Ferenc Miskolczi's New Equations
As noted at Daily Tech, Ferenc M. Miskolczi has published a challenge to the prevailing greenhouse gas hypothesis in the quarterly journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service.
In the conclusion on page 36, Miskolczi says his new equations mean the purported consensus opinion about anthropogenic global warming from greenhouse gases is not correct:
Will the gashouse gang offer reasons why the new equations fail to describe what really happens in the atmosphere?
Update, March 16, 2008: "Niche Modeling" has a discussion of Miskolczi's article that is helpful.
Update, April 7, 2008: "Global Warming Skeptics" has a copy of the slides used in Ferenc Miskolczi's presentation to the conference held in March. From them, I gather that he is saying the optical thickness remains near a certain value, but I don't see an explanation of a mechanism or process that maintains that value. Is it nothing more than a "just so" idea for now? Why would the addition of CO2, for example, lead to a reduction of some other substance to maintain this optical thickness? If the atmosphere's optical thickness increases, I think he's saying that the average temperature could indeed go up -- but the thickness doesn't increase.
Update, June 22, 2008: "Niche Modeling" has followed up with several posts discussing Miskolczi's equations. The more recent posts are listed first at the link, so scroll down to get to the first post. They make for interesting reading, even when parts go zipping right over my head.
In the conclusion on page 36, Miskolczi says his new equations mean the purported consensus opinion about anthropogenic global warming from greenhouse gases is not correct:
Considering the magnitude of the observed global average surface temperature rise and the consequences of the new greenhouse equations, the increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must not be the reason of global warming.
Will the gashouse gang offer reasons why the new equations fail to describe what really happens in the atmosphere?
Update, March 16, 2008: "Niche Modeling" has a discussion of Miskolczi's article that is helpful.
Update, April 7, 2008: "Global Warming Skeptics" has a copy of the slides used in Ferenc Miskolczi's presentation to the conference held in March. From them, I gather that he is saying the optical thickness remains near a certain value, but I don't see an explanation of a mechanism or process that maintains that value. Is it nothing more than a "just so" idea for now? Why would the addition of CO2, for example, lead to a reduction of some other substance to maintain this optical thickness? If the atmosphere's optical thickness increases, I think he's saying that the average temperature could indeed go up -- but the thickness doesn't increase.
Update, June 22, 2008: "Niche Modeling" has followed up with several posts discussing Miskolczi's equations. The more recent posts are listed first at the link, so scroll down to get to the first post. They make for interesting reading, even when parts go zipping right over my head.
posted by Micajah | 2:59 PM
2 Comments:
Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service?????
Geoffrey, read the back story and you will undertand why.
Post a Comment
<< Home