<< CLEAN TECHNOLOGY GETS AWAY ~ MAIN ~ TWO MOODS OF BILL >>

FORMER WARMER

Corrected data leads to corrected views:

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.

Read on.

Posted by Tim B. on 03/10/2008 at 05:46 AM
  1. This is what happens when a pesky little thing such as facts get involved.

    Posted by Ash_ on 2008 03 10 at 05:58 AM • permalink

  2. There will be scientists not getting rich on the global warming gravy train who will grab this with both hands. Expect a lot of them will be Chinese.

    Posted by Contrail on 2008 03 10 at 05:59 AM • permalink

  3. I have the same problem with spreadsheets as these scientists have with their computer models.  Just when you think that you have it perfect someone points out that you’ve missed a link, and you have to revise the whole thing.  Damn computers.

    Posted by Irobot on 2008 03 10 at 06:00 AM • permalink

  4. He was able to publish the results of his testing of his theory in Hungary, but not in the U.S. by NASA, because of the political climate that drives funding.  And people wonder why I throw such a fit about government funding of science.  It’s a foot in the door for the regulators who thrive on precedent.  In this case, the power grabbing politics of climate change overrules any science that isn’t a result of government largess.  All the rest are mere puppets of evil profit-seeking corporations and cannot be trusted—but the government can.

    I don’t know what it is that government has done that makes so many in the population think they ought to be in the business of thinking for the rest of us, but I cannot find the facts that back the theory.

    Posted by saltydog on 2008 03 10 at 06:04 AM • permalink

  5. “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.”

    Oops

    “Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.”

    Please may I have some?

    greenhouse theory is “200 year old science”

    Gore is that old?

    Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 03 10 at 06:13 AM • permalink

  6. “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.

    This makes complete sense.

    Posted by wronwright on 2008 03 10 at 06:14 AM • permalink

  7. In spite of this, there really is no reason we shouldn’t elect Obama as the US President and allow him to carry through with his promise to cut greenhouse gasses by 90% by 2050.  Most likely by way of transferring American manufacturing to China, India, and other developing countries, all of which have no intention of cutting greenhouse gasses.  Ever.

    Posted by wronwright on 2008 03 10 at 06:19 AM • permalink

  8. #7 Make China, India, and other developing countries, richer. We must be charitable even if poorer.

    Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 03 10 at 06:37 AM • permalink

  9. I won’t believe any of the models until they’re the Navier Stokes equations and not some hand-waver’s career-advancing guess about important terms.

    One is actual physics and the other is not, is the difference.

    Posted by rhhardin on 2008 03 10 at 06:49 AM • permalink

  10. 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.

    Within the Federal buearuacracy, that amount of money is a significant portion of the budget for an entire agency.

    Worth lying for?  In the eyes of some, you betcha!

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 03 10 at 06:55 AM • permalink

  11. I’m sure he’s getting paid off by Evil Big Oil.

    Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2008 03 10 at 06:56 AM • permalink

  12. #9
    Is it the physics of electromagnetic fields? The earth maybe bi-polar.

    Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 03 10 at 06:59 AM • permalink

  13. Reading those calculations there is only one possible response: well, obviously!

    Posted by Tony.T.Teacher on 2008 03 10 at 06:59 AM • permalink

  14. #13,
    Funny you should say that, my thoughts exactly, Blooming obvious! How could it have been missed!?

    Posted by Orion on 2008 03 10 at 07:06 AM • permalink

  15. This idea of CO2 saturation based on global conformity to the second law of thermodynamics has a number of adherents, with any warming being limited to delays in outbound radiation via photon emission; it differs from another school of thought which bases saturation on column spectroscopic effects with Beer’s Law’s linear absorption exponentially declined at successive layers. Zagoni’s theory seems to be of the former type.
    I don’t like expletitives, but AGW is fucked. I attended a conference with La Nina/El Nino expert, Stewart Franks, who demonstrated that the climate patterns of the 20thC were entirely due to the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation interaction with the Ninos as a manifestation of Schwabe cycles.

    Posted by cohenite on 2008 03 10 at 07:17 AM • permalink

  16. #13 #14 #15
    Yes obvious!
    Although Beer absorption maybe questioned.

    Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 03 10 at 07:32 AM • permalink

  17. I was working on my Beer Absorption this weekend.

    Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2008 03 10 at 07:54 AM • permalink

  18. Cohenite. It’s good to see that you’ve continued your joy of all things green beyond catching condensation on glad wrap.

    But not liking expletives!!!

    My daughter was bitching about her ovaries at dinner tonight. Can I suggest she consider a Schwabe cycle.

    Posted by mehaul on 2008 03 10 at 07:59 AM • permalink

  19. #18 mehaul; if you are brave enough to suggest anything to a woman about her cycle, please go right ahead.

    Posted by cohenite on 2008 03 10 at 08:28 AM • permalink

  20. Sure, as if “facts” and “science” have any effect on religious faith.
    Save us, O Goreacle, from the heretics!

    Posted by Latino on 2008 03 10 at 09:33 AM • permalink

  21. The article says that the story reads like a book, but I’m afraid for Zágoni it will read more like a play—specifically, Ibsen’s “An Enemy of the People.”

    Posted by SoberHT on 2008 03 10 at 10:48 AM • permalink

  22. So, in other words, we’re more likely to be shoved back into the Dark Ages by global warming con artists than we are to die of global warming.

    Posted by RebeccaH on 2008 03 10 at 11:18 AM • permalink

  23. Okay everybody,Stop Breathing!
    Quote

    say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades.

    Or at least, Stop Exhaling you selfish bastids!!

    Do these people even read what they’re writing?

    Posted by Veeshir on 2008 03 10 at 04:18 PM • permalink

  24. Being liberal means never having to say you’re sorry. It would be redundant to do so.

    Don’t worry about their finances, though. They’ll come up with another scam theory to scare the masses. Hollywood needs a new cause.

    Posted by Deborah Leigh on 2008 03 10 at 05:26 PM • permalink

  25. Dr. Stephen Garner….says such negative feedback effects are “not very plausible”.

    Interpretation: Hey, buddy, stop messing with my reseach grants!

    Posted by rinardman on 2008 03 10 at 06:17 PM • permalink

  26. “Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year”

    But at what environmental cost?! For every $5 bn of GDP, about 915,000 metric tons of nasty greenhouse gas are emitted.

    Save the planet: End climate research funding now!

    Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2008 03 10 at 06:34 PM • permalink

  27. Hush guys, I am trying to sell carbon credits here.

    Posted by David A on 2008 03 10 at 07:11 PM • permalink

  28. OK - let’s not get too carried away.

    I am about as sceptical as they come on human caused warming, but this is just another scientist with a model using imprecise data.

    If the model does better reflect real world observations than other models then yippee.  But as it stands, we can’t accurately predict next month’s rainfall let alone temps in ten years time and that is using the biggest computers in the world.

    That poor bastard is going to have a rough time getting any sort of realistic funding to prove up his equations.  Let alone valuable time on superputers.

    Posted by Razor on 2008 03 10 at 08:31 PM • permalink

  29. #12 I believe Navier-Stokes is the solution to three-dimensional vector fields, of any sort.

    Well, almost correct.

    Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2008 03 10 at 08:34 PM • permalink

  30. The headline graphic on that DailyTech piece has totally turned me around on the seriousness of warmening.

    Screw the poley bears - global warmening will MELT YOUR ICE CREAMS PEOPLE!

    Posted by fidens on 2008 03 10 at 09:55 PM • permalink

  31. #30 - Oh, bugger! No one told me about the ice creams, damn it!

    Posted by Razor on 2008 03 11 at 12:08 AM • permalink

  32. Another thing un-attributed to global warming:

    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080311/tpl-uk-britain-floods-report-f7fdc02.html

    Posted by Baron on 2008 03 11 at 02:10 AM • permalink

  33. Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Members:
Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the "pending" list and you won't be able to log in. All accounts that are "pending" for more than one week will be deleted.