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. MikeN says:

    Wonder how much the biased media will talk about this. If it were a change in the other direction, it would probably be front page news.

  2. danthi says:

    The leftist media (CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, BBC, etc…) will not even recognize this as a news story because it does not fit their “progressive” agenda. Global Warming, now called “Gloabl Climate Change” (just in case it gets colder rather than warmer they can say – see we told you so) is a ploy by the so called elite to find new ways to tax the working class and control more of our lives and reduce our liberties.

  3. moss says:

    Well, I see the anti-science “scientists” have arrived, first. No comment on the equations, eh? No comment on peer-reviewed answers?

    That’s right. Your only peers are superstitious dweebs like Rush and Bush. Your only “answers” are political rationales and fear of science.

    Supported by two scientists with a proposal for discussion. Which will take place – outside the censorship of our government.

  4. BubbaRay says:

    Reminds me of Galaxy thickness discovery. Time for a new theory.

    http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=16197

    Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

  5. dewsr says:

    Now we know why the “Global Warming” activists don’t want to examine the data. just accept their theories, and re-order the world to their liking.

  6. QB says:

    Hmm, so this looks like a correction (not a big one) to CO2 level curve. Next it should be peer reviewed and if that goes well then models will be revised and tested with empirical data.

    Or, it’s a vast conspiracy. The only problem with that theory (sorry, assertion) is that most left wing, tree hugging, vegetarian cat owners that I know couldn’t couldn’t find the toilet paper aisle at a WalMart, much less organize a global conspiracy.

    I vote for the conspiracy theory comrade.

  7. jlm says:

    the whole debate about “global warming” being real or fake is just a distraction to keep from fixing very real problems.

    Forget about the global warming debate distraction for a minute and answer this…can anyone honestly say they believe we are not rapidly destroying this planet?

    Go ahead and enjoy taking sides and debating like sheep while we keep digging ourselves into a hole that we will eventually be unable to get out of.

  8. gquaglia says:

    The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing” -Socrates

    I think this quote is quite appropriate in this case.

  9. tallwookie says:

    there is no such thing as global warming anyway, its just a big scam, the shit is cyclical

  10. Mister Catshit says:

    I go with moss #3, and jlm, #8.

    First, there doesn’t seem to be a radical shift here but a correction.

    Second, the actual proposal has yet to be reviewed by other scientists..

    Third, This is the way science works. When someone notices or discovers a problem with conventional theory, the accepted science changes to accommodate the new information. Science will always evolve as new information becomes available.

    Fourth, the Luddites, Fundies, nay-sayers, neo-cons, and Lyin’ Mikes of the world will take a correction as proof that the entire theory is wrong.

    Will someone get back to me after this has been reviewed by knowledgeable people that know enough to rebut it with something other than ad homenins.

  11. Phillep says:

    Pedro, there’s several issues. The one addressed here is if a run away greenhouse effect is possible, not if global warming is possible or man made. (I’m in SE Alaska where the glaciers have been melting for the last 100 years, easily, so it sure looks like global warming is real, and natural.)

    The equation screw up (ifso) is exactly the sort of thing that could slide by people for decades.

  12. QB says:

    Jim, well said. We’re wiping out species at an alarming rate and destroying ecosystems and arable land like crazy. In a nutshell, we’re living beyond our means.

  13. Dallas says:

    WOW.

    Just look at all the polluter republicans coming out of the woodwork – and it’s been only 10 minutes out.

    Granted. This appears as great news. I hope this plays out. If that’s the case, I may just buy one of those 12,000 lb Humvee’s afterall! Yee ha – I can apply to be a republican!

  14. J says:

    For those of you that can not do differential equations I would caution you not to put a lot of faith in this. You will end up with egg on your face when you start to chant that this proves Global warming can’t happen.

  15. Hmeyers says:

    I think global warming is overhyped. I’m not convinced it is entirely true or if it is largely true, I’m not sure it is man-made.

    But I believe the USA deserves $4 or $5 per gallon gasoline because American consumers are absolutely wasteful of resources (Hummers, Lincoln Navigators, etc.)

  16. SwampGas says:

    Instead of “peer review” how about unbiased scientific review. There’s a difference.

    Don’t forget that the I in IPCC stands for “intergovernmental”. The IPCC is NOT all scientists. There are a lot of bureaucrats as signatories. The IPCC is also a UN organization and anyone who claims the UN is not biased against prosperous nations is just not credible. There are also a number of real scientists who went as far as to sue the IPCC to have their names removed from the final reports as they did not agree with the published conclusions.

    In the global warming arena, the “peers” doing the reviewing are mostly those who have preconceived notions they want to validate.

    With any luck, when the real science fully comes out, Al Gore will land in prison. In the mean time, no need to worry.

  17. Smith says:

    And of course, the peer-review process works. Did anyone happen to notice that this researcher could not publish his paper because his employer, NASA, blocked its publication? The same NASA which employs Dr. James Hansen.

  18. ArianeB says:

    Don’t trust any climate news that does not come from peer reviewed science journals. If you are like me and dont access journals regularly, then realclimate.org is the best place to go. Likely they will give you the real truth about this soon enough.

    I used to think like a “denier”, and the science convinced me. Those still in denial seem to live with blinders on.

  19. Greg Allen says:

    If “hear no evil see no evil” helps you emotionally, I can blame you much. I feel the same, considering the possibly dire future.

    But the evidence for global warming doesn’t hinge on one mathematical equation:

    http://tinyurl.com/fqjwc

  20. Greg Allen says:

    >> # 21 ArianeB

    I checked your suggested site “RealClimate” and it does seem like a particularly solid one. Thanks. I’m going to bookmark it. There is a lot of bad science out there and it good site is valuable.

    Here is a link to RealClimate’s start page:

    http://tinyurl.com/yox62y

  21. bill says:

    Look UP! The SKY IS FALLING!!!!

  22. Aaron says:

    Before you “repubs” get too excited, you better read the article! This theory only puts a limit on the amount of temp increase without saying what the limit is… If the limit is 300 degrees (like would be the case on the moon) then what difference does it make?

    Were still fucked if we boil the ocean!

    Also, small changes (which this theory does not dispute) can cause major changes in our climate.

  23. bobbo says:

    Well, the whole article is somewhat vague? Within this more accurate theory==what will be the human caused increase in CO2 effects on our weather? Just saying there won’t be runaway greenhouse affect doesn’t tell us at all what the long term effect that we could manage might be?

    Kinda like being for Obama because of his accomplishments and not being able to name one thing he has done–or one foreign accomplishment of Hilliary.

    Words.

  24. Sea Lawyer says:

    Um, the article clearly states: “His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.”

  25. Terry says:

    Leftist media, what a bunch of weak sisters you are. They have ignored global warning completely as their multi-national corporate masters have told them to. Man up.

  26. BertDawg says:

    As the truth starts to get legs, it will be interesting, if not amusing, to watch these thieving bastards jump ship. Can’t help wondering if it’s too late for the Nobel committee to get Al Gore’s award (and cash) back… The posturing alone will be worth the price of admission. Stay tuned.

    On the other hand, decimating the rain forests can’t be good.

  27. amodedoma says:

    It’s like fox news, right? If you get a blizzard, look there’s no global warming? Some ‘scientist’ finds a decimal point equation problem in one formula among hundreds, look there’s no global warming. Is it true that the media’s trying to scare us into being more ecological? Why would they want to do that? The guys at FNC would tell you it’s a left wing conspiracy. Is the average Joe really that stupid? Maybe not.

  28. MikeN says:

    It is intuitively obvious, as I posted about it before this guy published anything. He seems to have actually quantified it, but it is likely that as a planet heats up, it will emit some heat into space.

    It’s also obvious from looking at charts of solar activity vs temperature that the sun is the driving factor in global warming.

    It’s less obvious that carbon dioxide concentrations go up because of global warming rather than the other way around, but this is confirmed by historical measurements as well as basic chemistry experiment that you cando at home.

  29. bobbo says:

    #32–Mike==can you walk us thru that basic science experiment we can do at home? Thanks in advance.

  30. Canucklehead says:

    I’m an agnostic when it comes to Global Warming.

    But like #8, let’s go after the low hanging fruit and clean up things which we want to clean up anyway. If it helps reduce the global warming great.

    Things like reducing automobile emissions (not just CO2 but other toxic gases too), industrial emissions, energy consumption, etc.

    One way is to internalize costs. The real cost of gasoline should be borne by the gasoline consumers, not the general taxpayer. If you want to spew deadly chemicals into the air, and cause millions of dollars in health costs to others, you should pay for it. The same is true of other costs, and other emitters.


1

Bad Behavior has blocked 5522 access attempts in the last 7 days.