iOS app Android app
Clicking Follow Back will add user to your friends list and may allow access to your Social News timeline..

HuffPost Social News

Badges:
Your Badges and the Badge Module will be removed from your profile

ArnoArrak's Comments

View Comments:   Sort:
Climate Change Study Indicates Amount Of Heat-Trapping Pollution Rose By 3 Percent Worldwide Last Year

Climate Change Study Indicates Amount Of Heat-Trapping Pollution Rose By 3 Percent Worldwide Last Year

Commented Dec 31, 2012 at 19:06:42 in Green

“This talk of dangerous temperature rise is nothing more than pseudo-scientific nonsense. Scientific observations of infrared absorption by the atmosphere show that absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere has not changed for the last 61 years. At the same time the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 percent which should show up as increased IR absorption but does not. And this is how it should be according to the theory of Ferenc Miskolczi. According to him the effect of addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is counterbalanced by negative feedback by water vapor. That is the exact opposite of positive water vapor feedback that gives those phony global warming predictions the article mentions. There is no warming at all now and there has not been any for the last 16 years. At the same time, atmospheric carbon dioxide kept increasing relentlessly. According to global warming theory this should cause warming but it isn't and it hasn't for the last sixteen years. In science, a theory that makes wrong predictions belongs in the dust heap of history. The greenhouse theory of global warming they use has made these wrong predictions and earned itself a place in that trash heap of history. To come out with these absurd predictions based on an invalid theory of warming is criminal. But they have been and still are being used to justify irrational actions to stop an imaginary warming, at great cost to the unsuspecting public.”
huffingtonpost entry

This Is What Climate Change Looks Like: Top 10 Most Expensive U.S. Climate Disasters of 2012

Commented Jul 2, 2013 at 16:26:54 in Green

“You may not have heard it because you don't pay attention to me. Let me say it this way: carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not cause greenhouse warming. Carbon dioxide does absorb infrared radiation but thus is nullified by the negative feedback of water vapor as Ferenc Miskolczi has shown. Miskolczi found that an increase of 21.6 percent of atmospheric carbon dioxide had no effect whatsoever on the IR absorption by the atmosphere. He used NOAA database of weather balloon observations going back to 1948 to verify this. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. Actually you don't have to be a rocket scientist to discover that for yourself, Atmospheric carbon dioxide today is highest ever but there is no warming now and there has been none for the last 15 years. The only conclusion you can draw from this is that carbon dioxide is incapable of causing any greenhouse warming. Arno Arrak”
Global Climate Negotiations Break Down in Bonn. Go Figure.

Global Climate Negotiations Break Down in Bonn. Go Figure.

Commented Jun 12, 2013 at 18:02:45 in Green

“Good. Agreements such as this one they want are based on a pseudoscientific belief that carbon dioxide causes warming. For your information, today's carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are the highest ever but there is no warming at all. And there has been no warming for the last 15 years. That is because carbon dioxide is simply unable to produce that greenhouse warming, the alleged cause of the alleged global warming that does not exist. The so-called greenhouse effect that the entire global warming movement is organized to stop does not even exist. The science explaining why it does not exist has been available since 2007 but has been suppressed and ignored and the public has been kept unaware of it by a compliant press. Ferenc Miskolczi, a Hungarian scientist working for NASA at the time, published his theory in 2007. He followed it up with experimental observations. Using NOAA weather balloon observations that go back to 1948 he studied the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere over time. He discovered that absorption had been constant for 61 years while at the same time carbon dioxide in air increased by 21.6 percent. This substantial addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere had no effect on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. This cuts the legs out from under the greenhouse theory of global warming, the raison d'etre of the global warming movement and its cancerous tentacles.”

cellerdoor on Jun 12, 2013 at 20:15:27

“"And there has been no warming for the last 15 years."

And, of course this is complete rubbish. This is so easily debunked that it's obvious that you're getting your info from non-scientific (and therefore, non-credible) sources.”
Global Warming Will Be Hell, Dramatic New Data Indicate

Global Warming Will Be Hell, Dramatic New Data Indicate

Commented Jun 2, 2013 at 12:41:16 in Politics

“Stupidity annoys me. There is no warming now and there has been none for the last 15 years as even Pachauri of the IPCC has reluctantly admitted. At the same time carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is at its historic high but it is completely unable to create that greenhouse warming that is claimed to be the cause of global warming. Since it is not able to cause global warming now It follows that past warming attributed to carbon dioxide is simply natural warming misidentified as anthropogenic. According to the laws of physics, if you want to start a greenhouse warming with carbon dioxide you must put more carbon dioxide into the air at the same time. Global temperature record shows that three warming periods started during the last century. A new warming began in each of the years 1910, 1976, and 1998. We know very well what happened to carbon dioxide that is imputed to be the cause of these three warming incidents: nothing at all. The graphic available to anyone shows that the carbon dioxide slowly increased but there were no sudden additions to the atmospheric carbon dioxide in 1910, or in 1976, or in 1998. It follows that these three warming incidents, the only ones during the last 100 years, cannot possibly be caused by the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide. This follows from the laws of physics. And by the way, laws of physics cannot be changed by the EPA or by the Supreme Court.”

Dardedar on Jun 3, 2013 at 21:20:53

“Your 1998 canard roasted to a crisp in two minutes flat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u_0JZRIHFtk

mbkeefer on Jun 2, 2013 at 20:24:01

“You must be VERY annoyed with yourself.
First if take the NASA GISS data for the last fifteen years and run a least mean squares fit on it, you get a positive warming trend of about 0.058 degrees C per decade. That is with using 1998 that outlier record hot year due to a record El Nino as a starting point. If you look at just the last 14 years, the warming trend nearly doubles. Embarrassing, isn't it.
Global warming is influenced by the ACCUMULATED carbon dioxide atmospheric content. Any little bump from year to year is nothing. The Earth has a HUGE thermal inertia. It takes decades to for the Earth to warm up to close to the new equilibrium temperature, ONCE the carbon dioxide atmospheric content stabilizes.”

palindrom on Jun 2, 2013 at 16:13:36

“Are you annoyed at yourself, perhaps?”

erhuh on Jun 2, 2013 at 16:04:39

“Nonsense. A denier newspaper claimed he said it but won't provide the exact quote even after he asked them to release it.

The trend has been slower in the atmosphere but its still warming. And the ocean is clearly warming”

ubrew12 on Jun 2, 2013 at 15:38:23

“"There is no warming now and there has been none for the last 15 years" google 'NOAA ocean heat and salt content' and click on the second graph "0-2000m global ocean heat content". Warming found!

"We know very well what happened to carbon dioxide that is imputed to be the cause of these three warming incidents: nothing at all." This is a signal to noise problem, where you are mistaking noise for signal. One of the most accurate measures of overall 'Global Heating' is sea level. There is a very strong 40 million year correlation between CO2 content and sea level. After several decades, a signal can be fleshed out from the noise. After 40 million years, definitely. You are implying that global temperature should react instantly to CO2, as though the massive heat capacitance of the oceans (to mention just one factor) had no say in the matter. This says more about your knowledge of Physics than anything else more substantive.”
huffingtonpost entry

How Global Warming Went Cold in America

Commented Mar 21, 2013 at 15:04:29 in Green

“Sunil Saran - your problem is that you are a true believer in global warming and are annoyed that more is not done to fight it. Has it ever occurred to you that this whole overblown global warming story is nothing but pseudoscience? The entire concept of anthropogenic global warming depends critically upon the existence of greenhouse warming by carbon dioxide. Take that away and the whole edifice of global warming collapses. And that is exactly what Ferenc Miskolczi has done. He used NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948 to study absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere. He discovered that atmospheric absorption had been constant for the previous 61 years while carbon dioxide at the same time increased by 21.6 percent. The addition of this substantial amount of carbon dioxide to air should have increased the absorption of IR according to the greenhouse theory. But nothing happened. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. This is an empirical observation of nature, not derived from any theory. It overrides any predictions from theory that do not agree with it. Specifically, it overrides all predictions of warming that emanate from the IPCC because they are based upon a non-existent greenhouse effect. Their scientific-sounding talk about global warming is nothing but pseudoscience. But it has successfully corrupted institutions and governments into thinking that something must be done to save us from a nonexistent warming. It is time to stop that nonsense.”

apeweek on Mar 21, 2013 at 20:55:11

“Merriam-Webster definition of pseudoscience is:

"...a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific "

That makes it easy. The pseudoscience side of this debate is the one the scientists aren't on.

The vast majority of climate scientists - something like 98% - are on the GW side. Would you even dispute that this is so?”
Secretary Kerry: Secure a Global Agreement to Reduce Aviation's Carbon Pollution

Secretary Kerry: Secure a Global Agreement to Reduce Aviation's Carbon Pollution

Commented Mar 20, 2013 at 12:11:26 in Green

“Complete rubbish. Kerry is so into his true belief in warming that he has lost track of reality. Let's look at the real world. First, there is no warming of any kind right now. Pachauri of the IPCC has admitted that there has not been any warming for the last 17 years. When pressed to tell us when he expects warming to resume he opined that it could take another thirty or forty years. I hate to tell these guys, but this is not going to happen because of the work of Ferenc Miskolczi. In 2010 he used NOAA database of weather balloon observations to study absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere and determined that it had been been constant for the previous 61 years. Carbon dioxide at the same time went up by 21.6 percent. This additional carbon dioxide, however, did not show up as additional absorption as required by the Arrhenius theory of warming. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. Miskolczi's work is empirical, not derived from any theory, and it overrules any deductions from theory that do not agree with it. Specifically, it overrules all predictions of warming that emanate from the IPCC. Their entire global warming edifice turns out to be a pseudoscience that our institutions and governments have been talked into believing by deceptive, scientific-sounding arguments. It is time to srtart repairing the damage done by the misguded policies directed at fighting a non-existent warming.”

MacTheCat on Mar 20, 2013 at 21:09:47

“Tell that to all those Pacific Islanders who've had to be relocated because their little islands are being flooded by the Ocean.”

whaas2 on Mar 20, 2013 at 16:52:53

“In the upper atmosphere where most of earth's radiation to space takes place, as CO2 increases temperatures decrease. The decrease in temperature causes H2O levels to decrease. H2O is the primary green house gas. Miskolczi has shown that the net effect is zero so mans adding CO2 does not cause climate change. There are many reasons to be conserving on fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.”

Dazed not Confused on Mar 20, 2013 at 15:30:55

“Please tell us why sea ice is depleting and oceans are rising.”
Global Warming and Carbon Dioxide Ethics

Global Warming and Carbon Dioxide Ethics

Commented Aug 23, 2012 at 20:28:50 in Green

“Duane Elgin is simply out of touch with scientific reality when he claims that "Humanity is converting the Earth into a gas chamber..."

This is nonsense. It is simply pseudoscience to claim that carbon dioxide is lethal. One of its benefits is to keep the earth habitable by the greenhouse effect. There is also another kind of greenhouse effect, the enhanced greenhouse effect, which is caused by the addition of carbon dioxide to atmosphere. It is this enhanced greenhouse effect that his alleged "scientists" fear. But thanks to Ferenc Miskolczi we know now that the enhanced greenhouse effect does not exist. Using NOAA weather balloon data set that goes back to 1948 he showed that the infrared transmittance of the atmosphere has been constant for 61 years. At the same time the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by 21.6 percent. Since this addition did not cause additional absorption of outgoing IR it follows that enhanced greenhouse effect does not exist. Hence, the "scientists" predictions are worthless. Also, since they are the justification for laws mandating emissions reductions, biofuel production, carbon taxes and so on, these have lost their justification and must be repealed. Since the enhanced greenhouse effect does not exist it follows that no observed warming in the past can be a greenhouse warming. Checking the global temperature curves published by NASA, NOAA, and NCDC we find indeed that no warming within the last 100 years can be definitely identified as greenhouse warming.”

hp blogger Duane Elgin on Aug 23, 2012 at 22:36:51

“Thanks for your feedback and I must respectfully disagree -- as do a majority of climate scientists. Please look at the quotes up front from the highly respected scientific journal, "Nature." For example: "The mean global temperature by 2070 (or a few decades earlier) will be higher than it ever has since the human species evolved." Also, the article by McKibben offers three starkly simple numbers to describe the math of global warming. We are cooking the planet and can already begin to see its effects around the world. For visible evidence, see this animation from NASA showing how temperatures around the world have warmed since 1880: http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/131-years-of-global-warming-in-26-seconds/ (reds indicate higher than average temperatures). The acceleration in global warming since 1970 is striking!”
Global Warming on a Roll at the Poles: Increased Melting, Cracking & Splitting

Global Warming on a Roll at the Poles: Increased Melting, Cracking & Splitting

Commented Apr 11, 2012 at 21:45:14 in Green

“None of these people are very well acquainted with scientific literature on the Arctic. In a peer-reviewed article about Arctic warming [E&E 22(8):1067-1083, 2011] I proved two crucial things about it. First, Arctic warming is not greenhouse warming because laws of physics do not permit this. And second, the Arctic today is being warmed by warm water of the Gulf Stream carried north by Atlantic Ocean currents. Direct measurement of these warm currents in 2010 showed that water temperature reaching the Arctic Ocean then was higher than at any time during the last 2000 years. The current warming of the Arctic started at the turn of the twentieth century, and we have no idea why. Prior to this here was nothing but two thousand years of slow cooling. The warming then paused for thirty years in the middle of the twentieth century and re-started in 1970. Presumably a rearrangement of North Atlantic current system is the cause of all these changes but we don't know why. I would like to see some of the millions of dollars the Federal government spends on climate research spent on solving this mystery instead of wasted on carbon dioxide greenhouse studies.”

NewportMac on Apr 12, 2012 at 12:01:47

“Salinity appears to be one of the keys to understanding Arctic sea ice extent. One study states increased Pacific salinity entering the Arctic via the Bering Strait as the cause of nearly 50% of the 2007 melt.

Arctic sea level pressure is another facet of the system:
Arctic salinity anomalies and their link to the North Atlantic during a positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PrOce..73..160H”
The Reason for Climate Denialism -- Is it Reasonable?

The Reason for Climate Denialism -- Is it Reasonable?

Commented Apr 1, 2012 at 19:19:09 in Green

“This article has no science content. It tries to prove the unprovable by trotting out a silly collection of straw men. What science tells us is that the greenhouse effect simply does not exist. Hungarian scientist Ferenc Miskolczi used NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to1948 to determine the transparency of the atmosphere to infrared radiation and discovered that it had not changed for 61 years. During that same period of time the amount of carbon dioxide in air increased by 21.6 percent. This means that the addition of all this carbon dioxide to air had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. This is an empirical finding that overrides any theoretical calculations that do not agree with it. It specifically overrides calculations that predict an Armaggedon caused by greenhouse warming. He had already predicted that in the presence of water vapor optical thickness of the atmosphere in the infrared assumes a constant equilibrium value of 1.86. And this is exactly what he found experimentally. His peer reviewed paper (E&E 21(4):243-262, 2010) has been available in scientific literature for more than a year now but no peer reviewed articles questioning it have appeared. In view of this it is time to put an end to futile attempts to change the climate by emission controls and start rolling back the irrational laws passed to save us from an imaginary Armageddon.”

waltifarian on Apr 5, 2012 at 00:42:59

“Lets see: one uncited, obscure article as "what science tells us" or, the American Chemical Society: “Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and absorbing aerosol particles.” (IPCC, 2007) “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.” (NRC, 2010a) “The potential threats are serious and actions are required to mitigate climate change risks and to adapt to deleterious climate change impacts that probably cannot be avoided.” (NRC, 2010b, c)”

silverwolf13 on Apr 3, 2012 at 20:14:38

“Keeping the earth at a habitable temperature depends upon a certain amount of carbon dioxide in the air. When this was too low, the earth froze over, with ice even reaching the equator. What melted that ice was carbon dioxide released from volcanoes and not transformed into calcium carbonate by rain (because there was only snow, not rain).

Currently, we are conducting a scientific experiment to see whether releasing unlimited amounts of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels can make the Earth into a place too hot for humans. Those in favor of continuing this experiment note the profits from continued fossil fuel extraction and use. Those opposed to this experiment note that we might be committing suicide. Those in favor of continuing the experiment note that they will reap profits, and the next generation will survive or not as fate dictates.

How do you vote? I have children and grandchildren, and I vote to provide them with the means to survive, which means converting to renewable energy.”

BlackbirdHighway on Apr 3, 2012 at 04:35:51

“"What science tells us is that the greenhouse effect simply does not exist."

Now that is funny! I've never seen oxygen either, so that proves it doesn't exist. You guys just don't care how ridiculous your arguments are.”

reasonshouldrule on Apr 3, 2012 at 00:09:12

“I have not read the article you refer to, bit if you have accurately described it, there are lots of problems, including the data set itself and the conclusions drawn from it. Furthermore, you have omitted vey important data gathered by a vast majority of climate researchers, all of which supports the reality of climate change.

You and others who are trying to forestall remedies for this problem are like the prehistoric humans who didn't believe the ice age was coming until they froze to death.”

gallon on Apr 2, 2012 at 13:03:02

“ArnoArrak's post has no science. Worse, it is compiled of climate lies, from top to bottom. There is no redeeming virtue to AA's post. Pure climate propaganda.”

palindrom on Apr 1, 2012 at 21:38:56

“"What science tells us is that the greenhouse effect simply does not exist."

That's simply untrue. There is vastly better data available in the form of downward-looking satellite spectroscopy. "Energy and Environment", by the way, is known for its extraordinarily low -- some would say nonexistent -- standards, especially when it comes to papers that deny global warming. It's publshed some real eye-rollers.

Meanwhile, have a look at this, from one of the greatest experts on planetary atmospheres:

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

As an astronomer, I have some training in radiative transfer theory; Pierrehumbert is the real deal, renowned for his deep physical insight and broad-ranging expertise. I'll believe him over some anonymous Hungarian with an old data set publishing in, of all places, E&E.”
huffingtonpost entry

Prospects For Avoiding Temperature Benchmark And Curbing Global Warming Grow Dimmer

Commented Jun 6, 2011 at 15:36:28 in Green

“(Continued from above)...
But consequences of this erroneous belief in warming linger. Since the IPCC climate models use imaginary warming from this added carbon dioxide in their computers they are just stuffing garbage into their computers. And if you put garbage into your computer you also get garbage out. GIGO as they call it. The computer predictions of dangerous global warming ahead are thus nothing more than GIGO but they are nevertheless force-fed to gullible governments to make them pass laws to stop warming. These emission control initiatives are hugely expensive - in the trillions, not billions of dollars - and will have no effect whatsoever on climate but a huge effect on your pocketbook. You will be taxed to fight an imaginary warming, forced to put up with unreliable and expensive power sources, and made to drive your car on alcohol brewed from grain, all for no rational reason whatsoever.”

Publicola on Jun 7, 2011 at 10:47:19

“My post was posted twice without the content in it - weird. I'll try again:

----------------------------------------

ArnoArrak: "Ferenc Miskolczi has determined that the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere remained constant for 61 years while the amount of carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 per cent."

Nope.

http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/04/22/the-mystery-of-tau-miskolczi/

ArnoArrak: "No absorption­, no greenhouse effect, case closed."

Of course there is IR absorption in the atmosphere via greenhouse gases, and of course there is a greenhouse effect. This is basic physics and is scientific fact.

Case closed.”

Publicola on Jun 6, 2011 at 16:31:59

“My post was posted without the content in it - weird. I'll try again:

----------------------------------------

ArnoArrak: "Ferenc Miskolczi has determined that the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere remained constant for 61 years while the amount of carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 per cent."

http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/04/22/the-mystery-of-tau-miskolczi/

ArnoArrak: "No absorption­, no greenhouse effect, case closed."

Of course there is IR absorption in the atmosphere, and of course there is a greenhouse effect. This is basic physics that has been empirically demonstrated.

Case closed.”

Publicola on Jun 6, 2011 at 16:25:36

“ArnoArraK: "Ferenc Miskolczi has determined that the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere remained constant for 61 years while the amount of carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 per cent."

No, he hasn't.

http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/04/22/the-mystery-of-tau-miskolczi/

ArnoArrak: "No absorption­, no greenhouse effect, case closed. "

There is IR absorption, and there is a greenhouse effect. That is basic physics.

Case closed.”
huffingtonpost entry

Prospects For Avoiding Temperature Benchmark And Curbing Global Warming Grow Dimmer

Commented Jun 6, 2011 at 15:34:14 in Green

“What is wrong with this quote: "...limiting rising average temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a threshold that many scientists believe is crucial for preventing runaway and irreversible impacts of climate change -- will be an increasingly elusive goal. As the IEA explained: For this goal to be achieved, the long-term concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere must be limited to around 450 parts per million of CO2-equivalent, only a 5 percent increase compared to an estimated 430 parts per million in 2000." What is wrong is that any amount of CO2 increase has no influence on climate. You can mitigate all you like but it is just tilting at windmills: you can not change global temperature one whit. That is because Ferenc Miskolczi has determined that the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere remained constant for 61 years while the amount of carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 per cent. This means that the greenhouse absorption signature of this added carbon dioxide is simply missing. But IPCC climate models that forecast dangerous warming ahead rely on the IR absorption of this added carbon dioxide to warm the world because absorption of IR is what generates greenhouse warming. Miskolczi verified the absence of this IR absorption by using the NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948 and calculated the optical thickness of the atmosphere during these years. No absorption, no greenhouse effect, case closed.”

gallon on Jun 6, 2011 at 23:41:28

“False, all fase ArnoArrak. Are you one of those brand new denier robots sent over here by the front groups for Big Oil?”

ReedYoung on Jun 6, 2011 at 16:51:19

“The only thing Misckolczi has ever proved about the greenhouse effect is that he doesn't understand it.”

blackwind on Jun 6, 2011 at 16:15:45

“" What is wrong is that any amount of CO2 increase has no influence on climate."
The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide is well know, and easily proven. If you understood it at a high school level you'd know that it is stupid to think CO2 couldn't trap heat, you'd know it must trap heat. It's impossible for it to not trap heat.
This is why you are called deniers, and not sceptics.

BTW if you are interested, this pretty well explains that bogus crap about more carbon dioxide having no further effect (although you don't seem to believe it has any effect to start with)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
huffingtonpost entry

Global Warming and Religion

Commented May 20, 2011 at 19:45:11 in Green

“Stenger: "Corporate greed is the primary motivation for global warming denial." How do you know this? Most scientists who oppose global warming have reached their conclusions from science. Satellite measurements cannot see any of that alleged greenhouse warming since they started operating in 1979. Within the last 31 years they have detected only one short spurt of warming which started in 1998, raised global temperature by a third of a degree in four years, and then stopped. It was oceanic in nature, nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. There was no warming before it, and none after. But what about the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide that you have been drilled to believe in? To check for its presence experimentally you have to measure the absorption of infrared radiation by the whole atmosphere and produce a time series of measurements showing how the absorption increases in time. Fortunately Ferenc Miskolczi found a way to get this information. Using NOAA's weather balloon database that goes back to 1948 he was able to show that the transparency of the atmosphere in the infrared where carbon dioxide absorbs had not changed for 61 years. During this same period the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increased by 21.6 percent. This means that the greenhouse absorption signature of this added carbon dioxide is simply not there. No absorption, no greenhouse effect, case closed. This explains why satellites have not been able to see that global warming we are told about.”

silverwolf13 on May 23, 2011 at 17:49:29

“I suggest that you read "Climate Cover-Up" by James Hoggan to learn a little about the climate denial business. And make no mistake, it is a business.”

vbinky on May 21, 2011 at 08:17:25

“ArnoArrak, Search "BBC-Science Under Attack "and if your attention span is long enough, you will see that nothing you have said has any truth and you fit the mold of these denialists that Paul Nurse of the Royal Society talks about in this 6 part series. Your ignorant response of NOAA that he goes into much detail should show your response for what it is...that "4-letter-word" DENIALISM.”

Publicola on May 20, 2011 at 20:23:07

“ArnoArrak: "Most scientists who oppose global warming have reached their conclusion­s from science."

And you know this... how?

ArnoArrak: "Satellite measuremen­ts cannot see any of that alleged greenhouse warming since they started operating in 1979"

Patently false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

Science denier rhetoric is stupefying.”
huffingtonpost entry

Could A Small Nuclear War Reverse Global Warming?

Commented Feb 26, 2011 at 20:08:20 in Green

“This is not just insanity but double insanity. There is not now and there never was any anthropogenic global warming. Satellites have been measuring global temperature for more than thirty years now and the only global warming they have seen is a short spurt near the turn of the twenty-first century. In four years it raised global temperature by a third of a degree and then stopped in the year 2002. Cause: oceanic, not anthropogenic. A third of a degree may not sound like much but it is actually half of what has been allotted to the entire twentieth century. This, and not some greenhouse effect is the cause of the very warm first decade of our century. There is other warming, true, but it is not global, is confined to the Arctic, and is not anthropogenic either. It has been going on for more than a hundred years now, ever since the North Atlantic current system started to direct warm water into the Arctic and melt the ice. National Geographic is fighting one insanity with another when it sees nuclear cooling as a solution to a non-existent global warming problem.”

SonOfUgh on Feb 26, 2011 at 20:21:03

“What do you mean warming stopped in 2002? 2010 and 2005 are tied as the hottest years on record. Both are after 2002. 3 of the next 5 hottest years are also after 2002. This is according to NASA. http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/100789/20110113/2010-warmest-year-on-record-climate-change.htm

Your wilful blindness to the facts does not make those facts untrue; it just makes your opinion unreliable and without significant value.”

quillsinister on Feb 26, 2011 at 20:12:19

“Hello! You must have just popped in from a parallel universe where everything you just said is true. Sounds like a pretty cool place. Welcome to *this* universe. :-)”
huffingtonpost entry

It Is Five Minutes To Environmental Midnight. We Need To Act - Urgently

Commented Sep 24, 2009 at 17:21:13 in Green

“Johann Hari seems to know everything about global warming and what it will do to us except the most important thing: it is totally imaginary. There is not now and there never was any anthropogenic global warming. First, satellites that have been continuously measuring world temperatures for the last thirty years simply cannot find that "late twentieth century warming." What they do find are climate oscillations in synch with the well-known ENSO system where a warm El Nino phase alternates with a cool La Nina phase while the mean temperature stays the same. And then the giant super El Nino of 1998 shows up. It turns out that it was caused by Indian Ocean overlow, thanks to a storm surge that raised it up, and it was then brought to South America by the equatorial countercurrent. This was followed shortly by the twenty-first century high, a run of warm years from 2001 to 2007. It ended with a La Nina cooling in 2007 that signifies resumption of the ENSO oscillations we had before 1998. We should expect the next El Nino to peak sometime early 2010. Our climate from now on will be an alternating sequence of ENSO oscillations and there will be no more warming ahead of us. If your scientific theory predicts warming and you get cooling your theory has failed as a scientific theory and you should abandon it. If these guys were honest they would admit this fact but they don't.”
huffingtonpost entry

It Is Five Minutes To Environmental Midnight. We Need To Act - Urgently

Commented Sep 24, 2009 at 16:00:24 in Green

“There is no anthropogenic global warming (AGW), and there never was any. The only real warning within the last thirty years was the super El Nino of 1998 and its aftermath, the twenty-first century high, a run of warm years from 2001 to 2007. They were not anthropogenic and were caused by Indian Ocean overflow. The pseudo-science spread by Hansen in his 1988 testimony wanted you to believe that the warming that had just started then was caused by greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide we put in the air. But records show that the warming started in 1977 while carbon dioxide had been in the air for twenty years without doing any warming whatsoever. But Hansen wants you to believe that carbon dioxide that was already in the air suddenly came to life in 1977 and decided that this was a good year to start warming up the world. Laws of nature do not permit such arbitrary changes but apparently Hansen had enough voodoo to make it happen. To believe in it is to believe in Hansen's fallacy. And since that testimony was enough to get the IPCC started you can say that IPCC science is founded on voodoo science from Hansen.”