View Poll Results: Is Global Warming a myth?

Voters
151. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, explain

    52 34.44%
  • No, Explain

    99 65.56%
Page 78 of 102 FirstFirst ... 2868767778798088 ... LastLast
Results 771 to 780 of 1020

Thread: Is Global Warming a myth?

  1. #771
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Except for the parts where fraud was used.
    Explain how the science behind the greenhouse effect isn't sound. More specifically, explain how the logic train behind climate change is illogical.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  2. #772
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    Explain how the science behind the greenhouse effect isn't sound. More specifically, explain how the logic train behind climate change is illogical.
    Former NASA scientist defends theory refuting global warming doctrine


    Examiner.com: Has there been global warming?
    Dr. Miskolczi: No one is denying that global warming has taken place, but it has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect or the burning of fossil fuels.

    Examiner.com: According to the conventional anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, as human-induced CO2 emissions increase, more surface radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, with part of it re-radiated to the earth’s surface, resulting in global warming. Is that an accurate description of the prevailing theory?
    Dr. Miskolczi: Yes, this is the classic concept of the greenhouse effect.

    Examiner.com: Are man-made CO2 emissions the cause of global warming?
    Dr. Miskolczi: Apparently not. According to my research, increases in CO2 levels have not increased the global-average absorbing power of the atmosphere.

    Examiner.com: Where does the traditional greenhouse theory make its fundamental mistake?
    Dr. Miskolczi: The conventional greenhouse theory does not consider the newly discovered physical relationships involving infrared radiative fluxes. These relationships pose strong energetic constraints on an equilibrium system.

    Examiner.com: Why has this error escaped notice until now?
    Dr. Miskolczi: Nobody thought that a 100-year-old theory could be wrong. The original greenhouse formula, developed by an astrophysicist, applies only to the stars, not to finite, semi-transparent planetary atmospheres. New equations had to be formulated.

    Examiner.com: According your theory, the greenhouse effect is self-regulating and stabilizes itself in response to rising CO2 levels. You identified (perhaps discovered) a “greenhouse constant” that keeps the greenhouse effect in equilibrium. Is that a fair assessment of your theory?
    Dr. Miskolczi: Yes. Our atmosphere, with its infinite degree of freedom, is able to maintain its global average infrared absorption at an optimal level. In technical terms, this “greenhouse constant” is the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere, and its theoretical value is 1.87. Despite the 30 per cent increase of CO2 in the last 61 years, this value has not changed. The atmosphere is not increasing its absorption power as was predicted by the IPCC.

    Examiner.com: You used empirical data, rather than models, to arrive at your conclusion. How was that done?
    Dr. Miskolczi: The computations are relatively simple. I collected a large number of radiosonde observations from around the globe and computed the global average infrared absorption. I performed these computations using observations from two large, publicly available datasets known as the TIGR2 and NOAA. The computations involved the processing of 300 radiosonde observations, using a state-of-the-art, line-by-line radiative transfer code. In both datasets, the global average infrared optical thickness turned out to be 1.87, agreeing with theoretical expectations.

    Examiner.com: Have your mathematical equations been challenged or disproved?
    Dr. Miskolczi: No.

  3. #773
    don't panic
    marduc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    10-22-17 @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,301

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Looking beyond the "examiners" stringent review process we also have a glimpse of the peer review process in action among other critiques of his paper we find this:

    Miskolczi's key error in the "Virial Theorem" portion of his argument is definitely that he forgot to include a "hard core" potential to represent the surface of the Earth. His error means that Miskolczi's assumption that 2<K> = -<V> is false.

    He also makes errors in his application of "Kirchoff's Law of Radiation" --- but the errors in the "Virial Theorem" portion of his argument are already sufficient to invalidate his paper.
    The greenhouse of Miskolczi - Page 2


    apparently this question needs to be re-asked:

    Examiner.com: Have your mathematical equations been challenged or disproved?
    Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
    Drugs are bad, prohibition is worse

  4. #774
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by marduc View Post
    Looking beyond the "examiners" stringent review process we also have a glimpse of the peer review process in action among other critiques of his paper we find this:



    The greenhouse of Miskolczi - Page 2


    apparently this question needs to be re-asked:

    Examiner.com: Have your mathematical equations been challenged or disproved?
    Funny thing is you base GW on a 100 year old theory before all the industrialization of man? That tells me this is a flawed theory.

    You use a blog? This is your source?

  5. #775
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In your dreams...
    Last Seen
    05-29-12 @ 02:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,621

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Didn't you know that newtons laws expired years ago. That tells me this is a flawed theory.


    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssT7NkDDsC0"]YouTube- Weird Al - Everything You Know Is Wrong - Original Quality[/ame]

    unless it is wrong, and you are right, in which case enjoy the video.
    Last edited by MKULTRABOY; 02-25-10 at 11:49 PM.

  6. #776
    don't panic
    marduc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    10-22-17 @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,301

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    Funny thing is you base GW on a 100 year old theory before all the industrialization of man? That tells me this is a flawed theory.

    You use a blog? This is your source?
    A blog? no that is not a blog may I recommend Computer terminology 101 to clarify further mistakes there.

    .I am sure you did not read the link I provided for content, but it is clearly peers who are quite scientifically literate, and versed in the topic material reviewing the paper.. even making mention of writing the author with valid questions they wanted clarified.

    I have also been studying Miskolczi's paper, and have gotten through about to page 10 before being stopped by a series of problems and apparent non sequitors, some of which have been mentioned by others..

    I have written this up and sent my comments to Dr. Miskolczi, who said he would be traveling until August and might be able to respond at that time.
    see this is how the peer review process works, experts (peers) study the paper, they write the author for clarifications, and dialogue with the author of the paper remains open so that his material can be subjected to scrutiny. my link is exactly what I claimed it to be, a glimpse into the peer review process.

    But go ahead, keep thinking some blurb from any random "citizen journalist" with internet and a keyboard putting an article up at the examiner has more credibility, it is amusing.
    Last edited by marduc; 02-26-10 at 12:15 AM.
    Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
    Drugs are bad, prohibition is worse

  7. #777
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    Former NASA scientist defends theory refuting global warming doctrine


    Examiner.com: Has there been global warming?
    Dr. Miskolczi: No one is denying that global warming has taken place, but it has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect or the burning of fossil fuels.

    Examiner.com: According to the conventional anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, as human-induced CO2 emissions increase, more surface radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, with part of it re-radiated to the earth’s surface, resulting in global warming. Is that an accurate description of the prevailing theory?
    Dr. Miskolczi: Yes, this is the classic concept of the greenhouse effect.

    Examiner.com: Are man-made CO2 emissions the cause of global warming?
    Dr. Miskolczi: Apparently not. According to my research, increases in CO2 levels have not increased the global-average absorbing power of the atmosphere.

    Examiner.com: Where does the traditional greenhouse theory make its fundamental mistake?
    Dr. Miskolczi: The conventional greenhouse theory does not consider the newly discovered physical relationships involving infrared radiative fluxes. These relationships pose strong energetic constraints on an equilibrium system.

    Examiner.com: Why has this error escaped notice until now?
    Dr. Miskolczi: Nobody thought that a 100-year-old theory could be wrong. The original greenhouse formula, developed by an astrophysicist, applies only to the stars, not to finite, semi-transparent planetary atmospheres. New equations had to be formulated.

    Examiner.com: According your theory, the greenhouse effect is self-regulating and stabilizes itself in response to rising CO2 levels. You identified (perhaps discovered) a “greenhouse constant” that keeps the greenhouse effect in equilibrium. Is that a fair assessment of your theory?
    Dr. Miskolczi: Yes. Our atmosphere, with its infinite degree of freedom, is able to maintain its global average infrared absorption at an optimal level. In technical terms, this “greenhouse constant” is the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere, and its theoretical value is 1.87. Despite the 30 per cent increase of CO2 in the last 61 years, this value has not changed. The atmosphere is not increasing its absorption power as was predicted by the IPCC.

    Examiner.com: You used empirical data, rather than models, to arrive at your conclusion. How was that done?
    Dr. Miskolczi: The computations are relatively simple. I collected a large number of radiosonde observations from around the globe and computed the global average infrared absorption. I performed these computations using observations from two large, publicly available datasets known as the TIGR2 and NOAA. The computations involved the processing of 300 radiosonde observations, using a state-of-the-art, line-by-line radiative transfer code. In both datasets, the global average infrared optical thickness turned out to be 1.87, agreeing with theoretical expectations.

    Examiner.com: Have your mathematical equations been challenged or disproved?
    Dr. Miskolczi: No.
    You haven't read a single thing I've posted on this thread, have you?

    I have pointed out more times then I can remember that it is not the direct effect of the CO2, but the indirect effect of the CO2. The CO2 increases the amount of evaporation, because it is paleo-carbon. This increased rate of evaporation leads to a positive feedback loop. Now stop wasting my time, and address the points I actually argue, rather then what you wish I argued.

    Quite frankly, for any scientist to argue that paleo-carbon such as that released in fossil fuels does not increase/change the energy equilibrium of the environment to some extent is for that scientist to basically announce he is an idiot. The facts are irrefutable that CO2 does in fact increase temperature, the only reasonable question is how much.

    The answer to that question can be normative rather then positive, such that, the temperature change caused by CO2 is enough to destabilize the environment.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  8. #778
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by marduc View Post
    A blog? no that is not a blog may I recommend Computer terminology 101 to clarify further mistakes there.

    .I am sure you did not read the link I provided for content, but it is clearly peers who are quite scientifically literate, and versed in the topic material reviewing the paper.. even making mention of writing the author with valid questions they wanted clarified.



    see this is how the peer review process works, experts (peers) study the paper, they write the author for clarifications, and dialogue with the author of the paper remains open so that his material can be subjected to scrutiny. my link is exactly what I claimed it to be, a glimpse into the peer review process.

    But go ahead, keep thinking some blurb from any random "citizen journalist" with internet and a keyboard putting an article up at the examiner has more credibility, it is amusing.
    Your link goes to physics forum. That is a source?

  9. #779
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    You haven't read a single thing I've posted on this thread, have you?

    I have pointed out more times then I can remember that it is not the direct effect of the CO2, but the indirect effect of the CO2. The CO2 increases the amount of evaporation, because it is paleo-carbon. This increased rate of evaporation leads to a positive feedback loop. Now stop wasting my time, and address the points I actually argue, rather then what you wish I argued.

    Quite frankly, for any scientist to argue that paleo-carbon such as that released in fossil fuels does not increase/change the energy equilibrium of the environment to some extent is for that scientist to basically announce he is an idiot. The facts are irrefutable that CO2 does in fact increase temperature, the only reasonable question is how much.

    The answer to that question can be normative rather then positive, such that, the temperature change caused by CO2 is enough to destabilize the environment.
    You are smarter than all scientist?

  10. #780
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    06-29-10 @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,801

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    No, man made global warming does exist to a certain extent.

    The debate should be over the extent of man-made global warming vs. natural global warming, and whether or not policies like "carbon taxes" are necessary. There's no real scientific debate that it's "all a hoax", so we need to move past that.

Page 78 of 102 FirstFirst ... 2868767778798088 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •