Catholicism and Climate Change

[lynnvinc]

You have not presented any arguments to counter the historical and geological evidence that there were much warmer periods in the past (e.g the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Eocene) without the presence of man-made CO2.

I never said there were not other causes to the warmings. And climate scientists are well aware of these – earth’s wobble & orbit, solar changes.

However, even in these cases, GHGs were a factor as a positive feedback. As explained in my last, the increased warming (due to orbit or wobble, etc) causes carbon locked in ice to be released thru the melting of that ice. That is why often they have found that increased warmings go lock-step with increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

…you haven’t recognized economists (Bjorn Lindgren) who say, given an expectation value for money spent and results achieved, the game isn’t worth the candle and we’d do better spending the same amount of money on relief efforts for the Third World–eradicating malaria, improving water supplies, etc.

My answer to this is that mitigating AGW saves precious resources, energy, and money, that can then be used to help eradicate malaria. Also, by not polluting water supplies as we are, then that would reduce the need to improve them.

However, if we persist in causing this warming, then vector diseases such as malaria and dengue fever will spread to new areas, and our water supplies will be greatly threated – as BXVI has pointed out in his “If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation”:
Man’s inhumanity to man has given rise to numerous threats to peace…Yet no less troubling are the threats arising from the neglect – if not downright misuse – of the earth and the natural goods that God has given us…Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change… attention also needs to be paid to the world-wide problem of water and to the global water cycle system, which is of prime importance for life on earth and whose stability could be seriously jeopardized by climate change” www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20091208_xliii-world-day-peace_en.html

 

[kimmielittle]

I’m an anthropologist in the cultural subfield – but the field itself is in the physical and social sciences and humanities (and I had to take courses in physical anthropology or human biology). But I am certainly not a climate scientist. That’s probably what I meant.

Probably what you meant? Hmmmm…If you wrote it - shouldn’t you know what you meant?

There just aren’t hardly any peer-reviewed papers or climate scientists denying/disproving AGW.

ALL it takes is one???..BUT there are many and you have been challenged many times to read them. Because of suppression, until recently, they were hard to find.

I’m thinking it would be best to contact David Archer about all this, since you don’t believe me. He is a climate scientist at the U of Chicago, specializing on GHGs. He wasn’t involved in any of the “non-scandals” denialists vociferously decry, and I’ve known him for 5 years – a forthright, decent person.

Why would he be associated with RC?

He wrote a few guest posts at RC – one on how long CO2 will last in the atmosphere.

Isn’t this lenght / life of CO2 Hypotisis based on a modled caculation?

(some is making the ocean acidic thru cabonic acid…itself a very serious problem,

if your Dr Friend believes in this as you seem to do, might I suggest reading what exactly - HAS been established;

Chave, K.E., Suess, E., Calcium carbonate saturation in seawater: effects of dissolved organic matter, Limnology and Oceanography 1970, Vol. 15, Issue 4
Gehlen, M., Biogeochemical impacts of ocean acidification – emphasis on carbonate production and dissolution. CIESM workshop: Impacts of acidification on biological, chemical and physical systems in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, Menton, 1 – 4 October 2008.
Gutowska, M.A., Pörtner, H.O. and Melzner, F., Growth and calcification in the cephalopod Sepia officinalis under elevated seawater pCO2. Marine Ecology Progress Series (2008) 373: 303-309.
Herford et al., Bicarbonate stimulation of calcification and photosynthesis in two hermatypic corals, Journal of Phycology, Vol 44 Issue 1, pp. 91 -98 (2008)
Kleypas, J.A., R.A. Feely, V.J. Fabry, C. Langdon, C.L. Sabine, and L.L. Robbins, 2006. Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers: A Guide for Future Research, report of a workshop held 18–20 April 2005, St. Petersburg, FL
Iglesias-Rodriguez, M.D., et al., Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World, Science 18 April 2008: 336-340
Irving, L., The carbonic acid-carbonate equilibrium and other weak acids in sea water, Journal of Biological Chemistry, 1925
Marubini, F., and Thake, B., Bicarbonate Addition Promotes Coral Growth
Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 44, No. 3, Part 1 (May, 1999), pp. 716-720
Riebesell, U., Effects of CO2 enrichment on marine phytoplankton. Journal of Oceanography (2004) 60: 719-729.
Richardson, A.J. and Gibbons, M.J., Are jellyfish increasing in response to ocean acidification? *Limnology and Oceanography *(2008) 53: 2040-2045.
Vogt, M., Steinke, M., Turner, S., Paulino, A., Meyerhofer, M., Riebesell, U., LeQuere, C. and Liss, P., Dynamics of dimethylsulphoniopropionate and dimethylsulphide under different CO2 concentrations during a mesocosm experiment. *Biogeosciences *(2008) 5: 407-419.
Wangersky, P.J., The control of seawater pH by ion pairing, Limology and Oceanography, Jan 1972.
Wilson, R. W., Millero, F. J., Taylor, J. R., Walsh, P. J., Christensen, V., Jennings, S. M., Grosell, M., Contribution of Fish to the Marine Inorganic Carbon Cycle. *Science *16 January 2009: Vol. 323. no. 5912, pp. 359 – 362
Wood, H.L., Spicer, J.I., and Widdicombe, S., Ocean acidification may increase calcification rates, but at a cost. Proc Biol Sci. 2008 August 7; 275 (1644):

continued

 

[kimmielittle]

Continued:

The literature on this subject is large yet the warmers chose to ignore this literature.
These feldspar and silicate buffering reactions are well understood, there is a huge amount of thermodynamic data on these reactions and they just happened to be omitted from argument by the warmers.

When ocean pH changes, the carbon species responds and in more acid oceans CO2 as a dissolved gas becomes more abundant.

Royer, D. L., Berner, R. A. and Park, J. 2007: Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years. Nature 446: 530-532.
Bice, K. L., Huber, B. T. and Norris, R. D. 2003: Extreme polar warmth during the Cretaceous greenhouse? Paradox of Turonian ∂18O record at Deep Sea Drilling Project Site 511. Palaeoceanography 18:1-11.
Veizer, J., Godderis, Y. and Francois, L. M. 2000: Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon. Nature 408: 698-701.
Donnadieu, Y., Pierehumbert, R., Jacob, R. and Fluteau, F. 2006: Cretaceous climate decoupled from CO2 evolution. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 248: 426-437.
Hay, W. W., Wold, C. N., Soeding, E. and Floegel, S. 2001: Evolution of sediment fluxes and ocean salinity. In: Geologic modeling and simulation: sedimentary systems (Eds Merriam, D. F. and Davis, J. C.),
Kluwer, 163-167.Knauth, L. P. 2005: Temperature and salinity history of the Precambrian ocean: implications for the course of microbial evolution. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 219: 53-69.
Rogers, J. J. W. 1996: A history of the continents in the past three billion years. Journal of Geology 104: 91-107.
Velbel, M. A. 1993: Temperature dependence of silicate weathering in nature: How strong a negative feedback on long-term accumulation of atmospheric CO2 and global greenhouse warming? Geology 21:1059-1061
Kump, L. R., Brantley, S. L. and Arthur, M. A. 2000: Chemical weathering, atmospheric CO2 and climate. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 28: 611-667.
Gaillardet, J., Dupré, B., Louvat, P. and Allègre, C. J. 1999: Global silicate weathering and CO2 consumption rates deduced from the chemistry of large rivers. Chemical Geology 159: 3-30.
Berner, R. A., Lasagna, A. C. and Garrels, R. M. 1983: The carbonate-silicate geochemical cycle and its effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 100 million years. American Journal of Science 283: 641-683.
Raymo, M. E. and Ruddiman, W. F. 1992: Tectonic forcing of late Cenozoic climate. Nature 359: 117-122.Walker, J. C. B., Hays, P. B. and Kasting, J. F. 1981: A negative feedback mechanism for the long term stabilization of the Earth’s surface temperature. Journal of Geophysical Research 86: 9776-9782.
Berner, R. A. 1980: Global CO2 degassing and the carbon cycle: comment on ‘Cretaceous ocean crust at DSDP sites 417 and 418: carbon uptake from weathering vs loss by magmatic activity.” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 54: 2889.
Schwartzman, D. W. and Volk, T. 1989: Biotic enhancement of weathering and the habitability of Earth. Nature 311: 45-47.
Berner, R. A. 1980: Global CO2 degassing and the carbon cycle: comment on ‘Cretaceous ocean crust at DSDP sites 417 and 418: carbon uptake from weathering vs loss by magmatic activity.” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 54: 2889. CO2 + H2O = H2CO3 H2CO3 = H+ + HCO3- 2Ca2+ + 2HCO3- + KAl2AlSi3O10(OH)2 + 4H2O = 3Al3+ + K+ + 6SiO2 + 12H2O 2KAlSi3O8 + 2H+ + H2O = Al2Si2O5(OH)4 + 2K+ + 4SiO2 2NaAlSi3O8 + 2H+ + H2O = Al2Si2O5(OH)4 + 2K+ + 4SiO2 CaAl2Si2O8 + 2H+ + H2O = Al2Si2O5(OH)4 + Ca2+ KAl2AlSi3O10(OH)2 + 3Si(OH)4 + 10H+ = 3Al3+ + K+ + 6SiO2 + 12H2O CO2 + CaSiO3 = CaCO3 + SiO2 CO2 + FeSiO3 = FeCO3 + SiO2 CO2 + MgSiO3 = MgCO3 + SiO2
In the oceans, CO2 exists as dissolved gas (1%), HCO3- (93%) and CO32- (8%)

 

[kimmielittle]

Let’s see if I can Logically argue the need to increase CO2 in our Oceans?

1] Fish create through their life and death - biomass. fish do poop ]

2]Biomass breaks into CO2

3]Man fishes the Oceans

4]Depleting Biomass - CO2

5]We increase CO2

6] Plankton feeds on CO2

7]Plankton creates Biomass

9]Fish eat Plankton and Biomass

10] Fish get sexy when full

11] Sexy fish produce more fishes

12]More Fish replenish Ocean equilibration

13] More fish - more food for humans

14] Feed the fish

 

[kimmielittle]

Just who are some of the people debunking AGW IPCC claims?

Here is one of my Heroes

Last week, NewsBusters readers were introduced to Portland, Maine’s fabulous fifteen-year-old, Kristen Byrnes, whose website “Ponder the Maunder” marvelously takes on anthropogenic global warming myths including those being advanced by soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore. As will be revealed post haste, this newest – and likely youngest – member of the growing list of folks skeptical about man’s role in climate change actually walks the walk better than she talks the talk.
Yet, despite her youth and precocious scientific acumen, it seems quite unlikely that she’ll be sitting down with Matt Lauer or Diane Sawyer any time soon to discuss her research concerning one of the most popular subjects on the media’s front-burner. Why?
Because a prediction that she made last month concerning Australia’s drought has marvelously borne fruit making the scientists employed by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change look a bit foolish.
To set this up, here’s what the IPCC Summary for Policymakers report released on April 7 predicted regarding Australia (emphasis added):

newsbusters.org/node/12968

The reason that computer climate models do not work is because they cannot predict volcanoes, ENSO and solar variance. They also do not understand how water vapor and clouds work.

Of Course, Her and I, have cashed our checks from Exxon and the Koch Brothers

 

[lynnvinc]

Actually, No. I am referring to The papers of such as Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, Who with much peer-review hasn’t been debunked ].climatology.suite101.com/article.cfm/no-greenhouse-effect-in-semi-transparent-atmospheres

At last, your source. Here is a rebuttal of it:

1. The whole theme of the analysis as something that undermines current AGW practice is wrong. Dr Miskolczi’s modelling is of a gray-body atmosphere (no spectral lines or shapes). No GCM or practical climate study would use such an assumption, or use any gray-body theory due to Milne. A gray-body model is sometimes used for teaching purposes to convey concepts.
2. The paper is presented as a physics-based theoretical analysis. It is based on three fundamental errors: a. Kirchhoff’s Law, which is completely mis-stated. KL says that emissivity equals absorptivity. These are coefficients, which are used with other environment variables (temperature, incident radiation) to determine actual emittances and absorbances (total energy amounts). Dr Miskolczi simply assumes the emittances and absorbances can be equated. b. The Virial Theorem. People who know about this scratch their heads here, because it is a principle which can be important in stars, but applied to Earth just describes the hydrostatic balance of the atmosphere. Dr Miskolczi’s statement is totally mystifying - he says that because of some relation between energies, two fluxes must have a certain relation. No-one can work that out. c. A third equation, (7) in the paper and on this site. Dr Miskolczi has two equations which describe the result of applying conservation of energy to the Earth and the atmosphere, the two entities in his simple model. In the paper he introduced (7) as a third, but never said over what entity or region energy balance was being assessed. In an earlier version of this on-line “proof”, he sought to invoke conservation of momentum instead - a different principle, and very strange in the context. In this latest version, it sounds like it’s back to energy conservation, but eq (7) still makes no sense.

So with the physics not really working so well, he (or Zagoni) says now on this site “Regardless of the names and laws referred to in their derivation, the equations of Dr Miskolczi given in the points 3.-9. above are original and proved to be valid.”

1. So the proof is now, presumably, held to be empirical. But what does empirical mean here? In the paper, Dr M makes frequent reference to plots of 228 points, which seem to have reasonable regression fits. But what are the points? He sometimes talks of (”selected” radiosonde readings, but there isn’t much detail offerred. And sometimes of simulations, using his code “HartCode”. In this site he assembles the results to prove the main principles, but the claim to their observational nature is somewhat undermined by the fact that he has similar graphs for Mars. It seems clear the results are simulations - how real-world observations fit in is quite unclear.

The key finding, often quoted, is that the greenhouse effect is limited. This result follows from his claim that the optical depth has a theoretical value (about 1.84), so if more CO2 is put into the atmosphere, somehow water is squeezed out. But that theoretical depth is based on a claim that the atmosphere must somehow optimise cooling, which he never justifies. Towards the end of this “proof” site, he lists comments from some of the referees of journals that rejected his paper. I don’t know why; the referees seem to make very strong points. On this particular point, one said: ”The overall concluding statement that ‘the existence of a stable climate requires a unique surface upward flux density and a unique optical depth of 1.841’ makes absolutely no sense at all. An atmosphere can be in stable radiative equilibrium for any LW optical depth, but the equilibrium surface temperature will monotonically depend on the value of the optical depth….” Quite right - the radiative balance can’t remove or add gases to the atmosphere.

Retrieved from realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi

Hope this help clarify that Miskolczi’s ideas are just plain wrong. AGW stands.

 

[lynnvinc]

Let’s see if I can Logically argue the need to increase CO2 in our Oceans?

1] Fish create through their life and death - biomass. fish do poop ]

2]Biomass breaks into CO2

3]Man fishes the Oceans

4]Depleting Biomass - CO2

5]We increase CO2

6] Plankton feeds on CO2

7]Plankton creates Biomass

9]Fish eat Plankton and Biomass

10] Fish get sexy when full

11] Sexy fish produce more fishes

12]More Fish replenish Ocean equilibration

13] More fish - more food for humans

14] Feed the fish

Except:
“Replenishment of fish populations is threatened by ocean acidification,”
PNAS July 20, 2010 vol. 107 no. 29 12930-12934, Philip L. Munday, et al.
Abstract: There is increasing concern that ocean acidification, caused by the uptake of additional CO2 at the ocean surface, could affect the functioning of marine ecosystems; however, the mechanisms by which population declines will occur have not been identified, especially for noncalcifying species such as fishes. Here, we use a combination of laboratory and field-based experiments to show that levels of dissolved CO2 predicted to occur in the ocean this century alter the behavior of larval fish and dramatically decrease their survival during recruitment to adult populations. Altered behavior of larvae was detected at 700 ppm CO2, with many individuals becoming attracted to the smell of predators. At 850 ppm CO2, the ability to sense predators was completely impaired. Larvae exposed to elevated CO2 were more active and exhibited riskier behavior in natural coral-reef habitat. As a result, they had 5–9 times higher mortality from predation than current-day controls, with mortality increasing with CO2 concentration. Our results show that additional CO2 absorbed into the ocean will reduce recruitment success and have far-reaching consequences for the sustainability of fish populations.
And other problems:

• “Rising acidity erodes Alaska’s fisheries” at wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2009/08/rising-acidity-erodes-alaskas-fisheries
• Doney, S. C., et al. 2009. Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem. Annual Review of Marine Sciences 1: 169-192.
• Hoegh-Guldberg, O., P. et al. 2007. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318: 1737-1742.
• McKinnell, S. 2008. “Salmon pHishing in the northeast Pacific: an archaeological dig in the North Pacific survey data (1956-1964),” paper presentation at The Ocean in a High- CO2 World Symposium of the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research, International Council for Science, Monaco October 2008. scor-int.org/High_CO2_II/Presentations/McKinnell.pdf
• Oschlies, A., et al. 2008. “Simulated 21st century’s increase in oceanic suboxia by CO2-enhanced biotic carbon export” Global Biochemical Cycles 22: 1-10.

 

[lynnvinc]

Isn’t this lenght / life of CO2 Hypotisis based on a modled caculation?

I’m not sure. I’d think it is based on paleoclimatogical findings. But that would be an excellent Q to ask David Archer when you contact him.

 

[Calliso]

I’m an anthropologist in the cultural subfield – but the field itself is in the physical and social sciences and humanities (and I had to take courses in physical anthropology or human biology). But I am certainly not a climate scientist. That’s probably what I meant.

There just aren’t hardly any peer-reviewed papers or climate scientists denying/disproving AGW. Lindzen for one accepts it, but his theory about how it will self-correct thru the iris effect has not proven out.

I’m thinking it would be best to contact David Archer about all this, since you don’t believe me. He is a climate scientist at the U of Chicago, specializing on GHGs. He wasn’t involved in any of the “non-scandals” denialists vociferously decry, and I’ve known him for 5 years – a forthright, decent person.

He wrote a few guest posts at RC – one on how long CO2 will last in the atmosphere. You’re right about half is currently drawn down by plants, and some by weathering (some is making the ocean acidic thru cabonic acid…itself a very serious problem, enough for us to reduce our GHGs). David suggests a small portion of CO2 can last in the atmosphere up to 100,000 years (see realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/langswitch_lang/in/ ). And he says methane (CH4) will last about 10 years in the atmosphere before it decomposes into CO2 and other molecules; however, since it is 23 times more potent GHG than CO2, there is this problem. Carbon gases (CO2, CH4) are also feedbacks (as well as forcings); that is, the warming is melting permafrost and ocean clathrates that have trapped CH4, releasing the gas. If there is fast enough melting to release vast amounts this potent GHG could more rapidly warm the earth and cause a sharp spiralling into climate hysteresis, or a great warming that kills off much of life on planet earth, as happened during the end-Permian extinction 251 mya, and the PETM 55 mya. See realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/methane-hydrates-and-global-warming/. Note that since 2005, when David wrote that, more disturbing findings have been coming in that there is much more CH4 in permafrost than expected, and it is being released faster than expected. The idea is that if a tremedous amount of CH4 were to be released within 10 years, the warming effect would be greatly compounded.

RE water. As mentioned it is only in the atmosphere a few days to a week or so, mainly through evaporation due to warmer temps. If it did have a longer residency in the atmosphere then its warming effect would be greatly compounded, and (depending on what residency time lengths in our hypothetical exercise), it could lead to runaway warming as on Venus. As it is the slight warming caused by the other GHGs causes water to be sucked out of water bodies, soil, and plants, dessicating them, not only greatly enhancing the warming, but also making conditions ripe for wild fires and deluges (depending on certain other weather conditions).

More in my next…

Well personally I am not sure how well the whole Earth turning into Venus idea really works. I am not saying it is not possible. But I think we should probably focus on more likely scenerios. Cause lets face it even some of the more conversative scenerios are pretty scary. And really I think at this point we are past the point of being able to avoid more then a 2o C warming. But hopefully I am wrong. But really yeah about the water vapor thing. I really don;t get what is so hard to understand about it being a feedback effect not a forcing. That is not the same as scientists saying well it has no effect. Actually it potentially has a lot of effect. Its just that it has a very short atmospheric life. You cannot increase the overall water vapor content of the atmosphere long enough to effect climate without a sustained increase in temperature. In this case of course Co2 the evidence shows plays a big part. Not the only part but still a big one.

Also I keep hearing claims of fraud and what not. People need to realize once and for all that multiple investigations have been done and not a single one of these investigations have found evidence of fraud. But really though it is funny how people here will take a handful of emails as absolute proof of some massive conspiracy cause folks if AGW is some kinda conspiracy it would have to be astronomically huge But show then lots of evidence that either shows it is warming or that humans are influencing the climate. Then it seems that no level of evidence is good enough.

But skeptical science has a good overview. This was made before the investigations I think though but it addresses some of the more commonly used arguments and the videos linked too are definately worth watching as well if you can. skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm And another good video. youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo&feature=related

 

[Calliso]

While searching for something else entirely I happened to stumble upon this blog and found something about the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation. climatephysicsforums.com/topic/3670106/1/ perhaps a little bit better explaination then the links I showed before. Another interesting thread. climatephysicsforums.com/topic/3292392/1/

 

[kimmielittle]

At last, your source. Here is a rebuttal of it:

Oh My my my…I can’t believe you took it
Let Me ask this:

Do you understand Dr Miskolczi’s equations and applications?

If so, in your own words explain to us, please.

If you can’t or don’t ------- How in the world can you tell if RealClimate Schmidt, Rabbit, Hansen, Stokes et al --are debating logically? Or even bring up valid points?

Now your “POINTS” made by Mr. Stokes claim equation flaws - Just exactly, what are these equation flaws? You see, Mr. Stokes …OFFERS NONE OR CORRECTIONS

Now using your flawed logic. If I don’t understand Dr Miskolczi’s equations and applications, I should be able to say - IF RealClimate disagrees with Dr Miskolczi - IT Dr Miskolczi’s paper - must be right. Because RealClimate ] have been proven to have a vested interest…in promoting AGW.

Because of it Dr Miskolczi’s papers ] NASA changed from Schmidts Graph to this

http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components2.gif

What do you see missing?

NASA’s Confusion over Earth’s Energy Budget

But it gets worse: compounding such disarray, NASA, now apparently acting more like a politicized mouthpiece for a socialist one world government, cannot even provide consistent numbers on Earth’s actual energy budget.

Thanks to further discussion with scientist, Alan Siddons, a co-author of the paper, ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon,’ it appears I inadvertently stumbled on a NASA graph that shows the U.S. space agency is unable to tally up the numbers on the supposed greenhouse gas “backradiation.” Why would this be?

In its graphic representation of the energy budget of the Earth the agency has conspicuously contradicted itself in its depiction of back-radiation based on its various graphs on Earth’s radiation budget.

As Siddons sagely advised me, “This opens the question as to WHICH budget NASA actually endorses, because the one you show is consistent with physics: 70 units of sunlight go in, 70 units of infrared go out, and there’s no back-flow of some ridiculous other magnitude. Interesting.”

climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5783

 

[Calliso]

At last, your source. Here is a rebuttal of it:

1. The whole theme of the analysis as something that undermines current AGW practice is wrong. Dr Miskolczi’s modelling is of a gray-body atmosphere (no spectral lines or shapes). No GCM or practical climate study would use such an assumption, or use any gray-body theory due to Milne. A gray-body model is sometimes used for teaching purposes to convey concepts.
2. The paper is presented as a physics-based theoretical analysis. It is based on three fundamental errors: a. Kirchhoff’s Law, which is completely mis-stated. KL says that emissivity equals absorptivity. These are coefficients, which are used with other environment variables (temperature, incident radiation) to determine actual emittances and absorbances (total energy amounts). Dr Miskolczi simply assumes the emittances and absorbances can be equated. b. The Virial Theorem. People who know about this scratch their heads here, because it is a principle which can be important in stars, but applied to Earth just describes the hydrostatic balance of the atmosphere. Dr Miskolczi’s statement is totally mystifying - he says that because of some relation between energies, two fluxes must have a certain relation. No-one can work that out. c. A third equation, (7) in the paper and on this site. Dr Miskolczi has two equations which describe the result of applying conservation of energy to the Earth and the atmosphere, the two entities in his simple model. In the paper he introduced (7) as a third, but never said over what entity or region energy balance was being assessed. In an earlier version of this on-line “proof”, he sought to invoke conservation of momentum instead - a different principle, and very strange in the context. In this latest version, it sounds like it’s back to energy conservation, but eq (7) still makes no sense.

So with the physics not really working so well, he (or Zagoni) says now on this site “Regardless of the names and laws referred to in their derivation, the equations of Dr Miskolczi given in the points 3.-9. above are original and proved to be valid.”

1. So the proof is now, presumably, held to be empirical. But what does empirical mean here? In the paper, Dr M makes frequent reference to plots of 228 points, which seem to have reasonable regression fits. But what are the points? He sometimes talks of (”selected” radiosonde readings, but there isn’t much detail offerred. And sometimes of simulations, using his code “HartCode”. In this site he assembles the results to prove the main principles, but the claim to their observational nature is somewhat undermined by the fact that he has similar graphs for Mars. It seems clear the results are simulations - how real-world observations fit in is quite unclear.

The key finding, often quoted, is that the greenhouse effect is limited. This result follows from his claim that the optical depth has a theoretical value (about 1.84), so if more CO2 is put into the atmosphere, somehow water is squeezed out. But that theoretical depth is based on a claim that the atmosphere must somehow optimise cooling, which he never justifies. Towards the end of this “proof” site, he lists comments from some of the referees of journals that rejected his paper. I don’t know why; the referees seem to make very strong points. On this particular point, one said: ”The overall concluding statement that ‘the existence of a stable climate requires a unique surface upward flux density and a unique optical depth of 1.841’ makes absolutely no sense at all. An atmosphere can be in stable radiative equilibrium for any LW optical depth, but the equilibrium surface temperature will monotonically depend on the value of the optical depth….” Quite right - the radiative balance can’t remove or add gases to the atmosphere.

Retrieved from realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi

Hope this help clarify that Miskolczi’s ideas are just plain wrong. AGW stands.

Oops I thought he was talking about the G and T paper. But here is what Roy Spencer has to say on the 2010 version drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/

more from rabett run rabett.blogspot.com/2008/06/gigo-eli-has-learned-over-years-that.html

 

[kimmielittle]

The claim:
The classic from the Royal Society: We’ve already shown that The Royal Society has admitted Exaggerated Claims made in support of AGW

Published data on corals, coccolithophores and foraminifera all suggest a reduction in calcification by 5–25% in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial values (from 280 to 560 ppm CO2)

The Observational facts:

Wood, Spicer, and Widdicombe (2008) found that increasing dissolved CO2 increases calcification rates and improves the rate of regeneration of damaged body parts [Proc Biol Sci. 2008 August 7]. The following extracts are given at length because of the importance of these findings, which overturn ‘assumptions’ (read, false reasoning and bad science):

…we have investigated the effect of CO2-induced acidification on the ability of a calcifying organism (the ophiuroid brittlestar Amphiura filiformis) to regenerate calcium carbonate structures (arms).
Amphiura filiformis collected from Plymouth Sound, UK, were maintained in sediment cores (five individuals per core) supplied with filtered seawater of the allocated pH (pH modified using CO2). Each pH treatment (8.0, 7.7, 7.3 and 6.8) had four cores (20 individuals per pH)…
One of the most surprising results is that there was no decrease in the total amount of calcium carbonate in individuals exposed to acidified water. Indeed, individuals from lowered pH treatments had a greater percentage of calcium in their regenerated arms than individuals from control treatments, indicating a greater amount of calcium carbonate…In regenerated arms, calcium levels were greater in those organisms exposed to acidified seawater than in those held in untreated seawater. This was true for all three levels of acidified seawater…there was actually an increasing rate of calcification with lowered pH. Calcium carbonate in established arms was also affected by lowered pH. At pH 6.8, calcium levels increased and at pH 7.7 and pH 7.3, calcium levels were equal to the control indicating that A. filiformis actively replaced calcium carbonate lost by dissolution.
Rates of oxygen (O2) uptake (as a measure of metabolic rate), or MO2, were significantly greater at reduced pHs (7.7, 7.3 and 6.8) than in controls (pH 8); However, MO2 was not significantly different between the three lowered pH treatments. Increased rates of physiological processes that require energy are paralleled by an increase in metabolism; this relationship is seen with growth and metabolism here in our results.
Seawater acidification stimulated arm regeneration. After the 40-day exposure, the length of the regenerated arm was greater in acidified treatments than in the controls…This increased rate of growth coincided with increased metabolism. Regeneration was not affected by the number of arms removed, nor was there a significant difference in any of the physiological parameters measured as a result of having two arms regenerating instead of one. The ability to regenerate lost arms faster meant a reduction in the length of time animal function (e.g. burrow ventilation and feeding) was compromised by reduced arm length.
Interestingly, even at high levels of hypercapnia (the 6.8 pH treatment crosses the threshold into acidic water, i.e. pH<7.0) investigated here, no mortality was observed.
These results change the face of predictions for future marine assemblages with respect to ocean acidification. Whereas it was previously assumed that all calcifiers would be unable to construct shells or skeletons, and inevitably succumb to dissolution as carbonate became undersaturated, we now know that this is not the case for every species.
Marubini and Thake (1999)The addition of 2 mM bicarbonate to aquaria containing tropical ocean water and branches of Porites porites caused a doubling of the skeletal growth rate of the coral. Nitrate or ammonium addition (20 μM) to oligotrophic sea-water caused a significant reduction in coral growth, but when seawater containing the extra bicarbonate was supplemented with combined nitrogen, no depression of the higher growth rate was evident. We infer that (1) the present dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) content of the ocean limits coral growth, (2) this limitation is exacerbated by nitrate and ammonium, and (3) adding DIC increases coral calcification rates and confers protection against nutrient enrichment.
Riebesell (2004):coccolithophores may benefit from the present increase in atmospheric CO2 and related changes in seawater carbonate chemistry…increasing CO2 availability may improve the overall resource utilization of *E. huxleyi *and possibly of other fast-growing coccolithophore species…if this provides an ecological advantage for coccolithophores, rising atmospheric CO2 could potentially increase the contribution of calcifying phytoplankton to overall primary production…a moderate increase in CO2 facilitates photosynthetic carbon fixation of some phytoplankton groups…CO2-sensitive taxa, such as the calcifying coccolithophorids, should therefore benefit more from the present increase in atmospheric CO2…
Iglesias-Rodriguez *et al *(2008) confirmed Riebesell findings experimentally, concluding that coccolithophores, which account for a third of all marine calcium carbonate production, flourish and calcify much better at higher levels of CO2:
​

Need I continue?
​

 

[kimmielittle]

Also I keep hearing claims of fraud and what not. People need to realize once and for all that multiple investigations have been done and not a single one of these investigations have found evidence of fraud. But really though it is funny how people here will take a handful of emails as absolute proof of some massive conspiracy cause folks if AGW is some kinda conspiracy it would have to be astronomically huge

YEPPERS!!!

The dumping of raw data so that it couldn’t be investigated - a mistake
Cherry Picking Data - a mistake
Suppression of Authors in Real Science Magazine - a mistake
Suppression of opposing views by Connelly A RealClimate Author ] on Wikipedia - a mistake
Defying Freedom of Information - a mistake
Falsehoods of IPCC - a mistake
Shoddy science practices - a mistake

etc etc etc
Remember, these happened not just at CRU - BUT EVERY place promoting AGW

SURE,I believe there wasn’t a CONCERTED EFFORT

But show then lots of evidence that either shows it is warming or that humans are influencing the climate.

Actually you are missing something - Evidence - Not unproved hypothesis

 

[kimmielittle]

I’m not sure. I’d think it is based on paleoclimatogical findings. But that would be an excellent Q to ask David Archer when you contact him.

The question was for you to find out…Nice try

 

[kimmielittle]

Oops I thought he was talking about the G and T paper. But here is what Roy Spencer has to say on the 2010 version drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/

Dr Spencer freely admits he doesn’t understand many points. Yet, he attempts to refute Dr Miskolczi’s equations???

more from rabett run rabett.blogspot.com/2008/06/gigo-eli-has-learned-over-years-that.html

Eli’s And all others ] contentions seem, to center on if *Kirchhoff law is applicable. *But fail to prove why not.
*
How about doing some original homework and addressing if, Kirchhoff law ** IS applicable. *In your own opinion, that is?
Nick Stokes refuses to let Miskolczi respond. It’s becoming very clear that RealClimate is totally agenda driven and not interested in science or honest discourse.

 

[kimmielittle]

Question:
How many skeptical Scientists have become believers in AGW? I have heard of none ]

How Many Scientists Educated in School - to accept AGW ] Have bailed from the AGW camps? Thousands ? OR more ? ]

Remember, when you bail from the AGW institution, you lose funding.

Why do you think Scientists would bail from their, often Governmental, funding’s?
Why would they give up a go-with-the-flow …guaranteed job?

 

[kimmielittle]

Before y’all go trying to get RealClimate, Stokes, Rabbet, et al to debunk Dr Miskolczi’s equations…

In 2005 Before release ] over 25 Leading Scientists Peer-Reviewed Dr. M’s equations and application. Since that time, hundreds more Leading Scientists have Peer-Reviewed his on going paper… And agree.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1047&pictureid=7220

 

[lynnvinc]

Before y’all go trying to get RealClimate, Stokes, Rabbet, et al to debunk Dr Miskolczi’s equations…

In 2005 Before release ] over 25 Leading Scientists Peer-Reviewed Dr. M’s equations and application. Since that time, hundreds more Leading Scientists have Peer-Reviewed his on going paper… And agree.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1047&pictureid=7220

Bush, the oil man’s, appointees, perhaps? I remember in the mid-80s a person working at the EPA told my niece (who was working for a chemical analysis co) that So&So (our distant relative) had worked her way up in the EPA by “looking the other way” re toxic sites. People know who’s buttering their bread.

The other issues with such lists are 1) do they really have the expertise to assess the paper, and 2) do they really agree with the paper.

It seems that the Heartland Institute is fond of adding lots of names to its denialist list of people who are not qualified to assess climate change science, and of people who are, but they do not deny AGW.

 

[Calliso]

Bush, the oil man’s, appointees, perhaps? I remember in the mid-80s a person working at the EPA told my niece (who was working for a chemical analysis co) that So&So (our distant relative) had worked her way up in the EPA by “looking the other way” re toxic sites. People know who’s buttering their bread.

The other issues with such lists are 1) do they really have the expertise to assess the paper, and 2) do they really agree with the paper.

It seems that the Heartland Institute is fond of adding lots of names to its denialist list of people who are not qualified to assess climate change science, and of people who are, but they do not deny AGW.

1. Exactly agreeing with the paper does not make them experts or say that they actually know what they are talking about. 2. And yeah do we really know if they agree with the paper? Really though a list of people who say he is right doesn;t make the paper or his equations right.

But really I read through Roy Spencers thoughts and while I didn;t understand some of what he was saying his explanation to me did make sense I think. And he is a skeptic so I am thinking that he has reason for hoping that this guy is right. In fact I think he even said he wished the guy was right or something along those lines. But right now it seems the evidence is not holding his theory up. And I am currently reading more over Rabett runs. But really it just seems his theory doesnt hold up plain and simple. Getting a paper published and people to agree with you doesn;t equal being right. That goes for both sides. However so far AGW has held up to the evidence. Though there is obviously still debate. Over things like impacts, the actual amount of warming. Feedbacks effects and how those will effect things…and so on.