- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,389
- Reactions
- 17,814
The lack of rain in Hobart over the past few months is starting to become an issue. It got a bit wet for a while, but it's blue sky and sunshine most days, the bush is bone dry and this is in the middle of Winter! Went for a walk this morning and found that the creek near me is completely dry.I am with you there JuliaTassie will become an even greater place to live if the average temps lift by a couple of degrees!!
Only problem is that most of our beaches would disappear, half our roads would go under and there would be hundreds of millions of refugees seeking somewhere dry to live
"In our study, the biggest aerosol effect on climate came from the effect of aerosol-cloud indirect effect. Over the century, it cooled the surface air temperatures -1 °C, with more cooling in the northern hemisphere than in the south. Snow and ice cover increased 1% globally and 4% in the Arctic. Global cloud cover also increased by 0.5%.
The aerosol direct effect cooled the climate over the century by -0.2 °C, also more in the north than the southern hemisphere. It also caused a small increase in cloud and snow/ice cover."
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/koch_04/
Now I am completely confused? Is NASA backing this thesis? Does not seem right to me? Afterall we have all the data clearly showing it is warming don't we?
Blacklisted scientist challenges global warming orthodoxy
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for years has been predicting the greenhouse effect can spin out of control. They claim that there exists a scientific consensus that CO2 is pushing the planet into an unrestrained greenhouse effect, that it’s raising global temperatures and it must be stopped. IPCC was created in the 1980s by the United Nations. They have released findings that say that carbon-based emissions released into the atmosphere by humans, mostly in wealthy, Western countries, must be reduced, or a catastrophe will result. They have frequently used this scare tactic. It has been easy to frighten people, as the science involved takes some significant and serious study. Most people have relied on expert opinions because they lack their own expert knowledge in the field, a factor the IPCC has relied upon in the past.
Today Hungarian atmospheric physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, says he has found and proven that the IPCC and their experts are wrong in their theory about how the greenhouse effect works. In the process, he has shown that changing CO2 concentrations are not the determining factor the IPCC and other scientists claim.
Over the last 20 years Miskolczi achieved several results which prove that the greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere is completely dependent on energy. The IPCC would have the world believe that it is the ingredients of the atmosphere which matter more than the energy, and that it is rising levels of CO2 that are causing global warming.
Working with a number of sets of temperature and humidity data from all over the world, Miskolczi has found that the greenhouse effect is a balance of energy dependent primarily on the sun. This is something reasonable people have recognised for some time but haven’t been able to prove without the same sort of heavy science and math the IPCC experts have been using. Those who disagree with the IPCC’s conclusions have needed some form of proof to back their positions. Until now, those proofs have been too few in number to slow Anthropogenic Global Warming’s (AGW) momentum backed with billions of dollars. Solid science which can be verified and recreated has been needed and Miskolczi claims that his research has finally provided just that. New mathematical equations seem to have put the players in this climate game into their proper places.
To put it very simply, Dr. Miskolczi has described previously unknown properties of our atmosphere.
Unfortunately it isn’t as clean and easy as E=mc2. The very complexity of climate science has been used to kick sand into the eyes of the public, blinding us to alternative theories whether they are correct or not. The science is so difficult to follow that no one can refute the IPCC without discussing concepts most of the public don’t have the time or desire to learn. So by default the IPCC has owned the conversation and the playing field. What’s more, they have some big allies in supporting positions.
At the time of his original discovery Dr. Miskolczi was a contractor for NASA and had published many times in renowned journals with his colleagues there; he resigned his position in 2005 when NASA refused to publish work contradicting AGW.
Despite being blacklisted by the scientific community supporting AGW, he has continued his research proving and refining his results. However, this same community is also the one which peer reviews work like this. When a scientist is tossed off this team, they can’t get their work reviewed and pushed to the press as being “peer reviewed.” Despite this handicap Miskolczi has persevered, just this month publishing yet again, this time proving with observations that the greenhouse effect is actually stable.
Miskolczi does not appear to be saying that global warming or cooling doesn’t occur. Instead, he shows that CO2 does not and cannot increase the surface temperature of the Earth independently of incoming energy. In his paper he provides a graph spanning 61 years from 1948-2008. It shows that the greenhouse effect remains constant while CO2 concentrations have risen. Miskolczi has found physical proof that the greenhouse effect works differently than previously thought and it isn’t affected by changes in carbon dioxide.
Lacking now is an honest scientific community’s review of his work, something hard to get once you have been kicked off the team.
The American and international press have also ignored this publication. Though more articles appear daily contradicting the IPCC, this single decisive discovery, if true, completely dismantles the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Amazingly it has yet to make the front page.
For more information Dr. Miskloczi’s latest paper can be found here: Ferenc Miskolczi: The stable stationary value of the earth’s global average atmospheric Planck-weighted greenhouse-gas optical thickness (Energy & Environment Vol. 21 No 4, 2010 August Special Issue: Paradigms in Climate Research), and is available at Multi-Science Publishing Co., Great Britain.
Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi can be contacted at: fmiskolczi@cox.net .
Dianna Cotter is a Golden Key International Honor Society Member and student at American Military University. She writes for Examiner.com and Family Security Matters. She currently resides in Oregon with her husband and three children. Dianna Cotter can be contacted at cotter.d.c@gmail.com.
Comments on Miskolczi’s (2010) Controversial Greenhouse Theory
August 5th, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
SPECIAL MESSAGE: For those following Miskolczi’s work, and his claims regarding “Aa=Ed”, if those two radiative fluxes (Aa and Ed) are not EXACTLY equal, then Miskolczi has found nothing that disagrees with current greenhouse theory. That they are NEARLY equal has been known for a long time (e.g. Kiehl & Trenberth, 1997). Their near-equality is due to the fact that IR radiative flows are continuously “trying” to achieve radiative equilibrium between layers of the atmosphere, and between the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface. If those two quantities were more “un-equal” then they are in nature, then radiation-induced temperature changes in the atmosphere, and at the surface, would be much larger than we observe.
Again…if Aa does not EXACTLY balance Ed, then Miskolczi has found NOTHING that departs from the fundamental mechanism of the greenhouse effect.
ADDENDUM…his additional finding of a relatively constant greenhouse effect from 60 years of radiosonde data (because humidity decreases have offset CO2 increases) is indeed tantalizing. But few people believe long-term trends in radiosonde humidities. His result depends upon the reality of unusually high humidities in the 1950s and 1960s. Without those, there is no cancellation between decreasing humidity and increasing CO2 as he claims.
Niwa sued over data accuracy
The country's state-owned weather and atmospheric research body is being taken to court in a challenge over the accuracy of its data used to calculate global warming.
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition said it had lodged papers with the High Court asking the court to invalidate the official temperatures record of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa).
The lobby of climate sceptics and ACT Party have long criticised Niwa over its temperature data, which Niwa says is mainstream science and not controversial, and the raw data publicly available.
LOLThis PR stunt is the same lie from the same people who tried to attack the New Zealand temperature record late last year, as you can see from this very thread, about Post 216 I think. The data and the adjustments have been on the public record for years.
Ghoti.
Hey wayne have you looked at the data from Oz that I posted a while back? Assuming that our data is OK (straight from BOM website data from each station) it shows a clear warming trend (0.3 degrees) in the average temperatures since 1970. While not much, if it continues we'll be another 0.6 warmer by the end of the century.
Climate hysteria is now over. In the Gillard/Abbott forum of undecided voters last night not a single questionn was about climate change or the ETS
No. You're wrong.There is far more CO2 sent into the atmosphere by volcanoes and bush fires than CO2 emmissions created by Man. The ALARMIST never mention this factor in their equations at any time over the past few years.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm said:Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.
http://www.geotimes.org/nov07/article.html?id=WebExtra111207.html said:Every year, fires burn 3 million to 4 million square kilometers of Earth’s land surface area, and release more than a billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide.
1Pg C = 1 x10^15g or 1x10^9t = 1 billion tonneshttp://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/30/12/03/PDF/acpd-6-3175-2006.pdf said:...Average annual biomass burning emissions as calculated by our model were 2.5 Pg C year−1 over the 1997–2004 period. The dominant contributors were Africa (49%), South America (13%), equatorial Asia (11%), boreal regions (9%), and Australia (6%)....
...Biomass burning emissions showed large interannual variability with a range of more than 1 Pg C year−1, with a maximum in 1998 (3.2 Pg C year−1) and a minimum in 2000 (2.0 Pg C year−1)...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?