 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » EPA ignores reality in scientific breakthrough -... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Just A Guy... |
 Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
EPA ignores reality in scientific breakthrough - unable to disprove
greenhouse effect in equilibrium
January 18, 8:16 PM
Portland Civil Rights Examiner
Dr. Miklos Zagoni, Dianna C. Cotter
Abstract:
Earth's Greenhouse Effect is constant and does not rise with human CO2
emissions. That is the main point of Dr Miskolczi's results, called to
the attention of the EPA in the 'Endangerment Finding' evaluation
process. The EPA could not disprove this or Miskolczi’s results.
_
Recently the United States Environmental Protection Agency issued an
“Endangerment Finding” stating that CO2 and 5 other greenhouse gasses
constituted a danger to public health and welfare. Many people are not
aware that the Obama Administration through the EPA’s finding can now
pass through environmental regulations that will force businesses to
comply with the changes without going to congress in order to pass Cap
and Trade Legislation. With this finding, the Administration could
regulate CO2 by dictate from the White House to any degree it chooses.
What is little known is that the EPA held public comment sessions
before issuing their finding. By law, the EPA is obligated to respond
to substantive comments, and some of those comments cited the
Hungarian Physicist who discovered the Law and Constants that describe
the Equilibrium of Earth’s greenhouse effect. Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi in
2004 and 2007 published his work, and to date no Scientific study or
authentic peer review (which is to say, something more substantive
than random naysayers in the blogosphere whose livelihoods are
dependent on the myth of Global Warming not being exposed) has been
published which finds Dr. Miskolczi’s work in error.
The EPA itself made several errors in the attempt to understand
Miskolczi’s work, and illustrates a number of incorrect arguments that
have repeatedly been used in the attempt to discredit the Doctor’s
work. We will address these misconceptions here as they are repeated
time and again in a show of complete misunderstanding of Miskolczi’s
law and constant.
EPA: "The hypothesis that increased CO2 forcing will lead to a
counterbalancing decrease in water vapor is highly speculative, and is
not supported by the vast body of scientific literature."
Response: “It is not hypothesis, and not speculative at all. It is
based on a huge amount of radiative transfer calculations by Dr.
Miskolczi's High Resolution Atmospheric Radiative Transfer Code
(HARTCODE, 1990), made on the TIGR global radiosonde data archive of
the Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique (Paris, Director Hervé Le
Treut, lead IPCC author). Details of the dataset and the results of
calculations were published in Miskolczi & Mlynczak (2004). The
relations revealed by Miskolczi explicitly were there implicit in the
Kiehl-Trenberth 1997 global energy budget, but Miskolczi's
computations made them exact and clear. He took those flux relations
as equations in his 2007 paper, and calculated the solutions of the
new set of energy balance equations. The solution gives a theoretical
equilibrium value of the clear-sky greenhouse effect, exactly equal to
that given on empirical grounds in Kiehl and Ramanathan (2006).”
EPA: "A climate sensitivity of zero is completely incompatible with
historical temperature variations, as it would imply an unchanging
climate in direct contrast to historically recorded temperatures
changes on all timescales."
Response: “This is a complete misunderstanding. It is the surplus
greenhouse temperature (33 degrees Celsius) that does not vary. The
basic (or so called effective) temperature (now about 255 Kelvin, or
minus 18 Celsius) varied, and is varying, according to the available
energy. (This latter term includes the incoming energy from the sun,
the effects of solar variations and orbital parameters, cloud and ice
coverage, planetary albedo [reflectivity], ocean-atmosphere heat
exchange, human industrial heat generation, geothermal heat production
etc.). To be precise about the scientific content of Miskolczi's
statements, it is the ratio, not the difference, of the surface
temperature (now about 288K) to the effective temperature that is an
energetically uniquely determined constant. This ratio determines the
greenhouse temperature, given the incoming available energy.”
EPA: "Miskolczi also claims that “On global scale, however, there
cannot be any direct water vapor feedback mechanism, working against
the total energy balance requirement of the system. Runaway greenhouse
theories contradict to the energy balance equations and therefore,
cannot work.” This demonstrates a lack of understanding of feedback
mechanisms in the climate (see response in Volume 4 for a discussion
of runaway climate)."
Response: “Their understanding of water vapor feedback is based on
only one part of the effects (higher water surface temperatures lead
to more evaporation and more greenhouse effect with further increasing
temperatures). This is only one loop of the feedback. The other,
revealed by the relations found in climate databases by Miskolczi,
shows a strict energetic limit of this hypothetical (never happened)
runaway feedback. (The case of Venus is absolutely different: closed
cloud cover, contrary to Earth's partial overcast, and its atmosphere
is almost 100% CO2, whilst we have only 0.04% CO2).
EPA: "there is now evidence for global increases in uppertropospheric
specific humidity over the past two decades, which is consistent with
the observed increases in tropospheric temperatures and the absence of
any change in relative humidity.”
Response: Yes, over the past two decades the NOAA NCEP/NCAR database
(as can be seen also in the referred Miskolczi calculation) shows a
slight increase in specific humidity, but the first two decades of the
database (1948-6 shows a slight decrease, and the middle two decades
(1969-1989) displays fairly stable conditions. On the whole 61 years
in 1948-2008, there is a very stable atmospheric concentration of the
total effective greenhouse gases (1% decrease in integrated water
vapor content, and vast increase in CO2 and others). The whole process
gives us a very stable 33 degrees Celsius average greenhouse effect,
without any definite increase.
To summarize:
EPA's answer only repeats their known position, full with the old
unproved hypotheses (positive water vapor feedback, runaway greenhouse
effect), without a real understanding of the logic that led to the new
results. They do not give new data. The real debate would be if they
said: Here are our numbers for the greenhouse effect since 1948, year
by year, and here are our equations for the equilibrium value, let's
see where the differences might come from. -- But without their
numbers, no real discussion is possible.
Miskolczi's numbers remained valid, unchallenged and un-falsified. The
61-yr global average mean greenhouse effect is the same as the
theoretical equilibrium value, within 0.1C temperature difference.
Nowadays the additional (greenhouse) temperature fluctuates around the
33 Celsius as it did 60 years ago and will do 60 years later, without
showing an increasing trend. It is not possible that it grew up to 35
or 38 C, to produce 2 or 5 degrees warming. The EPA did not disprove
this. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mike Jr... |
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 8, 3:10 pm, Just A Guy <Jus... at (no spam) hushmail.com> wrote:
[quote]EPA ignores reality in scientific breakthrough - unable to disprove
greenhouse effect in equilibrium
January 18, 8:16 PM
Portland Civil Rights Examiner
Dr. Miklos Zagoni, Dianna C. Cotter
Abstract:
Earth's Greenhouse Effect is constant and does not rise with human CO2
emissions. That is the main point of Dr Miskolczi's results, called to
the attention of the EPA in the 'Endangerment Finding' evaluation
process. The EPA could not disprove this or Miskolczi’s results.
_
Recently the United States Environmental Protection Agency issued an
“Endangerment Finding” stating that CO2 and 5 other greenhouse gasses
constituted a danger to public health and welfare. Many people are not
aware that the Obama Administration through the EPA’s finding can now
pass through environmental regulations that will force businesses to
comply with the changes without going to congress in order to pass Cap
and Trade Legislation. With this finding, the Administration could
regulate CO2 by dictate from the White House to any degree it chooses.
What is little known is that the EPA held public comment sessions
before issuing their finding. By law, the EPA is obligated to respond
to substantive comments, and some of those comments cited the
Hungarian Physicist who discovered the Law and Constants that describe
the Equilibrium of Earth’s greenhouse effect. Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi in
2004 and 2007 published his work, and to date no Scientific study or
authentic peer review (which is to say, something more substantive
than random naysayers in the blogosphere whose livelihoods are
dependent on the myth of Global Warming not being exposed) has been
published which finds Dr. Miskolczi’s work in error.
The EPA itself made several errors in the attempt to understand
Miskolczi’s work, and illustrates a number of incorrect arguments that
have repeatedly been used in the attempt to discredit the Doctor’s
work. We will address these misconceptions here as they are repeated
time and again in a show of complete misunderstanding of Miskolczi’s
law and constant.
EPA: "The hypothesis that increased CO2 forcing will lead to a
counterbalancing decrease in water vapor is highly speculative, and is
not supported by the vast body of scientific literature."
Response: “It is not hypothesis, and not speculative at all. It is
based on a huge amount of radiative transfer calculations by Dr.
Miskolczi's High Resolution Atmospheric Radiative Transfer Code
(HARTCODE, 1990), made on the TIGR global radiosonde data archive of
the Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique (Paris, Director Hervé Le
Treut, lead IPCC author). Details of the dataset and the results of
calculations were published in Miskolczi & Mlynczak (2004). The
relations revealed by Miskolczi explicitly were there implicit in the
Kiehl-Trenberth 1997 global energy budget, but Miskolczi's
computations made them exact and clear. He took those flux relations
as equations in his 2007 paper, and calculated the solutions of the
new set of energy balance equations. The solution gives a theoretical
equilibrium value of the clear-sky greenhouse effect, exactly equal to
that given on empirical grounds in Kiehl and Ramanathan (2006).”
EPA: "A climate sensitivity of zero is completely incompatible with
historical temperature variations, as it would imply an unchanging
climate in direct contrast to historically recorded temperatures
changes on all timescales."
Response: “This is a complete misunderstanding. It is the surplus
greenhouse temperature (33 degrees Celsius) that does not vary. The
basic (or so called effective) temperature (now about 255 Kelvin, or
minus 18 Celsius) varied, and is varying, according to the available
energy. (This latter term includes the incoming energy from the sun,
the effects of solar variations and orbital parameters, cloud and ice
coverage, planetary albedo [reflectivity], ocean-atmosphere heat
exchange, human industrial heat generation, geothermal heat production
etc.). To be precise about the scientific content of Miskolczi's
statements, it is the ratio, not the difference, of the surface
temperature (now about 288K) to the effective temperature that is an
energetically uniquely determined constant. This ratio determines the
greenhouse temperature, given the incoming available energy.”
EPA: "Miskolczi also claims that “On global scale, however, there
cannot be any direct water vapor feedback mechanism, working against
the total energy balance requirement of the system. Runaway greenhouse
theories contradict to the energy balance equations and therefore,
cannot work.” This demonstrates a lack of understanding of feedback
mechanisms in the climate (see response in Volume 4 for a discussion
of runaway climate)."
Response: “Their understanding of water vapor feedback is based on
only one part of the effects (higher water surface temperatures lead
to more evaporation and more greenhouse effect with further increasing
temperatures). This is only one loop of the feedback. The other,
revealed by the relations found in climate databases by Miskolczi,
shows a strict energetic limit of this hypothetical (never happened)
runaway feedback. (The case of Venus is absolutely different: closed
cloud cover, contrary to Earth's partial overcast, and its atmosphere
is almost 100% CO2, whilst we have only 0.04% CO2).
EPA: "there is now evidence for global increases in uppertropospheric
specific humidity over the past two decades, which is consistent with
the observed increases in tropospheric temperatures and the absence of
any change in relative humidity.”
Response: Yes, over the past two decades the NOAA NCEP/NCAR database
(as can be seen also in the referred Miskolczi calculation) shows a
slight increase in specific humidity, but the first two decades of the
database (1948-6 shows a slight decrease, and the middle two decades
(1969-1989) displays fairly stable conditions. On the whole 61 years
in 1948-2008, there is a very stable atmospheric concentration of the
total effective greenhouse gases (1% decrease in integrated water
vapor content, and vast increase in CO2 and others). The whole process
gives us a very stable 33 degrees Celsius average greenhouse effect,
without any definite increase.
To summarize:
EPA's answer only repeats their known position, full with the old
unproved hypotheses (positive water vapor feedback, runaway greenhouse
effect), without a real understanding of the logic that led to the new
results. They do not give new data. The real debate would be if they
said: Here are our numbers for the greenhouse effect since 1948, year
by year, and here are our equations for the equilibrium value, let's
see where the differences might come from. -- But without their
numbers, no real discussion is possible.
Miskolczi's numbers remained valid, unchallenged and un-falsified. The
61-yr global average mean greenhouse effect is the same as the
theoretical equilibrium value, within 0.1C temperature difference.
Nowadays the additional (greenhouse) temperature fluctuates around the
33 Celsius as it did 60 years ago and will do 60 years later, without
showing an increasing trend. It is not possible that it grew up to 35
or 38 C, to produce 2 or 5 degrees warming. The EPA did not disprove
this.
[/quote]
It was after reading Miskolczi's paper (several times, with a long
afternoon on a whiteboard) that I decided that AGW was bunk.
http://www.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
--Mike Jr. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mike Jr... |
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 8, 9:21 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On 2/8/10 6:02 PM, Mike Jr wrote:
It was after reading Miskolczi's paper (several times, with a long
afternoon on a whiteboard) that I decided that AGW was bunk.
http://www.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
--Mike Jr.
From the American Institute of Physics:
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
A Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
Image
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/Model-4_effects.jpg
[/quote]
Sam,
Just keep repeating to yourself,
"There is no place like home, there is no place like home."
Oh wait, that's Kansas, not Iowa. Sorry.
"Sir David King has hit out at climate scientists for 'overstating'
the risks of global warming.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Writing in The Daily Telegraph, the former chief scientist said the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has tried too hard to
achieve "consensus science" around the risks of floods, droughts and
extreme weather events.
He said this led to the 'climategate' scandal at the University of
East Anglia and accusations scientist tried to block external
challenges to their work. It also led to "glaciergate", where the IPCC
mistakenly claimed the Himalayas would melt by 2035.
Sir David supported Rajendra Pachauri, the Chairman of the IPCC, but
he said the UN body has "run against the spirit of science" by
refusing to accept any arguments that question man made global
warming. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7165567/Sir-David-King-criticises-climate-scientists.html
I think I hear a bus coming. Alarmist better stand back from the
curb.
--Mike Jr. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2/9/10 4:37 AM, Mike Jr wrote:
[quote]On Feb 8, 9:21 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/8/10 6:02 PM, Mike Jr wrote:
It was after reading Miskolczi's paper (several times, with a long
afternoon on a whiteboard) that I decided that AGW was bunk.
http://www.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
--Mike Jr.
From the American Institute of Physics:
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
A Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
Image
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/Model-4_effects.jpg
Sam,
Just keep repeating to yourself,
"There is no place like home, there is no place like home."
[/quote]
There no place like the physics community, which in general,
is way more skeptical and strives for accurate climate science
as compared to Usenet posters like:
Leon
Good Guy
Marvin the Martian
Peter Webb
Gisin
wsnell01
etc.
none of whom can articulate scientific arguments. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mike Jr... |
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 9, 12:42 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On 2/9/10 4:37 AM, Mike Jr wrote:
On Feb 8, 9:21 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/8/10 6:02 PM, Mike Jr wrote:
It was after reading Miskolczi's paper (several times, with a long
afternoon on a whiteboard) that I decided that AGW was bunk.
http://www.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
--Mike Jr.
From the American Institute of Physics:
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
A Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
Image
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/Model-4_effects.jpg
Sam,
Just keep repeating to yourself,
"There is no place like home, there is no place like home."
There no place like the physics community, which in general,
is way more skeptical and strives for accurate climate science
as compared to Usenet posters like:
Leon
Good Guy
Marvin the Martian
Peter Webb
Gisin
wsnell01
etc.
none of whom can articulate scientific arguments.
[/quote]
How about me?
--Mike Jr. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Marvin the Martian... |
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:42:35 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
[quote]On 2/9/10 4:37 AM, Mike Jr wrote:
On Feb 8, 9:21 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/8/10 6:02 PM, Mike Jr wrote:
It was after reading Miskolczi's paper (several times, with a long
afternoon on a whiteboard) that I decided that AGW was bunk.
http://www.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
--Mike Jr.
From the American Institute of Physics:
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
A Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
Image
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/Model-4_effects.jpg
Sam,
Just keep repeating to yourself,
"There is no place like home, there is no place like home."
There no place like the physics community, which in general, is way
more skeptical and strives for accurate climate science as compared
to Usenet posters like:
Leon
Good Guy
Marvin the Martian
Peter Webb
Gisin
wsnell01
etc.
none of whom can articulate scientific arguments.
[/quote]
Liar. Every time you see a scientific argument, you do a cut and paste of
stuff already debunked in a prior post. It is you who never articulate a
scientific argument. It is you who gibber post hoc arguments every time
you cut and paste your idiot "glaciers are melting" reply, as if melting
glaciers was something new since the end of the last ice age. Even if,
despite your idiot argument, there was warming, it is pure post hoc to
claim that any warming PROVES it is caused by CO2 and PROVES the CO2 is
man made and PROVES warming is bad. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2/9/10 6:42 PM, Mike Jr wrote:
[quote]On Feb 9, 12:42 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/9/10 4:37 AM, Mike Jr wrote:
On Feb 8, 9:21 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/8/10 6:02 PM, Mike Jr wrote:
It was after reading Miskolczi's paper (several times, with a long
afternoon on a whiteboard) that I decided that AGW was bunk.
http://www.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
--Mike Jr.
From the American Institute of Physics:
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
A Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
Image
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/Model-4_effects.jpg
Sam,
Just keep repeating to yourself,
"There is no place like home, there is no place like home."
There no place like the physics community, which in general,
is way more skeptical and strives for accurate climate science
as compared to Usenet posters like:
Leon
Good Guy
Marvin the Martian
Peter Webb
Gisin
wsnell01
etc.
none of whom can articulate scientific arguments.
How about me?
--Mike Jr.
[/quote]
What about you? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2/9/10 6:50 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:42:35 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/9/10 4:37 AM, Mike Jr wrote:
On Feb 8, 9:21 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/8/10 6:02 PM, Mike Jr wrote:
It was after reading Miskolczi's paper (several times, with a long
afternoon on a whiteboard) that I decided that AGW was bunk.
http://www.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
--Mike Jr.
From the American Institute of Physics:
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
A Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
Image
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/Model-4_effects.jpg
Sam,
Just keep repeating to yourself,
"There is no place like home, there is no place like home."
There no place like the physics community, which in general, is way
more skeptical and strives for accurate climate science as compared
to Usenet posters like:
Leon
Good Guy
Marvin the Martian
Peter Webb
Gisin
wsnell01
etc.
none of whom can articulate scientific arguments.
Liar. Every time you see a scientific argument, you do a cut and paste of
stuff already debunked in a prior post.
[/quote]
Debunked by whom? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:57 am
|
|