A former NASA contractor whose theory demonstrating that the greenhouse effect is constant and self-regulating and that increases in human CO2 emissions are not the source of global warming is fighting an uphill battle to publish his controversial work.
Developed by prominent atmospheric physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, the new theory is enormously significant because it demolishes the prevailing doctrine of anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW), which blames humans for pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and triggering runaway global warming that could eventually lead to catastrophic climate change.
All conventional greenhouse concepts are based on the idea that rising greenhouse gases cause an increase in atmospheric absorption, which in turn leads to atmospheric warming and higher surface temperatures. But Miskolczi’s research upends that conventional theory.
After studying hundreds of atmospheric profiles (extracted from the TIGR2 global radiosonde database from the Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique in Paris), Dr. Miskolczi, a former contract researcher for NASA’s Langley Research Center, discovered a self-regulating mechanism, or “constant,” that keeps Earth’s greenhouse gases in equilibrium. According to his equilibrium theory, this constant cannot be altered by increases in emissions of CO2 or other atmospheric gases such as methane.
“The only thing my theory is telling us is that the nature of the greenhouse effect is such, that under the conditions we have here on Earth, the atmosphere will maximize its cooling by keeping its infrared optical depth – or infrared absorption – at a preferred critical value,” explains Miskolczi.
In simple terms, Miskolczi has discovered a new law of physics that sets an upper limit to the greenhouse effect. According to this law, the surplus temperature from greenhouse gases is constant and cannot be increased. Why? Because the earth’s greenhouse blanket functions dynamically to maintain equilibrium in response to changes in greenhouse gases such as water vapor, CO2, methane and ozone.
“With relatively simple computations using NOAA's annual mean temperature, H20 and CO2 time series, I have shown that in the last 61 years, despite a 30 percent increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, the cumulative atmospheric absorption of all greenhouse gases has not been changed and has remained constant. There is no runaway greenhouse effect. The anthropogenic global warming theory is a lie, unless somebody proves otherwise,” Miskolczi says.
The most plausible explanation of the equilibrium effect is that rising CO2 in the atmosphere replaces an equivalent amount of water vapor to maintain a constant greenhouse effect. The chief cause of global warming, according to Miskolczi, is not CO2, but changes in albedo (reflected sunlight) and in the solar constant (amount and rate of solar energy reaching Earth).
Research ignored by NASA
Miskolczi’s research was greeted less than cordially by his bosses. After submitting his results to Applied Optics, a respected peer-review journal, he was told to withdraw the paper by his employer, Analytical Services and Materials, a NASA contractor. When he protested (the paper was midway through the review process), his boss withdrew it. He later confronted his NASA supervisor, Dr. Martin Mlynczak, and was simply ignored, he says.
When contacted by phone, Mlynczak refused to discuss the issue. “We’re not going to comment on that,” he said. But, later, NASA public affairs spokesman Chris Rink said the agency "felt the paper did not offer any new insights." Yet Examiner.com discovered that Miskolczi and Mlynczak had co-authored and submitted a similar research paper with nearly identical atmospheric equations in 2004.
After his paper was withdrawn, Miskolczi’s relationship with his supervisors deteriorated. “Since all of them are experts in the field, I presume they fully understood the implications of the findings,” he says. “They never challenged my results or shared my research with other greenhouse experts. They were just keeping silent. NASA is not an honest research environment.”
Miskolczi submitted an official request to NASA seeking release of his paper for publication, but months went by and he heard nothing, he says. "They just sat on it."
In October 2006, Miskolczi ended his relationship with the agency. In his resignation letter, he criticized NASA for thwarting the publication of research that has "far-reaching consequences in the general atmospheric radiative transfer.”
“My idea of freedom of science cannot coexist with the way NASA handles new climate-change-related scientific results,” he wrote.
Miskolczi's decision to leave disappointed NASA, said Rink. "NASA thought well of his science and research and wanted to fund his research into the greenhouse effect and radiative transfer for a four-year period. But he turned us down and walked out."
Miskolczi’s research paper was eventually published in the January-March 2007 issue of IDOJARAS, the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, after being rejected by leading journals such as Journal of Geophysical Research, Science, Tellus-B and Astrophysical Journal.
Other scientists silenced
The release of Miskolczi’s paper seems to have unnerved some members of the global-warmist community, including a few government officials. Hungarian physicist Dr. Miklos Zagoni was ousted last year as senior climate advisor of the Budapest Ministry of Environment and Water after publicly supporting Miskolczi's research.
Explains Zagoni: “First the government tried to frighten me, and then when that did not work, they kicked me out from my job. I lost my job because of my scientific convictions. I wanted to talk publicly about Dr. Miskolczi’s results, but in the pre-Copenhagen days it was not tolerated by my government superiors.”
Zagoni had been a staunch advocate of the AGW theory. But his views shifted after studying Miskolczi’s research.
“NASA never falsified or even tried to falsify Miskolczi’s results. On the contrary, they fully understood it. They know that it is correct and see how important is,” he says.
Although his work has appeared twice in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorologcal Service, other scientific journals refuse to publish Miskolczi's research and subject it to the intense peer scrutiny that would either confim or falsify his theory.
As Examiner.com columnist Dianna Cotter has reported, not a single scientist has stepped forward to disprove his theory of a greenhouse constant that keeps the greenhouse effect in equilibrium and prevents carbon dioxide emissions from raising global temperatures.
There may be a very simple explanation for the silent treatment, Miskolczi says.
“There are billions of dollars of research grants at stake. And nobody likes to admit his mistakes . . . and that hundreds of research papers in high-reputation scientific journals dealing with the classic greenhouse theory were a waste of time, effort and money."
Kirk Myers' Examiner.com column appears several times weekly. To receive alerts when a new article is published, click on the “subscribe” button at the top of the page. For a comprehensive look at global warming, including research and video presentations, please see links on the right.
Myers also can be reached via Twitter: @MyersKL.
Comments
So what do we know that is completely natural and can absorb vast amounts of Co2... TREES! This man is either a fraud or completely insane to propose such things. But more importantly he clames that this discovery is a new law of physics and is scientific 'theory', however what he neglects to mention is that scientific laws and theories take decades sometimes CENTURIES to be proven or disproven. This man is a poor scientist.
"not a single scientist has stepped forward to disprove his theory of a greenhouse constant that keeps the greenhouse effect in equilibrium and prevents carbon dioxide emissions from raising global temperatures."
This stuff is getting old. The oceans are becoming acidic because they are sinking excess CO2 right now. Just wait, morons, you'll regret messing up the environment for your grandchildren soon enough.
Sorry Ronald RayGun,
Don't know how to break this to you gently, but the whole "acidification" of the oceans from increased CO2 absorption from AGW is a load of crock.
Yeah I know a couple of your wunderkind "climate scientists" wrote a paper on it, but it seems basic high school physics wasn't part of their education.
You see Ronald, the amount of a gas (any gas)that will dissolve in a liquid (any liquid) is directly proportional to the pressure of the gas and inversely proportional to the temperature of the liquid. This is one of the "gas laws".
In layman's terms, assuming constant pressure the colder the liquid the more gas it will dissolve, and vice versa.
NOTHING else figures in the equation.
So, sorry Ron but at any given temperature the oceans will only absorb a given amount of CO2, even if the atmosphere was 100% CO2.
Try "Henry's Law" on Wikipedia.
And it's REAL hard to argue increased CO2 levels in the supposedly warming oceans which AGW require.
Right on Memory Vault!! I remember that stuff too from some 30 years ago! Thanks for jogging my memory.
Sorry Skeptic, he's a good scientist who, unfortunately, is caught up in the system as it exists. I've read through his paper and you should too. Makes sense to me, for a layman to understand. Nobody's refuted his theory yet, using REAL scientific endeavour and analysis! If it does get peer-reviewed, the money train that is global warming/climate change would screech to a halt. Remember, follow the money and try, really try, to research for yourself and stop with the ad-hominen attack!
Thanks Rick Skeptic
Yeah, third year science back in 1966.
I was hoping the raygun would come back with the standard alarmist "but it forms carbonic acid (H2CO3) so more CO2 can dissolve so making even more acid".
Which would be true except that carbonic acid doesn't actually exist in seawater. The reaction continues to CO3 (carbon trioxide)and two hydrogen radicals. Both of these are totally unstable and further react with other things (eg CO3 with calcium to form calcium carbonate). High school chemistry 1967. Back then we actually MADE seawater in the lab then analysed the result- they don't do that stuff at school anymore.
Besides, over 90% of all the CO2 in the world is already in the oceans. If it could dissolve any more at current temperature and pressure it would and there wouldn't be any at all in the air and the alarmists would have to find something else (again).
Thanks Rick Skeptic
Yeah, third year science back in 1966.
I was hoping the raygun would come back with the standard alarmist "but it forms carbonic acid (H2CO3) so more CO2 can dissolve so making even more acid".
Which would be true except that carbonic acid doesn't actually exist in seawater. The reaction continues to CO3 (carbon trioxide)and two hydrogen radicals. Both of these are totally unstable and further react with other things (eg CO3 with calcium to form calcium carbonate). High school chemistry 1967. Back then we actually MADE seawater in the lab then analysed the result- they don't do that stuff at school anymore.
Besides, over 90% of all the CO2 in the world is already in the oceans. If it could dissolve any more at current temperature and pressure it would and there wouldn't be any at all in the air and the alarmists would have to find something else (again).
Thanks Rick Skeptic
Yeah, third year science back in 1966.
I was hoping the raygun would come back with the standard alarmist "but it forms carbonic acid (H2CO3) so more CO2 can dissolve so making even more acid".
Which would be true except that carbonic acid doesn't actually exist in seawater. The reaction continues to CO3 (carbon trioxide)and two hydrogen radicals. Both of these are totally unstable and further react with other things (eg CO3 with calcium to form calcium carbonate). High school chemistry 1967. Back then we actually MADE seawater in the lab then analysed the result- they don't do that stuff at school anymore.
Besides, over 90% of all the CO2 in the world is already in the oceans. If it could dissolve any more at current temperature and pressure it would and there wouldn't be any at all in the air and the alarmists would have to find something else (again).
Kirk Meyers
Thank you very much for bringing up and discussing the subject.
---
Mr.Chris Rink or Mr. Mlynczak or Mr. Agency:
NASA public affairs spokesman Chris Rink said the agency "felt the paper did not offer any new insights." or "NASA thought well of his science and research and wanted to fund his research into the greenhouse effect and radiative transfer for a four-year period. But he turned us down and walked out."
Why keep lying? I was insulted by my mighty boss, my theoretical results were not allowed to discuss, and I was not permitted to continue my greenhouse research. That is all. I did not turn anybody down, but I just had no stomach to work in that environment. If you wish to argue about the detais I may dig out the related e-mail communication with the people involved.
Another nail in the coffin of AGW! With so much science undercutting dogma, hopefully the tide is beginning to turn against the propagandists.
Since Examiner.com blocks urls in comments, those interested in more accessible points of criticism might search their preferred engine for "ManBearPig Attacked by Science!".
Dr. Miskolczi, I believe you should reveal those emails. It is time the truth was know, in all its unpleasant details.
OK, here's a scientist stepping forward to disprove his theory. His key premise is nonsense. The acceleration on atmospheric gas molecules due to radiation pressure is approximately 10^-10 (that's 0.0000000001) m/s^2. The acceleration downwards due to the earth's gravity is 9.8 m/s^2, or approximately 11 orders of magnitude larger. Therefore radiation pressure has a completely negligible effect on the earth's atmosphere.
Sometimes when a paper is rejected, it's not because of a conspiracy. It's because the paper is junk.
Thank you for honest journalism. There is too little of it going around at the moment. Nearly all the other American media seem to be afraid to talk about what is going on in the scientific community concerning climate studies, where fraud after fraud is being exposed on a daily basis. The entire edifice of anthropomorphic global warming is crumbling, and it is being kept a secret from the American public. Fortunately the internet allows those who pay attention to find out the truth. When the public does find out, the media will be the losers, while brave, honorable journalists like you will be the winners. The revelations about politics, society, and business-as-usual are utterly disgusting and dispiriting.
The point is not whether Miskolczi was right or wrong, but that a scientific journal was willing to consider his theory, and his own boss suppressed it. It was not "rejected," it was suppressed. Scientific Journals are not expected to be right, they are just expected to publish apparently honest studies so that other scientists knowledgeable in the same field have a chance to determine if the theories are reproducibile. That is how science is decided. And another man who supported him lost his job over it. That should never happen. This way of doing business is not science, but dishonesty -- agenda-driven "nonscience." Unfortunately this episode only confirms much other suspicious behavior on the part of NASA as well.
Thanks Rick Skeptic
Yeah, third year science back in 1966.
I was hoping the raygun would come back with the standard alarmist "but it forms carbonic acid (H2CO3) so more CO2 can dissolve so making even more acid".
Which would be true except that carbonic acid doesn't actually exist in seawater. The reaction continues to CO3 (carbon trioxide)and two hydrogen radicals. Both of these are totally unstable and further react with other things (eg CO3 with calcium to form calcium carbonate). High school chemistry 1967. Back then we actually MADE seawater in the lab then analysed the result- they don't do that stuff at school anymore.
Besides, over 90% of all the CO2 in the world is already in the oceans. If it could dissolve any more at current temperature and pressure it would and there wouldn't be any at all in the air and the alarmists would have to find something else (again).
Dear Gerard Harbison,
Your idiotic view of the radiation pressure is surprising. Why not read a little more about the conservation of the momentum of the radiation field? It could help you a lot to understand what is this whole about. If you do not understand something it does not necesserily mean that it is junk. The JGR rejected my paper without review, they were telling that it is not for their readership...maybe they were thinking of your kind of scientists...
The reader's [Mr. Harbison's] comment is based on a fundamental misreading. What is stated in the article is the radiation pressure on the ground, which is (according to basic theoretical physics of university textbooks) equal to what is stated by Ferenc, and not on the atmospheric gas molecules, as the reader wrote. This reader understands absolutely nothing from the logic of the paper. These kinds of elementary misunderstandings make a lot of trouble on the Net, but nobody was able to produce any valid counter-argument — or, most importantly, counter-equation —for Dr Miskolczi's final conclusion on the equilibirum greenhouse effect.
You nailed it...twice in that article. Billions of dollars at steak. And also, you mentioned albedo and solar energy as chief causes. I'd rather admit I was wrong than perform unethical acts, but that's just me.
stake* sorry.
That picture has been photoshopped to make a pipe venting steam against a background of normal clouds look like something spewing fuming nitric acid. It's one of the lying subliminal icons that have helped further warming alarmists. You should get an honest picture to go with the article.
Thanks to Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi for persevering with sensible research.
Of course, we know how NASA works when we see how NASA/GISS behaves under James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt guidance. NASA, NOAA, and other agencies are deep to their ears in the Climategate affair, and now the time has come to set the record straight.
We have discussed Dr. Miskolczi paper in ClimateScecptic.yahoo.groups (where scientists debate, including Gavin) and though some few tried to argue some obscure point (to them) most of scientists there agreed with Miskolczi conclusions and general theory. Excellent job Dr. Miskolczi!
Eduardo Ferreyra
Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology
Matt says:
. "Billions of dollars at steak" (sic)
February 12, 2:57 PM.
A 'steak' is what you eat! The correct word here is 'stake'. Yes it does matter as I am sure you do not want to appear uneducated. Please use a dictionary Matt!.
Mary:
Your comment (February 22, 10:50 AM) does not make much sense.
As I see Matt corrected his comment on February 12, 2:57 PM.
Seems you are a bit late to teach him. I guess you might not want to appear as a person who used to be late...
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!