tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post2864636531253930246..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Nobel prize winning physicist explains why global warming is 'a new religion' and 'pseudoscience'Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-25610726988228221212012-07-13T22:40:13.294-07:002012-07-13T22:40:13.294-07:00I note the focus on one or two negative points - s...I note the focus on one or two negative points - some sad people always grasp at straws. The fact is - plain and simple truth just doesn't suit the doomsday brigade. It's good to see some good old fashioned common sense getting an airing. DJ Syd - AustAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-34800590148072686372012-07-12T13:07:40.825-07:002012-07-12T13:07:40.825-07:00Anon,
Yes - agreed. I am planning to do a post on...Anon,<br /><br />Yes - agreed. I am planning to do a post on the subject of the fallacious GHE calculation on the APS site.<br /><br />[If this is MDGNN by chance, I would like to run a few things by you via email - if you would be so kind to send your email address to hockeyschtick@gmail.com & I will of course keep your email & communications private]MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-22209028470840089192012-07-12T12:23:32.500-07:002012-07-12T12:23:32.500-07:00In this APS publication [ http://www.aps.org/units...In this APS publication [ http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm ]the authors point out that to get energy balance, you must reduce lower atmosphere emissivity from 1, used by the IPCC, to 0.76. This means the models exaggerate heat input by 333[1-0.76]=80 W/m^2 or 50 times calculated AGW!<br /><br />This corresponds to increasing IR by 350%, the cause of the imaginary feedback. There are many other serious faults in this pseudo-science. No climate models can predict climate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-17183350015411621832012-07-11T07:08:44.618-07:002012-07-11T07:08:44.618-07:00It is the logical conclusion to the argument that ...It is the logical conclusion to the argument that there are "too many people" for us all to enjoy the "American Dream" and simultaneously reduce the CO2 burden on the atmosphere. There are eco-nuts out there who are advocating reduction of the World Population to a "sustainable" one (1) billion (as in 6 billion or so of us have to go). To them, of course, I always say - "fine - you first!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-3480314700899658052012-07-10T18:13:19.450-07:002012-07-10T18:13:19.450-07:00http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&l...http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true<br /><br />The paper made public 11/24/11 explains the basis and provides 27 sub links. I have a recent one (July 4) but it has not been made public yet. The story hasn't changed much.<br /><br />The separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising average global temperature has grown to 25.1%.Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-49346935774621499222012-07-10T17:07:24.057-07:002012-07-10T17:07:24.057-07:00Thanks, do you have a link?
I obtained a correlat...Thanks, do you have a link?<br /><br />I obtained a correlation coefficient of .96% with a similar "model"<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.htmlMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-31763743290703197792012-07-10T16:59:16.770-07:002012-07-10T16:59:16.770-07:00Application of the first law of thermodynamics, th...Application of the first law of thermodynamics, the time-integral of sunspot numbers (a proxy for energy retained by the planet) and a generalization of ocean thermal cycles explains average global temperature anomalies since 1895 with an accuracy of 88.5%.Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-71291701217652967902012-07-10T16:55:48.783-07:002012-07-10T16:55:48.783-07:00Dr. Giaever only makes those recommendations "...Dr. Giaever only makes those recommendations "IF you STILL believe that global warming is occurring AND that the main cause is CO2 when I have finished this talk..." Giaever shows CO2 is not causing global warming and therefore those recommendations do not apply.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-36086063124911817662012-07-10T16:47:43.442-07:002012-07-10T16:47:43.442-07:002. Limit the population increase by allowing only ...2. Limit the population increase by allowing only one child/woman.<br /><br />Nope, can't go for that.<br /><br />It's bad enough being told which light bulbs to use let alone how many children we can have.<br /><br />That such a thing could even be mentioned is mind boggling.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com