Skip to main content
Report this ad

Former NASA scientist defends theory refuting global warming doctrine

fig_2.jpg

Comments

  • Andrew Gibbs 5 years ago

    Did Dr.Miskolczi get a reply to his letter or was he totally ignored?

  • Juan 5 years ago

    EPA has ignored all the letters to the endangerment finding for CO2. Looks like people are lining up to take them to court.

    One way or another...the truth about the temperature data and the truth about the CO2 data from Mauna Loa station is going to come out.

    It's Orwellian how many times the past data has changed to fit their agenda.

  • julie 5 years ago

    re EPA
    Peabody's submission to the EPA is very comprehensive (over 200P)
    find it on Science and Public Policy Institute and is well worth a read.
    re Miskolczi - how does his theory sit with the IRIS theory (Lindzen). As a non-scientist I'd appreciate some comment on that. I imagine both theories basically are about self regulation of atmosphere?

  • iurockhead 5 years ago

    The letter to the EPA was a waste of time. There is likely no one there that will understand it, it's over their heads. Any that do understand the science will ignore it. To accept the science would take away their newfound power before they have had a chance to exercise it.

  • Willis Eschenbach 5 years ago

    Dr. Miskolczi's work is great. Unfortunately, a single atmospheric layer greenhouse model cannot provide enough energy to replicate the actual earth. A single layer greenhouse can only double the incoming W/m2. This doesn't provide enough energy to replicate the known losses. Perhaps Dr. Miscolczi could comment on this problem?

  • Heidi D. Klein 5 years ago

    The Science is settled!
    The data is Robust!
    We have 2500 WWF'ers...

    hehe.

  • H. Michael Mogil, CCM 5 years ago

    Good..no make that GREAT...job!

    I'm a Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM) and even without Dr. Mizkolczi's theory, I've had serious misgivings about the IPCC Report and related efforts (including the EPA's attempt to regulate carbon dioxide).

    I've written several pieces about this at my associatedcontent.com web site and I am now addressing the issue in talks across southwest Florida.

    Sometime soon, I am sure that I will be discussing climate change at my examiner.com page. That's because the cold weather, snows and other recent events are no more climate change-based than the warmth of several years ago. It's all part of weather variability, something that happens periodically on a scale of months to years. Climate takes quite a bit longer to change.

    NOAA should redefine its definition of climate to remove the 30-year average from the playing field. That would help to clarify what climate really i

  • MadJak 5 years ago

    Now this is great stuff. Here we have a scientist working off empirical Data and information to prove or disprove a hypothesis.

    That is opposed to people using models and assumptions and calling it science.

    Why can't we give scientists who work off empirical observations more airtime? Bravo to the Examiner for alluding to this.

  • MadJak 5 years ago

    Now this is great stuff. Here we have a scientist working off empirical Data and information to prove or disprove a hypothesis.

    That is opposed to people using models and assumptions and calling it science.

    Why can't we give scientists who work off empirical observations more airtime? Bravo to the Examiner for alluding to this.

  • MadJak 5 years ago

    Now this is great stuff. Here we have a scientist working off empirical Data and information to prove or disprove a hypothesis.

    That is opposed to people using models and assumptions and calling it science.

    Why can't we give scientists who work off empirical observations more airtime? Bravo to the Examiner for alluding to this.

  • DCC 5 years ago

    What's with his references?
    Relevant References:
    F. Miskolczi: Id?járás 111 (2007) 1–40,

    Makes no sense.

  • Paul Harmon 5 years ago

    Game, set, and match, bitches.

  • Derek 5 years ago

    Dr. Miskolczi had to leave NASA to get his works published.
    James Hansen stopped publication whilst Dr. Mikolczi was employed by Nasa.

    I have no doubt that Dr. Miskolczi has discovered, and shown a relationship between atmospheric water vapour and CO2.

    BUT - He still adds up radiation cumulatively, not relatively..

    Overall he saya the only way to warm or cool the world is by changing the solar input, or the planets albedo. This is fair enough, but, he ignores geothermal inputs.

    Overall - Dr. Miskolczi, interesting observations re H2O and CO2,
    but quack, quack ooops, regarding IR (addition) budgets.
    Greenhouse theory, AGW, and IR budgets are quack,
    but simply because they add radiation (cumulative),
    they should be relative - period.

  • Richard Savage 5 years ago

    I appreciate Eschenbach's comment, and don't understand that of Derek, but the lack of trend in flux optical depth seems definitive to me - CO2 has had no effect on radiative transfer through the atmosphere. End of AGW claim. Nice to see real numbers that are fundamental to the physics.

  • Dr. F. M. Miskolczi 5 years ago

    Willis Eschenbach :

    Dear Willis, could you please specify what single layer model you are referring to? I am a bit confused, could you clarify your comment?

  • Dr. F. M. Miskolczi 5 years ago

    Andrew Gibbs:
    .."Did Dr.Miskolczi get a reply to his letter or was he totally ignored?"...

    The letter was totally ignored.

  • Dr. F. M. Miskolczi 5 years ago

    Derek:

    The the geothermal heat flux, volcanism, tidal friction, heat pollution and any other heat source of natural or human origin is an additive term to the total absorbed solar radiation. I did not dealt with them, but they were assumed to be negligible and not to have a direct influence on the infrared opacity...

Report this ad