What Do We Think About Climate Change

[hoytedow]

Still the birds get chopped up though, no matter where you put the blades.

[hoytedow]

Dig more coal.

[hoytedow]

If you love something, set it free, like CO2.

[Guillermo]

Now let's have a look at what Stockwell says about Miskolczi's work in his very long and detailed analysis:

Controversy: Is Fo=Su-Fo+Ed-Eu=OLR a valid conservation of energy equation?
http://landshape.org/enm/modeling-global-warming/

Controversy: Is the identification of KE=Eu and PE=Su valid?
http://landshape.org/enm/the-virial-...kolczi-part-2/

Controversy: Can Ed=Aa be attributed to Kirchhoff’s law, or not?
http://landshape.org/enm/kirchhoff-l...kolczi-part-3/

Controversy: Is Bo(τ), the shell temperature as a function of optical depth unimodal?
http://landshape.org/enm/radiative-e...kolczi-part-4/

Stockwell says:
"...its clear that the main magnitudes of fluxes are defined by the global constraints introduced, except for the solar input Fo and the geothermal input Po. This is why Miskolczi states that current warming could not have been due to greenhouse gases, and if driven by anything, must be due to variations in solar input.

Keep in mind that my goal to this date has been to understand his theory and not to defend it. It seems like many people on the web are keen to attack without understanding first. While there have been some insightful doubts expressed about the theory, and about the way the theory is exposed, I have yet to see an objection that shows any of the relationships Miskolczi describes is wrong."


Also read:
http://landshape.org/enm/models-of-greenhouse-effect/
http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-effect-physics/
http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-heat-engine/



Miskolczi’s discovery arose from his regular work for NASA, examining the data measured by radiosonde balloons. Studied and analyzed under the microscope of the radiative transfer computer program that he had written, the large data set turned out to be a previously only partly tapped reservoir of a wealth of physical facts. From the reservoir of numerical data, Miskolczi abstracted mathematical formulae that expressed new physical understanding.

Miskolczi did not set out to make his discovery of the climatically saturated greenhouse effect, but it turned up as something that he accidentally noticed in the course of his regular work for NASA. He informed he had important results. When they realized that, they tried to withhold Miskolczi’s material from publication. His boss for example, sat at Ferenc’s computer, logged in with Ferenc's password, and canceled a recently submitted paper from a high-reputation journal as if Ferenc had withdrawn it himself. That was the reason that Miskolczi finally resigned from his ($US 90.000 /year) job.

NASA never falsified or even tried to falsify Miskolczi's results, on the contrary, they fully understand it. They know that it is correct and see how important it is.

(Extracted from several sources)
Cheers.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

So who has the right to decide which part of the desert or seaside is "ugly" enought for a crap farm?

I don't think that is generally the deciding factor....

[Zed]

Matt Simmonds - NH3 - Offshore Wind --> Liquid Fuel, sounds OK to me.

[Boston]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Boston, it's not a matter if someone is an 'odd ball' or whatever, but if he's right or not or at least if what he says makes sense. When will you learn? ( edit; what he says has to make sense first )

That kind of scorning attitude happens only in the GWA camp: There is no web site (at least up to what I know) in the Cool camp devoted to specifically list and attack opponents to the AGW CO2 theory, like they do in deSmogBlog, Real Cimate Wiki, etc, etc. Don't you realize that? Have you asked yourself why?

BTW, you confounded David Stockwell with a said "Stockton" in your post 4418. Who is he?

I'm curious to see if Miskolczi answers you.

And about your statements about his work not being admitted to peer review that's only your assumption, as the reviews you mention from RC Wiki and the like, are not at all part of a peer review process. And of course you have realized Levenson's ( BPL ) rebuttal is neither a paper, but just a personal opinion published in his web site, while Miskolczi's paper has been published by the Hungarian Metereological Service, not by the Boy Scouts. Science is not only done in the USA, even you have to admit that. Don't commit the same kind of errors you attribute to others.

Cheers.

BTW, you confounded David Stockwell with a said "Stockton" in your post 4418. Who is he?

he was apparently a figment of my imagination at 4 am after having had a hectic day, my mistake. Both are common names round these parts. Oops !!

oh by the way
that is a perfect example of Naomi Oreske's error in her paper "beyond the Ivory Tower" when she simply misquoted her search words. Its an honest mistake that in no way negates the substance of the conversation

I did get a response from Miskolczi (FM)
he was very polite and sent me two additional articles to read
he also mentioned having debated with BPL and that they were not able to resolve there differences

the response was not as detailed as I might have liked but its a start and our correspondence was very friendly although Im sure mentioning the BPL rebuttal must have been kinda a thorn in his side

Im not entirely comfortable posting e mails someone sends me thinking they are private but I will if I find it prudent and gain his permission to post some of the better bits pro or con.

interesting thing will be to see if BPL responds in as courteous a manor
scientist can be touchy and there is no telling what your going to get

about your statements about his work not being admitted to peer review that's only your assumption

umm
I did not think he had passed the review process, given that several of the rebuttals mention his being rejected multiple times
I need to work that question politely into our conversation at some point
why submit to multiple panels rather than maybe just make an effective defense or present the required corrections
seems like a fair question

his best answer would be he felt the panel was biased as happened to Joao Magueijo when he submitted the first work on variable light speed
it was such a mind bender that the panel had no idea what to make of it and rejected him several times demanding several standing defenses
which he made and successfully eventually winning publication although it took him well over a year
a good example of the proper procedure
which I mention in regards to my having a big question why FM went to multiple panels rather than make the proper defense
if he made a defense it must have failed
if he did not attempt a defense, why?

now dont get me wrong on that
I dont think, given the nature of BPL's response that some changes were not required by FM that he was loath to make during the review process

the assertion that

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.

seems to have significant merit

if this is accurate then FM's work would be way off, which is the assertion of BPL and a number of others although, no, not in a published work
which FM unceremoniously pointed out in his private response to me
basically my chemistry PHD friend I was hanging out with over the week end said that there may be a saturation level but its up in the 15~20% range and no where near fractions of that we see now and agreeing with the basics of the issues with FM

FM himself had not mentioned it as having been published in the links provided and it was not until I looked up that paper itself that I saw it was published albeit in Hungarian ( my Hungarian is a little rusty )

in his correspondence he did specifically mention that he was not interested in debating the merits of the BPL rebuttal but was nice enough to make ovations of additional correspondence

he also mentioned "Virial concept - The hydrostatic atmosphere and the virial concept are the same thing."
which deserves a little research as to why some people disagree and why some agree

interesting if not very well accepted paper G
but again five years into it and no citations that come up on any of the university data base's
stockwell's review is only to be expected as he is also a staunch denier

GWA camp ?
not sure what the acronym stands for
Girls Without Attitudes maybe?

and no Levinsens rebuttal was not a paper
but he did present it to FM
Ill have to ask him why and if he intends to publish as it was written just about a year ago and thats about the length of the process
although presenting it on the internet first is generally considered grounds for summary rejection of the work

oh
well
I m juts in and marinading some lamb steaks and warming up the old grill
nothing like lamb slathered in onions and garlic over an open flame
that and a few brews to wash it down with

cheers
B

[Jimbo1490]

If we are going to accept the anecdotal evidence presented by a few climbers about mountain ice, then why not accept the anecdotal evidence by numerous ship captains that arctic ice virtually disappeared during the 1930s?

If we are going to be a stickler for peer-review acceptance before vesting any credence in an assertion, then why accept the idea that additional CO2 past saturation (<200ppm) is still capable of causing significant additional warming as outlined at RC, when those assertions HAVE NOT passed peer review, nor have they even been presented for same. The peer-reviewed and accepted science on the matter is that we have been at spectral saturation for centuries WRT CO2 concentration, and additional CO2 just doesn't do much. All the alternative explanations are little more than blog fantasies at this point in time.


Jimbo

[Guillermo]

Boston,
I have loved this your last post. That's the kind I like, thanks a lot! I wanted to give you rep points, but as I have done it recently the system doesn't allow me to do it again for the time being. Even if you do not post the mails with Ferenc, please tell us what furtehr readings he suggested.

I have done the same thing a few times in the past: consulting the experts themselves. Some of them answer (usually the not very famous ones) and some don't. Lately I have contacted Boris Komitov about his last paper, part III of his series on "The Sun - Climate relationship", precisely the one in which he studies radiation from the Sun's coronna. See:
http://www.astro.bas.bg/~komitov/abstract.htm

He very politely answered me and promised to send me his paper when accepted for publication, which is expected to be in May this year. I'm honoured. If I receive it as said, I will not post it in its entirety here, waiting for its formal publication, but I'll make a resume and let all of you know.

Congratulations again for your post.

Best regards.

[Guillermo]

More:
About the citing of Miskolczi's work, I have found this:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...se&btnG=Search
So it appears to have been cited at least several times.

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

And even more:
Searching for FM cited work I've found this interesting 2005 white paper from when he worked at NASA's Langley Research Center (He was not only an author but his work at Idojaras was cited).

"The Far-Infrared Spectrum. Exploring a New Frontier in the Remote Sensing of Earth’s Climate"
http://www.adgb.df.unibo.it/Members/...raredFinal.pdf

I think it's interesting to cite this statement from there:
"Water vapor is the principal greenhouse gas, absorbing a significant fraction of the upwelling radiation [e.g., Harries, 1996] and providing much of the downwelling longwave flux that warms the Earth's surface (i.e., the greenhouse effect). The distribution of water vapor and associated radiative forcings and feedbacks are well recognized as major uncertainties in understanding and predicting future climate [Lindzen, 1990; Chahine, 1992; Harries, 1997]."

Bolded are mine.

Cheers

[Boston]

Lindzen eh
I think we all know by now he is on the take for pro industry papers
so lets not start in with him again

at first glance that last seems to be cited by FM
not a citation of FM
ok just opened it
nope
is a paper coauthored by FM and as such doesn't count as a cited work

as for the post previous to your last G
umm
again citing your own work does not count

mater of fact its again considered bad form to quote yourself, its holds far more weight to draw from the papers of others who are copacetic with your views than it does to pat yourself on the back so to speak

kinda a cheesy tactic actually but it does happen from time to time although I did not read the entire PDF and it may be that this was the forerunner of his paper as he did publish very close to that time

I see one that his name does not appear on under the authors as far as I can tell but neither did I download each of the articles

You would be surprised G
I still visit the university regularly and sit in on lectures and such, keeping in touch so to speak

I have enjoyed luncheons, beers, and often partied with nearly all of the CU NCAR and NOAA Nobel lauriets and they are just people like everyone else

issue is that these guys do not belong on a pedestal and must be questioned if we are to maintain the integrity of the science
often its the simple questions that are overlooked by an individual researcher and more than once I have tripped up some PHD or found some elegant solution when all the post doctorates were stumped.

I would encourage you to go to university and sit in on some classes
its free and as long as you behave yourself the university does not mind at all
although you might speak to the attending faculty member as its only polite to ask

I will need a few days to go over all this and try and find were the numbers for what FM calls emission and emissivity lie within the work and see if they are properly constrained to there normal values one being always in the range of 0-1 and the other being any positive interger.

which is one of the claims being made

the other is the basic assumption that co2 forces out water vapor as it approaches saturation
which is not true according to the guys up at NOAA I just spoke to and only holds for extremely high values

although one of the articles FM sent me was on this very topic and I have not read it yet the point is that if there is evidence of H2O replacement by CO2 at the present levels then the world must have been a dam dry place back in the carboniferous era and that is just not the case as this period is marked by an extremely hot and humid atmosphere. Hardly supporting the idea that CO2 was replacing H2O

basically one simple data point is not enough to support a whole theory on and that is kinda what FM seems to be doing with the presumed drop in atmospheric Vapor content recently observed.

glad you liked my last G
Ill be sure and let you buy the beer next time around

cheers
B

[Guillermo]

I'm really grateful to Boston, because he made me get deeper into Miskolczi's work. Thanks to that I have found this outstanding divulgative work I strongly recommend all of you to read carefully:

Warming of the Earth
A. de Callataÿ, PhD.
(Translated from “Réchauffement de la Terre”, 12/1/09)

http://www.leseoliennes.be/histoireole/AGWUS.pdf

From there:

"Was the hoax justified?
Was it necessary to mount this gigantic AGW hoax?
Could scientists believe that the tricks would not be
discovered? Has climate science lost its respectability?
Were the AGW organizers overtaken by the events that
they had initiated? Since 1960, the fight against the
chemical pollution, such as smoke from coal, plants and
exhausts, has been extremely effective without needing
ideologies or global authorities. Would it not have been
sufficient to modernize the generators of energy, improve
the yields and reduce the consumption?
Would it not be more efficient to alarm only on the
depletion of fossil fuels: oil, natural gas, coal? The
remedies would have been somewhat similar: economy of
energy, insulation of buildings, transportation less
intensive on fuel, electricity generators with better
performances, cogeneration, thermal solar plants,
exploitation of other sources of energy (nuclear, fusion),
search for productive biomasses. Would it not be better to
focus the efforts on improving the water cycle or on
enhancing plant efficiencies?
The merchants of natural gas seem to have a different
agenda because the fight against coal demands the
conviction that one must reduce CO2. They promote wind
power to sell their gas because wind power no longer
works when there is no more natural gas for backup. The
wind is also incompatible with the nuclear power.
Although this one is indispensable to ensure the base
electrical production, the propaganda could make believe
that wind (and other renewable sources) can provide a
sufficient energy."

Cheers.

[Boston]

speaking of which if you were to extrapolate the theory it would be dificult to justify co2 replacement ( the essence of radiative forcing ) as a working theory pertinent to today's levels and conditions given the estimated temps, atmospheric humidity and co2 levels in the past



basically the theory just does not seem to hold until you get to temps ~10C higher than present norm
and even then there seems to be several spikes outside of the expected limit and the rapidly increasing temps evident in the graph seem to not even glitch till they hit that magic 22C threshold so this radiative forcing you are suggesting obviously does not come into play until at least then if at all as there certainly may be some other mechanism involved.

which is exactly what the NOAA guys are saying

try living in those conditions for a while and see how much you would support the notion that co2 is just plant food

Ill have to ask FM about this and see what he says
Ill also ask permission to pas on his answer and at the same time send the same question to BPL assuming I can find his E mail

the graph does lend credence to the theory in some regards but does not allow its application until co2 levels not seen since the end of the cretaceous and certainly not conducive to life as we know it

also several folks mentioned that this was nothing new and no one would try and apply the idea to present circumstances and that combined with the manor in which this publication was won and the denier view of the author makes me extremely leery of the validity of this argument. As is apparently the community as he really does not appear to be cited anywhere other than by himself

G
in your last # 4455
please if you want to engage in a meaningful conversation lets lay off the obvious Hoax drivel
its just not conducive to a reasonable dialog

also my mention that someone was an odd ball a while ago was mostly meant in jest as knowing some the these guys I can assure you its dam funny to walk into the home of some famous professor and find him living like a first year undergrad in total filth and squalor
which has happened a number of times
the brainier people tend to be the more wacky they tend to act
it kinda goes with the territory

good science does not attack an existing theory as much as it presents a better use of the existing data in a more elegant explanation
rebuttals are generally held for the obvious errors in some individuals work and as such are often not published so as to allow the person an oportunity to correct there own errors ( as is only polite )
example being Oreskes in her paper

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER
ORESKES

G
I am surprised you did not jump on that bone I threw about Magueijo's work in variable light speed
could have made several valid points you have been working on for a while now about the consensus view

[kistinie]

This was my post 4421

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

Did i use transparent police or is this stupid to a point it nust be ignored or do you run so fast you cannot see anymore what's on the side of the road ?

I forgot the option of my neg rep Apex and friends gave me, for my will to have an electric motor in my racing trimaran, that made of me an untouchable ?
i this case i suggest keeping on avoiding me in case it is contagious ;-)