 – TGW,

    MSM has ignored peer-review on the subject since about 1988. Why would they change just because there’s a single article on the other side?

    They’d much rather get your opinion and mine. Hey, that’s two people who disagree. There must not be consensus on the subject. (Never mind that neither you nor I are climate scientists or that neither of us has ever published a peer-reviewed paper on any subject, let alone climate science.)

  3. #69 – Me,

    Oh, and one more point. With two people who disagree, they get to claim balanced journalism!!

  4. J says:

    # 68 Mister Catshit

    Thanks! I guess. lol

    “All of you know who you are.”

    That make me paranoid!!! LOL

    # 71 pedro

    “Seems you know as much about the world as I do”

    I am sure it seems that way to you.

    Besides you are the one that claimed to live south of the US border. I only commented on what you claimed.

    “The beauty of it all is that, even though I know nothing, you waste your energy trying to diminish me. Good job!”

    Well. I feel the need to refute your nonsense because despite how stupid you are there will still be someone that will buy into your bullshit if not offered an alternative.

    Just so you know there is nothing I would like more than to know that I am completely wrong about Global Warming. Unfortunately, I know the math and I know the science and I know most of the people who jump on board with evidence they don’t even comprehend and attempt to claim they have found the truth that GW is false are nothing more than pawns.

  5. MikeN says:

    If you have improved your browsing abilities from the last time you called me a liar, you should be able to see the links for yourself. CO2 goes up hundreds of years AFTER planetary temperature.

  6. J says:

    # 73 pedro

    “#72 thanks for offering alternative bullshit to mine”

    Pedro that is what makes you stupid. The reason my bullshit is better than your bullshit is that I have an education and fact to back it up. If you can prove anything I have said here is wrong PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!!

    # 74 MikeN

    “If you have improved your browsing abilities from the last time you called me a liar, you should be able to see the links for yourself.”

    I don’t believe anyone called you a liar here in this thread. That would be evidence of how you make stuff up or imagine them. All anyone is asking is back up you claims with links to proof. If you can’t, the validity of your claims should be questioned. Judging by you past comments my guess is you misinterpreted what you think you read.

  7. Mister Catshit says:

    #75, J,

    In fairness, I did refer to MikeN as “Lyin’Mike”. You are very correct though. It is because he pulls comments out his ass and wants us to believe them.

    #74, Lyin’Mike,

    If you are so convinced that you are correct, please post a link to a reasonable article confirming your point. It is not only rude to suggest I do your work for you, it is pretty silly. You claim it, you back it up.

    Although peer reviewed sources are the best, there are many less prestigious sources that are still suitable. I would suggest National Geographic and Science Daily as examples of good sources. I rank Rush Limbaugh as a poor source.

  8. J says:

    # 76 pedro

    “So far, all you’ve done is call everyone a liar ”

    I have called no one a liar in this thread. That I know for sure. You imagined that just like you imagine that you have an education and know what you are talking about.

    “and that they don’t know what they’re talking about because you are”

    Well I call a spade a spade. I thought you understood me pedro. How sad!

    “and no one that thinks different can be right.”

    Oh you are so wrong about that pedro. Different is good. What I have a problem with is people like you. You are the kind of person that is an uneducated half wit who like to pretend that they understand something but couldn’t bind their shoes if they were velcro. How is it you have formed an opinion of something you don’t even understand? You my poco pedro are the BOLD one.

    I will be the first to admit when I am wrong as long as someone has a valid legitimate argument or has evidence to prove me wrong. I have yet to see either of those scenarios. Please feel free to point one out here in this thread.

    The truth is pedro you don’t know differential calculus and I bet that makes you feel inferior because you can’t make a statement that has any credibility on this thread. That doesn’t stop you though does it?

    Like I said pedro put up or shut up. Since you have nothing to put up I suggest you shut up.

    # 77 Mister Catshit

    “In fairness, I did refer to MikeN as “Lyin’Mike”.”

    Oh see I read that differently. I thought you meant he was “lyin'” around expecting everyone else to do the research for him. lol 🙂

    Yeah Ok. Mike I retract that last post about no one calling you a liar. I guess Mister Catshit hinted at that possibility that you were full of shit.

  9. Glenn E. says:

    The television media obviously heard about this. On the very saturday evening, stations were rerunning the Nobel award ceremony of 2007. Where they announced Al Gore’s movie and how GW was no longer in dispute. Though I think Uma got even that wrong, by stating the wrong group of scientists as “opposing” it. When they were really the UN’s list of those supporting it. But yes Uma, the list is twindling. Anyhow, what a coincidence that they rebroadcasted this eh? Coincidence hell!

  10. J says:

    # 80 pedro

    Go back and look at posts #5, #13, #30, #35, #61, #71, #73, #76, #80

    That is all the “evidence” in this thread that you are an uneducated halfwit.

    Like I said PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

  11. mike says:

    To the person who claimed GW “must be true” because his glaciers are melting, I have to point out they’ve been melting a lot longer than 100 years. Sea level has been rising (and glaciers retreating) for at least the past 7,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age.

    To the person that claimed Venus “proves” runaway GW exists, this is also incorrect. The fact is we don’t know anything for sure about Venus. The recent Magellan expedition has determined the surface is covered with active and recent lava flows….much of Venus’s excess heat is likely geologic in origin. And let’s not forget Venus receives twice the level of solar insolation, has 250,000X the amount of CO2 in an atmosphere 90X as dense, and also contains essentially zero moderating water vapor. Comparing Venus and the Earth is risky business indeed.

  12. GF says:

    J J you’re wound up too tight. Haven’t you figured out that you just don’t matter in the big skeem of things? You’ll be dead soon enough from natural causes. Don’t worry about the Earth it will still be here even after you are dead and recycled. 😉

  13. Mike says:

    > “OK, we have a single peer reviewed article claiming that solar forcing is 100% responsible for global warming…”

    There’s quite a bit more than “a single” article which disputes the media’s view of AGW. There’s been over a dozen major papars just in the past year alone.

  14. Mister Catshit says:

    #84, Mike,

    There’s been over a dozen major papars just in the past year alone.

    A dozen? I’m impressed! Could you link to, oh say, about 3 or 4 of them? How many papers with a contrary position have been published in the past year?

  15. J says:

    # 83 GF

    “J you’re wound up too tight.”

    Nah! I am just a horse swatting flies with my tail.

    “Haven’t you figured out that you just don’t matter in the big skeem of things? Don’t worry about the Earth it will still be here even after you are dead and recycled. ”

    I couldn’t agree more. We are all of minute importance but don’t be fooled that we, in our limited power, could not fuck all life on this planet out of exsistance.

  16. Mike says:

    > “but don’t be fooled that we, in our limited power, could not fuck all life on this planet out of exsistance.”

    Do you believe in fairy tales also? The earth has been far colder and far warmer in its past. From the depths of the Cryogenian period’s “snowball earth” to the hottest parts of the Eocene Thermal Maximum (where the Arctic reached tropical temperatures) and life still survived..and thrived, in fact. These temperature ranges are far in excess of what’s predicted from GW over even the next 1,000 years, much less 100.

    Take the K/T Boundary, for instance, in which a gigantic asteroid slammed into the earth, causing a 600-foot tidal wave to circle the globe up to 3 times. So much saltwater and dirt were thrown up in the atmosphere that it rained salty mud for six full months over the entire earth. The initial heat from the blast caused world temperatures to rise to over 150 degrees….then the atmospheric changes caused temperatures to drop like a rock, causing anything which survived the heat to endure years of an artificial ice age. And did THAT kill all life on the planet? No.

    This is an event many millions of times more disastrous than GW ever thought about being (even back 15 years ago, when our early estimates of warming made it far worse than it really is). And it didn’t “fuck all life on the planet”. About half of all species went extinct…but those which didn’t actually thrived. Yes, THRIVED. In fact, were it not for the K/T event, man (and mammals in general) would have never predominated.

    GW is predicted to cause an increase of about 3C, spread over the next 100 years. That’s not a catastrophe. In fact, its almost certain to be beneficial to life on the planet. A very few poorly-adapted species may go extinct … but most of the rest will thrive. A warmer, more mild climate means more plant growth, and that means more food for all. Not just humans, but all animals.

    The historical record makes this clear. Total biomass *increases* during warm periods, and decreases during cold ones. Warm weather is good for plants and animals…and especially good for the most important species of all — mankind.

  17. J says:

    Mike

    You make some really crazy statement in your last post and some just plain wrong. If you really want me to refute all of them I will but let me say this before you make that decision.

    First you need to stop looking things up on wiki and thinking that somehow makes you knowledgeable about an issue.

    Second I will retract my “all” statement and say that yes it was an improper description. Let me instead replace it with “a lot” , “most”, “many”, “shitloads”, “tons”, or “too many”.

  18. Mike says:

    J,

    Just the tactic I expected from you — refute nothing, and instead spend your time attacking the messenger.

    Fact facts. You’ve been sold a bill of goods. A 3C warming isn’t going to kill “shitloads” of people. It will be very slightly warmer than the Medieval Climate Optimum, which was the most fertile and productive period of human civilization yet known….in large part due to the warm, mild climate.

    Recent research has indicated that GW will result in *less* hurricanes, not more (I posted the link to a few of these studies already, though the moderator has not yet approved them)

    Nonsense about flooding cities is just that — nonsense. The IPCC predicts a 23cm rise over the next 100 years, 9-12cm of which is natural in origin. That means GW is causing roughly a six INCH rise in sea levels. In 100 years. Only a worry for those already on or very near sea level already. And I’m quite confident that 22nd-century technology can raise our existing sea walls and levees by another six inches — we’re building them 10 – 15 high in places already.

    The IPCC has already scaled down their dire predictions drastically. The Fifth Assessment Report (if they ever release one) will scale them back still further. The science is moving that fast. What we believed true in the early 1990s no longer holds true. The climate is far less sensitive to CO2 than we once though.

  19. J says:

    “Fact facts.”

    LOL anything but.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

    “which was the most fertile and productive period of human civilization yet known….in large part due to the warm, mild climate.”

    That is nothing more than an opinion and a poor one at that.

    “Recent research has indicated that GW will result in *less* hurricanes, not more (I posted the link to a few of these studies already, though the moderator has not yet approved them)”

    Well I didn’t know they were filtering. Maybe that is something new. Anywho. I would love to see this “research” because it doesn’t match the research I have here

    “Nonsense about flooding cities is just that — nonsense……Bla Bla Bla”

    Again nothing more than an opinion.

    I am going to stop now because it is late and you really have nothing to show. You ask why I attack you and not your evidence. The problem is you don’t present ANY!!!!! You blather on about things you think you know when at best it is a misrepresentation of the facts.

    Like I said just because you can search Wiki and Google doesn’t mean you understand what you read. Your house of cards has no foundation.

    Oh and one last kick

    You posted this.

    “From the depths of the Cryogenian period’s “snowball earth” to the hottest parts……. ”

    The Cryogenian period and the “snowball earth” are not one and the same. That is like saying a commercial and a sitcom are the same. Commercials take place during a sitcom but do not comprise the entire time frame. Not to mention that the whole “snowball earth” concept is still under a great deal of debate. Again, stop reading Wiki.

  20. Mike says:

    > “Anywho. I would love to see this “research” because it doesn’t match the research I have here”

    Sure.. I’ll post it again (put the http: back in the links to make them functional)

    Latest research from the NOAA:

    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080122_warmeroceans.html

    Which corresponds with this earlier position paper:

    sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1766-2005.36.pdf

    As well as this earlier testimony before Congress, of Dr. Chris Landsea of the Hurricane Research Center, and former member of the IPCC (another one of the many scientists who quit in protest over the politicization of the IPCC’s results)

    http://www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/legreg/testimon/107f/landsea1011.htm

  21. J says:

    Ok Mike

    Did you even bother to read the links you posted?

    Here is what you posted in #89

    “Recent research has indicated that GW will result in *less* hurricanes, not more ”

    NOT ACCURATE AT ALL!!!!!!!

    The NOAA article you posted and obviously didn’t read says

    “a gentle decrease in the trend of U.S. landfalling hurricanes when the global ocean is warmed up. This trend coincides with an increase in vertical wind shear over the tropical North Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, which could result in fewer U.S. landfalling hurricanes.”

    Do I need to explain how that doesn’t back up what you said?

    Now for the impact and research on GW’s impact on hurricanes…… I don’t have time to respond to all of your ignorant attempt to show evidence you don’t even understand or comprehend. You have no idea how such conclusions were reached which is evidenced by you crazy claims. I am out of time on this and with you. I will instead give you two links that refute your claims.

    http://tinyurl.com/24t3x9

    http://tinyurl.com/2ue5m6

  22. pat says:

    “Observations from 1854 to 2006 show a warming of sea surface temperature occurring almost everywhere over the global ocean”

    1854 is shortly after the end of the little ice age. I would expect that warming. It would be strange not to.

  23. bobbo says:

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/mar08/6056

    Related material on how business is investing in the effects of GW. Science gains validity when you see related issues being tied in with topics that may be controversial in a vacuum?

  24. no_one_really_cares says:

    I have yet to witness a big rush from either political side of the fence or people in general. I must assume that most all publishing here live in a home/apartment/other dwelling that is solar and wind powered, collect your own rain water, grow your own food, and drive the most fuel efficient vehicle to work, and that you are the ones fixing the problem rather than just complaining about a single man or group which is doing nothing. TAKE YOUR POLITICAL BULL @*&^ ELSE WHERE!

  25. bobbo says:

    #95–no one==what the heck are you trying to say?

    Having no idea, it might still be relevant to say that whether you believe in GW or not, whether you are taking steps to use less energy or not, GW is a worsening condition that humans/governments can do something about===or not.

    Pick you subject and make sense.

  26. anon says:

    ok, WTF! why are people even discussing this. I thought this was a joke.

  27. DrBlizzardo says:

    Man, oh man–as a professional scientist and world class climbing bum I am always amazed at these long, drawn out posting sessions (one hesitates to call the “discussions”) by the professionals, amateurs and ignoroids on science topics (any science, not just global climate change)– not amazed at the content, mind you, just amazed that there are people out there who appear to have even more spare-time than I do.

    Get back to work, you loafers!

  28. newskeptic says:

    CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 385ppm. That is 0.0385%. Of that, 0.117% is man-made. CO2 is good for the planet. Reducing CO2 does will not reduce warming! We are a pretty arrogant bunch to think we can control climate! The activity of the sun drives climate. Temps worldwide have been lower since 2002. I do believe in doing our best to drive fuel efficient vehicles and not pollute though!


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5477 access attempts in the last 7 days.