What Do We Think About Climate Change

New interesting Miskolczi paper:

The Stable Stationary Value of the Earth’s Global Average Atmospheric Planc-weighted Greenhouse-Gas Optical Thickness
Ferenc Miskolczi,
Energy & Environment, 21:4 2010.

ABSTRACT
"By the line-by-line method, a computer program is used to analyze Earth atmospheric radiosonde data from hundreds of weather balloon observations. In terms of a quasi-all-sky protocol, fundamental infrared atmospheric radiative flux components are calculated: at the top boundary, the outgoing long wave radiation, the surface transmitted radiation, and the upward atmospheric emittance; at the bottom boundary, the downward atmospheric emittance. The partition of the outgoing long wave radiation into upward atmospheric emittance and surface transmitted radiation components is based on the accurate computation of the true greenhouse-gas optical thickness for the radiosonde data. New relationships among the flux components have been found and are used to construct a quasi-all- sky model of the earth’s atmospheric energy transfer process. In the 1948-2008 time period the global average annual mean true greenhouse-gas optical thickness is found to be time-stationary. Simulated radiative no-feedback effects of measured actual CO2 change over the 61years were calculated and found to be of magnitude easily detectable by the empirical data and analytical methods used. The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements. Apparently major revision of the physics underlying the greenhouse effect is needed."

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf

The weather balloon observations were taken from the TIGR2 archives, Chedin and Scott, and from the NOAA NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis data, http://www.cdc.noaa.gov. The TIGR2 dataset is used to show empirically that new relationships hold amongst certain global variables of the earth’s atmospheric energy transport process. The NOAA 61-year dataset is used to demonstrate that the global average annual infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere has been unchanged for 61 years, with a value of 1.87.

From the text: "GCMs or other climate models, using a no-feedback optical thickness change for their initial CO2 sensitivity estimates, they already start with a minimum of 200 % error (overestimate) just in Δτa"

CONCLUSIONS
"The greenhouse effect is here monitored without the superfluous complications of AOGCM climate models. The present method shows directly whether the global average infrared absorption properties of the atmosphere are changing or not. In general, if there has been global warming due to any cause, its possible correlation with infrared absorption properties of the atmosphere will be directly apparent from accurate observations assessed by calculations of the absorption properties. The present results show an apparent warming associated with no apparent change in the absorption properties. Change in absorption properties cannot have been the cause of the warming. The results show that the theoretical CO2-induced virtual increase in true greenhousegas optical thickness greatly exceeds the actual empirically measured change over the 61-year dataset. The fact that the virtual change is about four times the actual change is strong empirical evidence that there is a very strong dynamic compensation that stabilizes the atmospheric energy transport process against a potential perturbation by CO2 change. This means that the empirically estimated virtual feedback of water vapor effect on the greenhouse-gas optical thickness is not significantly positive contradicting the IPCC doctrine of it being strongly positive. It is clear from these data that the increase in surface temperature shown in Fig. 9 cannot in the least be accounted for by any effect of CO2 on greenhouse gas optical thickness, with or without positive feedback by water vapor. Merely empirical evidence does not necessarily justify predictions of the future: for them, in addition to empirical evidence, some logical warrant of generality is needed. Such a warrant of generality is usually called a physical theory. In order to predict the future, we need a principled physical theory to explain our empirical observations. The present paper has restricted its attention to the empirical observational testing of the quasi-all-sky model, and has avoided theoretical analysis. These empirical results could well be challenged by a comparable empirical method."

I recommend a full reading of the work. Even if maths are not for all readers, concepts used are quite clear.
Bolded are mine.

Cheers

 

Talking about climate regimen shifts...

I bring your attention to this interesting Watt's Up With That post:

Spotting the Solar Regime Shifts Driving Earth’s Climate

From there:
"The following figure compares the Hadley (HadCrut3) monthly global average temperature (from [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh sh/]) overlaid with the regime change line (red line) shown previously, along with the sunspot area since 1900. The sunspot cycle is approximately 11 years. The sun’s magnetic field reverses with each sunspot cycle and thus after two sunspot cycles the magnetic field has completed a cycle – a Hale Cycle – and is back to where it started. Thus a complete magnetic sunspot cycle is approximately 22 years. The figure marks the onset of odd-numbered cycles with a vertical red line, even-numbered cycles with a green line."


Note: Analysis performed with a NOAA algorithm and downloadable program for spotting regime shifts in time series data. It was designed by Sergei Rodionov of the NOAA Bering Climate and Ecosystem Center.

 

Pardon me but Im a bit skeptical about this Ferenc guys work on climate

Wasn't old Ferenc the guy who's last paper was blasted by the scientific community or its numerous errors and formula's that simply did not add up. Eq 4 to be specific of his last ?

Just sayin cause now it kinda looks like he is at it again with this new paper

Although at least he has admitted that there is warming he is also suggesting that he could not find a cause and pretty much focuses on the denial end of it by focusing on what he thinks its not rather than presenting what he thinks it is. Kinda odd for a paper to rather then present an idea try and shoot one down wouldn't you think.

should be interesting to see what the community has to say about this new work by Miskolczi cause there is this little bird telling me something is amiss in his calculations which someone more qualified and with more time than I is just waiting to publish.

should be interesting to do a quick search and see if there are any responses to this paper yet

just to review we know his last paper (2007) was completely off base

and that he refused to print a retraction to correct any of the numerous errors it contained

so now he is presenting another paper and we are supposed to take it to heart ?

 

It might also be noteworthy to realize that the Theory of Rapid Global Climate Shift began with and has continued with predictions that have turned out to be accurate enough to show that we have a working theory and not simply a few flawed models as the deniers would have you believe

from
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-carbon-dioxide-theory-of-gilbert-plass/

 

Global Convergence in the Temperature Sensitivity of Respiration at Ecosystem Level
Miguel D. Mahecha,1,2,* Markus Reichstein,1 Nuno Carvalhais,1,3 Gitta Lasslop,1 Holger Lange,4 Sonia I. Seneviratne,2 Rodrigo Vargas,5 Christof Ammann,6 M. Altaf Arain,7 Alessandro Cescatti,8 Ivan A. Janssens,9 Mirco Migliavacca,10 Leonardo Montagnani,11,12 Andrew D. Richardson13
Published Online July 5, 2010
Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1189587

REPORT
"The respiratory release of CO2 from the land surface is a major flux in the global carbon cycle, antipodal to photosynthetic CO2 uptake. Understanding the sensitivity of respiratory processes to temperature is central for quantifying the climate–carbon cycle feedback. Here, we approximate the sensitivity of terrestrial ecosystem respiration to air temperature (Q10) across 60 FLUXNET sites using a methodology that circumvents confounding effects. Contrary to previous findings, our results suggest that Q10 is independent of mean annual temperature, does not differ among biomes, and is confined to values around 1.4 (±0.1). The strong relation between photosynthesis and respiration, instead, is highly variable among sites. Overall, the results partly explain a less pronounced climate–carbon cycle feedback than suggested by current carbon cycle climate models."

1 Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, 07745 Jena, Germany.
2 Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zürich, Universitätsstrasse 16, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland.
3 Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, FCT, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal.
4 Norsk Institutt for Skog og Landskap, N-1431 Ås, Norway.
5 Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
6 Agroscope ART, Federal Research Station, Reckenholzstr. 191, CH-8046 Zürich, Switzerland.
7 McMaster Centre for Climate Change, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4L8, Canada.
8 European Commission, Joint Research Center, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, I-21027 Ispra, Italy.
9 Department of Biology, University of Antwerpen, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610 Wilrijk, Belgium.
10 Remote Sensing of Environmental Dynamics Laboratory, DISAT, University of Milano-Bicocca, 20126 Milano, Italy.
11 Servizi Forestali, Agenzia per l’Ambiente, Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano, 39100 Bolzano, Italy.
12 Faculty of Sciences and Technologies, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Piazza Università 1, 39100, Bolzano, Italy.
13 Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, HUH, 22 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1189587v1

(Bolded is mine)

 

Further publications by Ferenc Miskolczi:

F.M. Miskolczi: Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres. Idojaras - Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Vol. 111. No. 1. 2007.



Kratz-Mlynczak-Mertens-Brindley-Gordley-Torres-Miskolczi-Turner: An inter-comparison of far-infrared line-by-line radiative transfer models. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy & Radiative Transfer No. 90, 2005.



F.M. Miskolczi and M.G. Mlynczak: The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial radiation. Idojaras - Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Vol.108, No. 4. 2004.



Rizzi-Matricardi-Miskolczi: Simulation of uplooking and downlooking high-resolution radiance spectra with two different radiative transfer models. Applied Optics, Vol. 41. No. 6, 2002.



F. Miskolczi-R. Rizzi: High Accuracy Skin Temperature Retrieval Using Spectral Measurements of Multichannel IR Imagers. International Radiation Symposium, Madison, Visconsin, 1998.



F.M. Miskolczi: Modeling of Downward Surface Longwave Flux Density for Global Change Applications and Comparison with Pyrgeometer Measurements. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Vol. 11. No. 2, April 1994.



F.M. Miskolczi and R. Guzzi: Effect of nonuniform spectral dome transmittance on the accuracy of infrared radiation measurements using shielded pyrradiometers and pyrgeometers. Applied Optics, Vol. 32. No. 18., 1993.



F.M. Miskolczi et al.: High-resolution atmospheric radiance-transmittance code (HARTCODE). In: Meteorology and Environmental Sciences Proc. of the Course on Physical Climatology and Meteorology for Environmental Application. World Scientific Publishing Co. Inc., Singapore, 1990.

 

Err...hemm...coff coff...exxxcuse mee....you mean to say the HYPOTHESIS of [insert here any name you want to use]

And predictions who have turned to be accurate? ... what? What was "predicted" that turned out to be accurate? That winter is usually cold and summer usually warm?

Come on Boston, you can claim almost anything, from polar bear extintions to the stopping of the gulf current, the melting of the ice caps and the end of the cappuccino as we know it, but "ACCURACY" in the warmers camp? You must be joking haha. I get it, its a joke, ok I get it now. Sorry a bit slow today.

 

Often a target for environmentalists and global warming alarmists alike, intensive modern agriculture has been demonized as the cause of many types of pollution, including those dreaded greenhouse gases. A study, appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), reveals that highly productive modern agriculture actually reduces net greenhouse gas emissions when compared with using croplands less intensively. Furthermore, expansion of agriculture, needed to feed mankind's ever growing numbers, can help reduce future increases in CO2 emissions. Looks like the doomsayers got it backwards again, more intensive agricultural is a good thing for the environment. In fact, agriculture reduced total human carbon emissions from 1850 to 2005 by 34%.

What the study found was that improved crop yields have maximized land use efficiency and minimized the need for clearing more farmland. “Enhancing crop yields is not incompatible with a reduction of agricultural inputs in many circumstances,” state the authors. “To the contrary, careful and efficient management of nutrients and water by precision farming, incorporation of crop residues, and less intensive tillage are critical practices in pursuit of sustainable and increased agricultural output.” Not that yield gains alone necessarily preclude expansion of cropland. The report suggests that agricultural intensification must be coupled with conservation and development efforts for best results. Nonetheless, continuing improvement of crop yields was found to be the most important single factor.

The report's conclusions have been corroborated by recent information from Europe. The European Commission has been working on a plan for future agricultural development. Their website states: “EU agricultural emissions of methane and nitrous oxide declined by 20.2% in the period 1990-2007. Large reductions occurred in the greatest sources of emissions, nitrous oxide from agricultural soils and methane emissions from enteric fermentation by cattle, which both fell by about 21%.” So the news from the EU is supportive.

Not only does human agriculture reduce GHG emissions today, Burney et al. suggest that in the future will reduce potential emissions even more. Benefits of intensive agriculture include reducing the need to clear tropical forests, which have been religiously defended against development by greens world wide. In view of this new work, it seems that expanding agriculture intelligently is the path to a greener future, and not an example of mankind raping the land. And, if you are worried about global warming, it looks like farming may be part of the solution, not a part of the problem.


Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification
1. Jennifer A. Burneya,b,1,
2. Steven J. Davisc, and
3. David B. Lobella,b
Edited by G. Philip Robertson, W. K. Kellogg Biological Station, Hickory Corners, MI, and accepted by the Editorial Board May 4, 2010 (received for review December 9, 2009)

Paper here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/14/0914216107.full.pdf html

Abstract

"As efforts to mitigate climate change increase, there is a need to identify cost-effective ways to avoid emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Agriculture is rightly recognized as a source of considerable emissions, with concomitant opportunities for mitigation. Although future agricultural productivity is critical, as it will shape emissions from conversion of native landscapes to food and biofuel crops, investment in agricultural research is rarely mentioned as a mitigation strategy. Here we estimate the net effect on GHG emissions of historical agricultural intensification between 1961 and 2005. We find that while emissions from factors such as fertilizer production and application have increased, the net effect of higher yields has avoided emissions of up to 161 gigatons of carbon (GtC) (590 GtCO2e) since 1961. We estimate that each dollar invested in agricultural yields has resulted in 68 fewer kgC (249 kgCO2e) emissions relative to 1961 technology ($14.74/tC, or ~$4/tCO2e), avoiding 3.6 GtC (13.1 GtCO2e) per year. Our analysis indicates that investment in yield improvements compares favorably with other commonly proposed mitigation strategies. Further yield improvements should therefore be prominent among efforts to reduce future GHG emissions."


Supporting information: http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2010/06/14/0914216107.DCSupplemental/pnas.200914216SI.pdf

 

I had listed Dr. Gee in posts 1698 & 3740, but I din't dig into information about him till today. Let's see what Dr. Gee said, when, and why it is relevant (who is Dr. Gee?) to our little debate:

Geologist Dr. David Gee, chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress, dismissed the notion that the “science is settled” on man-made climate fears by asking his fellow scientists “How sure can we be?” about carbon dioxide driving global temperatures. “You see the carbon dioxide curve going straight across that diagram from left to right, upwards,” Gee continued.

Gee presented a temperature and carbon dioxide chart to the conference to illustrate the lack of linkage between global temperature and carbon dioxide levels. [Note: An online video of a conference climate change panel is a must-see video for anyone desiring healthy scientific debate. See:
http://www.33igc.org/coco/EntryPage.aspx?guid=1&PageID=5100&ContainerID=11823&ObjectID=12520

“So my question is extremely simple, we know temperature goes up and down. We know there is tremendous amount of natural variations, but for how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand -- we politicians and scientists-- that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?"


David Gee
European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark

David Gee was educated in politics and economics and has worked for over 30 years at the science/policy interface of occupational and environmental risk assessment & reduction, with UK Trade Unions; the Environmental Group, Friends of the Earth, where he was Director; and, since December 1995, with the European Environment Agency, an EU information providing body in Copenhagen, where he is responsible for “Emerging Issues and Scientific Liaison” and Group leader for Science, Policy and Innovation. He has published reports and lectured on many issues, including Scientific Uncertainty,; the Precautionary Principle, Environmental Health, Environmental Taxes and Ecological Tax Reform, and Clean production/ Eco-efficiency.

Cheers.

 

a few predictions that were conservative

obviously there are many predictions of the IPCC that have proven themselves to be accurate if conservative and many more that are just plain right on the money and yes a few that were off the mark. Simple reality is it was right a lot more than it was wrong. Sorry but the deniers camp is way off base once again.

a little insight into the IPCC for those of you who clearly have no idea of what the IPCC actually is

 

What a load of crook. Who cares what the origin of the misinformation is? The only thing that matters is its intended use.
That data, was used to "demonstrate" that oceans are rising. They could as well say that Sydney Opera House is at risk of flooding from rising seas. The fact of the matter is that oceans are NOT rising and have never been rising in any significant way other than how they have been rising and falling for centuries or rather millennia. Some of the land on our planet on the other side is sinking and may be worth mentioning that some land is rising.

Not that reality has any grip on warmist of course. We are in the coldest winter in the last 60 years in Sydney. New York is in a heat wave. Uhuuu global warming will blow us all away.

 

Well, Realclimate opinions on IPCC are not the most imparcial ones, I'm afraid. And I wouldn't say Copenhagen summit was precisely a success....

 

oh thats brilliant

and you actually expect ten guys to print up 3000 pages of reports by 450 lead authors as well as 800 or so contributing authors as well as govern three stages of review involving 2,500 reviewers who add something like 90,000 comments to the drafts, to actually catch every single error.

I think the readers can clearly see for themselves how completely ridiculous it is to blame the IPCC for the occasional mistake let alone blame them for the occasional error by someone else involved

sorry but you guys are nipping at heals rather than address the simple reality that the science is dam sound

 

Guillermo, I think it is high time you post a good tried out paella recipe.

 

might just be
cause clearly the views being expressed concerning the science of climate research are hardly informed ones


for instance

can any of you actually name these ten guys in charge of your alleged conspiracy to rule the world through carbon credits
and better yet can you trace this mythical conspiracy back for us so we can see how the science has been corrupted
feel free to begin in 1824 with Fourier's work and continue with Tyndall and Arrhenius

its a ludicrous suggestion that this is some kind of gigantic conspiracy