Aug
14

Three Facts Most Man-made Global Warming Sceptics Don’t Seem to Understand

Written by Dr Jennifer Marohasy on 14 Aug 2014

A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to attend the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC9) in Las Vegas. If you ever doubted scepticism towards man-made global warming as a growing social movement, well, you couldn’t after attending that conference with hundreds of enthusiastic doubters in attendance and some 6,000 watching online. Kuhn

But I came away wondering about the culture that is developing around the movement, and whether it is truly one of enlightenment.

Most of us share enlightenment values. And skepticism is historically associated with the Enlightenment. But it should be skepticism of entrenched dogmas, not an automatic opposition to every new big idea. Indeed the enlightenment saw big ideas progress; ideas that once realized, dramatically improved the human condition.

Many sceptics apparently think that we have won the scientific argument, and that our next objective should be the dismantling of climate policies and climate research. But they are wrong. We have not won the scientific argument and we won’t, if we continue down the current path of suggesting that we can’t forecast weather or climate. This suggestion, that we can’t forecast, was often made at the conference and made again just last week by Jo Nova quoting Don Aitkin.

The history of science suggests that paradigms are never disproven, they are only ever replaced. Physicist and philosopher, the late Thomas S. Kuhn, also explained that competition within segments of the scientific community is the only historical process that ever actually results in the rejection of one previously accepted theory or in the adoption of another.

In short, if our movement really wants to see the overthrow of the man-made global warming paradigm, it needs to back alternatives and promote new research.

Assuming we are indeed a movement with a desire to contribute in a tangible way to climate science, and a movement looking for viable alternative paradigms, then we need a way of sorting through incommensurable perspectives, and also a way of ensuring that the most promising research is promoted.

Let me make these points in a bit more detail:

1. We have not won the scientific argument.

It was repeatedly suggested at the ICCC9 conference that those sceptical of man-made global warming have some how won the scientific argument. This is nonsense.

On my arrival back in Australia I was forwarded yet another letter from an Australian government official reiterating that: “The Australian Government accepts the science of climate change and takes its primary advice on climate change from the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO. This advice aligns with information provided by the IPCC and national and international organisations such as the Australian Academy of Science, World Meteorological Organisation, the Royal Society in the United Kingdom, and the National Academy of Sciences, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in the United States.”

The letter goes on to state that, “The world’s leading scientific organisations have found that the Earth’s climate is changing and that humans are primarily responsible…”

Not only do these esteemed organisations accept anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW), they also work actively with the mainstream media to crush, ridicule or quarantine any criticism of AGW.

If those sceptical of man-made global warming can be accused of denial, it is of this fact. We might be having some impact on the political process, even achieving repeal of the carbon tax in Australia, but the science of anthropogenic global warming remains as firmly entrenched as ever especially amongst the media, academics and legislators.

2. Rebuttals don’t overthrow established paradigms.

Anthropogenic global warming is a fully functional, well-funded scientific paradigm that is having a major impact on social and economic policy in every western democracy.

As I explained in session 13 at the conference: Scientific disciplines are always underpinned by theories that collectively define the dominant paradigm. In the case of modern climate science that paradigm is AGW. It defines the research questions asked, and dictates the methodology employed by the majority of climate scientists most of the time. AGW may be a paradigm with little practical utility and tremendous political value, but it’s a paradigm none-the-less. The world’s most powerful and influential leaders also endorse AGW.

In a lecture to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco in September 2003 Michael Crichton said: “The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.”

Scientists are meant to know the difference between fact and fiction and as a first check of the reliability of a source of information they will often ask if it has been “peer-reviewed”. Peer-review means that research findings are conducted and presented to a standard that other scientists working within that field consider acceptable. This is normally achieved through publication in a scientific journal and involves the editor of the journal asking for comment on the validity, significance and originality of the work from other scientists before publication. In short, the system of peer-review means scientific research is subject to independent scrutiny but it doesn’t guarantee the truth of the research finding.

In theory rebuttals play an equal or more important role than peer review in guaranteeing the integrity of science. By rebuttals I mean articles, also in peer-reviewed journals, that show by means of contrary evidence and argument, that an earlier claim was false. By pointing out flaws in scientific papers that have passed peer-review, rebuttals, at least theoretically, enable scientific research programs to self-correct. But in reality most rebuttals are totally ignored and so fashionable ideas often persist even when they have been disproven.

Consider, for example, a paper published in 2006 by marine biologist, Boris Worm, and coworkers, in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Science. The study was based on the meta-analysis of published fisheries data and predicted the collapse of the world’s fisheries by 2048. Publication of the article by Worm et al. was accompanied by a media release entitled “Accelerated loss of ocean species threatens human well-being” with the subtitle “Current trend projects collapse of all currently fished seafoods before 2050”.

Not surprisingly, given the importance of the finding, the article attracted widespread attention in the mainstream media and also within the scientific community. But not everyone agreed with the methodology used in the Worm study. Eleven rebuttals soon appeared, many within the same journal Science, and within months of the original article.

The rebuttals, however, scarcely altered the scientific perception of the original article.

In a comprehensive study of this, and six other high-profile original articles and their rebuttals, Jeannette Banobi, Trevor Branch and Ray Hilborn, found that at least in marine biology and fishery science rebuttals are for the most part ignored.

They found that original articles were cited on average 17 times more than rebuttals and that annual citation numbers were unaffected by rebuttals. On the occasions when rebuttals were cited, the citing papers on average had neutral views on the original article, and incredibly 8 percent actually believed that the rebuttal agreed with the original article.

Dr Banobi and coworkers commented that: “We had anticipated that as time passed, citations of the original articles would become more negative, and these articles would be less cited than other articles published in the same journal and year. In fact, support for the original articles remained undiminished over time and perhaps even increased, and we found no evidence of a decline in citations for any of the original articles following publication of the rebuttals…
“Thus the pattern we observed follows most closely the hypothesis of competing research programs espoused by Lakatos (1978): in practice, research programs producing and supporting the views in the original papers remained unswayed by the publication of rebuttals, thus significant changes in these ideas will tend to occur only if these research programs decay and dwindle over time while rival research programs (sponsored by the rebuttal authors) gain strength.”

Indeed it is the naive view that scientific communities learn from obvious mistakes. And as past failures become more entrenched it can only become increasingly difficult to distinguish truth from propaganda, including in the peer-reviewed literature.

3. Paradigms are never disproven: they are only ever replaced.

Since my return from the conference, it has been suggested to me that the ‘new paradigm’ for climate science is the one described in the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) reports, in particular the ‘null hypothesis paradigm’ that according to many skeptics, is far better at accounting for climate phenomena than are the General Circulation Models. I disagree.

The null hypothesis refers to the general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena. In the case of NIPCC the claim is that “nature not human activity rules the climate”. But this tells us almost nothing. In many ways it’s a cop-out. It’s like a theory of electricity without any explanation of charge, voltage or magnetism.

A good test of the value of any scientific theory to those external to the discipline is its utility. For example the calendars that were developed based on Nicolas Copernicus’ Heliocentric Theory of the Universe were better calendars than those based on Ptolemy’s Handy Tables. The new calendars, based on a new theoretical approach, more precisely predicted the position of the sun and the planets and thus the seasons, which, of course, influence the weather. In the same way, those who want to see AGW theory discarded need to increase their expectations of climate science and in particular demand some practical benefits. The most obvious would be better weather and climate forecasts.

Last year, aversion to a new theory attributing solar variability to gravitational and inertial effects on the sun from the planets and their satellites, not only resulted in the premature termination of a much-needed new journal (Pattern Recognition in Physics), but was also mocked by leading skeptical bloggers. More recently leading skeptical bloggers, Willis Eschenbach and Lubos Motl, were far too quick to attack a new notch-delay solar model that David Evans and Jo Nova developed in an attempt to quantify the difference between total solar irradiance and global temperatures and in the process forecast future climate.

In attempting to understand Dr Motl’s issues with Evans and Nova’s model, I was told that my work with John Abbot forecasting rainfall was also no better than “a sort of magic” because, like Evans and Nova, I was describing relationships “without a proper understanding of which variables are really driving things”. To the layman the few paragraphs of relevant jargon that Motl posted at his blog may have given the impression of some special knowledge, but in reality he was just repeating prejudices including the popular claim that climate is essentially chaotic.

Over the last few years my main focus of research has been on medium-term monthly rainfall forecasts. Not using General Circulation Models (GCMs) that attempt to simulate the climate from first principles, but rather using artificial neural networks (ANNs), which are a form of artificial intelligence and a state-of-the-art statistical modeling technique. John Abbot and I very quickly established that our method – which relies on mining historical climate data for patterns and then projecting forward – could produce a much more skillful medium term rainfall forecast than the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s best GCM.

Of course the use of statistical models for forecasting is not new, nor is pattern analysis. Many long-range weather forecasters and astrophysicists rely on lunar, solar and planetary cycles to forecast both weather and climate.

So, I was somewhat surprised to hear so many big names at the conference claim from the podium that it would never be possible to forecast weather more than a few days in advance, some going as far to suggest, like Lubos Motl, that climate is essentially a chaotic system.

Such claims are demonstrably false. Indeed that our ANNs (see Atmospheric Research 138, 166-178) can generate skillful monthly rainfall forecast up to three months in advance, is evidence that we are not dealing with a chaotic system.

Until skeptics start thinking about these issues and the need to back something, rather than perhaps always being too keen to knock the next big idea, we won’t truly make progress towards replacing the current dominant paradigm in climate science.

Read more by Dr Marohasy at jennifermarohasy.com

Pin it

Comments  

Al Shelton
#1 Al Shelton 2014-08-14 10:23
I agree, but the politicians only care about being re-elected.
Therefore they must be convinced that the voting public no longer believes the AGW political agenda, they will pull away from supporting it.
.... Maybe... We can at least hope....
Quote | Report to administrator
Greg House
#2 Greg House 2014-08-14 10:50
Jennifer, the problem with so called active "skeptics" is that most of them are in fact warmists and the rest are mostly morons who uncritically follow the first group. So you'd better not talk about "our movement".

To win the debate no scientific research is necessary. It is sufficient to look into how the IPCC "greenhouse effect" is supposed to work (in their reports) and quickly find out that it is physically impossible.

The problem is however how to communicate this finding.
Quote | Report to administrator
Joseph A Olson
#3 Joseph A Olson 2014-08-14 12:33
Transcript and video of the Dr Marohasy are embedded in the article and describes the use of Artificial Neural Networks to analyze data and improve rainfall forecasting. Her website has hosted PSI material in the past and she has stated skepticism of the back radiation warming hypothesis.

While at the Heartland, ICCC #9 site be sure to see "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout" by dr Patrick Moore and the Austrian rap artist Kilez More and his song "Klimawadel".
Quote | Report to administrator
solvingtornadoes
#4 solvingtornadoes 2014-08-14 23:57
Marohasy: "Scientific disciplines are always underpinned by theories that collectively define the dominant paradigm. In the case of modern climate science that paradigm is AGW."

Am I the only one that noticed this little rhetorical trick here? She mentions theory here. And then fails to tell us what that theory is. In fact, these two sentences are a non-sequitor.

She then goes on to tell us that us skeptics are losing the scientific war to . . . to . . . to what? To a scientific theory? No. She's telling us that us skeptics are losing the scientific war to a consensus/paradigm.

Isn't this exactly the same message as that of Al Gore and/or any other AGW alarmist?

I think you all should have read her words carefully before you welcomed her with open arms. What we have here with Dr Marohasy is a alarmist in sheep's clothing.
Quote | Report to administrator
Squid2112
#5 Squid2112 2014-08-15 14:07
Gregg, I agree. I am saddened by the fact that so many self-proclaimed "skeptics" refuse to acknowledge that the "greenhouse effect" is not possible in this universe. They indeed truly are warmists.

And for Jennifer, I take great offense at the notion of a "movement". I am part of NO "movement", nor will I be a part of ANY "movement". This is about FACTS and TRUTH, period! ... There is NO "greenhouse effect", therefore, there CANNOT be any "man made global warming" via such a magical vehicle.
Quote | Report to administrator
Mervyn
#6 Mervyn 2014-08-17 03:58
Just before I read this article, I happened to come across another article by Dr Roy Spencer at the following link:

sppiblog.org/news/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water#more-11445

I am no scientist. But with state of science being what it is today, and with corruption being perpetrated even by once reputable organisations like NASA and NOAA regarding past temperatures, I would imagine few would know what to believe anymore.

One thing I do know is that carbon dioxide is not a meteorological parameter, and the evidence from ice core sample tests would indicate carbon dioxide does not drive atmospheric temperature.
Quote | Report to administrator
Mervyn
#7 Mervyn 2014-08-17 04:06
On another note, I am firmly of the belief that scientists will not debunk the supposition of catastrophic man-made global warming... Mother Nature will.

Albert Einstein was right when he said "We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us."

In other words, humans will never be able to second guess what the climate is going to do.
Quote | Report to administrator
Shane
#8 Shane 2014-08-17 14:38
Thanks for finally talking about >Three Facts Most Man-made Global Warming Sceptics Don’t Seem to Understand
Quote | Report to administrator
David Appell
#9 David Appell 2014-08-18 15:08
Quoting Squid2112:
Gregg, I agree. I am saddened by the fact that so many self-proclaimed "skeptics" refuse to acknowledge that the "greenhouse effect" is not possible in this universe.


If indeed you really want to participate in the scientific debate, the very first thing you'll have to do is stop saying ridiculous things like this. It makes everyone else dismiss you immediately.
Quote | Report to administrator
Thelma
#10 Thelma 2014-08-19 00:01
I’m not that much of a internet reader to be honest but your blogs really nice, keep it
up! I'll go ahead and bokmark your site to come back down the road.
Cheers
Quote | Report to administrator
slktac
#11 slktac 2014-08-19 10:12
Skeptics remind me of reptile owners (I'm not calling you snakes, so unrile yourselves!). Reptile owners tend to be very independent. Every group I have been in fell apart because said individuals are not all that social. Skeptics can be the same way. They have their own agendas, egos and ways of viewing the world. They don't play well together.

Perhaps what is needed is not just the education of the public on the problems with the theory, but rather a much bigger push for a politcal movement that stresses adaptation and appropriate answers to how to deal with any sea level rise, warming, etc without the hysteria of "we're all going to die and it's your fault". Right now, the message is dark and hopeless. Maybe a message about improving conditions in third world countries, demonstatrations of better built homes in hurrican zones, etc. When the warmists scream "NO! We can't adapt!" they can be called doomsayers and accused of trying to depress the world into dying (like the stupid green buttons say). The movement can hold public "We've adapted!" celebrations and put people to work on adapting more. If this is politics, we have start behaving like politicians. While I am no fan of Monckton, he does behave like a politician. Sadly, he mixes in science, as does Gore and confuses people with the mix. We need to get people who are not pushing the science to push the politics, since the two don't mix. There must be likeable persons out there who can convince people to ignore the doomsayers and move onto to the sunlight, so to speak. The politics of success, not failure, light, not darkness.
Quote | Report to administrator
Alan McIntire
#12 Alan McIntire 2014-08-19 10:52
Some posters don't belive the 'greenhouse effect' is physically possible. Of COURSE it's possible. Step outside on a clear winter night and compare the temperatue to an overcast winter night. You've got the effect in spades in that case. Of course the effect is much smaller with CO2 than water in all its phases, but the effect is not zero.
Quote | Report to administrator
Greg House
#13 Greg House 2014-08-19 11:17
Quoting Alan McIntire:
Of COURSE it's possible. Step outside ...


As I said in my #2 "It is sufficient to look into how the IPCC "greenhouse effect" is supposed to work (in their reports) and quickly find out that it is physically impossible."

The IPCC "greenhouse effect" as described in the IPCC reports is supposed to work like that: the so called "greenhouse gases" intercept the IR radiation from the earth surface and send it DOUBLED(!) back, thus causing "warming". I guess any sane person understands that that is not possible.

Instead of "stepping outside" you just need to read the IPCC reports to find out, what sort of scientific crap their "greenhouse effect" is.

The problem is that too many people rely upon what fake skeptics spread on fake skeptics blogs instead of reading the main source of climate scam: the IPCC reports, just the sections where they "explain" their "greenhouse effect".
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#14 Pat Obar 2014-08-19 13:48
Quoting Alan McIntire:
Some posters don't belive the 'greenhouse effect' is physically possible. Of COURSE it's possible. Step outside on a clear winter night and compare the temperatue to an overcast winter night. You've got the effect in spades in that case. Of course the effect is much smaller with CO2 than water in all its phases, but the effect is not zero.


You miss the whole point You claim that cloud cover demonstrated the correctness of the IPCC
version of "Greenhouse effect" The intentional lie is not is not that CO2 may do something, but that the Climastrologists know what CO2 may do. From reading the technical documentation all they have statistical machinations of bad data that show nothing and now falsified computer models. They have no clue as to what this atmosphere may reveal, and no clue as to what measurments are needed for such relevation.
The do no science whatsoever, and after 30 years, and 120 billion they have learned only
how to adjust the already bad data, to support their intentional fraud for profit and political gain.
Quote | Report to administrator
Plchampness
#15 Plchampness 2014-08-19 22:27
quoting Alan McIntyre:Quote:
Some posters don't belive the 'greenhouse effect' is physically possible. Of COURSE it's possible. Step outside on a clear winter night and compare the temperatue to an overcast winter night.
If the Greenhouse effect includes clouds I partly agree with you. However Clouds Are Not Gas. Water doplets can absorb and emit IR. That is different from A Greenhouse Gas Effect.
Quote | Report to administrator
John Marshall
#16 John Marshall 2014-08-20 07:39
If the GHE was possible then double glazing units would be filled with CO2 not nitrogen.

The warmer cloudy nights are due to latent heat from the cloud formation (a lot) and the clouds preventing weak convection of heat from the surface. but this has nothing to do with the various definitions of the GHE.
Quote | Report to administrator
John Marshall
#17 John Marshall 2014-08-20 07:45
Quoting David Appell:
Quoting Squid2112:
Gregg, I agree. I am saddened by the fact that so many self-proclaimed "skeptics" refuse to acknowledge that the "greenhouse effect" is not possible in this universe.


If indeed you really want to participate in the scientific debate, the very first thing you'll have to do is stop saying ridiculous things like this. It makes everyone else dismiss you immediately.


Really? talk about a closed mind. Just look at ALL the science. Climatologists do not even admit that entropy is real.All their energy exchanges are 100%efficient, impossible there are always losses in entropy as it must increase (2nd Law). I think Max Planck had a few words to say about it as well.
Quote | Report to administrator
solvingtornadoes
#18 solvingtornadoes 2014-08-20 12:06
Quoting Squid2112:
Gregg, I agree. I am saddened by the fact that so many self-proclaimed "skeptics" refuse to acknowledge that the "greenhouse effect" is not possible in this universe.


Squid, I am saddened by the fact that so many scientific pretenders would have us believe that what happens in a greenhouse has anything whatsoever to do with what happens in the atmosphere.
Quote | Report to administrator
Greg House
#19 Greg House 2014-08-20 12:50
Quoting solvingtornadoes:
Squid, I am saddened by the fact that so many scientific pretenders would have us believe that what happens in a greenhouse has anything whatsoever to do with what happens in the atmosphere.


Neither what happens in a greenhouse nor what happens in the atmosphere is not the IPCC "greenhouse effect", since the IPCC "greenhouse effect" is physically impossible. Get it?

I am saddened by the fact that so many fake skeptics have been working hard to distract people from that simple fact.
Quote | Report to administrator
solvingtornadoes
#20 solvingtornadoes 2014-08-20 16:45
Greg, I'm saddened by the fact that you think that very many on either side of the issue really care that much what IPCC says/believes.
Quote | Report to administrator
Greg House
#21 Greg House 2014-08-20 17:22
Quoting solvingtornadoes:
Greg, I'm saddened by the fact that you think that very many on either side of the issue really care that much what IPCC says/believes.


I'm saddened by the fact that fake skeptics maintain that it does not matter how the IPCC describes "greenhouse effect", although they know very well that governments base their climate policies on the IPCC reports, not on what fake skeptics say.
Quote | Report to administrator
solvingtornadoes
#22 solvingtornadoes 2014-08-21 00:10
Greg, I'm saddened by the fact that you believe governments base their policies on a singular entity/authority or that very many among the populace cares or even bothers to find out what their government bases their climate policies on.


very many on either side of the issue really care that much what IPCC says/believes.
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#23 Pat Obar 2014-08-21 06:32
I am so glad and gleefull that so many here are
saddened by whatever!
Quote | Report to administrator
Greg House
#24 Greg House 2014-08-21 08:39
Quoting solvingtornadoes:
Greg, I'm saddened by the fact that you believe governments base their policies on a singular entity/authority


Right, they base their policies on what solvingtomatoes and other fake skeptics say. :-*
Quote | Report to administrator
Alan McIntire
#25 Alan McIntire 2014-08-21 12:50
"The IPCC "greenhouse effect" as described in the IPCC reports is supposed to work like that: the so called "greenhouse gases" intercept the IR radiation from the earth surface and send it DOUBLED(!)"
Not quite. It sends HALF of what it intercepts back. The other half is radiated away from earth's surface.
Quote | Report to administrator
Greg House
#26 Greg House 2014-08-21 12:56
Quoting Alan McIntire:
"The IPCC "greenhouse effect" as described in the IPCC reports is supposed to work like that: the so called "greenhouse gases" intercept the IR radiation from the earth surface and send it DOUBLED(!)"
Not quite.

Again, in the IPCC description the so called "greenhouse gases" intercept the IR radiation from the earth surface and send it DOUBLED(!) back, thus causing "warming". (www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1-figure-1.html)

It is clear that this is impossible.
Quote | Report to administrator
slktac
#27 slktac 2014-08-21 13:35
This is a quote from an online class taught by MIT:

"So this is a remarkable fact that we've emphasized before in this course that on average the surface gets more radiation from the atmosphere, that is from greenouse gases, and from clouds, than it get directly from the sun. By almost a factor of 2."

I was very, very skeptical of the claim. Still am. Don't know if the IPCC also says this, but the factor of 2 is part of the theory being taught.
Quote | Report to administrator
solvingtornadoes
#28 solvingtornadoes 2014-08-21 15:35
Quoting Greg House:
Right, they base their policies on what solvingtomatoes and other fake skeptics say. :-*


They base their policies on what will keep them employed (elected, re-elected).
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#29 Pat Obar 2014-08-21 19:06
Quoting slktac:
This is a quote from an online class taught by MIT:

"So this is a remarkable fact that we've emphasized before in this course that on average the surface gets more radiation from the atmosphere, that is from greenouse gases, and from clouds, than it get directly from the sun. By almost a factor of 2."

I was very, very skeptical of the claim. Still am. Don't know if the IPCC also says this, but the factor of 2 is part of the theory being taught.


This is obviously a course in political science not any of the physical sciences, that have falsified such claims. The intentional confusion promoted by ClimAstrologists is they fail to define "radiation" and try to make it synonymous with "radiance". The two are entirely different concepts.
Quote | Report to administrator
slktac
#30 slktac 2014-08-21 19:31
Quoting Pat Obar:
Quoting slktac:
This is a quote from an online class taught by MIT:

"So this is a remarkable fact that we've emphasized before in this course that on average the surface gets more radiation from the atmosphere, that is from greenouse gases, and from clouds, than it get directly from the sun. By almost a factor of 2."

I was very, very skeptical of the claim. Still am. Don't know if the IPCC also says this, but the factor of 2 is part of the theory being taught.


This is obviously a course in political science not any of the physical sciences, that have falsified such claims. The intentional confusion promoted by ClimAstrologists is they fail to define "radiation" and try to make it synonymous with "radiance". The two are entirely different concepts.


Actually, no. It was a calculus based course that was stated to be based only on science and avoid politics. That was one of the draws to the class—I wanted to learn the science. Unfortunately, not all seemed to be true science.
Quote | Report to administrator
Alan McIntire
#31 Alan McIntire 2014-08-22 10:49
Looking at Trenberth's figures, we'd get 342 watts per square meter from the sun on average, except for reflection from coulds, etc. The earth's surface receives on average about 500 watts, so the actual magnification is about 500/342 = about 1.5 considering these are ballpark figures. In getting that 2* figures, the modelers are comparing an earth without an atmosphere but WITH clouds give a 30% albedo or so, to our current earth.
Quote | Report to administrator
slktac
#32 slktac 2014-08-22 11:15
Trenbreth's budget says 342 watts per square meter from the sun, of which only 161 makes it to the surface. The atmosphere reflects/returns 333 watts per square meter. This is where the statement "twice as much" comes from (333 versus 161). There are 102 watts per sqaure meter reflected back into space and 78 watts per square meter absorbed by the atmosphere. I cannot find anywhere in the budget where it removes the atmosphere from the picture—especially since 78 watts/m2 is absorbed by the atmosphere in the budget.

This is the link to the paper whose budget I am using: journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1

I don't know if there is a further revision or not.
Quote | Report to administrator
#33 Guest 2014-08-28 23:50
This comment has been deleted by Administrator

Add comment

PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link.
Most recent comments first.


Security code
Refresh