Global Warming Update - Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong" »
Posted by: bobo-in-texas 5 months, 3 weeks ago134 Comments Report this Story
MiklÃ;³s ZÃ;¡goni 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.
Read Full Story at dailytech.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 134
-
0%
bobo-in-texas5 months, 3 weeks ago
"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."
Uh-Oh! Somebody needs to call Al Gore. That carbon offset business may not be such a good investment after all.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM5 months, 3 weeks ago
NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.
Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."
His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.
Reply-
0%
RickyDawkins5 months, 3 weeks ago
Global warming is the name given to the fact that the world's temperature has been rising over the last two hundred years. Global warming may become a problem for the world. Some people say it causes floods and storms.
Today, the atmosphere of the world is about a half a degree Celsius warmer than it was two hundred years ago. Many people want to know why the earth's climate is changing. Some say that the changes are caused by people themselves (by cars and factories, for example). Others say the change is natural and not the fault of humans.
The average temperature at the surface of the Earth has gone up by 0.6 Celsius since the late 19th century[1]. This is known as Global warming. Some scientists think that the warming of the last 50 years is believed to be a result of increases in the greenhouse effect caused by human-generated carbon dioxide (CO2).
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Reply -
0%
RickyDawkins5 months, 3 weeks ago
A "theory" in science is not just an idea in the mind. It's something which has been tested and well-confirmed. Climate theories are difficult to test and often rely on computer models. Today, many scientists agree that the "theory" that global warming is caused by human activity is true. Still, because scientific answers are found through experiment and not votes the search for the cause of global warming must go on.
Climate models show that temperatures will probably increase by 1.4°C - 5.8°C between 1990 and 2100. Much of the uncertainty in this increase results from not knowing future CO2 emissions, but there is also uncertainty about the accuracy of climate models. Climate commitment studies predict that even if levels of greenhouse gases and solar activity were to remain constant, the global temperature will increase by 0.5°C over the next one hundred years due to the lag in warming caused by the oceans.
Reply -
0%
PapaWolf5 months, 2 weeks ago
>>"Money"
Are you kidding? When this administration & the Rep-led Congress have been doing everything in their power to repress any confirmation of "Global Warming" - even going so far as to edit scientific papers & reports?
That's a joke. Right? The only money the past congress wanted to spend was on the military.
Reply
-
NemoShiZniTComment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
rdy2rck5 months, 3 weeks ago
You said it right Bobo. "Business". That's what global warming is now.
And it doesn't need this scientist to figure this equation out.
EARTH goes through changes plus man pollutes it=not good.
What's hard to figure out.
Reply-
-
0%
rdy2rck5 months, 3 weeks ago
I wasn't referring to math Bobo. Yeah it's in question but it's simple like my equation.The math IS in question. Who cares except the people profiting from it.Let's clean up mans mess as best we can and go from there.The Earths gonna do what it's gonna do.
But let's apply the dough where we can have the most effect before jumping to possible incorrect conclusions.
Reply
-
0%
injest5 months, 3 weeks ago
You said it right Bobo. "Business". That's what global warming is now.
And it doesn't need this scientist to figure this equation out.
EARTH goes through changes plus man pollutes it=not good.
What's hard to figure out.
Sorry but due to "how" the Global warming/Global freezing campaigns have been ran, the obvious conclusion is that it has NOTHING to do with "cleaning up the planet.
It has EVERY thing to do with control and power.
Reply
-
-
0%
pismo5 months, 3 weeks ago
Well, the whole global warming thing does not matter anyway because if the predictions about fossil fuels running out or the supply becoming very limited by 2050 are determined true then we might as well kiss our fruitful economy goodbye. It's more than just energy. Just ask yourself if you could maintain your current lifestyle without it. Look around and notice all the things that would not be possible if it not for polymer based products. How many of us would not have a job if it weren't for petroleum based raw material. Global warming is not the immediate threat even if it is real. In my opinion, going green just helps us maintain a sound economy further into the future. Don't mean to be so dramatic here, but it is going to a very interesting next 50 years.
Reply-
0%
CovalentBond5 months, 3 weeks ago
Drama has been used by the Doomers from the beginning. All we need is level headed well thought out solutions. Methanol from corn is not a solution. It produces more CO2 and raises the price of food. Making it harder on the poor and people on fixed incomes.
The high cost of heating fuels has had an impact on everybody this very cold winter as well.
Reply
-
-
0%
dglspres5 months, 3 weeks ago
My scientific research when plotted on the regression charts indicates that 98% of the time scientist are 2% correct.....
My,my, I think I've heard a lot of people, including myself, state that we are not in man made global warming but in a 'Mother Nature" desire to change for a short while .... I remember my greatest grandfather talking about global warming during the ice age ... they blamed it on too much mammoth dung, so they stopped riding them.....
Good article Bobo
Reply -
0%
Mdiar5 months, 3 weeks ago
Interesting story. Very interesting. I hope that this theory is pursued alongside the theory of man-made global climate change. All scientific paths must be pursued.
Reply -
0%
Endoscopy5 months, 3 weeks ago
My goodness! What will Al Gore do now. First the Russians and now the Hungarians. They are picking on him. LOL
There were the people in science that said global warming caused by humans was wrong but they were shouted down. Where are those touting it on this thread. Too embarrassed I guess. Aw gee. Aidenag and Goppy negged it but didn't say anything.
A previous problem that was touted and pushed into law was the concept that freon caused the ozone layer to thin out and have holes. They now know that was sun spots. However we are stuck with fazing out freon that works great and going to its replacement that does not work as well and is caustic. Increased cost of using materials that stand up to the new freon replacement.
Reply-
0%
Tangent0015 months, 3 weeks ago
From what I've read, this gentleman is not saying Global warming is a lie, or that it is not contributed to by human activity. He is saying there is a limit to the extent of the warming. If that is indeed the case, the truth will out, always does especially in science.
Reply
-
-
0%
svensun5 months, 3 weeks ago
The really sickening part is that many of the AGW proponents, who claim to be scientists, will just refuse to even honestly consider this study, and will most likely criticize it with ad hominem attacks because it was not published in a 'respected' (i.e. one of the journals that they and their AGW supporter/friends do the peer reviewing for, thus giving them the chance to kill any threat to their livelihood in the cradle by preventing its publication, then running around claiming that papers with opposing views were not 'in the right journals.
Reply -
0%
vettenut5 months, 3 weeks ago
Now that Glow Bull Worming seems to be totally de-bunked, I have a word of encouragement for all you socialist-leaning, power-hungry, US-hating, self-flagellating types:
All is NOT lost!
There IS an emerging money and power-laden opportunity on the horizon!
Please read the following:
The UN's IPRC (International Panel for Rotational Change) has determined that the earth is in IMPENDING PERIL due to the actions of the people of developed nations, ESPECIALLY THE US.
This crisis is called "Glow Bull Wobbling."
These scientists have determined that the huge amount of materials and goods from under-developed nations to countries in the Earth's Northern Hemisphere (especially from China to the US) is creating an imbalance in the earth's equilibrium.
Much like an improperly balanced automobile tire, the earth is becoming like a "child's spinning top that is OUT OF BALANCE!!!
(continued)
Reply-
0%
vettenut5 months, 3 weeks ago
And who is responsible?
Why, humans are, of course!!!!
The huge weight shift upon the surface of the earth, caused by the insatiable hunger of US consumers for NEW STUFF, like Major Home Appliances, Automobiles, other HEAVY ITEMS, along with the building of skyscrapers in major US cities, is in danger of causing the earth to become perilously top-heavy, nd in danger of reaching a "tipping point," from which recovery of correct equilibrium is NOT POSSIBLE.
The result: the earth will tip upside-down, and life as we know it will disappear!
The solution: tear down all our skyscrapers, demolish all our autos (especially those HEAVY SUV's), pack up all our heavy appliances, and load everything on garbage barges. Tow these barges to the exact opposite side of the earth from the US and throw everything overboard, creating a new sub-continent of heavy trash.
(continued)
Reply-
0%
vettenut5 months, 3 weeks ago
BUT, this new sub-continent will restore balance to the earth, and avert CERTAIN DEATH for all humankind.
It has been reported that Al Gore has written a NEW book about this impending crisis. The book is entitled "EARTH OUT OF BALANCE." A companion and soon-to-be-released movie will be entitled "THE OUT OF BALANCED TRUTH."
Saint Albeâ;;(I mean Mr. Gore) is also said to be investing HEAVILY in several West-Coast manufacturers of garbage barges and ocean-going tugboats.
He has even formed a company that is ready to sell something he calls "Balance Credits." For a fee, those who want to have their guilt assuaged can hire his company to dig up dirt in North Dakota and haul it to the new "sub-continent in the Southern Seas" for them. This transported dirt will help re-balance the earth!
(continued)
Reply
-
-
-
0%
buckfush5005 months, 3 weeks ago
Yes! But... Has anyone gotten Pat Sajak's take on this????
Reply -
0%
sumptuousdigs5 months, 3 weeks ago
Yadda yadda yadda...I'll bet the planet can stand a lot more heating and cooling than you can Boo Boo. how much can life endure, that's the question. Keep them swamp chillers chillin'!
Let's not err on the side of caution...that would be stoopid! Let's just push the stuff that makes us feel good. Imagine the money we can pour into Iraq if we didn't have all of these 'do gooders' cryin' about the ecology.
Of course if you're wrong...it will cost a lot more. A LOT MORE!
Reply-
0%
bobo-in-texas5 months, 3 weeks ago
"Yadda yadda yadda"
I suppose that's what math looks like to member of Saint Albert's faith based community.
Reply
-
-
0%
lestparker5 months, 3 weeks ago
Oh snap... my carbon credits just took a hit in value.. Maybe I shouldnt have cashed in my 401k to buy em ;)
Reply -
0%
KISA452a5 months, 3 weeks ago
I'm curious why people who are sceptical of man-made global warming, despite considerable evidence and scienctific support suddenly believe this particular theory. How do you choose which study to believe except that it supports your own position?
And just for grins, can someone explain to me "His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. "
Reply-
0%
Klarissa5 months, 3 weeks ago
KISA, not necessarily supporting a position, but showing that our knowledge is not complete.
If the consensus is correct, then we don't need any more studies, no more conferences (in Bali with 10 world class golf courses), no more grants, and we can shut donw the university research programs.
I think that we really don't know the truth yet, and jumping to "green" conclusions, like corn ethanol and MTB are the result of not keeping an open mind or blocking those who disagree with the consensus.
Reply-
0%
HannibalBarca5 months, 3 weeks ago
I think that we really don't know the truth yet, and jumping to "green" conclusions, like corn ethanol and MTB are the result of not keeping an open mind or blocking those who disagree with the consensus.
Nor is "staying the course".... we pollute!that is a fact but we don't clean up, or at least industry does not, but let us make fun of anyone who has an idea, even if it is wrong so what, a cleaner backyard is not such a bad idea.
Would you let your kids play in a dump???
Reply
-
-
0%
blackandwhitekitty5 months, 3 weeks ago
Wahoa! Somebody actually asked a good question.
This is going to take some time.
First the simple answer for untrained minds.
Here's what you do, in outline form. First use common sense. Second, use your intuition. Third, use your experience and knowledge. Forth, think critically (takes years to develop this skill). Fifth, think politically (might someone be leading you astray because of their own agenda/profit). Sixth, does the study invoke/evoke emotion, namely fear (or at least implied fear)- big warning sign. Seventh, find someone you trust who is trained in basic science (or engineering, math, statistics, even those who know how to use the written word to confound novices, or how to obsure underlying facts) for guidance- just beware that all humans are flawed. Eight, learn how to detect exaggeration and unjustifiable certainty. Ninth, look for explicit acknowledgements of limitations, inconsistencies, poor, or systematic limits to, data- these show honesty.
Reply -
0%
blackandwhitekitty5 months, 3 weeks ago
Now for the second part, on the new term and negative feedback.
The author is claiming that the vast majority of scientists who are creating and running computer models (simulators) of various properties of the atmosphere have been using a mathematical procedure developed many years ago, and that those scientists have been assuming that the original mathematical procedure was accurate and complete enough to serve as the basis for their current calculations. Apparently this orginal mathematical procedure/solution incorporated an assumption that the atmosphere extended to infinity upwards, probably because it makes solving basic equations simpler. It is very common for simplifying assumptions (even when unrealistic under some conditions) to be made in an effort to find a solution. The author is claiming that scientists, until now, have not bothered to go back and look carefully at those underlying assumptions and simplifications.
---to be continued
Reply-
0%
blackandwhitekitty5 months, 3 weeks ago
The new term (literally meaning that something else has to be added) adds an complexity to the equation, making it more difficult to solve- but apparently not impossible. The author is claiming that by imposing the constraint that the height of the atmosphere is actually finite yields a solution that is better behaved, and that it predicts actual conditions and behavour of the atmosphere more accurately. This is entirely normal because as equations are developed, such as when complexity is added to more realistically describe the actual physical conditions, the result of simulations based on the additional complexity (improved model) are going to be more accurate.
--- to be continue
Reply
-
-
-
0%
mackiemesser5 months, 3 weeks ago
I want to hear Michael Crichton's take on this. Perhaps in a new novel, 'State of Fear, the Rebuttal'. By the way, I did enjoy State of Fear even tho it did try to create a state of fear about environmentalists. It's interesting to read both sides of the argument as they both are persuasive. The truth, I imagine, must lie somewhere between the extreme view points.
Reply -
0%
Cityslicker5 months, 3 weeks ago
Gullible Warning and the math behind it is incorrect , no way , that can't be .
Global Warming causes the Ice Caps to melt thus releasing colder water in to the Oceans causing the water to get drastically colder thus causing Global Cooling .
So Global Warming caused Global Cooling .
Keep your stick on the ice !
Reply-
-
0%
IAmMine5 months, 3 weeks ago
"You know whats funny about that statement? The gullibull whining alarmists are actually already using that arguement to explain cooler temperatures this winter lol."
Actually, you do know that they were saying this prior to Gore's documentary, but don't let that stop you from spinning it like its something new and the consensus of scientists are now stating because of the "today was colder than yesterday" arguments they hear all the time....
Reply
-
-
0%
Nowalive5 months, 3 weeks ago
I have long held a theory that there is no global warming, but there is REGIONAL warming due to over-development. Open spaces allow for radiational cooling, which acres of concrete and asphalt do not. Example: I live 10 miles outside of Philadelphia. The temperature in Center City is ALWAYS 6 - 8 degrees higher than in my backyard. I work 26 miles west of my home in rural Chester County. The temperature difference between Philly and where I work is between 12 - 15 degrees cooler. Additionally, there is a significant difference in air quality, due to not having 200,000 vehicles running within a 7 square mile area. The haze over the city traps the heat as well as the concrete and asphalt. Urban areas are also where the weather data collection stations are (60%).
Reply-
0%
Klarissa5 months, 3 weeks ago
now - but at one time those weather data collection stations were not in the middle of an asphalt jungle.
-
