Why the sun is so important to climate

Posted: January 4, 2010 by Rog Tallbloke in climate
Tags: , , , ,

Why do we spend our time working on obscure stuff about the way the planets and sun bob about in space? Because changes in solar output are the primary driver of climate change on Earth not changes in the atmosphere. This shown by Miscolczi’s theory which is that the ocean/atmosphere is a self regulating system which maintains an equilibriated and saturated ‘greenhouse effect’. His calculations are backed up by empirical radiosonde data. Some people don’t want you to know that. This letter from Dr Miklos  Zagoni in Budapest (one of my favourite cities) gives a clue as to what is now afoot:

Why Dr Ferenc Miskolczi and Dr Miklos Zagoni have been put under pressure to be silent about Miskolczi`s research concerning the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect.

In 2004 Dr Ferenc Miskolczi published a paper ’The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial radiation’, in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service (Vol. 108, No. 4, October–December 2004, pp. 209–251.).

The co-author of the article was his boss at NASA (Martin Mlynczak). Mlynczak put his name to the paper but did no work on it. He thought that it was an important paper, but only in a technical way.

When Miskolczi later informed the group at NASA there that he had more important results, they finally understood the whole story, and tried to withhold Miskolczi’s further material from publication. His boss for example, sat at Ferenc’s computer, logged in with Ferenc`s password, and canceled a recently submitted paper from a high-reputation journal as if Ferenc had withdrawn it himself. That was the reason that Ferenc finally resigned from his ($US 90.000 /year) job.

I want to make it clear: NASA never falsified or even tried to falsify Ferenc`s results, on the contrary, they fully understand it. They know that it is correct and see how important it is.

To make sense of their actions, they probably see a national security issue in it. Perhaps they think that AGW is the only way to stop, or to slow, the coal-based growth of China.

In my circumstance where I have been dismissed from my Government paid position in Hungary, I think the information vacuum (in Hungary), has the same type of origin.

I believe someone is in the background trying to convince the establishment (media, science, politics) that Miskolczi’s results are against our national security interests.

First, they tried to frighten me, and then when that did not work, they kicked me out from my job. So now I am turning to the wider internet to publicise Miskolczi`s work, as I know that his results are valid and true. There is no way and no need to hold them back for the world to understand them.

Tomorrow, for the first time in my life, I am jobless.

Budapest, 31 Dec, 2009

Dr Miklos Zagoni

I hope everyone joins me in wishing Ferenc and Miklos well for the future.

Zagoni summarizes Miscolczi’s theory here:

As you might imagine, the response in the literature to the theory has been deafening silence…

  1. tallbloke says:

    I’m pleased to see the Hungarian Meterological service isn’t using a paywall. Ference Miscolczi’s 2004 paper is here:
    and his 2007 paper is here:

    These are heavily technical papers, so I recommend less mathematically minded readers also take a look at the summary by Dr Zagoni here:

    There are a few discussions of the 2007 paper on the net. One I have found is here:

    Another debate took place on WUWT:

    And of course realklimat has nothing positive to say:

  2. alf says:

    I have always wondered why if water vapor is the main greenhouse gas; then why does more heat not result in more water vapor resulting in more heat resulting in more water vapor etc. [talk about a positive feedback loop]
    So what keeps this from happening.

  3. tallbloke says:

    Hi Alf. As I understand it, Miscolczi is saying the atmosphere maintains a balance with the energy flow so that the hydrological cycle will increase with temperature, precipitating more water vapour as rain when temperature rises or co2 increases. There will be temperature variation, but this will be related to solar variation, rather than an internal positive feedback in the atmosphere. On the contrary, strong negative feedbacks will operate to maintain equilibrium.

    Try reading Dr Zagoni’s summary linked above, it’s quite layman friendly.

  4. alf says:

    Thanks for the response. so when i take this quote:”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.”Does 3% less water vapor mean fewer clouds thus more “heating”?

  5. tallbloke says:

    Good question. Cloud feedback is the big unknown in climate science. It’s the reason why models have a big range of outcomes when they are run. Add to your question the question of whether such a change would produce more low cloud and less high cloud (cooling effect) or vise versa.

    Measurement of long term changes in cloud cover is fraught with difficulty and error too. The ISSCP cloud project used many satellites data to try to answer it, and thought they found a lessening of cloud cover from 1980-1998, adding to global warming. But cloud cover has increased since ’98 despite increased co2, so there are other factors affecting the situation too. Less active sun –> more cosmic rays seeding clouds according to Henrik Svensmark.

    Climate ain’t simple, but what Miscolczi is saying is that whatever happens in the atmosphere, the earth will equilibriate notwithstanding external changes in solar energy.

  6. tallbloke says:


    Ferenc Miskolczi’s Saturated Greenhouse Effect Theory: C02 Cannot Cause Any More “Global Warming”

    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).

    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.

    So, on the one hand, the amount of water vapor in the air is maximized in accordance with the principle of minimum energy. On the other hand, this maximum amount of water vapor, as greenhouse gas, in the air causes a maximized greenhouse heating. In this process, all of the available incoming energy from the Sun is transformed into longwave radiation upwelling from the surface of the Earth.

    These two opposite forces maximize both the heating and the cooling of the surface. For as long as there is enough water in the oceans, these two forces are able to maintain equilibrium in the form of maximal heating and cooling.

    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.

  7. JPeden says:

    Thanks alot for this, tallbloke. As, and still, a complete novice, I also wondered about the same thing alf posed – and almost immediately ~6yrs ago – something which seemed to indicate that water vapor qua ghg was already doing all it could to warm the atmosphere, so that its hydorlogical cycle negative feedback was probably limiting its own ghg function and would also act to limit the effect of any other ghg addition.

    The emprical finding of decreased absolute water vapor concentration with increasing CO2 concentration seems gigantic! And I guess it leads to the unverified conclusion that the rate of the hydrological cycle must increase with the addition of any other ghg, as I think you suggested.

    Also, I’ve heard that CO2 has already maxed out its net ghg effect at a concentration lower than current. If true, is this simply because, 1] all of the available 15u + ? longwave from the surface has been absorbed by CO2, given its particular wavelength potential for absorbtoin, or 2] is it because water vapor via the hydrological cycle will act to limit what CO2 can do to warm the atmosphere regardless of whether all of the CO2-available wavelengths are absorbed, or not? I’m thinking that Miskolczi seems to say the latter, but is the former also true? I hope I’m making some sense.

  8. tallbloke says:

    Well, yes. On thing this planet isn’t short of is water. Miscolczi’s ideas make sense to me. Gavin Schmidt found them “A bit of a head scratcher”…

  9. DirkH says:

    JPeden says:
    July 23, 2010 at 6:11 pm
    “[...]Also, I’ve heard that CO2 has already maxed out its net ghg effect at a concentration lower than current. If true, is this simply because, 1] all of the available 15u + ? longwave from the surface has been absorbed by CO2, given its particular wavelength potential for absorbtoin[...]”

    Look at the last graf in this article:

    The absorption of CO2 is largely maxed out even at pre-industrial levels. A little growth is possible due to vibrational and rotational modes broadening the absorption bands slightly, and absorption in harmonics of the base absorption increasing ever so slightly. That’s why the curve doesn’t become completely flat.

  10. JPeden says:

    Dirk, thanks for the link – I’d missed that post and the highly infomative comments.

    And, yes, tallbloke, our planet is certainly not short of a water vapor supply, a fact which almost anyone couldn’t miss, except, of course, for the ipcc Climate Scientists. As I recall, the TAR did ~”not discuss” water vapor in its ghg section.

  11. [...] system dynamics 0 I have been waiting for someone to properly critique Ferenc Miskolczi’s papers on the greenhouse effect. Who better than Dr Roy Spencer? I hope Ferenc Miskolczi will [...]