IGX

go back to p. 8 and read about the muller study. also note who funded it.

dead man walking wrote:go back to p. 8 and read about the muller study. also note who funded it.

Not saying there are not conservatives who are more towards the man made view DMW but you can not escape the fact of alot of the leftist agenda that has got into the green movment and the "scientist" who have been caught with an agenda.

I know the Military has looked into this (also know that there are a lot of careerist, non warriors at the top who bend down to suck political cock as well.) and it's considered a national security issue

Look I've seen you on here enough to know you are on the Left side of the fence and actually think Obama is good and you have seen enough of me to know I hope he dies. So we can just leave it at that and maybe you can argue with someone else about this as I have already stated I am open to the idea that we factor into the climate.

Now this is kind of like where those with an agenda but skew the data or rig the experiment do, but I am not running experiments. I think just by how nature works and how interconnected the ecosystem is that we have to be having an effect on it, I just don't think with what I have seen on the subject that it.

I do not want us to go green nuts and then let others have an economic advantage over us because that is more directly pressing for us and our children.

I put enough stock in it that if I was Thugutator I would have plans drawn up to invade central Canada if they would not go for annexation into the USA if temps and the agricultural region shifts farther north.

But I am unapologetic about putting the USA and it's people before anyone else and am all for taken from or the killing of others to ensure our prosperity if more peaceful means don't work.

Fuck the Brits for just letting their Empire slip and accepting being a 2nd banana.

If your kid was starving and another kid next to him/her had food, you would take. If there was no food period that other kid would become food. You can say your above that but history of hard times shows different, I'm just honest about it what I might do.

I've seen bleeding hearts and Jesus freaks become real aggressive scum fucks under far, far less dire circumstances.

you're in virginia, aren't you?

take to the high ground and stay away from the coast:

The combination of land subsidence, sea level rise, flat and low tidewater topography and intensive coastal real estate and infrastructure development puts southeastern Virginia, namely the Virginia Beach/Norfolk/Hampton Roads region, at extreme risk from storm surges. . . . An analysis . . . identified this region as the 10th most vulnerable in the entire world to flooding from storm surges and in the United States, second only to Miami. . . . The US Navy and Air Force, which have spent many millions of dollars to harden their facilities against flooding, are taking climate change into account in plans for the future of their bases in the region. Insurance companies have realized the potential for serious losses. CoreLogic, a real estate data firm, estimates that in the event of a major storm more than one-third of the houses in the Hampton Roads region would suffer flood damages.

Most property and casualty insurers operating in the mid-Atlantic area now refuse to insure businesses and primary residences in the coastal region. . .

. . . The pace of sea level rise at Norfolk is the highest on the East Coast because the shoreline is subsiding and global warming is increasing the rate of sea level rise, both because of thermal expansion and the melting of land ice. . . . An extensive analysis based on catastrophe modeling and 10,000 simulated storm tracks super-imposed on shoreline characteristics found that the mid-Atlantic region is more at risk than even the Gulf Coast or Atlantic Florida.

Give me a break-- those coastal areas have always been flood, erosion, and storm prone. It's only changes in laws governing insurance companies (existing insurance companies can't drop coverage or raise rates to appropriate levels) and federal subsides that have made building in those areas possible.

Edit: Even the New York Times isn't falling for that climate change line: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/scien ... d=all&_r=0

I get more and more curious with every post. Should we as a world community go back to using products like the old rite guard spray and aquanet so we can make holes in the ozone to release some of the man made green house gas?

How long did the ice age before the little ice age last and how long did it take to get to its coldest point?

What I find funny about this whole thing is, if their was no man made warning and we were cooling off, the same people would still think the sky was falling. They would post about how we are all going to die in a new ice age.

Lewis Medlock wrote:
What I find funny about this whole thing is, if their was no man made warning and we were cooling off, the same people would still think the sky was falling. They would post about how we are all going to die in a new ice age.

Especially if they thought they were at cause.

You know, it's good to have a conscience.

Thud wrote:

Lewis Medlock wrote:
What I find funny about this whole thing is, if their was no man made warning and we were cooling off, the same people would still think the sky was falling. They would post about how we are all going to die in a new ice age.

Especially if they thought they were at cause.

You know, it's good to have a conscience.

Conscience my ass, conscience plays no more a part than it does with any other religious zealots. weather and temperature is your devil. As the chart above shows your preachers and priest prophesies are off, but that is ok if we are to live we must have faith. They just need more cash so their good work can go on.

We cooled off at a very fast pace during the Little Ice age now we are warming up at about the same pace. Why would we expect, that pace of warming would not be as fast and why would we not expect the same temps as before the Little Ice Age?

OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth's surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, "the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade."

Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise. Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models. If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-a ... -emissions

Maybe 'climate uncertainty' should replace 'climate change' as the new buzzword-- would more effectively cover for the limited/nonexistent predictive value of the current theories.

Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years.

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.

Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.

The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750. This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says.

"But it does not mean global warming is a delusion."

The fact is temperatures between 2000 and 2010 are still almost 1C above their level in the first decade of the 20th century.

"The mismatch might mean that for some unexplained reason there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-2010.

"Or it might mean that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/fe ... 6609140980

Yesterday The Economist published an article about climate sensitivity – how much the planet's surface will warm in response to the increased greenhouse effect from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, including amplifying and dampening feedbacks. For the most part the article was well-researched, with the exception of a few errors, like calling financier Nic Lewis "an independent climate scientist." The main shortcomings in the article lie in its interpretation of the research that it presented.

For example, the article focused heavily on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade, and a few studies which, based on that slowed surface warming, have concluded that climate sensitivity is relatively low. However, as we have discussed on Skeptical Science, those estimates do not include the accelerated warming of the deeper oceans over the past decade, and they appear to be overly sensitive to short-term natural variability. The Economist article touched only briefly on the accelerated deep ocean warming, and oddly seemed to dismiss this data as "obscure."

The Economist article also referenced the circular Tung and Zhou (2013) paper we addressed here, and suggested that if equilibrium climate sensitivity is 2°C to a doubling of CO2, we might be better off adapting to rather than trying to mitigate climate change. Unfortunately, as we discussed here, even a 2°C sensitivity would set us on a path for very dangerous climate change unless we take serious steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

dead man walking wrote:

Yesterday The Economist published an article about climate sensitivity – how much the planet's surface will warm in response to the increased greenhouse effect from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, including amplifying and dampening feedbacks. For the most part the article was well-researched, with the exception of a few errors, like calling financier Nic Lewis "an independent climate scientist." The main shortcomings in the article lie in its interpretation of the research that it presented.

For example, the article focused heavily on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade, and a few studies which, based on that slowed surface warming, have concluded that climate sensitivity is relatively low. However, as we have discussed on Skeptical Science, those estimates do not include the accelerated warming of the deeper oceans over the past decade, and they appear to be overly sensitive to short-term natural variability. The Economist article touched only briefly on the accelerated deep ocean warming, and oddly seemed to dismiss this data as "obscure."

The Economist article also referenced the circular Tung and Zhou (2013) paper we addressed here, and suggested that if equilibrium climate sensitivity is 2°C to a doubling of CO2, we might be better off adapting to rather than trying to mitigate climate change. Unfortunately, as we discussed here, even a 2°C sensitivity would set us on a path for very dangerous climate change unless we take serious steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective
Posted on 28 March 2013 by dana1981

http://www.skepticalscience.com/hausfat ... ivity.html

Got any other "peer reviewed" literature by Dana1981, DWM?

About Skeptical Science

The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realise the planet as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove". However, what is causing global warming is a purely scientific question. Skeptical Science removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on the science.

About the author
Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist.

Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible).

There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any organisations or political groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer wife.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml

This is from the article that Dead Man Goosestepping cited above...... http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/au ... ausfather/

Climate sensitivity is an important and often poorly understood concept. Put simply, it is usually defined as the amount of global surface warming that will occur when atmospheric CO2 concentrations double.

The wide range of estimates of climate sensitivity is attributable to uncertainties about the magnitude of climate feedbacks (e.g., water vapor, clouds, and albedo)

Water vapor is responsible for the major feedback, increasing sensitivity from 1 C to somewhere between 2 and 4.5 C. Water vapor is itself a powerful greenhouse gas, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is in part determined by the temperature of the air.

Temperature where? Surface, in the Oceans up in the stratosphere? This sentence is vague.

That increased atmospheric water vapor will also affect cloud cover, though impacts of changes in cloud cover on climate sensitivity are much more uncertain. What is clear is that a warming world will also be a world with less ice and snow cover. With less ice and snow reflecting the Sun’s rays, melting will decrease Earth’s albedo, with a predictable impact: more warming.

Will there be more clouds, maybe? More clouds with better reflectivity of the infrared light? Less? More? More rainclouds, less snow.....

How about an equation, asshole. The "Science is settled" which means we ought to see a set of equations, right? Skip the poetry and word pictures, show me an equation, and the data while you're at it.

There are several different ways to estimate climate sensitivity:
Examining Earth’s temperature response during the last millennium, glacial periods in the past, or periods even further back in geological time, such as the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum;
Looking at recent temperature measurements and data from satellites;
Examining the response of Earth’s climate to major volcanic eruptions; and
Using global climate models to test the response of a doubling of CO2 concentrations.

The author then shows some teeny tiny graphs. You can see them on page 738, http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/p ... natgeo.pdf What you see is Correlation. It's been a truism for centuries that Correlation is not Causation.

The grey area shows IPCC’s estimated sensitivity ranges of 2 C to 4.5 C. Different approaches tend to obtain slightly different mean estimates. Those based on instrumental temperature records (e.g., thermometer measurements over the past 150 years or so) have a mean sensitivity of around 2.5 C, while climate models average closer to 3.5 C.

Climate sensitivity is an important and often poorly understood concept. Put simply, it is usually defined as the amount of global surface warming that will occur when atmospheric CO2 concentrations double. These estimates have proven remarkably stable over time, generally falling in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C per doubling of CO2.* Using its established terminology, IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report slightly narrowed this range, arguing that climate sensitivity was “likely” between 2 C to 4.5 C, and that it was “very likely” more than 1.5 C.

Here's the 'punchline'....

So what about climate sensitivity? We are left going back to the IPCC synthesis, that it is “likely” between 2 C and 4.5 C per doubling of CO2 concentrations, and “very likely” more than 1.5 C. While different researchers have different best estimates (James Annan, for example, says his best estimate is 2.5 C), uncertainties still mean that estimates cannot be narrowed down to a far narrower and more precise range.

Ultimately, from the perspective of policy makers and the general public, the impacts of climate change and the required mitigation and adaptation efforts are largely the same in a world of 2 or 4 C per doubling of CO2 concentrations where carbon dioxide emissions are rising quickly.

In Carnival games and in Confidence tricks the operator will fill the person's head with incidental details in order to confuse them about the conclusion.

Here's the conclusion.....

Ultimately, from the perspective of policy makers and the general public, the impacts of climate change and the required mitigation and adaptation efforts are largely the same in a world of 2 or 4 C per doubling of CO2 concentrations where carbon dioxide emissions are rising quickly.[/quote]


aka

The Sky is Falling!
The Sky is Falling!

The author of this tripe is Zeke Hausfather....

Here's his academic background...

Yale University
Masters of Environmental Management, Energy Systems

2006 – 2008

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Master of Science (M.Sc.), Environmental Economics

2005 – 2006

Grinnell College
Bachelors of Arts, Political Science and Economics

2001 – 2005

I'm not a climate scientist. I did work in both basic and engineering R&D.

Data talks.

Bullshit walks.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bNLOfKv_hI[/youtube]

Zeke Hausfather
Zeke is the chief scientist at C3, an energy management and efficiency company. He is an energy systems analyst and environmental economist with a strong interest in conservation and efficiency.

C3 Energy offers smart grid analytics SaaS solutions that enable utilities to realize the full promise of their investments in the smart grid.

The C3 Energy Analytics Platform is unique in its ability to integrate massive amounts of disparate data, apply sophisticated multi-layered analytics, and provide highly usable portals that generate actionable real-time insights.

Our enterprise-wide approach provides utilities with end-to-end system visibility across supply-side and demand-side smart grid operations.

If a Scientist working for "big oil" or "big coal" is "biased" is the same not true for someone who works for a "smart grid consultant".


Fuck you, Dead Man Goosestepping!!

Gene, Gene, scientist Gene. 10 feet tall and motherfucking mean.

are you going to tell me the acidification of the ocean is part of a natural cycle, like the fluctuation of temperatures?

OYSTER BAY, Wash. -- The tide rolls out on a chilly March evening, and the oystermen roll in, steel rakes in hand, hip boots crunching on the gravel beneath a starry, velvet sky.

As they prepare to harvest some of the sweetest shellfish on the planet, a danger lurks beyond the shore that will eventually threaten clams, mussels, everything with a shell or that eats something with a shell. The entire food chain could be affected. That means fish, fishermen and, perhaps, you.

"Ocean acidification," the shifting of the ocean's water toward the acidic side of its chemical balance, has been driven by climate change and has brought increasingly corrosive seawater to the surface along the West Coast and the inlets of Puget Sound, a center of the $111 million shellfish industry in the Pacific Northwest.

USA TODAY traveled to the tendrils of Oyster Bay as the second stop in a year-long series to explore places where climate change is already affecting lives.

The acidification taking place here guarantees the same for the rest of the world's oceans in the years ahead. This isn't the kind of acid that burns holes in chemist's shirt sleeves; ocean water is actually slightly alkaline. But since the start of the industrial revolution, the world's oceans have grown nearly 30% more acidic, according to a 2009 Scientific Committee on Oceanic Resources report. Why? Climate change, where heat-trapping carbon dioxide emitted into the air by burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels ends up as excess carbonic acid absorbed into the ocean.

That shift hurts creatures like oysters that build shells or fish that eat those creatures . . .

dead man walking wrote:are you going to tell me the acidification of the ocean is part of a natural cycle, like the fluctuation of temperatures?

OYSTER BAY, Wash. -- The tide rolls out on a chilly March evening, and the oystermen roll in, steel rakes in hand, hip boots crunching on the gravel beneath a starry, velvet sky.

As they prepare to harvest some of the sweetest shellfish on the planet, a danger lurks beyond the shore that will eventually threaten clams, mussels, everything with a shell or that eats something with a shell. The entire food chain could be affected. That means fish, fishermen and, perhaps, you.

"Ocean acidification," the shifting of the ocean's water toward the acidic side of its chemical balance, has been driven by climate change and has brought increasingly corrosive seawater to the surface along the West Coast and the inlets of Puget Sound, a center of the $111 million shellfish industry in the Pacific Northwest.

USA TODAY traveled to the tendrils of Oyster Bay as the second stop in a year-long series to explore places where climate change is already affecting lives.

The acidification taking place here guarantees the same for the rest of the world's oceans in the years ahead. This isn't the kind of acid that burns holes in chemist's shirt sleeves; ocean water is actually slightly alkaline. But since the start of the industrial revolution, the world's oceans have grown nearly 30% more acidic, according to a 2009 Scientific Committee on Oceanic Resources report. Why? Climate change, where heat-trapping carbon dioxide emitted into the air by burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels ends up as excess carbonic acid absorbed into the ocean.

That shift hurts creatures like oysters that build shells or fish that eat those creatures . . .

Let's focus on the facts.....

1. What type of acid is present? Then and now? There MANY KINDS of Acids besides carbonic acid.

2. What is the change in concentration (from what to what)?

3. How did the "scientists" estimate the acidity of ALL OF THE EARTH'S OCEANS this time around and "since the beginning of the Industrial revolution"? What estimators did they use?

Let's start, DMW, with your latest favorite.... "Skeptical of science".....

Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-c ... ssions.htm

Let's do it again - high school chemistry time.

The total mass of the Earth's oceans is 1,400,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons or roughly 1.4 x 10^18 metric tons, or 1.4 x 10^21 kg of seawater.


Of that amount here is a representative distribution of what constitutes "sea water".

Component Concentration (mol/kg)
H2O 53.6
Cl− 0.546
Na+ 0.469
Mg2+ 0.0528
SO2−4 0.0282
Ca2+ 0.0103
K+ 0.0102
CT 0.00206
Br− 0.000844
BT 0.000416
Sr2+ 0.000091
F− 0.000068

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater

53.6 mol/kg H20 / seawater kg x 1.4 x 10^21 kg of seawater. = 7.504 x 10^22 Mols H20

Per this site half of the world's output of carbon dioxide "ends up" in Earth's oceans.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... arbon.html




Per Skeptical of Science.....

The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-c ... ssions.htm

The "human load" on atmospheric carbon dioxide constitutes one part in 120..... That alone ought to get some attention, but the Climate hysterics don't focus on that - it won't get everyone behind a "social revolution to seize the means of production".

6 'gigatons' (notice how they use such SCARY figures as "gigaton") constitutes 6 x 10^12 tons is from people. Let's assume it's metric, or 6 x 10^15 kgs of carbon dioxide.

Of that the oceans can "take" 3 gigatons or 3 x 10^15kgs of carbon dioxide, at 44 grs/mol.

Currently per the above there are 37,400 billion tons (3.74 x 10^15 tons of carbon dioxide in the Earth's oceans) Which means that annual human contribution is 3.74 x 10^15 tons CO2/3 x 10^12 tons carbon dioxide or just one part per thousand per year. Yeap, that's right - one part per thousand MORE each year of the same shit that we breathe out, plants breathe in and that apparently is going to turn the Earth into a gigantic pressure cooker.


Let's look at the molar calculations....

There are 7.504 x 10^22 Mols H20 in the earth's oceans and lakes. The human race emits 6 x 10^15 kgs of "carbon dioxide" or 6 x 10^18 grs CO2 x mol/44gr = 1.36 x 10^17 mol carbon dioxide

Half of that will dissolve into the oceans.

6.8 x 10^16 mols carbon dioxide will dissolve into the Earth's oceans.


Divide mols of H20 by mols of carbon dioxide 7.504 x 10^22 mol H20/ 6.8 x 10^ 16 carbon dioxide = 1.10 x 10^6 mols of H20 for every mol of carbon dioxide. Each year.


About one part per million per year of "extra carbon dioxide" per year. Assuming that carbonic acid, which is a "weak acid" isn't buffered by all of that magnesium and calcium floating around in the oceans. Which is a weak assumption.


In contrast the above table shows sulfate at 53.6 H20 divided by 0.0282 of H2SO4 or 1900 mols of H20 per mole of sulfate.

This means that sulfate is 579 times more common in sea water than the entire human contribution each year.


Do you expect everyone here to believe DMW that this pitiful amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's oceans will "acidify it"? Are you that fucking gullible?

BucketHead wrote:Gene, Gene, scientist Gene. 10 feet tall and motherfucking mean.

Come here, Bux, let me plant one right on your forehead!!

*smooch*

gene,

you should send your brilliant note with its calculations here:

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/

if you get the word out, you could relegate junk science to the trash can.

dead man walking wrote:gene,

you should send your brilliant note with its calculations here:

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/

if you get the word out, you could relegate junk science to the trash can.

Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it, DMW.

From 1934 to 1940, under Lysenko's admonitions and with Stalin's approval, many geneticists were executed (including Isaak Agol, Solomon Levit, Grigorii Levitskii, Georgii Karpechenko and Georgii Nadson) or sent to labor camps. The famous Soviet geneticist Nikolai Vavilov was arrested in 1940 and died in prison in 1943.[9]

Genetics was stigmatized as a 'bourgeois science' or 'fascist science' (because fascists — particularly the Nazis in Germany — embraced genetics and attempted to use it to justify their theories on eugenics and the master race, which culminated in Action T4).

Despite the ban, some Soviet scientists continued to work in genetics, dangerous as it was.[citation needed]

In 1948, genetics was officially declared "a bourgeois pseudoscience";[10] all geneticists were fired from their jobs (some were also arrested), and all genetic research was discontinued. Nikita Khrushchev, who claimed to be an expert in agricultural science, also valued Lysenko as a great scientist, and the taboo on genetics continued (but all geneticists were released or rehabilitated posthumously). The ban was only waived in the mid-1960s.

Thus, Lysenkoism caused serious, long-term harm to Soviet knowledge of biology. It represented a serious failure of the early Soviet leadership to find real solutions to agricultural problems, throwing their support behind a charlatan at the expense of many human lives.

Almost alone among Western scientists, John Desmond Bernal, Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College, University of London, and a Fellow of the Royal Society, made an aggressive public defense of Lysenko and some years later gave an obituary of ‘Stalin as a Scientist.’ However, despite Bernal's endorsement, other members of Britain's scientific community retreated from open support of the Soviet Union, and may have been one of the chief reasons for a retreat from Marxism in that country.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

The Soviets had their fling with "Politically Correct Science". We are having ours.

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.

After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well. "I fell in love," he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states. 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.

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.

Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Bas ... e10973.htm


This is an interesting article. Doesn't talk about Polar Bears, Glaciers and the heart break of psoriasis. Just some explanations and some tough assed equations.


Climate Disaster boosters claim to have "refuted" the man's work, probably to keep those Grants and Fellowships going. Zagoni sticks to his guns.




I don't work in the field. Maybe the Climate Hysterics are right. Maybe they're not right. They won't act like Scientists and put their data on there.

As Richard Feynmann said - "You have to show why your theory won't work as well as why it will work.". Isn't any great shakes - tell the whole truth.

Fuck - I'm still waiting for someone to figure out how stupid it is to measure carbon dioxide on top of an active volcano. Another amateur stunt by a bunch of paid hacks.


PS

The irony is that I agree that relying upon Fossil fuels is stupid. They're called "Fossil" because they're not being made any more. Sooner or later we're going to get into a major shooting war with China or India over oil.

Where I "get off the bus" is relying upon Windmills and Solar Cells - both are Mental Masturbation.

We need Thorium Cycle nukes and Fusion. Both have been proven to work, especially liquid Thorium reactors. The US Government dumped Thorium reactors because they wanted to subsidize weapons production by using civilian power plants to sustain mining and enrichment. Thorium breeds U-233 which burns fine and will breed more U-233 from Thorium. Thorium is five times more common than Uranium, is found in many places. Geothermal energy is derived from decay of radioactives including Thorium.

It'll hold until fusion reactors become more practical.


Too bad that guys like DMW don't want to sustain civilization. They want to run things.

so you haven't sent your calculations to the scientists who say the oceans are growing more acidic?

your know-nothing assessments of the character dead man walking are not unlike your assessments of climate change.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUNKVvd19C4[/youtube]

http://principia-scientific.org/support ... ional.html