What are the implications and limitations of the semi-infinite atmosphere theory of Ferenc Miskolczi — a theoretical model for greenhouse effect in the atmosphere?
Unlike current models suggesting a range of 1.5C to 5C increase in global temperatures from doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, the semi-infinite theory suggests very little warming from increases in greenhouse gases, around 0.24C for CO2 doubling. This is because the earth’s atmosphere adjusts water vapor levels and cloud albedo to compensate for the CO2, in order to maintain an optimal level of greenhouse effect.
If Ferenc Miskolczi’s theory of semi-infinite atmosphere is correct, CO2 emission would be free from regulation.
If Ferenc’s theory is correct, there would be no concerns with ‘runaway warming’. More importantly, the Nations could continue their economic development with fossil fuels, producing as much CO2 as they like, and increasing the levels in the atmosphere without any fears of climate catastrophe.
This theory could be counterpoint to AGW in the way particle theory counterpoints string theory. Unfortunately the semi-infinite theory does not even appear on the radar of pro-AGW climate scientist blogs.
Previously, in a post I wondered whether the approach Ferenc was taking was sound. The second question in my mind was how a theory with constant greenhouse might produce changes in surface temperatures. The result of my ruminations on that will be published in Australian Institute of Geologists Newsletter (AIG) shortly. Previously, they graciously published an article showing the circular reasoning in climate hockey stick reconstruction.
Briefly, even though the temperature of the troposphere stays relatively constant, there are a number of ways. Variations in solar intensity can change temperatures. The temperature of the stratosphere could influence the surface temperature. Other ways of influencing surface temperature are changes in emissivity and albedo.
14 responses so far ↓
1 Niche Modeling » Douglass et al 2007 and Atmospheric Models // Apr 28, 2008 at 9:27 pm
[...] The reason for comparing output of global climate models (GCMs) to real world observations is important. I think this paper documents classic showdown between two theories, the infinity-thick theory of atmospheres as used in GCMs, and the semi-transparent atmospheric model as proposed by Miskolczi. However, people are missing this point, the observation discriminates theories, in the discussion has centered on the statistical methods. [...]
In which issue of AIG will your article appear, David? I’m very interested in reading it.
Its coming out next month. I’ll post a link when it does.
Thanks for the interest.
There is insufficient experimental data for various atmospheric gas, land and ocean interactions,
A start would be to build a large centrifuge and actually measure what happens when gas concentrations, radiation, magnetism, etc. are changed.
Its actually a good idea. I assume the centrifuge simulates gravity inversely. I would like to know what a simple thermometer reads throughout the density gradient in the media.
Isn’t this too good an idea for it not to have already been done? I wouldn’t think the equipment would be that hard to build.
Could the apparatus be refined enough to test Miskolezi’s general greenhouse equation?
Going all the way to 3D; somehow map the atmosphere to the inside of a rotating barrel. If the barrel were rotated standing up, it would need reshaping to the correct water level. Maybe, just leave water in it, and it will self adjust ? Add floating land ?
Franko
If you are going to go 3D you might as well use the Earth as your lab equipment. That is what Sherwood Idso did in “CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change” Climate Research Vol. 10:69-82, 1998. His 10 natural experiments agree with Miskolezi in that he finds a doubling of the air’s CO2 content would result in a few tenths of a degree increase, likely 0.4 C or less. I think Idso’s review is a classic work of science.
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10/c010p069.pdf
Its been a while since I read Idso’s classic, and I seem to remember it was branded as ‘flawed’, but I can’t remember why. If you have a chance, would you care to update is. Regards
10 Niche Modeling » Modeling Global Warming // May 7, 2008 at 5:01 am
[...] admin @ Free CO2 For All [...]
11 Niche Modeling » Models of Greenhouse Effect // May 26, 2008 at 6:24 am
[...] Here is a neat way to sum up a range of models of greenhouse effect using the overall energy balance equation of Miskolczi (M7). The energy balance equation represents two flux terms of equal magnitude, propagating into opposite directions, while using the same solar energy F as an energy source. The first term (Su-F) heats the atmosphere and the second term (Ed-Eu) maintains the surface energy balance. [...]
Another try at modeling: Shower stall, sunlamp and cooler on top, water, heatlamp and cooler at bottom. Sensor is cooled Infrared camera looking at diffraction grating mirrors, pointing up, down and sideways.
So, David, would you like a pdf reprint of your AIG review of Miskolczi’s STA theory?
Hi Pat, There are two pages from the newsletter at this post.
http://landshape.org/enm/another-theory-of-global-warming/
Did you mean another version? Cheers
Leave a Comment