Paper that shows the Earth's Optical Thickness in the IR has not changed

[blizzard1024]

Despite increases in CO2 and other GHGs the Earth's optical thickness in the IR remained stable between 1948-2008. The paper was published in 2010 hence that is why they stopped at 2008 I assume.

 

www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf

[FloridaJohn]

That doesn't appear to be peer-reviewed research. The paper comes from Energy & Environment journal, Volume 21, Number 4 from August 2010.

 

Energy & Environment says they are 'an interdisciplinary journal aimed at natural scientists, technologists and the international social science and policy communities covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use. A particular objective is to cover the social, economic and political dimensions of such issues at local, national and international level'

 

The issue this paper comes from is entitled "Paradigms In Climate Research" and the introduction to the issue says, in part that "Doubts about the mainstream “CO2-paradigm” arise because there is so little evidence from direct observations to support the framework"

 

On that evidence alone, I would rate this paper as "not science."

[blizzard1024]

That doesn't appear to be peer-reviewed research. The paper comes from Energy & Environment journal, Volume 21, Number 4 from August 2010.

 

Energy & Environment says they are 'an interdisciplinary journal aimed at natural scientists, technologists and the international social science and policy communities covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use. A particular objective is to cover the social, economic and political dimensions of such issues at local, national and international level'

 

The issue this paper comes from is entitled "Paradigms In Climate Research" and the introduction to the issue says, in part that "Doubts about the mainstream “CO2-paradigm” arise because there is so little evidence from direct observations to support the framework"

 

On that evidence alone, I would rate this paper as "not science."

I am not saying I believe anything in this paper. This is the only one I could find so far on what is lacking: observational evidence that the IR optical thickness is changed from increasing GHGs from earlier satellite records. I have seen papers that DO quantify a slight broadening of the "tails" of the 15 micron CO2 absorption band since the 1970s. But the observed overall IR optical thickness changes from satellite records from the late 1970s to now would be interesting. This would be a way to prove significant effects of AGW. Right now it is climate models, warming temperatures, sea ice glaciers etc of which the component of natural variability is unknown (unless one invokes models). Models are models. I like to see real world observations. If there are such papers out there, please share on this thread. thanks.

[skierinvermont]

I am not saying I believe anything in this paper. This is the only one I could find so far on what is lacking: observational evidence that the IR optical thickness is changed from increasing GHGs from earlier satellite records. I have seen papers that DO quantify a slight broadening of the "tails" of the 15 micron CO2 absorption band since the 1970s. But the observed overall IR optical thickness changes from satellite records from the late 1970s to now would be interesting. This would be a way to prove significant effects of AGW. Right now it is climate models, warming temperatures, sea ice glaciers etc of which the component of natural variability is unknown (unless one invokes models). Models are models. I like to see real world observations. If there are such papers out there, please share on this thread. thanks.

 

Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, and Chen 2007 provide direct satellite evidence of decreasing outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum.

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

https://www.eumetsat.int/cs/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v&allowInterrupt=1&noSaveAs=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased

 

Philipona et al 2004 and Evans 2006 provide direct measurements from the Alpine Surface Radiation Budget (ASRB) network showing an increase in downward longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum.

 

The former concludes:

 

The resulting uniform increase of longwave downward radiation manifests radiative forcing that is induced by greenhouse gas concentrations and water vapor feedback, and proves the "theory" of greenhouse warming with direct observations

 

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

[blizzard1024]

That doesn't appear to be peer-reviewed research. The paper comes from Energy & Environment journal, Volume 21, Number 4 from August 2010.

 

Energy & Environment says they are 'an interdisciplinary journal aimed at natural scientists, technologists and the international social science and policy communities covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use. A particular objective is to cover the social, economic and political dimensions of such issues at local, national and international level'

 

The issue this paper comes from is entitled "Paradigms In Climate Research" and the introduction to the issue says, in part that "Doubts about the mainstream “CO2-paradigm” arise because there is so little evidence from direct observations to support the framework"

 

On that evidence alone, I would rate this paper as "not science."

 

 

Here is a good blog that dives into the above paper which I believe was an honest attempt to determine the IR (long wave) optical

thickness changes in the past 60 years. The blog below brings up some issues but I have not had a chance to read it yet. see below.

 

http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/04/22/the-mystery-of-tau-miskolczi/#comment-10825

http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/04/22/the-mystery-of-tau-miskolczi/#comment-10825

[FloridaJohn]

Here is a good blog that dives into the above paper which I believe was an honest attempt to determine the IR (long wave) optical

thickness changes in the past 60 years. The blog below brings up some issues but I have not had a chance to read it yet. see below.

 

http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/04/22/the-mystery-of-tau-miskolczi/#comment-10825

 

My question is that why didn't the author of the 2010 paper (Miskolczi) run his paper through the scientific process? Why not submit his paper for peer review so that it has at least a minimum evaluation that the science is sound?

 

Having not poured over his paper in detail, I can't even be sure he isn't pulling some sort of mathematical or scientific sleight-of-hand to make his theory work out in his favor. At least with a peer review by several people knowledgible in the science, we can be assured that there isn't something basic being missed. With these non-peer-reviewed papers, I always think something like this might be going on:

 

a=b

 

a² = a*b

 

a² + a² = a² + a*b

 

2(a²) = a² + a*b

 

2(a²) - 2*a*b = a² +a*b - 2*a*b

 

2(a²) - 2*a*b = a² - a*b

 

2(a² -a*b ) = (a² - a*b )

 

2(a² - a*b)/(a² - a*b ) = (a² - a*b)/(a² - a*b )

 

2=1

 

Clearly, 2 does not equal 1, but there you have a bunch of formulas that show it to be true. Run that little "proof" by a mathematician, and he will quickly point out that (a² - a*b ) is actually equal to zero, so the last step actually calculates out to 0 = 0, not 2 = 1, but someone who is not familar with algebra may not make that connection right away.

 

This is the benefit of peer review. Without it, it is up to the reader to determine where (if any) mistakes have been made. Unfortunately, the reader usually doesn't have the background to make those sort of determinations. So the paper you linked to may be completely factual, or the author may have made a simple mistake like equating 2 = 1. If he feels confident in his science, he should submit it for evaluation.

[Cory]

If I'm going to go through the trouble of thoroughly researching a scientific subject, especially if my findings go against a main theory, I'm certainly not going to avoid rigorous peer review and have it published in a questionable journal. If I believe I really have something and that it will withstand scrutiny, I'm going to try to get it published in something a little more bulletproof. So, I avoid papers by authors who do such a thing...it's big red flag that it probably contains something you'd step in while walking through a pasture.