<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Niche Modeling &#187; Miskolczi</title>
	<atom:link href="http://landshape.org/enm/tag/miskolczi/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://landshape.org/enm</link>
	<description>The Power of Numeracy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Jan 2012 06:09:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Cherry Picking &#8212; The paper formerly known as â€œVoodoo Correlations in Social Neuroscienceâ€</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/cherry-picking-the-paper-formerly-known-as-%e2%80%9cvoodoo-correlations-in-social-neuroscience%e2%80%9d/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/cherry-picking-the-paper-formerly-known-as-%e2%80%9cvoodoo-correlations-in-social-neuroscience%e2%80%9d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:03:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miskolczi]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=2108</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Edward Vul, Christine Harris, Piotr Winkielman, &#38; Harold Pashler have published research that provides useful insights into the practice of 'cherry picking' or prior selection of desirable results leading to exaggerated significance. They also demonstrates the effect in a comprehensive survey of studies in the field of social neuroscience. To further 'pin the thumbs of researchers to the table', and ensure they are noticed and not ignored, they name all the studies explicitly, listing those Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/cherry-picking-the-paper-formerly-known-as-%e2%80%9cvoodoo-correlations-in-social-neuroscience%e2%80%9d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Redoubt now Ultraplinian</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/redoubt-now-ultraplinian/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/redoubt-now-ultraplinian/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:12:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hockey-stick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miskolczi]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=2085</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The rumbling Alaskan volcano Redoubt has exploded producing a stratosphere-reaching plume in excess of 60,000 ft (17 km). An eruption is termed 'ultraplinian' if its ejecta reaches the stratosphere, about 10km in height. Dust and gases in the stratosphere are known to depress the global temperature for up to a few years after the eruption. The extent of cooling depends on the amount and type of material, the size and duration of ultraplinian eruption, and the latitude (high latitude eruptions Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/redoubt-now-ultraplinian/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Electrical Analogue of Shaviv and Miskolczi Theories</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/electrical-analogue-of-shaviv-and-miskolczi/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/electrical-analogue-of-shaviv-and-miskolczi/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:11:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miskolczi]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1905</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jan Pompe sent in a draft of a model of the atmosphere in the form of a circuit diagram. There the passive elements are expressed as capacitors and resistors. Active elements producing amplification as in Cosmic Ray Flux are modeled as Field Effect Transistors (FETs). Jan writes: I've separated the particle and magnetic fluxes (magnetic flux is alternating over ~22 years) according to Leif Svalgaard the TSI from the sun has been very nearly constant over the past 100 or so years and I'm inclined Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/electrical-analogue-of-shaviv-and-miskolczi/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Probability of the Cosmic Ray Flux Theory of Climate Change</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/probability-of-the-cosmic-ray-flux-theory-of-climate-change/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/probability-of-the-cosmic-ray-flux-theory-of-climate-change/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:41:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miskolczi]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1861</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Should we believe the cosmic ray flux theory (CRF)? Here I attempt to answer this question quantitatively, by calculating the strength of evidence so-far presented for CRF as a major forcing factor in climate change. Specifically we need to ask, what is the probability of being wrong about CRF? This can be calculated by combining the significance values of independent lines of evidence. Below I have started calculating and tabulating the P values. The first 8 rows were worked out from the difference Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/probability-of-the-cosmic-ray-flux-theory-of-climate-change/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Shaviv and Miskolczi</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/shaviv-and-miskolczi/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/shaviv-and-miskolczi/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:10:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miskolczi]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1831</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nir's 2005 paper "On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget", available as pdf here, provides a solid case linking cosmic ray flux (CRF) variations to global climate change. The effect is consistent over hugely different timescales, using completely different indicators -- from cosmic sources of CRF at the Phanerozoic, to the shortest time scale of the 11-yr solar cycle. The fit is extraordinary. The statistics competent. The bottom line? Thus, anthropogenic Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/shaviv-and-miskolczi/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>28</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Climate Flagship Response</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/climate-flagship-response/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/climate-flagship-response/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:23:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CSIRO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hockey-stick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miskolczi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rahmstorf]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1569</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A number of familiar tests, often used to evaluate the performance of models: R2 correlation, Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency and similarity of trends and return period, were reported here, noting not much evidence of skill in the DECR models compared with observations at any of these. I also said what a better treatment might entail but left that for another time: The percentage of droughted area appears to be a â€™bounded extreme value, peaks over thresholdâ€™ or bounded POT statistic. The Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/climate-flagship-response/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NASA Hathaway slides the goalposts</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/nasa-hathaway-slides-the-goalposts/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/nasa-hathaway-slides-the-goalposts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:42:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miskolczi]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1374</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Prediction is dangerous to your reputation. If you don't make a clear prediction (a climate cycle, a solar cycle, a financial trend...) then you are just doing your best. What comes does not damage your reputation. One way to predict is to reproject on a regular basis, called 'moving the goalposts'. David Hathaway of NASA illustrates this strategy, as show in a recent post at WUWT. Here is Hathaway&#8217;s most familiar graphic, which has an active sun in the background. Perhaps it is time to Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/nasa-hathaway-slides-the-goalposts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wiki: The new climate theory of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/wiki-the-new-climate-theory-of-dr-ferenc-miskolczi/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/wiki-the-new-climate-theory-of-dr-ferenc-miskolczi/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:34:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miskolczi]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1067</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have converted the draft of the introductory document The new climate theory of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi by Dr. Noor van Andel into a Wiki. The permissions are set for registered users of the Wiki to freely edit it. There are a great deal of areas where it could be improved and added too, and an opportunity to learn more about Wikis. Register here to edit. Wiki Syntax is here. The synopsis of the document points to the importance of right theory, and does a good job of comparing the new theory Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/wiki-the-new-climate-theory-of-dr-ferenc-miskolczi/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>87</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Significance of Global Warming</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/significance-of-global-warming/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/significance-of-global-warming/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2008 02:33:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ken Gregory</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miskolczi]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1049</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Comment by Ken Gregory moved from Greenhouse Heat Engine. Last month I asked Ferenc Miskolczi to calculate a 60 year trend of optical depths using radiosonde data I compiled from the NOAA Earth Systems Research Laboratory to confirm his prediction of constant optical depth. We finally got the results: *There has been no increase in the effective amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere during the last 60 years.* Miskolczi's theory shows that the atmosphere maintains a â€œsaturatedâ€ Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/significance-of-global-warming/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>108</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Optical Depth of CO2 Explained</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/optical-depth-of-co2-explained/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/optical-depth-of-co2-explained/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:42:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miskolczi]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=923</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here is a treat for those following the discussion of Miskolczi's new theory of greenhouse warming. Noor van Andel has sent a simplified explanation of Miskolczi's theory, put on Wikichecks here. Noor is actually in the greenhouse business! Noor's letter below refers to a history of the debate between Noor and another prominent scientist in the Netherlands Dr. Rob van Dorland. Rob has also graciously responded with explanations of the Cabauw data he collected, and a link to his thesis, in the Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/optical-depth-of-co2-explained/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>77</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

