What Do We Think About Climate Change

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level, then beat you with experience."

Aaaarrgghhh!

 

Let's go back to work.

The Miskolczi-principle

Earth-type planetary atmospheres, having partial cloud cover and unlimited reservoirs of water vapor, maintain an energetically maximized (constant, ‘saturated’) greenhouse effect that cannot be increased by emissions.

Three quantities:
- the theoretical unperturbed equilibrium greenhouse effect;
- the actual empirical greenhouse effect; and
- the 1948-2008 61 yr average greenhouse effect

are the same, within 0.1C temperature difference.

With other words,
- the theoretical unperturbed equilibrium global average IR absorption of the Earth’s atmosphere: A=84.55%;
- the 1948-2008 61 yr global annual mean NOAA/NCEP/NCAR absorption: A=84.57%; and
- the global mean absorption from the independent TIGR-2 radiosonde database: A=84.69%

proves the validity of the saturated greenhouse effect concept.

In the past five years, no falsification emerged.


More at: http://miskolczi.webs.com/

Cheers.

 

From Leo:

"I'll believe that there are real scientists contributing to this thread when the most vocal debaters swap sides and give calm, cogent, arguments for that side of the debate "

Since when the scientists are reasonable people by default...?

They are just people. They are prone to all things negative like the rest of us.

This thread has become a joke long time ago. Guillermo is throwing avalanches of interesting but INCONCLUSIVE information, presenting it as if it was CONCLUSIVE.

In doing so, he's doing just what his oponents are doing: forcing his personal view on others as if it were the truth that the rest of us MUST accept. Or else...

It is time for this thread to follow suit and get shut down. In fact there are many threads that should be put under notice and people made to behave civilised or leave.

Too many disturbed characters barking at others when they dislike something others say.

Quite human: uncivilised.

And quite disappointing, yet to be expected, behaviour. It seems we have developed the sience only so that we can make better weapons to kill those "********", not to better ourselves and eradicate the violence and suffering we cause to each other.

 

In other words, you have no answer for me. That's because there is none that makes any sense at all.

I do have to admire the sheer brazenness of your non sequiturs, though; you didn't even try to pretend you were giving me an honest answer.

Think I've had enough of this thread again for a while. I'll check back in a few weeks or so, to see what new nonsense is being propounded....

 

the MISCKOLCOMBOBULATED THEORY exposed for what it is

several rather stinging reviews can also be had by following the links included ( if the links dont come up Ill fix it after dinner )

basically that guys a quack and his paper was rejected
but just to be fair I thought I'd post one analysis so everyone can see what Im trying to get at
which is that a reasonable discussion can only be had if you present a reasonable argument
and thats just not what's happening on this thread

next question please

Im a little unsure about the reason for posting that guys work is as I thought you wanted to discuss science
I suppose I have to ask why we are being asked to consider another rejected paper
doesn't make much sense if we are going to engage in a meaningful scientific conversation

I think you are getting frustrated maybe ( hope not ) at what you perceive as avoiding the question but all Im really doing is analyzing the arguments validity within the scientific community before Im willing to engage in the discussion

the issue with this thread all along is ( at least for me ) that the deniers fail to present a coherent counter theory to Rapid Global Climate Change and instead simply try to ( unsuccessfully I might add ) refute well accepted concepts and basic physics.

I have yet to see a single decent argument complete with multiple peer reviewed papers in support of and with any level of significant support by the scientific community rather than the small Cabal of deniers so often quoted and so thoroughly discredited that they are seldom taken seriously. Granted this last guy you quoted was at least a new name ( at least to me ) but still his work was easy enough to look up and the vast majority of hits were debunking his theory to the point of calling the guy a quack.

Im all ears and not doing much over the next few days so if you can present an honest well researched question I'd be happy to try and answer it,
trouble is the deniers are called that because they deny the basic science behind the theory. Discussing the particulars is a bit like putting the cart before the horse. You have to understand the basics before you can comprehend the particulars.

cheers
B

 

But Mann was/is a quack; he (alone) asserts that the MWP never happened, despite ample evidence in the paleoclimate record that it did. So we counter your favorite quack, Mann, with a quack we prefer, Miskolczi.



Jimbo

 

Excerpted from Benny Peiser's letter to the journal "Science"

"Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993 - 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question (2).

What happened to the countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain?....

These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004,
she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate
change" (3)...


RESULTS

The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study:

Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'.

322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view' but mainly focus on impact
assessments of envisaged global climate change.

Less than 10% of the abstracts (89) focus on "mitigation".

67 abstracts mainly focus on methodological questions.

87 abstracts deal exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent
climate change.

34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the
"the observed warming over the last 50 years".

44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change.

470 (or 42%) abstracts include the keywords "global climate change" but do not include any
direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions,
let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change."


Since this letter has been widely available on the internet for several years now, only willful ignorance could have kept it from the attention of any one interested in this debate.

Jimbo

 

Just in from the clubs and this is the best the deniers can come up with
another rejected letter
wow
can we please try and make this at least challenging

Benny Peiser's letter to the journal "Science was rejected
twice

for the simple reason
it was not worth the paper it was written on

yes they kinda blew him off but lets face it like adults
his work was summarily rejected
twice

basically they didnt even give him the time of day
Naomi made a simple honest mistake and then presented a correction
Peiser reacted like a five year old and would not let it go, but instead presented a letter of complaint, which was rejected twice
in the first rejection letter they just told him it was to long and misquoted to many times
so he shortened it and fixed some of the misquotes
it was rejected a second time on protocol and for wildly misrepresenting data
if you really want to see the rejection letters they are not that hard to look up
the second rejection letter said basically "thanks but no thanks and no, we are not going to support the internet PR campaign you are involved in"
and sent him packing :idea:

friend of mine I was hanging out with just tonight is a chemistry professor and he has recently written a paper on science education
he stands in front of a panel soon enough and there might be a correction or two
its not uncommon

in the end any fool can right a letter
but writing one that stands up to the scrutiny of the scientific community is what counts
Noami Oreskes is a well respected member of that community with not a singe dissenting published work against her that I am aware of
(could be one but I'v never seen it)

again an unsubstantiated claim
and deniers presenting a rejected paper

what is up with the deniers that they cann't come up with one singe peer reviewed and published paper in refutation regarding the consensus view that they so dearly deny

Oreskes paper was accepted and Peiser's refutation was rejected

yet deniers still cling to the fact that it was submitted at all and leave off the fact that it was rejected

what is up with that

I could submit anything and what
then claim that it has some validity simply because it was submitted
hardly

please people
3 am my time ( granted I came home a little early to work of the new web site )
but in my sleep I could see through that last ridiculous claim

simply because a paper is submitted does not lend it any credibility
it has to pas muster pas the review panel and hopefully end up published
then if its really worth its salt in will get cited
the number of citations is kinda a measure of the respect the paper gets within the community
virtually all of Naomi's work is cited numerous times

Peisers refutatio was flatly rejected with little more than a cursory view
and yet the deniers present it as some kind of jewel in the the crown of crap
which is exactly what it is :idea:

obviously the panel accepted Naomi's correction concerning the key words of the search and that panel having reviewed the amended data were satisfied with what they found

scientists are people, capable of error and the panels are set up to moderate that as well as is the scientific process in general
Peiser would have us throw out the baby with the bath water
the review panel saw right through him and summarily rejected his complaints, twice

twice

next question please

love
B

ps
I hope that did not come off to harsh but really
can we please step up the quality of the discussion
continually presenting rejected letters as some kind of evidence is just preposterous
if you really must believe in the deniers camp then why is there not a single viable supporting hypothesis that could be presented
rather than bogus rejected paper after bogus rejected paper attacking individual components of the consensus view
simply slandering the accepted science is hardly presenting a reasonable alternative to explain the vast quantities of data that support the consensus view.

cheers
B

oh
and as is typical of my research style I always look up not only the paper but also the author
what I found was also typical of the info presented by the deniers camp

something else that might be of interest is the following

and yes I edited this next because its late and this horse is dead and buried already

oh one more thing
did anyone else notice in Peiser's work that he concluded only a 3% disagreement with the theory of Rapid Global Climate Change

that means that your man and his rejected paper admitted what you folks will not

there is global warming
and it is caused by man


LMAO

from source watch

 

Boston again uses the tired argument that the only valid data is that from a peer reviewed paper. He fails to mention that the peer review process has been hijacked by the alarmist KoolAid crew. That's pretty well outlined in the emails he claims don't say anything even if they did exist. He is also the only one out there trying to say they were forged. He is also the only out there still saying C02 preceded warming. We all know his 97% claim is about as objective as a room full of adolescents (his emotional maturity) claiming ************ feels good after watching a porno flick. Of course his reasoning is probably somewhat scewed by tainted food from not wanting to use plastic for anything. For those of you who haven't followed his twisted logic in other threads he also wants to ban plastic production. What is truly amazing is his logic about any who disagree with him. We are all stupid, myopic oil industry hacks according to him. He never points out that the folks he calls hacks were chosen by the oil companies after their reputations were established. He doesn't mention that the profits of the oil companies will not be impacted as we will never stop needing the available petroleum for medicine, food, and transportation. Regardless of how expensive the process his vacuous minded ilk make petroleum production, the cost will simply be passed on to the consumer. Unless of course he favors nationalizing the oil companies which wouldn't suprise me any. Non-producing parasites and grant whores always want to steal from those who actually produce something and contribute to society. Making the oil companies a bogeyman just shows how faulty his logic is, if his zero growth mentality has any logic at all. Boston would make a perfect idiot bureaucrat in an Atlas Shrugged type of world.If Ayn Rand were alive today she would make Boston Wesley Mouche's nephew.

 

Boston, my beloved scatterbrains Scientist :
As always you don't take the care of investigating a little bit before posting your nonsense and the biased information you directly take, as faith articles, from the GWA sites. By the way, hiding from which one. Although it is most probably from one of those exclusively created and maintained to difame opponents you love so much. Very scientific.

Here Miskolczi's published (and accepted!) papers:


F. Miskolczi: Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres.
Idojaras — Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, 2007, Vol. 111, No. 1.

F. Miskolczi, M. Mlynczak: The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial radiation.
Idojaras — Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, 2004, Vol. 108, No. 4.


If you think he's a liar or doing bad science, you can tell him so at: fmiskolczi@cox.net

Cheers.

 

Absolutely unbelievable coming form you, who I consider has showed once and again one of the more uncivilized and bizarre behaviours in these forums. Do we have to add cinism now on top of it? I'm sad to learn that.

If you do not like this thread, it is easy: it is not an obligation to participate. But please respect what we are trying to do here, which is gathering and debating, up to the level of our little knowledge, the better available information for all of us to learn on the subject. Of course everybody is free to do it from his own position and it is good to be like that. I think Boston's posts are not solid, but at least he does the effort to go to the AGW camp's sites and bring here the information he thinks it's of use (although I would like to find in his posts more serious papers and less reality denying and personal attacks from him and the alarmists crowd).

If you have something useful to contribute, you're most welcome. If not, please stay away or then prudently silent.

Cheers.

 

That's enough.
Here you have my answer again: http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/mar102009/703.pdf
Read it carefully and use your brains, please, instead of coming here to rant your unfruitful frustration around.

Cheers.

 

Causes and effects

When talking heat, wind, light, warming... we talk of effects, not causes
Why electromagnetic causes debate is absent of the discussion ?

 

Kistinie,
Magnetism has been treated in this thread, as per example at:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/op...bout-climate-change-21390-118.html#post265740

Search for "magnetism", "magnetic" and the like.

Cheers.

 

So when Oreskes herself admitted to the substance of Peiser's rejected letter, that doesn't count, as her admission was not 'peer-reviewed', right?

Anyway you are a total hypocrite on the subject peer-review, accepting as you do the silly idea of the long CO2 residence time, when ALL; 100%; the unanimous conclusion of, the peer-reviewed measurement studies say it is short.

Whither your insistence on peer-review, there, Bat Boy?

Jimbo