Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"

[Dapper Dan]

Not making any sort of political statement here, just thought this may interest some of you...
Link

[fingal]

[Dapper Dan]

Cute cartoon fingal...

...but from the article, it is the US government that is maintaining the position that global warming is indeed taking place, whereas it is two Hungarian scientists who are asserting the methodology that has been historically used to arrive at that conclusion is flawed.

[fingal]

Dan - So I see - and probably NASA has reasons other than just 'money' to throw out what is probably bad science. I don't understand those equations, but I do think there are more factors than just a supposed 'top level' which global warming can't exceed.

Is there really an analogy between the theory of relativity and global warming? That sounds like a false comparison to me. The speed of light has no correlation with atmospheric temperature.

In addition, there are other observable factors which may indicate global warming. For example:

1. Atmospheric methane levels have increased over a measurable period.
2. Nitrous oxide levels are higher than they were in the pre-industrial era.
3. Carbon dioxide levels are measurably higher than in the pre-industrial age.

Even if there is a top level, the oceans play a part too. Previously they acted as carbon dioxide 'sinks', absorbing it in large amounts. Now this process has started to reverse, and the worlds' oceans are dying... releasing carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere and accelerating warming.

The polar ice caps are melting, pushing up sea levels... All of these are observable phenomenon. It seems like a bad time for someone to start pulling apart basic methodology; but hey... I'm just a librarian.

Is there a friendly scientist out there who would like to comment on all this? A personal point I would like to make is this: always be wary of the vested interests of people who suddenly refute established theories. They can be doing so for political or financial reasons, rather than out of a love of scientific truth.

Okay - it's possible that Mr Zágoni is perfectly convinced of his theories (he might even have a good point!) but some of the groups who have questioned climate change theory in the past have been affiliated to the oil industry.

[Jonathan183]

A personal point I would like to make is this: always be wary of the vested interests of people who suddenly refute established theories. They can be doing so for political or financial reasons, rather than out of a love of scientific truth.

I agree ... but we should also keep in mind theories are just that. Models are useful when they help us understand how the real system works. They are all based on simplifying assumptions, and matching historic behaviour is no guarantee of future accuracy.

Neural networks for example can be over-trained so although they perform well recognising patterns in training data they perform less well when presented with new data.

Ed: dominant position for a long time does not necessarily make it right ... or the best solution ... M$