All Scientists Believe Global Warming is a Fact

by Farkel 59 Replies latest social current

  • VM44
    VM44

    Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"

    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.

  • james_woods
    james_woods

    beksbks posted this on my "global warming enthusiasts are practically religious over this" -

    Wow, that's a pretty flip way of referring to those of who actually take seriously the future of our children and grandchildren.

    If you are saying that people who are not "global warming entusiasts" are not taking seriously the future of our children and grandchildren, then you prove my point that it is practically a religion with some people.

    But then, a lot of us sports car owners are pretty flip people. And, we are just usually not all that religious, nor convinced of other peoples prophecies of doom...whatever.

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    Interesting, VM44. I googled "Miklós Zágoni" and was rather bemused as to why nothing came up except articles just like yours- global warming denier sites and things that spring from that camp, most of them with the exact same verbage (meaning a common source). I couldn't find anything in any of the usual sites that deal with Global Warming, not even a mention of his name.

    Finally, I found something on a discussion thread at RealClimate.org, and from there figured it out; even though your article starts out with the name "Miklós Zágoni", it is "Ferenc Miskolczi" that I should have been looking for (as your article notes, it's his theory... I guess I'm confused as to why this Miklos guy is mentioned first.... he's not part of the conversation in the scientific community? ).

    And lo and behold, on that same discussion thread I found what seems to be Ferenc Miskolczi engaging the topic. I'll post you a link and snip a portion of it (there's quite a bit more in the thread, I suggest checking out the link) : Link to topic http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=538#comment-88922

    1. Miskolczi Says:
      22 May 2008 at 9:23 AM

      To Ray Ladbury #135:

      I came along to see the opinions of the experts about
      my article.

      My article is not about global warming.
      Global warming should be a proven fact based on
      measurements. If it is there, the question is what
      might be cause. The co2 level is also rising, it is
      another fact. But the way to the global average
      surface temperature is not via the co2 concentration,
      but via the total IR optical depth of the atmosphere
      and, a sound theoretical relationship which
      establishes the connection.

      From about 1920 the only available theoretical
      equation that related this two things is the Eddington
      equation developed for the semi-infinite atmospheres
      (of stars).

      Applying this to the Earth’s atmosphere is wrong, since
      for finite semi-transparent atmospheres the Eddington
      equation is invalid. This means that when a GCM (after
      correctly solving the local primitive equations with
      resonable spatial and temporal resolution) they arrive
      to the question of the global constraints. So far from
      the Eddington solution they have the linear-in optical
      depth relation which is incorrect.

      My paper shows, that (independently of the Kirchhoff’s
      law, virial theorem, cloudy energy balance equation etc.)
      the global average thermal structure of the atmosphere
      is a radiative equilibrium profile, with a global average
      IR optical depth of 1.87. The relationship between the
      surface temperature and outgoing IR radiation is not
      linear in the IR optical depth, but contains the IR flux
      transmittance.

      According to this, the sensitivity of the surface temperature
      for GHG forcing is much less…I would like to see the comments
      of the experts on this.

      If people dismiss a paper (like ‘raypierre’), because it is
      in an ‘Obscured Hungarian Journal’, or because the consequences
      of the results are against the IPCC report, it is bad enough,
      and it is not in the interest of the improvement of our
      understanding the planetary greenhouse effect.

      [Response: I’m not dismissing the paper because it is in an obscure Hungarian journal. I mentioned that just to explain how a paper with so many elementary errors in it could pass peer review. The problem with the paper is that you understand neither Kirchoff’s laws nor the Virial theorem — nor even dimensional analysis, which would have caught your Virial error for you right away. Chris Colose, who is an undergraduate in the early stages of his study, in fact understands this all far better than you, as did the undergrads at Bowdoin. –raypierre]

  • beksbks
    beksbks

    Yep, that's what I said James. Because frankly I do not consider "enthusiast" an appropriate discription. Of either myself or others who are willing to consider the issue. Neither do I see it as a prophecy of doom. I see it as new information that warrants serious attention.

    Why do you keep bringing up your sports car?? I don't actually see the connection. Got a little something you're trying to compensate for??

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    sixofnine just might have something important to say, but it insists on insults and diversions and hijacking this thread for its interests.

    I was hoping to promote some rational discussion, since I'm rightfully undecided about the issue I brought up. Of course, that gave sixofnine ammunition to vilify me, my former posts, my motives, my past and if it knew her, my mother.

    I would hope that it would just let this thread evolve in a civil manner and let both sides be heard and debated, peacefrully and constructively. I know that is hard for it do because I've seen what it has done in the past. It is definitely not a happy camper unless everyone agrees with it. I wonder how long it has lived and how much it knows about life and what it has lived through. I would love to hear about that. Has it lived through the Paul Erhlich days in the 1970's, was it even born when Silent Sprint came out or when the Feminine Mystique came out? Has it lived through the myriad of crackpots and idealists who were wrong, and wrong and even more wrong?

    I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if sixofnine is young and a liberal. A liberal is merely a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet and who looks through glasses that I looked through before I wised up and started questioning everything. Sixofnine quotes the EPA as an authority! Hell, the EPA is the best government agency money can buy! The EPA is majorly influenced by public opinion as are all politicians and political appointees.

    It acts more concerned about it and trashing anyone who disagrees with it, than about letting people who might have a difference of opinion or argument have a hearing, right or wrong. Trashing people doesn't make any contribution, six. But maybe you just want to LOOK right and use trashing as a diversion. Or maybe you can do better than that and offer some reasonable feedback. Or maybe you are just too self-righteous and angry to do that. If you don't want to continue to look like a jerk, then perhaps you shouldn't act like one.

    Farkel

  • beksbks
    beksbks
    It acts more concerned about it and trashing anyone who disagrees with it, than about letting people who might have a difference of opinion or argument have a hearing, right or wrong. Trashing people doesn't make any contribution,

    LOL, this is just funny coming from Mr. Jenn-Air TC507!

  • VM44
    VM44

    I think that the possibility of a "missing term" in the global warming equations is an important possibility to consider.

    I will have to research this some more, but I wanted at least to bring up this possible aspect of the subject in this thread.

  • james_woods
    james_woods

    bksks wrote:

    Why do you keep bringing up your sports car?? I don't actually see the connection. Got a little something you're trying to compensate for??

    Because Al Gore and the Global Warming Crowd actually wants to take it away from me. That is what I am compensating for. Laws have already been proposed by environmental radicals which would actually confiscate and destroy several of my collector cars regardless of their monetary or historical value.

    The Ferrari in question is a 1986. It has 12 cylinders, 385hp, and has never returned more than 11.5 MPG for me - so it is a prime suspect for the Gore police. It also has only 23,000 miles over it's total life, and I drive it only about 600 miles per year now - so it is not any big deal in warming whether you believe in the greenhouse stuff or not. My daily driver P911 returns about 28 MPG, is six cylinders, and I commute only about 15-20 miles per day. My female companion is a scientist for the EPA and drives a Miata only about half a mile to the mass-trans to work every day, and it always gets more than 30 MPG.

    SUV enthusiasts, or pickup truck enthusiasts, or Harley Davidson people, or hot-rodders could very well make similar arguments if they made any effort at all to conserve fuel. I think many of them do - for purely practical reasons.

    The hysteria I see surrounding this issue needs some real-world wake up calls. Does everybody understand what the implications are to suddenly stop driving to work, suddenly stop generating electricity, immediately ground all the airlines & stop the trains and cargo ships, etc? This stuff does not work without carbon emissions - and no amount of phony "carbon offsets" is going to change the physics of the carbon cycle when you burn hydrocarbon fuels.

    I submit to you that the implications of such drastic measures would create a global depression that would make the 1929 Black Friday, the Dust Bowl, the Dark Ages, the plague years, and the mini-ice-age look like a surfing vacation to Hawaii.

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    Because Al Gore and the Global Warming Crowd actually wants to take it away from me

    Al Gore is an ass. I just want to borrow if for a little.

    I submit to you that the implications of such drastic measures would create a global depression that would make the 1929 Black Friday, the Dust Bowl, the Dark Ages, the plague years, and the mini-ice-age look like a surfing vacation to Hawaii.

    Yes indeed, and it would justify massive government intervention to try to hold it all together, which is just what the governing class wants.

    BTS

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    Until I can get back to this, these little critters have a message: alt

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit