Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

Those savage red men think they can control Gods' rain.

The weather has deep ties to mysticism and deities in many [every ?] cultures since it could mean life or death. Many religions are about managing fear, fear of death, fear of famine, and in general dealing with things that are many orders of magnitudes out of the control of human being. At least that is how they were originally sold. Lots more stuff crept in over eons once the initial doubt is removed.

To admit that human beings can affect nature is admittance and one more domino tipped that old customs biblical/koran/etc arose out of the infancy stage of humanity, mostly due to technical knowledge about the world. Many customs like Jews not eating pork and bottom dwelling fish has to do with other customs that are meant to keep human beings healthy and away from disease - not some decree from God.

 
Last edited:
nitro said:
Man cannot control nature and mess with Jesus' temperature and winds and rains and particularly clouds (that is where heaven is). Only Jesus The Savior can. Aaaaahmen.
More...


Oh yeah, forgot. Of course. Only a heathen would think otherwise.
 
imagine if there were religious people trolling muslims or jews or atheists or gays the way you guys troll Christians...
you are worse than the people you imagine.
you are trolls, bigots and absolute losers when 2 or more of you get on the same thread.
you claim to be educated.
you claim to be tolerant
you claim the high road
you don't hate because you are losing you jobs to minorities.
you just hate...
why?

so... please remember all you have is faith.
you have no peer reviewed science or data or stats supporting the idea that man made co2 causes warming.
you don't even have a list of scientists stating it.

all you have is political statements from organizations and politicians.
Your religion takes more faith than anyones.
 
Go Oblahblah!

According to Greenpeace, they got their hands on leaks docs from the TTIP that illustrate US's position in the negotiations. Obama is completely undermining the Paris Accord and putting corporation ahead of sovereign states.

Reconcile that libtards.

Some excerpts below.

http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/e...-confidential-TTIP-papers-unveil-US-position/

#TTIPleaks: confidential TTIP papers unveil US position

Leaked text shows attempts to undermine EU environment and health protection laws

Jorgo Riss, director of Greenpeace EU, said:“These leaked documents confirm what we have been saying for a long time: TTIP would put corporations at the centre of policy-making, to the detriment of environment and public health. We have known that the EU position was bad, now we see the US position is even worse. A compromise between the two would be unacceptable.”

  • No place for climate protection in TTIP
If the goals of the Paris Summit to keep temperatures increase under 1.5 degrees are to be met, trade should not be excluded from CO2 emissions reduction specifications. But nothing about climate protection can be found in the obtained texts.

Jorgo Riss said: “The effects of TTIP would be initially subtle but ultimately devastating. It would lead to European laws being judged on their consequences for trade and investment – disregarding environmental protection and public health concerns.”


 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jem
I am here posting the link to Rerenc M. Miskolczi's ground breaking paper published in Hungary in in early 2007. it is http://owww.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf

And a more accessible critique by Ken Gregory. http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm

Few here will be able to follow the arguments in detail in the Miskolczi paper. I cannot. It requires highly specialized knowledge. Even an expert in the physics of thermal and radiative fluxes will require a long time with this paper, and we should expect it will be some time yet before its full impact is appreciated, assuming some egregious error is not discovered.

I'll quote only a couple paragraphs from the conclusions on page 39.

"In general, the thermal structure of the atmosphere assures that the absorbed surface upward radiation is equal to the downward atmospheric radiation. It seems that the Earth's atmosphere maintains the balance between the absorbed short wave and emitted long wave radiation by keeping the total flux optical depth close to the theoretical equilibrium values.
...On local scale the regulatory role of the water vapor is apparent. On global scale, however, there can not be any direct water vapor feedback mechanism, working against the total energy balance requirement of the system. Runaway greenhouse theories contradict to the energy balance equations and therefore, can not work." [underlining is mine]​

I now feel fully vindicated in my several assertions here that Hansen's assumption of positive feedback is illogical and impossible. Why he did not realize this from early on I do not understand.

Here is the introductory paragraphs to Gregory's critique of the Miskolczi paper. I strongly encourage you to read the critique in its entirety. http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm

"The paper,Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary Atmospheres by Ferenc M. Miskolczi shows that the current greenhouse effect equations are incomplete because they do not include the correct boundary conditions. The new theory presented in Miskolczi's paper shows that the atmosphere maintains a “saturated” greenhouse effect, controlled by water vapor content.


Considering that we are told "the science is settled", one would think that the strength of the greenhouse effect (GHE) on Earth would be calculated based on atmospheric physics. That is, the computer models of the atmosphere would incorporate the physics of how the greenhouse effect works, so that by inputting some measured physical properties, the atmospheric gases, the models would determine the strength of the greenhouse effect and the surface temperatures. Unfortunately, this is not the case.


There is no physics, there are no equations in the models that determines the strength of the GHE. Parameters are just set to obtain the observed temperature.

The GHE is dominated by water vapour, so how it changes with increasing CO2 is critical.
All the General Circulation Models, also known as Global Climate Models (GCM), just set various evaporation and precipitation parameters to achieve approximately the result:


Relative humidity = constant.

This result is based on short term observations of temperature changes while CO2 concentrations were approximately constant, so they only hold true over periods when CO2 does not change much. It is invalid to extrapolate these observations to long term periods with increasing CO2. The modellers just assume relative humidity is also constant while CO2 concentrations change.

There is no physics in support of this assumption..."​


Miskolczi's paper won't be without controversy. There are far too many egos invested.

Judith Curry was critical of Miskolczi a year ago because she felt he had introduced a new definition of the greenhouse effect, one that wasn't very useful. It's a trivial complaint not worthy of her. I disagree with her criticism because it misses the important point, which is that Miskolczi has for the first time explained the physics behind how CO2 combines with water vapor and the other greenhouse gases to maintain energy equilibrium. And most importantly, his work makes it clear how the regulating mechanism for our Earth's temperature works. This is something that makes beautiful intuitive sense to any scientist not emotionally caught up in the AGW fiasco.

It's a huge clarification in my mind, and it is backed by sound theory that no one yet has poked a hole in. This is the first time that we have a rigorous theory that is consistent both with the physical laws and with observations. So far at least.

I feel certain this is the beginning of the end for Hansen. I would feel sorry for him had he simply made an honest mistake, but in this case he will fully deserve the ignominy that's about to befall him. And if his past is prologue, I don't imagine he'll be graceful about it.

For a highly technical review of Miskolczi's greenhouse theory (MGT) see http://energiaakademia.lapunk.hu/ta.../dokumentumok/201406/miskolczi_greenhouse.pdf
 
Last edited:
Bottom line: "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." - John von Neumann

Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers

"...This particular argument also displays a clear lack of plausible physics, which was another common theme we identified among contrarian climate research. In another example, Ferenc Miskolczi argued in 2007 and 2010 papers that the greenhouse effect has become saturated, but as I also discuss in my book, the‘saturated greenhouse effect’ myth was debunked in the early 20th century. As we note in the supplementary material to our paper, Miskolczi left out some important known physics in order to revive this century-old myth..."

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ou-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers
 
Last edited:
nitro said:
Bottom line: "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." - John von Neumann

Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers

"...This particular argument also displays a clear lack of plausible physics, which was another common theme we identified among contrarian climate research. In another example, Ferenc Miskolczi argued in 2007 and 2010 papers that the greenhouse effect has become saturated, but as I also discuss in my book, the‘saturated greenhouse effect’ myth was debunked in the early 20th century. As we note in the supplementary material to our paper, Miskolczi left out some important known physics in order to revive this century-old myth..."

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ou-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers
More...
He did not argue it in the 2007 paper. Perhaps in the 2010 paper,but I doubt it. Miskolczi's approach wouldn't require that he argue that, so why would he?
 
Last edited:
Runaway greenhouse theories contradict to the energy balance equations and therefore, can not work.


Besides being terrible English and basically non-sensical, it's irrelevant. None of the current models include or require a "runaway greenhouse effect" . Besides, the earth has always had "runaway greenhouse effects", via the positive feedback effect of the temp/CO2 relationship that eventually reach a climax and then retrench due to orbital changes which reduce solar input.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top