Posted on 03/09/2008 8:44:26 PM PDT by Crush T Velour
New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible
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.
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.
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.
Ping.
BUMP!
Anyone who has ever watched water boil knows that it takes a lot of pressure and 100% coverage to keep the lid on the pot.
No “greenhouse effect” could ever create a “lid” around the whole earth, that had no openings and which was never lifted. Therefore, there would always be a way for “steam” to be let off, even if some areas of the earth did act as though a “lid” were on.
Combine that with the easily observed tendency toward homeostasis in all nature and it’s quite a leap to think a “greenhouse” with no escape valves, and which would cause heat to build up indefinitely in the atmosphere, could exist.
Finally, if there were a “greenhouse gas” lid that was sufficient to hold heat in all over the earth, it’s obvious that “lid” would also be sufficient to keep out the Sun’s heat. Is that happening? No.
ping
bttt
Cimatology=Scientology=BSology
If you would be so kind as to add me to your ping list, I would appreciate it.
Thanks,
IrishCatholic
Thanks!
I’d never imagined people were treating the atmosphere as an unbounded system.
Combined only with another recent article ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1982336/posts ) on placing the effect before cause when it comes to tropical clouds and cooling, I would say that the “consensus science” is nicely ... um, girl dog slapped. Interestingly, that article seems like it might have read like a description of a counter to forcing ... have to look again.
Lots to think about indeed!
It's the cooling I worry about. It's that downward spiraling cooling cycle that has happened before. When there too little CO2 to offset the sun in a cooling trend, enough of an ice layer is formed to reflect too much sun. When that happens, there is more cooling and more ice.
This theory wont gain any traction, at least not easily. Congress has been moving to turn carbon credits into a wealth building program, some including Senator Lugar, have even planted acres and acres of hardwood treees on their farms.
They have received grants, they sponsored legislation to create,registered whole farms on the Chicago Carbon Exchange and now this.........oh they will bury this study.
what about the comming carbon marlet?
I think I had carbon marlets at my birdfeeder yesterday. ;^)
I think we could say that NASA already tried to bury this.
As for it getting buried ... not if I have anything to say about it. I may not have much influence, nor may anyone else in the thread, but we ALL have some influence.
If we can only manage to double our numbers, that is a small step in the right direction.
In the meantime, don’t be surprised if Congress comes up with other mad schemes for wealth building on par with their overall lack of accounting ethics.
I so totally missed this post of yours.
My apologies
You're in!
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.