My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Michaelangelica]

What do you think of this report?

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations Totally Wrong

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations Totally Wrong

[InfiniteNow]

What do you think of this report?

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations Totally Wrong

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations Totally Wrong

 

He's basically saying that there's a limit on how opaque the atmosphere can become... that the equations are "wrong" because they don't factor in the fact that the atmosphere can only block so much radiation.

 

Well... yeah... okay... but once it's reached that point we'll already be like the planet Venus. ;)

 

 

Also, exactly which climatologist is talking about "runaway greenhouse" effects? Seems like a bit of a strawman if you ask me...

 

In other words, he has a point about the opacity, but his conclusions are non-sequitur. He even throws in an appeal to conspiracy there at the end. That's just icing on the cake really.

 

 

A Skeptical Look at Climate Change: The Beginning of the End

An interesting theory was proposed by Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, a relatively unknown European scientist. His theory, through the combination of various atmospheric mathematical laws, essentially states that the optical depth of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere must remain constant.

Looking here, it appears that he's assumed constant optical depth. Well, if one assumes constant opticat depth, then of course they'd come to a very different conclusion about global warming.

[Turtle]

What do you think of this report?

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations Totally Wrong

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations Totally Wrong

 

I think the original article is a better source, as it gives the actual calculations said to be a correction. My calculus ability does not extend to deriving or solving differential equations. Looks like a new & contentious debate on the topic in any regard. ;)

 

DailyTech - Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"

[InfiniteNow]

Looks like a new & contentious debate on the topic in any regard.

Definitely new, but not very contentious... nor accurate.

 

 

 

Despite the articles claims, "boundary conditions" of all types are already greatly considered in models. Further our current knowledge of climate change comes from much more than just a set of differential equations, as is also implied in the article.

 

I repeat that, in addition to the logical fallacies abundant in the presentation, there is also nothing more than a bunch of hand waving.

 

One of the best questions I've seen asked in this thread bears repeating:

 

 

What is it exactly that causes you to disregard all of those other studies and cling to ones with such apparent deficits? It makes absolutely zero sense unless you are clinging to a world view and cherry picking presentations which seem to support it.

 

 

Here's some more for those of you more curious about the article itself:

 

It also helps to explain why current global climate models continually predict more warming than actually measured.

That's false, as most current models tend to under predict actual warming.

 

 

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.

Here's a theory as to why... no species in the Earth's history were actively removing carbon compounds from the ground and burning them, thus releasing them into the atmosphere.

 

 

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.

At what other time in history were carbon sinks being actively emptied into the atmosphere by physical processes at the rate they are presently?

 

 

It's not even comparing apples to oranges... It's comparing earphones to orgasms... :doh:

 

The article is crap.

[CraigD]

What do you think of this report?

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations Totally Wrong

I think it’s an agenda-driven misrepresentation of the discipline of climate modeling.

 

It’s helpful, I think, to consider its sources: prisonplanet.com, infowars.com and related websites, which are primarily the works of “paleoconservative” Alex Jones, and writer Micheal Asher, know for such blog posts as “Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory”, in which he argues that there is no consensus among scientists that “humans are having at least some effect on global climate change”, because most papers in a survey of papers from 2004 to 2007 do not “an explicit endorsement of the consensus”.

 

In “Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations Totally Wrong”, Asher states that, because of reliance on “totally wrong” equations, climate science has incorrectly predicted a “runaway greenhouse effect”, and agencies such NASA and NOAA are now attempting to suppress a correct theory that shows that disproves “global warming is a crisis”.

 

Both of Asher’s papers are, in my opinion, very disingenuous. “Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations Totally Wrong” suggests that current concerns about global warming are based on a theory of “runaway greenhouse effect” (which to the best of my knowledge has not been proposed outside of speculative non-scientific writings in the 1970s), based entirely on “equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution” describing radiative equilibrium (which to knowledge is not used in current computer climate models, such as those described in Jean-Marc Jancovici ‘s “How can we know what will happen later on?”, but rather for first-order approximations of planets’ temperatures).

 

Jones and Asher both appear to me to be pursuing a strategy of presenting out controversial-seeming, out-of-context information “emphasizing disagreement” to assert either that most scientists do not agree with climate models showing a significant human influence on global temperature, or do, but are wrong.

[InfiniteNow]

I have been reading more about this paper, and the consensus seems to align with descriptions above that it's largely crap.

 

 

A member here, Chris C, also posts on another forum, where he explained it quite well and articuled his points clearly and informatively.

 

Chris - I hope you do not mind my repeating this here. Your understanding of the subject matter far exceeds my own, and I only hope to spread that understanding as far as possible to others. ;)

 

 

 

Dailytech nonsense aside, I have not looked into Miskolczi but I see no evidence (yet) to call him a wingnut or liar or what have you, though I can say this paper will not go very far (that is, revolutionize our textbooks, flip science upside down, win a nobel, etc). At best, a known journal would have been nice.

 

I have read roughly the first 25 pages of the original document in detail. Most of the mathematics is rather standard textbook material, and although it looks fancy it amounts to simple energy balance equations which translate to the fact that the net solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) must equate to the outgoing longwave radiation at the TOA. In addition, the surface energy budget must close to zero after accounting for all the surface terms (i.e., convection, conduction, upwelling heat from the mantle, downward solar, downward IR, upward IR, etc, etc).

 

This paper also does not assume constant optical depth as iNOW puts it (see first full paragraph on pg. 22). However, I do not think this paper gives full justice to the TOA energy balance, and over emhasizes what happens at the surface. The planet does not necessarily warm on the simple basis that more longwave radiation is absorbed and emitted downward, but because the net radiation downward is greater than zero until the planet can come back to equilibrium. That is simply due to the fact that when you add CO2, the same amount of solar radiation is being absorbed, but the planet is emitting less. I tried to explain this in very much detail, but with laymen terminology in these two posts

 

Physics of the Greenhouse Effect Pt 1 « Climate Change

 

Physics of the Greenhouse Effect Pt 2 « Climate Change

 

There are several fatal assumptions in this paper, such as the idea that water vapor should decrease when you add CO2 (middle to end of page 23). They gave a quick paragraph on this, without any mention of the mainstream views on this subject.

 

Venus is an example of immediate falsification by example, which clearly had a runaway greenhouse effect. The paper says that the OLR must increase for the planet to come back to balance, but in the runaway case this happens only after the Kombayashi-Ingersoll limit (see my pt. 2) is exceeded and the oceans have evaporated. The original paper has only to say this:

 

"At this time the Venusian atmosphere is not included in our study. The

major problem with the Venusian atmosphere is the complete cloud cover and

the lack of knowledge of the accurate surface SW and LW fluxes."

 

This is pure dismissal. The Venus surface receives considerably less sunlight than Earth, and is yet much, much hotter. Not saying we know every detail about Venusian clouds, but the fact a runaway occurred on the well-known basis of CO2 does not give this paper a good start.

 

So far, the only way to argue for the low climate sensitivity in the paper is to introduce substantial negative feedback. This paper has not done this in any justifiable sense, and has given a sensitivity far lower than the Planck response. There is a lot more explaining to do: Cretaceous hothouse? Faint Young sun in the archaean times? Ice Ages? PETM?

 

By the way, the greenhouse effect in the Martian atmosphere is extremely small because of the very thin atmosphere (roughly 7 millibars compared to Earth's 1000 millibars). I've not looked at the numbers, but even with a full CO2 atmosphere, I'd be surprised if its atmosphere got it even 10 C warmer than in a no atmosphere case. CO2 is also a short lived gas on Mars (unlike Earth) because it gets cold enough there for CO2 to condense. Since the sun was ~25-30% fainter in the early stages of the planet, a much denser atmosphere (and water vapor feedback) would enhance the greenhouse effect substantially on Mars, and that would be the only way to get liquid water on the early martian planet.

[Michaelangelica]

Supergreenhouse Climate Mystery

Polar Bear on ice floe

image: National Resources Defense Council

(movie will open in a separate window)

 

 

As global temperatures rise, glaciers melt and sea levels go up, right? Well, new research on prehistoric climates indicates that the opposite could somehow be true. As this ScienCentral News video reports, the findings add a new twist to how we think about climate change.

Supergreenhouse Climate Mystery: Science Videos - Science News - ScienCentral

 

UN: World's Glaciers Melting Faster

 

By Associated Press

7:27 PM EDT, March 15, 2008

 

 

ZURICH, Switzerland - Glaciers are shrinking at record rates and many could disappear within decades, the U.N. Environment Program said Sunday.

 

Scientists measuring the health of almost 30 glaciers around the world found that ice loss reached record levels in 2006, the U.N. agency said.

UN: World's Glaciers Melting Faster -- Newsday.com

[InfiniteNow]

UN: World's Glaciers Melting Faster -- Newsday.com

This couples well with your other thread, Water-Where will it come from in 2050?

 

Except, we're looking at something closer to 2015 for many who drink freshly melted glacial runoff...

[Essay]

What do you think of this report?

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations Totally Wrong

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations Totally Wrong

Does anyone have a citation for the original Hungarian article?

I've been looking at the JGR article (during some more manic episodes).

 

I think the press should make it clear that the "support" provided by the JGR paper is only an alignment of predicted temperature change (1.1 degrees/doubled CO2).

 

Schwartz's JGR paper says nothing about the optical properties of the atmosphere, or of the "GW equation," or anything about the Hungarian's research. It deals with oceanic heat capacity/content, and relating that to GW models (hmmmm, I suppose that "relates" it to the new Hungarian "model"); but the point is that Schwartz does not address Miskolczi's story, or any of his ideas, conjectures, or amended equations.

 

Elsewhere, I had threatened to look at the JGR paper and see what this was all about.

It's important new research; but note the qualifications that the authors place on their results.

Certainly, I don't see how this research can be used to "support" the "missing-term" proposition.

Below is a copy of my "review."

...and speaking of newly discovered missing terms (see below also).

 

*_*

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 112, D24S05, doi:10.1029/2007JD008746, Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system. Stephen E. Schwartz, Atmospheric Science Division,

Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, USA

 

Abstract: (btw, "a" translates as "yr" in this JGR article)

The equilibrium sensitivity of Earth's climate is determined as the quotient of the relaxation time constant of the system and the pertinent global heat capacity. The heat capacity of the global ocean, obtained from regression of ocean heat content versus global mean surface temperature, GMST, is 14 ± 6 W a m−2 K−1, equivalent to 110 m of ocean water; other sinks raise the effective planetary heat capacity to 17 ± 7 W a m−2 K−1 (all uncertainties are 1-sigma estimates). The time constant pertinent to changes in GMST is determined from autocorrelation of that quantity over 1880–2004 to be 5 ± 1 a. The resultant equilibrium climate sensitivity, 0.30 ± 0.14 K/(W m−2), corresponds to an equilibrium temperature increase for doubled CO2 of 1.1 ± 0.5 K. The short time constant implies that GMST is in near equilibrium with applied forcings and hence that net climate forcing over the twentieth century can be obtained from the observed temperature increase over this period, 0.57 ± 0.08 K, as 1.9 ± 0.9 W m−2. For this forcing considered the sum of radiative forcing by incremental greenhouse gases, 2.2 ± 0.3 W m−2, and other forcings, other forcing agents, mainly incremental tropospheric aerosols, are inferred to have exerted only a slight forcing over the twentieth century of −0.3 ± 1.0 W m−2.

 

....

Okay, I finally got thru that JGR paper. Interesting.

Ummm... Two points struck me before I got through the abstract; the reliance on a main assumption (and linkage to GMST), and the method for pulling out the equilibration (climate sensitivity) time constant.

 

Admittedly, Schwartz states,

"Here an initial attempt is made to determine climate sensitivity through energy balance considerations that are based on the time dependence of GMST and ocean heat content over the period for which instrumental measurements are available."

 

I just wish he'd included some possible factors to be considered in further attempts (or even possible confounding or currently omitted factors).

 

This paper is heavily based on Levitus' work on Oceanic Heat Content (more later).

 

I'm impressed that Schwartz comes within an order of magnitude of the IPCC estimates. One could easily imagine that this analysis has been attempted before, but the data was too sparse and unresolved. Finally we have enough data and resolution that we can more successfully attempt to look at a global energy budget.

 

While the math is daunting, it does lead to a figure half as much as the IPCC suggests. However, Schwartz provides ample "wiggle room" by using values with a 50% uncertainty, using new unproven assumptions, using unproven data, and by then discussing these problems.

 

 

"The findings of the present study may be considered surprising in several respects:"

"This value is well below current best estimates of this quantity, summarized in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC [2007]...."

"This situation invites a scrutiny of the each of these findings for possible sources of error of interpretation in the present study."

"Perhaps a more fundamental question has to do with the representativeness of the data that comprise the Levitus et al. [2005] compilation."

"...suggest the necessity of evaluating the effective heat capacity based on a long-term record."

"Is the relaxation time constant ...the pertinent time constant of the climate system? Of the several assumptions on which the present analysis rests, this would seem to invite the greatest scrutiny."

...and finally....

"The rather large uncertainty range could be consistent with either substantial cooling forcing ...or substantial warming forcing...."

 

 

So don't bet the farm on these results yet, I guess.

 

Schwartz's conclusion is fair:

 

"Ultimately of course the climate models are essential to provide much more refined projections of climate change than would be available from the global mean quantities that result from an analysis of the present sort. Still it would seem that empirical examination of these global mean quantities, effective heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity, can usefully constrain climate models and thereby help to identify means for improving the confidence in these models."

 

...can't argue with that....

 

Anyway, as mentioned, Levitus et al. [2005] informs a large part of Schwartz's paper.

Levitus is worth looking at; it has some neat charts and graphs.

Citation: Levitus, S., J. Antonov, and T. Boyer (2005), Warming of the world ocean, 1955–2003, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L02604, doi:10.1029/2004GL021592.

 

 

Looking at Schwartz's paper, I kept thinking that Levitus must have not taken enough measurement to get a good picture and/or that he'd not accounted for the Arctic melting. Silly me. This is a great paper, but I'm sure future endeavors will provide a more complete and accurate picture.

 

Levitus does at least talk about indications of great variability between the major oceans; as well as between basins, depths and latitudes.

"Two other regions of cooling include the North Pacific around 40_N and the North Atlantic centered at 60_N. ....Dickson et al. [2002] documented the cooling and freshening of the deep waters of the Labrador Sea since the early-1970s which has resulted in the cooling of the deep waters of the entire subarctic gyre of the North Atlantic [Levitus and Antonov, 1995]. ....In addition to our earlier work, Southern Ocean warming between the 1950s and 1980s has been documented by Gille [2002] based on in situ observations including PALACE float data. ....For the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans the increases of heat content (linear trends) are respectively 7.7, 3.3, and 3.5 × 10^22 J. As with our previous work, it is the Atlantic Ocean that contributes most to the increase in heat content."

 

This is all based on over 1.5 Million measurements!

(That's one point that was better than I expected.)

 

(...and they account for Arctic melting.) (see the charts).

That's another point I thought maybe they'd missed, but noooo.

 

But Schwartz cautions us about the Levitus information.

Levitus, similarly, cautions us about the certainty and completeness of his conclusions.

 

 

"....we may be underestimating ocean warming. This is possible since we do not have complete data coverage for the world ocean."

"...we believe that the long-term trend as seen in these records is due to the increase of greenhouse gases...."

& finally,

"Our discussion here has not been to minimize the impacts of warming of the lower atmosphere due to increasing greenhouse gases, we are simply placing Earth's heat balance in perspective. The response of the Earth's climate system to changes in radiative forcing is often cast as the response of the Earth's surface temperature to these forcings. This is understandable because we live at the Earth's surface and there has been a lack of subsurface ocean data with which to conduct Earth system heat balance studies. Improved scientific understanding requires that we study the response of all components of the Earth's heat balance, of which the world ocean is the dominant term."

 

 

Maybe I'll try to find the Hungarian paper to see how certain its conclusion sounds; but this [Levitus] paper's conclusion seems to be fairly equivocal:

"...suggests that internal variability of the Earth system significantly affects Earth's heat balance...."

...

There was one curious similarity; for both [Levitus & the Hungarian referenced] papers, the "result included a new term," which made the equations more accurate.

The "new terms" are completely different, so maybe that's not the "conclusions ...supported by research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research last year from Steven Schwartz" connection (I know, it's the 1.1 degree thing -but the "1.1 degrees" comes from completely different reasoning!!!).

 

...but that aside....

Schwartz (via Levitus) introduces "an additional term in the Earth's heat balance ...[which] is the variability of the heat content of Earth's lithosphere."

 

WOW! I spent a couple of hours with that one too.

"Beltrami et al. [2002] used temperature profile data from boreholes to make this estimate. They estimate that Earth's continents warmed by 0.9 × 10^22 J during the past 50 years. This value is of the same order as the warming of the Earth's atmosphere during this period...."

 

Anyway, there is another Schwartz paper, which is not restricted/pay access.

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

It's virtually the same, but the math is harder (not refined yet?).

 

Schwartz et al., sure is a well-referenced paper. Beyond Levitus, Schwartz cites Jim Hansen, Trenberth and the IPCC (as well as Einstein's 1905, seminal paper on Brownian Motion!).

 

...but how about that lithospheric revelation?

Beltrami, H., J. E. Smerdon, H. N. Pollack, and S. Huang (2002), Continental heat gain in the global climate system, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(8), 1167, doi:10.1029/2001GL014310.

 

"These fluxes indicate that 30% of the heat gained by the ground in the last five centuries was deposited during the last fifty years, and over half of the five-century heat gain occurred during the 20th century."

 

Feel free to ask questions; I'm fairly familiar (groan) with these papers now.

[goku]

just a quick thought i had, how do you come out of an ice age?

something has to get warm-er.

[freeztar]

just a quick thought i had, how do you come out of an ice age?

something has to get warm-er.

 

Um...yes. If you were trying to make a point, it flew right over my head. Was there a point?

[goku]

Um...yes. If you were trying to make a point, it flew right over my head. Was there a point?

 

if, there is global warming, it's natural.

[Essay]

just a quick thought i had, how do you come out of an ice age?

something has to get warm-er.

 

We're not coming "out of an ice age," as you write. I know what you're saying; it's not GW, it's just "ice-age abatement," but technically we're in an Ice Age and coming out of a glaciation. Are you familiar with the normal cycle of Ice Ages; with lots of glaciations and interglacial periods? (see also: interstadial)

 

Yes, there's normal interglacial warming, but did you notice the stats mentioned above at the end of #196 (in red)?

Accelerated heating of Earth's crust in the past decades and century!

Yikes!!!:shrug:

 

Please don't think I'm talking runaway GW. The geologic record show that another glaciation will come along; probably precipitated (pun intended) by excess water vapor in the warmed atmosphere (+ some trigger).

 

It is fun to speculate about the future, but I'd rather concentrate on maintaining stability in the present.

:)

[freeztar]

if, there is global warming, it's natural.

 

Oh Goku, <sigh>...

 

CLIMATOLOGY 101:

 

The Earth goes through natural cycles of heating and cooling based on factors such as solar exposure (orbital path), precession, surface albedo, large catastaphic events (volcanos, meteors, etc.), etc...

 

What I, any many others, believe we are seeing currently is a trend towards a higher and higher rate of increase in global average temperatures. It is proven that anthropogenic CO2 is a contributor of greenhouse gases. It is proven that CO2, of any origin, produces a net warming effect in the atmosphere when exposed to sunlight. It allows certain frequencies through and disallows other wavelengths from escaping the atmosphere.

 

In summary, yes, the Earth is in a "warm" period (ie not a glacial period), but the rate of temperature increase is alarming, whether you believe in anthropogenic climate change or not. Read this thread all the way through, goku, and then tell me where you think the logic is unfounded.

[REASON]

if, there is global warming, it's natural.

 

Goku, you are a perfect example of someone, like myself, who is not a climate scientist. So therefore, when we hear scientists come along and tell us that the average temperature of the Earth is rising faster than usual, we have to decide what to believe, right?

 

Now on one hand you have experts, who have spent countless hours studying the atmosphere, using highly advanced equipment, satelites in orbit, deep ice cores that give us a window into atmospheric conditions thousands of years into the past, the latest technology. Many different scientists focusing on different aspects of our global climate, studying, collecting data, researching, analyzing, writing reports, developing models, devoting countless hours in an effort to understand what is happening and why.

 

On the other hand, you have talk radio entertainers, who have absolutely no clue of what they're talking about. They are not scientists, they conduct no research, examine no data, develop no models, or provide any reports. But they are good at being convincing. They are good at twisting information to make people think that there is a controversy about global warming. They appeal to our sense of skepticism. They have an agenda.

 

Since we are not climate scientists, who does it make more sense to choose to believe?

 

The answer is simple.

[Zythryn]

Goku, you happened to find the world's biggest 'strawman'.

No scientist has ever claimed that there wasn't natural fluxuations in earth's climate.

The fact that the climate has changed in the past naturally doesn't disprove that man has a hand in the current climate change, any more than the fact that forests have burned before mankind was around disproves man has been responsible for some forest fires.

[goku]

first of all, if you believe evolution then you know things change.

second, where is the law that says the earth can't warm this fast?

third, the only way to study what affects climate would be to create many other earths and test them for billions of years.

 

fourth, where did the first expert come from and who made him or her an expert?

the last one may not be part of the first three, just a thought i had.

 

one more thing,

how do scientists know when they have run the correct test and have the right answers?