23 April - Keeping Global Warming Within Limits
Tuesday, April 24, 2012 3:48:39 AM
A. LACIS:
Why on Earth would anybody want to calculate all of
atmospheric absorption in the form of a useless “greenhouse
gas optical thickness” parameter ?
D. HAGEN:
One foundational reason is to uphold the very integrity of
science against authoritarianism.
A second foundational reason is to provide an independent
check on the validity of predictions of Catastrophic
Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) compared to natural
causes for climate change.
We the People are now being asked for $65 trillion for “climate
mitigation”. Many of scientists, engineers and concerned
citizens are asking for “a second opinion” and for exhaustive
“kicking the tires” tests.
Ferenc Miskolczi’s Saturated Greenhouse Effect Theory: C02 Cannot Cause Any More “Global Warming”
The Earth’s atmosphere differs in essence from that of Venus and Mars. Our atmosphere is not totally cloud-covered, as is Venus: globally, about 40% of the sky is always clear. Also we have huge ocean surfaces that serve as a practically unlimited reservoir of water vapor for the air.
With the help of these two conditions, the Earth’s atmosphere attains what the other two planets cannot: a constant, maximized, saturated greenhouse effect, so that adding more greenhouse gases to the mix will not increase the magnitude of the greenhouse effect and, therefore, will not cause any further “global warming”.
This assertion is not a result of desk speculations. Nor is it a special hypothesis based on assumptions of limited application. It is the outcome of detailed spectral radiative-transfer analysis of huge archives of atmospheric data from NASA and elsewhere.
The project started about 25 years ago, when Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, a Hungarian physicist, began to write a high-resolution atmospheric radiative transfer code — a special computer program that is necessary if we want to calculate the atmosphere’s infrared radiative processes precisely.
Understanding the downwelling and upwelling long-wave fluxes in the atmosphere is essential if we are to compute the Earth’s global energy balance and its greenhouse effect accurately.
Miskolczi used his program in remote-sensing satellite projects such as the Japanese ADEOS2 and NASA’s CERES. In the meantime, Jeffrey Kiehl and Kevin Trenberth released their global mean energy budget in 1997. They based their energy distribution on the U.S. Standard Atmosphere of 1976, and used several estimations and approximations.
Miskolczi decided to check their work by using his computer code on the best available observed global atmospheric database. He chose the TIGR global radiosonde archive of the Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, Paris.
First, Miskolczi discovered that the proportion of the surface upward longwave radiation that is absorbed by the atmosphere is equal to the downward longwave atmospheric radiation. This relation (within the usual error margins) was there in the Kiehl-Trenberth 1997 distribution implicitly. However, Miskolczi stated it exactly and explicitly.
Secondly, Miskolczi found that the global mean upward longwave radiation of the atmosphere is half of the surface upward longwave radiation. Again, this correlation had been known and taken into account implicitly earlier, but Miskolczi proved it with a higher accuracy, and wrote it down as a new balance condition.
Thirdly, on the TIGR database, using his program, he was able to derive (probably for the first time in the climate literature) the global mean infrared optical depth of the Earth’s atmosphere — the exact radiative-transfer measure of the greenhouse effect.
In 2007, Miskolczi published another—more theoretical—article in QJHMS. He realized that his new, explicit flux relations, added to the well-known set of global energy balance conditions, led to a system of solvable equations describing an equilibrium greenhouse effect – equations that could be tested against the measurements. Miskolczi found that the solution of the theoretical unperturbed equilibrium greenhouse equations is equal (within less then 0.1 per cent) to the real observed greenhouse effect shown in the TIGR database.
In the 2007 paper, he also made an important theoretical step forward. He realized that Eddington’s long-standing solution of the Schwarzschild-Milne radiative transfer equation contained an approximation that applies only to an infinite atmosphere, but was invalid in the finite atmosphere of the Earth. Miskolczi solved the equation with real boundary conditions. It was this exact, analytical solution that allowed him to calculate the global average infrared optical depth of the Earth’s atmosphere correctly.
The theoretical explanation of Miskolczi’s set of equations was clear. There are two opposite forces determining radiative processes. The Earth is a hot stove in a cold room, heated by the sun. It must cool as effectively as it can: it has to reach its minimum energy state in accordance with the principle of least time. The most effective cooling is perspiration – releasing heat by evaporation, in the form of latent heat.
THE STABLE STATIONARY VALUE OF THE EARTH'S
GLOBAL AVERAGE ATMOSPHERIC PLANCK-WEIGHTED
GREENHOUSE-GAS OPTICAL THICKNESS
In the 1948-2008 time period the global average annual mean true greenhouse-gas optical thickness is found to be time-stationary. Simulated radiative no-feedback effects of measured actual CO2 change over the 61 years were calculated and found to be of magnitude easily detectable by the empirical data and analytical methods used. The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements. Apparently major revision of the physics underlying the greenhouse effect is needed.
Wiki: The new climate theory of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi
The greenhouse effect in a semi-transparent atmosphere with radiation equilibrium at the surface. On the basis of hundreds of measurements of real atmospheric profiles of temperature and humidity, in different seasons en on different latitudes.
Establishing the right theoretical basis for the relationship between greenhouse gas increase and climate change is so important, that we cannot allow ourselves to evade discussion about its physical foundation.
stas peterson
The atmosphere is a gravitationally bound atmosphere that varies in pressure from the surface to the edge of space. Therefore, It can and does support a convection mechanism, and can use convection to move Energy about.
The atmosphere is connected to an effective infinite source of H2O at one end, and the effective infinite Vacuum at the other end.
These were all neglected in the “’simplification” from 1928. I know what kind of atmosphere that the simplification described, but it obviously does not describe the reality of Earth and its atmosphere. It may describe a gaseous stellar atmosphere that only gets progressively denser as you descend ot the core of the Star. That is ridiculous to use as a model for a planetary atmosphere like the Earth. How did Science ever accept it as the basis for an atmospheric radiation theory?
No matter how hard I look, I just can't find the chunk of Outer Space between my shoe-tops and the soles of my feet on Terra Firma. Yet Milne say it MUST be there to isolate the atmosphere from a essentially ocean of powerful GHGs. It is patently absurd to say that the Temperature differential between the surface of the Earth and an infinitesimal distance above it, is not zero.
How could that be even marginally correct?
Jan Pompe
The whole flawed theory currently incumbent supposes that heat systems which naturally want to cool can itself do the work that opposes its natural inclination and reduce the cooling rate.














Dr. John v. Kampennepmak2000 # Tuesday, April 24, 2012 6:29:16 PM
So why make a point of CO2 that hardly is measurable after all, whereas we swim in a sea of water vapor all around and in us...?
Dizzydolphin21 # Tuesday, April 24, 2012 6:52:30 PM
If there were a lot of CO2 the plants must respond rapid growth, is not it? Or am I mistaken?
Johnoldephartte # Tuesday, April 24, 2012 7:36:30 PM
Men are not trying to combat natural cycles so much as flog a tax regime on energy use by way of whipping up fear of co2 increase. That such is presented as a result of human activity might be more honest if it was related to monoculture 'agriculture' and loss of forest. Not only are mature forests/ecosystems ravaged but we have insanity such as cold climate GM eucalyptus being planted in the U.S. : a manmade invasive species associated with toxic forest litter culturing deadly moulds and poisoning competition.
Dr. John v. Kampennepmak2000 # Wednesday, April 25, 2012 8:55:43 PM
It addresses also the GM matter, be it as a sideline.
Johnoldephartte # Saturday, May 5, 2012 3:22:19 PM
Dr. John v. Kampennepmak2000 # Sunday, May 6, 2012 6:05:22 PM