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.
Jan, come off it. You said it "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."
That's your great rebuttal?
What about this paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6T-4M04J8S-1&_user=659159&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000035829&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=659159&md5=2cdde01ece79f33341fba9970a51c0ac
I say we end the Venus discussion.
Ohhhhhhhhhh ok, Jan, so if some guy takes his equations and uses them to get 2-3 degrees, he's wrong? Yes, of course... So Dr Zagoni is wrong, because he did the maths wrong?
Why don't you do the maths then? Show me what it should be, I asked you, remember?
You implied in your statement (and we spoke about it at length) that there would be increased convection that would stop any further heating. Or do you deny that? Dr Miskolzci theory apparently allows for further heating.
I also asked you at what concentration of CO2 you reached the limit of it's effectiveness of absorbing IR, you refused that too.
Mr T,I sent you a bunch of links, and thay all showed evidence. You decided (for some reason) that they were arm-waving.
No not arm waving but conjecture I've explained why so don't play dumb about it and say I haven't. All you need to do is refute the argument if you can understand it that is.
Dr Zagoni is not the author Dr Miskolzci is.
Can YOU see the difference?
Another difference you obviously can't see is the huge one between the transition from zero GHG (completely transparent atmosphere) to one with some present(semi transparent atmosphere) (some would say it's infinite) and the transition from some GHG to some more GHG.
I'm now off to Sydney for my little girl's graduation.
Jan
I sent you a bunch of links, and thay all showed evidence. You decided (for some reason) that they were arm-waving. That's your choice, and is fine, but don't pretend that there is no evidence.
No Jan.
Authors theory:
"the increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must not be the reason of global warming."
And "Dr. Zagoni has used the theory to calculate an upper bound from CO2-based warming in the realm of 2-3C."
Jan's theory:
"So even though over the whole column there is no extra energy absorbed due to increased CO2, there is more absorbed lower causing more atmospheric warming over a smaller portion of the atmosphere. Now the warmer air is the more buoyant it is so convection will remove the heat from near the surface just as fast if not faster than with less CO2. "
Can you see the difference?
Here, let me show you:
Author: "Dr. Zagoni has used the theory to calculate an upper bound from CO2-based warming in the realm of 2-3C."
Jan: "Now the warmer air is the more buoyant it is so convection will remove the heat from near the surface just as fast if not faster than with less CO2. "
You seem to be implying that there will be no warming. He implies 2-3 degrees. That is a big difference.
Mr T, "you keep waffling and pretending evidence doesn't exist."
All you need to do is present it to prove me wrong you have already admitted you can't. What more can you say about that has any value at all?
How many times do you need that passage from the conclusion of the paper to be repeated before you stop asking me to explain he does not say in paper. Really I'm wondering what sort of idiot would do that.
"How do you reconcile that your theory (of no more warming and possible cooling from CO2) with the authors theory?"
Given what the author says in the conclusion "the increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must not be the reason of global warming."
"My theory" coincides with his and DOES NOT NEED RECONCILING"
I'm a day off today yet you are making me feel I'm still at work. Do you not understand that there is no and can be no rational answer to such a question.
Jan, you keep waffling and pretending evidence doesn't exist.
HEAPS of evidence for greenhouse effect on Venus, most notably it's enormous surface temp and atmosphere composed almost entirely of CO2.
"I have NEVER claimed this authors works contradicts AGW the author did that himself in the conclusion!"
Yes, and yet he apparently concludes that the max temp for CO2 is 2-3 degrees. Sounds like AGW to me. How is this any different to AGW? I asked you at what concentration this 2-3 degrees happens, you refused to answer (and have pretended you have answered my questions).
How do you reconcile that your theory (of no more warming and possible cooling from CO2) with the authors theory?
As usual you are happy for ANY theory which apparently discredits AGW to the extent that you will apparently accept contradictory theories (as Gavin just pointed out).
We had a proposal on ABC Quantum yesterday to beam down energy (microwave) from a solar farm in space however that beam was apparently harmless to life.
Bulk of it won't get near the surface if 60 Ghz is used it will be perfectly safe.
As for the 30 M that is something that has been known since the 1700s and Beer showed that adding absorber only reduced the distance over which the same amount was absorbed a century later.
"I note the above self adjusting argument pays scant regard to the cosmic ray theory on the Shaviv thread."
It doesn't indeed it's not interested. Just interested what the effect is in allowing for the fact that the atmosphere is bounded by gravity has on energy balance models, cosmic ray theory is just an unnecessary distraction. Louis has already made comment about distractions in posts here that I don't think I need to amplify.
Hey; what a hothouse! “a layer only 30m deep layer is enough to absorb all terrestrial radiation”. A very shallow layer indeed.
We had a proposal on ABC Quantum yesterday to beam down energy (microwave) from a solar farm in space however that beam was apparently harmless to life.
With my feet firmly on the ground I recalled RF in solids burns (final stage in mobile phones, induction heaters, microwave ovens, bodies warmed by radar etc) and a yarn about a worried family guy who regularly sat on his moderately powerful transceiver to hide it.
Scanning the literature on close exposure to radiation hazards was officially part of my many practical tasks in communications then. Amplification of particular hazards was another line of interest. Don’t stand in front of a dish or grab onto a long wire suspended in the atmosphere on an antenna farm or electrical substation. Signals and static both have a punch.
I note the above self adjusting argument pays scant regard to the cosmic ray theory on the Shaviv thread. We have the capacity to warm up one way or another, which way do we want it?
again all you do is deny that evidence exists
all you need to do is prove that it does you have already said you can't so why do you keep on carrying on about it. I'm not about to try to prove a negative.
I have NEVER claimed this authors works contradicts AGW the author did that himself in the conclusion!
"Considering the magnitude of the observed global average
surface temperature rise and the consequences of the new greenhouse equations, the increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must not be the reason of global warming."
Your are right though I am a phony I thought I had some skill as a teacher since I can't apparently dumb it down enough you to comprehend it obviously those skills are clearly lacking.
You have been given the answers I really can't make it any simpler for you if you still can't understand it it's not my problem. Gavin has admitted at lest that he is too lazy maybe he's right maybe it's really an executive function deficit - who knows?
Jan, again all you do is deny that evidence exists. Yet quite clearly it does, given that have been over half a dozen missions to Venus, and an orbiter currently mapping it. To say that it is guesswork is silly. None of the data contradicts the Greenhouse hypothesis.
What do you think this means:
"30m deep layer is enough to absorb all terrestrial radiation"
What is your point with this?
Ender, I am a bit slow as Jan has noticed. And I was skeptical that he was a phoney at first (as a good scientist should be). But he has proven it to me. He still won;t back up his earlier declarations nor point out how this authors work contradicts AGW, nor whether his earlier decalrations contradict this author.
Ender:Perhaps you could give them a call Jan and set them on the correct path as they seem to be doing it all wrong.
Perhaps you can show your superior understanding and show where the HITRAN data contradicts what I've been saying it's all basic text book stuff noting really controversial.
For example: [ McIlveen, R., "Fundamentals of Weather and Climate", Chapman & Hall, (1992) ]
"the atmosphere is almost completely opaque in substantial parts of the spectrum... and the atmosphere is really very opaque indeed to the wavelengths strongly absorbed by water vapour and carbon dioxide and that a layer only 30 m deep contains enough carbon dioxide and water vapour to absorb all terrestrial radiation" [apart from that exiting through the 7.5 - 13 micron window]
Let me emphasise
30m deep layer is enough to absorb all terrestrial radiation.
what did I say? 15.5 m for only the 15 micron band then if you the 4.2 micron CO2 band that has an extinction coefficient of 29.9 m^2/mol it's 22.9 m then if we take water into account I'd say it was right on the mark.
When the extinction coefficient is calculated for a particular line the curve is integrated over the whole line so all broadening effects are taken into account. What do you think a line by line integration does?