Hungarians Crush Global Warming Theory?

The Speculist has an entry up, describing how Miklós Zágoni may have just put a stake through the heart of the Global Warming movement, going from super-advocate for the Kyoto Protocol, to extreme “doubter,” with a new theory that seems to better predict both the Earth and Mars’ temperatures.

Turns out, all the equations being used contain one of my favorite things, a “dangerous assumption.”  I won’t steal their thunder:  go check it out, it’s a REAL forehead-slapper…

Advertisements
Leave a comment

16 Comments

  1. Well, the earth was flat. In a month they will find out that the planet is actually cooling. I really wish that I could understand the math. I’m still waiting for commercial space travel so I can take advantage of time dilation. Then I can put all my money in the bank, and stay in space for a day and have it grow 4000 times.

    Reply
  2. Mike

     /  March 8, 2008

    Now that is a useful use of science.

    I have to say though that right now the counter-counter-attack is starting. It’s no longer “global warming” its “climate change”. That is nice and grey, perfect for issuing blame on capitialists, the government, the whales or whomever. And since its grey, you can have an easier time of cherry picking data to provide “real scientific proof”.

    Brought to you by the same idiots who believed in that Russian bozo who thought you could encourage seeds to be tougher and grow in Siberia.

    Reply
  3. Mike

     /  March 8, 2008

    Now that is a useful use of science.

    I have to say though that right now the counter-counter-attack is starting. It’s no longer “global warming” its “climate change”. That is nice and grey, perfect for issuing blame on capitialists, the government, the whales or whomever. And since its grey, you can have an easier time of cherry picking data to provide “real scientific proof”.

    Brought to you by the same idiots who believed in that Russian bozo who thought you could encourage seeds to be tougher and grow in Siberia.

    Reply
  4. Mike

     /  March 8, 2008

    Now that is a useful use of science.

    I have to say though that right now the counter-counter-attack is starting. It’s no longer “global warming” its “climate change”. That is nice and grey, perfect for issuing blame on capitialists, the government, the whales or whomever. And since its grey, you can have an easier time of cherry picking data to provide “real scientific proof”.

    Brought to you by the same idiots who believed in that Russian bozo who thought you could encourage seeds to be tougher and grow in Siberia.

    Reply
  5. The projections assume an infinitely thick atmosphere — well no wonder the temps can go up. A real atmo would start radiating after a time…

    Reply
  6. Alex

     /  March 9, 2008

    I do get the assumptions for both hyptheses/theories…although I’m beginning to think that in that article the word theory should be completely thrown out as I’m not sure those experiments have really been proven, making them still a hypothesis.
    A real atomosphere would eventually start radiating the heat out into space, but, we don’t know:
    1) changes in thermal conductivity from an atmosphere rich in CO2.
    2) Thermal diffusion rates from surface to air to space when CO2/CH4 content goes up.
    3) Albedo reduction effects from loss in polar/mountain ice caps.
    4) Thermal temperature increase of the soil due to increase in soot/small particle increase from industrial production.

    Global warming / climate change / weather pattern imbalance. Whatever you want to call it, something IS going on. When permafrost starts melting easier during the summers, polar ice continues to shrink, mountain glaciers disappear, sea levels rise swallowing up small islands….something is going on and some of our polluting habits are likely to blame. Note I say SOME. It may be that some of this is a natural cycle, but, we can have cleaner energy production and better effeciency. There is no need to be wasteful when we can have better technology. Besides – if there is no driver for better energy efficiency, there is no driver for technological innovation in energy production, which is something well overdue for us as a world.

    Or so I hypothesize with the data I have before me.

    Reply
  7. Oh, Alex, I’m all for getting rid of pollution: pollution, after all, is inefficiency and waste.

    Reply
  8. blackpine

     /  March 9, 2008

    Problem is zealotry. Most political thought is a Calvinist Mad-Lib. Look for an elect people, a reprobate people, Eden, Heaven, Hell and infallible justice. Indigenous peoples used to live in harmony with the land, but thanks to capitalism we have destroyed the Earth and soon it will be a place of disease, famine, war, and pestilence unless we give up our destructive, industrial ways. Pay no mind to the guys who are selling carbon credits. They’re eco-Catholics.

    The infinitely thick atmosphere equations will be held for a long time, because the research against it has the emotional weight of heresy. Most of the green movements religiously use science.

    Reply
  9. I’m wondering how much of global warming is normal, and how much of it is caused by us.

    Reply
  10. Andrew, you’ll find very few hard-core “believers” in either direction on this site. A review of some of the scientific evidence I’ve read has convinced me that the majority of the meaningful inputs can be placed directly at the sun’s feet.

    Solar variations appear to predict both the Earth *and* Mars’ temperature changes, whereas man-made change is an obvious non-factor for the latter.

    your mileage may vary, and the “primarily man-made” camp may parry recent literature with something else. You’ll notice that it was a distinctly *pro*-Kyoto researcher who’s now holding up the “wait a minute, infinitely dense atmosphere?” query. So I’m real skeptical of the professionally closed minds at this point.

    Reply
  11. Mike

     /  March 10, 2008

    That’s the truth. I tend to agree with the people who want to clean up things because not because I want to save the earth but because we should clean up after ourselves (its polite and who wants to live in a dump). I get really turned off by the boneheads who are pushing the “THIS IS IT! CHANGE OR DIEEEEEEEEE!”

    Dude, cut the drama. If you had said “hey, pick up after yourself you slob” I might have listened.

    Reply
  12. blackpine

     /  March 11, 2008

    Well you knew that the greens weren’t serious about global warming when they eschewed technological choices. You never heard anyone mention domed cities, nuke power or buying up tracts of northern wilderness that will become reclaimed tundra or permafrost. Likewise they never started planning for a big population shift from an inhospitable equator to the farnorth and far south. They just went for churning out doomsday scenarios.

    Reply
  13. Doomsday scenarios are great for making change though.

    Reply
  14. Alex

     /  March 11, 2008

    Yes they are. Simply saying that we should follow an ideal of behavior won’t cause the majority to change their behavior otherwise we would be a society of idealists with no problems. So extremes have to be thrown out (rightly or wrongly) to get a majority to listen.

    Reply
  15. blackpine

     /  March 12, 2008

    A society of idealists tends to less than ideal. Unfettered idealism is in fact a recipe for door to door war. Doomsday scenarios rarely address the real issue and more often than not. are appeals to idealism. The real issue for the Kyoto protocols were reducing the industrial base of Western competitors to Europe. That was why India and China were left off entirely in terms of any action at all, why we didn’t sign it, and why Europe doesn’t even come close to abiding by it. The Red Menace was a power grab by McCarthy. And so on.

    That’s why I say that this isn’t going to get much air play. The science is politicized heavily here, and so the more that a group can use the inaccurate figures to get traction, the more they will discredit contrary figures.

    Reply
  16. Actually, there’s a newer set of scholarship that stands to greatly rehabilitate McCarthy…

    Yeah. Weird. Turns out a shitload of the data has been simply mysteriously missing, for years, but that most of the folks accused of being Soviet agents actually were.

    Anyway, that’s a serious tangent, though.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Featured Eyeballs

  • What’s today again?

    March 2008
    M T W T F S S
    « Feb   Apr »
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  
  • Archives

  • Blog Stats

    • 131,335 hits
  • Recent Comments

    Cults and Context |… on So, about that Bruce Jenner…
    Cults and Context |… on Yes, I AM, in fact, looking at…
    Cults and Context |… on How The Internet Says “D…
    Kat Laurange on Hungarian Military Sabre …
    Kat Laurange on Rose Garden! The Home Edi…
  • %d bloggers like this: