Admin: Posted up for Steve, with an initial response by Miklos. The slides Steve referred to are here. My bad for not telling Miklos that.

Link to TF&K08

Miskolczi theory proposes 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, as well as a number of other new relations A_A = E_D, f = 2/3 etc., etc.

In the 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.

If this is not the case with Miskolczi then this is no better than the IPCC. I propose the following questions:

(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).

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.

Miklos Zagoni responds:

Here are some answers to Steve.

1. I do not know which of my presentations are you talking about, but as you all know, the clear-sky g is 1/3 while the all-sky global average is about 0.4. From the numbers one always able to figure out whether clear or all sky calculation is displayed.

2. The slide that gives you the KT97 22.5Wm-2 error, is calculated (as is written there) at their (reduced) h2o content. With those amounts of GHG in the air, Hartcode says that their St should be 90.7. But they (as they admitted) regarded only the WIN (833-1250 cm-1) region.

3. AGW consensus of St=40 rests on the mentioned KT97. Please point to the locus please in KT97, or TFK08 where they give the details beyond it.

Please give me also any indication how TFK08, or anyone else, measured the atmospheric window radiation.


About these ads