PrintMarch 10, 2008
Real science versus 'settled science'
Even a casual perusal of the paper by Miskolcki's discussed in James Lewis' article today gives a hint as to the overwhelming complexity of atmospheric science. While his purpose is to introduce more accuarcy into the calculations than the alarmists currently use, even he still needs to use simplifying assumptions. This completely undercuts the alarmists claim that the science is settled. It is a game of educated guessing. No one can accurately calculate a global heat balance over decades, not even Miskolcki.
Look on page 3 for his model's assumptions. Assumption (d) states "The surface heat capacity is equal to zero, the surface emissivity Eg is equal to one, and the surface radiates as a perfect blackbody."
That is not the real Earth. The Earth absorbs heat from the Sun (the heat capacity is not zero), the oceans reflect visible light (emissivity is not zero) and what is ever a "perfect" blackbody? Adding oceans and clouds into the mix raises the complexity well beyond current human comprehension.
