Edward Vul, Christine Harris, Piotr Winkielman, & Harold Pashler have published research that provides useful insights into the practice of ‘cherry picking’ or prior selection of desirable results leading to exaggerated significance. They also demonstrates the effect in a comprehensive survey of studies in the field of social neuroscience.
CommentsThe rumbling Alaskan volcano Redoubt has exploded producing a stratosphere-reaching plume in excess of 60,000 ft (17 km). An eruption is termed ‘ultraplinian’ if its ejecta reaches the stratosphere, about 10km in height. Dust and gases in the stratosphere are known to depress the global temperature for up to a few years after the eruption. The extent of cooling depends on the amount and type of material, the size and duration of ultraplinian eruption, and the latitude (high latitude eruptions like Redoubt are less effective than lower ones).
The plume could be seen easily on infrared here (top center of first radar).
Jan Pompe sent in a draft of a model of the atmosphere in the form of a circuit diagram. There the passive elements are expressed as capacitors and resistors. Active elements producing amplification as in Cosmic Ray Flux are modeled as Field Effect Transistors (FETs).
Should we believe the cosmic ray flux theory (CRF)? Here I attempt to answer this question quantitatively, by calculating the strength of evidence so-far presented for CRF as a major forcing factor in climate change. Specifically we need to ask, what is the probability of being wrong about CRF? This can be calculated by combining the significance values of independent lines of evidence.
CommentsNir’s 2005 paper “On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget”, available as pdf here, provides a solid case linking cosmic ray flux (CRF) variations to global climate change. The effect is consistent over hugely different timescales, using completely different indicators — from cosmic sources of CRF at the Phanerozoic, to the shortest time scale of the 11-yr solar cycle. The fit is extraordinary. The statistics competent. The bottom line?
CommentsHere are my comments on the reviewers 1 comments on the manuscript submitted to AMM about the DECR. The summary of the manuscript stated:
CommentsThe 2008 Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report (DECR) makes a number of bold claims in its assessment of likely changes in the frequency and severity of severe rainfall deficiencies over the next 20-30 years. This review presents an analysis which brings into question whether these claims can be sustained by the data. Taking into account the poor performance of climate models, as evidenced by simulations of area of exceptionally low rainfall trending in the opposite direction to observations, a more valid interpretation of the data would be for drought frequency and severity in Australia to remain largely unchanged in the future, with no expectation of a change in the climatological basis for EC declarations.
A number of familiar tests, often used to evaluate the performance of models: R2 correlation, Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency and similarity of trends and return period, were reported here, noting not much evidence of skill in the DECR models compared with observations at any of these. I also said what a better treatment might entail but left that for another time:
CommentsPrediction is dangerous to your reputation.
If you don’t make a clear prediction (a climate cycle, a solar cycle, a financial trend…) then you are just doing your best. What comes does not damage your reputation.
CommentsWhat affects global warming? We have been developing experiments to examine what affects greenhouse warming. To counter intuitive certitude, I have asked people to guess the results of simple experiments before they are done. Finally, we’ll evaluate the relevance to stratospheric and tropospheric forcing if at all.
CommentsContinued from Greenhouse Heat Engine:
CommentsI have converted the draft of the introductory document The new climate theory of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi by Dr. Noor van Andel into a Wiki. The permissions are set for registered users of the Wiki to freely edit it. There are a great deal of areas where it could be improved and added too, and an opportunity to learn more about Wikis.
CommentsComment by Ken Gregory moved from Greenhouse Heat Engine.
Last month I asked Ferenc Miskolczi to calculate a 60 year trend of optical depths using radiosonde data I compiled from the NOAA Earth Systems Research Laboratory to confirm his prediction of constant optical depth. We finally got the results:
Read the rest of this entry…
Here is a treat for those following the discussion of Miskolczi’s new theory of greenhouse warming. Noor van Andel has sent a simplified explanation of Miskolczi’s theory, put on Wikichecks here. Noor is actually in the greenhouse business!
CommentsIs Kirchhoff’s rule in atmosphere proven by the Cabauw measurements, or not? I had earlier received a note on calculations by Noor van Andel claiming, yes, Kirchoff’s relationship as used in Miskolczi’s theory was confirmed by the linear regression of Ed (longwave down radiation) and Su(1-Ta) (longwave surface up, without transmitted longwave). Miskolczi also confirmed this result, using older results in a the previous post in this series.
CommentsWhile contributors Barton, Jan, Neal and Nick have been grilling Ferenc Miskolczi on another thread, and been doing a fantastic job of clarifying for average readers the use of the Virial Theorem in Miskolczi’s paper, Ferenc has sent some results pertaining to the use of Kirchhoff’s Law, which was another source of contention.
CommentsAnthony Watts has
uncovered some data from the NOAA website that appears to show water vapor levels have been decreasing for the last sixty years. Read the rest of this entry…
Here I have started to explore a new theory of global warming, not from greenhouse gas buildup in the troposphere, but from changes in stratospheric temperature caused largely by ultra-Plinian (stratosphere reaching) eruptions. A brief article entitled A Stratospheric Compensation Model of Climate Change, is in the May 8 issue of Australian Institute of Geologists Newsletter, pages 12-13. Read the rest of this entry…
CommentsHere is a neat way to sum up a range of models of greenhouse effect using the overall energy balance equation of Miskolczi (M7). The energy balance equation represents two flux terms of equal magnitude, propagating into opposite directions, while using the same solar energy F as an energy source. The first term (Su-F) heats the atmosphere and the second term (Ed-Eu) maintains the surface energy balance. Read the rest of this entry…
CommentsThe last installment of my review of Miskolczi’s theory of (almost) constant greenhouse effect examines his claim that attribution of global warming to greenhouse gases is due to an error in the equations. This part deals exclusively with equations of radiative equilibrium in the atmosphere. The other three parts dealt with various aspects of the overall energetic constraints on the atmospheric system: energy conservation (part one), the virial theorem (part two), and Kirchhoff’s law (part three). Read the rest of this entry…
CommentsIn reviewing the points of controversy raised here in Miskolczi’s controversial theory of (almost constant) greenhouse effect and the impossibility of runaway global warming, I thought about the role of convection. Read the rest of this entry…
CommentsBefore delving into the fourth and final installment of Miskolczi’s controversial theory of the greenhouse effect, below is a slide depicting the relationships covered so-far. The last part, on radiative equilibrium, binds warming as a function of optical depth (or concentration of greenhouse gases) and will be a bit technical. Read the rest of this entry…
CommentsNext is this series is Kirchhoff law. Kirchhoff is the third principle in Miskolczi’s atmospheric greenhouse theory, after energy conservation (part one) and the virial theorem (part two). Read the rest of this entry…
CommentsThe first post in this series showed a theoretical proof that ‘runaway’ greenhouse effect is not possible, based on Miskolczi’s derivation of a constant (and maximum) greenhouse effect from energy conservation laws in a cloudy atmosphere. The virial theorem solves the semi-transparent (non-cloudy) case, where a fraction of the longwave radiation is transmitted directly from the surface to space, without absorption by the atmosphere. Read the rest of this entry…
CommentsA very interesting theory of global warming proposed by the Hungarian mathematician
Ferenc Miskolczi contains a simple proof that the greenhouse effect
is bound to a fixed value and cannot ‘runaway’, or even increase. In order to understand, or audit, parts of the theory I step through a simplified version of the derivation of his result below. Read the rest of this entry…
Douglass et al. 2007 may represent a history-of-science-in-the-making showdown between two theories, the infinitely-thick theory of atmospheres as used in GCMs, and the semi-transparent atmospheric model as proposed by Miskolczi. Read the rest of this entry…
CommentsWhat are the implications and limitations of the semi-infinite atmosphere theory of Ferenc Miskolczi — a theoretical model for greenhouse effect in the atmosphere? Read the rest of this entry…
CommentsSince this controversial peer-reviewed paper was mentioned by Lubos Motl I have noticed increasing side-talk about it. It warrants more attention and effort to understand in depth.
While this is a mathematical paper, simple equations of radiative flux balance would present no challenge to people familiar with the field, although some of the concepts are new, such as the ‘virial theorem’. His previous paper, “The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial radiation (Miskolczi & Mlynczak 2004)“, provides a gentler introduction to the field of greenhouse spectral analysis, and is a better first read. As in this paper, he drops some real zingers. This paper redefines global warming. But not in a weird way. Of additional equations related to Kirchhoff’s law, constraining the atmosphere to be in thermal equilibrium with the surface, Miskolczi writes:
The physical interpretation of these two equations may fundamentally change the general concept of greenhouse theories.
The model suggests negligible sensitivity of 0.24C surface temperature increase to doubling CO2 increase.
Comments