Bra om Miskolczi

Ett (översatt) stycke ur Dianna Cotters presentation Hungarian Physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi proves CO2 emissions irrelevant in Earth’s Climate.

"Dr. Miskolczi publicerade första gången sitt arbete i Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Services 2004, Volume 108, No. 4. Han publicerade ytterligare statistiska bevis i samma tidskrift 2007, Volyme 111, No. 1. Under de 5 åren sedan han först publicerade sina resultat har inte en enda peer reviewed studie kommit som motbevisar hans teori eller hans konstant. Hittills har inte en enda forskare trätt fram för att motbevisa Miskolczis teori om att jordens klimat är i jämvikt och att koldioxid inte kan släppas ut i tillräcklig omfattning för att rubba denna balans."

HT: Paul Biggs.

Andra bloggar om: vetenskap, klimat, klimatet, klimatförändring, klimatforskning, växthuseffekten, växthusgaser, Ferenc Miskolczi

Forskare med sanningen kickad :-(

Louis Hissink publicerar ett mail från fysikern Dr Miklos Zagoni under rubriken "Why Dr Ferenc Miskolczi and Dr Miklos Zagoni have been put under pressure to be silent about Miskolczi`s research concerning the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect".

Zagoni har sökt informera om Miskolczis upptäckt, och skriver nu alltså:

In 2004 Dr Ferenc Miskolczi published a paper ’The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial radiation’, in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service (Vol. 108, No. 4, October–December 2004, pp. 209–251.).

The co-author of the article was his boss at NASA (Martin Mlynczak). Mlynczak put his name to the paper but did no work on it. He thought that it was an important paper, but only in a technical way.

When Miskolczi later informed the group at NASA there that he had more important results, they finally understood the whole story, and tried to withhold Miskolczi’s further material from publication. His boss for example, sat at Ferenc’s computer, logged in with Ferenc`s password, and canceled a recently submitted paper from a high-reputation journal as if Ferenc had withdrawn it himself. That was the reason that Ferenc finally resigned from his ($US 90.000 /year) job.

I want to make it clear: NASA never falsified or even tried to falsify Ferenc`s results, on the contrary, they fully understand it. They know that it is correct and see how important it is. To make sense of their actions, they probably see a national security issue in it. Perhaps they think that AGW is the only way to stop, or to slow, the coal-based growth of China.

In my circumstance where I have been dismissed from my Government paid position in Hungary, I think the information vacuum (in Hungary), has the same type of origin. I believe someone is in the background trying to convince the establishment (media, science, politics) that Miskolczi's results are against our national security interests. First, they tried to frighten me, and then when that did not work, they kicked me out from my job. So now I am turning to the wider internet to publicise Miskolczi`s work, as I know that his results are valid and true. There is no way and no need to hold them back for the world to understand them.

Tomorrow, for the first time in my life, I am jobless.
Budapest, 31 Dec, 2009

Dr Miklos Zagoni
(57)
physicist
Hungary

(Via Skeptic's Corner)


I denna post från annandag jul några länkar och en video om Miskolczis upptäckt och arbete.


Andra bloggar om: vetenskap, klimat, klimatet, klimatforskning, totalitarism, politiserad forskning, NASA, Ferenc Miskolczi

Miskolczis mättade konstanta växthuseffekt

Jennifer Marohasy tipsade om ett dokument där Miklos Zagoni rätt begripligt redogör för Miskolczis mättade växthuseffekt, nämligen detta på SPPI (pdf).

Den mättade och därmed konstanta växthuseffekten innebär att ökad CO2-halt gett minskad halt vattenånga. Temperatur-feedback från just växthusgaser, och i synnerhet förstärkande sådan enligt IPCC:s klimatmodeller, bör därmed vara obetydliga.

Men olika faktorer kan påverka marktemperatur, såsom ändrad solstrålning, jordens omloppsbana eller havsströmmars oscillation. Rimligtvis bör även albedoändring p g a kosmisk strålning påverkande förekomst av låga moln eller, som nyligen föreslogs, förändring av ozonhålet vara exempel på möjlig påverkan.

Genom att dessa faktorer påverkar "tillgänglig energi" ändras jordens "effektiva temperatur", och:

"... The effective temperature is now 255 Kelvin, or –18 °C.

Miskolczi asserts that the surplus temperature from the greenhouse gases (about 33 C°, bringing global mean surface temperature up from –18 °C to 15 °C) is constant, maximized, and cannot be increased by our CO2 emissions, because it is the greenhouse effect’s theoretical equilibrium value."

------ ------ ------
Mer information i några länkar och ett videoklipp:

* Daily Tech, 6:e mars 2008. Ett stycke:

"The equations also answer thorny problems raised by current theory, which doesn't explain why "runaway" greenhouse warming hasn't happened in the Earth's past. The new theory predicts that greenhouse gas increases should result in small, but very rapid temperature spikes, followed by much longer, slower periods of cooling -- exactly what the paleoclimatic record demonstrates."

Miskolczi`s New Greenhouse Law



* Ken Gregory: The Saturated Greenhouse Effect

* David Stockwell på Niche Modelling:

- Miskolczi Part 1
- Miskolczi Part 2-4 etc.

* Miskolczis arbete Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres (pdf).


Andra bloggar om: vetenskap, klimat, klimatet, klimatförändring, klimatforskning, växthuseffekten, växthusgaser, CO2, koldioxid, ipcc, Ferenc Miskolczi

Miskolczis nya klimatteori

Fick just syn på preliminära Wiki-dokumentet The new climate theory of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, vilket alltså är under utveckling. Det beskriver en teori man kommer att starta en vetenskaplig diskussion om. Läsning full av intressant empiri, obligatorisk för den mer klimatforsknings-intresserade.

(Not: Abstract och länk till Miskolczi arbete om korrigerad energibalansekvation har Jennifer Marohasy. Se även denna Daily Tech-artikel, där även Stephen Schwartz kritik av IPCC:s energibalansmodell länkas.)

Först poängteras bl a att empiri är centralt i Miskolczis förhållningssätt till klimatforskning. Jag har inte noga läst igenom hela dokumentet, men några viktiga nedslag:

"In this 2004 paper ... [Miskolczi] calculates an increase of global temperature of 0.482 °C as a result of doubling the CO2 concentration.

This is very different from what we learn from the standard theory. The methodological difference is, that the new theory starts with measurements, in contrast with the standard theory that starts with schematic atmosphere models like the Keith-Trenberth scheme. The mathematical difference is, that the new theory treats the atmosphere as semi-transparent, bounded, and in radiation equilibrium with the surface."

Ur ett stycke om bl a vattenånga samt moln i övre atmosfären:

"...we see a double negative feedback through water vapor change! This strongly contradicts the standard theory, that assumes a positive feedback due to water vapor, increasing the sensitivity of surface temperature to CO2 doubling from 1 K to 4…6 K!"

Roy Spencers satellitdata visar hur värmetransport i atmosfären styrs av variation i vatteninnehåll som stabiliserar temperaturen. (OLR, Outgoing Longwave Radiation.)

"Every time the low air temperature increases, the more SW light is reflected, the OLR increases, rain increases, until, when the maximum temperature [=0] point is passed, the sunlight penetrates more, the OLR increases, the rain stops, just until the temperature is normal again.

What we see is a thermostat, the atmosphere increases and decreases it water content, so that the climate is kept at a constant value. If the Earth cannot get rid of its heat through radiation from low altitude alone, clear sky conditions, the adiabat is surpassed, and the heat transfer by latent heat high into the top of the atmosphere increases, so that the OLR from a higher altitude, where the efffective IR optical depth is so much lower, can send the surplus heat into space."

Vidare:

"We see the cloud top temperature, which is a direct measure of the total OLR in that place, increase 2 K as a result of only 0.4 K higher surface temperatures. That means a threefold negative feedback due to atmospheric water content: ?·[2584-2564]= 7.7 W/m2K; a difference of 0.4 K at 305 K is ?·[305.44-305.04]=2.6 W/m2K. Spencer et al. have measured the average feedback as -6.1 W/m2K, a full 100% negative feedback at ground temperature level on average cloudiness.

We see now the physical mechanism behind the observed OLR-SU relations, empirically found and theoretically founded by Miskolczi, in operation. The OLR increases, and the surface cools, with increasing water content as a result of surface temperature increase. The cooling rate, 0.03 °C per day, conforms to the value 1 K/day in van Dorland’s figure 2.4 in case water content varies only 3%.

In great contrast, the standard theory assumes a positive feedback due to water content in the atmosphere, increasing the global warming a factor 2 or 3 as a result of greenhouse gas emission."

En "klatschig sammanfattning" får bli att empiri stöder Miskolczis modell där vattenånga utgör stabiliserande negativ feedback, dämpande effekten av extra växthusgas. Detta i diametral motsats till kraftig men obevisad förstärkning i de IPCC-stödda klimatmodellerna.


Från Niche Modeling.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tillbakalänkning: SvD.
Andra bloggar om: vetenskap, CO2, koldioxid, klimat, klimatet, vattenånga, klimatförändring, klimatförändringar, klimatmodell, klimatmodeller, växthuseffekten, Ferenc Miskolczi

Breaking News: Växthusgaser konstanta i 60 år!

Ferenc Miskolczi kanske ni minns? Han korrigerade klimatmodellernas energibalansekvation, där IPCC:s klimatmodeller bl a antagit oändligt tjock atmosfär. Han nämns t ex i artikeln här, med en länk till Daily Tech.

I dag publicerar Ken Gregory på Niche Modeling dessa resultat:

"Last month I asked Ferenc Miskolczi to calculate a 60 year trend of optical depths using radiosonde data I compiled from the NOAA Earth Systems Research Laboratory to confirm his prediction of constant optical depth. We finally got the results:

There has been no increase in the effective amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere during the last 60 years.

Miskolczi’s theory shows that the atmosphere maintains a “saturated” greenhouse effect, controlled by water vapor content. [...] This causes a constant greenhouse effect, so as CO2 increases, water vapour decreases."

Lite längre ned:

"The calculations are independent of any greenhouse theory and contains no assumptions on how the greenhouse effect works. The 60 year average optical depth of 1.869 matches the theoretical 1.87.

In 60 years of CO2 emissions, the optical depth trend line has increased about 0.03%, which is nothing, resulting in no temperature change. The result confirms the theory, and shows that the total effective amount of greenhouse gases have not increased in 60 years. Therefore, the warming during the last century was not due to greenhouse gas emissions."

Läs allt med grafer här. Det här beror alltså på negativ återkoppling för vattenånga, precis som Aqua visar. Ska bli intressant att se vetenskapliga arbetet detta mynnar ut i.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tillbakalänkning:
SvD: Brytningstid; DN: mp-debattartikel; DN: Mp:s miljöpolitik; SvD: EU:s antikärnkraftpolitik tysk katastrof; Dagen: Fp om realistisk klimatpolitik; Ny teknik: Artikel som föreslår att 3/4 av USA:s bilpark plötsligt blir Toyota; Ny teknik: EU:s klimatpolitik.
Andra bloggar om: vetenskap, CO2, koldioxid, klimat, klimatet, luftfuktighet, H2O, klimatförändring, klimatförändringar, klimatmodeller, växthuseffekten, Ferenc Miskolczi

En läsvärd artikel!

Klipp från en högst läsvärd artikel av James Lewis, publicerad på American Thinker:

"If you want to see cult therapy at work, read John Tierney in The New York Times. Tierney is a skeptic who now conducts recovery therapy for the faithful on his Tierney Lab page. It looks like someone at the NYT has finally caught on to the hoax but won't admit it. So they hired Tierney to break it to the True Believers as gently as possible. Watch how the readers' blogs are resisting his gentle skepticism; it scares them."

Lewis noterar mängden av försök att nu rädda klimatmodellerna, påminner om försöken att rädda komplicerade modeller för planetrörelser innan solsystemets existens accepterades och fortsätter:

"Today we see a spate of new computer models showing up in science journals, each one attempting to rescue some piece of the ecological goose that laid the golden egg. These are often not called "models." With utter dishonesty, they are labeled "new studies of the climate." But they are not empirical studies at all. [...]

How good are the assumptions in these models? Well consider the fate of Ferenc M. Miskolczi (pronounced Ferens MISkolshee), a first-rate Hungarian mathematician, who has published a proof that "greenhouse warming" may be mathematically impossible. His proof involves long equations, but the bottom line is that the warming models assume that the atmosphere is infinitely thick. Why? Because it simplifies the math. If on the other hand, you assume the atmosphere is about 100 km thick (about 65 miles) -- which has the big advantage of being true -- the greenhouse effect disappears! No more global warming."

Efter historiska tillbakablickar på motsvarighter till vad som skett och nu sker i klimatfrågan avslutar Lewis:

"When this farce is finally exposed, heads must roll. Not for being wrong about the global warming hoax, because anybody can be wrong -- but for politicizing normal scientific debate. Politicized science kills science. This is one festering boil that has to be lanced."

Hela artikeln här!