tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745417045598129916.post8830965552280643396..comments2023-08-22T21:45:43.183+09:00Comments on Climate adapted!: Climate Change and IPCC: Interviewing Dr Rajendra K. Pachauri, Chair, IPCC at ISAP2012Prabhakar SVRKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11066899975487357095noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745417045598129916.post-18346897252412791812012-07-29T02:13:35.905+09:002012-07-29T02:13:35.905+09:00Thanks Harry for that passionate message. I am sor...Thanks Harry for that passionate message. I am sorry, I am not from physical sciences. I can understand what you are saying. Dr Pachauri is not saying something from his own research, he is only speaking from what thousands of scientists have confirmed and reported in peer reviewed journal papers. <br /><br />However, in science we need a consensus which means your finding would have to be globally recognized and agreed by major scientists in that field. Currently, there is more consensus on the strong signal for man-induced global warming. <br /><br />Dr Pachauri was very clear, he agrees that science thrives by questioning. So, keep doing what you have been doing. We need people from both sides discussing in a healthy manner.Prabhakar SVRKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066899975487357095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745417045598129916.post-25589536458588047442012-07-28T03:06:24.548+09:002012-07-28T03:06:24.548+09:00Pachauri claims: "...the point is, there is ...Pachauri claims: "...the point is, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the science."<br /><br />Mr. Pachauri is deluded, and his self-assurance completely unwarranted. There is <a href="http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html" rel="nofollow">no greenhouse effect</a>, of increasing temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, as promulgated by the current climate consensus and the very political IPCC. The Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at points of equal pressure over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is essentially a constant (precisely 1.176, both above and below the Venus cloud layer). If there were a greenhouse effect, the Venus/Earth temperature ratio would not be a constant, because that supposed effect is ADDITIVE in temperature, not multiplicative as the constant ratio implies. Even more revealing, and fundamentally definitive of the true physics, the 1.176 ratio is just that expected solely from the difference in the two planets' distances from the Sun, and nothing else. Venus's atmosphere has over 2400 times the carbon dioxide concentration as does Earth's (96.5%, vs. Earth's 0.04%) yet there is not the slightest indication of a greenhouse effect, only the effect expected by the difference in solar distances.<br /><br />That Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, comparing temperatures at points of equal pressure in the two atmospheres, which I did in late 2010 and which should have been done 20 years ago by climate scientists (and the greenhouse effect dropped from science then), fundamentally corrects climate science on a whole handful of basic points concerning the physics of atmospheric warming. The consensus that is so self-assuredly promulgated by the IPCC and Mr. Pachauri, is in fact incompetent. My Venus/Earth comparison should be front-page news around the world, and climate science should be fundamentally re-thought--not least, because my simple and clear analysis confirms the Standard Atmosphere model, which represents a stable atmosphere, not at all subject to runaway global warming OR cooling.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.com