Sunday, February 14, 2010

Former NASA scientist defends theory refuting global warming doctrine

From The Examiner:  In response to reader interest in Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi’s provocative greenhouse theory challenging the widespread belief in man-caused global warming, has asked the former NASA researcher to explain his work further. Earlier this week he attacked the prevailing climate-change theory, calling it “a lie.” 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.  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.  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.  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. 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.  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: Yes. Our atmosphere, with its infinite degree of freedom, is able to maintain its global average infrared absorption at an optimal level. In technical terms, this “greenhouse constant” is the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere, and its theoretical value is 1.87. 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.
Read more at link above. And see prior post with Dr. Miskolczi's paper here.
The Saturated Greenhouse Effect Theory of Ferenc Miskolczi

Related: The Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect


  1. So a doubling of CO2 concentrations would yield how much warming using Miskolczi's saturated greenhouse theory? Would it be zeros, or nominally above that?

  2. Miskolczi's theory says the greenhouse effect is saturated at current levels of greenhouse gases, that addition of more greenhouse gases will not affect temperature