Global Warming Researcher says Equations “totally wrong”

clipped from www.dailytech.com New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals “runaway warming” impossible Mikls Zagoni 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 Ames Research Center. Zagoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. “Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations,” Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect

“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.”

“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.”

A modest request

clipped from agw-heretic.blogspot.com Is the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis falsifiable? I am asking this within the context of the scientific method. Integrity demands that a scientist, when proposing a hypothesis, list the conditions whereby the hypothesis would fall apart: We believe that this hypothesis sufficiently describes the reality we are studying, but if anybody can demonstrate any of conditions a, b, c, d or e, our hypothesis is fatally compromised and it’s back to the drawing board. So, AGW folks: can you name any condition (series of weather events, temperature trends, etc.) that would make you doubt the current orthodoxy, or are we witnessing the most bulletproof hypothesis ever?

Where have all the sunspots gone?

clipped from wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com The sun has gone quiet. Really quiet. It is normal for our sun to have quiet periods between solar cycles, but we’ve seen months and months of next to nothing, and the start of Solar cycle 24 seems to have materialized (as first reported here) then abruptly disappeared. The reverse polarity sunspot that signaled the start of cycle 24 on January 4th, dissolved within two days after that. But the real news is just how quiet the suns magnetic field has been in the past couple of years. From the data provided by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) you can see just how little magnetic field activity there has been. I’ve graphed it below: Some say it is no coincidence that 2008 has seen a drop in global temperature as indicated by several respected temperature indexes�compared to 2007, and that�our sun is also quiet and still not kick starting its internal magentic dynamo.

Past temperatures will get colder in the future

clipped from www.climateaudit.org clipped from ncwatch.typepad.com Jim Hansen, NASA scientist, has been on� the forefront of the global warming issue since he briefed Congress on the issue in 1988.� He is rewriting climate history by adjusting the US climate records from 1900 forward to more closely match the growth curve in CO2. The folks who recorded the temperatures across the nation since 1900 were just unaware that their readings were going to mess up his whole� global warming argument. They were just doing their job as weather observers, not concerned about the politics of their readings.� But, since the recordings they made for the last 100 years do not match the increase in CO2, Jim Hansen has decided to adjust these historic measurements to more closely parallel the increase in CO2.� After all, those early temperature recorders just did not know about the great danger of CO2 and global warming. So now NASA is adjusting the record of these thousands of dedicated weather observers to fit Jim Hansen’s religious preferences — global warming by CO2.�

They call themselves scientists, and they’re destroying evidence

clipped from www.mitosyfraudes.org A famous tree in the Maldives shows no evidence of having been swept away by rising sea levels, as would be predicted by the global warming swindlers. A group of Australian global-warming advocates came along and pulled the tree down, destroy-ing the evidence that their “theory” was false. They call themselves scientists, and they’re destroying evidence! A scientist should always be open for reinterpretation, but you can never destroy evidence. And they were being watched, thinking they were clever.

Morner says: Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting.And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gau-ges, you have to treat very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever.

Choose your favorite temperature trend

clipped from www.surfacestations.org Here is a well maintained and well sited USHCN station: Here is a not-so-well maintained or well sited USHCN station: This site in Marysville, CA has been around for about the same amount of time, but has been encroached upon by growth in a most serious way by micro-site effects.

Quality of temperature measurement

clipped from www.climateaudit.org the majority of stations that have a rating of 4 are MMTS/Nimbus equipped stations, which according to NCDC’s MMS equipment lists, make up 71% of the USHCN network. It appears that cable issues with the electronic sensors have forced them closer to buildings, roads, etc because NOAA COOP managers don’t often have the budget, time, or tools to trench under roads, sidewalks etc to reach the site where Stevenson Screens once stood. While this isn’t always the case, a pattern is emerging. Note that of the 33% surveyed, only 13% meet the CRN site criteria (Rating of 1 and 2)for an acceptable location to accurately measure long term climate change free of localized influences. clipped from www.climateaudit.org Climate Reference Network Rating Guide – Class 1 and 2 are considered best, 5 is the worst

Global Tropospheric Temperature 1979-2007

clipped from www.friendsofscience.org

Global Warming caused by a run away green house effect can only occur AFTER an increase in tropospheric temperatures. Which means the warm year of 2006 CAN NOT be due to Anthropogenic CO2.
Also, remember the spike in 1998, which is so crucial for Anthropogenic GW alarmists was due to an “error”. So they say.

The World needs to catch up with the US in cutting emissions

clipped from www.ocregister.com the Rev. Al Gore told the assembled faithful: “My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here.” Really? The American Thinker’s Web site ran the numbers. In the seven years between the signing of Kyoto in 1997 and 2004, here’s what happened: •Emissions worldwide increased 18.0 percent; •Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1 percent; •Emissions from nonsigners increased 10.0 percent; and •Emissions from the United States increased 6.6 percent.

Slackers. Why do they not care about the Planet Earth?

Antarctic Temperatures: 1958-2002

clipped from www.co2science.org Chapman, W.L. and Walsh, J.E. 2007. A synthesis of Antarctic temperatures. Journal of Climate 20: 4096-4117. Annual surface air temperature anomalies relative to the 1958-2002 mean for the region of the Southern Hemisphere extending from 60 to 90�S he data in the figure above clearly indicate a post-1958 warming of Antarctica and much of the surrounding Southern Ocean. From approximately 1970 to the end of the record, however, temperatures of the region simply fluctuated around an anomaly mean of about 0.12�C, neither warming nor cooling over the final 32 years of the record. This latter observation is truly amazing in light of the fact that the region of study includes the Antarctic Peninsula, which experienced phenomenal warming during this period. Nevertheless, the mean surface air temperature of the entire region changed not at all, over a period of time that saw the air’s CO2 concentration rise by approximately 47 ppm (about 15% of its 1970 value