Green World Trust

[Lucy Skywalker]

Here's the story in brief. Miskolczi is a brilliant scientist, who was coopted by NASA . He studied their radiosonde global data of temperature, pressure and humidity, and produced equations now in use to handle it, named HARTCODE. In this work, he noticed three unacceptable anomalies. He realized that the IPCC equations (Trenberth, IPCC 2007) are built on old maths which assumes an infinitely thick atmosphere. He realized that the figure Trenberth gave for LW radiation that escapes through the atmosphere was a fudged guess at best. And he realized that the supposed difference between surface and near-surface temperature does not exist in reality, if water vapour is present, which is almost everywhere. In the diagram, Ed=Aa. You can test this last item for yourself - http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction

In a flash, Miskolczi realized that water vapour provides a self-correcting mechanism. This works in various ways, including the cooling effect of clouds, rain, and perspiration. Most significant of all is the recent DECREASE of water vapour in the stratosphere, at the same time that CO2, and water vapour in the troposphere, have INCREASED. In the stratosphere, we are above the "optical barrier" that exists around the tropopause. In the troposphere, water vapour has increased. But heat rises by convection to the tropopause, a process which is helped by more water vapour. At the tropopause, the heat can finally be ejected from the Earth's atmosphere by radiation. Stratospheric H2O has decreased at a rate that pretty exactly compensates for CO2 GHG increase, thus radiation has continued to function at a nearly constant rate.

Miskolczi checked the TIGR radiosonde data and found that the identity of upward LW radiation and downwelling LW radiation was borne out very precisely by measurements. He found this also applied to Mars. Measurements also showed that the upward IR flux from the top of the atmosphere is almost exactly one half of the surface upward radiation. In the diagram, Eu=Su/2. With such clear fits to such exact numbers, Miscolczi looked for mathematical solutions that would show this in theory as well. He put aside the IPCC equations and looked again at all the factors involved. Taking the identities established empirically as fact, he substituted in the equations to arrive at some very simple formulas. He intuitively invoked the law of conservation of energy, and described the 2:1 ratio as the result of a "virial law", echoing the "viral" theorem which states that the kinetic energy is half the potential energy. Here is where it would appear that the water vapour obeys a law which ensures this 2:1 ratio is upheld in practice, ensuring that the greenhouse effect is constant no matter what level the CO2. From the new equations, the greenhouse factor g is proved to be exactly 1/3, which is in agreement with both measurements and recent work by other experts. And from further maths, drawing on the earlier work of Eddington and Milne, Miscolczi showed a theoretical value of a constant tau that describes the greenhouse effect, that at 1.87 is, once again, extremely close to measured values.


Source: Kiehl and Trenberth, IPCC

Source: Miskolczi and Zagoni

Miskolczi's maths seems to procede by intuitive leaps, and is difficult to nail down with familiar logical proof. I think that because of this, and because it represents a paradigm shift, and because it strikes at the heart of the AGW thesis, it is not welcomed by AGW scientists, who quickly notice details to nitpick. Yet the maths is powerfully elegant, and the theory fits the data in almost all respects extremely well, and far better than the current IPCC science. It has all the transparent intuitive beauty of Kepler's Laws of planetary motion - "planets sweep out equal areas in equal times" - "the sun is at one of the two foci of an ellipse". And of course, Kepler's science was recognized as sound even before Newton's calculus and laws of motion were able to vindicate Kepler's geometry in mechanical terms.

Here are the interesting pieces that gradually helped me unravel a basic understanding:
Jennifer Marohasy's own first piece http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/the-work-of-ferenc-miskolczi-part-1/
2nd piece by Christopher Game http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/the-climatically-saturated-greenhouse-effect/ (a very helpful read for me)
Excellent intro with lots of pictures by Dr Noor van Andel http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction
Zagoni's new video http://landshape.org/enm/miskolczis-viral-video/
Zagoni's powerpoint presentation, useful alongside the video http://miskolczi.webs.com/ZM_v10_eng.pdf
Miskolczi - an introduction http://miskolczi.webs.com/
Miskolczi's 2007 paper http://miskolczi.webs.com/

More details:
Ken Gregory http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm
Niche Modeling discussion for nerds http://landshape.org/enm/the-value-of-tau/

[Lucy Skywalker]

In the interests of openness, balance, and good science, I'm posting the reply I received this morning from Steve Short at Jennifer Marohasy's. Steve is a good scientist and has his own alternative to Miskolczi, which I hope he'll publish to be accessible and comprehensible to those like me. He may be right... I still reserve judgement. But at the very least, I very much appreciate his contribution.

Comment from: Steve Short May 13th, 2009 at 8:45 am

[Lucy Skywalker]

I'd like to turn my findings into a web page. However, I'm constrained by time, and by my continuing doubts, not least because of Steve Short's remarks. And though I'm not totally convinced by Steve so far, I'm not dismissing him either.

In the end, the correct science at this point is less important for me than recovering the mainstream Climate Science and restoring Good Practice. Then idiots like myself won't need to go haring after the Miskolczi's of Climate Science or the Gehrlich & Tscheuschner's but will feel confident once again that we can leave the issue to the science community to resolve.

Then also the important good CO2 science will be extracted from Beck and married to the important good CO2 science from Keeling, and their discrepancies will be explained without dismissing either as upstart incompetents or agenda-driven tyrants.

[John Philips]

When it comes to climate change denial, you guys are amateurs. Over Denial Depot we are all over Miscolkci [near enough] like a rash.

http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/05/april-numbers-just-in-visits-to-my-blog.html
_________________
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool.

[Lucy Skywalker]

Heh?

That was a funny remark of you to make, in a blog where they express exactly your colours. Do you want me to feed their words back to you?

[Derek]

[ian]

Hey JP

I would really like to say 'welcome back' but the quality of your recent posts necessitates otherwise. Unlike yourself and the mutual admiration society at Denial Depot, at least Lucy is open to alternative observations and prepared to question those that just don't seem to stack up. I am ashamed at my previous role as a rabid cheerleader for CAGW particularly due to the extreme hubris displayed by the CAGW crowd. As to Moncton, I'm not a fan, but I recognise this is Lucy's blog and she can include anyone she feels has merit.

Originally I felt your presence was a positive inclusion to the debate, now I honestly think that you should go back and revel in the CAGW love-in blogs. If you really want to debate FM with people who know there stuff I suggest you visit 'Niche Modeling'

http://landshape.org/enm/

[Derek]

Hi All,
May I offer my simplitic over view of Dr. Miskolczi and the importance I believe of his works / theory.

Firstly, Dr Miskolczi DID NOT call his work / theory the complete and utter explanation of the greenhouse effect.
He called it a development of, implying obviously at the overall scale for further discussion, and observation.
In no way does Dr Miskolczi look down into the various processes involved,
he merely tries to take an overview of the main flux directions and quantify them,
as a starting point for further discussion / observation / investigation..

Secondly, Dr, Miskolczi has introduced a new to many measure of the overall greenhouse effect, - tau, as referred to above.
Usually the term Dr Miskolczi uses is, optical depth of the atmosphere.
As asked at,
http://miskolczi.webs.com/
Excerpt
*** As far as I know, this is the only available global average IR optical depth value,
provided by Dr. Miskolczi in his 2004 paper, for the Earth’s atmosphere in the greenhouse literature
—— if someone knows another one, please let me know ***
End of excerpt.

On this post at
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/the-work-of-ferenc-miskolczi-part-1/
the idea is explained in this excerpt,
" published a global average infrared optical depth (the exact measure of the greenhouse effect) for the Earth’s atmosphere.
This calculation was a distillation of all his efforts. He published his empirical estimate for tau, , as 1.87
(a dimensionless quantity, describing the optical thickness of the atmosphere
– a technical term meaning the climatologically appropriately weighted global average number of times that
a statistically typical longwave photon, emitted by the earth’s warm surface, is absorbed and re-emitted
on its way through the atmosphere while escaping into outer space). "

Simply, on average a photon of OLR emitted at the earth's surface is on average (globally)
absorbed and re-emitted 1.87 times before escaping to space.

As an overall concept I think this amazingly graphic and understandable.

Thirdly, Dr Miskolczi notes that the optical thickness figure appears to be a constant.
This has a massive and completely opposite effect upon the view of what the greenhouse effect actually does.
If the optical thickness is a constant, then the greenhouse effect regulates earth's temperatures within certain limits.
(This nicely reflects earth's climate history, ice age / interglacial, ice age / interglacial)
ie, earth's temperature via the constant optical thickness, is self regulating.
It is physically impossible for the planet's climate to run away beyond certain limits,
unless external inputs are altered significantly.
(Geothermal can also have this effect as well, but is assumed relatively constant for ease of discussing the main points of his works / theory.)


I would also note that it appears a small number of people seem to track Dr. Miskolczi work as it is discussed.
Steve Short as mentioned above has a model / theory of his own to push / publish.
I wonder if his criticism at a level far smaller than Dr. Miskolczi was describing overall,
is infact relevant at all.
Nit picking with intent to stifle discussion, (preparing the ground to sell his own version perhaps)
rather than an open minded consideration.

I may be somewhat cynical of Short's comments above, I have seen a similar approach used to any criticism of the MLO data sets,
mostly by a few with carbon cycling models to push based and reliant upon the MLO data.
It must always be remembered in that case that it is a 60 year record, with no raw data.
Plenty of "raw" hourly averages mind you...
No released algorithm either is worth mentioning in passing.
AND, the as yet not really discussed, measurements in ppmv are corrected to ppm according to MLO,
BUT not according to the 2 days of data that F. Engelbeen processed with his own algorithm,
NOT the one (that has never been released) MLO uses.
"HOCKEY STICKS".
For these and many other reasons F E's carbon cycling model has been described by several well respected scientists as complete twaddle,
quite rightly in my opinion.

My point is simple, the criticism of Dr Miskolczi's work / theory is from a biased possibly vested interest stance / position.
I believe most of the criticism is also at the wrong "scale",
the main and important part/s of his work in my mind still stand unchallenged.

The greenhouse effect appears to be self regulating.
Please discuss.
_________________

An induced feeling of guilt is not sufficient reason
to convict, or punish the human race.

[Richard111]

[hqmonaro]

"(Trenberth, IPCC 2007) are built on old maths which assumes an infinitely thick atmosphere."

Not true. Miscolczi's problem is that he read a few old papers from about a century ago, and assumed that these still apply today. Science has moved on from the very simply model he has criticised.

[hqmonaro]

" He found this also applied to Mars."

How did he find this also applied to Mars? There have not been any radiosonde data collected for that planet.

[Derek]

hqmonaro - your last two posts miss the point by a margin so large as to not make explaining possible.
The "JP" club so to speak.

Richard111 - I think you are on to something very interesting, and relevant.
I look forward to you expanding further. Please let me know when you do.
_________________

An induced feeling of guilt is not sufficient reason
to convict, or punish the human race.

[Lucy Skywalker]

well, dang, Derek, I was thinking about you today. Nice to see you here again. Too late tonight to read your stuff attentively but I'll be back.

[Derek]

Thank you Lucy, my apologies for my absense.
Soo much to look into, so little time, and the neccesities of life...
"Excuses" I know, but..

It is nice to be thought of, and is reciprocated obviously.
_________________

An induced feeling of guilt is not sufficient reason
to convict, or punish the human race.

[hqmonaro]