Archive for the ‘Miskolczi theory’ Category
Miskolczi interview
“Examiner.com: According your theory, the greenhouse effect is self-regulating and stabilizes itself in response to rising CO2 levels. You identified (perhaps discovered) a “greenhouse constant” that keeps the greenhouse effect in equilibrium. Is that a fair assessment of your theory?
Dr. Miskolczi: Yes. Our atmosphere, with its infinite degree of freedom, is able to maintain its global average infrared absorption at an optimal level. In technical terms, this “greenhouse constant” is the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere, and its theoretical value is 1.87. Despite the 30 per cent increase of CO2 in the last 61 years, this value has not changed. The atmosphere is not increasing its absorption power as was predicted by the IPCC.
Examiner.com: You used empirical data, rather than models, to arrive at your conclusion. How was that done?
Dr. Miskolczi: The computations are relatively simple. I collected a large number of radiosonde observations from around the globe and computed the global average infrared absorption. I performed these computations using observations from two large, publicly available datasets known as the TIGR2 and NOAA. The computations involved the processing of 300 radiosonde observations, using a state-of-the-art, line-by-line radiative transfer code. In both datasets, the global average infrared optical thickness turned out to be 1.87, agreeing with theoretical expectations.”
Read the whole interview, and Miskolczi’s letter to EPA, here: “Former NASA scientist defends theory refuting global warming doctrine“
Zagoni: EPA doesn’t understand Miskolczi theory
Miklos Zagoni: “The EPA itself made several errors in the attempt to understand Miskolczi’s work, and illustrates a number of incorrect arguments that have repeatedly been used in the attempt to discredit the Doctor’s work. We will address these misconceptions here as they are repeated time and again in a show of complete misunderstanding of Miskolczi’s law and constant.”
Read the rest here: “EPA ignores reality in scientific breakthrough – unable to disprove greenhouse effect in equilibrium“
Miskolczi’s theory is testable
As Miklos Zigoni notes (previous post), “During the 61-year period, in correspondence with the rise in CO2 concentration, the global average absolute humidity diminished about 1 per cent. This decrease in absolute humidity has exactly countered all of the warming effect that our CO2 emissions have had since 1948.” This is empirical evidence that Miskolczi’s theory is correct.
He further notes, “Similar computer simulations show that a hypothetical doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration in the air would cause a 3% decrease in the absolute humidity, keeping the total effective atmospheric greenhouse gas content constant, so that the greenhouse effect would merely continue to fluctuate around its equilibrium value.”
This prediction offers a simple further test of Miskolczi’s theory: if absolute humidity continues to decrease as atmospheric CO2 increases, keeping the greenhouse effect constant, that would be strong evidence for the correctness of the theory.
-
Miklos Zagoni: short summary of Miskolczi’s saturated greenhouse theory
“Here is the picture. The Earth’s atmosphere maintains a constant effective greenhouse-gas content and a constant, maximized, “saturated” greenhouse effect that cannot be increased further by CO2 emissions (or by any other emissions, for that matter). After calculating on the basis of the entire available annual global mean vertical profile of the NOAA/NCAR atmospheric reanalysis database, Miskolczi has found that the average greenhouse effect of the past 61 years (from 1948, the beginning of the archive, to 2008) is –
constant, not increasing;
equal to the unperturbed theoretical equilibrium value; and
equal (within 0.1 C°) to the global average value, drawn from the independent TIGR radiosonde archive.
During the 61-year period, in correspondence with the rise in CO2 concentration, the global average absolute humidity diminished about 1 per cent. This decrease in absolute humidity has exactly countered all of the warming effect that our CO2 emissions have had since 1948.
Similar computer simulations show that a hypothetical doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration in the air would cause a 3% decrease in the absolute humidity, keeping the total effective atmospheric greenhouse gas content constant, so that the greenhouse effect would merely continue to fluctuate around its equilibrium value. Therefore, a doubling of CO2 concentration would cause no net “global warming” at all.
Surface warming is possible only if the available energy increases. This may happen through changes in the activity of the Sun, or through variations of our planet’s orbital parameters, or through long-term fluctuations in the exchange of heat between the ocean and the atmosphere.
There are also some man-made sources. Air-pollution by aerosols (soot, black carbon, dust, smog etc.), and large-scale surface modifications according to urbanization and land-use change may—and probably do—alter the amount of absorbed and reflected shortwave energy, and can hence lead to change in the long-term energy balance.
These terms are all involved in the “available energy”. They can all modify the “effective temperature” of the Earth – i.e. the temperature of a planet with the Earth’s albedo (or reflectivity) at the Earth’s current distance from the Sun, without the presence of greenhouse gases in the air. The effective temperature is now 255 Kelvin, or –18 °C.
Miskolczi asserts that the surplus temperature from the greenhouse gases (about 33 C°, bringing global mean surface temperature up from –18 °C to 15 °C) is constant, maximized, and cannot be increased by our CO2 emissions, because it is the greenhouse effect’s theoretical equilibrium value.
It is possible that in the 21st century the effective temperature may change a little, just as it has changed in previous centuries. But the additional (greenhouse) temperature will be 33 C°, within a variation of about 0.1 C° of recent decades. Physically, it cannot increase (as the UN IPCC has predicted it will increase) to 35-38 C° to produce a 2-5 C° warming.
The conclusion is that, since the Earth’s temperature does not depend on our CO2 emissions in any way, trying to limit our emissions is bound to be entirely ineffective in protecting the climate from warming.” “CO2 CANNOT CAUSE ANY MORE “GLOBAL WARMING”“
-
Miskolczi’s empirical discovery
“Dr Miskolczi’s discovery arose from his regular work for NASA, examining the data measured by radiosonde balloons. Studied and analyzed under the microscope of the radiative transfer computer program that he had written, the large data set turned out to be a previously only partly tapped reservoir of a wealth of physical facts. From the reservoir of numerical data, Dr Miskolczi abstracted mathematical formulae that expressed new physical understanding. …
Miskolczi did not set out to make his discovery of the climatically saturated greenhouse effect, but it turned up as something that he accidentally noticed in the course of his regular work for NASA. In this respect his discovery is like the fundamental discovery made by Australian Garth Paltridge, who ‘accidentally’ noticed in his examination of climate data that the facts are described by a principle of maximum rate of entropy production. …
This kind of fortuitous observation of empirical fact is at the heart of many of the historical radical advances in natural science. It is a kind of ‘accident’ that happens only to the prepared mind. Like Professor Paltridge, Dr Miskolczi had a prepared mind. …
The overall effect is to keep a constant ratio of solar energetic driving to long term climate temperature. We might call this the climatic response ratio, but let us here refer to it just as ‘the ratio’. The ratio is independent of CO2 emissions, which therefore cannot increase the long term climate temperature. Only increased solar energetic driving can increase the long term climate temperature. Changes in solar energetic driving can be caused only by changes in the heat radiated from the sun and by changes in the earth’s distance from the sun. Other extraterrestrial solar system external drivers of the climate process can perturb it, but not alter the long term climate temperature. Such perturbations include many various and diverse mechanisms, such as increased admission of galactic cosmic rays …
Why is the climatic response ratio constant?
It is because water dominates the climate dynamics. …
The ratio is stable and constant because it is governed by the principle of maximum rate of entropy production, as determined by the presence of the watery ocean and the sun’s heat radiation. … Miskolczi has given us more detail about how this happens. …
The climate system has historically maintained the maximum dynamically stable amount of water vapour in the clear-sky troposphere. …
How does the climatic response ratio stay constant when there is CO2 emission into the atmosphere? By increased … rain, increased low cloud formation, and increased upper tropospheric production of dried air.
Addition of CO2 to the system simply displaces a small amount of water vapour without altering the total effective amount of greenhouse gas present in the clear-sky troposphere, so as to very closely nullify the temperature effect of the addition. …
Such cycles of convection of atmospheric gases are known to be universally typical of the kind of dynamic organization that develops under the governance of the principle of maximum entropy production. …
The above account is a mere qualitative sketch, but Dr Miskolczi’s work itself is a quantitative analysis of empirical measurements on the atmosphere.
Dr Miskolczi has thus shown us why at present a runaway greenhouse effect is physically impossible. …
Dr Miskolczi presented his studies of the climatically saturated greenhouse effect as an empirical analysis with theoretical consequences that he demonstrated, but his publications include also various loose analogies, and his studies need theoretical development.” “The Climatically Saturated Greenhouse Effect“
Miklos Zagoni explains Miskolczi’s theory
h/t Niche Modeling
Jennifer Marohasy on Ferenc Miskolczi
Jennifer Morohasy has written a very readable brief summary of Miskolczi’s atmospheric model. A few quotes below but you should go to her blog and read the whole thing:
“In essence Dr Miskolczi showed that the solution to a differential equation for the greenhouse effect developed in 1922 by Arthur Milne, and central to the current paradigm, wrongly assumed an infinitely thick atmosphere. In re-solving this equation a new term and also a new law of physics have been proposed setting an upper limit to the greenhouse effect. Dr Miskolczi’s theory indicates that any warming from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide will eventually be offset by a change in atmospheric moisture content. …
Meanwhile, another Hungarian physicist, Miklos Zagoni, has provided the following summary of the new controversial theory:
As it happens, these new relations supply a profound new understanding of the old, well-known set of energy balance conditions. Substituting them into the old equations, Miskolczi recognized that a new overall global energetic constraint applies to the atmosphere. …
That is to say, the Earth’s atmosphere dynamically keeps its greenhouse effect right at its critical value, regardless of our continuing CO2 emissions, regardless of any change in atmospheric CO2 concentration in the past ten thousand years. Miskolczi’s dynamic constraint keeps the greenhouse effect “climatically saturated”: emitting CO2 into the air cannot increase the normalized greenhouse factor g because any impact of human addition of CO2 is dynamically countered by about 1% decrease of the main greenhouse gas, water vapor (moisture) in the atmosphere. …
According to this [NOAA global average] database, the atmosphere’s moisture content during 61 years from 1948 to 2008 in global average decreased by about 1%. This amount was the climate process’s automatic dynamic response and was enough to counter the impact of any CO2 and methane increase. …
But, remarkably and surprisingly, these results say that the ratio of the surface temperature to the sum of the incoming energies is fixed at a critical value; the ratio cannot be altered by adding a greenhouse gas such as CO2. The climate temperature is fully sensitive to real changes in the external drivers [solar and albedo changes] that increase the energy input. But it is not at all sensitive to addition of greenhouse gases such as CO2 to the atmosphere.”
Miskolczi in New Zealand
“Dr. Miklos Zagoni, Hungarian physicist, reviewer of the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report Four is delivering a lecture in Mount Gambier on May 23 about how Greenhouse gases cannot cause climate change.
On 4th May, Dr Zagoni will appear in front of a Committee set up by the NZ Government to revise their emissions trading scheme.
“I am not sceptic at all”, he said, “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong. New developments in the physics of greenhouse effect and radiative transfer show that the accepted theory leads to largely exaggerated global warming projections”.
The new results were achieved and published in peer-reviewed periodicals by his fellow Hungarian physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, who has been [was] principal research scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center in the U.S. for years.
Dr. Zagoni says, “The new results of Dr. Miskolczi prove that the accepted theory contradicts fundamental physical principles. The Earth maintains a controlled greenhouse effect by strict energetic constraints. Runaway global warming seems physically impossible. We accept that the climate has warmed during the last centuries. What we challenge is the cause: our results show that it cannot be the increase of atmospheric GHG composition.”
“If we are right, extra CO2 cannot enhance the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Powerful energetic feedbacks drive it back to its equilibrium state. Fluctuations are possible in the stochastic system of the climate, and time-scales are to be thoroughly examined, but the average surface temperature is clearly limited by the global energy balance. Incoming energy of the sun, planetary albedo, water vapor cycle and the partial cloud cover may be the main players on the scene,” he said.
“According Dr. Miskolczi’s calculation on the NOAA 60-years global average database, during these decades the Earth’s greenhouse effect remained constant. The atmosphere equated the increase of CO2 with minor modifications in the hydrological cycle. Here are the data, here are the equations and the computations. Please come and falsify us. All are welcome.”
Dr. Zagoni’s website, with all the relevant publications and other information: http://miskolczi.webs.com.” “Climate challenge“
MEP sounds a lot like the Miskolczi model
”
As CO2 goes up and tends to increase troposphere temperature, MEP [Maximum Entropy Production] requires that meridional, latitudinal and convective movement must increase. This in turn increases cloudiness (both convective and orographic) and hence rainfall thereby increasing the net amount by which clouds reduce the radiative heating of the planet i.e. presently the -13 – -21 W/m^2 which we know acts against the ~4 W/m^2 predicted for a doubling of CO2.
I would also note that biotic processes are also subject to MEP. Rising CO2 increases continental plant biomass (already observed) and oceanic cyanobacterial primary productivity (earlier this year I posted the clear evidence for that for the Southern Ocean from NOAA’s own data on Jennifer Marohasy’s blog) simply due to CO2 fertilization which increases biogenic aerosol production rate which in turn increases both cloud nucleation rate and cloud-based opacity/albedo.
This aspect is the as-yet almost forgotten biotic sibling of abiotic MEP.
Thanks to both abiotic and (soon) biotic MEP we can expect a cloudier, rainier planet rather than a hotter one.
Atmospheric CO2 may go where it will but I suspect in due course its rate of increase will eventually slow. The same thing will happen to any oceanic pH decline as increased raininess increases continental weathering rates which increases the export of total alkalinity, Fe and Si into the ocean (which in turn tends to CO2-absorbing primary productivity, neutralize CO2-induced acidity and so on).
Given:
* the lack of the IPCC-predicted stratospheric heating;
* the observed reduction in tropical-polar temperature gradients (underestimated by GCMs);
* the known 30 year trends in continental potential evaporation (down), cloudiness, rainfall (both up), oceanic wind speeds (up) etc; and
* the confounding 20 year surface temperature record just before and since the 1998 El Nino (up then down),
I think we can reasonably expect to see a majority of top level climate researchers in the next few years cautiously promulgating a more moderate view of global climate CO2 sensitivity and a more optimistic view on climate homeostasis and so-called ocean acidification.” Email from Steve Short to Benny Peiser, CCNet 17 December.
The Miskolczi atmospheric model
The outrageous thing about the economic suicide of the West in the name of “fighting anthropogenic global warming” is that the whole greenhouse gas theory is based on an erroneous mathematical model.
The standard greenhouse gas model is based on the solution of Eddington’s differential equations (1916) describing radiation equilibrium in an infinite radiating and absorbing medium (derived by Eddington for the Sun). The standard model yields a temperature discontinuity at the Earth’s surface between the ground and atmosphere which does not exist. The real atmospheric temperature is in equilibrium with the ground temperature and the real atmosphere has finite height and and is semi-transparent to infrared.
Miskolczi solved the Eddington equations with the real boundary conditions (amazingly this had never been done before) and showed that the Earth’s surface temperature can only change with changes in insolation (incoming radiation from the Sun) or albedo (cloud cover, modulated by cosmic rays). “Runaway” greenhouse warming is impossible: an increase in CO2 leads to a decrease in water vapor and a restoration of equilibrium; the total greenhouse effect remains constant unless insolation or albedo changes.
Decreasing humidity does correlate inversely with increasing CO2. As long as the Earth has oceans it can’t have “runaway” greenhouse warming. A negative water vapor feedback mechanism, not a positive feedback as in the standard model, operates. The Sun, not CO2, drives climate change.
Miskolczi shows that warming due to a doubling of CO2 (which would be compensated by cooling due to a decrease in water vapor, leading to a zero net temperature change) would be only 0.24 degrees.
The best website to explore Miskolczi’s model is David Stockwell’s site (search for Miskolczi). You physicists out there need to read about it. Some references:
Miskolczi’s model discussed by Ken Gregory
“The paper,Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary Atmospheres by Ferenc M. Miskolczi shows that the current greenhouse effect equations are incomplete because they do not include the correct boundary conditions. The new theory presented in Miskolczi’s paper shows that the atmosphere maintains a “saturated” greenhouse effect, controlled by water vapor content. …
The new Miskolczi theory describes this missing greenhouse equilibrium mechanism. He shows that the classical theory does not include all the necessary energy constraints. When these constraints are included in a new theory, the strength of the GHE is determined analytically. The result shows that the Earth’s atmosphere is maintained at a nearly saturated greenhouse effect. Detailed calculation show that greenhouse sensitivity to a doubling CO2 is about 0.24 K. …
Therefore, Miskolczi concludes that almost all of the global warming of the last century must have been due to changes of the Sun or albedo. The Earth’s atmosphere, satisfying the energy minimum principle, is configured to the most effective cooling of the planet with an equilibrium global average vertical temperature and moisture profile.
… The current theory gives a large discontinuity between the surface temperature and the air temperature at the surface. This problem is corrected by ad hoc adjustments. The new Miskolczi theory assumes in its formulation that these temperatures are equal. …
The mystery of the missing hot spot is solved by the Miskolczi greenhouse effect theory and confirmed by the declining relative humidity, especially at the altitude of the predicted hot spot. The declining relative humidity reduces the temperature compared to the model projections so there is no hot spot. The GCM assumption of constant relative humidity is wrong and is yet another proof that the climate predictions of the IPCC are wrong. …
Miskolczi provides the detailed explanation of why the greenhouse effect is limited to its current value for a constant external Sun forcing. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere just replaces an equivalent amount of water vapour to maintain a constant greenhouse effect. This would have negligible effect on global temperatures.
The global warming the Earth has experienced over the twentieth century is mostly due to the Sun, including the Sun’s effects on clouds via cosmic rays. Increasing Sun activity adds to the greenhouse effect by increasing the specific humidity; increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere does not.” “The Saturated Greenhouse Effect“
The above is an update of this earlier post: “Miskolczi’s theory getting more attention“
Miskolczi’s model getting more attention
“[Miskolczi's] theory implies that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would reduce the relative humidity. So, has relative humidity been falling with increasing CO2 concentrations?
Here is a graph of global average annual relative humidity at various elevations in the atmosphere expressed in milli-bars (mb) from 300 mb to 700 mb for the period 1948 to 2007. The data is from the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory here.
… This graph shows that the GCM assumption of constant relative humidity is wrong and is yet another proof that the climate predictions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are wrong. …
The new Miskolczi theory of the greenhouse effect provides the detailed explanation of why the greenhouse effect is limited to its current value for a constant external Sun forcing. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere just replaces an equivalent amount of water vapour to maintain a constant greenhouse effect.
The global warming the Earth has experienced over the twentieth century is mostly due to the Sun, including the Sun’s effects on clouds via cosmic rays. Increasing Sun activity adds to the greenhouse effect by increasing the specific humidity; increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere does not.” ““Saturated greenhouse effect” wrecks climate models“
David Stockwell on comparison of Miskolczi’s model to other models
“Note that this simple model represents only the overall conservation of energy constraints on the system, and a number of other constraint and processes are in play (more discussed in the category Miskolczi above left). However, the central Kirchhoff law model is the only plausible solution with radiative balance throughout the whole atmosphere. However, this model suggests that all of the processes that contribute to the greenhouse effect are already contributing their maximum warming effect, as they cannot increase beyond the limits set by energy conservation. Miskolczi concludes that global warming must therefore be due to other mechanisms and not greenhouse gases.” “Models of greenhouse effect“
David Stockwell on Miskolczi’s model, part 4
David Stockwell on Miskolczi’s model, part 3
David Stockwell on Miskolczi’s model, part 2
David Stockwell on the Miskolczi model, part 1
“This means that in the long run the Earth has a saturated greenhouse effect with fixed optical depth, with profound consequences for global warming. As long as we have an atmosphere with a virtually infinite water reservoir, neither nature nor humans can influence the greenhouse effect [with solar input constant].” “Modeling Global Warming“
Douglass et al. 2007 supports the Miskolczi model
David Stockwell points out that the Douglass, Christy, Pearson and Singer paper, “A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions”, shows that the data support Miskolczi’s model. “Thus the most reasonable interpretation of these observations … is that the theory behind GCMs based in the infinitely-thick atmosphere is falsified, and stratospheric compensation based in [Miskolczi's] semi-transparent atmosphere theory is confirmed.” “Douglass et al. 2007 and atmospheric models“
The Miskolczi atmospheric model
The paper came out over a year ago and discussions of the paper sprung up a couple of months ago, but for those who missed it: “Researcher: Basic greenhouse equations “totally wrong”“
From this review by David Stockwell: “The problem with radiative models used until now is a discontinuity between the atmospheric and surface temperatures. This violates Kirchhoff’s law, that two bodies in thermal equilibrium must have equal temperatures, and is one of the reasons for mysterious unphysical behavior of climate models. Incorporating this simple constraint introduces an energy minimization principle that makes runaway greenhouse warming impossible. This corrects a major deficiency in the current theory, which doesn’t explain why “runaway” greenhouse warming hasn’t happened in the Earth’s past. I find the argument compelling that problems of instability of global climate models stem from inadequate constraints.”
Lubos’ take is here. Here is a slide presentation.