What Do We Think About Climate Change

thought this was interesting though

would be interesting to see if our boy ever answered any of these rebuttals but since no one is really taking the paper seriously by citation within the published works it would seem I guess unnecessary to bother with an official rebuttal to the paper

kinda the way it works for those who are not published and may not be familiar with the process
if your paper is ignored and no one bothers building on it with subsequent papers then there is really no reason for dissenting opinions to bring themselves forward through the process and fight for a retraction

essentially its not worth the effort
which is apparently the case with this particular paper

hope that clears thing up for you
cheers
B

if you would like I can invite both these parties to the forum and let em duke it out
might be kinda interesting

 

Something quick from an interview to Miklos Zagoni, having to do with Ferenc Miskolczi's work. And a video. More tonight.


“I am not sceptic at all”, Zagoni said, “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong. New developments in the physics of greenhouse effect and radiative transfer show that the accepted theory leads to largely exaggerated global warming projections”. The new results were achieved and published in peer-reviewed periodicals by his fellow Hungarian physicist dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, who has been principal research scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center in the U.S. for years. And in 2 years no one has published a rebuttal

Dr. Zagoni can give talks and lectures to layman and expert groups and university people. “The new results of Dr. Miskolczi prove that the accepted theory contradicts fundamental physical principles. The Earth maintains a controlled greenhouse effect by strict energetic constraints”, he said. “Runaway global warming seems physically impossible.”

“We obviously do not deny that a certain change in the climate is taking place. This might be a mix of natural processes and consequence of the influence of human activity on the Earth’s surface (land use change and deforestation might altered the surface reflectivity, modifying the amount of the absorbed solar energy). We also accept that the climate has warmed during previous centuries. What we challenge is the cause: Our results show that it cannot be the increase of atmospheric GHG composition.”

“If we are right, extra CO2 cannot enhance the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Powerful energetic feedbacks drive it back to its equilibrium state. Fluctuations are possible in the stochastic system of the climate, and time-scales are to be thoroughly examined, but the average surface temperature is clearly limited by the global energy balance. Incoming energy of the sun, planetary albedo, water vapor cycle and the partial cloud cover may be the main players on the scene.”

“According Dr. Miskolczi’s calculation on the NOAA 60-years global average database, during these decades the Earth’s greenhouse effect remained constant. The atmosphere equated the increase of CO2 with minor modifications in the hydrological cycle.”

”This may sound crazy to those accepting the common wisdom. But I will present data and the computations and I welcome anyone who can come and falsify Dr. Miskolczi and myself."




Miklos Zagoni is a physicist and science historian at Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, now governmental adviser. He is a well-known science writer in Hungary. He participated in the Hungarian Academy of Science’s climate change project and was the expert-reporter of three documentary films on that project. His list of publications, interviews, papers, and book chapters on the issue is more than 200 items (most of it in Hungarian). He used to be a global warming activist and Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.


Ferenc Miskolczi is an atmospheric physicist specializing in atmospheric radiative transfer. As a senior principal scientist he worked on several NASA projects related to atmospheric remote sensing problems and the evaluation of the Earth’s radiation budget. In 2005 he resigned from the AS&M Inc. (a NASA contractor). His recent interests are in quantitative radiative transfer problems of the planetary greenhouse effect.


Of course we have discussed climate sensitivity previously in this thread. As well as we had posted about Miskolczi before.

Cheers.

 

Excellent !
So just as the electromagnetic weather model says.
Co² counts for close to ...Peanuts ...;-), Snoop !

A much more sensible subject to study would be the change of the nuclear processes of the stratosphere that could be much more impacting than CO², for our future
http://ppg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/1
http://www.sepp.org/key issues/ozone/depcause.html
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.pc.30.100179.002303

Thanks Guillermo !

 

Guillermo, I've never given anyone negative points--in this forum, or in my own. It isn't my style. I tackle people I disagree with head on, in public. If I ever change my mind and start handing out negative points, rest assured I'll sign my name. I've gotten a few anonymous negative points myself, and I didn't respond by jumping to conclusions and blindly accusing someone without proof.

I didn't bring up the 'somewhat poetic paragraph.' You're the one who quoted it as though it proves something. I repeat: it's such an absurd statement I thought you were joking when I first read it, until I saw who the poster was and realized you were serious.

 

That's more than just wrong; it's a blatantly false statement. You can' make it come true simply by repeating it until people get tired of refuting you.

 

So she admitted nothing other than to confirm the substance of the Peiser letter, which is that the search string she used was flawed. THAT'S why she did not find papers that disagree with AGW; it's not that those papers do not exist.

As Peiser later asked, why do we need a 'peer-reviewed' process to confirm for us the obvious, which is that numerous peer-reviewed papers that disagree with the AGW narrative do exist? The papers themselves have already been accepted by peer-review, so why do we need 'permission' from another peer-review process to go out and find them, look at them or consider them?

The whole thing is so obviously facetious and political that it's laughable!

Jimbo

 

I'm very, very sorry and heartly apologize. Someone gave me negative points referring to your post with the verses and I stupidly asumed it was you. Please admit my excuses.

Cheers.

 

Well, you should avoid expresions as "blatantly false" as many of us think you are the wrong one. As a matter of fact all clues (may I say facts?) lead us to think AGW "hard core" proponents are just a few dozens of scientists in the world, managing funds and power. They hide and treat data to their convenience, as well as struggle to ban opponents off the peer review process and main magazines. The majority remain silent or refute, and of those who follow either do it based in data provided and governed by the "team", or then do sustain warming but not the alarmism or defend AGW but caused by manmade influences other than CO2.

Cheers.

 

In my opinion it is not absurd at all if you put it in its intended context.
And talking about absurdities, what do you think of this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...tudent-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

Cheers

 

Høyh!

I'll quote:

it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.​

Quote end.

Uncertainities about when climbers started to observe loss of ice, doesn't nessesary mean the main conclusion is false; There's loss of ice in some (large) regions... I've been to some mountains in my life, too few... But some places, that I've been to more times; there's a trend; loss of ice... That's my observation and "feeling"...

and caused by?

There we'll have soot from human stoves (and increased number of people with stoves), co2, methane, natural variations. You can name it. But CO2 has some properties mechanical/ physical that can't be argued away from... But is it within the natural variations? I don't know, but I use the seatbelt in the car.... Life is uncertain, I still don't see no reason to not be careful.

And to those who say it's not warming... Well, here its cold as hell (Helheim, the vikings believed was a cold place). Radio warning to drivers... (here in Norway...?). But the birds still tend to come earlier in the spring... So what triggers the migration of the birds? The temperature and climate where they are in the winter, or the temperature the expext to find here...? Or is it as simple that they have been bought by IPCC?

Not all birds are blondes...

 

Miklos Zagoni is another odd ball if you ask me. Not a climate scientist but lots of opinion that is taken as gospel by the deniers given his flip flopping on the issues. Nationalism ?

interesting that the paper you mentioned on radiative forcing was ignored though, two or three years down the road and still no citations, thats telling.
Or at least thats how papers got measured back in the day. Even one or two citations was considered being ignored depends on the subject of the paper .

I'll send him the rebuttal and see if he responds
if he does I'll send his response on to Levensen for comment
( I just used that e mail you provided and sent Levensen's rebuttal )

I do have to wonder why he would not engage in the defense process and just sent his paper to panel after panel hoping it would be eventually accepted

thing is the major publishers have excellent panels and can in detail review the validity of a work
as publishers get smaller there panels get more and more constrained in there expertise, eventually you might get a panel that knows nothing of the actual subject of a paper but passes it anyway.
which is why people seek out the "respected" or "prestigious" publishers when they are really on to something. Lends a lot of credibility to the paper to have say, the journal of science or the MMM publish there work.

just a thought
am wondering if you know if he made a defense and if those transcripts are available
there were apparently multiple rejections so he had multiple opportunities to make a standing defense

 

Hey Knut its not about the ice melting
its about "proof"
the deniers want unequivocal "proof" and not just the obvious observations of local people

its why they are called deniers
they simply deny anything is happening
ignore the evidence,the scientific process, the vast body of work in support of the theory, the physics, hopefully my spelling
and demand proof

you cant prove the force behind gravity either but
do you really want proof of its effects

the deniers would say
of course the ice is not melting
we have no proof
and never mind if the ice climbers have not had any ice to climb for a while

 

Well, no. I shouldn't avoid the expression 'blatantly false,' if it's appropriate. The vast majority of scientists worldwide don't believe AGW is a joke. And fasteddie has been involved in enough discussions to know it, I'm sure.

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

When even the oil industry's geologists start climbing on board, who's left?

 

Well, I agree that it's an absurdity. Someone needs to be fired, if the article is correct.

However, the fact that a few bits of supporting research or evidence may be absurd or wrong doesn't invalidate the entire premise. This is not the OJ trial, where defense lawyers get to argue that if even one little iota of evidence is questionable, unproven or wrong, we have no choice but to come back with a not guilty verdict.

 

A very gracious apology, and I certainly accept it. It was a reasonable assumption on your part, particularly since you don't know me personally.