Bookmark and Share

Viewed 3747 times

Climate Greenhouse Warming Equation Wrong

    VM44 posted Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:42:00 GMT(12/28/2009)

    Post 5262 of 6611
    Joined 7/1/2001

    I mentioned this over in the thread

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/186270/1/Climate-Change-nee-Global-Warming-Strkes-Again

    I thought the subject should have a thread of its own.

    Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"
    March 6, 2008
    http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm

    New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible

    Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.

    That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center.

    After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well. "I fell in love," he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.

    "Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

    How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

    Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.

    So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.

    NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

    Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."

    His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.

    The conclusions are supported by research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research last year from Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs, who gave statistical evidence that the Earth's response to carbon dioxide was grossly overstated. It also helps to explain why current global climate models continually predict more warming than actually measured.

    The equations also answer thorny problems raised by current theory, which doesn't explain why "runaway" greenhouse warming hasn't happened in the Earth's past. The new theory predicts that greenhouse gas increases should result in small, but very rapid temperature spikes, followed by much longer, slower periods of cooling -- exactly what the paleoclimatic record demonstrates.

    However, not everyone is convinced. Dr. Stephen Garner, with the NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), says such negative feedback effects are "not very plausible". Reto Ruedy of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says greenhouse theory is "200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory.

    Miskowlczi has used his theory to model not only Earth, but the Martian atmosphere as well, showing what he claims is an extremely good fit with observational results. For now, the data for Venus is too limited for similar analysis, but Miskolczi hopes it will one day be possible.

    http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/7494_large_miskolczi_07.JPG
    A graph showing agreement of model predictions with data from both the Earth and Mars

    http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/7493_large_miskolczi_03.JPG
    A simplified view of the new equations governing the greenhouse effect

    Article Links:

    http://met.hu/omsz.php?almenu_id=omsz&pid=references&mpx=0&kps=1&pri=2
    http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
    http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMMAGK26DF_index_0.html

    Paper Links:

    Ferenc M. Miskolczi,
    Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres (2007)
    http://met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf

    Ferenc M. Miskolczi and Martin G. Mlynczak,
    The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of
    the clear-sky terrestrial radiation (2004)
    http://met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol108_No4_01.pdf

    VM44 posted Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:55:00 GMT(12/28/2009)

    Post 5264 of 6611
    Joined 7/1/2001

    From the website:

    http://miskolczi.webs.com/

    The Miskolczi-principle

    Earth-type planetary atmospheres,

    having partial cloud cover and

    unlimited reservoirs of water vapor,

    maintain an energetically maximized

    (constant, ‘saturated’)

    greenhouse effect

    that cannot be increased by emissions.

    Three quantities:

    - the theoretical unperturbed equilibrium greenhouse effect;

    - the actual empirical greenhouse effect; and

    - the 1948-2008 61 yr average greenhouse effect

    are the same, within 0.1C temperature difference.

    With other words,

    - the theoretical unperturbed equilibrium global average absorption of the Earth’s atmosphere: A=84.55%;

    - the 1948-2008 61 yr global annual mean NOAA/NCEP/NCAR absorption: A=84.57%; and

    - the global mean absorption from the independent TIGR-2 radiosonde database: A=84.69%

    proves the validity of the saturated greenhouse effect concept.

    References:

    F. Miskolczi: Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres.

    Idojaras — Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service,

    2007, Vol. 111, No. 1.

    F. Miskolczi, M. Mlynczak: The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial radiation.

    Idojaras — Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service,

    2004, Vol. 108, No. 4.

    In the past five years, no falsification emerged.

    Contact:

    fmiskolczi@cox.net

    miklos.zagoni@gmail.com

    VM44 posted Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:08:00 GMT(12/28/2009)

    Post 5265 of 6611
    Joined 7/1/2001

    An interesting article on "The Saturated Greenhouse Effect" may be read at:

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm

    villabolo posted Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:58:00 GMT(12/28/2009)

    Post 1363 of 2770
    Joined 3/9/2009

    VM44

    "Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

    VM44, as soon as you catch up on your astronomy can you verify that there is a planet called Venus?

    villabolo

    villabolo posted Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:04:00 GMT(12/28/2009)

    Post 1364 of 2770
    Joined 3/9/2009
    Results 1 - 10 from www.realclimate.org for miskolczi. (0.17 seconds)

      Google
      Custom Search
    1. Ferenc Miskolczi - RCwiki

      May 4, 2009 ... Dr Miskolczi simply assumes the emittances and absorbances can be equated. b. The Virial Theorem. People who know about this scratch their ...
      www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi
    2. RealClimate: Miskolczi

      Some parts of the blogosphere, headed up by CEI (”CO2: They call it pollution, we call it life!“), are all a-twitter over an apparently “suppressed” ...
      www.realclimate.org/?s=miskolczi
    3. RealClimate: The global cooling mole

      51 posts - 13 authors - Last post: Mar 8, 2008 Miskolczi, Ferenc M., 2007. ... “Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations,” Miskolczi states. ...
      www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/.../the-global-cooling-mole/
    4. RealClimate: North Pole notes

      51 posts - 15 authors - Last post: Jun 28, 2008 It takes apart Ferenc Miskolczi's pseudoscientific paper which is getting so much play from the denialists lately. ...
      www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/north-pole-notes/
    5. RealClimate: Monckton's deliberate manipulation

      51 posts - 8 authors - Last post: May 5 As for calling the journal that Miskolczi an obscure journal, well it may be ... Why has the work of Miskolczi not been rebutted in the peer ...
      www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/.../comment-page-2/
    6. RealClimate: Climate Change and Tropical Cyclones (Yet Again)

      51 posts - 14 authors - Last post: May 20, 2008 Re: Ferenc Miskolczi. What? You mean atmospheres don't orbit? ... Can you find where Miskolczi has got it right? ...
      www.realclimate.org/.../climate-change-and-tropical-cyclones-yet-again/
    7. RealClimate: Impressions from the European Geophysical Union ...

      26 posts - 6 authors - Last post: May 22, 2008 Has anyone done an analysis on Ferenc Miskolczi's new maths on Co2 increase in the atmosphere. Miklos Zagoni (physicist) one of Hungary's ...
      www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/04/egu.../comment-page-2/
    8. RealClimate: The global cooling mole

      51 posts - 7 authors - Last post: Mar 13, 2008 I suspect that RC will have to deal with the Miskolczi paper sooner or ...Miskolczi then invokes this solution and a minimum energy (most ...
      www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the.../comment-page-3/
    9. RealClimate: Venus Unveiled

      51 posts - 9 authors - Last post: Feb 23 The Senate minority is using work such as Miskolczi in attempting ... Your request to Dr. Miskolczi for evidence of Su = 3/2 OLR is produced ...
      www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/.../comment-page-3/
    10. RealClimate: FAQ on climate models: Part II

      51 posts - 13 authors - Last post: Jan 9 Miskolczi, right? 49. Hank Roberts says: 9 January 2009 at 12:30 AM. T. Gannett, I wonder if this is where you're headed: ...
      www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/.../faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/

    B-Rock posted Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:56:00 GMT(12/28/2009)

    Post 181 of 811
    Joined 9/30/2009

    The Unbearable Complexity of Climate

    B-Rock posted Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:56:00 GMT(12/28/2009)

    Post 182 of 811
    Joined 9/30/2009

    The Unbearable Complexity of Climate

    27 12 2009

    Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

    Figure 1. The Experimental Setup

    I keep reading statements in various places about how it is indisputable “simple physics” that if we increase amount of atmospheric CO2, it will inevitably warm the planet. Here’s a typical example:

    In the hyperbolic language that has infested the debate, researchers have been accused of everything from ditching the scientific method to participating in a vast conspiracy. But the basic concepts of the greenhouse effect is a matter of simple physics and chemistry, and have been part of the scientific dialog for roughly a century.

    Here’s another:

    The important thing is that we know how greenhouse gases affect climate. It has even been predicted hundred years ago by Arrhenius. It is simple physics.

    Unfortunately, while the physics is simple, the climate is far from simple. It is one of the more complex systems that we have ever studied. The climate is a tera-watt scale planetary sized heat engine. It is driven by both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial forcings, a number of which are unknown, and many of which are poorly understood and/or difficult to measure. It is inherently chaotic and turbulent, two conditions for which we have few mathematical tools.

    The climate is comprised of five major subsystems — atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere. All of these subsystems are imperfectly understood. Each of these subsystems has its own known and unknown internal and external forcings, feedbacks, resonances, and cyclical variations. In addition, each subsystem affects all of the other subsystems through a variety of known and unknown forcings and feedbacks.

    Then there is the problem of scale. Climate has crucially important processes at physical scales from the molecular to the planetary, and at temporal scales from milliseconds to millennia.

    As a result of this almost unimaginable complexity, simple physics is simply inadequate to predict the effect of a change in one of the hundreds and hundreds of things that affect the climate. I will give two examples of why “simple physics” doesn’t work with the climate — a river, and a block of steel. I’ll start with a thought experiment with the block of steel.

    Suppose that I want to find out about how temperature affects solids. I take a 75 kg block of steel, and I put the bottom end of it in a bucket of hot water. I duct tape a thermometer to the top end in the best experimental fashion, and I start recording how the temperature change with time. At first, nothing happens. So I wait. And soon, the temperature of the other end of the block of steel starts rising. Hey, simple physics, right?

    To verify my results, I try the experiment with a block of copper. I get the same result, the end of the block that’s not in the hot water soon begins to warm up. I try it with a block of glass, same thing. My tentative conclusion is that simple physics says that if you heat one end of a solid, the other end will eventually heat up as well.

    So I look around for a final test. Not seeing anything obvious, I have a flash of insight. I weigh about 75 kg. So I sit with my feet in the bucket of hot water, put the thermometer in my mouth, and wait for my head to heat up. This experimental setup is shown in Figure 1 above.

    After all, simple physics is my guideline, I know what’s going to happen, I just have to wait.

    And wait … and wait …

    As our thought experiment shows, simple physics may simply not work when applied to a complex system. The problem is that there are feedback mechanisms that negate the effect of the hot water on my cold toes. My body has a preferential temperature which is not set by the external forcings.

    For a more nuanced view of what is happening, let’s consider the second example, a river. Again, a thought experiment.

    I take a sheet of plywood, and I cover it with some earth. I tilt it up so it slopes from one edge to the other. For our thought experiment, we’ll imagine that this is a hill that goes down to the ocean.

    I place a steel ball at the top edge of the earth-covered plywood, and I watch what happens. It rolls, as simple physics predicts, straight down to the lower edge. I try it with a wooden ball, and get the same result. I figure maybe it’s because of the shape of the object.

    So I make a small wooden sled, and put it on the plywood. Again, it slides straight down to the ocean. I try it with a miniature steel shed, same result. It goes directly downhill to the ocean as well. Simple physics, understood by Isaac Newton.

    As a final test, I take a hose and I start running some water down from the top edge of my hill to make a model river. To my surprise, although the model river starts straight down the hill, it soon starts to wander. Before long, it has formed a meandering stream, which changes its course with time. Sections of the river form long loops, the channel changes, loops are cut off, new channels form, and after while we get something like this:

    Figure 2. Meanders, oxbow bends, and oxbow lakes in a river system. Note the old channels where the river used to run.

    The most amazing part is that the process never stops. No matter how long we run the river experiment, the channel continues to change. What’s going on here?

    Well, the first thing that we can conclude is that, just as in our experiment with the steel block, simple physics simply doesn’t work in this situation. Simple physics says that things roll straight downhill, and clearly, that ain’t happening here … it is obvious we need better tools to analyze the flow of the river.

    Are there mathematical tools that we can use to understand this system? Yes, but they are not simple. The breakthrough came in the 1990’s, with the discovery by Adrian Bejan of the Constructal Law. The Constructal Law applies to all flow systems which are far from equilibrium, like a river or the climate.

    It turns out that these types of flow systems are not passive systems which can take up any configuration. Instead, they actively strive to maximize some aspect of the system. For the river, as for the climate, the system strives to maximize the sum of the energy moved and the energy lost through turbulence. See the discussion of these principleshere, here, here, and here. There is also a website devoted to various applications of the Constructal Law here.

    There are several conclusions that we can make from the application of the Constructal Law to flow systems:

    1. Any flow system far from equilibrium is not free to take up any form as the climate models assume. Instead, it has a preferential state which it works actively to achieve.

    2. This preferential state, however, is never achieved. Instead, the system constantly overshoots and undershoots that state, and does not settle down to one final form. The system never stops modifying its internal aspects to move towards the preferential state.

    3. The results of changes in such a flow system are often counterintuitive. For example, suppose we want to shorten the river. Simple physics says it should be easy. So we cut through an oxbow bend, and it makes the river shorter … but only for a little while. Soon the river readjusts, and some other part of the river becomes longer. The length of the river is actively maintained by the system. Contrary to our simplistic assumptions, the length of the river is not changed by our actions.

    So that’s the problem with “simple physics” and the climate. For example, simple physics predicts a simple linear relationship between the climate forcings and the temperature. People seriously believe that a change of X in the forcings will lead inevitably to a chance of A * X in the temperature. This is called the “climate sensitivity”, and is a fundamental assumption in the climate models. The IPCC says that if CO2 doubles, we will get a rise of around 3C in the global temperature. However, there is absolutely no evidence to support that claim, only computer models. But the modelsassume this relationship, so they cannot be used to establish the relationship.

    However, as rivers clearly show, there is no such simple relationship in a flow system far from equilibrium. We can’t cut through an oxbow to shorten the river, it just lengthens elsewhere to maintain the same total length. Instead of being affected by a change in the forcings, the system sets its own preferential operating conditions (e.g. length, temperature, etc.) based on the natural constraints and flow possibilities and other parameters of the system.

    Final conclusion? Because climate is a flow system far from equilibrium, it is ruled by the Constructal Law. As a result, there is no physics-based reason to assume that increasing CO2 will make any difference to the global temperature, and the Constructal Law gives us reason to think that it may make no difference at all. In any case, regardless of Arrhenius, the “simple physics” relationship between CO2 and global temperature is something that we cannot simply assume to be true.

    WTWizard posted Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:21:00 GMT(12/28/2009)

    Post 9341 of 14919
    Joined 5/10/2007

    The whole thing is a scam designed to control everything you do. First, the "warming" we are currently experiencing is not even taking it back to before the Little Ice Age. We were warmer between 1000 and 1300 AD.

    Second, the warming seems to have stopped during the last 10 years. The year 1998 was the warmest year in the last 150 years since records were kept, and we have not been warmer since then.

    Third, Mars has also been warming. We cannot possibly be responsible for Mars warming, and if the earth is warming at the same rate as Mars, our emissions are not responsible.

    Now, CO 2 seems to result from a warming trend, not the other way around. And there are plausible explanations: The ocean soaks it up. If it warms up, some of that gas will bubble out. This is like shaking a Coke that has been in the refrigerator and one that has been in a room-temperature room, and suddenly opening both. The cold one makes less of a mess than the warm one--releasing less CO 2 in the process. Also, organic matter decays more quickly, releasing more carbon into the atmosphere, when it is warm. Effectively, there is more CO 2 in the air because it is warmer than 150 years ago, not the other way around.

    But, it does make a good way to tax everything we do. Everything we do puts carbon in the air, so if this is regulated, everything we do can be reglated as well.

    M besty posted Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:51:00 GMT(12/28/2009)

    Post 2598 of 5414
    Joined 3/3/2005

    WTWizard

    Can I ask why you never responded to any of the counterpoints I made to a substantially similar set of points you made here:

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/186270/2/Climate-Change-nee-Global-Warming-Strkes-Again

    Are you going to endlessly post the same stuff without developing the debate beyond your initial set of premises?

    M What-A-Coincidence posted Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:56:00 GMT(12/28/2009)

    Post 4686 of 4650
    Joined 11/23/2005

    bottom line ... THE SUN WARMS THE EARTH ... needa graph for that?

    M besty posted Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:16:00 GMT(12/28/2009)

    Post 2599 of 5414
    Joined 3/3/2005

    The peer review process seems to be working just fine. One reviewer said:

    ”The overall concluding statement that ‘the existence of a stable climate requires a unique surface upward flux density and a unique optical depth of 1.841’ makes absolutely no sense at all. An atmosphere can be in stable radiative equilibrium for any LW optical depth, but the equilibrium surface temperature will monotonically depend on the value of the optical depth….”

    A brief overview of the major problems with the Miskolczi analysis can be found here http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi

    And an extensive scientific discussion of the assumptive errors in the analysis here http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/06/gigo-eli-has-learned-over-years-that.html

    Two points:

    1 - Alternative viewpoints are available and subject to a largely effective peer review process - there is no conspiracy of silencing "non-conforming" outliers

    2 - The scientist(s) that overturn 150 years of greenhouse gas theory will be more famous than Einstein, Newton and Darwin combined.

    M frankiespeakin posted Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:23:00 GMT(12/28/2009)

    Post 6863 of 11451
    Joined 9/9/2003

    Vm44,

    Thanks I find it very interesting, I'm interested in a mathematical model that can make more accurate prediction even though I don't comprehend in great depth the complexity involved.

    B-Rock,

    Thanks for posting that essay, it makes a point that I have been aware of in these debates for a long time. I do hold out that some day some mathematical genius will come along and figure out how to extrapolate the data into a workable mathematical model that makes accurate predictions.

    It will probably be something like what Richard Feynman said about the The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics: " if anybody says they understand quantum mechanics they don't understand quantum mechanics" and his famous sentence: "Shut up and calculate" In other words you don't have to understand how or why it works so use the calculation

    It definitely won't be simple Physics but they still could find a good model that works.

    M besty posted Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:25:00 GMT(12/28/2009)

    Post 2600 of 5414
    Joined 3/3/2005
    bottom line ... THE SUN WARMS THE EARTH ... needa graph for that?

    WAC - questions for you:

    1 - How do you account for rising CO2 levels NOT warming the planet? (clue: WAC the Internet conspiracy theorist v 150 years of science)

    2 - How do you account for the divergence in the correlation between solar activity and global temperature since 1975?

    M What-A-Coincidence posted Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:29:00 GMT(12/28/2009)

    Post 4687 of 4650
    Joined 11/23/2005

    simple...they made a mistake by measureing from celsius to farenheigt thus u get wac #'s ;-)

    M besty posted Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:16:00 GMT(12/28/2009)

    Post 2601 of 5414
    Joined 3/3/2005

    BRock - you pasted an article entitled The Unbearable Complexity of Climate.

    The title evokes an argument from personal incredulity fallacy - 'this is really complicated, we (I) can't possibly hope to understand it, therefore it's not possible'. Also the title reminds me of Michael Behe's 'irreducible complexity'' argument for creationism but I digress...

    The key point of the article appears to be:

    For example, simple physics predicts a simple linear relationship between the climate forcings and the temperature. People seriously believe that a change of X in the forcings will lead inevitably to a chance of A * X in the temperature. This is called the “climate sensitivity”, and is a fundamental assumption in the climate models. The IPCC says that if CO2 doubles, we will get a rise of around 3C in the global temperature. However, there is absolutely no evidence to support that claim, only computer models. But the models assume this relationship, so they cannot be used to establish the relationship.

    I have to say this borders on deliberate lying. There is a wealth of empirical evidence not including models to support climate sensitivity ranges.

    • Lorius 1990 examined Vostok ice core data and calculates a range of 3 to 4°C.
    • Hoffert 1992 reconstructs two paleoclimate records (one colder, one warmer) to yield a range 1.4 to 3.2°C.
    • Hansen 1993 looks at the last 20,000 years when the last ice age ended and empirically calculates a climate sensitivity of 3 ± 1°C.
    • Gregory 2002 used observations of ocean heat uptake to calculate a minimum climate sensitivity of 1.5.
    • Chylek 2007 examines the period from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. They calculate a climate sensitivy range of 1.3°C and 2.3°C.
    • Tung 2007 performs statistical analysis on 20th century temperature response to the solar cycle to calculate a range 2.3 to 4.1°C.

    Extensive discussion on this can be found here http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

    M What-A-Coincidence posted Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:21:00 GMT(12/28/2009)

    Post 4693 of 4650
    Joined 11/23/2005

    beast master said: empirical

    i don't think u know what means, u just trying to sound smart like barack bin ladin obama

    M besty posted Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:36:00 GMT(12/28/2009)

    Post 2602 of 5414
    Joined 3/3/2005

    Empirical Evidence in Scientific Research

    Scientific evidence is considered empirical when it can be observed by many people and all will agree as to what they observed.

    An example would be reading a thermometer. No matter who observes the thermometer, it still displays the same temperature. The counterexample to this is physically sensing warmth or coolness. Observer A might sense that a room is warm, while observer B senses that the same room is cool.

    These observations differ depending on the observer, and are therefore considered subjective.

    Evidence that is not dependent on the observer (i.e., is objective), that appears the same no matter who observes the evidence, is considered to be empirical evidence.

    M BurnTheShips posted Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:41:00 GMT(12/28/2009)

    Post 13558 of 17945
    Joined 8/28/2006
    How do you account for the divergence in the correlation between solar activity and global temperature since 1975?

    Station dropout since 1975. Reduction in temperature stations is overwhelmingly rural:

    Lets play "find the temperature station":

    The majority of US stations are poorly sited, and we are supposed to have the best in the world. We are also getting temperature readings from ghost stations that closed years ago. This one closed in 1995:

    Garbage in, garbage out.

    BTS

    M BurnTheShips posted Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:43:00 GMT(12/28/2009)

    Post 13559 of 17945
    Joined 8/28/2006

    500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

    BTS

    M BurnTheShips posted Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:53:00 GMT(12/28/2009)

    Post 13560 of 17945
    Joined 8/28/2006
    How do you account for the divergence in the correlation between solar activity and global temperature since 1975?

    The TSI reading on your chart could well be wrong.

    Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change.

    Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2009),
    doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.007 By Nicola Scafetta

    Herein I have analyzed the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change. A comprehensive interpretation of multiple scientific findings indicates that the contribution of solar variability to climate change is significant and that the temperature trend since 1980 can be large and upward. However, to correctly quantify the solar contribution to the recent global warming it is necessary to determine the correct TSI behavior since 1980. Unfortunately, this cannot be done with certainty yet. The PMOD TSI composite, which has been used by the IPCC and most climate modelers, has been found to be based on arbitrary and questionable assumptions[Scafetta and Willson, 2009]*. Thus, it cannot be excluded that TSI increased from 1980 to 2000 as claimed by the ACRIM scientific team. The IPCC [2007] claim that the solar contribution to climate change since 1950 is negligible may be based on wrong solar data in addition to the fact that the EBMs and GCMs there used are missing or poorly modeling several climate mechanisms that would significantly amplify the solar effect on climate. When taken into account the entire range of possible TSI satellite composite since 1980, the solar contribution to climate change ranges from a slight cooling to a significant warming, which can be as large as 65% of the total observed global warming.

    *Here is the Scarfetta and Willson paper:

    A New Paper On Solar Climate Forcing “ACRIM-Gap And TSI Trend Issue Resolved Using A Surface Magnetic Flux TSI Proxy Model By Scafetta Et Al 2009

    The abstract reads:

    “The ACRIM-gap (1989.5-1991.75) continuity dilemma for satellite TSI observations is resolved by bridging the satellite TSI monitoring gap between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results with TSI derived from Krivova et al.’s (2007) proxy model based on variations of the surface distribution of solar magnetic flux. ‘Mixed’ versions of ACRIM and PMOD TSI composites are constructed with their composites’ original values except for the ACRIM gap, where Krivova modeled TSI is used to connect ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results. Both ‘mixed’ composites demonstrate a significant TSI increase of 0.033%/decade between the solar activity minima of 1986 and 1996, comparable to the 0.037% found in the ACRIM composite. The finding supports the contention of Willson (1997) that the ERBS/ERBE results are flawed by uncorrected degradation during the ACRIM gap and refutes the Nimbus7/ERB ACRIM gap adjustment Fröhlich and Lean (1998) employed in constructing the PMOD.”

    A statement in the conclusion reads

    “This finding has evident repercussions for climate change and solar physics. Increasing TSI between 1980 and 2000 could have contributed significantly to global warming during the last three decades [Scafetta and West , 2007, 2008]. Current climate models [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2007] have assumed that the TSI did not vary significantly during the last 30 years and have therefore underestimated the solar contribution and overestimated the anthropogenic contribution to global warming.”

    Garbage in, Garbage out.

    BTS

      Close

      Confirm ...