Articles Tagged "Ferenc Miskolczi"

Although I don’t endorse Miskolczi’s theory, it remains that he is a serious critic whose work shouldn’t be ignored. What’s more, his theory at least agrees with the evidence, namely, that a modest rise in global temperature since the end of the Little Ice Age cannot be traced to the increased abundance of a ‘greenhouse gas’ as a causative agent. I thus submit that Miskolczi’s interpretation of reality is far more sound than professor Lindzen’s, for instance, wherein the greenhouse effect induces radiative heating on the surface that is five times greater than the sun’s, but is counteracted by non-radiative cooling effects (convection and evaporation) which reduce the average surface temperature from an oppressive 77°C to a comfortable 15°. In the real world, though, an object that's insulated from non-radiative cooling effects and exposed to sunlight reaches a temperature that’s consistent with sunlight alone -- meaning there’s no evidence that the sky is emanating an extra 682 watts per square meter AT ALL.

But this points to the probable reason why Miskolczi is ignored: Because completely absurd theories continue to hold sway. Dianna Cotter writes, "The very complexity of climate science has been used to kick sand into the eyes of the public, blinding us to alternative theories whether they are correct or not." It’s worse than this, though. These theories aren't merely complex; they are scientifically and conceptually incoherent. In other words, both the IPCC-academia faction and experts among the AGW skeptics are peddling literal (i.e., non-empirical) nonsense, and neither side wishes to hear any dissent. THAT is the suffocating orthodoxy Miskolczi is up against. By questioning the whole theory, Miskolczi has placed himself outside the terms of the debate, terms that are irrational on BOTH sides, and has made himself persona non grata.

One detail where I do agree with Miskolczi (or perhaps Cotter): CO2 cannot increase the surface temperature of the Earth independently of incoming energy. In the Alice-in-Wonderland world of greenhouse "science," that's a refreshing tidbit of sanity. A.S.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for years has been predicting the greenhouse effect can spin out of control. They claim that there exists a scientific consensus that CO2 is pushing the planet into an unrestrained greenhouse effect, that it’s raising global temperatures and it must be stopped. IPCC was created in the 1980s by the United Nations.

Recently, NASA Director James Hansen was challenged by Hungarian Physicist Dr. Miklos Zagoni and Dianna Cotter, a Contributing Editor to FamilySecurityMatters.org, to release the raw numbers data Hansen used to report that 2009 was the warmest year on record. NASA incorrectly states that our surface atmosphere can hold infinite amounts of heat. Instead, the discovery of Atmospheric Equilibrium by Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi proves Global Warming by CO2 emissions a hoax.

The challenge can be found in this open letter to Dr. Hansen, made public by the authors for the first time.
Open Letter to:Dr. James Hansen (NASA GISS)

Dear Dr. Hansen:

On January 22, 2010 you published a statement: “2009: Second warmest year on record.”

As we all know, the global average surface temperature is a sum of two quantities. One is the so-called effective temperature, determined by the available incoming energy (depending on the solar constant, planetary albedo [reflectivity] and internal heat sources as ocean-atmosphere heat exchange, industrial heat generation and so on), now about 255 Kelvin or minus 18 Celsius.

The other is the greenhouse temperature, coming from the presence of infrared-active gases (H2O, CO2, methane, ozone, etc.) and clouds in the atmosphere, generally accepted as about 33 degrees Celsius. These two give up the known 288 K (+15 C) global average surface temperature.

For years now, we have been told that science is dedicatedly attempting to find out how the Earth’s Climate works. With all possible seriousness, the most publically vocal of these scientists, those working for the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), have for the last several years blamed the warming they “found” on Carbon Dioxide. With the release of the CRU (Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia) e-mail database, it is very clearly apparent that the scientists involved with the IPCC were doctoring data to give a specific result. That result was designed to look as if CO2 was causing climate change, warming the earth due to human activities. It can be reported now that this theory has been solidly disproven by Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, and his work will make history.

Constants

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.