NASA linked Ferenc Miskolczi is a Hungarian atmospheric physicist who has published a new derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect which suggests "runaway warming" is impossible. According to Miskolczi, NASA refused to publish the results so he resigned in protest.
Fellow Hungarian scientist Miklós Zágoni was a strong supporter of the Kyoto Protocol until he read Miskolczi's theory. Now he is climate alarmist turned climate realist.
The 40-page paper is entitled: 'Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres'
The Abstract reads:
In this work the theoretical relationship between the clear-sky outgoing infrared radiation and the surface upward radiative flux is explored by using a realistic finite semi-transparent atmospheric model. We show that the fundamental relationship between the optical depth and source function contains real boundary condition parameters. We also show that the radiative equilibrium is controlled by a special atmospheric transfer function and requires the continuity of the temperature at the ground surface. The long standing misinterpretation of the classic semi-infinite Eddington solution has been resolved. Compared to the semi-infinite model the finite semi-transparent model predicts much smaller ground surface temperature and a larger surface air temperature. The new equation proves that the classic solution significantly overestimates the sensitivity of greenhouse forcing to optical depth perturbations. In Earth-type atmospheres sustained planetary greenhouse effect with a stable ground surface temperature can only exist at a particular planetary average flux optical depth of 1.841 . Simulation results show that the Earth maintains a controlled greenhouse effect with a global average optical depth kept close to this critical value. The broadband radiative transfer in the clear Martian atmosphere follows different principle resulting in different analytical relationships among the fluxes. Applying the virial theorem to the radiative balance equation we present a coherent picture of the planetary greenhouse effect.
Key-words: greenhouse effect, radiative equilibrium.
We should name it greenatmosphere effect.
What is the upper bound of greenhouse effect on the Earth? You can imagine what will happen if it is as low as 105 Celsius.
Mr T
"Why didn't you ask what I was talking about earlier?"
I pointed out the remarks in the conclusion by Dr Mislozci IN THE PAPER WE ARE discussing or supposed to be in response and YOU DID NOT notice that YOU had changed the topic?
Now really.
"We can't measure surface flux"
"This paper says there is a satellite doing just that."
Yes and I've already pointed out that in the abstract it say for wavelengths around 1 micron it tells us nothing about the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs in its 3 vibrational modes the longest wavelength of that is 4.25 micron. Also incoming surface flux cannot be measured from 250 KM up.
I know you sometimes have difficulty comprehending what I write but I should think that what I said was quite straight forward.
"Do you expect more heating?" Not due to increasing CO2. I think i have made that abundantly clear by now. Like I said you have trouble with comprehension.
Jan you said "We can't measure surface flux"
This paper says there is a satellite doing just that. Now you change your mind and say it needs to be the downward flux. What I am trying point out to you is that YOU don't know what other people know.
Look at what you said again:"I've read up on Venus and all I've seen is conjecture we can't measure the surface fluxes and we don't know the history there really isn't a lot we can about it with any degree of certainty."
You said we can't measure surface flux. Well, apparently they can and are with the Venus Express satellite.
You own doubts about theories don't mean they are wrong.
wrt 2-3 degrees
It's in the comments, here let me guide you:
"I am the original journalist who interviewed Dr. Miskolczi. To the previous poster, who asked what bounds this new research set on the greenhouse effect, Dr. Zagoni has used the theory to calculate an upper bound from CO2-based warming in the realm of 2-3C." Posted by: Michael Asher, Daily Tech at March 10, 2008 10:14 PM
Why didn't you ask what I was talking about earlier?
So what do you mean? How much warming should we expect. If you recall I kept asking you how much heating you expected, and you still refuse to give a clear answer.
Do you expect more heating? If so, how much?
Gavin,
I'm not too sure what the point of our last two posts is if you are not just doing a bit of irrelevant chest thumping you could go to CA to discuss chaos theory and quantum chaos theory. There are a couple who have done quite a bit of work in that area and like to be helpful. I did solid state, which tends to be not so chaotic so there isn't much call for it those guys would be far better to talk to than I would.
Mr T,What about this paper
Did you even read the abstract? The only surface flux they can measure is around 1 micron that atmosphere is opaque at longer wave lengths and you can't measure the downward flux from 250 KM above the surface both these fluxes which it can't measure are necessary for the type of analysis the paper discusses for earth and Mars but does NOT for Venus. Also I have explained why the non existent historical data is needed to show that Venus temperature is due to runaway I've made it as simple as I can if it went over your head I can't help you. So yes let's drop the Venus discussion.
I have no idea of what Dr Zagoni did or exactly what he is referring to we are not discussing his what is it a remark or a peer reviewed paper?
"You implied" perhaps you think that what I said would stop much further heating was the fact that there is no measurable extra absorption going on due increased CO2. This too went right over your head. When some idiot said that it would keep the heat lower down THEN I mentioned that convection and the slightly higher temperature would be stronger and would remove the heat just as fast possible faster. In any case the virial theorem should still hold - just to bring it back into the context of the paper that we ARE discussing.
Questions arise regarding an “inhomogeneous” atmosphere, (IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine, AMS) and boundary values. Tons of undergraduate stuff
http://www.springerlink.com/content/e816m111330501v6/
Partial differential equations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_differential_equations
“Partial differential equations are used to model physical phenomena such as heat dissipation, wave propagation, and stress. When the parameters for these events are homogeneous, i.e. the net boundary contribution is zero, and there is no source driving subsequent outcomes, then we use the method of "Separation of Variables" to analytically find solutions. However, in physics, things are not always simple. Inhomogeneous boundaries as well as sources abound in most practical problems. I will demonstrate a technique which utilizes the orthogonal properties of eigen-functions to find analytic solutions to these inhomogeneous PDE's”
Quote: Major Tony Johnson West Point Mathematics
inhomogeneous PDE's (clouds)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhamel's_principle
When Jan returns I’d like him to consider some more study on the role of cavities (also resonators, waveguides, rings etc), in space and in our scientific devices.
The first job in all environmental measurement is to recognize all those natural amplifiers. Before we start hunting suspects in foreign lands we need a good feel for these well established pathways.
Collecting appropriate data can be difficult. Naive practitioners won’t feel the gentle pull of the divining rod in any study, neither will they catch a photon with pure stats however here is an empty jar for stage one.
This is practical stuff that should catch something zipping by at ground zero. Blow the math.
http://www.raquo.net/fine-structure/2007/08/your-cloud-chamber.html
I saw the light back in the 1960’s and reckon there is nothing new under the sun. Gotchya!
Stage two? Walking up to the window from the back of your room while chatting on the mobile - fringe area please.
We should find the spot for enhanced handshakes regardless of transducers and frequencies. Using the damn thing in the car could give you a headache and a hot ear.
“Extensive theoretical work, often augmented by computer simulations, has uncovered a wealth of new physical phenomena at the blurry interface between the microscopic and macroscopic worlds (BTW, I leave the scene about here), where classical theory may be chaotic and quantum theory is very complicated”.
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_edpik/ps_1.htm
Give me a practical team anytime.
http://www.ics.mq.edu.au/research/MOPL/projects/
Resonating yet?