The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has an idea about how the Earth cools itself: when the planet’s surface warms up, it sends more heat into space as infrared radiation. They estimate that for every 1-degree Celsius increase in temperature, the Earth releases an extra 3.3 watts of energy per square meter—a natural cooling effect.
At the Earth’s average temperature of about 15°C, this balances out the heat coming in from the sun, keeping things stable. But the IPCC also says that as the planet warms, water vapour in the atmosphere increases, trapping more heat and making warming worse. This “positive feedback” leads them to predict a significant temperature rise—about 3°C—if we double the amount of CO2 in the air. But what if water vapour doesn’t always work that way?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides a foundational estimate for the Planck feedback—the increase in outgoing long wave infrared radiation (OLR) with temperature—as -3.3 W/m2/K at Earth’s average surface temperature of 288 K, where OLR is approximately 240 W/m2 (IPCC AR6, 2021). Derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (j = σ T^4), this feedback means a 1 K temperature increase raises OLR by 3.3 W/m2, a 1.4% increase, acting as a natural self-cooling mechanism. Over small temperature ranges, this relationship is quasi-linear, stabilising the climate system. The IPCC, however, assumes positive feedbacks, particularly from water vapour (+1.1 W/m2/K), reduce the net feedback to -1.2 W/m2/K, leading to an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of ~3 K for a CO2 doubling (3.7 W/m2 forcing). This positive feedback narrative drives the IPCC’s CO2-centric warming projections, but what if water vapour behaves differently?
Complicating the IPCC with Miskolczi’s Radiative Equilibrium Theory
Ferenc Miskolczi’s 2023 paper challenges the IPCC’s framework by proposing that the Earth’s atmosphere maintains a constant flux optical thickness (τ ≈ 1.867), keeping OLR stable at 240 W/m2 despite rising CO2 levels. Using NOAA-R1 radiosonde data (1948–2008), Miskolczi shows that water vapour (H2O) decreases as CO2 increases (Figures 10 and 11), suggesting a negative feedback: H2O reductions make the atmosphere more transparent to LWIR, offsetting CO2’s radiative forcing. His HARTCODE simulations (Figure 9) yield an effective feedback of -2.54 W/m2/K, lower than the IPCC’s -3.3 W/m2/K due to atmospheric absorption (A = 1 - e^-τ ≈ 0.85). However, the decreasing H2O trend implies that τ may decline over time, potentially increasing the feedback closer to -3.3 W/m2/K. Miskolczi’s theory complicates the IPCC’s narrative by prioritising the hydrological cycle over CO2, suggesting that negative feedbacks dominate, potentially reducing ECS far below the IPCC’s estimate.
Comparing with Satellite Measurements: A Reality Check
Satellite measurements from AIRS and IASI (2003–2021) provide a critical test of Miskolczi’s claims. These instruments show a decreasing OLR trend of -0.05 to -0.3% per year in CO2 and CH4 spectral bands, equating to a reduction of -2.16 to -12.96 W/m2 over 18 years. By 2021, global mean OLR may have dropped to 235–238 W/m2, reflecting increased greenhouse gas trapping, which contradicts Miskolczi’s assertion of OLR stability at 240 W/m2. Additionally, AIRS estimates a clear-sky feedback of -2.2 W/m2/K, closer to Miskolczi’s -2.54 W/m2/K than the IPCC’s -3.3 W/m2/K, suggesting real-world feedbacks may be weaker due to atmospheric dynamics like clouds. However, satellites also show increasing H2O with warming, challenging Miskolczi’s negative feedback from decreasing H2O. This discrepancy highlights a tension: while Miskolczi’s framework captures some radiative balance aspects, recent observations suggest greenhouse gases are reducing OLR, aligning more with the IPCC’s view of positive feedbacks.
Proposing a New Hypothesis: Dynamic Hydrological Feedback with Regional Variability
Reconciling these perspectives, I propose a new hypothesis: the Earth’s climate system is governed by a dynamic hydrological feedback with regional variability, where the IPCC’s Planck feedback (-3.3 W/m2/K) acts as the initial stabiliser, but water vapour’s role varies spatially and temporally.
In regions where H2O decreases (as Miskolczi’s data suggests), negative feedback enhances the Planck response, potentially increasing the effective feedback to -3.3 W/m2/K or higher by reducing τ.
In contrast, regions with increasing H2O (per satellite data) exhibit positive feedback, reducing OLR and aligning with the IPCC’s narrative.
Globally, these competing effects may average to a feedback closer to AIRS’s -2.2 W/m2/K, suggesting an ECS of ~1.7 K (3.7 / 2.2), lower than the IPCC’s 3 K but higher than Miskolczi’s near-zero warming. This hypothesis accounts for satellite-observed OLR decreases while integrating Miskolczi’s insights on hydrological regulation, proposing that regional H2O trends—rather than a uniform global response—drive climate sensitivity.
Conclusion
Miskolczi’s work, particularly Figure 9, illustrates radiative transfer functions that modulate OLR, while satellite data reveals the complexity of real-world trends. My hypothesis builds on the IPCC’s -3.3 W/m2/K feedback, incorporates Miskolczi’s hydrological insights, and addresses satellite observations by emphasizing regional variability in H2O feedbacks. This perspective challenges the IPCC’s uniform positive feedback assumption and Miskolczi’s strict OLR stability, offering a nuanced view of climate regulation that warrants further research into regional hydrological dynamics.
This new hypothesis is Plank#4 of my new Theory of Climate Resilience.
This was due to be shared on Friday of this week at Substack, but taking Willis Eschenbach's advice about being open to constructive criticism more generally, I'm putting it out a bit early and at my blog, to see what constructive criticism are thrown up in advance.
References
IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/.
Miskolczi, F. (2023). Greenhouse Gas Theories and Observed Radiative Properties of the Earth’s Atmosphere. Science of Climate Change, 3(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202304/05.
Ironicman. Thanks for the reference.
In other words there is an increase in the cloud free area of high pressure cells in the mid latitudes consistent with enhanced uplift on the margins of Antarctica and possibly the Aleutian and the North Atlantic Low that is conjunctional with a fall in atmospheric surface pressure pole-wards of about 45 South Latitude.
This is consistent with my remarks above that include the following:
The zones where convection is most active are not at the equator or over the landmasses but in the region of the Arctic and Antarctic circles where the heating of ozone by long wave radiation from the Earth is most active in the winter due to the relative abundance of ozone at that time, impacting the air in the atmospheric column above 400hPa.
The extent of convection in high latitudes changes over time. This is indicated by the reduction in surface pressure of as much as 10hPa over Antarctica and through to about 45 degrees south latitude over the period of record. This alone will change the extent of cloud cover in the mid latitudes where high pressure cells expand and contract geographically according to the volume of air that is descending.
A decrease in cloud cover has caused global warming.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025GL114882
The Warmistas are fighting back with more dubious propaganda.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jun/19/planets-reflective-cloud-coverage-is-shrinking-and-amplifying-the-climate-crisis-research-finds
Just as you are on the verge of the new theory and showing that H2O increases to balance CO2 .
Coincidence, I think not.
Lol, drivel.
Looking in the mirror again.
Challenge still open: present one bit of evidence for alarmism. And I don't mean regurgitating your AI search of official sites and pronouncements. I mean in your own limited words, one shred of evidence.
"The tragedy of this denial and obfuscation is that many people, and many species, will perish needlessly because political leaders have wallowed in cowardice, vested interest, and ideological posturing for decades. … But the power of all our ingrained biases is such that we can see the death and destruction predicted by science in front of us, in real time, and still find another explanation.”
Typical alarmist hysteria, hyperbole and unmasked misanthropy. Not a skerrick of evidence or fact, just militant, uncompromising aggression. The psychology of alarmism is a textbook example of ideological fanaticism. It is destroying the West and it is not for nothing that green groups in the West are funded by China and Russia.
"The hand of climate change is often overlooked in episodes such as these, particularly when the issue is transplanted from the realm of science to pitched political battle. In a small selection of countries-primarily Australia and the United States-climate change has been treated as a sort of partisan viewpoint rather than a unifying scientific challenge for us to overcome. The tragedy of this denial and obfuscation is that many people, and many species, will perish needlessly because political leaders have wallowed in cowardice, vested interest, and ideological posturing for decades. ... But the power of all our ingrained biases is such that we can see the death and destruction predicted by science in front of us, in real time, and still find another explanation." - The Insect Crisis
Our Fragile Dependence on the Planet's Smallest Creatures, A New Scientist Book of the Year
By Oliver Milman · 2022
https://library.wmo.int/records/item/69455-state-of-the-global-climate-2024
English cricket commentator from Lords, before play yesterday; 'Extraordinary – it hasn't rained in London for three months.'