Newcastle Lecture Wednesday 15th April

Miklós Zágoni and I will be speaking in a public lecture at 1pm on Wednesday the 15th of April at the Engineering faculty, Newcastle University, in lecture theater ES203. Miklós will speak on the theory of Ferenc Miskolczi and I will give a short introduction of the work from the blog in the last 3 years in the global warming arena.

A much longer version of my talk is incorporated into a new “Highlights” page.

Advertisements

0 thoughts on “Newcastle Lecture Wednesday 15th April

  1. David, Congratulations on your ‘Highlights’ piece. I’m pleased to learn that you will be presenting an introduction to your work at Newcastle University on 15 April, and that there is also to be an expert presentation of Ferenc Miskolczi’s theory by Miklós Zágoni at the same forum.

    You may want to know that a conference is being organised by Victoria University, Melbourne (Centre for Strategic Economic Studies) on the same day, under the title ‘Emerging from the Global Storm: Growth and Climate Change Policies in Australia’. This conference will feature a Reserve Bank economist as its opening speaker (not on climate change), and therefore features prominently on the Reserve Bank of Australia home page (see link to full conference program on the right of the screen).

    The only scientist who is speaking at the Melbourne Conference is VUM’s Professor Roger Jones (formerly of CSIRO), who is billed inter alia as a ‘technical advisor to the Garnaut Review and to the Australian Treasury.’

    As you know, Roger is a strong proponent of ‘the science is settled’ and ‘it’s worse than we thought’ schools that you have criticised (at least implicitly). On 30 July 2008, whilst still at CSIRO, Roger made the following comment under his own name on the blog of economist John Quiggin:

    ‘The science ain’t worth debating. The values at stake are. Let’s try and be honest for a change (oops, disqualifies all denialists)’ (‘Back to the Future’ thread, 30 July 2008, 11.33 pm).

    It’s good to see that at least one Australian University is providing a platform for some dissenting opinions on the science of climate change.

  2. David, Congratulations on your 'Highlights' piece. I'm pleased to learn that you will be presenting an introduction to your work at Newcastle University on 15 April, and that there is also to be an expert presentation of Ferenc Miskolczi’s theory by Miklós Zágoni at the same forum. You may want to know that a conference is being organised by Victoria University, Melbourne (Centre for Strategic Economic Studies) on the same day, under the title 'Emerging from the Global Storm: Growth and Climate Change Policies in Australia'. This conference will feature a Reserve Bank economist as its opening speaker (not on climate change), and therefore features prominently on the Reserve Bank of Australia home page (see link to full conference program on the right of the screen). The only scientist who is speaking at the Melbourne Conference is VUM's Professor Roger Jones (formerly of CSIRO), who is billed inter alia as a ‘technical advisor to the Garnaut Review and to the Australian Treasury.’ As you know, Roger is a strong proponent of ‘the science is settled’ and ‘it’s worse than we thought’ schools that you have criticised (at least implicitly). On 30 July 2008, whilst still at CSIRO, Roger made the following comment under his own name on the blog of economist John Quiggin: ‘The science ain’t worth debating. The values at stake are. Let’s try and be honest for a change (oops, disqualifies all denialists)’ (‘Back to the Future’ thread, 30 July 2008, 11.33 pm). It's good to see that at least one Australian University is providing a platform for some dissenting opinions on the science of climate change.

  3. Great summary of the issues! It STILL shocks me to see how much “judgement” is substituted for science in the climate science arena.

  4. Great summary of the issues! It STILL shocks me to see how much “judgement” is substituted for science in the climate science arena.

  5. Excellent. This is one of a very small number of climate blogs that I subscribe to. The focus on rigor is refreshing.

  6. Excellent. This is one of a very small number of climate blogs that I subscribe to. The focus on rigor is refreshing.

  7. cohenite: I don’t see much problem with this paper. I am not going to claim that a brief period of cooling is not possible in the models. What was your concern.

  8. cohenite: I don't see much problem with this paper. I am not going to claim that a brief period of cooling is not possible in the models. What was your concern.

  9. I guess my concern with the Easterling and Wehner paper is the 100 year flood principle; their null hypothesis is that there will be an “equal percentage of statistically significant positive and negative trends” [p6]; but they ignore PDO climate phases; a once in 100 year flood is a misleading term if your chances of having an exceptional flood are much greater during a -ve La Nina dominated PDO phase; so to with temperature; in a century with 2 +ve, El Nino dominated phases the null hypothesis is meaningless because there is a greater chance of having upward trends because of the 2 +ve PDOs. They extrapolate from this error in the 20thC to the 21stC.

      • I concur. Working through it, it makes the IPCC look like it was written by 5th graders.

        Steve, on the 40 vs 62 thing, if Ta is unmeasurable how do you propose resolving it? Would you like to invite Zagoni to address it here?

      • David – I think the least Zagoni could do for us is as follows:

        (1) Explain why neither Slides 68 or 69 explicitly state clear sky and all sky global means are being dealt with (respectively) as Nick has suggested is the case (and I concur seems the most likely interpretation).

        (2) Confirm he is indeed referring to a global clear sky mean when he shows a slide (Slide 68) claiming the S_T = 90.7 W/m^2 and then explain why he simultaneously claims in the very same slide that K&T97 (known clear sky S_T ~100 W/m^2) is in error by 22.5 W/m^2!

        (3) Identify which peer reviewed publication the interpretation given in Slide 70 claiming the Miskolczi HARTCODE interpretation of the NOAA 60 year average gives S_T = 60.9 W/m^2 appears when the AGW consensus is for a global all sky S_T of ~40 W/m^2 even as recently as F,T&K08 (which reviews/summarizes the finding of other radiative codes).

        I’m sorry David but I have absolutely no idea where you get your inference that Ta is unmeasurable?

        If you look carefully at the literature plenty of people have measured directly and attempted to estimate global means for B and S_T. F,T&K08 list most of those studies, published over more than a decade up to mide 2007. It is easy to find more from the last two years.

        The bottom line is that Miskolczi is saying there is a ‘magic tau’ of magnitude 1.87. He has consistently got this by using a B anywhere from about 396 down to about 380 W/m^2 yet somehow the S_T values he gets at the same time always stays in the range of about 63 down to 58.5 W/m^2, resulting in a tau in the range 1.84 – 1.87 (say).

        To accept Miskolczi Theory as viable we need to be technically very clear on why there is always this discrepancy where the Miskolczi S_T is always significantly greater by about 20 – 25 W/m^2 than the accepted literature range of values – from numerous studies – most using good radiative codes and putting great effort into correctly weighting the land and oceanic all sky values in order to derive a global mean.

        We also need to understand why the Miskolczi S_T always appears to be much closer to the accepted literature range of values for net LW up i.e. the sum of S_T and that LW IR emitted upwards by clouds. Sheer coincidence? I would hope so.

        This is no different from scientific processes I have been involved myself a number of times. To resolve why one one or more studies get one or more critical parameter values significantly different from most other studies, a process is entered into whereby those who are getting the significantly different values have to demonstrate why that should be so. If their explanation proves good enough, and is verified/validated it usually results in a shift in the accepted values. This is just part of the normal processes of the advancement of scientific knowledge.

        Presently this is not the case with Miskolczi.

        He wants us (as non-experts in this field) to unquestioningly accept a tau (Ta if you will) significantly different from that found by at least a dozen other studies published in the peer-reviewed literature over more than a decade, without explanation and to then move, without further discussion, from that on to A_A = E_D, f = 2/3 etc., etc.

        Tell me how is this superior to IPCC?

      • Thanks Steve, I will see what I can do. From my experience, at trying to deliver unwelcome information, people first don’t want to know, and then misunderstand cause they jump to the first thing they think of, which is usually not what you are saying. It seems like they (M&F) are in that situation at delivering unwelcome news, and it takes time to get on the same page. Its not like a project team where you can sit down and thrash it out.

        My take on the measurability is based on the relation 1-Ta=Aa, and the times M has said Aa is not really measurable, you need a LBL code to get it. How do you determine whether a photon at TOA has be absorbed by the atmosphere or not?

      • I am glad to see you guys are still trying to make sense of Miskolczi theory. I haven’t had time to follow much of this recently, so I can’t comment on the St cloud vs clear sky issue.

        Some time ago Ferenc ran a test where he added water vapour in two layers to determine the effect on the fluxes and optical depths. I had remarked that I didn’t understand the results. I wonder if one of you clever scientists can help me with this.

        The results are shown on this pdf:
        http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/Ken/h2o.pdf

        Please look at page 4 which show the OLR. This makes sense to me. Added water vapour near the surface has almost no effect on OLR as this layer it saturated. It just reduced the mean free path of the photons. But adding water vapour to the upper layer has a large effect as it can absorb photons that otherwise would have escaped to space. I consider the base case as at equilibrium, where OLR = Fo. The graph shows the initial, almost instantaneous response of the radiation field, but before temperatures can respond, so Su is unchanged. The difference between the new and base OLR is the forcing, which will slowly cause temperatures to increase until it reaches base OLR.

        This agrees with the IPCC statement that the largest feedback occurs in the upper troposphere.

        Now look at page 1 which shows the optical depth. Adding water vapour to the upper troposphere has little effect on optical depth.

        I think the graphs should satisfy the equation:
        OLR = (Su x 2)/(1 + tau + exp(-tau))
        I think this should hold all time, but of course Su=3OLR/2 only holds at long run equilibrium.

        Please see my spreadsheet:
        http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/Ken/Test.xls

        Column O shows my calculated OLR based on the reported transmittance. It does not match the reported OLR in column D. Why not?
        I expected the change in optical depth to be greatest in the upper layer, where OLR changes.

      • Hi Ken

        So far I can’t find any math error in your Excel spreadsheet. I was a little puzzled why you had Ta (Column H) entered as a many digit number rather than as the formula =En/Gn but other than that your spreadsheet looks fine.

        If OLR = (Su x 2)/(1 + tau + exp(-tau)) holds all the time then the results are as you find i.e. increasing water vapor in the lower troposphere decreases OLR as one might expect and this doesn’t match M’s predicted decreasing tau (as you show in Column D).

        Your spreadsheet suggests the problem lies somehow with tau [=-ln(Gn/En)] and hence with the data in Column G (S_T) or Column E (S-U). The suggestion that S_U remains constant is therefore not sustainable I think.

        Interestingly this leads us right back to my observation that Miskolczi’s S_T clearly covaries with B (see above), e.g. as in Zagoni’s Slide 61 viz:

        “The bottom line is that Miskolczi is saying there is a ‘magic tau’ of magnitude 1.87. He has consistently got this by using a B anywhere from about 396 down to about 380 W/m^2 yet somehow the S_T values he gets at the same time always stays in the range of about 63 down to 58.5 W/m^2, resulting in a tau in the range 1.84 – 1.87 (say).”

      • Ken

        I also forgot to mention that using your calculated OLR the so-called equality (Su-OLR)/(Ed-Eu) (refer Zagoni Slide 34) is closer to 1.0000 than it is for the reported OLR.

        More and more I get the feeling, which Nick hinted at, that Miskolczi’s St may not simply be a true atmospheric LW IR transmission term for transmission from BOA to TOA but a term which actually combines both transmission through the atmosphere from BOA plus TOA-outgoing LW IR emission from the tops of clouds.

        If that were so then St includes in effect ‘compensatory crossover’ from the sum of sensible heat (dry thermals) and latent heat i.e. from the Miskolczi K term and is by no means a fatal error for M Theory. I wonder whether Miskolczi has considered that as a true source of his empirical Greenhouse ‘saturation’ (what I would call a basis for homeostasis).

      • Columns C thru I are HARTCODE outputs copied from the H2O.dat file. So Ta, the transmittance, is from HARTCODE. Its value is equal to St/Su, as verified in cell H6, which gives the identical value as HARTCODE output for Ta.

        In this test, by intent, the fluxes are those immediately resulting from adding the water vapour to each layer but before allowing any time for temperatures and Su to change, so Su is the same in all cases.

        I don’t think we should expect (Su-OLR)/(Ed-Eu)=1 to hold in this test. This is an equilibrium condition, where OLR=Fo. Besides, I don’t think HARTCODE knows about this equation. In the base case, this ratio is 0.9816, which is close to the theoretical 1.

        I don’t know how HARTCODE handles clouds, but this test is a clear sky simulation, as the base case g factor is 0.3386. As Miklos says, you can always tell clear sky from all sky results by looking at g, which is about 0.333 for clear sky and 0.4 for all sky.

        Slides 68 & 69 are clear sky, g=0.332 and g=0.339, respectively.

      • By definition HARTCODE also doesn’t ‘know’ that g should take on a special value. g is just a normalized Greenhouse factor. The notion it should have a specific value is strictly M Theory. This is why I avoid logic like this – it is circular.

        “Slides 68 & 69 are clear sky, g=0.332 and g=0.339, respectively.”

        Well, Nick and I had also figured that out (but more from the general magnitude of St).

        However, as Nick pointed out: “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.”

        99 W/m^2 is fairly close to Miskolczi/Zagoni’s 90.7 W/m^2. So, where is the evidence for a 22.5 W/m^2 error (in K&T97) as per Zagoni’s Slide 68?

        It gets worse! I notice you didn’t mention Zagoni’s Slide 70 which gives g = 0.352! Also clear sky?

        If so, why does the St = 60.9 W/m^2? This is still ~21 W/m^2 above the consensus ALL SKY St.

        I note the St in your spreadsheet is also ~60 W/m^2. g still ~0.33 throughout though! All still clear sky presumably?

        What are Miskolczi and Zagoni talking about? Clear sky Sts which range all the way from 91 down to 58 W/m^2?

        If so what is the basis for the claim of generality of tau =1.87?

        Repetitive obscurantism is hardly a basis for good science.

      • A further point, Ken.

        Let us say we were to agree that by Miskolczi looking at various ‘clear sky’ situations where (say) St varied from about 91 down to 58 W/m^2 (a difference of 33 W/m^2) and, if you like, g varied from 0.33 up to about 0.35 then by definition we would also have to agree that these situations only consider the range of situations where cloud cover was substantially less than the global average of around 60% – probably <30% at most (trying to be very generous).

        This allows us to ask: what about the situations where St varies further from ~58 down to ~40 W.m^2 i.e. the situation where cloud cover rises from <30% even just up to the global average of about 60% (and if you like g rises from 0.35 to 0.40)?

        It is generally agreed that for an average global cloud cover of ~60% St ~ 40 W/m^2 (and tau ~2.3).

        For cloud covers up to 100% St is likely to be <<40 W/m^2 – perhaps going as low as ~10 W/m^2 (and tau ~3.7). Where does the magnitude of g go then? And how would we know from Miskolczi's studies?

        So we would be forced to conclude that Miskolczi has only been looking at no more than about 25 – 30% of the total range of situations for global cloud cover and has not dealt (is still not dealing?) with the remaining range of cloud covers all the way up to 100% which demonstrably do commonly occur. I might add there is even some limited literature evidence of increasing cloud cover over the last decade or so to an average around 66%.

        But this approach hardly seems reasonable for constructing an empirical theory which purports to infer/explain Greenhouse saturation via changes in lower tropospheric moisture content (where most clouds form and reside) and SW albedo (also mostly due to clouds).

        Isn't this is a little bit like saying: "I can reliably infer conditions inside a rain forest by studying an open heathland." ?

  10. I guess my concern with the Easterling and Wehner paper is the 100 year flood principle; their null hypothesis is that there will be an “equal percentage of statistically significant positive and negative trends” [p6]; but they ignore PDO climate phases; a once in 100 year flood is a misleading term if your chances of having an exceptional flood are much greater during a -ve La Nina dominated PDO phase; so to with temperature; in a century with 2 +ve, El Nino dominated phases the null hypothesis is meaningless because there is a greater chance of having upward trends because of the 2 +ve PDOs. They extrapolate from this error in the 20thC to the 21stC.

  11. I concur. Working through it, it makes the IPCC look like it was written by 5th graders. Steve, on the 40 vs 62 thing, if Ta is unmeasurable how do you propose resolving it? Would you like to invite Zagoni to address it here?

  12. David – I think the least Zagoni could do for us is as follows:(1) Explain why neither Slides 68 or 69 explicitly state clear sky and all sky global means are being dealt with (respectively) as Nick has suggested is the case (and I concur seems the most likely interpretation).(2) Confirm he is indeed referring to a global clear sky mean when he shows a slide (Slide 68) claiming the S_T = 90.7 W/m^2 and then explain why he simultaneously claims in the very same slide that K&T97 (known clear sky S_T ~100 W/m^2) is in error by 22.5 W/m^2!(3) Identify which peer reviewed publication the interpretation given in Slide 70 claiming the Miskolczi HARTCODE interpretation of the NOAA 60 year average gives S_T = 60.9 W/m^2 appears when the AGW consensus is for a global all sky S_T of ~40 W/m^2 even as recently as F,T&K08 (which reviews/summarizes the finding of other radiative codes).I'm sorry David but I have absolutely no idea where you get your inference that Ta is unmeasurable? If you look carefully at the literature plenty of people have measured directly and attempted to estimate global means for B and S_T. F,T&K08 list most of those studies, published over more than a decade up to mide 2007. It is easy to find more from the last two years.The bottom line is that Miskolczi is saying there is a 'magic tau' of magnitude 1.87. He has consistently got this by using a B anywhere from about 396 down to about 380 W/m^2 yet somehow the S_T values he gets at the same time always stays in the range of about 63 down to 58.5 W/m^2, resulting in a tau in the range 1.84 – 1.87 (say).To accept Miskolczi Theory as viable we need to be technically very clear on why there is always this discrepancy where the Miskolczi S_T is always significantly greater by about 20 – 25 W/m^2 than the accepted literature range of values – from numerous studies – most using good radiative codes and putting great effort into correctly weighting the land and oceanic all sky values in order to derive a global mean.We also need to understand why the Miskolczi S_T always appears to be much closer to the accepted literature range of values for net LW up i.e. the sum of S_T and that LW IR emitted upwards by clouds. Sheer coincidence? I would hope so.This is no different from scientific processes I have been involved myself a number of times. To resolve why one one or more studies get one or more critical parameter values significantly different from most other studies, a process is entered into whereby those who are getting the significantly different values have to demonstrate why that should be so. If their explanation proves good enough, and is verified/validated it usually results in a shift in the accepted values. This is just part of the normal processes of the advancement of scientific knowledge.Presently this is not the case with Miskolczi. He wants us (as non-experts in this field) to unquestioningly accept a tau (Ta if you will) significantly different from that found by at least a dozen other studies published in the peer-reviewed literature over more than a decade, without explanation and to then move, without further discussion, from that on to A_A = E_D, f = 2/3 etc., etc. Tell me how is this superior to IPCC?

  13. Thanks Steve, I will see what I can do. From my experience, at trying to deliver unwelcome information, people first don't want to know, and then misunderstand cause they jump to the first thing they think of, which is usually not what you are saying. It seems like they (M&F) are in that situation at delivering unwelcome news, and it takes time to get on the same page. Its not like a project team where you can sit down and thrash it out. My take on the measurability is based on the relation 1-Ta=Aa, and the times M has said Aa is not really measurable, you need a LBL code to get it. How do you determine whether a photon at TOA has be absorbed by the atmosphere or not?

  14. I am glad to see you guys are still trying to make sense of Miskolczi theory. I haven't had time to follow much of this recently, so I can't comment on the St cloud vs clear sky issue. Some time ago Ferenc ran a test where he added water vapour in two layers to determine the effect on the fluxes and optical depths. I had remarked that I didn't understand the results. I wonder if one of you clever scientists can help me with this. The results are shown on this pdf:http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/Ken/h2o.pdfPlease look at page 4 which show the OLR. This makes sense to me. Added water vapour near the surface has almost no effect on OLR as this layer it saturated. It just reduced the mean free path of the photons. But adding water vapour to the upper layer has a large effect as it can absorb photons that otherwise would have escaped to space. I consider the base case as at equilibrium, where OLR = Fo. The graph shows the initial, almost instantaneous response of the radiation field, but before temperatures can respond, so Su is unchanged. The difference between the new and base OLR is the forcing, which will slowly cause temperatures to increase until it reaches base OLR. This agrees with the IPCC statement that the largest feedback occurs in the upper troposphere.Now look at page 1 which shows the optical depth. Adding water vapour to the upper troposphere has little effect on optical depth.I think the graphs should satisfy the equation:OLR = (Su x 2)/(1 + tau + exp(-tau))I think this should hold all time, but of course Su=3OLR/2 only holds at long run equilibrium.Please see my spreadsheet:http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/Ken/Test.xlsColumn O shows my calculated OLR based on the reported transmittance. It does not match the reported OLR in column D. Why not?I expected the change in optical depth to be greatest in the upper layer, where OLR changes.

  15. Hi KenSo far I can't find any math error in your Excel spreadsheet. I was a little puzzled why you had Ta (Column H) entered as a many digit number rather than as the formula =En/Gn but other than that your spreadsheet looks fine.If OLR = (Su x 2)/(1 + tau + exp(-tau)) holds all the time then the results are as you find i.e. increasing water vapor in the lower troposphere decreases OLR as one might expect and this doesn't match M's predicted decreasing tau (as you show in Column D).Your spreadsheet suggests the problem lies somehow with tau [=-ln(Gn/En)] and hence with the data in Column G (S_T) or Column E (S-U). The suggestion that S_U remains constant is therefore not sustainable I think. Interestingly this leads us right back to my observation that Miskolczi's S_T clearly covaries with B (see above), e.g. as in Zagoni's Slide 61 viz:”The bottom line is that Miskolczi is saying there is a 'magic tau' of magnitude 1.87. He has consistently got this by using a B anywhere from about 396 down to about 380 W/m^2 yet somehow the S_T values he gets at the same time always stays in the range of about 63 down to 58.5 W/m^2, resulting in a tau in the range 1.84 – 1.87 (say).”

  16. KenI also forgot to mention that using your calculated OLR the so-called equality (Su-OLR)/(Ed-Eu) (refer Zagoni Slide 34) is closer to 1.0000 than it is for the reported OLR. More and more I get the feeling, which Nick hinted at, that Miskolczi's St may not simply be a true atmospheric LW IR transmission term for transmission from BOA to TOA but a term which actually combines both transmission through the atmosphere from BOA plus TOA-outgoing LW IR emission from the tops of clouds. If that were so then St includes in effect 'compensatory crossover' from the sum of sensible heat (dry thermals) and latent heat i.e. from the Miskolczi K term and is by no means a fatal error for M Theory. I wonder whether Miskolczi has considered that as a true source of his empirical Greenhouse 'saturation' (what I would call a basis for homeostasis).

  17. Columns C thru I are HARTCODE outputs copied from the H2O.dat file. So Ta, the transmittance, is from HARTCODE. Its value is equal to St/Su, as verified in cell H6, which gives the identical value as HARTCODE output for Ta.In this test, by intent, the fluxes are those immediately resulting from adding the water vapour to each layer but before allowing any time for temperatures and Su to change, so Su is the same in all cases. I don't think we should expect (Su-OLR)/(Ed-Eu)=1 to hold in this test. This is an equilibrium condition, where OLR=Fo. Besides, I don't think HARTCODE knows about this equation. In the base case, this ratio is 0.9816, which is close to the theoretical 1.I don't know how HARTCODE handles clouds, but this test is a clear sky simulation, as the base case g factor is 0.3386. As Miklos says, you can always tell clear sky from all sky results by looking at g, which is about 0.333 for clear sky and 0.4 for all sky.Slides 68 & 69 are clear sky, g=0.332 and g=0.339, respectively.

  18. By definition HARTCODE also doesn't 'know' that g should take on a special value. g is just a normalized Greenhouse factor. The notion it should have a specific value is strictly M Theory. This is why I avoid logic like this – it is circular.”Slides 68 & 69 are clear sky, g=0.332 and g=0.339, respectively.”Well, Nick and I had also figured that out (but more from the general magnitude of St). However, as Nick pointed out: “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.”99 W/m^2 is fairly close to Miskolczi/Zagoni's 90.7 W/m^2. So, where is the evidence for a 22.5 W/m^2 error (in K&T97) as per Zagoni's Slide 68?It gets worse! I notice you didn't mention Zagoni's Slide 70 which gives g = 0.352! Also clear sky? If so, why does the St = 60.9 W/m^2? This is still ~21 W/m^2 above the consensus ALL SKY St.I note the St in your spreadsheet is also ~60 W/m^2. g still ~0.33 throughout though! All still clear sky presumably?What are Miskolczi and Zagoni talking about? Clear sky Sts which range all the way from 91 down to 58 W/m^2? If so what is the basis for the claim of generality of tau =1.87?Repetitive obscurantism is hardly a basis for good science.

  19. A further point, Ken.Let us say we were to agree that by Miskolczi looking at various 'clear sky' situations where (say) St varied from about 91 down to 58 W/m^2 (a difference of 33 W/m^2) and, if you like, g varied from 0.33 up to about 0.35 then by definition we would also have to agree that these situations only consider the range of situations where cloud cover was substantially less than the global average of around 60% – probably <30% at most (trying to be very generous). This allows us to ask: what about the situations where St varies further from ~58 down to ~40 W.m^2 i.e. the situation where cloud cover rises from <30% even just up to the global average of about 60% (and if you like g rises from 0.35 to 0.40)?It is generally agreed that for an average global cloud cover of ~60% St ~ 40 W/m^2 (and tau ~2.3). For cloud covers up to 100% St is likely to be <<40 W/m^2 – perhaps going as low as ~10 W/m^2 (and tau ~3.7). Where does the magnitude of g go then? And how would we know from Miskolczi's studies?So we would be forced to conclude that Miskolczi has only been looking at no more than about 25 – 30% of the total range of situations for global cloud cover and has not dealt (is still not dealing?) with the remaining range of cloud covers all the way up to 100% which demonstrably do commonly occur. I might add there is even some limited literature evidence of increasing cloud cover over the last decade or so to an average around 66%.But this approach hardly seems reasonable for constructing an empirical theory which purports to infer/explain Greenhouse saturation via changes in lower tropospheric moisture content (where most clouds form and reside) and SW albedo (also mostly due to clouds).Isn't this is a little bit like saying: “I can reliably infer conditions inside a rain forest by studying an open heathland.” ?

  20. A further point, Ken.Let us say we were to agree that by Miskolczi looking at various 'clear sky' situations where (say) St varied from about 91 down to 58 W/m^2 (a difference of 33 W/m^2) and, if you like, g varied from 0.33 up to about 0.35 then by definition we would also have to agree that these situations only consider the range of situations where cloud cover was substantially less than the global average of around 60% – probably <30% at most (trying to be very generous). This allows us to ask: what about the situations where St varies further from ~58 down to ~40 W.m^2 i.e. the situation where cloud cover rises from <30% even just up to the global average of about 60% (and if you like g rises from 0.35 to 0.40)?It is generally agreed that for an average global cloud cover of ~60% St ~ 40 W/m^2 (and tau ~2.3). For cloud covers up to 100% St is likely to be <<40 W/m^2 – perhaps going as low as ~10 W/m^2 (and tau ~3.7). Where does the magnitude of g go then? And how would we know from Miskolczi's studies?So we would be forced to conclude that Miskolczi has only been looking at no more than about 25 – 30% of the total range of situations for global cloud cover and has not dealt (is still not dealing?) with the remaining range of cloud covers all the way up to 100% which demonstrably do commonly occur. I might add there is even some limited literature evidence of increasing cloud cover over the last decade or so to an average around 66%.But this approach hardly seems reasonable for constructing an empirical theory which purports to infer/explain Greenhouse saturation via changes in lower tropospheric moisture content (where most clouds form and reside) and SW albedo (also mostly due to clouds).Isn't this is a little bit like saying: “I can reliably infer conditions inside a rain forest by studying an open heathland.” ?

  21. Pingback: escort vienna

  22. Pingback: wypozyczalnia samochodów Gliwice

  23. Pingback: Optimax

  24. Pingback: kliknij link

  25. Pingback: ifi it

  26. Pingback: ristorante messicano Torino

  27. Pingback: aiéoi oaáa äéîaoéí

  28. Pingback: àìéøï òåáã äéîåøéí

  29. Pingback: bforex ??????

  30. Pingback: bforex ??????

  31. Pingback: Maui Wedding Photography

  32. Pingback: hotel patong

  33. Pingback: warez

  34. Pingback: gravity forms developer license

  35. Pingback: miami escorts

  36. Pingback: anuntulmagic.ro

  37. Pingback: how to hack google serp

  38. Pingback: sheet music

  39. Pingback: ehpad

  40. Pingback: carpet cleaning new york

  41. Pingback: ?? ?????

  42. Pingback: lakeview personal training

  43. Pingback: agenzia seo

  44. Pingback: emdmars2014

  45. Pingback: Birmingham escort agency

  46. Pingback: orjinal lida

  47. Pingback: strona firmy

  48. Pingback: witryna firmowa

  49. Pingback: gsm

  50. Pingback: telefoane

  51. Pingback: polskie papu

  52. Pingback: fearless presentations

  53. Pingback: forex managed accounts

  54. Pingback: code promo

  55. Pingback: www.recuperodatichiavettausb.it

  56. Pingback: sell your bitcoin

  57. Pingback: polecam link

  58. Pingback: strona www

  59. Pingback: upholstery cleaning

  60. Pingback: ????? ???? ???????

  61. Pingback: leto 2015 kusadasi

  62. Pingback: penapis ar aljabbar

  63. Pingback: ????? ??????

  64. Pingback: ????? ??????

  65. Pingback: ????? ???

  66. Pingback: simonwilby.com

  67. Pingback: strona

  68. Pingback: baby fair

  69. Pingback: filmowanie wesel Lublin

  70. Pingback: polecam link

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s