Thursday, January 14, 2010

Fletch 'Miskolczi Constant' Proves IPCC WRONG?

Found this very interesting article today about an Hungarian scientist called Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi who wrote a paper back in 2004 and again in 2007 about a 'constant' he worked out with regard to CO2 in the atmosphere. According to his formula, the CO2 can NEVER get to the level the IPCC talks about. What's more, no scientist has been able to refute his research after peer review. It's probably best if I lay down some quotes which will explain a little, but it's best if you read the article in it's entirety to fully grasp it.

To give context to this discovery, a short lesson in science is needed. The term “Constant” is very well known in science. Simply put it is a part of an equation (An equation is merely a mathematical sentence, the Variables are the words) that does not change; they are specific and represent solid concepts. You may have heard of Bohr’s Constant, Hubble ’s Constant, Avogadro’s Constant, there are many of them. There is a new Constant; one that has not been named, but if history is any guide it will be called the Miskolczi Constant, named for the physicist who discovered it.

A Constant we are all familiar with is the speed of light. Before Einstein and his famous theory of Relativity E=MC2, it was widely believed there was no limit on speed, just throw a rock from a speeding train and the speed will continue to add up. Einstein and his theory of Special Relativity put a specific limit on speed - the speed of light, beyond which nothing could go. There is a strict energetic limit, and we have recognized that for decades now. Before Miskolczi, it was generally thought that the greenhouse effect could be increased infinitely by adding more and more CO2 molecules into the air. Under the conditions prevailing on Earth, Miskolczi has proved that there is a limit to the greenhouse temperature that cannot be raised. Why is that? The IPCC has been telling us the exact opposite for years. Simple, because just as with Einstein’s E=MC2, there is a strict energetic limit as the Miskolczi Law proves.

[O]ur planetary climate system is at equilibrium, and the Miskolczi Constant allows science to completely describe that equilibrium. For the first time, we can do so accurately with raw data, and match observed data with the results. No “hide the decline” needed when simply describing reality.

Let’s get more basic in dismantling the IPCC’s “theory” of climate. If one takes Earth’s greenhouse gasses away, the planet would be about -18 degrees C (4 Degrees F) on a global average. Add in the greenhouse gasses and their influence back in using the Miskolczi Constant and you get a 33 degree C increase to 15 degrees C (59 Degrees F). This value is constant, and maximized on a global scale. It also matches observed data. Raw data, not manipulated or computer processed data. Using Miskolczi’s law and constant, there is no need for manipulated data, only the real observations, and that is the reason this discovery is so significant. If you double the amount of current CO2 emissions and add that to the equation, and you cannot come up with the 35 to 38 Degree C increase that the IPCC and Al Gore have been preaching about. It is physically and mathematically impossible, and thanks to the Miskolczi Law and Constant, provable and repeatable by scientists the world over.

Dr. Miskolczi first published his work in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Services in 2004, Volume 108, No 4. He published further statistical proof in the same Journal in 2007, Volume 111, No. 1. In the 5 years since he first published his results, not one peer review has come back disproving his theory, or his Constant. To date, not one scientist has come forward to disprove Miskolczi’s theory that the Earth’s climate is at equilibrium, and that Carbon Dioxide cannot be released in amounts great enough to upset that equilibrium.

In short, according to Dr. Miskolczi’s discovery, Earth’s temperature will not rise or fall as a result of increasing CO2 emissions because of the inherent equilibrium created by our oceans upon oceans of water.
Again, sorry for all the cutting and pasting, but I think the quotes (and the story itself) tell you more than me trying to explain it in my own words. NASA and the IPCC have known about this constant but have conveniently taken no notice of the paper.

5 comment(s):

Andrei said...

The fact this mans work has not been refuted by itself means nothing - given that it was published in a Hungarian journal not that many people with the necessary backgrounds in Mathematical Physics will have read it.

Which by itself means nothing - Einsteins three seminal papers were published in an obscure journal as was Edward Lorenz's wonderful paper on non linear dynamics.

I don't believe in the IPCCs catastrophic model but I also don't think that every paper that counters it is necessarily right either.

The paper you refer to may present a wonderful new way of looking at atmospheric processes but equally it may be just dross as most scientific papers turn out to be

I.M Fletcher said...

Andrei, you may be right, and I will put a question mark on the title.
However, when people get fired from their jobs for no good reason, (Dr Miklos Zagoni, the author of the letter below), it makes me suspicious. The co-author of the original paper
was Miskolczi's boss at NASA, and when they realized the content, it seems they took certain steps..

In 2004 Dr Ferenc Miskolczi published a paper ’The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial radiation’, in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service (Vol. 108, No. 4, October–December 2004, pp. 209–251.).

The co-author of the article was his boss at NASA (Martin Mlynczak). Mlynczak put his name to the paper but did no work on it. He thought that it was an important paper, but only in a technical way.

When Miskolczi later informed the group at NASA there that he had more important results, they finally understood the whole story, and tried to withhold Miskolczi’s further material from publication. His boss for example, sat at Ferenc’s computer, logged in with Ferenc`s password, and canceled a recently submitted paper from a high-reputation journal as if Ferenc had withdrawn it himself. That was the reason that Ferenc finally resigned from his ($US 90.000 /year) job.

I want to make it clear: NASA never falsified or even tried to falsify Ferenc`s results, on the contrary, they fully understand it. They know that it is correct and see how important it is. To make sense of their actions, they probably see a national security issue in it. Perhaps they think that AGW is the only way to stop, or to slow, the coal-based growth of China.

In my circumstance where I have been dismissed from my Government paid position in Hungary, I think the information vacuum (in Hungary), has the same type of origin. I believe someone is in the background trying to convince the establishment (media, science, politics) that Miskolczi's results are against our national security interests. First, they tried to frighten me, and then when that did not work, they kicked me out from my job. So now I am turning to the wider internet to publicise Miskolczi`s work, as I know that his results are valid and true. There is no way and no need to hold them back for the world to understand them.

Tomorrow, for the first time in my life, I am jobless.
Budapest, 31 Dec, 2009

I.M Fletcher said...

ps, if his results are provable and repeatable as he says, it will be interesting to see if anyone follows it up when it becomes more well known.

Garry said...

I am a mathematically literate engineer with sufficient knowledge to understand Miskolczi's papers.

After reading the papers and watching a video explaining his work on Youtube I am convinced that his new theory of a Green House effect buffered by the level of water vapour in the atmosphere and leading to a temperature equilibrium is true.

He does not deny that the climate can change over time dependant on energy input/output to the system primarily from the sun just that changes in non water vapour green house gases such as CO2 will not change the global average temperature as the water vapour levels in the atmosphere will decrease/increase to buffer the green house effect and maintain it according to the atmospheric lense constant.

Miskolczi supports his theory with a fundamental derivation of the atmosphireic lense "constant" and its use. He also provides agreeing verification of the constants value by using analysis of published climate data sets.

His new theory states that the atmospheric green house effect is stabilised by the global exchange of water vapour from the relatively unlimited oceans. This provides the ability of the atmosphere to loose or gain water vapour to balance the green house effect's heat gain and loss from the atmosphere and the earth's surface thus stabilising the surface temperature at around 15C.

To date I have not seen any published scientific paper refuting his theory, calculations, data interpretation or conclusions.

I have read many of the IPCC reports and other papers on AGW (Anthropogenic "human induced" Global Warming) over the last 5 years. They have generally not provided clearly supported arguments, only selective statistics and climate "model" results to support AGW.

I have always known that the climate system was more complicated than a CO2 driven system and that CO2 was potentially a relatively insignificant contributor to the climate as Miskolczi's work displays. SF6, Methane, dust particles, aerosols and CO2 (to name a few) are all important contributors but water vapour is the most significant by far GHG and has been constantly underemphasised.

Water vapour has always been the obvious major contibutor to the Green House system and the most likely "buffer" of the climate that compensates for all of the other GH contributors.

It is water vapoour that keeps the climate from a runnaway GH situation.

The sooner we and the scientific community examines the non AGW evidence and abandons the IPPC religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming the better.

We should be focusing on preserving the ecosystems and biodiversity that keeps us all alive, not on the politics and religion of the IPCC's false AGW beliefs. The IPCC has not proven that AGW exists whereas Miskolczi has proven that AGW doesn't exist.

I.M Fletcher said...

Thanks! It's great to have some input from someone with engineering knowledge. It would be great if groups like the IPCC would actually debate this stuff instead of claiming that the science is settled, based only on some computer models that do not take all the contributing factors into account.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.