The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements. Apparently major revision of the physics underlying the greenhouse effect is needed.Miskolczi's analysis of 61 years of data shows that there has been no change in the infrared "heat-trapping" ability of IR-active "greenhouse gases" over the period, in stark contrast to claims of the "greenhouse effect" that "heat-trapping" should increase in direct relation to the concentration of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere. Since the concentration of CO2 has steadily risen over the 61 year period, while the imaginary "heat-trapping" has not, the theory of anthropogenic global warming is empirically falsified.
The greenhouse effect is here monitored without the superfluous complications of AOGCM climate models. The present method shows directly whether the global average infrared absorption properties of the atmosphere are changing or not. In general, if there has been global warming due to any cause, its possible correlation with infrared absorption properties of the atmosphere will be directly apparent from accurate observations assessed by calculations of the absorption properties. The present results show an apparent warming associated with no apparent change in the absorption properties. Change in absorption properties cannot have been the cause of the warming.
The results show that the theoretical CO2-induced virtual increase in true greenhouse- gas optical thickness greatly exceeds the actual empirically measured change over the 61-year dataset. The fact that the virtual change is about four times the actual change is strong empirical evidence that there is a very strong dynamic compensation that stabilizes the atmospheric energy transport process against a potential perturbation by CO2 change. This means that the empirically estimated virtual feedback of water vapor effect on the greenhouse-gas optical thickness is not significantly positive contradicting the IPCC doctrine of it being strongly positive. It is clear from these data that the increase in surface temperature shown in Fig. 9 cannot in the least be accounted for by any effect of CO2 on greenhouse gas optical thickness, with or without positive feedback by water vapor. Merely empirical evidence does not necessarily justify predictions of the future: for them, in addition to empirical evidence, some logical warrant of generality is needed. Such a warrant of generality is usually called a physical theory. In order to predict the future, we need a principled physical theory to explain our empirical observations. The present paper has restricted its attention to the empirical observational testing of the quasi-all-sky model, and has avoided theoretical analysis. These empirical results could well be challenged by a comparable empirical method.
Miskolczi states that the empirical data do not support the fundamental tenets of the greenhouse theory and therefore calls for a "major revision" of the physics of the so-called "greenhouse effect." Suitable candidates for this "major revision" would be the Gerlich & Tscheuschner papers and Chilingar et al papers.
See also prior posts on Miskolczi and Kirk Meyer's new post with an interview of Dr. Miskolczi:
Miskolczi destroys greenhouse theory
Climate Truth: 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.
Climate Truth: 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.
ClimateTruth: 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.
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?
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.
ClimateTruth: 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: 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.
Go to SOURCE for remainder of interview
Many thanks for bringing Miskolczi's new peer-reviewed paper to our attention. This is important new information that needs to be communicated far and wide.
ReplyDeleteWow - this is marvelous research, striking at the very heart of the matter. ABOUT TIME !!!
ReplyDeleteNow watch as Big AGW turns all its guns on the brave Dr. Miskolczi.
IMO the Doctor is a true scientist, disregarding 'consensus' and looking only to the Science.
I think you are all making a big mistake. The theory of Miskolczi has the same defects as the IPCC Greenhouse theory which was originally put forward by Kiehl and Trenberth in their 1994 paper
ReplyDeleteKiehl J. T. and K. E. Trenberth 1997. Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. Bull. Am. Met. Soc. 78 197-208.
The theory assumes the earth is flat with constant sun, day and night and that its energy is "balanced". Most of the quantities they use are so uncertain that they were able to fiddle them so that they "balanced". Recently they have had to change their mind. A new version of this model
Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. Kiehl, J. T. and Trenberth, K. E., 1997. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. , 78, 197-208
has been unable to "balance" the earth's energy, even by fiddling. Trenberth has called it a "travesty" and so it is.
Moskolsczi has "improved" this absurd model by ignoring the huge uncertainties which should be associated with all his "data", to persuade us that the earth is in "equilibrium"
No part of the earth is ever in energy equilibrium and there is every evidence that it is never "balanced", It is true that the radiosonde and MSU data do not support the IPCC theory but the Miskolczi theory is every bit as implausible.
In my opinion Miskolczi's paper is most useful because he shows that "IPCC physics" needs a "major revision," even though he doesn't tell us what that should be. I have suggested the G&T papers and Chilingar et al paper as suitable candidates for the "major revision" called for by Miskolczi.
ReplyDeleteMS qualifies it nicely; although the context for skeptics is a timely refutation, us more trenchant 'deniers' of GHG ‘theory’ welcome Dr. Gray's excellent point even more as it affirms the need to expose the entire flawed edifice of faux science.
ReplyDelete@Vincent Gray,
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me you are very acknowlegeable on these "Climate" papers and your conclusion is neither IPCC nor Miskolczi is correct. Is somewhere in between correct?
@Vincent Gray,
ReplyDeleteWhy to confuse people? Here we are not talking about competing greenhouse theories. The main point of my recent article is that in the last 61 years the global average infrared optical thickness of the real spherical refractive inhomogeneous atmosphere is 1.87 , and this value is not changing with increasing CO2 amount.
This means that no AGW exists based CO2 greenhouse effect. This is a very simple statement.
In this context it is irrelevant what you or Trenberth, or Spencer or Lindzen or the RC gurus like G. Schmidt from NASA or R.
Pierrehumbert, P. Levenson, ect. may or may not believe about the physics of the greenhouse effect.
If you have some basic knowledge of quantitative IR radiative transfer, you and the others may compute this quantity.
This is the only physical quantity that is fundamental for any or all greenhouse theories.
Here you do not need to refer to useless radiative budget cartoons or GCMs. If you do not trust my computations, compute it yourself
and verify or falsify my results. There are no theories to chose, but the correct computation of a single physical quantity which gives
the information about the absorbed amount of the surface upward radiation.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/why-greenhouse-gas-warming-doesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
ReplyDeleteYour take?