What Do We Think About Climate Change

Marco
This is to my mind an answer to the problem you underline.
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/bo...battery-technologies-21869-58.html#post340558

 

But anyone who has used a search engine knows that altering the search string can change everything! A simple search (as Peiser demonstrated) using the correct search string revealed hundreds of papers that Oreske's original paper contended do not exist!

How is this not a negation of the assertions in her paper?

Jimbo

 

hey now we all have our foibles
mine is bogus scientists taking bribes for papers
that and agnotism

as I suggested lets stick to the paper at hand and not muddy the water with guys who we both know are on the take

basically Im happy to discuss any honest science but the usual suspects are most definitely not going to be getting much time or energy

my interest in this paper lies in that it does not nescesarily attack the previous thinking on the subject as much as it offers a new explanation for the data

as I mentioned in one of my previous

this guy FM might be a denier but he is at least attempting to present a counter explanation. Oh it has some holes in it as near as I can see and its not being very well received but its at least not just an attack on the consensus view. Something I have been hounding for on this thread for some time. Basically since I got here. Its not a complete hypothesis but rather a piece of a much larger puzzle that has yet to be fully assembled. That assemblage being what is so lacking in the deniers camp that it begs the question "is there a coherent counter argument", to which the only answer thus far can only be, no.
Thats one of the reasons I bugged out of this thread in the first place. There was ans still is simple no viable counter argument, just a slew of generally paid PR pieces rather than any reasonable issues being presented

it just took this long for you to come up with someone who could pass muster and actually had a published work. The content of that paper is sufficiently difficult and the rebuttals sufficiently lacking in review that I thought it deserved the attention even if the paper is largely being ignored. Not that I am likely without some assistance to pin point the issues right or wrong, but the process might yield some interesting finds.

ok
was up all night working on a new web site and Im beat
will devote some time to this when I have it
cheers
B

 

OK
just fired off a letter to B P Levenson asking him to detail his rebuttal and provide notations

should be interesting to see how he responds

also am attempting to look up the rejection letters and see what issues they had
if they were addressed in a standing defense and what the outcome and content of that defense was

cheers
B

one thing I have learned so far is that FM left out the rotational energy of they system and calculated for a nearly stagnant atmosphere as far as I can tell from reading his paper. Pretty much what one of the refutations pointed out as being why his numbers are so far off. Simple reality is the atmosphere does not rotate at the same speed as the planet at least not uniformly in any dimension.

also

basically from the word go ( page 5 paragraph 5 of FM 2007 ) there is a glaring error in establishing a numerical value for Kirchhoff's law

specifically FM states
page 5 paragraph 5

and then goes on to not provide a key so we can't fully investigate this formula that based on his explanation of Kirchhoff would most likely be a mile off and
my favorite part
assumes an atmosphere in equilibrium which we know we don't have
and assumes that the values for the absorption and the misquoted "emission" ( should have been emissivity ) "must" correspond when in fact we know they do not based on the ever changing cycles of warming and cooling once again until you reach ~22C and this regardless of the co2 content as per the attached data ( graph I ended up posting instead of attaching ). I believe this is why his model had come into question in nearly every refutation Ive read so far.

so right off the start the first rebuttal point is valid and we must admit the refutations have a definite merit if we are to have an honest discussion.
FM does mis-quote Kershoff's law on page 5 paragraph 5 and that error would throw the whole basis of his calculations was off

not only that but the long term temp vs co2 graph places the climax temp at 22C which would be way outside of this assumed stabilization of temps at any level of co2 within the norms we see today



basically not only the math but the assumptions stated and the evidence do not seem to line up.

I will send this off to both parties should I get a positive response from levenson

mean while its time for startrek and some dinner

cheers
B

oh one more thing
Ill contunue if you will admit FM misquotes Kerchhoff's law and therefor made a fundamental error right off the bat
if not there is not much point in engaging in an honest conversation if both parties are not acting with honest intent to determine the value of the refutations or the value of the paper.
only one can be correct in its claims and this first round must go to the refutation
once we can agree on this we can move on to the next issue with the paper

otherwise I might as well just correspond with FM and BPL to see if I can gain any sort of correction from one or the other
Basically FM needs to rewrite the formulas to reflect this first correction and then see if his hypothesis still holds water.

have fun with it kids
B

 

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

same holds true of a mathamatical equation
misquote something in an equation ( which FM may have done I need to ask him as its only polite to give him the benefit of the doubt ) and then goes on to presume the correct values despite the misquote then it should not effect anything to simply correct the honest error.

if however an entire section of equations vital to a hypothesis have some parameter confused with another value entirely, then it would stand to reason that correcting that value would significantly alter the outcome of the work. ( which may be why FM was loath to correct the misquote once it was pointed out to him, as it has most definitely not been corrected and it would most definitely alter the outcome of his work as has been stated in numerous rebuttals)

by definition the two terms EMISSIVITY and EMISSION have dramatically different values associated with them

emissivity (symbol ε) A measure of an object's ability to radiate electromagnetic radiation compared with that of a black body at the same temperature. A black body, which is a perfect emitter, has an emissivity of 1,

Definitions of Emissivity on the Web:
• The emissivity of a material (usually written ε or e) is the ratio of energy radiated by a particular material to energy radiated by a black body at the same temperature. It is a measure of a material's ability to radiate absorbed energy. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissivity
•
• The energy-emitting propensity of a surface, usually measured at a specific wavelength
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/emissivity
•
• also called emittance - the non-dimensional ratio of the radiance emitted from an object at a particular wavelength to the radiance that a blackbody would emit at that same temperature and wavelength. Thus a surface with an emissivity equal to 1.0 is a blackbody. ...
www.cira.colostate.edu/ramm/goes39/glossary.htm
•
• The ratio of the radiation emitted by a surface to that emitted by a black body at the same temperature.
stweb.ait.ac.th/~vivarad/Earth%20Observatory%20Glossary.htm
•
• Measure of ability of a surface to emit room temperature radiant heat energy. Also a measure of the ability of the surface to reflect room radiant ...
www.wfaanz.org.au/Glossary.htm
•
• Emissivity is a measure of surface’s ability to absorb or reflect far-infrared radiation. The lower the emissivity the higher the far-infrared reflection. Infrared radiation is that which is sensed by the body as heat. ...
www.globalwindowfilms.com/terminology.htm
•
• Microscopically thin, virtually invisible, metal or metallic oxide layers deposited on a window or skylight glazing surface primarily to reduce the U-factor by suppressing radiative heat flow. ...
www.alside.com/index.aspx
•
• (scalar) an intrinsic property of a material indicating how well it radiates heat.
www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/Section/Physics-Glossary.id-305499,articleId-30082.html
•
• The intrinsic strength of an atomic transition that produces a spectral line. The term encapsulates all the atomic data information needed to calculate the flux. It is often generalized to also refer to continuum processes. Units are usually [10 -23 ergs cm 3 s -1 ]. ...
hea-www.harvard.edu/AstroStat/astrojargon.html
•
• Degree to which a real body approaches a black body radiator (ie a perfect emitter of radiation) (Henderson-Sellers and Robinson 1986).
www.canforhydro.org/CFHW_Glossary.htm
•
• The energy emission rate usually expressed as r/c/hr @ 1ft or mr/mc/hr @ 1 ft.
www.ndt-ed.org/GeneralResources/Glossary/letter/e.htm
•
• Tendency to emission; comparative facility of emission, or rate at which emission takes place; specif. ...
www.vinyltek.com/terms_1.html
•
• the fraction of the power incident on a material that is reradiated after being absorbed by the material. ...
filipinoengineer.org/portal/dictionary-mainmenu-72.html


but emission in a black body is a coefficient or function

see emission calculator for black bodies at http://infrared.als.lbl.gov/content/black-body-emission-calculator

and from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CBEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.answers.com%2Ftopic%2Femission-spectrum&rct=j&q=definition+of+emission+of+energy&ei=d4ZqS-PNIcXCngfNpIT8BQ&usg=AFQjCNGnPorsn1B9EJQvnRQ7Em7taeNEFw&sig2=OX4vQybpnEGf2RV57Gh9tw

Emission is a coefficient in the power output per unit time of an electromagnetic source, a calculated value in physics. It is also used as a measure of environmental emissions (by mass) per MWh of electricity generated, see: Emission factor.

see also http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/astronomy/blackbody/bbody.html

specifically note the following graphs



and



please note that in all three examples the energy of emission is measured as an energy density typically but not exclusively in Wm^2 and not as a ratio of energy in vs energy out as in emissivity.

a huge difference between the two values


yet clearly FM uses the term and values for emissions in his explanation of Kerchhoff's law which he based much of his paper on as is mentioned in several rebuttals and which FM has told me he is not willing to discuss.

Kerchhoff's law which FM is attempting to supplant with the value for emission is clearly concerning the ratio of emissivity

obviously a major error on the part of FM and one which he has refused to make comment on or correction of.

Kinda makes me wonder why he, rather than alter the law to correctly estimate the energy of emissivity he insisted on calculating instead a bastardized version of emission.

specifically

page 6 paragraph 3 clearly shows the correct symbol for and an acknowledgment of the Emissivity of a body represented in this case by the symbol ε (sub G) as defined by Kerchhoff's law
however in the equation found on page 5 paragraph 5 we find the symbol E sub D and also the misquote of Kerchhoff's law with a formula not representative of kershoff's law but of the misquoted method of calculation, obviously resulting in two completely differing values as depicted in the derivation, however it is argued that this model is in perfect equilibrium, as such its emissivity, representative of Kerchhoff’s law, would have a value of 1 in both formula’s. but it cant as one formula ( the correct one ) is a ratio which cant exceed 1 and the other is a value of 1 or greater with 1 being almost no radiative energy
Obviously FM is incorrectly describing Kerchhoff’s law ( page 5 paragraph 5 ) and using the larger integer of emission in place of the proper value for emissivity of a perfect black body (=1). Again on page 6 paragraph 1 FM used two formulas to represent his derivation of E sub D once again suggesting it obeys Kerchhoff's law in place of the previously ( page 3 section d ) acknowledged ε (sub G) or 1 as representing emissivity rather than emission. A critical error and one that is clearly being confused by the author of this paper.
Page 3 section d does correctly define the emissivity of the surface but page 5 paragraph 5 does not correctly define the emissivity of the atmosphere, but instead defines emission in FM's model. The previous being a ratio not to exceed 1 and the later being any positive integer as defined within the refutation of BPL

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

 

I'm guessing that this will be post #4469 in this thread. Do you think any new readers are likely to join in?

Give it up guys. There's nobody who doesn't believe that climate changes, and those who believe they understand why are pissing into the wind.

Give it up -- or summarize the 4k+ posts and start a new thread.

 

Blasphemer!

 

ok
just got a response from Barton Levenson who has sent some interesting stuff

this could get interesting fast

cheers
B

 

Hi kistinie, you are too kind. I was not underlying a technical problem but a pseudo-religious one. I was pointing at the self professed believers who with red chicks are blowing in a wood fired stove one hour before they need to start dinner because they have chosen to cut themslevs off the grid for reigious reasons and they stand over me and tell me I am anathema because I have three phase electricity in my home and a 50 amp plug for my 3000 litre spa I keep at a cosy 35C all year around.

I find kero light and wood fired stoves and chicken pens cute but they stop being cute when they become religion and start becoming the target to aim for, all for an imaginary foe that does not exist. Todays political predicament is a combination of Don Quixote and a Masonic conspiracy and the director of the play is the pope.

 

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

 

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

 

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-law-miskolczi-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.

 

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

which seemed a little vague and so Miskolczi added

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

 

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.

 

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