Basic Greenhouse Equations “Totally Wrong”?
Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations “Totally Wrong”
Michael Asher (Blog) - March 6, 2008 11:02 AM Daily Tech
A graph showing agreement of model predictions with data from both the Earth and Mars
A graph showing agreement of model predictions with data from both the Earth and Mars
A simplified view of the new equations governing the greenhouse effectNew derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals “runaway warming” impossible
A simplified view of the new equations governing the greenhouse effect
Miklós Zágoni isn’t just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.
That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Langley Research Center.
After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well. “I fell in love,” he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.
“Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations,” Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.
How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.
Miskolczi’s story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution — originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today — ignored boundary conditions by assuming an “infinitely thick” atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.
So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference … but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.
NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. “Money”, he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.
Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, “Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results.”
His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.
The conclusions are supported by research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research last year from Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs, who gave statistical evidence that the Earth’s response to carbon dioxide was grossly overstated. It also helps to explain why current global climate models continually predict more warming than actually measured.
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.
However, not everyone is convinced. Dr. Stephen Garner, with the NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), says such negative feedback effects are “not very plausible”. Reto Ruedy of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies says greenhouse theory is “200 year old science” and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory. (A 200 year old theory that is absolute?)
Miskowlczi has used his theory to model not only Earth, but the Martian atmosphere as well, showing what he claims is an extremely good fit with observational results. For now, the data for Venus is too limited for similar analysis, but Miskolczi hopes it will one day be possible.
(http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm)
For more info go here:http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm
http://met.hu/omsz.php?almenu_id=omsz&pid=references&mpx=0&kps=1&pri=2 (research paper)
March 10th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Okay…Looks like Nasa needs to look up the definition of theory. And can someone please explain those equations as my major isn’t quantam mechanics.
March 10th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
It is unfortunately that American science journals won’t publish anything that may challenge the present “consensus” on Global Warming claim. I mean, the scientists should be allowed to present arguments as well as counter-arguments for every theory. In fact, oftimes, these journals would attach the controversial articles with a declaration that the editorials have some serious reservations with those articles. It’s not so with ANY article that may give an indication that may question the claim of Global Warming theory (or climate change, as it nowadays is called). It’s sad that many of those skeptical articles have to go to foreign journals.
March 10th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
I had a friend who was a research chemist with one of the major paper companies. They had to write position papers that implied/agreed that there was global warming or they would be punished by the government. Details not available. Company can not afford to be identified. - P
March 10th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
On a completly different note. I just want to know if I am the only person who feels ripped off ,about Mitt concieding . Im sorry if it seams harsh but I think that America needs Mitt. I’m not the typical supporter,I’m not a Republican or Democrat. I’m just an American . Mitt , America needs you.
March 10th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I looked up and read the original paper. Very good (lot’s of great math). The premise seems plausible and sound to me. Thanks for finding this.
In a nutshell, Miskolczi’s theory is that whatever energy enters Earth’s atmosphere, whether from the Earth’s core or from the Sun and other extraterrestrial radiation sources, either has to be absorbed by the atmosphere, passed on and absorbed by the earth or released into space again. The original model by Arthur Milne assumed semi-infinite atmosphere to make the closed form equations easier to deal with. In layman’s terms, this assumption means the atmosphere would extend to infinity so we can ignore the upper bounday. This simplifying assumption is clearly not the case, but if it were true, there would be no release of energy back out into space.
Miskolczi introduces a boundary, or upper limit in the atmosphere, and then introduces a boundary condition to model the release of energy across this new “boundary”. By balancing the outward flux, he shows that the average temperature of the earth cannot continually increase indefinitely as the Chicken Littles of global warming breathlessly claim. The system will reach an equilibrium resulting in surface temperatures that are far lower than currently accepted Greenhouse models predict.
To validate this model, Miskolczi used actual temperature measurement data to correlate his model, and found it fits very well. Then for good measure, he compared it to Mars, where humans have NOT been burning fossil fuels and causing global climate change. It fits very well there too.
This really is good stuff. Thanks for passing along.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Why does it not surprise me that Frozone understands the article and can explain it so the less endowed of us can come closer to understanding.
Thanks for the umteenth time Frozone. - P
March 11th, 2008 at 11:24 am
About pcombe’s reference to his friend’s punishment: that got me thinking. How do you punish researchers? You take away their funding. If the global warming scare is brunted, then a whole lot of researchers will lose their livelihoods. How do you think they will react? Vehement denial. That has been the patter throughout history.
There need be no organized conspiracy, just a bunch of scientists, researchers, even ‘green’ companies, anyone with a vested interest, watching out for themselves and their bottom lines (like Tobacco companies). And that’s why John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, labels Global Warming the ‘Greatest Scam in History’ and is advocating suing Al Gore for perpetuating the myth (Hey, wasn’t Al Gore a Tobacco Farmer too. Isn’t that interesting?)
Now, honestly, the truth about global climate change is somewhere in the middle. The Law of the Commons tells us that common resources like the Earth are not well cared for when exploited by all. Did any of you catch the Holy Sea in Rome adding new sins that include better stewardship of the environment? I have to say I do agree with that. We could be better stewards. It is also my belief that most of our country’s and the world’s ills trace their roots to big cities. These artificial mega metropolises are not self sufficient and exact a continual drain on all of our natural resources, all the while polluting our environments and our minds with their unnatural philosophies and self serving agendas.
We don’t need to buy all the hype all the time. What we do need to do is educate ourselves, look at the facts, and make thoughtful, well-informed decisions ourselves. We should not abrogate our personal responsibility for stewardship over the environment by mindlessly following the latest fad from Hollywood and its media darlings (since when did a star on the walk of fame qualify you as an expert in anything?). We will all be held accountable for the decisions we make, so we should all actively make better decisions. That same principle also applies to our selection of public officials (but that is another rant…
)
Moral of the story, get involved. Find something you believe in, and get out and get to work for that good cause. We shouldn’t need the threat of a man-made climate catastrophe to spur us to take better care of our neighborhoods, communities, cities, nation and the world around us. That obligation should come from within. It only takes a few to lead a groundswell. You can make a difference!
March 11th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Frozone you’re right about individuals being rewarded or punished by research finding.
However, companies are rewarded by not investigating them too strictly or penalized for emissions, etc.
By “supporting” the Global Warming concept, it grows legs and can be used for political gain (or penalty). - P