backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 212 comment(s) - last by bonerici.. on Mar 19 at 4:29 PM


A graph showing agreement of model predictions with data from both the Earth and Mars

A simplified view of the new equations governing the greenhouse effect
New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible

Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher.  He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.

That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center.

After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well.  "I fell in love," he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states.  Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.

So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.

NASA refused to release the results.  Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple.  "Money", he tells DailyTech.  Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research.  Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate.  My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."

His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.

The conclusions are supported by research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research last year from Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs, who gave statistical evidence that the Earth's response to carbon dioxide was grossly overstated.  It also helps to explain why current global climate models continually predict more warming than actually measured.

The equations also answer thorny problems raised by current theory, which doesn't explain why "runaway" greenhouse warming hasn't happened in the Earth's past.  The new theory predicts that greenhouse gas increases should result in small, but very rapid temperature spikes, followed by much longer, slower periods of cooling -- exactly what the paleoclimatic record demonstrates.

However, not everyone is convinced.  Dr. Stephen Garner, with the NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), says such negative feedback effects are "not very plausible".  Reto Ruedy of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says greenhouse theory is "200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory.

Miskowlczi has used his theory to model not only Earth, but the Martian atmosphere as well, showing what he claims is  an extremely good fit with observational results.  For now, the data for Venus is too limited for similar analysis, but Miskolczi hopes it will one day be possible.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Theory changes....
By Kenenniah on 3/6/2008 12:20:54 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory.


Of course....because no long standing theory has even needed to be changed.




RE: Theory changes....
By ChronoReverse on 3/6/2008 12:22:23 PM , Rating: 1
We didn't even know there was a speed limit 200 years ago O_o


RE: Theory changes....
By rcc on 3/6/2008 4:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
oops, I think the theory less than a hundred years ago was if you managed to get up to 60-70 mph it would do drastic things to your body. I'm going to have to look that up again.


RE: Theory changes....
By ChronoReverse on 3/6/2008 5:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
So it changed more than once (assuming what you're saying is true).


RE: Theory changes....
By erikejw on 3/7/2008 2:51:32 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah sure, and in the OJ case they had scientists who beleived that DNA was impossible to use to identify someone.

There is always a contrary view but when 95% of scientists agrees of something that is what counts.


RE: Theory changes....
By AlexWade on 3/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Theory changes....
By Starcub on 3/8/2008 11:51:48 AM , Rating: 1
The article you linked to had this to say:

"A 2003 survey of 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, conducted by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch at the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Germany, found

82 percent said global warming is happening, but only

56 percent said it’s mostly the result of human causes, and only

35 percent said models can accurately predict future climate conditions."

OK, so "only" 56% support for AGW, and you're using this to refute AGW?

Despite the spin, there is also nothing in the topic article that presents evidence against AGW. Some scientist developed a better mathematical model that more accurately predicts temps already determined from information extrapolated from the geologic record. We already knew that the earth had self correcting mechanisms in place; this guy just showed us that increased atmospheric energy radiation into space is a contribiting factor.


RE: Theory changes....
By ikkeman on 3/7/2008 11:32:11 AM , Rating: 3
a long time ago in a universe not so very far away -

100% of scientist knew the earth was flat.
100% of schientists knew the earth was the centre of this universe
100% of scientists knew god existed.

on of clarke's laws (I think)
If an elderly and distinguished scientists says something is impossible, he is nearly always wrong
When a young and enthousistic scientists says something is possible, he is nearly always right...

offcourse this has nothing to do with age


RE: Theory changes....
By OrSin on 3/17/2008 8:53:56 AM , Rating: 3
In the christian world yes. But Asia, africa and middle east all know this was completely wrong for 1000's of years before the Europeans. History is so funny when viewed from only 1 piont of view.


RE: Theory changes....
By RedStar on 3/17/2008 12:01:17 PM , Rating: 2
those, who supported those three claims above, were not scientists back then but religious types with an agenda to maintain.

Scientists equal those that use the scientific method.


RE: Theory changes....
By tjr508 on 3/6/2008 7:33:04 PM , Rating: 5
Not to mention what happens at 88 mph.


RE: Theory changes....
By Scrogneugneu on 3/6/2008 7:59:01 PM , Rating: 4
Only depending on the type of car you're driving.


RE: Theory changes....
By dflynchimp on 3/6/2008 9:27:34 PM , Rating: 3
and if you're carrying plutonium or got a Mr. Fusion upgrade


RE: Theory changes....
By retepallen on 3/7/2008 4:56:34 AM , Rating: 3
or train


RE: Theory changes....
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 3/7/2008 11:42:13 AM , Rating: 2
The theory stated that you would no longer be able to breathe above 60 mph. There may have been something related to increasing mass equalling ten times stationary mass at 60 mph as well.


RE: Theory changes....
By sporr on 3/8/2008 8:02:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think if the conditions were that, you were propelled in a direction at a speed of 60mph or more, but not within say a car or a plane, lets say a catapult for the sake of this discussion, the atmospheric pressure would be too much onto your lungs that it would be very hard if not impossible to breath without assistance, like if you were to sky dive without respiratory gear.

maybe.


RE: Theory changes....
By Kenenniah on 3/6/2008 12:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
Oops.

quote:
Of course....because no long standing theory has EVER needed to be changed.


RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/6/2008 12:26:14 PM , Rating: 5
You may have a point about old theories, but the fact is that more and more scientists are looking at global warming and realizing that we are not in any danger, the planet is fine.

We do need to work to reduce emissions and improve efficiency to reduce our dependency on oil for 3 reasons 1. Economic 2. Political 3. environmental (by that I am referring to us breathing the smog, not the planet getting too warm)... In that order


RE: Theory changes....
By TomZ on 3/6/2008 12:38:48 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, the old bait-and-switch routine again! Get people interested and motivated because of the impending "crisis" of AGW, and then when that is proved to not be a problem, state that we should do all that stuff anyway for these other not so compelling or urgent reasons.

I just can't imagine why the environmentalists have such a poor reputation... </sarcasm>