Ferenc Miskolczi

Ferenc Miskolczi

Brilliant theoretical Astrophysicist Ferenc Miskolczi dicovered [sic] that the Earth’s greenhouse is a self regulating system which balances the effects of the gases and vapours within it.

His second paper was withdrawn from publication when his boss at NASA logged in to Ferenc’s PC using Ferenc’s credentials and withdrew the paper.

When deniers mention that GHG theory is entirely wrong and that, in fact increased CO2 cancels out the GHG properties of water vapour thus creating a natural balance you know they have latched on to Ferenc Miskolczi’s theory. Other clues are the use of terms like ‘black body’ ‘thermo dynamics’ and various laws of physics. The usual argument goes something like this- [randomly trawled from the internet]

 

Anybody who thinks there is significant CO2 contribution to the GHE via atmospheric warming demonstrates extreme scientific ignorance. Firstly most of the surface IR emission in the CO2-GHG band is switched off. Secondly, CO2 self-absorbs from ~200 ppmv so its absorptivity plateaus [below the AGW point]. Thirdly, the Law of Equipartition of Energy at Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium coupled with Gibbs’ Principle of Indistinguishability means that an incoming photon absorbed in a local volume cannot, as claimed by climate science, specifically Ramanathan, be converted to kinetic energy in the average time needed for it to be re-emitted.

This is the most childish of climate science’s mistakes. Gibbs principle is that in a thermodynamic system, there is no memory. What really happens is that the concentration of activated CO2 molecules is set by the temperature through the bidirectional transfer of that energy to N2/O2 kinetic energy but is constant on average.

Therefore, the incoming photon energy is lost by an already thermally activated molecule instantly ejecting a similar photon out of that volume, restoring LTE. These peripatetic energy packets diffuse to heterogeneities such as clouds and bare aerosols to be thermalised, much into grey body radiation, to space or back to the surface. The atmospheric window grey IR from the tops of clouds is a cooling process.

blah blah blah….

See what they have just done?- randomly assemble some technical terminology that appears to be clever.  The really clever ones throw in a few equations and who could possibly argue with that? It is the favourite denial argument of engineers as it appears to have a hint of science attached to the denial. So by default the claim is that CO2 is a GHG, there is an increase in CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels, that Earth has a natural balancing process leading to a small increase in temperature, but everything will be fine and 100 years of science is entirely wrong.

How it started-

Miskolczi, Ferenc M. 2007. “Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary Atmospheres.” Időjárás 111, 1-40 (pdf)

Miskolczi, Ferenc M. 2010. “THE STABLE STATIONARY VALUE OF THE EARTH’S GLOBAL AVERAGE ATMOSPHERIC PLANCK-WEIGHTED GREENHOUSE-GAS OPTICAL THICKNESS”, Energy and Environment, 21, 243-262 (pdf)

In his own words- taken from this website.

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.

Are man-made CO2 emissions the cause of global warming?-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? 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? 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? 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.
Have your mathematical equations been challenged or disproved? Dr. Miskolczi: No.

If your theory stands up to scientific scrutiny, it would collapse the CO2 global warming doctrine and render meaningless its predictions of climate catastrophe. Given its significance, why has your theory been met with silence and, in some instances, dismissal and derision?  I can only guess. First of all, nobody likes to admit mistakes. Second, somebody has to explain to the taxpayers why millions of dollars were spent on AGW research. Third, some people are making a lot of money from the carbon trade and energy taxes.

 
 A huge industry has arisen out of the study and prevention of man-made global warming. Has the world been fooled?
Dr. Miskolczi:Thanks to censored science and the complicity of the mainstream media, yes, totally.
As for he conspiracy Dr Miskolczi [co author Miklos Zagoni] explains

January 03- Another Scientist Silenced The deft hand of the socialism hasn’t really left us, as the following note received via email shows.

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.

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
http://miskolczi.webs.com

Biography
From the ‘thinktank’ ICSC register of skeptic scientists – Ferenc Mark Miskolczi, PhD, atmospheric physicist, formerly of NASA’s Langley Research Centre, (in his 2010 paper, Dr. Miskolczi writes, “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.”), Hampton, Virginia, U.S.A.
from his linkedin page- an independent research professional now.
His full bio and complete list of peer reviewed papers is not available.

His Theory

His theory, despite being a peer-reviewed, ground breaking, theory changing yada yada yada- has met with little enthusiasm by mainstream physicists [who are in on the grand AGW hoax, so they would dismiss his findings].

Van Dorland, R and Forster, P, 2010, Rebuttal of Miskolczi’s alternative greenhouse theory (Layperson summary)

Science of Doom, April-May 2011:

From Realclimate

However Roy Spencer the leading skeptic is not that convinced either: a rather long review of the theory on his website concludes:-

I have not yet seen any compelling evidence that there exists a major flaw in the theory explaining the basic operation of the Earth’s natural Greenhouse Effect.

I would love for there to be one. But I don’t see it yet.

The post is followed up by hundreds of deniers desperate to get Roy to look again and join them in their straw clutching.

The blogger Tallbloke who played a role in the Climategate email affair is a particular fan of Miskolczi.

About these ads

  1. 1 Roger Tattersall aka Tallbloke « the Climate Denier List

    [...] centre on CO2 GHG theory being all wrong and holds Ferenc Miskolczi as a [...]

  2. 2 Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown - Page 17 (politics)

    […] And a rebuttal http://www.realclimate.org/docs/Rebu…n_20100927.pdf In fact several rebuttals http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012…enc-miskolczi/ http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/04/22/…tau-miskolczi/ Even Roy Spencer, known climate sceptic, has […]




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers

%d bloggers like this: