Here is a short interview with Ferenc Miskolczi conducted by the Examiner.com’s Kirk Myers. Kirk left this link on an article I posted here at the Talkshop at the start of 2010. It is followed by a copy of the letter Ference sent to the EPA during their ‘endangerment’ hearings.
The black line is the annual variation in atmospheric “aborbing power” over a 61-year period. The red trend line shows the greenhouse aborbing power remaining constant (in equilibrium) during that period. Greenhouse absorption increases (blue trend line) only when H20 levels are kept constant.
Examiner.com: Has there been global warming?
Dr. Miskolczi: No one is denying that global warming has taken place, but it has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect or the burning of fossil fuels.
Examiner.com: According to the conventional anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, as human-induced CO2 emissions increase, more surface radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, with part of it re-radiated to the earth’s surface, resulting in global warming. Is that an accurate description of the prevailing theory?
Dr. Miskolczi: Yes, this is the classic concept of the greenhouse effect.
Examiner.com: Are man-made CO2 emissions the cause of global warming?
Dr. Miskolczi: Apparently not. According to my research, increases in CO2 levels have not increased the global-average absorbing power of the atmosphere.
Examiner.com: Where does the traditional greenhouse theory make its fundamental mistake?
Dr. Miskolczi: The conventional greenhouse theory does not consider the newly discovered physical relationships involving infrared radiative fluxes. These relationships pose strong energetic constraints on an equilibrium system.
Examiner.com: Why has this error escaped notice until now?
Dr. Miskolczi: Nobody thought that a 100-year-old theory could be wrong. The original greenhouse formula, developed by an astrophysicist, applies only to the stars, not to finite, semi-transparent planetary atmospheres. New equations had to be formulated.
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.
Examiner.com: Have your mathematical equations been challenged or disproved?
Dr. Miskolczi: No.
Examiner.com: If your theory stands up to scientific scrutiny, it would collapse the CO2 global warming doctrine and render meaningless its predictions of climate catastrophe. Given its significance, why has your theory been met with silence and, in some instances, dismissal and derision?
Dr. Miskolczi: I can only guess. First of all, nobody likes to admit mistakes. Second, somebody has to explain to the taxpayers why millions of dollars were spent on AGW research. Third, some people are making a lot of money from the carbon trade and energy taxes.
Examiner.com: A huge industry has arisen out of the study and prevention of man-made global warming. Has the world been fooled?
Dr. Miskolczi: Thanks to censored science and the complicity of the mainstream media, yes, totally.
Dr. Miskolczi’s letter to the EPA
June 20, 2009
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA DocketCenter (EPA/DC)
Mailcode 6102T
Attention Docket IDNo. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
This comment is to demonstrate, that the origin of the observed global warming (positive
global average surface temperature trend) in the last few decades can not be caused by the observed increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
In theoretical radiative transfer, the absorbing power of infrared active gases are measured by the total infrared optical depth (TIOD). This dimensionless quantity is the negative natural logarithm of the ratio of the absorbed surface upward radiation by the atmosphere to the total emitted surface upward radiation.
The recent value of the TIOD is 1.87, which value fully complies with the theoretical expectation of an optimal (saturated) greenhouse effect of a greenhouse gas (GHG)-rich planet. (Miskolczi – 2007).
With relatively simply computations, we show that in the last 61 years, despite the 30 per
cent increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, the cumulative greenhouse effect of all atmospheric greenhouse gases has not been changed – that is, the atmospheric TIOD is constant.
According to the most plausible explanation of the above fact, the equilibrium atmospheric H2O content is constrained with the theoretical optimal TIOD. Our simulation results are summarized in . . . Fig. 2.
. . . Apparently, increased total CO2 column amount is coupled with decreasing H2O column amount. As the result of the opposing trends in the two most important GHGs, in Fig. 2 the red curve shows no trend in the TIOD. In the last 61 years, the infrared absorbing capability of the atmosphere has not been changed; therefore, the greenhouse effect can not be the cause of the global warming.
In case of fixed atmospheric H2O column amount, simulation results show that according
to the positive trend in the CO2 content of the atmosphere, there would also be a significant positive trend in the TIOD (blue curve).
The above results are the plain proofs that the IPCC consensus on the causes of the global
warming is totally wrong, and the physics of the greenhouse effect requires serious revisions.
Dr. F. M. Miskolczi
Relevant References:
F. Miskolczi: Id?járás 111 (2007) 1–40,
F. Miskolczi and M. Mlynczak: Id?járás 108 (2004) 209–2
D. Kratz et al.: JQSRT 90 (2005) 323–341
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Optical characteristic is a very important subject but assuming it only means visible light would be wrong.
Did you know there are microwave optics, lenses? These are not made of glass, plastics, ceramics, hydrocarbons.
http://www.rozendalassociates.com/antennas/MLA.htm
Why do we read this so often these days from completely unrelated, incompatible, theories? They can’t all be right – in fact all but one is almost certainly wrong – so why are the proponents of each new theory so certain they are correct and everyone else got it wrong?
Steveta: It was ever thus. But not all theories are incompatible. And two theories could both find different, but valid reasons why the ‘greenhouse effect’ theory is incorrect. In fact there are so many gaping holes in it, it’s a bit of a turkey shoot.
Steveata it is because almost everyone is only looking at a portion of the whole and almost everyone is correct, for their portion at least.
The reality is that energy going in equals energy going out of the system. There can be no additional energy generated in the system. The NET energy flow into and out of the systems is exactly ZERO.
Everyone seems to be looking at energy flows in the system, because the system is not in local equilibrium, and finding energy losses and gains. The warmers think they have found a source of energy in reradiation, the ocean people think they have found a source of energy from the ocean redistributing energy, the albedo people think that increasing the albedo loses energy, etc. etc.
Anyone who takes off their blindfold, just has to stand in awe watching the blind experts describing the portion of the elephant they can feel with their hands : )
It is likely that many theories and/or observations are all true as parts of the same ‘elephant’ and that each component even if taken alone casts doubt on or disproves the radiative theory of AGW.
For example, being aware of the Miskolczi finding some time ago I pointed out elsewhere that his findings would be consistent with changes in the air circulation and the size or speed of the water cycle which are my favourite candidates.
Also, oceanic SST changes and albedo variations and solar variability can also all be parts of that same ‘elephant’ because all are interlinked. Thus there are lots of mutually consistent assertions that can be made all being consistent with each other and contrary to AGW theory.
Thanks Kirk, Examiner, and Tallbloke, for publishing this! Invaluable!
Stephan, here is the problem. The AGW theory is correct (inside the system), increasing CO2 levels will raise the average air temperature, but it only raises the average air temperature with a corresponding loss of energy from the oceans and/or by averaging the loss of energy from the tropics and transporting it to the poles. Dry polar air contains much less energy per volume than moist air at the same temperature. It is a trivial mathematical slight of hand to raise the ‘average temperature’ of the atmosphere while keeping the total energy in the system constant.
If air was a perfect conductor and a thin shell around the surface of the earth, the air temperature world wide, day and night, would probably be 6˚ C. Exactly as predicted by the S-B equation.
What makes it all interesting though is that air is a terrible conductor (water vapor and greenhouse gasses are pretty good), the ground is a terrible conductor and water is a reasonably good conductor and the heat capacity and transport rate for everything is different. Toss in lapse rates, currents, changing albedo, Coriolis effect, rotation, etc. etc. and the problem gets complicated. Predicting long term temperature changes for any isolated part of the system (like the atmosphere over the North Pole) should be a definition of clinical insanity.
On the other hand, estimating the total amount of energy in the system is trivially easy and the total amount of energy can’t be changed by anything that is done inside the system.
Genghis, I think we are more or less agreed on most of that but I’m not so sure that the air temperature averaged globally does increase because if there is any additional energy from more CO2 then much if not all of it it gets converted to latent heat and is then accelerated in its exit to space.
That requires a change in the air circulation but not necessarily a change in global average air temperature.
All that happens is that CO2 MAY slow down loss of some energy to space by radiating it back downward but against that it also facilitates energy loss to space by radiating outward AND other non radiative processes especially speeding up the water cycle to offset any slowing down of energy loss that might have occurred.
For this thread the issue is whether more CO2 in the air speeds up the water cycle on the condensation side so as to slightly reduce global humidity leaving the optical depth unchanged.
There would only need to be a very slight humidity change since there is so much water vapour as compared to CO2.
I seem to recall that there was a slight reduction in global humidity during the late 20th century despite AGW theory supposing that it would increase.
“Negative trends in q as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2”
from here:
Stephen I don’t think we are in any disagreement, yes this thread is about the radiative absorption of the atmosphere and how it stays constant CO2 increases are balanced by H20 losses. Very much (exactly in fact) by how absorption and emission of a black or gray body are always equal, Kirchhoff’s law. Over the entire system Misckolczi is absolutely correct.
It still doesn’t change the fact that CO2 does a better job of transporting heat to the poles than water vapor. In other words adding CO2 to the dry air over the upper latitudes more than compensates for the loss of H20 in the tropics where the absorption is already maxed out. More CO2 in the tropics does absolutely nothing and more H20 in the upper latitudes does nothing.
All that is changing is that the average temperature at the poles is going up a couple of degrees (at night and in the winter) and the average temperature in the Tropics is dropping by a few hundredths. There is no net energy gain or loss, just a tiny redistribution.
It’s an embarasse de richesse. There are so many ways to prove AGW is wrong that their proponents trip over each other.
Which is why, also, lukewarmists are full of it. The numbers and power of negative feedbacks are so great that CO2’s effects are, literally, “negligible”.
“Why do we read this so often these days from completely unrelated, incompatible, theories? They can’t all be right – in fact all but one is almost certainly wrong – so why are the proponents of each new theory so certain they are correct and everyone else got it wrong?”
To me, so far, Miskolczi and Nikolov & Zeller’s theories are the same, just from different approaches. The total infrared optical thickness includes, WITHIN ITSELF, the conduction and trans-evaporation aspects of energy released from the surface AND the energy directly absorbed by the atmosphere, both SW & LW. This is not an either/or matter, all of these processes occur constant and at all times. Miskolczi comes up with ~1.87 for the LW optical thickness; N&Z come up with ~1.87 being the natural thermal enhancement. Until proved otherwise I will continue to assume they are reading the same principle of all general atmospheres. From what I have previously calculated N&Z’s Nte of 4.07 is also it’s total lw optical thickness for Venus. Are all of these matches mere coincidences? I tend to say no. I don’t think you have look deep enough into this matter to claim one has the be wrong.
Genghis, in theory you are right that CO2 can absorb radiant energy in the a small wavelength range arond 14.8 micron. However, the amount is insignificant and unmeasureable. 1/ because the partial pressure times the path length (applied in the Hottel equation determined from years of empirical data from furnaces and heat exchangers) is small & 2) radiation from CO2 in the atmosphere to space.which is at 2.75K. CO2 can not radiate back to the earth surface. If it absorbs heat it may transfer it to other gases in the atmosphere by mixing but at the sametime it could be heated by collisions from hotter molecules such as ozone but in the end it will lose its heat energy by radiation to space.
The plain fact is that the Stefan-Boltzman equation does not apply to a gas. A black body by definition has a surface and aborbs or emits radiation of all wavelengths over the full spectrum from x-rays to long radio waves. It should be very clear that CO2 is not a black body.
Miskolczi’s findings make sense because a) CO2 has no signicant contribution & b) water vapour content depends on the temperature defined by the lapse rate. Condensation and clouds can effect the lapse rate but as shown by his data, but in a sixty year period there should be no noticeable average change. However, there would be a change over long time spans which include iceages.
Genghis says: February 15, 2012 at 9:28 pm says “the total amount of energy can’t be changed by anything that is done inside the system.”.
I am sorry, but I can’t accept this as being a “fact” as you state it.
I think that the “Contained” energy can change due to changes in the balance of energy going out can be more than the energy coming in, so a decline in overall “System Energy” can lead to lower temperatures.
Most of the time the Anual balance of energy in Vs energy out is controlled by the daily gain/loss with the second longer term balance of Summer & Winter.
Surely extensive Cloud cover or a large quantity of particles in the atmosphere for long periods would lead to less energy getting to the surface, especially the oceans. This would mean that the energy lost during the day due to reflection plus the normal energy lost at night would mean more energy going out than is coming in.
If this is not the case how could we get “Nuclear Winters” and Years without summers like after Krakatoa etc.
Cementafriend says: “If it absorbs heat it may transfer it to other gases in the atmosphere by mixing but at the sametime it could be heated by collisions from hotter molecules such as ozone but in the end it will lose its heat energy by radiation to space.”
That is exactly what I am saying. My point is that at night in areas that don’t have much water vapor CO2 will warm the atmosphere (from surface radiation) and because the atmosphere is already cold (little kinetic energy) the amount of radiation to space from CO2 will be less, hence warming.
There is another way to explain what I am trying to say. Because matter radiates to the fourth power, raising a cold night time temperature a few degrees, with a corresponding lowering of the daytime temperature by a fraction of a degree raises the average temperature, but the total energy content stays the same.
A. C. Osborn says: “I think that the “Contained” energy can change due to changes in the balance of energy going out can be more than the energy coming in, so a decline in overall “System Energy” can lead to lower temperatures.”
You are correct if you just look at parts of the system over relatively short time frames. Obviously a cloudy day results in less energy reaching the earth under the cloud. But here is the kicker, the same cloud at night transfers energy back to the surface, through back radiation, convection and precipitation. The average temperature will be lower because of the lower day time temps, but the average energy in the system will stay exactly the same. Temperature does not directly correspond to energy content, 30˚ ice contains a lot more energy than 90˚ air of the same volume.
IMHO
The reason why the red line is constant is because given the level of radiation from Earths surface, CO2 molecules can only attain a certain level of temperature.
Physical analysis can and have been done on molecules to determine their radiative thermal equilibrium given a level of source radiation such as that from the Earths surface.
Such an analysis has been done for CO2. Once I’ve clarified some sticking points, I’ll be in a position to draw attention to a paper which has determined this radiative equilibrium.
Roger, I’d be happy to pass on this paper to you for a posting.
Genghis says:
February 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Then you are saying Years without summers and nuclear winters cannot happen?
You are saying that most of the energy loss would be bound up in Ice, but in fact most of it would have escaped to space and have been lost to the “system”.
Basically the opposite of the warming due to low cloud levels which we experinced during the late 20th century.
I have a simple question for you about back radiation which I asked on the air vent, where I didn’t get a satisfactory answer.
Which is warmer at night a vehicle exposed to back radiation or a vehicle shielded from back radiation and why?
A.C. Osborn asks: “Then you are saying Years without summers and nuclear winters cannot happen?”
Absolutely not. Ice ages and hot ages can certainly happen with constant energy the only thing that changes is the energy distribution within the system.
A.C. Osborn asks: Which is warmer at night a vehicle exposed to back radiation or a vehicle shielded from back radiation and why?
Back radiation slows the rate of radiation loss, so the vehicle exposed to back radiation will lose heat slower.
I am a little confused by the concept of being “shielded from back radiation” what does that mean? A ‘shield’ will back radiate exactly as much is shields.
In this note I introduce what may be a new bit of physics. You can explain Miskoczi’s idea very simply but to do so you have to reject direct thermalisation by symmetrical N2 and O2 molecules of IR absorbed by GHG molecules. There is no mechanism for the common claim that the quantised energy is absorbed in dribs and drabs in the ~1000 collisions before the photon is re-emitted.
This is childish physics because anyone with the slightest knowledge of statistical thermodynamics should know that a single molecule amongst many has no knowledge of its past history. Gibbs worked this out well over a century ago with his paradox.
The Laws of Equipartition of Energy and Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium means that at the same time as the photon is absorbed, another excited GHG molecule emits the same photonic energy in a random direction thus restoring LTE.
[Nahle is apparently looking, via partial molar specific heat data, a part of physics people in climate science do not appear to realise exists, at the secondary effects due to the peculiar van der Waals forces you get with non permanent gases , They really should have looked at this extant science instead of inventing fantasy physics!]
So, the IR photon is absorbed mainly at second phases, particularly cloud droplets and the earth’s surface, but it can only do thermodynamic work at cooler surfaces. [I explained this a while back – Prevost Exchange Energy is effectively a standing wave which modulates the real radiant heat transport from warmer to cooler.]
This is very interesting because when water precipitates as droplets, the air and the local cloud heat up, so you can’t get thermalisation of the IR there. However, as convection takes place, the air expands and cools, so higher clouds will heat up from IR scattered by GHGs thus extending the convection.
So, we have a new principle; scattered IR is only thermalised at second phases in the higher atmosphere. More CO2 means greater convective heat transport and, by definition, more precipitation as pressure falls thus reducing H2O levels higher up.
Think about it; can anyone fault my logic?
Mydogsgotnonose says: “So, the IR photon is absorbed mainly at second phases, particularly cloud droplets and the earth’s surface, but it can only do thermodynamic work at cooler surfaces.”
If you mean it can, “only do” NET “thermodynamic work at cooler surfaces.” you would be correct.
Radiation is radiation is radiation. It has zero regard for ‘temperature’ or direction or other radiation.
Hi Ghengis, I mean what I say. What I have been developing is a purely idiosyncratic analysis of ‘back radiation’.
I explained it recently on this blog. In essence, there are two stages to the absorption of a photon and it doing work. The first is acceptance by a particular quantised energy level, after which it becomes indistinguishable from any other of that density of states, then it is subject to normal thermodynamics.
When the photon is received by a hotter assembly of molecules, solid, liquid or gas, more of those states arrive from the interior so the net flux radiated is positive. if fewer arrive from the interior, a cooler assembly of molecules, energy is absorbed, thermodynamic work.
The Prevost Exchange Energy is in effect a standing wave that regulates radiative energy flow,
My purpose in stating this is to show that climate science’s belief that you can add back radiation to S-B emission, assuming an isolated body, is dangerously naive and ;leads to the imaginary high feedback in the climate models.
These people are seriously underpowered in intellect, but I was trained by FRSs and Nobel Prize winners when that meant something.
This ‘science’ has become the computer equivalent of a kiddie sand tray. It’s time it was run by professionals tasked to bring it under control.
Mydogsgotnonose says: “When the photon is received by a hotter assembly of molecules, solid, liquid or gas, more of those states arrive from the interior so the net flux radiated is positive.”
That is correct, note the ‘net flux’.
” if fewer arrive from the interior, a cooler assembly of molecules, energy is absorbed, thermodynamic work.”
No problem with that either.
“My purpose in stating this is to show that climate science’s belief that you can add back radiation to S-B emission, assuming an isolated body, is dangerously naive and ;leads to the imaginary high feedback in the climate models.”
Feedback is negative, as I think you and the author of the above article would agree. The system has to stay in equilibrium, energy in equals energy out.
It is important to keep track of the net flux (energy) not temperature.
I find the discussion mystifying..
Computation can use differences in flux
Computation can use body temperatures
The same thing.
Mixing the two is risky yet done often and why using SB needs caution:- flux cannot be computed from temperature or vv.without knowing additional parameters, either not or poorly known.
A particular case is indicating some nebulous thing up there somewhere and claiming about a flux from that vague direction, then switch to body temperature. I’m not surprised there is a mess.
Tchannon, yes you are right and may I add radiation to your list? Switching around from radiation to flux to temperature, like Trenberth does is how they hide the pea. They also switch black bodies, for incoming radiation they use the atmosphere and its albedo as a gray body and for outgoing radiation they use the planet as a black body sans atmosphere, except for CO2, falsely claiming that it increases the planets surface temperature. Then they measure the atmospheric temperature for confirmation.
tchannon: i was taught the physics of Hoyt C. Hottell [MIT 1850s, 1960s] as part of my metallurgical process engineering. Climate science has missed this out, in particular the way you calculate emissivity and absorptivity of GHGs in air.
Mydog, if you were taught heat and mass transfer by the great Chemical Engineer Hoyt Hottel then you are far ahead of any physicist. His research has been used by tens of thousands of engineers (chemical, mechanical and metallurgical) in design and process control over at least 50 years.
Next you would know that there is no such thing as photons (note the articles by Nobel Prize Physicist WE Lamb Jr) There are energy waves (eg X-rays, light, microwaves, radio waves etc) which can be combined, amplified, concentrated, reflected, scattered and cancelled, One can concentrate sunlight through a magnifying glass, or with mirrors. Waves are directional and will always move from a high energy source to a low energy receiver.
cementafriend: i wasn’t taught it by him, but by pretty good people at Imperial. My part chemical engineer, part high temperature physical chemistry, part physicist background has enabled me to see how climate science has totally cocked up its so called science.
There are four basic mistakes: the IR thermalisation is wrong, see above; there is no ‘back radiation’ energy source; Hansen’s 33 K present GHG warming conflates lapse rate warming; Sagan’s aerosol optical physics misses out a second optical process which applies to about half low level clouds and is switched off by pollution. That is the real GW mechanism.
They have got nothing right in terms of the bolt-on physics to the GCMs which being finite difference can’t go wrong so long as you have a fine enough mesh. But that means a million times more computer power to make them work, say 40 years, assuming Moores’ Law is valid.
The final lesson is how badly poorly trained people llke Trenberth can mess up a subject. He didn’t have the physics. Neither did Ramanathan [a good experimentalist] who set up the IR stuff assuming 100% direct thermalisation when that simply cannot take place. No process engineer can accept this farrago but there are professors of physics who do. It’s because they aren’t taught the basics, either directly or by having to get things right in constructing real process plant.
As for the ‘scientists’ who allowed this rubbish to take over or who have pushed it, Beddington is an economist, Nurse and S Jones are biologists. P Jones is an environmental scientist so hasn’t got much up top. Mann is a computer nerd. As for Hansen, who was programming Mie physics when I was, his physics is such that he must know the subject has since 1997 been scientific fraud, initially well-meant but by 2004, utterly cynical.
His latest claims that total aerosol cooling = net AGW so no temperature increase of the air is in my view cynical deceit, as is the claim of extra heat into the oceans that will burn us up in future. And if you go to a Phil Trans paper in 2005, he claims the amplification of tsi increase at the end of ice ages is through water reducing the albedo of ice, bunkum.
Here are hot off the press data: http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/figure-102.png
The N. Atlantic is cooling because the Arctic is freezing in its 70 year cycle. The cause is that the iron in the old ice has been used up so the phytoplankton blooms which reduced cloud albedo are weakening. This so called science has been a new Lysenkoism.
I am finding it impossible to evaluate Dr Miskolczi’s theory because as far as I have seen to date he hasn’t presented one. So far I have only seen summary descriptions of his work, which are not the same thing. The purpose of a scientific theory is to explain a phenomenon in cause-and-effect terms. If it doesn’t do that, it isn’t a scientific theory but is something else instead.
From the interview transcript above:
“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….”
To my mind that proposition is not a scientific theory because it does not attempt to explain how or why the principle of self-regulation being referred to works (unless I’ve just missed seeing his exposition of it). It is simply a proposition that the principle of greenhouse self-regulation – the “phenomenon to be explained” in this case – exists. Apparently Dr Miskolczi is asserting his discovery of the principle on the basis of “empirical” rather than theoretical considerations. So he himself does not appear to be implying that he even has an explanatory theory to propose.
Now I think his proposition is a scientific one because it is amenable to being tested by the scientific method. However, I also think that scientific objectivity demands that the testing be done by other people independently of Dr Miskolczi. And here I suspect problems may arise because Dr Miskolczi has used a radiative transfer code simulation instead of real empirical observations to make his “discovery”. And the code which he has used is apparently one which he has written himself. It is simply not possible to replicate his “discovery” independently of him by using the RT-code that he has used unless that RT-code has been validated objectively and independently first. Has this been done? I don’t think so.
But even if independent observers employ tests which do not rely on his RT-code, my essential point here is that he appears to have made his discovery on a computer and not from real-world observations. Therefore it is a hypothetical discovery, not a real one – yet. To my way of thinking it can only become a real one if and when it has been confirmed in numerous replications by independent observers of the real world. And that time is still a long way off.
TB.
There’s a ‘conundrum’ here!
Magic Turtle says:
“I am finding it impossible to evaluate Dr Miskolczi’s theory because as far as I have seen to date he hasn’t presented one.”
Ferenc has reported ‘observations’ and hasn’t formulated any ‘theory’ yet (to the best of my knowledge), so why do your readers ‘comment’ on his ‘theory’??? This is puzzling!
If Ferenc is here, I’d like to give him a ‘high five’ and hope he’s recovered from the recent ‘flood incident’, but I’m still ‘in flux’ with Mum’s care here in the UK (so I’m compromised). 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
Mydog, agreed! You put it better than I could (I always seem to leave out words). Have you seen my post on Methane at http://www.cementafriend.wordpress.com When I get time I will update my post at http://jennifermarohasy.com/ about the Stefan-Boltzman equation.
Miskolczi’s theoretical paper is here:http://www.miskolczi.webs.com/
[Top reference]
Thanks for this link, Mydog. It’s very helpful.
I notice though that Miskolczi’s paper still doesn’t propose an explanatory theory as such and it simply explains his discovery of the fixed ‘greenhouse factor’ in his climate simulations. That’s fine by me and knowing that his theory doesn’t exist saves me from the pointless labour of trying to understand it while I wait for the results of his simulated observations to be confirmed in real-world observations.
[Reply] Miskolczi analysed ~60years of radiosonde data in order to deduce the relationships elucidated in his papers. Some of the postulated identities require further confirmation by observation, but this does not detract from the depth of his work IMO. TB.
TB.
Nice reply, but, as I remember it, it was slightly different. Ferenc’s paper on a planetary “Semi Transparent Atmosphere” was featured on Steve’s blog @ ‘Climate Audit’. ‘When’ the article featured, the ‘community’ (the now extinct “forum”) followed leads from the ‘feature’. One thread on that forum lead to a challenge/request for Ferenc to analyse an ‘accredited’ radiosonde sequence of some 61 years.
Miskolczi undertook the challenge and returned a null differential result in comparison with his “Semi Transparent Atmosphere” paper. IOW, the ‘paper’ was ‘supported’ by the result of the challenge!
The information I’ve disclosed is currently ‘off line’. This begs the question, “should ‘off line’ data be ‘available’ at an agreed ‘dump source’ for later retrieval.
Best regards, Ray.
Mydogsgotnonose says:
February 16, 2012 at 5:47 pm
“So, we have a new principle; scattered IR is only thermalised at second phases in the higher atmosphere. More CO2 means greater convective heat transport and, by definition, more precipitation as pressure falls thus reducing H2O levels higher up.”
Well, if Miskolczi’s observations are real, and it suits my ideas to think they are, then there must be a common sense explanation and I think the above comment is a good start.
If GHG molecules in the air absorb and emit (in all directions) more than non GHGs then they are going to spread energy around to other GHGs by radiation and to non GHGs by conduction at whatever height they happen to be.
Thus their energy is more likely to be scattered around in the air rather than be passed to the surface and because of that GHGs are likely to disturb the pressure induced adiabatic lapse rate at that level above the ground by making more energy available up there than the lapse rate is ‘expecting’.
That would give an additional upward boost to any ongoing convective activity and effectively speed up the rate at which moisture laden air rises thus bringing forward the moment of condensation for any given parcel of moist rising air.
However, evaporation from the surface would NOT be accelerated by additional energy higher up in the atmospheric column so there would be a net reduction in humidity as the timing of condensation runs ahead of the rate of evaporation from the surface.
Does that provide a plausible explanation ?
That would be yet another mechanism whereby the effect of downward energy from GHGs would be cancelled by a negative system response. Not only is the downward radiation potentially offset by upward radiation but additionally there is a speeding up of the convective process accelerating energy loss to space.
Evaporation might be accelerated by any extra energy that reaches the ground but the condensation higher up would be accelerated more to produce the outcome noted by Miskolczi.
TB
I quite agree that Dr Miskolczi’s not having presented a theory to explain his findings does not detract from the depth of his work. There has to be a genuine phenomenon to explain before a scientific theory is proposed to explain it and it appears to me that he is still at the stage of establishing the existence of this phenomenon of the fixed ‘greenhouse factor’ that he claims to have discovered. That is an essential first step and I have no wish to demean it or trivialise it.
I understand that he has analysed ~60 years of radiosonde data, which sounds like it was truly empirical and based on real-world ‘observations’. But he analysed it with a radiative transfer code (ie. a computer program) that he wrote himself. How can anyone tell that his radiative transfer code is fit for purpose as he no doubt believes that it is? How do we know that it does not have significant glitches in it that may be responsible for his getting the remarkable results that he says he got? At the moment it seems we’ve only got Dr Miskolczi’s word for it that it is kosher. I am not trying to suggest that it isn’t kosher, but just that it lacks verification by independent observers. It does seem to be an unchecked and unverified analysis to me.
Magic Turtle.
Here’s an old paper from Miskolczi’s web-site that may be of help:
Click to access hartcode_v01.pdf
I may be wrong, but I thought that “HARTCODE” was/is an open source collaborative effort. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
Climate science’s ‘back radiation’ [for a cooler atmosphere] is really Prevost exchange energy. For two bodies above absolute zero, it is that part of the radiated energy from the cooler body which is absorbed by the IR density of states for the hotter body.
It can do no thermodynamic work; its purpose is to regulate net energy flow from hotter to cooler. When temperatures are equal, radiated flux in both directions is equal so there is no net energy interchange.
This is because for both bodies, the proportion of the IR density of states occupied by arriving radiation is the same as that from conversion of internal kinetic energy; no net conversion to heat energy at either body.
For the case of the Earth and the atmosphere, the cooler body is the hemispherical assembly of atmosphere, bare aerosols and clouds we call the sky. The GHGs scatter IR radiation randomly and only that part absorbed by clouds and bare aerosols cooler than the composite-atmospheric, scattered-radiation emitter is thermalised.
These aerosols provide the Prevost exchange energy, in turn a measure of the impedance to IR transmission to space. This is why the apparent emissivity of low level clouds can be ~0.9 whereas for clear sky above a desert, it can be as low as ~0.1.
As for the regulation of IR optical depth,that impedance is mainly dependent on the number and the height of the cloud droplets, I’ll leave it to the climatologists to work that out!
In passing, oxymoronic ‘climate science’s’ belief in back radiation is to science as is a Pacific islander’s cargo cult to rational empiricism: they look at the sky as a provider of imaginary energy when in reality local warming is set by the hemispherical IR impedance.
Ray (suricat)
Thanks for the link to Miskolczi’s 1989 HARTCODE paper, which looks very interesting. You may be right that it is an open source collaborative effort. Apparently it was one back then, but without seeing the current version I couldn’t say. I think my point about the need for independent verification may still stand too because, as Dr M. says in the Abstract on page4:
‘The HARTCODE is not fully developed yet and the validation is still in progress. Accordingly, this version should not be regarded as an operative one and this report is not a ”User’s Manual” for immediate application. Instead, this report intends to give some assistance to those who are willing to go into the very details of the code for its further improvement.’
Kind regards
MT
2003/4 paper
“An inter-comparison of far-infrared line-by-line radiative transfer models” (PDF)
David P. Kratz, , , Martin G. Mlynczak, Christopher J. Mertens, Helen Brindley, Larry L. Gordley, Javier Martin-Torres, Ferenc M. Miskolczi, David D. Turner
Nice youtube vid of Miklos Zagoni explaining Miskolczi’s theory.
tchannon
Thanks for the 2003/4 ‘Intercomparison’ link. I found the paper interesting, but I’m afraid it still doesn’t constitute objective verification of Miskolczi’s HARTCODE for me. It seems to show that HARTCODE’s predictions are in good agreement with the predictions of five other radiative transfer models, but not that any of them are necessarily in good agreement with the behaviour of the real atmosphere and that’s what is needed if Dr M’s HARTCODE is to be proven valid.