Physicist: Cooling Effect of CO2 is 100x Greater than Warming Effect

Charles Anderson PhD, a materials physicist, has a new post today which calculates the cooling effect of CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases to be 100 times greater than the heating effect.

"the cooling effect due to keeping incoming solar IR radiation away from the surface is about 100 times the re-heating effect proclaimed by greenhouse gas alarmists"

As also shown in Rescue from the Climate Saviors, CO2 and other IR-active gases do not act “like a blanket” but rather “like a sunshade”. They keep a part of the solar energy away from the earth’s surface. IR-active gases cool the earth: 70% of the entire cooling power originates from these molecules. Without these gases in the air, the surface and the air immediately above the ground would heat up more. The notion that a concentration increase of IR-active gases would impede earth’s cooling is impossible.

Dr. Anderson's post:
On Some Flaws in Greenhouse Gas Global Warming
Preface: I realized after writing this that I had forgotten to add a term for IR absorption by so-called greenhouse gases of the IR radiation which was reflected from the surface without being absorbed in the surface. This term is larger than that due to the radiation of IR due to the absorption of the solar radiation by the surface, but the sum of the two terms will still be smaller than the absorption by so-called greenhouse gases on the first pass through the atmosphere of incoming solar radiation. Also, please note that the incoming IR absorption process tends to deposit energy in the atmosphere at higher altitudes, while the outgoing absorption of IR by greenhouse gases deposits that energy closer to the ground. The discussion below is a simple attempt to see if adding IR-absorbing gases to the atmosphere tends to result in more or less warming of the surface. The most effective warming of the surface is that radiation first absorbed by the surface, rather than somewhere in the atmosphere. The remainder of this post is as it was earlier today posted and distributed.

I have just finished reading an excellent article by Alan Siddons called The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory on American Thinker from way back on 25 February 2010. The article is a little slow in developing, but finishes with a death blow to the usual theory put forth by catastrophic anthropogenic global warming advocates. I intend to explain more concisely what Siddons explained and to add comments of my own in this post which make the deathblow much more gory.

Greenhouse Theory disproven in 1909, 1963, 1966, 1973...but still refuses to die

Robert W. Wood, a professor of experimental physics at the Johns Hopkins University, was perhaps the first "skeptic" of the greenhouse gas "heat trapping" theory, and in 1909 performed a series of classic experiments which disproved its three major assumptions. This excerpt from Rescue from the Climate Saviors illustrates Woods experimental findings:

Alan Siddons, a radiochemist, has forwarded a new essay which culls from the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper and other sources to show that, in addition to Wood's classic 1909 paper, a number of subsequent papers also disproved the greenhouse "heat trapping" theory, but nonetheless this false construct continues to be propagated by the IPCC, educators, and in the scientific literature:

More on the Solar Controversy

A physicist for The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) has a post today addressing the controversy over the IPCC claim that anthropogenic forcing of climate dominates over natural forcings such as changes in the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). The post agrees with and quotes the scientists who operate the ACRIM satellite missions who state: "TSI variation has been the dominant forcing for climate change during the industrial era." The author also discusses why the alleged anthropogenic forcing is only one-twelfth of the uncertainty and thus far from statistical significance, as well as other uncertainties which show the IPCC conclusions to be unjustified or unqualified. [Google translation + editing]:

The mysterious role of anthropogenic radiative forcings - what's behind it?

Radiative forcing is the difference between of the incoming solar and outgoing long-wave radiation intensity. The IPCC defines this slightly differently: "The RF from the definition of TAR and earlier IPCC assessment reports is retained. Ramaswamy et al. (2001) define it as ' the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W/m2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values "(AR4, Ch.2, p.133).

This implies that there is a balance, which corresponds to the assumption of an optimal climate, according to the IPCC. The total solar radiation intensity is given by the IPCC as RFTSI = 1367W/m2. The following graph shows the measurements from three satellites:

 

The reason for the difference of 0.35% (RFmeas = 4.8W/m2!) is not currently understood.

The AGW Myth of Back Radiation

Prior posts have shown intuitive examples that the theory of back radiation from greenhouse gases causing warming is fictitious, that NASA's Earth energy budget does not include back radiation at all (in stark contrast to the IPCC which shows it to be unidirectional and 95% of the solar input), and that at least 28 other analyses of the physics agree that back radiation can not cause additional increase in global temperature. The IPCC Earth energy budget was created by Kevin Trenberth, author of the climategate email stating "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". Most likely, the reason the Trenberth/IPCC Earth energy budget can't account for the lack of warming is because warming from greenhouse gas back radiation doesn't exist.


Claes Johnson, professor of applied mathematics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, has a blog for those interested in the mathematics & physics of the atmosphere, and has a new post today which also finds the conventional greenhouse gas theory of back radiation or reradiation causing global warming to be fictitious:

AGW Myth of Reradiation:

AGW alarmism is  based on an idea of "reradiation" from an atmosphere with greenhouse gases, but the  physics of this phenomenon remains unclear. 

To test if  "reradiation" is a real phenomenon, we suggest the following experiment: On a night with moon-light so feeble that you can cannot read a newspaper, place yourself in front of a mirror letting the moonlight reflect from the newspaper to the mirror and back again, and check if you can now read. You will probably find that the paper is still unreadable as if the "reradiation" does not give more light.

'Judithgate' Update

The evolving 'Judithgate' 'consensus of one' 'solargate' 'scandal' has gone viral worldwide with Klimaskeptik.cz now hosting an English version of the original post along with new supporting materials. Included are the original quotes and a letter from astrophysicist Richard C. Willson (head of the ACRIM satellites):

Fröhlich [and co-author Judith Lean] made unauthorized and incorrect adjustments...  He did it without any detailed knowledge of the  ACRIM1 instrument or on-orbit performance...The only obvious purpose was to devise a TSI composite, that agreed with the predictions of Lean's TSI proxy model.

And from Douglas Hoyt (the famous inventor of GSN - Group Sunspot Number indicator) - who agrees with Willson. Klimaskeptic.cz:"The graph tampering done by Judith [Lean] and Claus [Frohlich}was scientifically unjustified. Hoyt must know that. The questionable changes were done to the data from the Nimbus 7 satellite, where he used to be in charge."

Nicola Scafetta. Climate Change and Its Causes - A Discussion About Some Key Issues. (Presented at EPA, Feb 2009) Source 

From astrophysicist Douglas Hoyt's letter regarding the paper by Lean and Frolich: "Thus, Frohlich’s PMOD TSI composite is not consistent with the internal data or physics of the Nimbus7 cavity radiometer."

Klimaskeptic background material on the "incorrect" adjustments Lean and Frohlich applied to the ACRIM satellite data: (Google translation)

Fellow Czech blogger & physicist Luboš Motl (The Reference Frame) has a post stating

This is a typical story showing the character of the [IPCC] "consensus".

Whenever there are questions that really matter, the IPCC minimizes the number of people who have something to say about the subject. The goal is clear, the small number of authors (in this case, a single author) are expected to say that nothing aside from CO2 really matters - so that the important question isn't even discussed. This task for Ms Lean was determined from the very beginning: after all, this task is what the IPCC is all about. She was selected for her ability to fulfill this task in a disciplined way which is what she has done, indeed.

Joe D'Aleo (Icecap.us) has linked the story to his 2007 essay Shining More Light on the Solar Factor, A Discussion of the Problems with the Royal Society Paper by Lockwood and Frohlich:.:

Claus Frohlich, meanwhile, constructed a composite time series from satellite observations of total solar irradiance (TSI) made since the late 1970's. His composite, the so-called 'PMOD' model, modifies the published results of the Numbus7/ERB and ACRIM1 science teams to provide better agreement with the predictions of a statistical model by Judith Lean based on linear regressions against solar emission and absorption line proxies for TSI.  (emphasis added)

IPCC "Consensus" on Solar Influence was Only One Solar Physicist who Agreed with Her Own Paper

Klimaskeptik.cz, a Czech climate skeptic blog, has posted today an interesting article "Judithgate: The IPCC was only one Solar Physicist" (google rough translation). Her name is Judith Lean (photo at right). On the basis of this "consensus of one" solar physicist, the IPCC proclaimed solar influences upon the climate to be minimal. Objection to this was raised by the Norwegian government as shown in the AR4 second draft comments below (and essentially dismissed by the IPCC): "I would encourage the IPCC to [re-]consider having only one solar physicist on the lead author team of such an important chapter. In particular since the conclusion of this section about solar forcing hangs on one single paper in which J. Lean is a coauthor. I find that this paper, which certainly can be correct, is given too much weight"...:

Klimaskeptic.cz continues [google translation + editing]: "As I wrote elsewhere (article on pmode ACRIM), Judith Lean, along with Claus Frohlich, are responsible for the scandalous rewriting of graphs of solar activity. Satellites showed that the TSI (measured in watts) between 1986 and 96 increased by about one third. Judith Lean and Claus Frohlich (authors of the single study noted above) "manipulated" the data. People who were in charge of the satellites and created the original graphs (the world's best astrophysicists: Doug Hoyt, Richard C. Willson), protested in vain against such manipulation. Willson: "Fröhlich has made changes that are wrong ... He did not have sufficient knowledge of (satellite) Nimbus7 ... pmode composites are useful for those who argue that global warming may be primarily due to anthropogenic causes." [cautionary note English->Czech->English translation of Willson]

Why conventional Greenhouse Theory Violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics

Alan Siddons, a radiochemist, has forwarded a new essay explaining with simple examples why conventional greenhouse gas theory violates the conservation of energy demanded by the 1st law of thermodynamics. He writes, "Here’s another essay that deals with the silly heating-via-reradiation hypothesis, my critics be damned. It repeats the same point: If a body can heat itself by absorbing its own radiation, and thereby emit more radiation, then it is necessarily emitting more radiation than it’s receiving."

"One is disturbed each day by verifiably untrue statements touted as incontrovertible facts about hot-button issues." -- Richard S. Lindzen

"CO2 absorbs in the infrared and reradiates heat downward, thus heating the earth." -- Richard S. Lindzen

Okay then, let's examine that particular "incontrovertible fact." You know how a solar oven works.

By multiple reflections, the interior is exposed to more rays from the sun, so the food gets much hotter than it'd get otherwise. The operant principle is akin to how stage lighting works.

In the zone where the beams intersect, the photon density is greater so more light is delivered. It may be obvious, but it's worth pointing out that the two beams pass through each other — they do not clash like the Light Sabers in Star Wars movies. Worth noting too is that whereas more light makes the target brighter, i.e., increases the amount of light being reflected, it also increases the amount being absorbed, thus heating the target. Which of course is how a solar oven works.
Now, you’ve been told that terrestrial infrared is re-radiated back to the earth’s surface and heats it. So let’s test this notion by turning a spotlight off and seeing if we can mimic a second spotlight with a mirror, which will provide re-radiation. After all, a mirror has no idea of what it’s reflecting — it could be visible light or infrared 'heat rays.' It makes no difference to a mirror.
Well, is it any surprise that nothing happens? Reflecting light back to the bright spot doesn’t make it brighter. (You can try this at home on a wall.) 

NOAA: AGW Didn't cause Record Snowfall or Increased Precipitation; Models "very different" from reality

Al Gore's 2/27/10 Op-Ed in the New York Times claimed that the 2010 record-breaking snowfall was due to anthropogenic global warming:
"The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth, yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere — thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States."
However, the NOAA Climate Scene Investigators (CSI), a team of “attribution” experts whose job is to determine the causes for climate conditions, "found no evidence — no human “fingerprints” — to implicate our involvement in the snowstorms. If global warming was the culprit, the team would have expected to find a gradual increase in heavy snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic region as temperatures rose during the past century. But historical analysis revealed no such increase in snowfall. Nor did the CSI team find any indication of an upward trend in winter precipitation along the eastern seaboard.

Annual Snowfall Reagan National Airport 1888-2010 shows no trend

The CSI Team found abundant historical evidence of heavy mid-Atlantic snowstorms whenever an El Niño and a negative NAO acted in concert, further supporting their conclusion that the record-setting snowstorms were the result of natural causes. But could global warming have elevated the potency of this dynamic duo? Again, the CSI Team didn’t find a connection.
But the extreme blocked-NAO of this past winter was opposite to the trend toward more positive phases of the NAO since 1950, and also opposite to projections for a positive trend in the NAO during the 21st Century due to greenhouse gas increases.

The observed variations of winter precipitation in the Washington, D.C., area (left) have been very different from what models predict would occur if only human-induced emissions of greenhouse gas and aerosols (right) were taken into consideration. This evidence suggests the mid-Atlantic’s trends in precipitation are mainly due to natural variability, not human influence."

For more on the unreliability of General Circulation Climate Models, see the highly recommended piece A Climate of Belief in Skeptic Magazine. 

Another Alarmist Claim Topples

From GRL/AGU Journal Highlights 6/22/10:

Less warming risk from permafrost thaw


Soil found in the Arctic stores half of the world's soil organic carbon (SOC) and twice as much carbon as is in the atmosphere. Rising temperatures in the Arctic are thawing the permafrost; some of the soil carbon then degrades into greenhouse gases that are remobilized into the carbon cycle, exerting positive [negative to minimal according to several empirical studies] feedback on global warming.

Vonk et al.'s objective was to find out what happens to terrestrial SOC after it is released from Arctic landmasses to coastal waters. The authors chose northernmost Scandinavia to conduct their study due to its sensitivity to the warming climate.

The molecular radiocarbon fingerprint of suspended particulate matter and surface sediments collected during spring flood 2005 in the Kalix River-Bothnian Bay system reveals that there are two distinct SOC pools, which exhibit different susceptibilities to degradation upon settling from the surface water to the underlying sediments. The exported SOC distributed by rivers and streams consists of a young pool that is released from recent plant material and the upper soil layers of peatlands and an older pool that originates from deeper mineral soil layers.

The data reveal that the young pool, with an inferred high degradation rate, would be expected to add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, while the carbon from the older pool, which is tightly bound to mineral particles that protect it from degradation, would resettle in coastal sediments. Therefore, thaw-released mineral organic carbon may, relative to peat organic carbon, preferentially end up in coastal sediments instead of the atmosphere. The results suggest that researchers should reevaluate the assumption that there is a simple direct link between thawing of permafrost and the addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Title: Selective preservation of old organic carbon fluvially released from sub-Arctic soils

Authors: Jorien E. Vonk, Bart E. van Dongen, and Örjan Gustafsson: Department of Applied Environmental Science and Bert Bolin Centre for Climate Research, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.

Source: Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) paper 10.1029/2010GL042909, 2010 http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010GL042909

CO2 causing Increased Cooling of Atmosphere

As demonstrated in Rescue from the Climate Saviors, increasing levels of CO2 and other IR-active gases in the atmosphere increase the natural cooling system of the earth. IR-active gases do not supply additional heating power to the earth and are not a cause of  “global warming”.  IR-active gases do not act “like a blanket” but rather “like a sunshade”.  They keep a part of the solar energy away from the earth’s surface and act to cool the earth: 70% of the entire cooling power originates from these molecules. An increase in concentration only serves to increase the cooling efficiency, and now there is additional empirical evidence. A new paper shows that increased CO2 concentrations have increased the cooling efficiency of the upper atmosphere, and in combination with the 2008 solar minimum, resulted in the lowest upper atmospheric density recorded in 43 years.

Why Obama turned down specialized foreign ships to clean up the Gulf

   JUNE 19, 2010
The [First Green] President Does a Jones Act

President Obama has repeatedly said his Administration is doing everything in its power to expedite the oil clean-up and mitigate the damage. But in the two weeks immediately after the spill, 13 foreign governments reached out and offered their assistance. The U.S. response? Thanks, but no thanks.

Or at least that's how Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston, described the U.S. answer. The State Department phrased it slightly differently: "While there is no need right now that the U.S. cannot meet, the U.S. Coast Guard is assessing these offers of assistance to see if there will be something which we will need in the near future." One month later, many of these offers are still outstanding. The Belgian dredging group DEME says it has offered the U.S. specialized vessels and technology that can help clean up the spill in three to four months compared to the estimated nine months that the U.S. will need. There are only a handful of these vessels in the world, and most of them belong to Dutch and Belgian companies. So why aren't we calling on them?

Testimony of John Christy at the IAC

Transcript  IAC 15 June 2010 Montreal (emphasis added)
John R. Christy
Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science
Director, Earth System Science Center
Alabama State Climatologist
University of Alabama in Huntsville

IPCC Lead Author: 2001 TAR
Contributor: 1992 Supplement
Contributor: 1994 Radiative Forcing of Climate Change
Key Contributor: 1995 SAR
Contributing Author: 2007 AR4, WG I and II

NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement
American Meteorological Society Special Award for satellite observations
Fellow, American Meteorological Society

Mr. Chairman and members of the IAC panel, thank you for inviting me to offer my views on the IPCC process. Five years ago the New York Times quoted me saying that an IPCC-like process, “… is the worst way to generate scientific information, except for all the others.” (23 Aug 2005) I now think I was a bit too generous.

A fundamental problem with the entire issue here is that climate science is not a classic, experimental science. As an emerging science of a complex, chaotic climate system, it is plagued by uncertainty and ambiguity in both observations and theory. Lacking classic, laboratory results, it easily becomes hostage to opinion, groupthink, arguments-from-authority, overstatement of confidence, and even Hollywood movies.

Rescue from the Climate Saviors

The Hockey Schtick is honored to present the English release of Rescue from the Climate Saviors, a lay explanation of the physics underlying the fictitious dogma of climate alarmism. KE Research, a German public policy consultancy firm, prepared the report based on interviews and editing assistance from noted German theoretical physicists Ralf D. Tscheuschner & Gerhard Gerlich, authors of the peer-reviewed paper Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics, and numerous other climatologists, physicists, and scientists. KE Research encourages all to freely distribute the report by any means (in unchanged form) and is forwarding copies to all members of the US Senate and House of Representatives, and legislators worldwide.
Rescue from the Climate Saviors 1.1

(The Hockey Schtick also assisted in English translation & editing)

Conclusions of the report include:

1. The terms “greenhouse effect” and “greenhouse gas” are misnomers and obstruct understanding of the real world.
2. Earth has a natural “cooling system”. If the planet warms, it will automatically raise its cooling power.
3. An increase of earth temperatures is only achievable if the heating power is stepped up: first to “load” matter with more energy (i.e. to raise temperatures) and then to compensate for the increasing cooling, which results from the increase of IR radiation into space.
4. CO2 and other IR-active gases cannot supply any additional heating power to the earth. Therefore, they cannot be a cause of “global warming”. This fact alone disproves the greenhouse doctrine.
   
   

Economist: Average family needs to spend $5665/yr on carbon taxes to avoid fireball planet

According to a delusional study published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the price of carbon needs to be $59 per ton in order to cripple the economy to the point where carbon emissions drop to the goal of the Copenhagen accord. Given that the average family of four is responsible for 211,680 lbs or 96 metric tons of CO2 per year, at the "required" $59/ton, the carbon tax cost for the average family would have to be $5664/yr to avoid the fictitious problem of AGW. Note: carbon offsets are trading today at 10 cents per metric ton on the Chicago Climate Exchange. 

Economic aspects of global warming in a post-Copenhagen environment

Abstract: The science of global warming has reached a consensus on the high likelihood of substantial warming over the coming century. Nations have taken only limited steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions since the first agreement in Kyoto in 1997, and little progress was made at the Copenhagen meeting in December 2009. The present study examines alternative outcomes for emissions, climate change, and damages under different policy scenarios. It uses an updated version of the regional integrated model of climate and the economy (RICE model). Recent projections suggest that substantial future warming will occur if no abatement policies are implemented. The model also calculates the path of carbon prices necessary to keep the increase in global mean temperature to 2 °C or less in an efficient manner. The carbon price for 2010 associated with that goal is estimated to be $59 per ton (at 2005 prices), compared with an effective global average price today of around $5 per ton. However, it is unlikely that the Copenhagen temperature goal will be attained even if countries meet their ambitious stated objectives under the Copenhagen Accord.

Environmental Scientist: "Climategate is the Greatest Scientific Scandal in my Lifetime"

If the science is solid, why stoop?

h/t Greenie Watch

What's Wrong with the Sun?

• "Something appears to have changed inside the sun, something the models did not predict. But what?"
• "These findings have thrown our best computer models of the sun into disarray."
• "high solar activity has a disproportionate warming influence on northern Europe"
• "The ultraviolet is varying much, much, much more than we expected"
• "The heat input into the stratosphere is much more variable than we thought"
• "solar activity is just one natural source of climate variability."

(NewScientist) SUNSPOTS come and go, but recently they have mostly gone. For centuries, astronomers have recorded when these dark blemishes on the solar surface emerge, only for them to fade away again after a few days, weeks or months. Thanks to their efforts, we know that sunspot numbers ebb and flow in cycles lasting about 11 years.

But for the past two years, the sunspots have mostly been missing. Their absence, the most prolonged for nearly a hundred years, has taken even seasoned sun watchers by surprise. "This is solar behaviour we haven't seen in living memory," says David Hathaway, a physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

The sun is under scrutiny as never before thanks to an armada of space telescopes. The results they beam back are portraying our nearest star, and its influence on Earth, in a new light. Sunspots and other clues indicate that the sun's magnetic activity is diminishing, and that the sun may even be shrinking. Together the results hint that something profound is happening inside the sun. The big question is what? Read more

3 Papers: Alarmist Glacier Claims are Overblown

Three peer-reviewed studies published within the past 2 weeks alone have indicated alarmist claims of anthropogenic, unprecedented, rapid glacier melt are overblown:

1. Climate Change Will Affect the Asian Water Towers

• IPCC claim of Himalayan glacier melt by 2035:
• "overstated by several hundred years"
• "oversimplified"
• "impact less than anticipated"
• IPCC false claims were "a first-rate disaster"
• "some scientists saw the error and tried to alert senior authors, but it was "too late" to get the report corrected"

2. 100-year mass changes in the Swiss Alps linked to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation

• "half of the glacier loss in the Swiss Alps is due to natural climate variability— a result likely to be true for glaciers around the world."
• "current glacier retreat might be equally due to natural climate variations as it is to anthropogenic greenhouse warming."
• "Glacier mass loss was particularly rapid in the 1940s and since the 1980s. "

3. Is the recessional pattern of Himalayan glaciers suggestive of anthropogenically induced global warming?

• "the rate of recession of most of the glaciers in general is on decline"
• "These observations are in contradiction to the widely popularized concept of anthropogenically induced global warming."
• "It is believed that the rise of temperature of around 0.6°C since mid-nineteenth century is a part of decadal to centennial-scale climatic fluctuations that have been taking place on this Earth for the past few thousands of years."

h/t Tom Nelson

UPDATE: Global warming's impact on Asia's Rivers Overblown

New Miskolczi Paper: CO2 not cause of Global Warming

Ferenc Miskolczi, a former NASA physicist, has a forthcoming paper to be published in Energy & Environment which shows empirically that change in the greenhouse effect due to CO2 would likely have been detected if it had been present in the last 61 years. Miskolczi also demonstrates that the IPCC-claimed positive feedback from water vapor does not exist. 


The Stable Stationary Value of the Earth’s Global Average Atmospheric Planc-weighted Greenhouse-Gas Optical Thickness 
by Ferenc Miskolczi Energy & Environment, 21:4 2010.

ABSTRACT: By the line-by-line method, a computer program is used to analyze Earth atmospheric radiosonde data from hundreds of weather balloon observations. In terms of a quasi-all-sky protocol, fundamental infrared atmospheric radiative flux components are calculated: at the top boundary, the outgoing long wave radiation, the surface transmitted radiation, and the upward atmospheric emittance; at the bottom boundary, the downward atmospheric emittance. The partition of the outgoing long wave radiation into upward atmospheric emittance and surface transmitted radiation components is based on the accurate computation of the true greenhouse-gas optical thickness for the radiosonde data. New relationships among the flux components have been found and are used to construct a quasi-all- sky model of the earth’s atmospheric energy transfer process. In the 1948-2008 time period the global average annual mean true greenhouse-gas optical thickness is found to be time-stationary. Simulated radiative no-feedback effects of measured actual CO2 change over the 61years were calculated and found to be of magnitude easily detectable by the empirical data and analytical methods used.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.

Related: Miskolczi's original paper

Prior posts on Miskolczi

The New Climate Theory of Ferenc Miskolczi

AIG News (p. 12-13)

Discussion of Miskolczi's Virial Theorem

Antarctica 4°C Warmer during last Interglacial

According to a paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews 29 (2010), new high-resolution ice core data from two sites in eastern Antarctica show temperature proxies more than 4°C higher during the last interglacial (~130,000 years ago) than the present interglacial. The high resolution data provides more accurate determination of the temperature proxies, shown at lower left of each graph below:

 

The end of the last major ice age is evident ~18,000 years ago. Since the current interglacial peak ~6000 years ago, the ice core data show Antarctica has cooled. Ice core data from Greenland also show cooling over the past 8000 years. Doomsday news reports and the IPCC have claimed that rising CO2 will cause a 4°C increase and that the earth has not experienced temperatures 4°C higher than the present over the last 55 million years.  Alarmist scientists have claimed a 4°C  temperature rise would "change the world beyond recognition", cause the Saharan desert to stretch into Europe, mass extinction, all rivers to dwindle to a trickle, etc., none of which occurred with 4°C higher temperatures 130,000 years ago.

Mediterranean Sea Warming 0.2°C per Century

According to an article published in the April 2010 issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans, the western Mediterranean Sea has warmed at a rate of only 0.002°C/yr or 0.2°C/century. Furthermore, the authors state that this very slight long term trend can not be statistically distinguished from decadal variability, and thus there may be no statistically significant long term trend at all over the period 1943-2000. These findings contrast with those of the recent controversial paper on ocean warming which studied a shorter period from 1993-2008.


How much is the western Mediterranean really warming and salting?

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, C04001, 12 PP., 2010 doi:10.1029/2009JC005816


Abstract: Instrumental biases and data processing methods can modify temperature trend estimations and enhance decadal variability in the upper ocean. These questions have not been specifically addressed in the western Mediterranean (WMED), a region where warming and salting trends have been detected during the second half of the twentieth century. In this work we test the sensitivity of these trends and decadal variability in the WMED to the use of bathythermograph data and data processing methods. We analyze different subbasins in order to detect distinct local responses. Our results show that deep waters in the WMED are increasing their temperature and salinity at a rate of 0.002°C/yr and 9.2 × 10−4 yr−1, respectively, from 1943. These trends are spatially homogeneous, not affected by instrumental biases, data processing methods, or changes in the period of time analyzed. The heat absorbed by the whole WMED is equivalent to a surface heat flux of 0.29 ± 0.19 W/m2. This figure encloses recent estimates of 0.36 ± 0.06 W/m2 for the global ocean. The intermediate layer increased its salinity at a rate of 1.3 × 10−4 yr−1 and this result can also be considered as robust. The intermediate layer temperature and the upper layer salinity show strong time variability and in our opinion long-term changes cannot be statistically distinguished from decadal variability during the period 1943–2000. The upper layer shows a temperature and heat increase for the overall period, but it is caused by a steep warming trend initiated in the early 1980s.

Physicist: CO2 "Greenhouse Effect" is Already Saturated

Adding to the list (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28...) of scientists and mathematicians who have disproven conventional greenhouse gas theory, John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia, states in his paper Climate Change (A Fundamental Analysis of the Greenhouse Effect), 


In summary, small quantities of radiation from excited Greenhouse gases, at frequencies corresponding to a transparent window of the atmosphere, provide direct feed back of heat towards the earth, causing some heating, and towards outer space producing cooling.  The proportion of this free radiation, relative to the amount of excitation energy trapped in the Greenhouse gas, is a characteristic of the gas and will be independent of both the total heat energy present and the concentration of a given Greenhouse gas.


 [The calculations show] that there is little significant difference between the spatial distributions of heat captured by the Greenhouse gases along a vertical column within the troposphere, for a range of concentrations equal to that defined at present, nominally 380 ppm of CO2 and possible future concentrations of 760 ppm and 1140 ppm.  While it is not possible to calculate the actual proportion of energy returning to the earth via these very low frequency photons passing through a transparent atmosphere, the proportion relative to that held by excited CO2 molecules will always be exactly the same, irrespective of the total amount or density of carbon dioxide present. 


The findings clearly show that any gas with an absorption line or band lying within the spectral range of the radiation field from the warmed earth, will be capable of contributing towards raising the temperature of the earth. However, it is equally clear that after reaching a fixed threshold of so-called Greenhouse gas density, which is much lower than that currently found in the atmosphere, there will be no further increase in temperature from this source, no matter how large the increase in the atmospheric density of such gases.


As also shown by Miskolczi and others using different methods, Dr. Nicol finds that the "greenhouse effect" of CO2 is already saturated at present atmospheric levels and that future emissions will not affect temperature.  Dr. Nichol shows that the IPCC concept of greenhouse gas back radiation to warm the earth is fictitious and that the true physical process is retardation of the exit of energy from the surface. He shows that the greenhouse gas absorption bands retard the exit of energy from the earth's surface, but that there is an upper limit beyond which further increases in greenhouse gas concentrations have no further effect. The surface is radiating at a fixed rate governed by the surface temperature and any increase in greenhouse gases with the same absorption bands will "widen the path" for heat to escape to the same degree as heat is retarded from escape, and therefore there is no additional warming. These principles hold for all greenhouse gases and are beyond saturation for the most important greenhouse gases, water vapor and CO2.