Editor’s note: In response to reader interest in Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi’s provocative greenhouse theory challenging the widespread belief in man-caused global warming, Climate Truth has asked the former NASA researcher to explain his work further. Earlier this week he attacked the prevailing climate-change theory, calling it “a lie.”
At Dr. Miskolczi’s request, we also have posted his letter sent last year to the Environmental Protection Agency, summarizing his research and questioning the agency’s efforts to declare CO2 a harmful pollutant that poses a threat to earth’s climate.
Climate Truth: Has there been global warming?
Dr. Miskolczi: 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.
Climate Truth: According to the conventional anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, as human-induced CO2 emissions increase, more surface radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, with part of it re-radiated to the earth’s surface, resulting in global warming. Is that an accurate description of the prevailing theory?
Dr. Miskolczi: Yes, this is the classic concept of the greenhouse effect.
ClimateTruth: Are man-made CO2 emissions the cause of global warming?
Dr. Miskolczi: Apparently not. According to my research, increases in CO2 levels have not increased the global-average absorbing power of the atmosphere.
ClimateTruth: Where does the traditional greenhouse theory make its fundamental mistake?
Dr. Miskolczi: 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.
ClimateTruth: Why has this error escaped notice until now?
Dr. Miskolczi: 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.
ClimateTruth: 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?
Dr. Miskolczi: 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.
ClimateTruth: You used empirical data, rather than models, to arrive at your conclusion. How was that done?
Dr. Miskolczi: The computations are relatively simple. I collected a large number of radiosonde observations from around the globe and computed the global average infrared absorption. I performed these computations using observations from two large, publicly available datasets known as the TIGR2 and NOAA. The computations involved the processing of 300 radiosonde observations, using a state-of-the-art, line-by-line radiative transfer code. In both datasets, the global average infrared optical thickness turned out to be 1.87, agreeing with theoretical expectations.
ClimateTruth: Have your mathematical equations been challenged or disproved?
Dr. Miskolczi: No.
ClimateTruth: 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?
Dr. Miskolczi: 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.
ClimateTruth: 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.
Dr. Miskolczi’s letter to the EPA
June 20, 2009
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA DocketCenter (EPA/DC)
Mailcode 6102T
Attention Docket IDNo. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
This comment is to demonstrate, that the origin of the observed global warming (positive global average surface temperature trend) in the last few decades can not be caused by the observed increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
In theoretical radiative transfer, the absorbing power of infrared active gases are measured by the total infrared optical depth (TIOD). This dimensionless quantity is the negative natural logarithm of the ratio of the absorbed surface upward radiation by the atmosphere to the total emitted surface upward radiation.
The recent value of the TIOD is 1.87, which value fully complies with the theoretical expectation of an optimal (saturated) greenhouse effect of a greenhouse gas (GHG)-rich planet. (Miskolczi – 2007).
With relatively simply computations, we show that in the last 61 years, despite the 30 percent increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, the cumulative greenhouse effect of all atmospheric greenhouse gases has not been changed – that is, the atmospheric TIOD is constant.
According to the most plausible explanation of the above fact, the equilibrium atmospheric H2O content is constrained with the theoretical optimal TIOD. Our simulation results are summarized in . . . Fig. 2.
. . . Apparently, increased total CO2 column amount is coupled with decreasing H2O column amount. As the result of the opposing trends in the two most important GHGs, in Fig. 2 the red curve shows no trend in the TIOD. In the last 61 years, the infrared absorbing capability of the atmosphere has not been changed; therefore, the greenhouse effect can not be the cause of the global warming.
In case of fixed atmospheric H2O column amount, simulation results show that according to the positive trend in the CO2 content of the atmosphere, there would also be a significant positive trend in the TIOD (blue curve).
The above results are the plain proofs that the IPCC consensus on the causes of the globalwarming is totally wrong, and the physics of the greenhouse effect requires serious revisions.
Dr. F. M. Miskolczi
Relevant References:
F. Miskolczi: Id?járás 111 (2007) 1–40,
F. Miskolczi and M. Mlynczak: Id?járás 108 (2004) 209–2
D. Kratz et al.: JQSRT 90 (2005) 323–341
ClimateTruth 
Pingback: Miskolczi destroys greenhouse theory | Global Warming Skeptics
You need to do your homework, instead of resorting to emotional outbursts. There is no man-made global warming. It’s one of the greatest frauds in scientific history.
By the way, I doubt seriously if you could write for the Examiner.com and make the monthly minimum. It’s obvious from reading your infantile verbal tirade.
If you want to talk science, by all means go ahead. But no more profanity.
A columnist for Examiner? [snip. no profanity] I can be a columnist for Examiner. Are you kidding me? A P.R. guy? My guess is that Miskolczi is getting a nice little stipend from the hydro-carbon/petro-chemical industry. Can you spell “J.U.N.K. S.C.I.E.N.C.E.? The howling-at-the-moon, frothing-at-the-mouth Right Wingers will be the death of all of us.
bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
That was the best you can come up with Queencitybreakdown?
Name calling,ad homonyms,swearing and the usual unproven oil money stupidity.Gosh there is not much left to show that you are running on empty.
By the way if it was bad science paper,how come you could not come up with any rational counterpoints against it?
Yup EMPTY!
I see from the above comments that John Dewey’s educational system has done its work very well. John Dewey wrote in Teacher Magazine in 1933, “There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, the immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural laws……”
With no absolute truth to strive for there can be no science there can be no logic
“…putting the linguistic side where it belongs — subordinate to the appropriation and conveyance of what is genuinely and personally experienced …” and therefore “feelings” and emotions reign supreme.
_______
Thank you Dr. Miskolczi, unfortunately I doubt anyone will bother listening. Global Warming was never about science it was about politics. To be precise Global Governance by what David Rockefeller called the “intellectual elite” something that would appeal to academics.
One academic, President Obama’s top science adviser, John P. Holdren, advocated the “de-development” of the United States. Holdren wrote in 1970’s, “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States, De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.”
Environmentalism/Global Warming is the massive propaganda campaign launched in 1972 by the UN’s First Earth Summit. Texts books by Holdren and his ilk are what have been fed to our students since the seventies. I doubt that those students will like the grim reality of a “de-developed” western civilization when they actually get it. I just hope I am not around to say I told you so.
Lots of invective from both sides, and little indicative of any substantial understanding of science from either.
As a “right-winger”, I resent the implication that we’re all robots denying the reality of climate change. I still see an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of AGW.
When I see a comment like “my *guess* is that so-and-so is in the pocket of Big Oil,” I see *assumption*, and that’s the biggest fault on both sides of this issue.
I’m unconvinced by Miskolczi’s input, but willing to consider it a possibility. What is needed to strengthen it as a possibility is further peer-reviewed research and reproduction of his findings.
Folks on both sides of this issue would do well to keep an open mind. If there’s one constant in science, it’s change. You cannot remain objective while being firmly attached to one viewpoint. Science demands agnosticism, not dogma. (And recrimination and I-told-you-so have no place in science at all.)