Niche Modeling

17
Apr
Newcastle Lecture Update

Still on my way home, after the lecture at Newcastle University by MiklÃ³s ZÃ¡goni and myself, this will be short. The lecture was well attended, with around 50 people — surprising considering the campus is on a break and parking at a premium. The lectures were well received with a very engaged and relevant question time. There were some suggestions of disruption by anti-skeptics, but they did not eventuate.

Transcript: errors-of-agw-science

Powerpoint: newcastle-presentation

Press Release: herald-article-14-4-09

MiklÃ³s ZÃ¡goni talk: long version

Tagged as:
Published by david stockwell in: All Climate Reviews Statistics Theory
If you like this blog please take a second from your precious time and subscribe to my rss feed!

Alex Harvey

Hi David,

It was great to meet you & Miklos and the lectures were very interesting.

Let’s hope don’t we have to wait too many more years to see Miskolczi’s HARTCODE results confirmed or falsified.
Alex Harvey

Hi David,It was great to meet you & Miklos and the lectures were very interesting.Let's hope don't we have to wait too many more years to see Miskolczi's HARTCODE results confirmed or falsified.
David L. Hagen

Please ask Miklos to post his presentation and provide a link to it.
David L. Hagen

Please ask Miklos to post his presentation and provide a link to it.
Anonymous

David, I added a link to a long version to the post. He gave a much shorter version than the pdf.
davids99us

David, I added a link to a long version to the post. He gave a much shorter version than the pdf.
Anonymous

Alex, Good to meet you, and Anthony for the first time too.
davids99us

Alex, Good to meet you, and Anthony for the first time too.
http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

The long version of Zagoni’s presentation is particularly interesting in that it explicitly states K&T97 underestimated S_T by 22.5 W/m^2 as a CONSEQUENCE of A_A=E_D.

I have been unable to find that particular explicit statement anywhere in either in M’s or Z’s previous publications or presentations. This appears to be a whole new point (even if one might argue it was implicit in previous presentations).

Presumably Zagoni highlighted this new point in his talk (sorry I couldn’t make it)? I would be curious to know why, by definition, Z and M chose not to say that the same error still exists today in e.g. the T,F&K08 review some 11 years later! Why their focus is still on K&T97 which is now thoroughly superceded by a host of papers escapes me.

Most importantly, I find it absolutely astonishing that, in effect Miskolczi has been alleging that for over a decade the AGW orthodoxy have CONSISTENTLY underestimated S_T by a factor of over 50% (if you accept the orthodox value of ~40 W/m^2).

Surely this is a straightforward technical matter which could be resolved by examination of the body of evidence? Either S_T is close to 62 or it is close to 40 W/m^2.

I note in this connection that when I repeatedly raised this point (about a ‘missing’ 20 W/m^2 in M Theory) in an earlier thread Miskolczi chose not to make any comment at all! Personally I don’t regard silence as legitimate tool of scientific discourse – isn’t that what we often accuse the orthodoxy of?

What I am saying here is that for maybe the 1st time we have a very concrete, well-defined and EXPLICITLY CLAIMED quantitative difference of LW IR radiation measurement between Miskolczi and the orthodoxy. Is there an error in M’s own HARTCODE or is there an error in all the other codes (even other versions of HARTCODE)?

As sceptics we are entitled to resolve this specific and simple issue, not have it simply handed to us on a plate and be told ‘eat’.

Anonymous

Steve, certainly we should/could work towards resolving it. You and he are both serious and sincere in desire and should be able to get that happening.

Z made a point of the theoretical prediction of M of 131Wm (slide 9) and G=1/3 and the recent experimental verification of that in the recent 2006 book by K&R (slide 37). This highlights that M theory makes strong predictions that are only currently only known as free parameters by measurements. If I am correct M gets these magic (optimal) numbers both by deduction, and line-by-line calculation, whereas critics (such as Eli Rabbit) claim they are simply that value on Earth by chance. Thats one point that should be resolvable.

On the transmittance, I am not sure that transmittance is strictly measurable or is simply a function of exp(-tau). Thats too far into the radiative codes for me. You think it is measurable?

http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

David

There is extensive discussion of how these numbers are arrived-at in T,F&K08. There is certainly plenty to argue about therein. However, T,F&K08 is a review paper and thus they both quote and extensively discuss all the findings, especially for surface and TOA balances, of a real lot of studies, almost of which post-date K&T99. I note we are talking in excess of about 30 studies (post-1997) – none of which include M&M04 BTW.

Nevertheless, it is useful to note that T,F&K08 concede in their abstract:

Surface upwards longwave radiation is adjusted to account for spatial and temporal variability. A lack of closure in the energy balance at the surface is accommodated by making modest changes to surface fluxes, with the downward longwave radiation as the main residual to ensure a balance.

This implies that upwards surface LW flux (S_U in M Theory) is known with far greater certainty than the downwards surface flux (E_D in M Theory).

Call me stubborn but I still think the onus is on Miskolczi to validate is key value of 62.5 W/m^2 for S_T given that the ‘consensus’ right up to the present day is for a value of about 40 W/m^2 (from consideration of at least 20 studies).

In effect, Miskolczi has (similarly to K&T08 etc) used his (real world finding) to adjust the downwards surface flux (E_D in M Theory) upwards by 22.5 W/m^2 which then (naturally) gives him the so-called Kirchoff Law equality of E_D = A_A.

I noted that Z slide 37 and 38 say that g = G_A/S-U must = 1/3 but I still get a strong sense of circular logic here (see the above paragraph as my offered ‘circular reason’ for getting g = 1/3).

This is why I’d very much like to see some sort of independent validating evidence that S_T = 62.5 W/m^2 from independent studies.

The general magnitude of S_U (393 W/m^2) is not really in question but surely the agreed value of S_T cannot be so much in doubt as ±50%!!!! As a highly competent radiation physicist I would have though that it was quite a trivial requirement to validate a global mean S_T of 62.5 W/m^2 (i.e. as claimed in M&M04) independently.

If Miskolczi could just demonstrate that he would get my ‘vote’ and I suspect a great many others.

Anonymous

Steve, I am not clear on what values constitue circularity and what would be classed as independent and measurable validation. I am under the impression that the G=1/3 value is such an independent validation, albiet there is only one measurement ‘Earth’. From M’s POV perhaps the whole atmospheric profile is an independent validation, although the extent that it depends on HARTCODE detracts from the result, which would be more convincing validated outside of HARTCODE.

I did ask Ferenc about direct validation of Ed=Aa and Kirchhoff and I think he thought it was really difficult or impossible to measure directly.
Anonymous

Looking at page 22, where the value of 62Wm-2 is read off the figure that breaks up the IR into FIR, MIR total etc, it seems that a Ta of 62Wm-2 corresponds to that point where FIR is completely extinguished by the optical absorber. As a hand-waving account, it seems to me that water vapor fills the atmosphere to that point, driven by FIR, and if where is some other absorber of FIR, such as CO2, less is available and so water vapor declines (in the TOA).

So there is the issue too of where the boundary of FIR to MIR is, which I think M redefines too. I would have thought the question revolves around this spectral graph. But note that page contains claims of tests of this.

I tend to think this FIR ‘utilization’ explains the missing step from eqn 6 to eqn 7, that has always been problematic for me. In that the condition is that it only holds just in the case of an atmosphere with a large majority of IR absorbers volatilized by the IR, like water vapor (and not on Mars or Venus). This is just my hand-waving. I haven’t run this past them at all. I know it says it assumes optical conversion of F0 to OLR, and this is something Z added that I didn’t see in M’s account. This optimality is the same as extinguishment of FIR, to give a Ta that is higher than 61Wm-2, but the issue we are considering is if it could be lower than 61Wm-2, i.e. that the Aa increases to beyond the extinguishment of FIR as a result of increase in a non-volitile GHG. Clearly this seems possible, when the extra absorption by the GHG is in the part of the spectrum not covered by water, in the shoulders of the window. MIR window. The compensatory mechanism in that case is not so not clear, as it is in the case of the FIR, but could be lower atmosphere cloudiness or some such thing. Shoot me down please if I am off base here.

http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

You are exactly on base. Please re-read T,F&K08 on just why E_D is ultimately treated as a closure term.

“However, Wild et al. (2001) note that
considerable uncertainties exist, and especially that there were problems in accurate simulation of
thermal emission from a cold, dry, cloud-free atmosphere, and a dependence on water vapor
content. The latter may relate to the formulation of the water vapor continuum.”

Despite all the kerfuffle in M&M04 pages 229 – 232, I think the outcome is still the same i.e. in the end Miskolczi adjusts/adopts a value for E_D because he BELIEVES it must equal A_A. He uses the old Brutsaert (1975( and Idso (1981) formulae, then jumps to Gupta 1992 but totally ignores Gupta et al. 1999 (the latter also discussed in T,F&K08).

Seems to me the only way we can break this cycle of circular reasoning by Miskolczi (OK technically obtuse but circular all the same) is to shift the argument sideways and get a completely independent validation of Miskolczi’s S_T ~ 62.5 W/m^2. This is the hinge upon which he sets his E_D = A_A ‘door’ to so-called Greenhouse ‘saturation’.

Even though he implied (1st Heartland Conference) he had the support of Gupta even Gupta et al 1999 give a S_T > 60 W/m^2!!!!
Nick Stokes

Steve,
I didn’t find Zagoni drawing attention to his S_T=62 being more that K&T 40. I think it may just be that S_T is a clear sky figure, while the K&T is average sky. If you add the 30 W/m2 K&T have emitted from clouds, the result is 70, not so far from 62.

What I did notice was his explicit claim, following the Milne extract, that at the “bottom” τ=∞. That’s presumably the basis for the “semi-infinite” misnomer, but it’s ridiculous. Milne doesn’t say that. No-one is claiming it is true, at least for Earth-like atmospheres.
Nick Stokes

OK, I see that Z says, on the graph on p 62, that K&T have a 22.5 W/m2 error. That’s odd, because he says that S_T=90.7. But I’m sure he is comparing different things. K&T allows for clouds, while Z is quoting what seems to be a Hartcode calc on USST-76, which is clear sky, and also not a global average.

http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

The long version of Zagoni's presentation is particularly interesting in that it explicitly states K&T97 underestimated S_T by 22.5 W/m^2 as a CONSEQUENCE of A_A=E_D. I have been unable to find that particular explicit statement anywhere in either in M's or Z's previous publications or presentations. This appears to be a whole new point (even if one might argue it was implicit in previous presentations). Presumably Zagoni highlighted this new point in his talk (sorry I couldn't make it)? I would be curious to know why, by definition, Z and M chose not to say that the same error still exists today in e.g. the T,F&K08 review some 11 years later! Why their focus is still on K&T97 which is now thoroughly superceded by a host of papers escapes me.Most importantly, I find it absolutely astonishing that, in effect Miskolczi has been alleging that for over a decade the AGW orthodoxy have CONSISTENTLY underestimated S_T by a factor of over 50% (if you accept the orthodox value of ~40 W/m^2). Surely this is a straightforward technical matter which could be resolved by examination of the body of evidence? Either S_T is close to 62 or it is close to 40 W/m^2.I note in this connection that when I repeatedly raised this point (about a 'missing' 20 W/m^2 in M Theory) in an earlier thread Miskolczi chose not to make any comment at all! Personally I don't regard silence as legitimate tool of scientific discourse – isn't that what we often accuse the orthodoxy of?What I am saying here is that for maybe the 1st time we have a very concrete, well-defined and EXPLICITLY CLAIMED quantitative difference of LW IR radiation measurement between Miskolczi and the orthodoxy. Is there an error in M's own HARTCODE or is there an error in all the other codes (even other versions of HARTCODE)?As sceptics we are entitled to resolve this specific and simple issue, not have it simply handed to us on a plate and be told 'eat'.
davids99us

Steve, certainly we should/could work towards resolving it. You and he are both serious and sincere in desire and should be able to get that happening. Z made a point of the theoretical prediction of M of 131Wm (slide 9) and G=1/3 and the recent experimental verification of that in the recent book by K&R (slide 37). This highlights that M theory makes strong predictions that are only currently only known as free parameters by measurements. If I am correct M gets these magic (optimal) numbers both by deduction, and line-by-line calculation, whereas critics (such as Eli Rabbit) claim they are simply that value on Earth by chance. Thats one point that should be resolvable.On the transmittance, I am not sure that transmittance is strictly measurable or is simply a function of ln(-tau). Thats too far into the radiative codes for me. You think it is measurable?
http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

DavidThere is extensive discussion of how these numbers are arrived-at in T,F&K08. There is certainly plenty to argue about therein. However, T,F&K08 is a review paper and thus they both quote and extensively discuss all the findings, especially for surface and TOA balances, of a real lot of studies, almost of which post-date K&T99. I note we are talking in excess of about 30 studies (post-1997) – none of which include M&M04 BTW.Nevertheless, it is useful to note that T,F&K08 concede in their abstract:Surface upwards longwave radiation is adjusted to account for spatial and temporal variability. A lack of closure in the energy balance at the surface is accommodated by making modest changes to surface fluxes, with the downward longwave radiation as the main residual to ensure a balance.This implies that upwards surface LW flux (S_U in M Theory) is known with far greater certainty than the downwards surface flux (E_D in M Theory).Call me stubborn but I still think the onus is on Miskolczi to validate is key value of 62.5 W/m^2 for S_T given that the 'consensus' right up to the present day is for a value of about 40 W/m^2 (from consideration of at least 20 studies). In effect, Miskolczi has (similarly to K&T08 etc) used his (real world finding) to adjust the downwards surface flux (E_D in M Theory) upwards by 22.5 W/m^2 which then (naturally) gives him the so-called Kirchoff Law equality of E_D = A_A. I noted that Z slide 37 and 38 say that g = G_A/S-U must = 1/3 but I still get a strong sense of circular logic here (see the above paragraph as my offered 'circular reason' for getting g = 1/3). This is why I'd very much like to see some sort of independent validating evidence that S_T = 62.5 W/m^2 from independent studies. The general magnitude of S_U (393 W/m^2) is not really in question but surely the agreed value of S_T cannot be so much in doubt as Â±50%!!!! As a highly competent radiation physicist I would have though that it was quite a trivial requirement to validate a global mean S_T of 62.5 W/m^2 (i.e. as claimed in M&M04) independently. If Miskolczi could just demonstrate that he would get my 'vote' and I suspect a great many others.
davids99us

Steve, I am not clear on what values constitue circularity and what would be classed as independent and measurable validation. I am under the impression that the G=1/3 value is such an independent validation, albiet there is only one measurement 'Earth'. From M's POV perhaps the whole atmospheric profile is an independent validation, although the extent that it depends on HARTCODE detracts from the result, which would be more convincing validated outside of HARTCODE. I did ask Ferenc about direct validation of Eu=Aa and Kirchhoff and I think he thought it was really difficult or impossible to measure directly.
davids99us

Looking at page 22, where the value of 62Wm-2 is read off the figure that breaks up the IR into FIR, MIR total etc, it seems that a Ta of 62Wm-2 corresponds to that point where FIR is completely extinguished by the optical absorber. As a hand-waving account, it seems to me that water vapor fills the atmosphere to that point, driven by FIR, and if where is some other absorber of FIR, such as CO2, less is available and so water vapor declines (in the TOA). So there is the issue too of where the boundary of FIR to MIR is, which I think M redefines too. I would have thought the question revolves around this spectral graph.
http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

You are exactly on base. Please re-read T,F&K08 on just why E_D is ultimately treated as a closure term. “However, Wild et al. (2001) note thatconsiderable uncertainties exist, and especially that there were problems in accurate simulation ofthermal emission from a cold, dry, cloud-free atmosphere, and a dependence on water vaporcontent. The latter may relate to the formulation of the water vapor continuum.”Despite all the kerfuffle in M&M04 pages 229 – 232, I think the outcome is still the same i.e. in the end Miskolczi adjusts/adopts a value for E_D because he BELIEVES it must equal A_A. He uses the old Brutsaert (1975( and Idso (1981) formulae, then jumps to Gupta 1992 but totally ignores Gupta et al. 1999 (the latter also discussed in T,F&K08).Seems to me the only way we can break this cycle of circular reasoning by Miskolczi (OK technically obtuse but circular all the same) is to shift the argument sideways and get a completely independent validation of Miskolczi's S_T ~ 62.5 W/m^2. This is the hinge upon which he sets his E_D = A_A 'door' to so-called Greenhouse 'saturation'.Even though he implied (1st Heartland Conference) he had the support of Gupta even Gupta et al 1999 give a S_T <40 W/m^2 not >> 60 W/m^2!!!!
Nick Stokes

Steve,I didn't find Zagoni drawing attention to his S_T=62 being more that K&T 40. I think it may just be that S_T is a clear sky figure, while the K&T is average sky. If you add the 30 W/m2 K&T have emitted from clouds, the result is 70, not so far from 62.What I did notice was his explicit claim, following the Milne extract, that at the “bottom” Ï„=âˆž. That's presumably the basis for the “semi-infinite” misnomer, but it's ridiculous. Milne doesn't say that. No-one is claiming it is true, at least for Earth-like atmospheres.
cohenite

Nick; I don’t know why you stress over the “semi-infinite” tag; it’s a done deal with AGW; “tipping points” and “runnaway” and venus syndrome are the essential AGW descriptors; see slide 23 of Hansen’s pp;

http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2008/12/james-hansens-agu-presentation-venus.html

If M&Z are correct and the A_A=E_D balance is verified than there is no ‘semi-infinite’; even if the surface discontinuity does exist other balancing mechanisms such as increased convective uplift and consequent faster OLR, or a larger window with declining high level vapor may nullify any effect from increased CO2. After all, if Earth was going to do a Venus it would have done in the past when CO2 levels were much higher than current.

Nick Stokes

I keep coming back to it because FM billed his original contrast as his semi-transparent vs the climate world’s semi-infinite. I asked repeatedly, and couldn’t get anyone to say what the infinite referred to. You’d expect it was optical depth, but that seemed hard to believe when in the paper, and the talk, they compare with numerous perfectly finite values of OD in the literature. But here, yes, Z says it is, and there’s just no basis for it and none is cited.
http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

“I didn’t find Zagoni drawing attention to his S_T=62 being more that K&T 40. I think it may just be that S_T is a clear sky figure, while the K&T is average sky. If you add the 30 W/m2 K&T have emitted from clouds, the result is 70, not so far from 62.”

Wow! I am astonished. We have already had this discussion very thoroughly before! It was in fact mydelf on this blog who originally noted that: “If you add the 30 W/m2 K&T have emitted from clouds, the result is 70, not so far from 62.” I originally thought (in error I admit) that Miskolczi may have been operating a completely different definition of S_T (and hence tau) than K&T etc.

But then both you and Jan Pompe cut me down hard on that suggestion! You can’t now just have a 2nd bet to the contrary my friend! We are not that low on brain cell count around here you know.

In addition, the simple answer to your suggestion that the Miskolczi S-T is a clear sky figure is this: Both Miskolczi and Mlynczak, 2004 and Miskolcizi, 2007 and the extra draft1.doc which Miskolczi circulated to persons who blog here are crystal clear about their intention that the (Miskolczi) S_T in the range 60 – 65 W/m^2 is a global average NOT a clear sky figure.

That’s two utter furphies in a row, Nick. Blog in haste, repent at leisure?

http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

“I didn’t find Zagoni drawing attention to his S_T=62 being more that K&T 40.”

Zagoni Slide 68 clearly states (highlighted): “K-T 97 has a 22.5 W/m^2 error in S_T”

Third furphy, Nick. Coming thick and fast now.

Nick Stokes

Check the recent comments, Steve. I had already noted that oversight. I do remember our previous discussion on the 40 vs 70, but not quite as you do – however, I can’t currently find it on the reorganised site.
Nick Stokes

OK, I’ve found the previous discussion, It’s here, about 60% down (I’m replying to your #97). I think we were talking about the consistency of K&T, not S_T, and it isn’t the same issue. Anyway, I think the 62.5 is a Hartcode calculated result and so would be clear sky – it’s not clear to me how Hartcode could calculate a cloud figure. I’m not certain 62.5 is clear-sky, but I can’t see yet that it is a furphy.

http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

“I’m not certain 62.5 is clear-sky, but I can’t see yet that it is a furphy.”

OK, remember this?

I once said (and I freely admit again I was dead wrong):
“Given that no-one can label each little bit of LW IR (from BOA) it seems to me that S_T is still then 40 + 23 = 63 W/m^2″

You then said:
“You CAN identify the LW by frequency. The 40 W/m2 is in the 8-13 micron atmospheric window, and shows in the spectrum as coming from ground temp. The 23 (yes, I meant 356, thanks) is mostly in OTHER BANDS; you can, with more difficulty, say something about it from the spectrum. But it isn’t to be included in S_T.”

NB YOU ACTUALLY SAID: ” BUT IT ISN’T TO BE INCLUDED IN S_T.”

I think it is crystal clear both me and you WERE definitely talking about the consistency of S_T, not K&T, and it IS the same issue.

Yet then just recently (see above) you actually tried this one on – once again in the exactly equivalent context of trying to explain why Miskolczi claims S_T is 62.5 W/m^2 and that K&T99 is in error by 22.5 W/m^2, and I quote:

“If you add the 30 W/m2 K&T have emitted from clouds, the result is 70, NOT SO FAR FROM 62.” !!!!!

So… Phooey to you.

Despite all the fast wriggling about HARTCODE and clear sky this stuff sure looks like simple sophistry to me.

This is a bit like the recent “Lief Svalgaard said this….” debacle where in reality we find out that it is really all about a relatively new (and still controversial – even to James Hansen!) position on long term TSI and the heliomagnetospheric field strength variability taken by Svalgaard.

I’m really beginning to fear you are not coming from a straight place.
Nick Stokes

No, Steve, it is a different issue. There’s a coincidence of that 23W/m2 and Z’s 22.5, but they are unrelated.
The previous discussion was about the discrepancy between the 356 upward absorbed IR in K&T and the 333 downward. In M-speak, A_A-E_U. That is the nett upward IR after absorption. That is why it is not to be added to S_T; it goes up, but not direct from ground.
There’s no indication that Z’s 22.5 is derived from this. It looks to me like it is just a different calc of S_T, and for the reasons that I gave, I suspect it is for clear air. Certainly if it isn’t, he should say so.

You may recall that K&T also has a clear air calc, of about 100 W/m2. They then figure how much cloud is about (IIRC, 62%), and reduce it by that amount. If Z&M want to match that, they would have toi use a similar factor, but they don’t mention one.
http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

BTW, just to bring this back on track in the I note that you had also said (above):

“OK, I see that Z says, on the graph on p 62, that K&T have a 22.5 W/m2 error. That’s odd, because he says that S_T=90.7…”

You are of course right. On the very same slide Zagoni notes “K-T has 22.5 W/m^2 error in S-T” he is also claiming S_T = FIR + MIR + WIN = 20 + 2.49 + 68.2 which of course = 90.7 (W/m^2).

This appears to show Zagoni (and Miskolczi) claiming that, with the USST-76 but H2O and CO2 changed to K&T97, S_T is at 90.5 W/m^2.

I must admit it is looking as though the modern 62.5 value Miskolczi/Zagoni claim for S_T is actually a clear sky value. Either that or there really is something seriously awry with Miskolczi’s HARTCODE VR1 if it produces (1997 clear sky?) values as high as 90 – not 22.5 W/m^2 out (90.7 – 22.5 = 68.2).

Either way this puts both A_A = E_D and tau = 1.87 in serious trouble.
http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

I don’t think we have ever been talking (now or in the past) about E_U at any point in time. E_U is relative to TOA. A_A and E_D are relative to the surface. Don’t you mean E_D?
Nick Stokes

Yes, I meant E_D.
Nick Stokes

I don’t think Z&F’s 90.7 W/m2 is itself a problem; K&T give 99 W/m2 as the clear sky flux through the atmospheric window, which they describe as an “ad hoc” estimate of S_T. It is; there is some absorption even in this range, and some photons outside the AW get through unabsorbed. My feeling is that they did not care so much about the exact figure, which doesn’t directly impact on the budget. They just wanted to show that most of the IR flux did interact with the atmosphere.
http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

If that is the case then we need to ask just what the hell Miskolczi and Zagoni are on about? If the generally accepted all-sky global S_T is of the order of 40 W/m^2 and they say it should be 62.5 W/m^2 then they have to explain how they get this ‘magic’ tau of 1.87.

Personally I think this is all getting too silly for words. I can’t see why anyone in the local Climate Sceptic camp should persist in holding up Miskolczi Theory. It doesn’t actually provide a verifiable, easy to understand raison d’etre for global homeostasis or Greenhouse saturation or whatever one wants to call it no matter how much numerological mumbo jumbo it cooks up.

http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

“After all, if Earth was going to do a Venus it would have done in the past when CO2 levels were much higher than current.”

And that of course is the killer argument.

Off thread I know but perhaps a little matter of elevated CO2 -> elevated photosynthetic biomass ->elevated biogenic aerosols -> increased CCN -> increased cloud -> increased albedo? Been rather wet and/or very cold all over lately I notice.

We originally thought the planet had only a ‘mere’ 2.8 Gy to have evolved this intricately biogenic system. Now the most recent studies on hematite formation from Western Australia suggest oxygenation of Earth’s atmosphere commenced around 3.46 Gy (Hoashi et al. Nature Geoscience, Vol. 2, 301 – 306 2009).

Nevertheless, such trivialities don’t stop the AGW orthodoxy attempting to argue there is something wholely unique about modern climate sensitivity to the carbon cycle such that it is higher even that the last ‘mere’ 400 My (Goodwin et al. Nature Geoscience, Vol. 2, 145 – 149 2009): ” Our study suggests that the influence of changes to the carbon cycle on climate is stronger now than over much of the last 400 Myr and will remain strong in the near future….”.

Strangely, the Goodwin et al (2009) study completely ignored the equally significant human intervention in the global nitrogen and phosphorus cycle.

I get a sense of rising desperation.

cohenite

Nick; I don't know why you stress over the “semi-infinite” tag; it's a done deal with AGW; “tipping points” and “runnaway” and venus syndrome are the essential AGW descriptors; see slide 23 of Hansen's pp;http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/200…If M&Z are correct and the A_A=E_D balance is verified than there is no 'semi-infinite'; even if the surface discontinuity does exist other balancing mechanisms such as increased convective uplift and consequent faster OLR, or a larger window with declining high level vapor may nullify any effect from increased CO2. After all, if Earth was going to do a Venus it would have done in the past when CO2 levels were much higher than current.
Nick Stokes

OK, I see that Z says, on the graph on p 62, that K&T have a 22.5 W/m2 error. That's odd, because he says that S_T=90.7. But I'm sure he is comparing different things. K&T allows for clouds, while Z is quoting what seems to be a Hartcode calc on USST-76, which is clear sky, and also not a global average.
Nick Stokes

I keep coming back to it because FM billed his original contrast as his semi-transparent vs the climate world's semi-infinite. I asked repeatedly, and couldn't get anyone to say what the infinite referred to. You'd expect it was optical depth, but that seemed hard to believe when in the paper, and the talk, they compare with numerous perfectly finite values of OD in the literature. But here, yes, Z says it is, and there's just no basis for it and none is cited.
http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

“I didn't find Zagoni drawing attention to his S_T=62 being more that K&T 40. I think it may just be that S_T is a clear sky figure, while the K&T is average sky. If you add the 30 W/m2 K&T have emitted from clouds, the result is 70, not so far from 62.”Wow! I am astonished. We have already had this discussion very thoroughly before! It was in fact mydelf on this blog who originally noted that: “If you add the 30 W/m2 K&T have emitted from clouds, the result is 70, not so far from 62.” I originally thought (in error I admit) that Miskolczi may have been operating a completely different definition of S_T (and hence tau) than K&T etc. But then both you and Jan Pompe cut me down hard on that suggestion! You can't now just have a 2nd bet to the contrary my friend! We are not that low on brain cell count around here you know.In addition, the simple answer to your suggestion that the Miskolczi S-T is a clear sky figure is this: Both Miskolczi and Mlynczak, 2004 and Miskolcizi, 2007 and the extra draft1.doc which Miskolczi circulated to persons who blog here are crystal clear about their intention that the (Miskolczi) S_T in the range 60 – 65 W/m^2 is a global average NOT a clear sky figure.That's two utter furphies in a row, Nick. Blog in haste, repent at leisure?
http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

“I didn't find Zagoni drawing attention to his S_T=62 being more that K&T 40.”Zagoni Slide 68 clearly states (highlighted): “K-T 97 has a 22.5 W/m^2 error in S_T”Third furphy, Nick. Coming thick and fast now.
http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

“After all, if Earth was going to do a Venus it would have done in the past when CO2 levels were much higher than current.”And that of course is the killer argument. Off thread I know but perhaps a little matter of elevated CO2 -> elevated photosynthetic biomass ->elevated biogenic aerosols -> increased CCN -> increased cloud -> increased albedo? Been rather wet and/or very cold all over lately I notice. We originally thought the planet had only a 'mere' 2.8 Gy to have evolved this intricately biogenic system. Now the most recent studies on hematite formation from Western Australia suggest oxygenation of Earth's atmosphere commenced around 3.46 Gy (Hoashi et al. Nature Geoscience, Vol. 2, 301 – 306 2009).Nevertheless, such trivialities don't stop the AGW orthodoxy attempting to argue there is something wholely unique about modern climate sensitivity to the carbon cycle such that it is higher even that the last 'mere' 400 My (Goodwin et al. Nature Geoscience, Vol. 2, 145 – 149 2009): ” Our study suggests that the influence of changes to the carbon cycle on climate is stronger now than over much of the last 400 Myr and will remain strong in the near future….”. Strangely, the Goodwin et al (2009) study completely ignored the equally significant human intervention in the global nitrogen and phosphorus cycle.I get a sense of rising desperation.
Anonymous

Nick, Did you see Z talk? He jumped around the slides a lot, trying to put across the gist of an elephant of a theory into a short time. I wouldn’t read too much into not emphasizing one thing. He didn’t mention the words Virial or Kirchhoff for that matter, and emphasized the empirical basis. Make what you want of that.

Jan Pompe

“He didn’t mention the words Virial or Kirchhoff for that matter”

Needs more work.

Nick
” I asked repeatedly, and couldn’t get anyone to say what the infinite referred to.”

It’s just ordinary every day Laplace transforms integrated from τ = 0 -> infinity (Schwarzschild radiation transport equations). Has the effect as you well know of eliminating exp(-τ) terms for others just check appendix B of M7 the term exp(-τ) -> 0 as τ -> infinity.

davids99us

Nick, Did you see Z talk? He jumped around the slides a lot, trying to put across the gist of an elephant of a theory into a short time. I wouldn't read too much into not emphasizing one thing. He didn't mention the words Virial or Kirchhoff for that matter, and emphasized the empirical basis. Make what you want of that.
Jan Pompe

“He didn't mention the words Virial or Kirchhoff for that matter”Needs more work. Nick” I asked repeatedly, and couldn't get anyone to say what the infinite referred to.”It's just ordinary every day Laplace transforms integrated from τ = 0 -> infinity (Schwarzschild radiation transport equations). Has the effect as you well know of eliminating exp(-τ) terms for others just check appendix B of M7 the term exp(-τ) -> 0 as τ -> infinity.
Nick Stokes

Check the recent comments, Steve. I had already noted that oversight. I do remember our previous discussion on the 40 vs 70, but not quite as you do – however, I can't currently find it on the reorganised site.
Nick Stokes

OK, I've found the previous discussion, It's here, about 60% down (I'm replying to your #97). I think we were talking about the consistency of K&T, not S_T, and it isn't the same issue. Anyway, I think the 62.5 is a Hartcode calculated result and so would be clear sky – it's not clear to me how Hartcode could calculate a cloud figure. I'm not certain 62.5 is clear-sky, but I can't see yet that it is a furphy.
http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

“I'm not certain 62.5 is clear-sky, but I can't see yet that it is a furphy.”OK, remember this?I once said (and I freely admit again I was dead wrong):”Given that no-one can label each little bit of LW IR (from BOA) it seems to me that S_T is still then 40 + 23 = 63 W/m^2″You then said:”You CAN identify the LW by frequency. The 40 W/m2 is in the 8-13 micron atmospheric window, and shows in the spectrum as coming from ground temp. The 23 (yes, I meant 356, thanks) is mostly in OTHER BANDS; you can, with more difficulty, say something about it from the spectrum. But it isn't to be included in S_T.”NB YOU ACTUALLY SAID: ” BUT IT ISN'T TO BE INCLUDED IN S_T.”I think it is crystal clear both me and you WERE definitely talking about the consistency of S_T, not K&T, and it IS the same issue.Yet then just recently (see above) you actually tried this one on – once again in the exactly equivalent context of trying to explain why Miskolczi claims S_T is 62.5 W/m^2 and that K&T99 is in error by 22.5 W/m^2, and I quote:”If you add the 30 W/m2 K&T have emitted from clouds, the result is 70, NOT SO FAR FROM 62.” !!!!!So… Phooey to you. Despite all the fast wriggling about HARTCODE and clear sky this stuff sure looks like simple sophistry to me. This is a bit like the recent “Lief Svalgaard said this….” debacle where in reality we find out that it is really all about a relatively new (and still controversial – even to James Hansen!) position on long term TSI and the heliomagnetospheric field strength variability taken by Svalgaard. I'm really beginning to fear you are not coming from a straight place.
Nick Stokes

No, Steve, it is a different issue. There's a coincidence of that 23W/m2 and Z's 22.5, but they are unrelated. The previous discussion was about the discrepancy between the 356 upward absorbed IR in K&T and the 333 downward. In M-speak, A_A-E_U. That is the nett upward IR after absorption. That is why it is not to be added to S_T; it goes up, but not direct from ground.There's no indication that Z's 22.5 is derived from this. It looks to me like it is just a different calc of S_T, and for the reasons that I gave, I suspect it is for clear air. Certainly if it isn't, he should say so.You may recall that K&T also has a clear air calc, of about 100 W/m2. They then figure how much cloud is about (IIRC, 62%), and reduce it by that amount. If Z&M want to match that, they would have toi use a similar factor, but they don't mention one.
http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

BTW, just to bring this back on track in the I note that you had also said (above):”OK, I see that Z says, on the graph on p 62, that K&T have a 22.5 W/m2 error. That's odd, because he says that S_T=90.7…”You are of course right. On the very same slide Zagoni notes “K-T has 22.5 W/m^2 error in S-T” he is also claiming S_T = FIR + MIR + WIN = 20 + 2.49 + 68.2 which of course = 90.7 (W/m^2).This appears to show Zagoni (and Miskolczi) claiming that, with the USST-76 but H2O and CO2 changed to K&T97, S_T is at 90.5 W/m^2. I must admit it is looking as though the modern 62.5 value Miskolczi/Zagoni claim for S_T is actually a clear sky value. Either that or there really is something seriously awry with Miskolczi's HARTCODE VR1 if it produces (1997 clear sky?) values as high as 90 – not 22.5 W/m^2 out (90.7 – 22.5 = 68.2). Either way this puts both A_A = E_D and tau = 1.87 in serious trouble.
http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

I don't think we have ever been talking (now or in the past) about E_U at any point in time. E_U is relative to TOA. A_A and E_D are relative to the surface. Don't you mean E_D?
Nick Stokes

Yes, I meant E_D.
Nick Stokes

I don't think Z&F's 90.7 W/m2 is itself a problem; K&T give 99 W/m2 as the clear sky flux through the atmospheric window, which they describe as an “ad hoc” estimate of S_T. It is; there is some absorption even in this range, and some photons outside the AW get through unabsorbed. My feeling is that they did not care so much about the exact figure, which doesn't directly impact on the budget. They just wanted to show that most of the IR flux did interact with the atmosphere.
http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

If that is the case then we need to ask just what the hell Miskolczi and Zagoni are on about? If the generally accepted all-sky global S_T is of the order of 40 W/m^2 and they say it should be 62.5 W/m^2 then they have to explain how they get this 'magic' tau of 1.87.Personally I think this is all getting too silly for words. I can't see why anyone in the local Climate Sceptic camp should persist in holding up Miskolczi Theory. It doesn't actually provide a verifiable, easy to understand raison d'etre for global homeostasis or Greenhouse saturation or whatever one wants to call it no matter how much numerological mumbo jumbo it cooks up.
http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

If that is the case then we need to ask just what the hell Miskolczi and Zagoni are on about? If the generally accepted all-sky global S_T is of the order of 40 W/m^2 and they say it should be 62.5 W/m^2 then they have to explain how they get this 'magic' tau of 1.87.Personally I think this is all getting too silly for words. I can't see why anyone in the local Climate Sceptic camp should persist in holding up Miskolczi Theory. It doesn't actually provide a verifiable, easy to understand raison d'etre for global homeostasis or Greenhouse saturation or whatever one wants to call it no matter how much numerological mumbo jumbo it cooks up.

Newcastle Lecture Update

Categories

Blogroll

Advertising

Comments

Archives

tag cloud

Most commented

Copyright © 2008 - 2012 Niche Modeling