Comments on: Climate Cover-Up http://hot-topic.co.nz/climate-cover-up/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=climate-cover-up Global warming and the future of New Zealand Tue, 22 May 2012 17:06:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Johnmacmot http://hot-topic.co.nz/climate-cover-up/#comment-16754 Johnmacmot Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:50:58 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=3281#comment-16754 That will explain the "flood" of high-level contributions in recent days then. They really have cranked it up. Yeah, I know, appropriately weak pun..... That will explain the “flood” of high-level contributions in recent days then. They really have cranked it up.

Yeah, I know, appropriately weak pun…..

]]> By: Thermo http://hot-topic.co.nz/climate-cover-up/#comment-16749 Thermo Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:36:40 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=3281#comment-16749 "You’re certainly rattling these guys’ cages" Yea he cited a paper that even skeptics are debunking. How embarrassing. "Climate and temperature is (and always has been cyclic)." A correct but meaningless statement. "All the ‘best’ climate science in the early 1970s had all the proof you could shake a stick at that the world was entering a new ice age!" Jay, then it should be easy for you to cite JUST ONE peer reviewed scientific paper from the 70's from a reputable science journal that warned of an impending ice age. I expect to see a valid cite by the end of business today. Please don't disappoint me. You wouldn't want me to think that you just make stuff up, do you? “You’re certainly rattling these guys’ cages”

Yea he cited a paper that even skeptics are debunking.
How embarrassing.

“Climate and temperature is (and always has been cyclic).”

A correct but meaningless statement.

“All the ‘best’ climate science in the early 1970s had all the proof you could shake a stick at that the world was entering a new ice age!”

Jay, then it should be easy for you to cite JUST ONE peer reviewed scientific paper from the 70′s from a reputable science journal that warned of an impending ice age.

I expect to see a valid cite by the end of business today. Please don’t disappoint me.

You wouldn’t want me to think that you just make stuff up, do you?

]]> By: Thermo http://hot-topic.co.nz/climate-cover-up/#comment-16747 Thermo Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:26:29 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=3281#comment-16747 Arno, this page sums up Miskolczi's joke paper quite nicely. http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Miskolczi.html Perhaps flogging dead horses is a hobby of yours. Arno, this page sums up Miskolczi’s joke paper quite nicely.

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Miskolczi.html

Perhaps flogging dead horses is a hobby of yours.

]]> By: Media Books http://hot-topic.co.nz/climate-cover-up/#comment-16744 Media Books Tue, 24 Aug 2010 20:52:50 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=3281#comment-16744 I think this book is a good read for anyone interested in the role of public relations firms in redefining the debate on climate change. After reading this book I spotted some of the people mentioned in subsequent 'news' stories on tv. I think this book is a good read for anyone interested in the role of public relations firms in redefining the debate on climate change. After reading this book I spotted some of the people mentioned in subsequent ‘news’ stories on tv.

]]> By: Rob Taylor http://hot-topic.co.nz/climate-cover-up/#comment-16740 Rob Taylor Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:26:27 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=3281#comment-16740 Arno, you may be fooling yourself - or just reading from a script prepared by others - but your statements are easily demonstrated to be incorrect. Here is the actual research findings on the changing GHG signal in the IR satellite data: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html and here, again, is a link to various critiques of Miskolczi’s work by real scientists in the field: http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi I suggest you try to understand these before you waste anyone else's time. Arno, you may be fooling yourself – or just reading from a script prepared by others – but your statements are easily demonstrated to be incorrect.

Here is the actual research findings on the changing GHG signal in the IR satellite data:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

and here, again, is a link to various critiques of Miskolczi’s work by real scientists in the field:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi

I suggest you try to understand these before you waste anyone else’s time.

]]> By: Arno Arrak http://hot-topic.co.nz/climate-cover-up/#comment-16739 Arno Arrak Tue, 24 Aug 2010 16:20:36 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=3281#comment-16739 Rob Taylor, Thermo: As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Neither one of you is either able or willing to understand the science on your own so I will walk you through Miskolczy's work. What he has done is to use NOAA database of radiosonde observations that goes back to 1948 to empirically determine that the global average annual infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere has been unchanged for 61 years, with a value of 1.87. This is not a theoretical prediction like Svante Arrhenius did more than a century ago, but is based on actual instrumental observations. The optical thickness he speaks of is a logarithmic measure of the transparency of the atmosphere to heat radiation from below. Constant addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere for 61 years straight has not changed the transparency of the atmosphere in the infrared or the optical thickness would have increased, and this did not happen. What it means is that the greenhouse absorption signature from carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere through all these years simply isn't there. No absorption, no greenhouse effect, case closed. That is exactly why the anthropogenic global warming, AGW, has never been detected as you will learn when you read my book. I highly recommend that you spring for it - you will learn real climate science from it. Roy Spencer has criticized Miskolczi's work but comments have pointed out errors in his article. The worst he can say is that radiosonde data older than the mid-sixties can not be trusted which is just an attempt to muddy the waters. You take it from there. Rob Taylor, Thermo: As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. Neither one of you is either able or willing to understand the science on your own so I will walk you through Miskolczy’s work. What he has done is to use NOAA database of radiosonde observations that goes back to 1948 to empirically determine that the global average annual infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere has been unchanged for 61 years, with a value of 1.87. This is not a theoretical prediction like Svante Arrhenius did more than a century ago, but is based on actual instrumental observations. The optical thickness he speaks of is a logarithmic measure of the transparency of the atmosphere to heat radiation from below. Constant addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere for 61 years straight has not changed the transparency of the atmosphere in the infrared or the optical thickness would have increased, and this did not happen. What it means is that the greenhouse absorption signature from carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere through all these years simply isn’t there. No absorption, no greenhouse effect, case closed. That is exactly why the anthropogenic global warming, AGW, has never been detected as you will learn when you read my book. I highly recommend that you spring for it – you will learn real climate science from it. Roy Spencer has criticized Miskolczi’s work but comments have pointed out errors in his article. The worst he can say is that radiosonde data older than the mid-sixties can not be trusted which is just an attempt to muddy the waters. You take it from there.

]]> By: Gareth http://hot-topic.co.nz/climate-cover-up/#comment-16729 Gareth Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:03:43 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=3281#comment-16729 Nope, but "Jay" seems to have come here after an email alert or request. Rather like the NZ "climate realist' newsletter last week, which urged people to come here and vote for our dear crank commenters. Seems they're in a substantial minority... ;-) Nope, but “Jay” seems to have come here after an email alert or request. Rather like the NZ “climate realist’ newsletter last week, which urged people to come here and vote for our dear crank commenters. Seems they’re in a substantial minority… ;-)

]]> By: tomfarmer http://hot-topic.co.nz/climate-cover-up/#comment-16726 tomfarmer Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:39:09 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=3281#comment-16726 Same bin, huh.. Same bin, huh..

]]> By: Dappledwater http://hot-topic.co.nz/climate-cover-up/#comment-16724 Dappledwater Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:33:04 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=3281#comment-16724 Yes, not only that Rob, but water, strangely enough, affects plant growth too: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100820101504.htm "Global plant productivity that once was on the rise with warming temperatures and a lengthened growing season is now on the decline because of regional drought, according to a new study of NASA satellite data." "Compared with a 6 percent increase in plant productivity during the 1980s and 1990s, the decline observed over the last decade is only 1 percent. The shift, however, could impact food security, biofuels and the global carbon cycle." Yes, not only that Rob, but water, strangely enough, affects plant growth too:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100820101504.htm

“Global plant productivity that once was on the rise with warming temperatures and a lengthened growing season is now on the decline because of regional drought, according to a new study of NASA satellite data.”

“Compared with a 6 percent increase in plant productivity during the 1980s and 1990s, the decline observed over the last decade is only 1 percent. The shift, however, could impact food security, biofuels and the global carbon cycle.”

]]> By: adelady http://hot-topic.co.nz/climate-cover-up/#comment-16722 adelady Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:28:58 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=3281#comment-16722 Jay, who were these "best" scientists predicting cooling in the 70s? My recollection is that 6 times as many were predicting warming as were predicting cooling. But I don't have a list of the names. Clearly you know which list included which names - and that the "cooling" scientists and their reports were better than the others. Could you enlighten me? And why are these people not now publishing the same kind of thing? Jay, who were these “best” scientists predicting cooling in the 70s?

My recollection is that 6 times as many were predicting warming as were predicting cooling. But I don’t have a list of the names. Clearly you know which list included which names – and that the “cooling” scientists and their reports were better than the others. Could you enlighten me? And why are these people not now publishing the same kind of thing?

]]>