Comments on: Douglass et al 2007 and Atmospheric Models http://landshape.org/enm/douglass-et-al-2007-and-atmospheric-models/ The Power of Numeracy Wed, 16 May 2012 18:37:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Are Changes in Water Vapor Consistent with the Models http://landshape.org/enm/douglass-et-al-2007-and-atmospheric-models/#comment-4804 Are Changes in Water Vapor Consistent with the Models Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:47:10 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/douglass-et-al-2007-and-atmospheric-models/#comment-4804 [...] sends in a much more sensible approach, asking, along the lines of Douglass et al. 2007 and their study of upper tropical tropospheric [...] [...] sends in a much more sensible approach, asking, along the lines of Douglass et al. 2007 and their study of upper tropical tropospheric [...]

]]> By: Niche Modeling » Radiative Equilibrium (Miskolczi Part 4) http://landshape.org/enm/douglass-et-al-2007-and-atmospheric-models/#comment-4803 Niche Modeling » Radiative Equilibrium (Miskolczi Part 4) Sat, 24 May 2008 22:56:09 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/douglass-et-al-2007-and-atmospheric-models/#comment-4803 [...] M’s assessment of the situation would seem to be correct: As a consequence, Eq. (16) will underestimate A t , and Eq. (17) will largely overestimate G t (Miskolczi and Mlynczak, 2004). There were several attempts to resolve the above deficiencies by developing simple semi-empirical spectral models, see for example Weaver and Ramanathan (1995), but the fundamental theoretical problem was never resolved. The source of this inconsistency can be traced back to several decades ago, when the semi-infinite solution was first used to solve bounded atmosphere problems. About 80 years ago Milne stated: “Assumption of infinite thickness involves little or no loss of generality”, and later, in the same paper, he created the concept of a secondary (internal) boundary (Milne, 1922). He did not realize that the classic Eddington solution is not the general solution of the bounded atmosphere problem and he did not re-compute the appropriate integration constant. This is the reason why scientists have problems with a mysterious surface temperature discontinuity and unphysical solutions, as in Lorenz and McKay (2003). To accommodate the finite flux optical depth of the atmosphere and the existence of the transmitted radiative flux from the surface, the proper equations must be derived. Weaver and Ramanathan (1995) concur: Radiative equilibrium solutions are the starting point in our attempt to understand how the atmospheric composition governs the surface and atmospheric temperatures, and the greenhouse effect. The Schwarzschild analytical grey gas model (SGM) was the workhorse of such attempts. However, the solutions suffered from serious deficiencies when applied to Earth’s atmosphere and were abandoned about 3 decades ago in favor of more sophisticated computer models. However it remains to be shown that computer models (GCMs) have truly thrown off these deficiencies, or whether the poor, (or should I say abysmal) reproduction of atmospheric temperature profiles is due to the persistence of the semi-infinite model in the structure of the code. [...] [...] M’s assessment of the situation would seem to be correct: As a consequence, Eq. (16) will underestimate A t , and Eq. (17) will largely overestimate G t (Miskolczi and Mlynczak, 2004). There were several attempts to resolve the above deficiencies by developing simple semi-empirical spectral models, see for example Weaver and Ramanathan (1995), but the fundamental theoretical problem was never resolved. The source of this inconsistency can be traced back to several decades ago, when the semi-infinite solution was first used to solve bounded atmosphere problems. About 80 years ago Milne stated: “Assumption of infinite thickness involves little or no loss of generality”, and later, in the same paper, he created the concept of a secondary (internal) boundary (Milne, 1922). He did not realize that the classic Eddington solution is not the general solution of the bounded atmosphere problem and he did not re-compute the appropriate integration constant. This is the reason why scientists have problems with a mysterious surface temperature discontinuity and unphysical solutions, as in Lorenz and McKay (2003). To accommodate the finite flux optical depth of the atmosphere and the existence of the transmitted radiative flux from the surface, the proper equations must be derived. Weaver and Ramanathan (1995) concur: Radiative equilibrium solutions are the starting point in our attempt to understand how the atmospheric composition governs the surface and atmospheric temperatures, and the greenhouse effect. The Schwarzschild analytical grey gas model (SGM) was the workhorse of such attempts. However, the solutions suffered from serious deficiencies when applied to Earth’s atmosphere and were abandoned about 3 decades ago in favor of more sophisticated computer models. However it remains to be shown that computer models (GCMs) have truly thrown off these deficiencies, or whether the poor, (or should I say abysmal) reproduction of atmospheric temperature profiles is due to the persistence of the semi-infinite model in the structure of the code. [...]

]]> By: Miklos ZAGONI http://landshape.org/enm/douglass-et-al-2007-and-atmospheric-models/#comment-4802 Miklos ZAGONI Thu, 22 May 2008 11:20:26 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/douglass-et-al-2007-and-atmospheric-models/#comment-4802 Dear admin, you wrote in the 'Douglass at al...' main text that "I think the theory that recent warming occurs via warming of the troposphere by GHGs is at fault. A new theory of greenhouse effect, the SEMI-INFINITE theory proposed by Miskolczi, ..." Pls correct to SEMI-TRANSPARENT ... this is the crucial point ... Thnx Miklos Dear admin, you wrote in the ‘Douglass at al…’ main text that

“I think the theory that recent warming occurs via warming of the troposphere by GHGs is at fault. A new theory of greenhouse effect, the SEMI-INFINITE theory proposed by Miskolczi, …”

Pls correct to SEMI-TRANSPARENT … this is the crucial point …
Thnx
Miklos

]]> By: Miklos ZAGONI http://landshape.org/enm/douglass-et-al-2007-and-atmospheric-models/#comment-6398 Miklos ZAGONI Thu, 22 May 2008 11:20:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/douglass-et-al-2007-and-atmospheric-models/#comment-6398 Dear admin, you wrote in the 'Douglass at al...' main text that "I think the theory that recent warming occurs via warming of the troposphere by GHGs is at fault. A new theory of greenhouse effect, the SEMI-INFINITE theory proposed by Miskolczi, ..." Pls correct to SEMI-TRANSPARENT ... this is the crucial point ... Thnx Miklos Dear admin, you wrote in the ‘Douglass at al…’ main text that

“I think the theory that recent warming occurs via warming of the troposphere by GHGs is at fault. A new theory of greenhouse effect, the SEMI-INFINITE theory proposed by Miskolczi, …”

Pls correct to SEMI-TRANSPARENT … this is the crucial point …
Thnx
Miklos

]]> By: Niche Modeling » Greenhouse Heat Engine http://landshape.org/enm/douglass-et-al-2007-and-atmospheric-models/#comment-4801 Niche Modeling » Greenhouse Heat Engine Tue, 20 May 2008 21:23:46 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/douglass-et-al-2007-and-atmospheric-models/#comment-4801 [...] This just sketches out a model for the greenhouse effect based in the natural convection in the atmosphere. This could be further quantified in future posts. In particular I am thinking of contrasting this model with the ’steel shell’ model of Willis, and another model of greenhouse warming applied to ice beads called the solid-state greenhouse effect. This might help to show there are different types of greenhouse effect, and that the heat engine is the correct one for the Earth’s atmosphere. I think its not useful to dismiss a theory because it has a few loose ends. At some point I should go through all the ways conventional greenhouse theory is a frayed mess. Very often a theory starts out as speculative, but based on good correspondence with empirical observation, and is only firmed up decades later. Perhaps M’s theory is like this. The points of concern raised by Pat and Nick seem to be based in lack of good motivation for these relationships in the paper. At this stage, I can’t see that they constitute errors that undermine the theory. The atmospheric greenhouse effect as a heat engine might provide some of the motivation. It might also be argued that it is the greenhouse effect that drives the atmospheric heat engine and not the other way around. However, if there was no atmospheric heat engine driving warm air packets into the upper atmosphere, the atmosphere would like as a stable layer on the surface. Heat would transfer by thermal conduction, and temperature would be driven by the coefficient of conductivity of the air. This would be a situation like inversion conditions. This brings to mind the measurements of actual air temperature by Douglass et al 2007. The temperature profile of GCMs in the atmosphere due to increased greenhouse gases shows increased heating in the troposphere, kind of like a temperature profile of inversion conditions. The actual observations show increased surface temperatures, but little increases in tropospheric temperatures as predicted by Miskolczi’s theory. I wonder if anyone has made the connection between the profile of GCM’s and inversion conditions. This suggests GCM’s inadequately represent convection processes in the atmosphere. [...] [...] This just sketches out a model for the greenhouse effect based in the natural convection in the atmosphere. This could be further quantified in future posts. In particular I am thinking of contrasting this model with the ’steel shell’ model of Willis, and another model of greenhouse warming applied to ice beads called the solid-state greenhouse effect. This might help to show there are different types of greenhouse effect, and that the heat engine is the correct one for the Earth’s atmosphere. I think its not useful to dismiss a theory because it has a few loose ends. At some point I should go through all the ways conventional greenhouse theory is a frayed mess. Very often a theory starts out as speculative, but based on good correspondence with empirical observation, and is only firmed up decades later. Perhaps M’s theory is like this. The points of concern raised by Pat and Nick seem to be based in lack of good motivation for these relationships in the paper. At this stage, I can’t see that they constitute errors that undermine the theory. The atmospheric greenhouse effect as a heat engine might provide some of the motivation. It might also be argued that it is the greenhouse effect that drives the atmospheric heat engine and not the other way around. However, if there was no atmospheric heat engine driving warm air packets into the upper atmosphere, the atmosphere would like as a stable layer on the surface. Heat would transfer by thermal conduction, and temperature would be driven by the coefficient of conductivity of the air. This would be a situation like inversion conditions. This brings to mind the measurements of actual air temperature by Douglass et al 2007. The temperature profile of GCMs in the atmosphere due to increased greenhouse gases shows increased heating in the troposphere, kind of like a temperature profile of inversion conditions. The actual observations show increased surface temperatures, but little increases in tropospheric temperatures as predicted by Miskolczi’s theory. I wonder if anyone has made the connection between the profile of GCM’s and inversion conditions. This suggests GCM’s inadequately represent convection processes in the atmosphere. [...]

]]> By: Niche Modeling » Kirchhoff Law (Miskolczi Part 3) http://landshape.org/enm/douglass-et-al-2007-and-atmospheric-models/#comment-4800 Niche Modeling » Kirchhoff Law (Miskolczi Part 3) Tue, 13 May 2008 20:28:53 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/douglass-et-al-2007-and-atmospheric-models/#comment-4800 [...] Niche Modeling » The Virial Theorem (Miskolczi Part 2) @ Douglass et al 2007 and Atmospheric Models [...] [...] Niche Modeling » The Virial Theorem (Miskolczi Part 2) @ Douglass et al 2007 and Atmospheric Models [...]

]]> By: Niche Modeling » The Virial Theorem (Miskolczi Part 2) http://landshape.org/enm/douglass-et-al-2007-and-atmospheric-models/#comment-4799 Niche Modeling » The Virial Theorem (Miskolczi Part 2) Sun, 11 May 2008 06:26:03 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/douglass-et-al-2007-and-atmospheric-models/#comment-4799 [...] So far this is a considerable achievement. There are a number of results that render the main issues of 10 years of climate modeling irrelevant: constant greenhouse effect, constant fractional cloud cover, to name only two. The busy-work of modelers is confirmed by the independent evaluation of models such as Douglass et al. 2007 and Koutsoyiannis et al. 2008, who conclude in an Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series (M)odel outputs at annual and climatic (30‐year) scales are irrelevant with reality; also, they do not reproduce the natural overyear fluctuation and, generally, underestimate the variance and the Hurst coefficient of the observed series; none of the models proves to be systematically better than the others. [...] [...] So far this is a considerable achievement. There are a number of results that render the main issues of 10 years of climate modeling irrelevant: constant greenhouse effect, constant fractional cloud cover, to name only two. The busy-work of modelers is confirmed by the independent evaluation of models such as Douglass et al. 2007 and Koutsoyiannis et al. 2008, who conclude in an Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series (M)odel outputs at annual and climatic (30‐year) scales are irrelevant with reality; also, they do not reproduce the natural overyear fluctuation and, generally, underestimate the variance and the Hurst coefficient of the observed series; none of the models proves to be systematically better than the others. [...]

]]> By: admin http://landshape.org/enm/douglass-et-al-2007-and-atmospheric-models/#comment-4798 admin Sat, 03 May 2008 09:58:43 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/douglass-et-al-2007-and-atmospheric-models/#comment-4798 You have to wonder what climate modelers have accomplished in the last 10 years. You have to wonder what climate modelers have accomplished in the last 10 years.

]]> By: admin http://landshape.org/enm/douglass-et-al-2007-and-atmospheric-models/#comment-6397 admin Sat, 03 May 2008 09:58:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/douglass-et-al-2007-and-atmospheric-models/#comment-6397 You have to wonder what climate modelers have accomplished in the last 10 years. You have to wonder what climate modelers have accomplished in the last 10 years.

]]> By: Ian Castles http://landshape.org/enm/douglass-et-al-2007-and-atmospheric-models/#comment-4797 Ian Castles Fri, 02 May 2008 06:53:34 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/douglass-et-al-2007-and-atmospheric-models/#comment-4797 Those interested in the subject of this post may wish to know that David Douglass has posted an extended comment on the Climate Audit site: see http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3058#comments . Dr. Douglas concludes with this important observation: 'Each modeling group may find comparison of its results to results from other groups interesting but a much more important comparison is to the observations. I would expect each group following the scientific method to do this. A corollary of this is that each group would have to say that some, perhaps most, models are wrong. It is in the interest of every group to do this.' Those interested in the subject of this post may wish to know that David Douglass has posted an extended comment on the Climate Audit site: see http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3058#comments .

Dr. Douglas concludes with this important observation:

‘Each modeling group may find comparison of its results to results from other groups interesting but a much more important comparison is to the observations. I would expect each group following the scientific method to do this. A corollary of this is that each group would have to say that some, perhaps most, models are wrong. It is in the interest of every group to do this.’

]]>