The Curious Case of Dr. Miskolczi

Posted: June 8, 2019 by oldbrew in censorship, climate, research

Curious indeed. A case of what can happen when the message becomes more important than the science that is supposed to lead to it.

[Note: this post was written in 2017]

Science Matters

Update May 18 below

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button relates the story of a fictional character who is estranged from the rest of humanity because of a unique personal quality. He alone was born an old man, grew younger as he aged, before dying as an infant. Living in contradiction to all others, he existed as an alien whose relations were always temporary and strained.

Recently I had an interchange with a climatist obsessed with radiation and CO2 as the drivers of climate change. For me it occasioned a look back in time to rediscover how I came to some conclusions about how the atmosphere warms the planet. That process brought up an influencial scientist whose name comes up rarely these days in discussions of global warming/climate change. So I thought a tribute post to be timely.

Dr. Ferenc Mark Miskolczi (feh-rent mish-kol-tsi) was not born estranged, but alienation…

View original post 1,886 more words

  1. oldbrew says:

    Note: this is the ‘money graph’ referred to at the end of the blog post.
    Quote: “Robin Pittwood has done an analysis confirming that recent global warming has been matched by increasing outgoing longwave radiation, such that the equilibrium point has remained stable. His money graph is this one:”

  2. JB says:

    “ClimateTruth: 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.

    ClimateTruth: Why has this error escaped notice until now?”

    Its mistake is more fundamental than Dr Miskolczi seemed to grasp.

    There have been plenty of people pointing out the error. They just haven’t gotten adequate press coverage.

  3. Dr Ferenc Miskolczi’s paper is on P243 of Energy & Environment Vol 21 Number 4, 2010. In the same issue on P277 is a paper by Dr Noor Van Andel ( a Dutch Chemical Engineer who is the inventor of an efficient heat exchanger used in Greenhouses) entitled “Note on the Miskolczi theory” which makes the theory easier to understand. Both Miskolczi and Van Andel are mentioned in my post here

    Please note unlike so-called “Climate Scientists” Chemical Engineers understand Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer and most Chemical engineers such as Dr Van Andel have had actual practical experience of measuring Heat Transfer.

  4. konradwp1 says:

    @ Oldbrew

    Yes, that is the “money graph”.

    If I recall correctly, a similar graph was presented by “Hunter” on Jennifer Marohasy’s site some years ago. OLR rising in lock-step with surface temperature. If CO2 was causing warming, OLR should remain flat while surface temperature rose.

  5. hunterson7 says:

    We teter on the edge of a dark age, which has used climate crisis as a sort of focal point. How much could an honest review of this work help us pull back from that edge?

  6. stpaulchuck says:

    “Bear in mind that water vapor does more than 90% of all IR activity by gases.”

    in point of fact, most true scientists who have looked at this area agree with that statement. So then, why the heck are we STILL screwing around with a trace gas that is (variously) computed to be about 3.5% to 4% of Satanic Gases? My swag is that it is because the public would immediate recognize there’s nothing to be done to change that, but merely to prepare for the natural changes coming down the pike (like we’ve always done).

    the warmists have beat that dead horse into mush

  7. stpaulchuk, I think you have slipped up in zeros in your calculation. The CO2 content is about 400 ppm that works out to 0 04 %. Methane is not a greenhouse gas as its IR absorption is at least one fifth of CO2 and its content in the atmosphere is about 1.7PPM or 0.00017%. The H2Og content varies in places around the globe and is in the range 1 to 4% but can get close to zero over the Antarctic

  8. oldbrew says:

    So then, why the heck are we STILL screwing around with a trace gas that is (variously) computed to be about 3.5% to 4% of Satanic Gases?

    Because the IPCC alarmists claimed that more CO2 would cause more water vapour i.e. a positive feedback, and exaggerated the CO2 residence time. But accurate water vapour data is hard to come by so the claim can’t easily be tested.

  9. tom0mason says:

    Thank for the heads-up.
    I’ve read Ron’s piece and commented —

    Empirical data, rather than models! That means REAL science not pie-in-the-sky nonsense such as NASA’s graphic ERBE (Earth Radiation Budget Experiment) program, where life requires no solar input and does not sequester solar energy at every opportunity.
    By NASA’s graphic the 3 times doubling of the human population from around 1 billion in about 1800 to today’s approximate value of 8billion takes no solar energy. I find that unbelievable.

    Life in all it’s abundance converts solar energy to the energy within its newly formed chemical bonds — energy that is often not readily given back. Think trees lasting hundreds of years, to coal, or even the bone fossils that still maintain a structure that is radically different to the mere chemical elements that formed them. Life in action, using basic chemicals (CO2, water, and some minerals) and the energy from solar radiation. Sure it is not a huge amount but it is there, and eventually it will (through entropy) find its way back to an elemental state but eventually is a very, very long time hence (billions of years?).

  10. oldbrew says:

    Date: 10/06/19 John Hinderacker, PowerLine

    The nice thing about “climate change” as a dogma is that the weather is guaranteed to change, so whatever happens is consistent with the theory that continues to bring in the big bucks.

    Climate change – perhaps, over the decades and more. Man-made climate change – not so much.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s