New study showedGreenhouse emissions equations totally wrong article.

There is some criticism, but the researcher claims his new method more accurately predicts and conforms to earth and mars' atmospheric observational evidence.

__________________
Talent develops in quiet places, character in the full current of human life.
- Goethe

Jump in with both feet!
- Me, indulging my inner eight-year-old

*** *** ***

"Are you a mad-hatter that just types what he wishes, or have you actually any physics training?"
Occam's Ghost to Grant Hutchison.

Really?! I've been hearing the opposite: that the reality has turned out worse than the models were predicting!

Which models have overestimated global warming?

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

No one report should be cherry-picked and taken as Scripture. Too many biases and vested interests on both sides, too much disagreement over what the data means, and even which data are valid..

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. - Fazor
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read." - Mitch Hedberg
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

From the article:His work is published and open for review. Following the link in the article, the paper was too technical for me to make heads or tails of it. From a lay point of view, it appears that it should be a concept that is relatively easy to support or dismiss by experts. I don't know where to go for any evaluations of his work if indeed any exist. It may be too soon.

If Miskolczi's opinion about NASA is correct, it illustrates the danger of leaving the decision making solely up to the scientific community, a point discussed in another thread here about global cooling.

Which decision making?

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Sorry for the ambiguity. In the other thread, it was proposed that funds related to the environment be allocated by scientists rather than by politicians. The accusation made in the article points out where a conflict of interest could exist.

Where have you seen that?

I asked first. Where has anyone seen the opposite?

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

The Earth’s climate is affected by the interactions of many non-linear systems which appear over time in many different combinations and permutations and are in turn affected by positive and negative feedback loops from the biosphere and atmospheric constituents as a function of altitude. Global warming assessment is necessarily focused on temperature variation. An important aspect of this is the separation of local effects over various amounts of time from long trending global effects. The heating rate and residual heat content of the land, sea, and various atmospheric levels and how they exchange heat among themselves and the periodicities of such exchanges require measurement and understanding. The corrective action recommendations provided to policy makers must be evaluated in terms of likely adverse effects, i.e., if the corrective action is within our capability and is implemented, could it initiate or accelerate the occurrence of a glaciation such as those that have been regularly occurring over the last few 100’s of millennia of the current ice age? The glaciation that occurred within the past 20,000 years would be much more difficult to survive with minimum impact to the current level of human population than a global warming that raised sea levels 200 feet.

If the voters are to support a vast program with their taxes from an informed position, we will need the scientists (some of whom can be quite political) to inform the political leaders what is at stake. The political leaders must have enough people skills to sort through the bafflegab coming from the various corners of special interests in the scientific community to chart a non-disasterous course. I am astonished that so little attention has been given to the veracity of the collected data (especially for CO2 and temperature) over the last 100 years and the assurance that biases from local effects have been duly evaluated and properly treated by the climate modelers.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

Why assume that "vast programs" are the solution? The cumulative actions of billions of individuals are the determining factor. Ultimately the short-term top-down bandaid solutions won't change much. Social, cultural and technological changes are needed--and are happening, slowly.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. - Fazor
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read." - Mitch Hedberg
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

I cant give you a proper cite, but I also did not make a claim. You did make a claim so I asked for a cite. Blowing me off is kinda rude.

Pretty much every IPCC report, for one. The latest IPCC report puts the CO2 forcing at around 3C per doubling of CO2. Observed warming is at most 1.5C per doubling of CO2 if you assume that all warming was solely from CO2 forcing, which it isn't. The missing heat is hypothetically being absorbed by the ocean, which is rather difficult to prove or disprove, or even bound with our relatively weak understanding of deep ocean temperatures and currents.

Anyway, I'm getting Deja Vu here.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

The quote in the OP includes one. I'd rather discuss the claims made or assumed in the OP, in this thread.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

The IPCC reports admit to having observed less temperature rise than their own models predict?! Give me some cites, please.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Isnt it a bit of a nitpick to worry about that one line in the article? The couple times I have seen that source they showed a pretty anti-GW bias. I wouldnt pay too much attention to a zinger like that.

I would be far more interested in knowing wether the basis for the article it true. Do nearly all climate models assume an infinite atmosphere? Even if they assume an exponential decay in pressure, going out to infinity may be wrong.

Of course, on the other hand, truncation may be incorrect also. I wonder how they treat the outer boundary?

A nitpick? It's the whole focus of the article!

And here's why I don't buy it:

It looks like the new study mentioned in the OP is "solving" a problem that does not exist.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

From the CO2 forcing value estimate of 3C from IPCC 4th report, simple math. CO2 rising from 280 to 382 ppm with a forcing of 3C:
Log2(382 ppm/280 ppm) * 3C = 1.35C. Have we observed a 1.35C warming since pre-industrial times? Nope.

The missing heat has always been explained as thermal inertia of the oceans. That is a fairly fundamental part of climate change science. What is less clear is exactly how much the oceans have warmed, which in turn limits the potential “missing” warming from CO2 forcing.

Anyway, I’m leaning towards the low end for CO2 forcing, somewhere between 0.5C and 1.5C (the IPCC report's lower end range was moved from 1.5C to 2C between the 3rd and 4th reports, so I'm no longer Mainstream I guess). That is still a bad thing, of course, and still requires action to eliminate CO2 emissions.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

If you say so.

I took another look at the (news) article. It claims that Mr. Zágoni's model makes for better predictions not only of Earth's global warming, but also of Mars' global warming. I have a problem with that, too. There is no evidence that Mars' situation is comparable to Earth's in any way. As a matter of fact, it's not even certain that Mars is experiencing any kind of global warming at all. And, since we know that human factors are preponderant in the recent warming of Earth, and such factors are absent on Mars, it stands to reason that the situations in the two planets must be significantly different.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire