Posted on 08/14/2010 9:13:25 AM PDT by Danae
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.
(snip)
To put it very simply, Dr. Miskolczi has described previously unknown properties of our atmosphere.
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.
Thanks.
I have only read the back up material he links to but he makes the argument that increased CO2 cause the atmosphere to become dryer thus the the greenhouse effect of CO2 is balanced by the loss of water vapor. This isn’t a “new” theory. Everybody and their atmospheric scientist brother have been publishing on this. This guy is just doing a new analysis on old data. Maybe he’s right. For instance, I think Spencer has published something on this.
As far as the “black listed” charge, I can’t see how he was black listed. He’s publishing in an a topic the journals he sends this paper to aren’t interested in. If he really wants to get this out there, he can just put it on the web.
I'll stick to highly technical terms and advanced mathEmatics.
“If he really wants to get this out there, he can just put it on the web.”
I think you’re missing the point. In academia, peer review is the “quality control” on published work. Any crank can post anything s/he wants on the Web: that doesn’t in any way make it legitimate. Being published in a top-tier scientific journal that is peer-reviewed obviously isn’t a guarantee against error, but it means that at least 2-3 reviewers who presumably know something about the subject in depth have reviewed the paper and vetted any obvious errors.
The scandal about ClimateGate in part related to evidence that the AGW “insiders” may have been deliberately trying to either ensure that the work of skeptics didn’t get into the best peer-reviewed journals and/or discrediting the reputations of journals that did publish challenges to the AGW orthodoxy. So while this particular individual’s claims of being blacklisted may or may not be true, the claim itself is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility given the past behavior of AGW worshipers.
I’ve published several papers and been a reviewer for several conferences.
“I’ve published several papers and been a reviewer for several conferences.”
Congratulations. Join the club. Then you above all should understand the difference between a peer-reviewed paper and something someone just throws up on the Web. The latter COULD be brilliant, but if so, why not get it into a peer-reviewed journal where it will be taken more seriously?
My point was that he’s not blacklisted. Your point is something else.
He needs to propose his paper to journals that are interested. If he were truly blacklisted, he could just post it on the web. I’m sure in today’s environment if a scientist were truly blacklisted, he’d become an overnight celebrity.
Did you read the post this past week that made to both Anthony Waats’s site and Spencer’s site that misinterpreted Kirchhoff’s law then said that there could be no such thing as global warming? Even that dumb paper became famous.
Again, he’s not blacklisted.
The ability of CO2 to absorb and emit infrared radiation while transmitting visible light.
Actually, the fluorescence of CO2 within the IR portion of the spectrum is absolutely meaningless. If you understand fluorescence, then you know that the wavelengths at which light is absorbed and reemitted are completely irrelevant, and the only relevant fact here is that the energy difference between the two wavelengths is emitted as heat (or IR). Since fluorescence occurring within any portion of the spectrum always produces a small amount of heat, the fact that it also does so within the IR portion of the spectrum is meaningless. All gases--indeed, all materials--have fluorescence spectra; therefore, the behavior of CO2 in this regard is indistinguishable from any other gas. In any case, no fluorescence occurs without an external energy source, and the heat produced is a tiny fraction of the total energy input.
since it has this amazing heating ability (by which it creates energy that wasn’t there
No one is claiming that CO2 creates energy that wasn't there.
If you take the proponents of human caused global warming at face value, then you have to conclude that they ARE saying that CO2 increases the total energy of the atmosphere. Otherwise, the only energy in the system is that which the sun provides; once that conclusion is reached, the whole idea that it is human caused becomes invalidated.
I'll stick to highly technical terms and advanced mathEmatics.
So... rocket propulsion in space is too difficult for people to understand? Or they need advanced degrees in physics to understand why it would work? I don't think so. Simplified explanations work because people understand physical laws instinctively, even if they can't tell the difference between second order reaction kinetics and an absorbance spectrum.
My opinion has always been that no matter how complicated your subject is, you should be able to explain it so that a child can understand. If you can't simplify it to that level (without leaving out so much that you're no longer describing it accurately), then your understanding of the subject becomes suspect. Too many anthropogenic global warming proponents use the fact that most people have weak science and math backgrounds to snow them. They don't care about leading people to true understanding; they present themselves as superior and smarter, with the strong implication that the intended audience is too stupid to even begin to understand the issue. Personally, I prefer to guide people to understanding--and that means talking to them at their level.
The ability of CO2 to absorb and emit infrared radiation while transmitting visible light.
Actually, the fluorescence of CO2 within the IR portion of the spectrum is absolutely meaningless. If you understand fluorescence,...
The central proposed mechanism by which carbon dioxide is supposed to produce the greenhouse effect does not involve fluorescence. There are some other errors you make in this same paragraph. If you are going to criticize a theory, you have to at least understand what it is.
By the way, I am not claiming AGW is a measurable effect, just that you don't know what the theory really says.
No one is claiming that CO2 creates energy that wasn't there.
If you take the proponents of human caused global warming at face value, then you have to conclude that they ARE saying that CO2 increases the total energy of the atmosphere.
That's right, but they don't claim that the energy comes from nowhere, just that more of the sun's energy is stored in the atmosphere until it reaches equilibrium at a higher temperature. The greenhouse effect has to do with the balance between energy coming from the sun and energy re-radiated back into space from the earth.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, like other greenhouse gases, supposedly reflects some of the infrared radiation coming from the earth back down again. Since this role of carbon dioxide does not involve a change of wavelength, it is not a fluorescence phenomenon. The only change of wavelength in the theory is that the visible light from the sun heats the earth and this results in infrared radiation back towards space.
Cheers!
This applies both to lay people and to scientists who disagree with AGW, who are not in climatology as a specialty; and also to scientists in meteorology / climatology, who are not spouting the party line.
argumentum ad hominem is not logically valid, but it *is* effective *cough* Alinsky *cough*
The left specializes in this -- think Carl Sagan and the use of his "nuclear winter" idea to promote unilateral disarmament by the US.
In the meantime, in the US, we need to capture the hearts and minds of the man in the street.
And the Climategate emails ("the dog ate my data") is a great place to start, as most people remember from high school or college that you can't just hand in a lab without the original measurements and say "trust me".
Cheers!
Both Dick Feynman and C.S. Lewis agree with you on this.
Well done indeed, I say to you!
Cheers!
"Oh, you do know something of the Art. Do you have the Sight? Do you see the future?" (Excalibur Script)
In order to be able to explain something to a child, first one has to understand it. One can’t begin with a childlike understanding.
The ability of CO2 to absorb and emit infrared radiation while transmitting visible light.
Actually, the fluorescence of CO2 within the IR portion of the spectrum is absolutely meaningless. If you understand fluorescence,...
The central proposed mechanism by which carbon dioxide is supposed to produce the greenhouse effect does not involve fluorescence. There are some other errors you make in this same paragraph. If you are going to criticize a theory, you have to at least understand what it is.
I do not know (since I can't look over previous posts right this moment) if it was you or someone else who claimed that the "greenhouse" effect is caused by the ability of CO2 to absorb and emit infrared radiation--but that IS the definition of fluorescence: the absorbance of radiation at a specific wavelength, and its emission at a slightly longer, lower energy wavelength. Since that is one of the MAJOR mechanisms proposed, that is supposedly unique to CO2 and to no other gas, which would explain its incredible ability to heat up the Earth--that is what I focus on. I purposely leave out all the other mechanisms in which CO2 acts like every other gas--they are not pertinent to the discussion, and add unnecessary complication.
I would counter that, in order to promote a theory, you should at least understand what it is.
By the way, I am not claiming AGW is a measurable effect, just that you don't know what the theory really says.
I have challenged AGW proponents several times to explain the properties of CO2 that would enable it to have these incredible warming properties, and all they come up with is that CO2 has fluorescent properties within the IR range of the spectrum (as someone stated above), or that CO2 is reflective to IR (as I quote you below). It looks to me like it's the AGW proponents who don't know what their own theory really says.
No one is claiming that CO2 creates energy that wasn't there.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, like other greenhouse gases, supposedly reflects some of the infrared radiation coming from the earth back down again. Since this role of carbon dioxide does not involve a change of wavelength, it is not a fluorescence phenomenon. The only change of wavelength in the theory is that the visible light from the sun heats the earth and this results in infrared radiation back towards space.
If CO2 is merely acting as a mirror to IR radiation, then its effect is completely non-directional. It cannot reflect the IR radiation preferentially back to Earth; it would reflect it in all directions, incoming as well as outgoing, with a net effect of zero.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.