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.
# 32 MikeN
You don’t understand differential equations do you? As a matter of fact you don’t understand anything that was in that article do you?
Ya’ll a bunch of monkeys. Now go look up the “black body radiation” equation. Didn’t understand? thats ok energy emmited = bullshit times temp to the fourth.
#36 J
What kind of BS attack is that? My degree is mathematics, and guess what, I can’t understand those equations either. Want to know why?
Because: 1) They are barely legible, 2) they aren’t complete, and 3) none of the terms are defined.
God, the arrogance of fools. You jackasses have no damn clue what the impact of these equations mean. Nobody on this board does.
Stupid fools at that.
Yea, fine… but is global climate change legal? If its illegal can we sue the atmosphere? what about God? has anyone understood the black body business yea damnit?
# 38 Smith
You missed the entire point of my post on #36 and are in fact making the same argument as I am. I will however respond.
“My degree is mathematics, and guess what, I can’t understand those equations either. ”
I could beat you over the head with that statement but I will instead be nice about it.
Let me ask you. Applied or just plain old mathematics?
If the former then shame on you. If the latter……”Well that would explain that.”
“Want to know why? Because: 1) They are barely legible, 2) they aren’t complete, and 3) none of the terms are defined.”
1) Untrue. You clearly haven’t spent much time looking at the article yourself because if you did you would have noticed that if you click on the image it will enlarge to a very readable form.
2) Untrue. Besides if it was barely legible and you don’t understand it how can you make such a claim.
3) Untrue. WTF are you talking about? Oh does OLR confuse you? All of those terms should be familiar to anyone who has studied mathematics and geophysics.
Like I said You clearly did not understand why I said what I said but since you wanted to be a dick about it I felt the need to respond.
# 39 pedro
“#38 as I said in another thread (and you seem to agree with me), ignorance is bold.”
Pedro. You are the only one ignorant on this topic. Well you and a handful of others. But hey that hasn’t stopped you from opening your trap before.
# 38 Smith
You missed the entire point of my post on #36 and are in fact making the same argument as I am. I will however respond.
“My degree is mathematics, and guess what, I can’t understand those equations either. ”
I could beat you over the head with that statement but I will instead be nice about it.
Let me ask you. Applied or just plain old mathematics?
If the former then shame on you. If the latter……”Well that would explain that.”
“Want to know why? Because: 1) They are barely legible, 2) they aren’t complete, and 3) none of the terms are defined.”
1) Untrue. You clearly haven’t spent much time looking at the article yourself because if you did you would have noticed that if you click on the image it will enlarge to a very readable form.
2) Untrue. Besides if it was barely legible and you don’t understand it how can you make such a claim.
3) Untrue. WTF are you talking about? Oh does OLR confuse you? All of those terms should be familiar to anyone who has studied mathematics and geophysics.
Like I said You clearly did not understand why I said what I said but since you wanted to be a dick about it I felt the need to respond.
# 39 pedro
“#38 as I said in another thread (and you seem to agree with me), ignorance is bold.”
Pedro. You are the only one ignorant on this topic. Well you and a handful of others. But hey that hasn’t stopped you from opening your trap before.
Surprise, I agree with Catshit on this one. It’s one correction that doesn’t fully disprove anything.
However, it is part of a growing number of corrections that together may eventually convince the religious types. And yes, global warming is a religion for some. Look how the theory has now become dogma. Want proof? It’s no longer OK to label someone a skeptic, they’re now “deniers” (blasphemers). Even one correction like this shows up and some will immediately discount it because it doesn’t fit the IPCC model (Scripture).
Some say the skeptical scientists are all paid off by big oil. Well, on the other hand I have a hard time trusting “peer review” unless the peers were not paid by the Sierra Club, Greenpeace or the UN to name a few.
I swear some people desperately want AGW to be true, for some reason.
I hope this does get some MSM coverage, although it’s not likely. The local CBS anchor here has publicly stated that the “science is settled” and he has no need to report contrary studies or skepticism because it’s not real news. Somebody tell me that’s not journalistic malpractice with a straight face.
It’s fun to tweak people once in a while but real science is slowly doing it for me.
Don’t see this in the news either.
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
And I’m sure every single presenter here has been paid off.
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/background.cfm
#32, Lyin’Mike
… it is likely that as a planet heats up, it will emit some heat into space.
Geeze, the brilliance of some wing nuts never cease to amaze.
The earth radiating heat into space is supposed to equal the amount of heat received from the sun. It is part of the natural climate regulation.
When we put a cover over top the earth so the amount of heat escaping is less than being received, the planet will heat up. CO2 is just one of those covers that helps to retain heat.
The amount of retained heat on earth doesn’t need to be significant. A small fraction of a percent. That fraction of a percent though is from Absolute Zero and several million degrees C. So even 10 C will have significant effects on earth’s climate model.
For a home experiment, get two same size pots with an equal amount of water. Cover one while leaving the other open. Heat them over a similar size flame or heat setting. Watch to see which one boils first.
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.
Correct. CO2 do not go up because of warming, they are part of the warming process. Ice core samples have shown this to be true. So, if we don’t reduce the amount of CO2 released, we can expect more warming.
And I too am interested in the chemical experiment at home. Sheet, I don’t even know anyone who has a CO2 monitor.
#38, Smith,
I don’t care what your Major was in. It obviously wasn’t in reading comprehension. Very few people understand the math involved here. As lay people we aren’t interested in it. Nor do we need a math degree. I don’t think any of the DU regulars have PhDs in Nuclear Physics, but we know enough to not stand inside a reactor. The final equation is the significant result we need and want to hear.
“J” made the observation that MikeN doesn’t understand the concepts. He doesn’t. MikeN has posted silly arguments here, and in the past, that have no scientific backing and are never cited.
Besides, I am never impressed when someone tries to end an argument by saying they are the expert and thus any other opinion is negated or irrelevant.
Where’s the Chicken chicken power point when you need it? Real facts, thats what we need.
So, how many of you global warming belivers put your money where your mouth is? Is your house entirely solar? Is everything you use recycled, including the computer you used to post with? Do you drive an electric car or walk everywhere? – public traspo doesn’t count, it isn’t as effecient as they like for you to believe.
I’d love to know if you have an imapct statement for every potty visit you make and every exhaled breath you take.
Runaway greenhouse is a straw man argument. It has relevance to Venus, not Earth. In fact, the existence of Venus can be regarded as an empirical proof that a runaway greenhouse does not violate any conservation laws. In fact, the runaway greenhouse on Venus is *derived* from energy conservation and thermal equilibrium. But the fact remains that it has nothing to do with Earth. No climate model predicts a runaway greenhouse on Earth. They predict an increase of up to 6 degrees, not up to 900 degrees.
If his theory is all that good, he should be able to extract the ice age cycle out of it. That would have some relevance as far as verifying that it actually describes Earth.
This is from me, a gravitation theorist. I’m sure someone who knows more climate science than me will take the paper apart properly. But even I can see that it is a bogus argument.
They should dedicated a show on TV with scientists with opposing views on global warming explaining in full their reasons for their beliefs.
AND take questions from politicians and media representatives.
I mean, if this is the most important issue of our time, surely they can boot some of the junk that runs for a few weeks in primetime for this.
A very poor job has been done so far explaining the outstanding questions of the current global warming theories.
If the science supports it fully, then explain it on TV and end the argument.
/Gore’s movie doesn’t count. That was a one-sided propaganda piece that wasn’t balanced with the rigorous questioning that makes science = science.
You misread my post I think, but since you said I was correct I’ll restrain my skepticism. I said that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming. Ice core records have shown that temperature goes up BEFORE CO@ up, by about 700 years. CO2 is at its highest right before the earth starts cooling.
It always amuses me how much energy is expended on debating climate change. We have gone through this very discussion before, and the same reasonable conclusion is reached every time.
In this case I refer to #8. Why waste time on debate when we already know that our current consumption of resources is unsustainable? The answers to both climate change and human sustainability are the same.
It also amuses me that we like to bash China for what they are doing to their environment, while most countries are acting like China on a global scale. We take the immediate benefits without real consideration of the long term effects.
We need to reduce consumption, invest in renewable resources, and reduce our overall footprint on the environment anyhow!
# 45 TheGlobalWarmer
The Heartland Institute? Are you serious? The Heartland Institute? You have to be kidding right?
“We have with us, tonight and tomorrow, more than 200 scientists and other experts on climate change”- Joseph L. Bast President of the Heartland Institute
Do you want to guess how many of those 200 were actually climate experts and how many were economists and other branches of science that they so boldly claim are related to climate science? If you have the proof you shouldn’t have to pad the numbers like that. Just so you know they include people like George Will and John Stosell to be part of that 200. Those 2 guys are the first I turn to when looking for accurate studies on the climate.
# 49 GF
Not that this deserved a response because you are just being an ass.People who really care do the best they can afford to do. Some of us have an easier time with that. But no one is asking anyone to do anything all that demanding. The problem is that Americans have become way reckless with their behavior and now think they are entitled to it. You live on a planet with 6 billion other people. Have a little fucking respect for them and the planet you call home. You don’t own this world! You have a lease and the landlord is about to throw your ass out!!!
“So, how many of you global warming believers put your money where your mouth is?”
I do?
“Is your house entirely solar?”
Nope. It is Geothermal too.
“Is everything you use recycled, including the computer you used to post with?”
Not everything is recyclable but as much as possible. Old computers get donated. After that I don’t know where they end up.
“Do you drive an electric car or walk everywhere? ”
Hybrid LEXUS until my Tesla shows up. Can’t walk for security reasons.
“public traspo doesn’t count, it isn’t as effecient as they like for you to believe”
It is more efficient than every asshat driving a Sherman tank to work.
“I’d love to know if you have an impact statement for every potty visit you make and every exhaled breath you take.”
Now I just think you are being silly!
#53–Ah Yea==while I agree with your sentiment, factually you are wrong. Reducing the increase in global warming and increasing the sustainability of people on earth both require the same type of limited resources—ideas, time, commitment, money. They COMPETE against one another so addressing one often hurts the other. Where to put the resources, what kind, how much===all good questions not to be avoided by being simplistic.
#52–Mike==Scientist that you are, is this factoid proof of CO2 does not cause global warming—or is it an indication of the complexity of the global warming equations that remains to be explained????
You think you are literate, but you aint.
Yes, Bobbo, you are right. Compromises do have to be made.
At least we are asking the right questions, looking for real answers, and getting beyond the hysteria.
#57–Ah Yea==wish that was right. “Fact is” we aren’t addressing either issue?–in fact, most of the pressure for change that I can see, at least in USA, is in the opposite direction?
Still no energy policy. Movie of the weak showing the desperate attempts to get pregnant by some babe. Continuous message “to consume.”
Yea, verily, a population collapse will probably come BEFORE a world changing glacier collapse–but both are coming. If we aren’t already past the tipping point, nothing is in play to stop our getting there.
Aint traveling fun? I envy you with my memories, and yet, sedentary has its new appeal to me.
#54 – You immediately reinforce my argument. No they are not all climate scientists. Neither is the IPCC. Also, part of the purpose of the conference to to point out that there is a lot more in play here than climate science
Real science will win out if we don’t destroy our economy first.
So, just when are we supposed to see islands being swallowed by the sea, droughts sweep the globe, etc.?
# 59 TheGlobalWarmer
“Also, part of the purpose of the conference to to point out that there is a lot more in play here than climate science”
Yes. Everyone knows that. All of those opinions on economics and media pundits have no bearing on whether or not global warming is taking place and whether or not it is cause by humans yet people like you keep bringing up people who are economists and such as your experts.
“Real science will win out if we don’t destroy our economy first.”
I hear this stupid argument all the time and no economists has come up with anything but bad opinions that spending to correct the problems will hurt the economy. They offer NO proof just opinions.
If it is so bad for the economy why are some of the largest oil companies in the world investing in alternative energy?
Where old jobs go away new jobs will arise. The argument that it is bad for the economy is just a right wing pundit talking point. nothing more. No one can give ANY proof just opinion.
# 61 pedro
Oh you got me pedro!!!!! I hit the button twice because it responded slow. Wow I guess that makes me really dumb. Like you never have done that.
Besides, what do you have to offer to this conversation? Oh nothing! Just like every other post of yours on this board. You constantly post here with no knowledge of the topic on which you post and act like you have some great understanding of the world. YOU DON’T You are a troll! Why don’t you go crawl back into that hole of yours in South America or Canada or where ever you claim to be from and leave the discussion of important topics to those of use that have more than one brain cell functioning.
You are like that annoying guy in a poker game always claiming he has good cards but his shitty hand is written all over his face. Put up or shut up.
Yeah, that factoid doesn’t prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming. In fact it does as a greenhouse gas. However, the factoid shows that the current climate alarmism is more hype than anything else. There are many different facts that when they are discovered get played down by the alarmists as not that important. People kept saying that we have record levels of CO2 and the planet is overheating. Then we find out that in fact CO2 levels have been higher in the past. Now we also find out that CO2 levels go up as a result of the planet warming.
In response the scientists say we have these models that say CO2 causes warming. Why it’s a 5000 year warming cycle, and the time lage of hundreds of years is only 15% of that. So the earth’s natural warming causes co2 levels to rise, but co2 caused the rest of that warming.
Now we ahve charts of solar activity versus temperature that show a great deal of correlation, and the alarmists downplay that too.
So they are basically saying our models say co2 causes global warming, and they adjust all observed facts to fit the model, rather than the other way around.
By the way, it’s not just that this guy corrected the equations, he claims the final result matches observed temperature better than the previous model.
# 64 MikeN
Care to post links to any scientific papers that back up the claims you have made?
#52, Lyin’Mike
I said that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming.
Uuhhh, no you didn’t. What you said, and I agreed with, was:
It’s less obvious that carbon dioxide concentrations go up because of global warming rather than the other way around
It is less obvious because that is not the way it works. Green house gases rise before the average temperature rises. Remember, CO2 is not the only green house gas. It is, however, the one most prevalent and most abundantly created by man’s activities.
OK, we have a single peer reviewed article claiming that solar forcing is 100% responsible for global warming … and hundreds or thousands or more stating the reverse. I think paradigm shift will require more than this.
However, there is one thing that this does prove.
There is no conspiracy preventing publication of dissenting views on anthropogenic climate change, never has been.
So, now back to the real issue, climate change. I’ll post my usual question and expect that this crowd will, as usual, completely ignore it and go right on believing that climate change is not real because it’s just too scary.
Here’s my question. It’s based on data from a climate science text book.*
Think about why venus is warmer than earth. Despite its dramatically higher albedo than earth’s, making it actually receive less sun at the surface than earth even though it’s closer to the sun, it is much hotter than earth. Why? Because of runaway greenhouse effects. It has much higher carbon dioxide than earth.
Why is earth’s surface temperature a balmy average 15 degrees celsius rather than a cold -18 degrees celcius as would otherwise be expected based on the amount of sun that reaches our planet? Because of greenhouse gases.
How is it that anyone could believe that the earth will not be warmed by adding more greenhouse gases? I can’t imagine.
* The book is called Is the Temperature Rising: The Uncertain Science of Global Warming – S. George Philander: A relatively light book and highly readable for a climate science text book.