by Judith Curry
Ferenc Miskolczi has published a new paper on the greenhouse effect that is generating substantial discussion.
The Greenhouse Effect and the Infrared Radiative Structure of the Earth’s Atmosphere
Ferenc Mark Miskolczi
Abstract: This paper presents observed atmospheric thermal and humidity structures and global scale simulations of the infrared absorption properties of the Earth’s atmosphere. These data show that the global average clear sky green-house effect has remained unchanged with time. A theoretically predicted infrared optical thickness is fully consistent with, and supports the observed value. It also facilitates the theoretical determination of the planetary radiative equilibrium cloud cover, cloud altitude and Bond albedo. In steady state, the planetary surface (as seen from space) shows no greenhouse effect: the all-sky surface up-ward radiation is equal to the available solar radiation. The all-sky climatological greenhouse effect (the difference of the all-sky surface upward flux and absorbed solar flux) at this surface is equal to the reflected solar radiation. The plane-tary radiative balance is maintained by the equilibrium cloud cover which is equal to the theoretical equilibrium clear sky transfer function. The Wien temperature of the all-sky emission spectrum is locked closely to the thermo-dynamic triple point of the water assuring the maximum radiation entropy. The stability and natural fluctuations of the global average surface temperature of the heterogeneous system are ultimately determined by the phase changes of water. Many authors have proposed a greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. The present analysis shows that such an effect is impossible.
Published by Developments in Earth Science [link to complete paper]
Miskolczi’s original paper on this topic in 2007 Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Atmospheres. Clive Best has a post that explains Miskolczi [link]. Science of Doom has a number of posts clarifying/critiquing Miskolcii’s articles [link]. See also critiques by
I didn’t pay much attention to all this the first time around. I started reading this latest paper, decided it didn’t warrant much of my time, but a few comments.
He concludes the greenhouse effect from anthropogenic emissions is impossible. Sounded bizarre to me, but then I noticed how he defines the greenhouse effect: The planetary greenhouse effect (GE) may be defined or quantified in different ways. In astrophysics the all sky GE is defined via the total available solar radiation interacting with the system. He states: In steady state, the planetary surface (as seen from space) shows no greenhouse effect: the all-sky surface upward radiation is equal to the available solar radiation. His ‘greenhouse effect’ is ‘all sky’, including clouds and is directly related to the top of atmosphere radiation balance (including solar radiation). This is not the definition of ‘greenhouse effect’ that is commonly used in climate science, whereby it relates to the atmospheric emission and absorption of infrared radiation. To define the greenhouse effect out of existence because it balances the TOA solar radiation is not very useful, to say the least.
The paper seems to have the same problems for which it was criticized by Spencer, SOD, etc. I don’t have the time to really wade through this.
The only potentially interesting point is whether the clear sky atmospheric optical depth has remained the same in the face of rising CO2, implying a decrease in water vapor. In any event, his analysis (theoretical and empirical) doesn’t seem up to the task of sorting this out.
So given that I have spent about 40 minutes on this blog post, I am leaving this topic open as a discussion thread, and not contributing much myself. Keep your comments on topic.