What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by troy2000

I read the whole thing, word for word. Whatever else in it may be relevant to the discussion, the part you chose to quote is nonsense.

So it is not the quality or findings of the work what you are critizising, but a given and somewhat poetic paragraph that should not be taken of context when doing it. That and giving negative rep points to someone who is debating with you without gentlemanly displaying your name, tells all about your highness of mind and the quality of your postings, I'm afraid.

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Boston:
I have followed one of the links in the text you mention, and found this interesting and most detailed analysis:

http://landshape.org/enm/modeling-global-warming/

It consists of several pages (4 parts +) I still have to go through. As it's going to take time, I'll do it later and then comment. I suggest you doing the same.

Cheers.

[kistinie]

May be it is time now to look at this problem seriouly.

Kansas may have found the key to the actual cool global warming (-3°C this morning in Marseille)

[Zed]

We need a Pirate Breeding Program! NOW!

[Boston]

Originally Posted by mark775

Bos, you're still over there? Oh well, it makes it interesting...

hey whats up Mark

hows life without the economics thread treating you

[Boston]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Boston:
I have followed one of the links in the text you mention, and found this interesting and most detailed analysis:

http://landshape.org/enm/modeling-global-warming/

It consists of several pages (4 parts +) I still have to go through. As it's going to take time, I'll do it later and then comment. I suggest you doing the same.

Cheers.

excerpts from that review I have already posted in my previous
at least I think thats the one
unless there is more than one four part review

ps
I was very disappointed to find that most of the links were unavailable
am still looking for rebuttals as Im busy downloading another movie now

but almost out of beer

woops
apparently there is more than one four part review

but I have discovered ( at least according to schollar.google ) that the paper has not a single citation
http:
//cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18874011
nor is a single citation noted
( not sure I was supposed to link to that but oh well )

which basically means no one is willing to stick there neck out on this one

=============================================

I knew I smelled a rat
in researching this paper I found myself reading some info from Niche Modeling ,green house physics
buy David Stockwell
and it just seemed fishy for some reason
so I looked up the author and sure enough
Stockton is a classic
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/au...ainst-agw.html

almost fell for it G
almost fell for it

[Boston]

thought this was interesting though

Why Ferenc M. Miskolczi is Wrong

(c) 2008 by Barton Paul Levenson


Miskolczi [2007] proposes that feedbacks constrain the gray infrared optical depth of Earth's atmosphere to a value close to 1.841. If true this would imply a very low value for climate sensitivity to a doubling of carbon dioxide, contrary to most findings (see e.g. Boer and Yu 2003; Boer et al. 2000; Dai et al. 2001; Delworth et al. 1999; Goosse et al. 2006; Hegerl et al. 2006; Roeckner et al. 1999; Sumi 2005; Washington et al. 2000; Wetherald et al. 2001). However, this conclusion depends on some doubtful assumptions.

1. "According to the Kirchhoff law, two systems in thermal equilibrium exchange energy by absorption and emission in equal amounts..." [Miskolczi 2007]. In fact, Kirchhoff's Law states that for a body in local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE), emissivity and absorptivity must be equal at a given wavelength. Miskolczi confuses emission with emissivity. This can lead to large numerical errors, since emissivity is of course constrained to the range 0 - 1 by definition, but emission can have any nonnegative value, and is typically in the hundreds of watts per square meter for low levels of atmosphere.

2. Miskolczi proposes that when greenhouse gases increase, water vapor decreases. This would seem to violate the Clausius-Clapeyron law, but of course the complexity of atmospheric processes might, in theory, lead to some net feedback of the type described. As an empirical matter, however, �[t]he global trend in precipitable water vapor is found to be 0.9 � 0.06 mm/decade� [Brown et al. 2007]. With temperature rising [NASA GISS 2008], and water vapor rising as well, and at a rate consistent with the Clausius-Clapeyron law and a fixed relation of relative humidity to altitude [Manabe and Wetherald 1967; Inamdar and Ramanathan 1998; Held and Soden 2000], the proposed feedback seems unlikely to exist.

The consequences of this observation alone mitigate strongly against the Miskolczi paper's conclusions. Note, too, that if those conclusions held, it is difficult to see how Earth could have undergone ice ages, or why Venus is as hot as it is.

Miskolczi proposes that the gray infrared optical thickness of Earth's atmosphere is constrained to stay near τ = 1.841. This is noticeably lower than most other estimates; e.g. Hart [1978] estimates this value as τ = 2.49. Taking Earth's radiative equilibrium temperature as 254 K, its surface temperature as 288 K, and assuming the known surface heat loss mechanisms enumerated by Kiehl and Trenberth [1997] (atmospheric absorption 67 watts per square meter, sensible heat 24 W/m2, latent heat 78 W/m2, window radiation 40 W/m2) hold, τ = 2.07 is implied. This is a minor point, but once again points out that Miskolczi's findings are outside the usual consensus.

3. Miskolczi states: "The atmosphere is a gravitationally bounded system and constrained by the virial theorem: the total kinetic energy of the system must be half of the total gravitational potential energy. The surface air temperature tA is linked to the total gravitational potential energy through the surface pressure and air density. The temperature, pressure, and air density obey the gas law, therefore, in terms of radiative flux 4 SA = σ tA4 represents also the total gravitational potential energy."

This would be correct if the Earth's atmosphere were in orbit around the Earth. But the atmosphere rotates with the Earth.

A simple check of this proposition would be to find the gravitational potential and kinetic energies (U and K, respectively) of the Earths atmosphere and determine if the ratio between them is actually 2:1.

The Earth's atmosphere has a total mass of about 5.136 x 1018 kg [Walker 1977, 20]. 99% or so of its mass is in the troposphere and stratosphere, the two respectively constituting 80% and 20%, roughly. The US Standard Atmosphere [NOAA 1976] uses a surface temperature of 288.15 K, a tropospheric lapse rate of 6.5 K km-1, and an isothermal stratosphere at 216.67 K. The present author divided the atmosphere into 20 layers, four of stratosphere on top and 16 of troposphere, and used a simple iterative model to fit the facts listed above:

Table I. Simple Model Earth Atmosphere.
Layer Pressure (Pa) Temp. (K) Altitude (m)
1 2468.6 216.67 26598.2
2 7405.9 216.67 18141.8
3 12343.1 216.67 14759.2
4 17280.4 216.67 12584.7
5 22217.7 216.82 10973.4

6 27154.9 225.30 9668.7
7 32092.2 232.60 8545.4
8 37029.4 239.04 7555.2
9 41966.7 244.81 6667.2
10 46904.0 250.06 5860.4

11 51841.2 254.87 5119.9
12 56778.5 259.33 4434.6
13 61715.7 263.48 3796.0
14 66653.0 267.37 3197.7
15 71590.3 271.03 2634.2

16 76527.5 274.49 2101.5
17 81464.8 277.78 1595.9
18 86402.0 280.91 1114.6
19 91339.3 283.89 655.0
20 96276.6 286.75 215.2

The gravitational potential energy of an object is
U = G M m r-1 (1)

where G is the Newton-Cavendish constant (6.67428 x 10-11 m3/kg/s2 in the SI), M and m the masses of the reference and target bodies, respectively, and r the radial distance from M's center of gravity. For the Earth, M = 5.9736 x 1024 kg. Taking the Earth's volumetric mean radius as 6,371,010 m [Lodders and Fegley 1998, 128), the mean altitudes of the atmosphere layers in the Table I model and their individual masses (5.136 x 1018 kg / 20 = 2.568 x 1017 kg) lead to a total gravitational potential energy of U = 3.210 x 1026 J for Earth's atmosphere.

The mean molecular velocity for a gas is
v = (8 R T / (p MW))0.5 (2)

where v is the velocity, R the universal gas constant (8,314.472 J/K/kmol in the SI), T the absolute temperature, p the circle constant and MW the gas's mean molecular weight. The mean temperature of the model atmosphere in Table I is 249.76 K, which leads to v = 427.6 m s-1 and a total kinetic energy for the atmosphere of K = 4.696 x 1023 J.

The observed ratio of U to K, therefore, is (3.210 x 1026) / (4.696 x 1023) or about 684. This is substantially different from 2.0. Increasing the resolution of the atmosphere model or using local saturated lapse rates for each level makes no substantial difference to this conclusion.

It is therefore impossible not to conclude that the model proposed in Miskolczi [2007] is fatally flawed, and thus so is its conclusion of startlingly low climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2.


References

Boer, G. J., G. Flato, M. C. Reader, and D. Ramsden (2000), A transient climate change simulation with greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing: Experimental design and comparison with the instrumental record for the twentieth century. Climate Dyn. 16, 405�425.

Boer, G. J. and Yu Bin (2003), Dynamical aspects of climate sensitivity Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 35-1 - 35-4.

Brown, S., S. Desai, S. Keihm, and C. Ruf (2007), Ocean water vapor and cloud burden trends derived from the topex microwave radiometer. Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium 2007, Barcelona, Spain, IGARSS 2007, IEEE International, 886-889.

Dai A., T.M.L. Wigley, B.A. Boville, J.T. Kiehl, and L.E. Buja (2001), Climates of the 20th and 21st centuries simulated by the NCAR Climate System Model. J. Climate 14, 485� 519.

Delworth T. L., A.J. Broccoli, K. Dixon, I. Held, T.R. Knutson, P.J. Kushner, M.J. Spelman, R.J. Stouffer, K.Y. Vinnikov, and R.E. Wetherald (1999), Coupled Climate Modelling at GFDL: Recent Accomplishments and Future Plans. CLIVAR Exchanges 4, 15-20.

Goosse H., O. Arzel, J. Luterbacher, M.E. Mann, H. Renssen, N. Riedwyl, A. Timmermann, E. Xoplaki, and H. Wanner. (2006), The Origin of the European 'Medieval Warm Period.' Climate Past 2, 99�113.

Hart, M.A. (1978), The Evolution of the Atmosphere of the Earth. Icarus 33, 23-39.

Hegerl, G.C., T.J. Crowley, W.T. Hyde, and D.J. Frame (2006), Climate Sensitivity Constrained by Temperature Reconstructions over the Past Seven Centuries. Nature 440, 1029-1032 (letter).

Roeckner, E., L. Bengtsson, J. Feichter, J. Lelieveld, and H. Rodhe (1999), Transient climate change simulations with a coupled atmosphere-ocean GCM including the tropospheric sulfur cycle J. Climate 12, 3004�3032.

Held, I.M. and B.J. Soden (2000), Water vapour feedback and global warming. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 25, 441-475.

Inamdar, A.K. and V. Ramanathan (1998), Tropical and global scale interactions among water vapor, atmospheric greenhouse effect, and surface temperature. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 32177-32194.

Kiehl, J T. and K.E Trenberth (1997), Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 78, 197-208.

Manabe, S., and R. T. Wetherald, (1967), Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity. J. Atmos. Sci. 24, 241-259.

Miskolczi, F.M. (2007), Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary Atmospheres. Idoj�r�s 111, 1-40.

NASA GISS (2007), Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index in .01 C. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt, accessed 7/02/2008.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1976), U.S. Standard Atmosphere. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Sumi, A. (2005), Global Warming Simulation due to the High Resolution Climate Model by Using the Earth Simulator. Ann. Rep. Earth Simulator Center Apr. 2004 - Mar. 2005.

Walker, J.C.G. (1977), Evolution of the Atmosphere. NY: MacMillan.

Washington, W. M., J. W. Weatherly, G. A. Meehl, A. J. Semtner, T. W. Bettge, A. P. Craig, W. G. Strand, J. Arblaster, V. B. Wayland, R. James, and Y. Zhang (2000), Parallel climate model (PCM) control and transient simulations. Climate Dyn. 16, 755� 774.

Wetherald, R.T., R.J. Stouffer, and K.W. Dixon (2001), Committed Warming and its Implications for Climate Change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 1535-1538.


BPL
8/06/2008

would be interesting to see if our boy ever answered any of these rebuttals but since no one is really taking the paper seriously by citation within the published works it would seem I guess unnecessary to bother with an official rebuttal to the paper

kinda the way it works for those who are not published and may not be familiar with the process
if your paper is ignored and no one bothers building on it with subsequent papers then there is really no reason for dissenting opinions to bring themselves forward through the process and fight for a retraction

essentially its not worth the effort
which is apparently the case with this particular paper

hope that clears thing up for you
cheers
B

if you would like I can invite both these parties to the forum and let em duke it out
might be kinda interesting


:-)

[Guillermo]

Something quick from an interview to Miklos Zagoni, having to do with Ferenc Miskolczi's work. And a video. More tonight.


“I am not sceptic at all”, Zagoni said, “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong. New developments in the physics of greenhouse effect and radiative transfer show that the accepted theory leads to largely exaggerated global warming projections”. The new results were achieved and published in peer-reviewed periodicals by his fellow Hungarian physicist dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, who has been principal research scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center in the U.S. for years. And in 2 years no one has published a rebuttal

Dr. Zagoni can give talks and lectures to layman and expert groups and university people. “The new results of Dr. Miskolczi prove that the accepted theory contradicts fundamental physical principles. The Earth maintains a controlled greenhouse effect by strict energetic constraints”, he said. “Runaway global warming seems physically impossible.”

“We obviously do not deny that a certain change in the climate is taking place. This might be a mix of natural processes and consequence of the influence of human activity on the Earth’s surface (land use change and deforestation might altered the surface reflectivity, modifying the amount of the absorbed solar energy). We also accept that the climate has warmed during previous centuries. What we challenge is the cause: Our results show that it cannot be the increase of atmospheric GHG composition.”

“If we are right, extra CO2 cannot enhance the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Powerful energetic feedbacks drive it back to its equilibrium state. Fluctuations are possible in the stochastic system of the climate, and time-scales are to be thoroughly examined, but the average surface temperature is clearly limited by the global energy balance. Incoming energy of the sun, planetary albedo, water vapor cycle and the partial cloud cover may be the main players on the scene.”

“According Dr. Miskolczi’s calculation on the NOAA 60-years global average database, during these decades the Earth’s greenhouse effect remained constant. The atmosphere equated the increase of CO2 with minor modifications in the hydrological cycle.”

”This may sound crazy to those accepting the common wisdom. But I will present data and the computations and I welcome anyone who can come and falsify Dr. Miskolczi and myself."




Miklos Zagoni is a physicist and science historian at Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, now governmental adviser. He is a well-known science writer in Hungary. He participated in the Hungarian Academy of Science’s climate change project and was the expert-reporter of three documentary films on that project. His list of publications, interviews, papers, and book chapters on the issue is more than 200 items (most of it in Hungarian). He used to be a global warming activist and Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.


Ferenc Miskolczi is an atmospheric physicist specializing in atmospheric radiative transfer. As a senior principal scientist he worked on several NASA projects related to atmospheric remote sensing problems and the evaluation of the Earth’s radiation budget. In 2005 he resigned from the AS&M Inc. (a NASA contractor). His recent interests are in quantitative radiative transfer problems of the planetary greenhouse effect.


Of course we have discussed climate sensitivity previously in this thread. As well as we had posted about Miskolczi before.

Cheers.

[kistinie]

Excellent !
So just as the electromagnetic weather model says.
Co² counts for close to ...Peanuts ...;-), Snoop !

A much more sensible subject to study would be the change of the nuclear processes of the stratosphere that could be much more impacting than CO², for our future
http://ppg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/1
http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/ozone/depcause.html
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/....100179.002303

Thanks Guillermo !

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

So it is not the quality or findings of the work what you are critizising, but a given and somewhat poetic paragraph that should not be taken of context when doing it. That and giving negative rep points to someone who is debating with you without gentlemanly displaying your name, tells all about your highness of mind and the quality of your postings, I'm afraid.

Cheers.

Guillermo, I've never given anyone negative points--in this forum, or in my own. It isn't my style. I tackle people I disagree with head on, in public. If I ever change my mind and start handing out negative points, rest assured I'll sign my name. I've gotten a few anonymous negative points myself, and I didn't respond by jumping to conclusions and blindly accusing someone without proof.

I didn't bring up the 'somewhat poetic paragraph.' You're the one who quoted it as though it proves something. I repeat: it's such an absurd statement I thought you were joking when I first read it, until I saw who the poster was and realized you were serious.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by fasteddy106

Troy, the "vast" majority of scientists worldwide actually think AGW is a joke.

That's more than just wrong; it's a blatantly false statement. You can' make it come true simply by repeating it until people get tired of refuting you.

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Boston

ps
Oreskes admited nothing other than that she misquoted her key search words, an honest mistake which she stood up and admitted.
an example the deniers would do well to consider

So she admitted nothing other than to confirm the substance of the Peiser letter, which is that the search string she used was flawed. THAT'S why she did not find papers that disagree with AGW; it's not that those papers do not exist.

As Peiser later asked, why do we need a 'peer-reviewed' process to confirm for us the obvious, which is that numerous peer-reviewed papers that disagree with the AGW narrative do exist? The papers themselves have already been accepted by peer-review, so why do we need 'permission' from another peer-review process to go out and find them, look at them or consider them?

The whole thing is so obviously facetious and political that it's laughable!

Jimbo

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Guillermo, I've never given anyone negative points--in this forum, or in my own. It isn't my style. I tackle people I disagree with head on, in public. If I ever change my mind and start handing out negative points, rest assured I'll sign my name. I've gotten a few anonymous negative points myself, and I didn't respond by jumping to conclusions and blindly accusing someone without proof.

I'm very, very sorry and heartly apologize. Someone gave me negative points referring to your post with the verses and I stupidly asumed it was you. Please admit my excuses.

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by troy2000

That's more than just wrong; it's a blatantly false statement. You can' make it come true simply by repeating it until people get tired of refuting you.

Well, you should avoid expresions as "blatantly false" as many of us think you are the wrong one. As a matter of fact all clues (may I say facts?) lead us to think AGW "hard core" proponents are just a few dozens of scientists in the world, managing funds and power. They hide and treat data to their convenience, as well as struggle to ban opponents off the peer review process and main magazines. The majority remain silent or refute, and of those who follow either do it based in data provided and governed by the "team", or then do sustain warming but not the alarmism or defend AGW but caused by manmade influences other than CO2.

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by troy2000

I repeat: it's such an absurd statement I thought you were joking when I first read it, until I saw who the poster was and realized you were serious.

In my opinion it is not absurd at all if you put it in its intended context.
And talking about absurdities, what do you think of this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...e-article.html

Cheers