What Do We Think About Climate Change

AGW is still bovine scat.

 

Ah, yer no fun. No weird quotes, nothing taken out of context, no questionable sources...just a flat statement of belief. How can I pick on you? There's nothing to get a handle on.

 

If I had a dollar for every time I heard that...

AGW would still be BS.

 

BS; That would be the methane...
Lemme find the numbers om that one....

 

I thank you for that. Sincerely.

Best regards.

 

Boston, it's not a matter if someone is an 'odd ball' or whatever, but if he's right or not or at least if what he says makes sense. When will you learn?

That kind of scorning attitude happens only in the GWA camp: There is no web site (at least up to what I know) in the Cool camp devoted to specifically list and attack opponents to the AGW CO2 theory, like they do in deSmogBlog, Real Cimate Wiki, etc, etc. Don't you realize that? Have you asked yourself why?

BTW, you confounded David Stockwell with a said "Stockton" in your post 4418. Who is he?

I'm curious to see if Miskolczi answers you.

And about your statements about his work not being admitted to peer review that's only your assumption, as the reviews you mention from RC Wiki and the like, are not at all part of a peer review process. And of course you have realized Levenson's rebuttal is neither a paper, but just a personal opinion published in his web site, while Miskolczi's paper has been published by the Hungarian Metereological Service, not by the Boy Scouts. Science is not only done in the USA, even you have to admit that. Don't commit the same kind of errors you attribute to others.

Cheers.

 

The desert spaces of the world are relatively reflective, except where plants capture light rays in the process of photosynthesis, simultaneously capturing and holding CO2 in the form of organic chemicals, primarily cellulose. When that natural reflection is disturbed by the introduction of "green" energy technology, in essence solar panel arrays, the result is the light is trapped and is transformed into energy of either mechanical or thermal type. Mechanical energy, such as used as the motive force in the electric car, inherently loses some efficiency in the form of friction, which we also know as heat. Thermal energy, having been transformed from electrical "friction" in resistance coils, is used to toast your breakfast scone, with that resultant heat also ultimately being lost to the immediate environment. Return the deserts to their natural state and restore their natural reflectivity.
The windswept places of the world are places where the great and lesser raptors fly in their rightful domain. These same areas are much-sought as installation points for huge wind machines that capture this atmospheric circulation generated by the sun to be converted into electricity which in turn is used to create mechanical and thermal energy so that one can drive the electric car and munch on a freshly toasted scone, this time at the expense of buzzards from the condors to the lesser vultures and seabirds from the albatrosses to the gulls and terns.
Oh, and the rich liberals who advocate these atrocities only want them placed in view of other world dwellers of a lower economic standing. They want all the supposed benefits of them but only if they don't actually have to look at them from their seaside villas or their Aspen retreats. What a bunch of hypocrits!
I will stick to burning petrol for as long as it is legal because it is put there by God for our use, and when that is all gone it is back to whale oil for me.

 

Hoyt, I think the wind was put there by God, too. And it doesn't get used up, or harder and harder to access. And if you think wind farms don't get built where rich people have to see them, you haven't driven through Palm Springs anytime in the last forty years.

Nor do I think we'll ever manage to cover the deserts with enough solar panels to make any noticeable difference in their overall reflectivity--even if that were a legimitate concern, which I doubt. Solar panels are measured in square feet, and the desert I live in is measured in thousands of square miles.

 

Who said the wind gets used up? Don't try to put words in my mouth. So who has the right to decide which part of the desert or seaside is "ugly" enought for a crap farm?

 

Still the birds get chopped up though, no matter where you put the blades.

 

Dig more coal.

 

If you love something, set it free, like CO2.

 

Now let's have a look at what Stockwell says about Miskolczi's work in his very long and detailed analysis:

Controversy: Is Fo=Su-Fo+Ed-Eu=OLR a valid conservation of energy equation?
http://landshape.org/enm/modeling-global-warming/

Controversy: Is the identification of KE=Eu and PE=Su valid?
http://landshape.org/enm/the-virial-theorem-miskolczi-part-2/

Controversy: Can Ed=Aa be attributed to Kirchhoff’s law, or not?
http://landshape.org/enm/kirchhoff-law-miskolczi-part-3/

Controversy: Is Bo(τ), the shell temperature as a function of optical depth unimodal?
http://landshape.org/enm/radiative-equilibrium-miskolczi-part-4/

Stockwell says:
"...its clear that the main magnitudes of fluxes are defined by the global constraints introduced, except for the solar input Fo and the geothermal input Po. This is why Miskolczi states that current warming could not have been due to greenhouse gases, and if driven by anything, must be due to variations in solar input.

Keep in mind that my goal to this date has been to understand his theory and not to defend it. It seems like many people on the web are keen to attack without understanding first. While there have been some insightful doubts expressed about the theory, and about the way the theory is exposed, I have yet to see an objection that shows any of the relationships Miskolczi describes is wrong."


Also read:
http://landshape.org/enm/models-of-greenhouse-effect/
http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-effect-physics/
http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-heat-engine/



Miskolczi’s discovery arose from his regular work for NASA, examining the data measured by radiosonde balloons. Studied and analyzed under the microscope of the radiative transfer computer program that he had written, the large data set turned out to be a previously only partly tapped reservoir of a wealth of physical facts. From the reservoir of numerical data, Miskolczi abstracted mathematical formulae that expressed new physical understanding.

Miskolczi did not set out to make his discovery of the climatically saturated greenhouse effect, but it turned up as something that he accidentally noticed in the course of his regular work for NASA. He informed he had important results. When they realized that, they tried to withhold Miskolczi’s material from publication. His boss for example, sat at Ferenc’s computer, logged in with Ferenc's password, and canceled a recently submitted paper from a high-reputation journal as if Ferenc had withdrawn it himself. That was the reason that Miskolczi finally resigned from his ($US 90.000 /year) job.

NASA never falsified or even tried to falsify Miskolczi's results, on the contrary, they fully understand it. They know that it is correct and see how important it is.

(Extracted from several sources)
Cheers.

 

I don't think that is generally the deciding factor....

 

Matt Simmonds - NH3 - Offshore Wind --> Liquid Fuel, sounds OK to me.