Skip to main content
Report this ad

Former NASA scientist defends theory refuting global warming doctrine


The black line is the annual variation in atmospheric "aborbing power" over a 61-year period. The red trend line shows the greenhouse aborbing power remaining constant (in equilibrium) during that period. Greenhouse absorption increases (blue trend line) only when H20 levels are kept constant.
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, 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. 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.  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.  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.  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. 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.  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.  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.  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?  
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.  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 per
cent 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 global
warming 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




  • Andrew Gibbs 5 years ago

    Did Dr.Miskolczi get a reply to his letter or was he totally ignored?

  • Juan 5 years ago

    EPA has ignored all the letters to the endangerment finding for CO2. Looks like people are lining up to take them to court.

    One way or another...the truth about the temperature data and the truth about the CO2 data from Mauna Loa station is going to come out.

    It's Orwellian how many times the past data has changed to fit their agenda.

  • julie 5 years ago

    re EPA
    Peabody's submission to the EPA is very comprehensive (over 200P)
    find it on Science and Public Policy Institute and is well worth a read.
    re Miskolczi - how does his theory sit with the IRIS theory (Lindzen). As a non-scientist I'd appreciate some comment on that. I imagine both theories basically are about self regulation of atmosphere?

  • iurockhead 5 years ago

    The letter to the EPA was a waste of time. There is likely no one there that will understand it, it's over their heads. Any that do understand the science will ignore it. To accept the science would take away their newfound power before they have had a chance to exercise it.

  • Willis Eschenbach 5 years ago

    Dr. Miskolczi's work is great. Unfortunately, a single atmospheric layer greenhouse model cannot provide enough energy to replicate the actual earth. A single layer greenhouse can only double the incoming W/m2. This doesn't provide enough energy to replicate the known losses. Perhaps Dr. Miscolczi could comment on this problem?

  • Heidi D. Klein 5 years ago

    The Science is settled!
    The data is Robust!
    We have 2500 WWF'ers...


  • H. Michael Mogil, CCM 5 years ago make that GREAT...job!

    I'm a Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM) and even without Dr. Mizkolczi's theory, I've had serious misgivings about the IPCC Report and related efforts (including the EPA's attempt to regulate carbon dioxide).

    I've written several pieces about this at my web site and I am now addressing the issue in talks across southwest Florida.

    Sometime soon, I am sure that I will be discussing climate change at my page. That's because the cold weather, snows and other recent events are no more climate change-based than the warmth of several years ago. It's all part of weather variability, something that happens periodically on a scale of months to years. Climate takes quite a bit longer to change.

    NOAA should redefine its definition of climate to remove the 30-year average from the playing field. That would help to clarify what climate really i

  • MadJak 5 years ago

    Now this is great stuff. Here we have a scientist working off empirical Data and information to prove or disprove a hypothesis.

    That is opposed to people using models and assumptions and calling it science.

    Why can't we give scientists who work off empirical observations more airtime? Bravo to the Examiner for alluding to this.

  • MadJak 5 years ago

    Now this is great stuff. Here we have a scientist working off empirical Data and information to prove or disprove a hypothesis.

    That is opposed to people using models and assumptions and calling it science.

    Why can't we give scientists who work off empirical observations more airtime? Bravo to the Examiner for alluding to this.

  • MadJak 5 years ago

    Now this is great stuff. Here we have a scientist working off empirical Data and information to prove or disprove a hypothesis.

    That is opposed to people using models and assumptions and calling it science.

    Why can't we give scientists who work off empirical observations more airtime? Bravo to the Examiner for alluding to this.

  • DCC 5 years ago

    What's with his references?
    Relevant References:
    F. Miskolczi: Id?járás 111 (2007) 1–40,

    Makes no sense.

  • Paul Harmon 5 years ago

    Game, set, and match, bitches.

  • Derek 5 years ago

    Dr. Miskolczi had to leave NASA to get his works published.
    James Hansen stopped publication whilst Dr. Mikolczi was employed by Nasa.

    I have no doubt that Dr. Miskolczi has discovered, and shown a relationship between atmospheric water vapour and CO2.

    BUT - He still adds up radiation cumulatively, not relatively..

    Overall he saya the only way to warm or cool the world is by changing the solar input, or the planets albedo. This is fair enough, but, he ignores geothermal inputs.

    Overall - Dr. Miskolczi, interesting observations re H2O and CO2,
    but quack, quack ooops, regarding IR (addition) budgets.
    Greenhouse theory, AGW, and IR budgets are quack,
    but simply because they add radiation (cumulative),
    they should be relative - period.

  • Richard Savage 5 years ago

    I appreciate Eschenbach's comment, and don't understand that of Derek, but the lack of trend in flux optical depth seems definitive to me - CO2 has had no effect on radiative transfer through the atmosphere. End of AGW claim. Nice to see real numbers that are fundamental to the physics.

  • Dr. F. M. Miskolczi 5 years ago

    Willis Eschenbach :

    Dear Willis, could you please specify what single layer model you are referring to? I am a bit confused, could you clarify your comment?

  • Dr. F. M. Miskolczi 5 years ago

    Andrew Gibbs:
    .."Did Dr.Miskolczi get a reply to his letter or was he totally ignored?"...

    The letter was totally ignored.

  • Dr. F. M. Miskolczi 5 years ago


    The the geothermal heat flux, volcanism, tidal friction, heat pollution and any other heat source of natural or human origin is an additive term to the total absorbed solar radiation. I did not dealt with them, but they were assumed to be negligible and not to have a direct influence on the infrared opacity...

Report this ad