What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Boston

hey Jim
sorry I missed this one
a perfectly fair question



Deal is the panel was satisfied that both they and Oreskes had made an error in not catching the misquote and as in any good science when a minor error is detected it should be able to be corrected and not effect the body of the work

this kind of situation is not uncommon in any field of study and generally no one makes any big deal out of some minor error
it this case the panel was satisfied that once the actual search key words are known the study can be reproduced accurately
thus showing it to be an honest mistake
otherwise the panel would likely have withdrawn the paper

in other words if I was to misspell something in a sentence ( good example eh ) and then go back and correct the misspelling would that negate the value of the whole sentence.
hardly

(blah, blah, blah snipped)

basically he is not comparing apples to apples and its such a confusing mess its no wonder he was asked to correct it by multiple people

I really would love to read the rejection letters on this one

cheers
B

NONE of this answers my post #4465 or refutes the fact that a simple change in the search string that Oreskes used reveals HUNDREDS of papers that Oreske's original paper contended do not exist. As Peiser rightly asked (paraphrased) "Why do we need a further peer-review process to give us permission to consider these other peer-reviewed papers that clearly do exist?

Jimbo

[Boston]

your funny

insisting the study was based on the wrong key words that were mistakenly noted in the original rather than accept the correction like everyone else has

earth to Jim
earth to Jim

buy the way that rebuttal was later withdrawn because it was shown that the guy used "every" paper, reviewed or not, science oriented or not in his totals
hardly a scientific study
where as Oreske's used "only" reviewed papers found under the key search terms

the panel was satisfied that Oreskes work contained an honest mistake and did not in any way invalidate the paper as a whole and that the papers research was reproducible according to the method described

criteria that are typically applied to any corrections by any honest panel

always a good time Jim
hope all is well
cheers
B

[Guillermo]

Your problem, Boston is that you still want to believe in your very own "Reyes Magos" (in your case Real Climate and the like), and keep on stubborngly and faithfully copying and pasting from such places (BTW: without quoting, so you want to appear as if you are the author, shame on you), instead of trying to crisscross information and look for another sources.

Problem for you and your AGW folks about FM's work is that it MATCHES PRETTY WELL OBSERVATIONS, contrary to the IPCC models, which once and again have failed to match evolving reality. The predictions of their (infinitely-thick theory of atmospheres based) GCMs due to increased greenhouse gases shows increased heating in the troposphere, kind of like a temperature profile of inversion conditions. The measurements of actual air temperature are as predicted by Miskolczi’s theory: Douglass et al 2007 show increased surface temperatures, but little increase in tropospheric temperatures.


Miskolczi paper's Fig 5 compares the new semi-transparent model, with a widely used reference atmosphere USST-76. Notice first the semi-transparent model almost fits exactly the observed lapse rate in the atmosphere. The USST-76 reference is a straight line approximation only. Note however the black dots on the USST-76 reference showing the temperature discontinuity at the ground. It is a whopping 125W/m2 between the air and ground emission!


The next figure shows the relevant flux quantities at each point in the atmospheric profile: B the blackbody source function, Ed the IR down, Ta the flux transmittance (surface up Su transmission not absorbed in the atmosphere), and red dots are B(1-Ta). Evidence Kirchhoff law holds is shown by the correspondence of Ed with B(1-Ta)


And finally, the next image is the linear regression of Su against Ed/(1-Ta) for selected radiosonde measurements.


As you can see, FM's (peer reviewed, as you like to point out) work seems to match reality pretty well, in spite of what his (not peer reviewed) critics may say.

Remember: MISKOLCZI'S PRINCIPLE HAS NOT YET BEEN FALSIFIED after several years. One may ask why.


Note: Excerpted from David Stockwell's http://landshape.org/enm/kirchhoff-l...kolczi-part-3/, who says "...the central Kirchhoff law model is the only plausible solution with radiative balance throughout the whole atmosphere.... this model suggests that all of the processes that contribute to the greenhouse effect are already contributing their maximum warming effect, as they cannot increase beyond the limits set by energy conservation. Miskolczi concludes that global warming must therefore be due to other mechanisms and not greenhouse gases."


Cheers.

PS: Sorry for the big images, but I don't know how to insert them within the post other than linking to them in internet. I cannot control size.

[Boston]

did I forget to wrap quote tags around something
could have I guess
maybe if you point it out specifically I can go back and fix it so as not to confuse the readers

I think it would be big of you to at least admit that page 5 paragraph 5 blatantly misquotes Kerchhoff's law
so that the readers can see that we are having an honest discussion concerning some problems with this paper
after that we can move on to eq 4 which also seems to have some glaring issues associated with it

how about we make that admission and get back on track with a look at equation 4 which seems highly suspect to me

Levenson is being particularly forthcoming in his willingness to discuss this mater and has linked me to a more detailed discussion both he and Levenson had of several of the equations involved, for instance

Miskolczi's equation (4) is:

AA = SU A = SU(1-TA) = ED

where

AA = Amount of flux Absorbed by the Atmosphere
SU = Upward blackbody longwave flux = sigma Ts^4
A = “flux absorptance”
TA = atmospheric flux transmittance
ED = longwave flux downward

These are simple identity definitions. I do wonder why Miskolczi used the upward blackbody longwave for the amount emitted by the ground when he should have used the upward graybody longwave — he’s allegedly doing a gray model, after all. Apparently he forgot the emissivity term, which is about 0.95 for longwave for the Earth. One more hint that he doesn’t really understand the distinction between emission and emissivity.

Note that he seems to be saying the downward flux from the atmosphere (ED) must be the same as the total amount of longwave absorbed by the atmosphere (AA).

The total inputs to Miskolczi’s atmosphere are AA, K, P and F, which respectively stand for the longwave input from the ground, the nonradiative input (latent and sensible heat) from the ground, the geothermal input from the ground, and the solar input. P is negligible and I don’t know why he even puts it in here unless he’s just trying to be complete. He’s saying, therefore, if you stay with conservation of energy, that

AA + K + F = EU + ED

Now, from Kiehl and Trenberth’s 1997 atmospheric energy balance, the values of AA, K, and F would be about 350, 102, and 67 watts per square meter, respectively, for a total of 519 watts per square meter. EU and ED would be 195 and 324, total 519, so the equation balances.

But for Miskolczi’s equation (4) to be true, since AA = ED, we have

K + F = EU

That is, the sum of the nonradiative fluxes and the absorbed sunlight should equal the atmospheric longwave emitted upward. For K&T97, we have 102 + 67 = 195, or 169 = 195, which is an equation that will get you a big red X from the teacher.

There is no reason K + F should equal EU, therefore Miskolczi’s equation (4) is wrong.

Miskolczi has been open to discussion made the following response to levensons analysis

Eq. (4) states that Su=Ed/A. and states that Levensons interpretation does not fit

which seemed a little vague and so Miskolczi added

In case you accept the Su=Ed/A relationship, then you accept Eq. (6). According to the standard explanations the Su-OLR term 'greenhouse factor' is the trapped radiation in the atmosphere (see Ramanathan, WMO etc.). Eq. (6) also tells me that there is an Ed-Eu amount of flux density 'trapped' in the surface. Eq. (7) expresses the fact that this two flux density terms in a partly cloudy atmosphere may be supported by Fo. In case this is true, the
consequence of Eq. (7) is the Su=(3/2)OLR
relationship, that is Eq. (8). I take Eqs. (7) as
an energy conservation type equation for the
involved flux densities in atmospheres with
partial cloud cover. The basic assumption here is that the entropy production of the Fo -> OLR conversion can be maximized by a partial cloud cover. (Note, that a partial cloud cover may simultaneously control Fo and OLR by diffrent microphysical processes.)

Or, you are welcome to come up with any other
theoretical explanation. The Su=(3/2)OLR relationship for the global average flux densities is an empirical fact, and it is going to stay like
that until somebody challenges my LBL computations. (The situation is similat for the
other three new empirical relationships: Su=Ed/A, Su=2Eu and Su=OLR/f .)

which doesn't seem to address the question of eq 4 not adding up
so lets work equation 4 and see if it can be made to represent Su=Td/A

and it cant because there is no Td/A in eq 4 to algebraically manipulate let alone justify.

basically I think Levenson pinned him on equation 4 as well because checking the values in Kiehl and Trenberth’s 1997 atmospheric energy balance he has used the correct values and when applied to the equation they just dont add up, which leaves Miscolkczi with having to refute Kiehl and Trenberth

that would be two for the home team and none for our Hungarian friend

I think its a bit more obscure than simply misquoting Kerchhoff's law but its still a pretty glaring error

am still hoping we can admit the problems with this paper before I move on to far in my analysis

anyone ?

Guillermo ?

cheers
B

[Brent Swain]

I find the pleasure of all that consumption and all the so called 'Comfort" not all that comfortable, when it means having to work 40 hours a week most of your life. Having to work 1/3rd of your life, sleep one third and only have less than 1/3rd of your life to yourself, while having debt hanging over you . Not my idea of luxury or comfort. There are not enough consumer toys in the world to compensate me for the giving up of nearly half of my life and freedom. If simple living has let me sleep in as long as I please, since my mid 20's , while listening to the traffic report to see how the lucky consumers are living , an do what I want when I want any time of day, that is my idea of comfort and luxury. Toys are no compensation.

A friend told me that beaches he used to lay on in the Marshall Islands are now under three feet of water.
I can't remember BC tides having ever been so high.

[Boston]

Problem for you and your AGW folks about FM's work is that it matches pretty well OBSERVATIONS, contrary to the IPCC models, which once and again have failed to match evolving reality.

no it absolutely does not match any observable data
all there is is the expected short term vapor alteration far more likely to be due to solar minimum and a cooler winter in the northern hemisphere

look at the graph Ive posted three times now and show me where this radiative forcing balance is

of course right after you admit that page 5 paragraph 5 contains a whopping error



then maybe we can move on to discuss eq 4

or are you really going to just avoid two completely reasonable issues this paper obviously has in order to stick with your views

ps
hows things G
chees
B

[Guillermo]

Probably we have been typing simultaneously. See my last post: MATCHING REALITY is the name of the game. Read it carefully again, instead of coming with your usual nonsense.

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

You insist on posting a CO2 vs temperature graph we the Coolers have posted a long time ago in this thread to prove the no correlation of CO2 and temperature. Are you on our side now...?

[Boston]

I always like to use your own evidence against you guys
I use that graph you have used in order to show that temp over the untra long term does not find equilibrium untill it reaches 22C and even then there are some blips

not much arguing with your own graph now is there

sooooooo
where is this co2 equilibrium you are trying to defend

and still waiting for that adult like admission that page 5 paragraph 5 misquotes Kirchhoff's law

basically if were not going to be able to admit when one or the other is wrong then there is no real point in continuing now is there
I have found a blatant error in the paper that is impossible for any honest person to fail to admit
I have posted it word for word along side the correct quote
are you or are you not able to admit that this paper misquotes Kirchhoff's law

funny thing is it then goes on to equation 4 which represents the misquote by not adding up
but we can save that question till after you have come to terms with the initial error

ps
a little hard for FM to make any conclusions until he is willing to recalculate the paper for the correct use of Kirchhoff's law

[Guillermo]

Who is trying to defend CO2 is in equilibrium? I'm afraid you are understanding nothing...(as always)

[Guillermo]

YOU HAVE NOT FOUND A BLATANT ERROR, presumptuous!

[Boston]

argueing semantics rather than address the key issue in order to not have to admit error

shame on you

"I" am pointing the error out to "you" that Levenson and others mention in there rebuttal and that I investigated and found to be accurate

page 5 paragraph 5
a blatant misquote of Kershoff's law

are you not able to admit this and move on to have a meaningful dialog

oh
if you want presumptuous
I have pointed out the error to FM
and asked if he would be willing to publish a corrected version of the paper
Ill be sure to keep you informed

[hoytedow]

AGW is a marketable by-product of bovine digestion.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

A friend told me that beaches he used to lay on in the Marshall Islands are now under three feet of water.

Can your friend explain that? It sounds very strange as it has been proved there have not been at all that kind of sea level increases in the 20th century and what Marshall people are expecting is a 3 feet rise in the 21st century:
http://www.marshallislandsjournal.co...3,%202009.html

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Boston

...I investigated and found to be accurate...
I have pointed out the error to FM
and asked if he would be willing to publish a corrected version of the paper

You are presumptuous and pompous indeed!
How do you dare say to that if you do not even know what a differential equation is?