Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"

[wetech]

Surprised that this hasn't been posted yet (not as far as I could tell anyway). It would be interesting to see what the scientific community has to say about this guy's research.

Link

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"

Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.

That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center.

After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well. "I fell in love," he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.

So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.

NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."

His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.

The conclusions are supported by research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research last year from Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs, who gave statistical evidence that the Earth's response to carbon dioxide was grossly overstated. It also helps to explain why current global climate models continually predict more warming than actually measured.

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. 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.

However, not everyone is convinced. Dr. Stephen Garner, with the NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), says such negative feedback effects are "not very plausible". Reto Ruedy of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says greenhouse theory is "200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory.

Miskowlczi has used his theory to model not only Earth, but the Martian atmosphere as well, showing what he claims is an extremely good fit with observational results. For now, the data for Venus is too limited for similar analysis, but Miskolczi hopes it will one day be possible.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, let's see the actual paper and data! Could be interesting.

 

[piasabird]

The thing about these so-called experts is that they never share how they arrived at their data because they dont want anyone to be able to contradict them. They assume they are smarter than anyone else.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: piasabird
The thing about these so-called experts is that they never share how they arrived at their data because they dont want anyone to be able to contradict them. They assume they are smarter than anyone else.

This guy or the alarmists? This guy does seem to state how he arrived at the data(or atleast why his is different) - the equation was flawed.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: piasabird
The thing about these so-called experts is that they never share how they arrived at their data because they dont want anyone to be able to contradict them. They assume they are smarter than anyone else.

Did you read the article?

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: piasabird
The thing about these so-called experts is that they never share how they arrived at their data because they dont want anyone to be able to contradict them. They assume they are smarter than anyone else.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I very much disagree. To a certain extent, this Miskolczi has hit upon something he thinks is promising. And he is exploring it. Often in the history of science, a new theory may account for
what is happening short term. Yet as time goes on, the new theory may or may not pan out.

The essence of science is collaboration and replication. And not secrecy.If this new theory pans out long term it will find other converts, if not, its still a dead end that should be explored to the end.

With so many factors involved in global warming, its a very difficult problem to figure out how they all interact even though its somewhat possible to isolate how any one given factor operates in a lab setting. Its often possible to find wrong theories that fit limited data sets.

At this point in time, its a wee mite premature to draw any big conclusions from just one viewpoint. Global warming is still very ill understood and will be for the foreseeable future.

 

[Jaskalas]

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.

Holy ****. That's one way to screw up everything you've ever calculated.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.

Holy ****. That's one way to screw up everything you've ever calculated.

What do you mean? Are you saying the equations from the Hoover administration may not apply in todays world????

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
At this point in time, its a wee mite premature to draw any big conclusions from just one viewpoint. Global warming is still very ill understood and will be for the foreseeable future.

Then how would you account for Gore winning a NPP for promoting it as though it were set in stone?

Or the alarmist nature of most literature on the subject?

I've said all along that the only good that comes from any of this is the trend toward safer products and practices. Whether or not it was ever necessary becomes irrelevant when the eventual benefits are realized. The problem I have is with the alarmists, like Gore, who speak in terms of absolutes... they bug me.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Genx87
What do you mean? Are you saying the equations from the Hoover administration may not apply in todays world????

Depends on how many people still believe our atmosphere is "infinitely thick" and whether or not those kinds of calculations make for ?good? science.

 

[jjones]

Reto Ruedy of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says greenhouse theory is "200 year old science"

I agree. No one needs this newfangled nonsense. Global cooling is as real as it ever was... er, I mean global warming... um, climate change. Yeah, climate change is as real as it ever was.

Buy carbon credits. It's what Jesus would do.

 

[GoPackGo]

Surprised no one has called these guys shills for the oil companies yet.

 

[CycloWizard]

I find this a little hard to swallow. Any engineer worth his salt would recognize that a semi-infinite boundary condition is not appropriate in this case. Either the climatology community is full of inept morons, or there is something else going on here that is left out of the article. I'll have to see if I can access his article to get the full story, but I doubt it since it was published in a Hungarian journal. There are still multiple ways he could treat the boundary and the result would certainly depend on which form of conditions he chose.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I find this a little hard to swallow. Any engineer worth his salt would recognize that a semi-infinite boundary condition is not appropriate in this case. Either the climatology community is full of inept morons, or there is something else going on here that is left out of the article. I'll have to see if I can access his article to get the full story, but I doubt it since it was published in a Hungarian journal. There are still multiple ways he could treat the boundary and the result would certainly depend on which form of conditions he chose.

I have to agree. It's extremely unlikely that the number of scientists who looked over this data all overlooked the same faulty starting assumptions.

Offhand, I see that DailyTech did some original investigation and reporting in this article! Nice to see that offshoot of AnandTech growing up.

 

[Foxery]

Wow. He says the model works on Earth and Mars! But apparently he has never heard of Venus.

You want to know what happens when the atmosphere is mostly Carbon Dioxide and there are no trees around to breathe it? The surface temp on Venus is 800 degrees, that's what.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Foxery
Wow. He says the model works on Earth and Mars! But apparently he has never heard of Venus.

You want to know what happens when the atmosphere is mostly Carbon Dioxide and there are no trees around to breathe it? The surface temp on Venus is 800 degrees, that's what.

It's a wee bit more complicated than that. Venus' atmosphere is also ~100 times thicker than the Earth's and contains large amounts of sulfur dioxide.

edit: it should also be pointed out that Venus' atmosphere is 96.5% CO2 (and denser than liquid water at the surface) while the Earth's is 0.038% CO2.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Foxery
Wow. He says the model works on Earth and Mars! But apparently he has never heard of Venus.

You want to know what happens when the atmosphere is mostly Carbon Dioxide and there are no trees around to breathe it? The surface temp on Venus is 800 degrees, that's what.

Wow. If you had read the article, you would see that he specifically mentions Venus and the lack of data available for comparison with his model, yet he hopes it will become available soon so he can test his theory.

Not reading the OP aside, even if the theory doesn't work on Venus doesn't imply that it doesn't work on Earth. Assumptions made governing the mass transfer of various species in the atmosphere generally require a system that is "dilute" in the species of interest. This is obviously not the case for CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus, so I wouldn't be terribly surprised if his model broke down in this case. Of course, he's not worried about this because in-depth knowledge of the spatially-varying concentrations of the various species in Venus' atmosphere is unlikely to be available any time soon.

 

[Foxery]

Just making a point. All the math in the world doesn't reverse simple logic. No hippie required!

When you replace a tree with a car, you've added CO2 to the air and removed the natural "filter." Yes?

When you replace a greenhouse with a parking garage, you've added much more CO2 and removed many more filters. With me so far?

When the human population of an entire planet in 2008 drives 100s of millions of cars/trains/boats/lawnmowers and harvests entire forests for paper, what do you think is going to happen?

The OP says there's a "limit" - of course there is, but you'll stop being able to breathe long before that happens. Being in denial won't stop anything.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Foxery
Wow. He says the model works on Earth and Mars! But apparently he has never heard of Venus.

You want to know what happens when the atmosphere is mostly Carbon Dioxide and there are no trees around to breathe it? The surface temp on Venus is 800 degrees, that's what.

Your argument requires that correlation = causation and that just isn?t the case.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Foxery
Just making a point. All the math in the world doesn't reverse simple logic. No hippie required!

When you replace a tree with a car, you've added CO2 to the air and removed the natural "filter." Yes?

When you replace a greenhouse with a parking garage, you've added much more CO2 and removed many more filters. With me so far?

When the human population of an entire planet in 2008 drives 100s of millions of cars/trains/boats/lawnmowers and harvests entire forests for paper, what do you think is going to happen?

The OP says there's a "limit" - of course there is, but you'll stop being able to breathe long before that happens. Being in denial won't stop anything.

Too bad then that cars only make up ~15% of greenhouse emissions, while buildings/HVAC make up more than 50%. Yet you focus on cars... huh.

Tell ya what, why don't we leave the science to the scientists. And you go plant a tree.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I find this a little hard to swallow. Any engineer worth his salt would recognize that a semi-infinite boundary condition is not appropriate in this case. Either the climatology community is full of inept morons, or there is something else going on here that is left out of the article. I'll have to see if I can access his article to get the full story, but I doubt it since it was published in a Hungarian journal. There are still multiple ways he could treat the boundary and the result would certainly depend on which form of conditions he chose.

I'm glad I'm not the only person who thought that sounded a little strange. I mean, most of the responses were so generic that most of this thread could be a response to ANY article on the topic (which doesn't say anything good about the global warming debate), but this article seems a little strange.

Ignoring boundary conditions is the kind of mistake that freshman physics students make, I have a hard time believing that math that has been around for decades had such an obvious problem that nobody but this guy caught.

 

[Throckmorton]

Peer review?

 

[Foxery]

Originally posted by: Vic
Too bad then that cars only make up ~15% of greenhouse emissions, while buildings/HVAC make up more than 50%. Yet you focus on cars... huh.

Tell ya what, why don't we leave the science to the scientists. And you go plant a tree.

So your furthered my point, but somehow decided to turn it into an insult... huh.

Tell ya what, why don't we stop panicking over every new "study" which claims to contradict everyone who came before it. And I have added trees to my yard, but as a wind & noise barrier, not as a "zomg I am Captain Planet" delusion.

Take a deep breath. But not too deep, 'cause Al Gore says you'll kill us all!

Sheesh.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I find this a little hard to swallow. Any engineer worth his salt would recognize that a semi-infinite boundary condition is not appropriate in this case. Either the climatology community is full of inept morons, or there is something else going on here that is left out of the article. I'll have to see if I can access his article to get the full story, but I doubt it since it was published in a Hungarian journal. There are still multiple ways he could treat the boundary and the result would certainly depend on which form of conditions he chose.

Yes, but remember that the old equations are being used by the same folks that tried to lose the warming periods in the data and corrected correct data points. It promotes the moron model with an agenda.

Hop over to the Econ building and ask Dr. David Park what he thinks of Mann's statistical methods. Without knowing what he really thinks, I bet it is interesting. :evil:

/Dr. Park has THE hardest test on campus - essay Econometrics exams... My brain still hurts 25 years later.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Vic
Too bad then that cars only make up ~15% of greenhouse emissions, while buildings/HVAC make up more than 50%. Yet you focus on cars... huh.

Tell ya what, why don't we leave the science to the scientists. And you go plant a tree.

If you want to learn about CO2 emissions, look up how much the ocean releases as it warms up.