The new climate theory of Dr. Ferenc
Miskolczi
The greenhouse effect in a semi-transparent atmosphere with radiation equilibrium at
the surface. On the basis of hundreds of measurements of real atmospheric profiles of
temperature and humidity, in different seasons and at different latitudes.
Establishing the right theoretical basis for the relationship between greenhouse gas
increase and climate change is so important, that we cannot allow ourselves to evade
discussion about its physical foundation. The Netherlands, having a reputation of four
centuries of criticizing established opinions, should organize this discussion on an
appropriate scientific level.
Based on an original draft by Dr. Noor van Andel, Fiwihex, Wierdensestraat 74,
Almelo, May 2008.
Synopsis
The standard theory of anthropogenic global warming is challenged by a new theory
which is based on empirical evidence and a reevaluation of the Eddinger equations,
using a different set of boundary conditions. In this exposition the Eddington radiation
equilibrium equations (which apply to stars) are solved correctly for a planet with a
semi-transparent atmosphere, like the Earth. The correct solutions predict that Earth's
atmosphere holds an amount of greenhouse gases that maximize radiation of heat into
space. It appears that the Earth has a self-regulation mechanism that allows increases
of CO2 to exert only a very minor influence on the planet's temperature. Independent
measurements give insight into the mechanism of how this self-regulation takes place.
Still other measurements contradict the atmospheric heating that supposedly follows
directly from standard climate models as a result of increased CO2 during the last few
decades. Cooling is observed, instead. Due to the importance of the problem for
policies that affect the well-being of the world's population, we conclude that there
are now ample grounds to organize a discussion between the scientific proponents of
these two theories.
Introduction
During the 2008 International Conference on Global Warming, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi
(FM) presented his radical new theory of the greenhouse effect [1]. Arthur Rörsch
asked me to help him explain FM's theory in more common terms, and initiated a
discussion with our national expert, Dr. Rob van Dorland, KNMI, the Dutch Royal
Meteorological Institute, to critique FM's new theory. Of course, Ferenc Miskolczi
himself participated in this e-mail discussion. Miskolczi's new theory predicts a much
smaller effect (about 10%) from increased greenhouse gases on the mean temperature
of the Earth, compared to the conventional global warming theory caused by
anthropogenic greenhouse gases promulgated by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC).{refs needed} Rob van Dorland examined infrared
atmospheric radiation, the greenhouse effect, and climate change as a function of
greenhouse gas concentrations.{ref to dissertation, papers} My experience as a
physicist is heat transfer in general, and the design of “energy producing
greenhouses” by employing efficient heat exchangers [2].
While I have written many computer models myself, I am much more an
experimentalist than a theorist. Thus I am suspicious of complicated numerical
solutions. I was impressed by FM's theory because it gives closed form algebraic
solutions that are quite open to inspection. However, FM's paper is not easily
understandable without a good background in climatology. I found it somewhat
difficult to read because a number of well-known physical laws are mentioned solely
as illustrations, and not as part of FM's climate theory [3]. However, it is not too
difficult to evaluate FM's theory with widely published measurements. These
measurements support FM's new theory, albeit that the underlying physics of weather
is too complex to be modeled in simple algebraic equations. Exception is the latent
heat transfer from a wet surface upwards, that can be analytically explained from first
principles. From this function a strong negative feedback to the influence of e.g. CO2
doubling can be derived.
Greenhouse heat transfer
A market garden greenhouse is not warm only because the glass cover is transparent
for visible light & opaque for infrared radiation [IR]. The greenhouse is warm because
the closed structure does not let out the warm and humid air. A greenhouse with walls
and a roof that is IR transparent is only a little bit lower in temperature. This was
demonstrated as early as the 1920's by experiments performed by Wood (ref?).
The standard “man-made Global Warming” theory, in contrast to this experience,
teaches us that the energy received from the Sun at Earth's surface is radiated into
space through an atmosphere which contains infra-red absorbing gases (such as CO2
and H20), which absorb and “trap” some of the energy. Part of this energy is reirradiated back to the surface, keeping it warmer than it would otherwise be. This is
the current “greenhouse effect” concept. Therefore, this theory suggests that, if IR
absorbing gases increase, more energy is “trapped,” and the surface temperature
increases due to increased “back-radiation” and a hindrance to radiation to space. The
“greenhouse” in this “greenhouse gas” theory replaces the glass in a greenhouse with
a theoretical “blanket” of IR-absorbing gases.
(The astute reader will see immediately that the “blanket” analogy is really the same
mistaken idea as the greenhouse analogy, since blankets also work primarily by
reducing convection. But, regardless, it is postulated that the IR-active gases in the
atmosphere trap the outgoing IR and send some of it back to the surface, thereby
decreasing the amount of heat that would otherwise be lost–thereby creating a
“greenhouse effect”).
FM's theory, in agreement with the actual empirically verified greenhouse
mechanism, teaches us instead that the heat transfer from the surface is by nonradiative processes: vertical & horizontal convection, water evaporation, cloud
formation, rain and snow. And FM teaches us more: Our atmosphere has, in the
global and time-averaged mean value, a constant optical thickness, so, when more
CO2 is injected, the atmosphere compensates by changing its water vapor content to
regain the equilibrium.
The atmosphere optimizes its optical thickness to allow for the maximum heat transfer
to space, by adjusting its IR absorbance.
Measurements
Thousands of atmosphere profiles are in the public domain, measurements by weather
balloons of temperature, pressure, and relative humidity. Because of hydrostatic
equilibrium, the pressure is a precise function of altitude, with only a small and well
defined temperature correction term. The last 20 years satellites in orbit have carried
Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometers with high resolution, and so-called line-byline computer programs that can translate atmospheric profiles to IR heat fluxes into
heat flux (W/m2.), and can convert pressure (p), temperature (T), and relative
humidity (rH) profiles into IR spectra and vice versa. FM is one of the few people that
have written such a program, HARTCODE [4], which gives a detailed description of
this 5000 line Fortran program, based on thousands of laboratory-measured
absorption lines. Later, FM went to NASA Langley Research Center, where he
published an extensive treatment of atmospheric heat fluxes, based on these thousands
of atmospheric measurements [5], where the basic theory is already to be seen. In this
2004 paper, on p.242, he calculates an increase of global temperature of 0.482 °C as a
result of doubling the CO2 concentration.
This is very different from what we learn from the standard theory. The
methodological difference is, that the new theory starts with measurements, in
contrast with the standard theory that starts with schematic atmosphere models like
the Keihl-Trenberth scheme (need ref). The mathematical difference is that the new
theory treats the atmosphere as semi-transparent, bounded, and in radiation
equilibrium with the surface.
On page 233 we find the basic standard mathematics; OLR means Outgoing
Longwave Radiation. The OLR is the only way the Earth can get rid of its heat
received from the sun, and is well known to be 250 W/m2 as a global and seasonal
mean. Optical thickness for IR is the natural logarithm of the IR absorption of the
atmosphere, or the natural logarithm of the ratio of ingoing and outgoing radiation
flux:
Figure 1. Equations of the standard theory.
Figure 1 shows the equations of the standard theory. With OLR=250 W/m2 and the
global average atmospheric optical thickness (A = 1.86 we find the air temperature at
the surface 282 K, and for the ground temperature 304 K. Here the standard theory is
not consistent with what we all know: There is no 22 °C difference between ground
and air.
A simple experiment
It is not difficult to measure the ground-air temperature differences, and get at least a
qualitative impression of what goes on in a “real” greenhouse. We make 7 wells; 10
cm diameter and 4 cm deep, in a piece of EPS (Expanded Polystyrene), fix a
temperature sensor on - Ordered List Item the center of each bottom, and cover some
of the wells with windows that have a very different IR transparency. We lay a wet
cloth on the bottom of half the wells. We make 7 temperature measurements every
half minute, log the results, and see what happens night & day.
Figure 2.
Table 1. Experimental setup
Color cover, mirror, wet or dry, # of well
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
—-
Red: 2 mm PMMA cover, dry bottom 1
Blue: 2 mm PMMA cover, wet bottom 2
Orange: 6 µ PE cover, dry bottom 3
Light blue: 6 µ PE cover, wet bottom 4
Green: No cover, dry bottom 5
Brown: No cover, wet bottom 6
Violet: Aluminum mirror above well, not closed 7
Figure 3. Evolution of temperature over time for seven greenhouses.
The experiment begins the 10th of May, 2008, on an open lawn at Fiwihex,
Wierdensestraat 74 in Almelo. The sky is clear, it has been a sunny day, and the
following day is sunny too. Quite un-Dutch weather. The experiment ends the 11th
13:00, because my daughter in law wanted to mow the grass by then.
Now, what do we see: After equilibration from installation, 21:00 in the evening, the
PMMA [Perspex, or poly methyl methacrylate] cover, red and dark blue points, being
black in the relevant IR wavelengths, keeps the well relatively warm. It does not
matter if the bottom is wet or dry, however, because the temperature is so low, and the
humidity so high outside and inside, that the wet-bulb temperature is equal to the dry
bulb temperature.
We see also that, notwithstanding the greenhouse effect of the PMMA cover, the open
dry well is slightly warmer that the PMMA greenhouse, and much warmer that the PE
greenhouse. The warmest is the well with the mirror above it. How come?
This is, because the air, being composed of mainly a-polar gases like O2 and N2, and
cannot radiate as strongly as a solid body, stays warm longer than any radiating solid
or liquid. So, a sensor that is in open contact with the air, stays warmer too.
Now the coldest spot is the PE covered little greenhouse, wet or dry, because PE is
transparent for IR radiation, so we have there a connection with the cold heavens, and
insulation from the warm air by the cover. The well with the Al mirror is the opposite:
here we have contact with the air, but the upward radiation is reflected back by the
shiny metal. The difference is large; the PE greenhouse is about 10 °C colder than the
mirror well.
Now the day comes, and we see a radically different pattern:
All covered closed greenhouses are very hot. We see a slight difference between the
hottest, PMMA, 61 °C in the early afternoon, and the PE covered, 57 °C. The only
well which is substantially less warm is the open well with the wet bottom. This well
is able to cool itself by evaporation. We see also that a wet canopy, as every
greenhouse gardener knows, lowers the temperature quite a bit in a greenhouse,
because it is never completely closed, so the water vapor from the plants finds its way
outside. In the blue case, the water was almost completely evaporated by 13:00, dry
spots begin at 12:00 already.
Conclusion: what makes the surface, or climate, warm is the hindered convective heat
transfer to up in the atmosphere. Not the hindered radiation heat transfer, this is much
smaller.
1 A completely IR absorbing window, compared to a transparent one, increases the
temperature only 5 °C, but as soon as water can be evaporated, we cool 20°C. Both
covers hinder evaporation, and that is, why greenhouses can be very hot indeed. They
are always being regulated, the normal greenhouse by opening the roof windows, the
closed greenhouse by [fine wire] heat exchangers, cooling against ground water,
condensing the evaporation from the plants, saving irrigation water and pest control
chemicals and allowing CO2 fertilization in the process.
2 The air in those “greenhouses” with wet surfaces has temperatures which are lower
than the air temperatures in the “greenhouses” which have dry surfaces. It is important
to note that the “floors” and the air in the greenhouses are at the same temperature (in
thermal equlibrium) and thus have to also be in radiative equilibrium. This does not
appear to conform with the standard theory, because in that theory (Kiehl and
Trenberth, e.g.), the upward radiation is 65 W/m2 larger than the downward radiation,
which means a 12 °C higher ground temperature than the effective atmospheric
downward radiation temperature. In FM's theory, like in the “greenhouses,” there is
radiation equilibrium between ground and atmosphere. So, there is no persistent
higher ground temperature.
So, there is no net radiation transport from the ground, other than the radiation
through the infrared window. Can the atmosphere then regulate our temperature? Yes,
because as soon as the temperature lapse rate becomes greater than the temperature
lapse rate by adiabatic expansion of dry air; 1°C per 100 m, or air in which humidity
is changing phase 0.29 °C per 100 m at 320 K, 0.42 °C per 100 m at 300 K, .74 °C per
100 m at 250 K, the atmosphere becomes unstable. Large amounts of heat escape to
many kilometers altitude, where the radiation away into space is much easier; the
atmosphere is thin and much more IR transparent. And, in most cases, the top of the
rising air column is a cloud, reflecting most of the incoming solar radiation.
We live in an atmosphere where the temperature lapse rate due to IR radiation
equilibrium is always steeper than the adiabatic one. So, as soon as there is radiation
inequilibrium, the atmosphere tends to instability. The more IR active gases in the air,
the steeper the radiation lapse rate, and the sooner the real cooling comes into action.
The warmer it is, the less steep the adiabatic lapse rate, and the sooner instability - and
cooling - starts.
We also live on a planet with an abundance of liquid or solid water, be it in the
oceans, in the plant canopy, or in ice. The only really dry place is the desert. There,
we have a climate that depends on radiation, and the surface can be much hotter than
the air above it (you can even fry eggs on the surface, sometimes!). But the
temperature of the surface on most of the planet is controlled by evaporation of water
and convection of air.
But how can we quantify these air and water thermostats? And how can we estimate
the influence of an few hundred ppm extra anthropogenic carbon dioxide? For the
first time, Ferenc Miskolczi has solved this enigma in an analytic way.
The Cabauw measurements
The 200 m high radio broadcast transmitter in Cabauw, near Lopik, the Netherlands,
can be used, like a weather balloon, to measure atmosphere profiles, albeit only up to
200 m high. Rob van Dorland has measured these profiles and has provided the data.
The actual ground temperature was not been measured; instead, the air temperature,
T, at 2 m is used. The humidity was measured, too. From these profiles, the LWD or
Longwave Downward Radiation was calculated, according to the Stefmann
Boltzmann Law, using the measured temperature, atmospheric transmittance, Ta,
water content expressed in precipitable centimeters, and an assumed emittance of
0.96. This LWD was also measured, using a pyrgeometer. Now we ask, is one of the
basic assumptions made by the new theory–that radiation between the air and the
surface is in equilibrium–true? Plotting these calculations against the measured LWD,
the following one-to-one correlation results, indicating that the assumption is true:
Figure 4.
Miskolczi terms the radiation absorbed by the atmosphere as Aa. Because the
calculated absorbed radiation, Aa, always equals the measured downwelling radiation,
we see that, indeed, the radiation equilibrium extends to the surface. No net IR
radiation heat flux reaches the atmosphere from the ground. It is either transmitted
through the atmospheric window, or completely compensated by the LWD, or ED, in
FM’s terms. The conclusion is that Rob’s Cabauw measurements support Ferenc
Miskolczi’s major assumption.
In fact, the graph illustrates simply that, because the mean free path of the photons
that interact with atmospheric components is so short, on the order of meters, no
appreciable temperature differences along that path occur. We call this Local
Themodynamic Equilibrium. These results are contrary to the prevailing theory,
which indicates an imbalance in the radiation, with a net upward component of about
25 watts/m^2.
Atmospheric profiles translated into IR spectra
These relationships can also be shown by calculations using existing computer
programs, such as HARTCODE. The following two figures are taken from FM, and
are examples of typical IR spectra decomposed in the relevant heat fluxes. A very
warm climate, and a very cold one. The x-axis is the wavelength expressed as the
number of wavelengths per cm, as usual in IR spectroscopy. The list of decomposed
heat fluxes is:
* SU is the blackbody radiation from the surface upwards. Light blue line. A
continuous spectrum because the ground is solid, or liquid sea surface. * ED is the
long wave downward radiation from the atmosphere to the ground. * OLR is the sum
of the heat fluxes ST and EU into space * ST is the heat flux radiated through the IR
window and through other partially transparent parts of the atmosphere, from the
ground directly to space * EU is the heat flux from the atmosphere itself into space.
Figure 5. Typical IR spectra of a warm climate decomposed in the relevant heat
fluxes.
At around 650/cm lies the major absorption of CO2. EU is very much hindered there.
The back radiation ED, is here large, almost as large as the upwelling radiation SU. In
the second figure we are in Antarctica. There it is 232.2 K of -41.2 °C cold, we see
that the sharp molecular line at 650/cm of CO2 in a climate that is cold enough to
exclude almost all water vapor, extending even above the continuous spectrum of the
snow. We see even the Ozone peak, around 1000/cm, in this dry climate. In both
graphs we see the profiles where they are derived from. CO2 is not indicated because
the concentration is the same everywhere. The adiabat is clearly visible, 110K/15
km=7.3K/km in the first, and 70 K/10 km in the second graph. We see that even in the
polar climate, we have less than the dry adiabat.
Figure 6. Typical IR spectra of a cold climate decomposed in the relevant heat fluxes.
Kiehl-Trenberth is the scheme most used in the standard theory. Such schemes do not
compare with measurements, because they are modified to be also 100% correct
radiation budgets. Local profiles do not have to conform an energy budget, because
there is also a large horizontal convective heat transfer. A LBL program such as
HARTCODE does not depart from such schemes at all, using atmospheric profiles,
that are measured, and converted using a straightforward method into radiation heat
fluxes. We see that the standard K-T scheme has a large deviation from the measured
profiles, that have a much higher flux in the IR window. taojag95
The standard theory
We need to be aware of the variation between the standard theory, that works with an
atmospheric scheme, such as the K-T scheme, and radiation relations that come out of
the study of many measured profiles.
From the PhD thesis of van Dorland we take the following figures that show the
standard scheme with an overall heat flux balance is 343=83+20+40+200 W/m2. Note
the net 355-330=25 W/m2 heat flow through the absorbing atmosphere from surface
to space.
Figure 7. Standard radiation balance.
The next figure of the standard theory of van Dorland shows how IR active gases
come to influence the surface. The x-axis is in Kelvin/day, so the temperature of the
system is only stationary if zero. We see that water[vapor] absorbs sunlight [S H2O]
and so heats the atmosphere with half a degree per day, but we see also that in the IR
region [L H2O] water has a cooling effect. We see that in the stratosphere Ozone is a
heater. This gas absorbs UV light from the Sun and therefore the stratosphere
becomes so warm, that a stable inversion forms, on 12000 meter, the tropopause.
Figure 8.
We are interested in the climate at the surface, that is at zero height. We see that CO2
heats there, but cools on great height, which we saw in the spectra. It is striking, that
the large warming at 2-3 km height, which could be easily measured by satellites, is
not there in reality. On the contrary, a cooling is measured as a result of increased
CO2 . We see also, that there is a net shortage of heat. That comes from the sun,
shining on the surface. This is much more than the necessary 1.5 °C/day, so there is a
large term, vertical convection, that balances the climate.
Figure 9. In this graph we see the heat fluxes upward and downward as a function of
height. At 1000 hectopascal we are on the surface. The scheme is a good illustration
of the unphysical strong discontinuities assumed at the surface by the standard theory.
These are the reason for the large influence of extra greenhouse gases in the standard
theory.
In the new theory there is no such discontinuity. This discontinuity arises from
boundary conditions used in solving the Eddington equation, taken from the
conditions in the Sun. There we have no surface, there we have an infinite
atmosphere, so the solution takes the form:
OLR=2/[1+tau A]·SA for the lowest atmospheric layer, OLR=2/[2+tau A]·SU for the
liquid or solid surface.
In the new theory:
SA = SU = SG and ORL=2/[1+tau A+TA]·SU.
This the essential difference between the standard theory and that of Miskolczi.
In the graph of the standard theory of van Dorland that follows, we see the influence
on heat fluxes of a CO2 doubling. We see a -4.5 W/m2 decrease in the upward flux
outside the window region, and only a +1.7 increase in the downward flux. Here we
have the standard “Anthropogenic Global Warming” theory. In the new theory, these
two fluxes are equal to each other, and that does not change at all, not with water
content, nor with extra CO2. The typical “forcing” due to CO2 on 700 m height, is
conspicuously absent in satellite measurements in the last 25 years. We will see that
the 1.7 W/m2 radiation forcing at the surface due to doubling of the CO2
concentration is largely compensated for by the increase of latent heat transfer with
increased temperature.
Figure 10.
Miskolczi's new theory
Miskolczi's new theory does not start with schemes, but from measured atmosphere
profiles. It seeks relations between the heat fluxes per profile. In the following graphs,
every point represents one profile. The locations are as far apart as they can be. The
coldest point is from the polar night, the warmest point is from a hot day over the
tropical pacific ocean. From studying the relationships between the heat fluxes,
surprising new insights come to light.
Figure 11.
Figure 11 reveals a strong correlation between the downward atmospheric radiation
ED , the transparency of the atmosphere (Ta) and the upward surface radiation SU.
While all three vary strongly with latitude, they follow the relationship ED = SU·[1Ta] at all places. FM calls this “Kirchhoff’s Law”, because of the equality of the
radiation. The use of this term should not be confused with the usual understanding of
Kirchoff's Law, which is that emissivity = absorbtivity. It appears to be an additional
constraint, due to a special property of the atmosphere. This is the major difference
between Miskolczi's theory and the standard theory, which assumes a fairly large, 25
W/m2, net flux from the surface into the absorbing atmosphere.
In the standard theory, absorption by the atmosphere increases with an increase in the
amount of greenhouse gases, so the net upward flux is hindered, increasing the
atmospheric and surface temperatures. In the case of the relationship ED = SU·[1-Ta],
there is no net upward IR heat flow other than that which passes through the IR
window, which is much less dependent on increased greenhouse gas concentration. In
other words, the upward radiation in the atmosphere depends almost entirely on the
transmissivity of the air and only to a very minor degree on the amount of greenhouse
gases.
This relation is true for every height, not only on the surface. It is also true for Mars,
with its tenuous atmosphere. It is simply equivalent to Local Thermodynamic
Equilibrium, or LTE within a layer that is not thicker than the mean free path of an
interacting IR photon.
From this relation it follows that the OLR can be thought of as being constituted from
three parts: The radiation through the window, the absorption of visible sunlight into
the atmosphere, and the vertical convective heat transfer when the adiabat is
exceeded.
Note, also, that the expression (1-Ta) is equivalent to (1-exp(-tau A)), where tau A is
the optical thickness. Thus, the y-axis could be expressed as ED/(1-exp(-tau A)). This
means that the empirical data indicate a constant optical thickness. Although not
shown directly by the data in this graph, that optical thickness turns out to be 1.87.
This measured value is precisely equal to the theoretical value he found by solving the
Eddington radiation differential equation with the boundary condition on the surface
of ED = SU·[1-TA] and with a partially transparent atmosphere that is bounded in
height. All these are natural boundary conditions, and none of them are applied in the
standard theory.
In the geologic history of the Earth, the CO2 concentration increased a hundredfold
during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, about 55 million years ago. The
oceans were so acid then, that we find no calcium carbonate sediments, but a reddish
clay instead. The large amount of CO2 was caused by a temperature increase of about
6 °C globally, the arctic polar sea was not saline and was full of floating Azolla ferns,
now found in rice paddies. Their fossil remains are now found in the North Sea
bottom.
Figure 12.
Second, it appears that the upward IR flux from the top of the atmosphere EU, that is,
the OLR minus the window radiation, is roughly one half of the surface upward
blackbody radiation Su. FM calls this the “Virial Law.” Note the similarity of the Eu
= Su/2 to the viral law, which states that potential energy = twice the kinetic energy.
Eu is closely related to the total internal energy of the atmosphere and is half the total
energy input to the system, Su. The Eu = Su/2 relationship appears to be a special
property of our atmosphere, resulting from complex heat transfer mechanisms.
This relationship applies to cloudy skies, wherein all radiation from the surface is
absorbed by the atmosphere. Under clear sky conditions, some IR is transmitted
directly from the surface to space via the “window” regions, which are those portions
of the spectrum where there is no absorption by the gases in the atmosphere.
Miskolczi also derives the following relationship for cloudy skies, which simply
expresses the conservation of energy: Su -Fo + Ed - Su = Fo = OLR. In this equation
Fo is the energy received from the Sun, and OLR is the outgoing longwave radiation
to space.
Miskolczi shows, as do the results of the greenhouse experiments discussed earlier,
that there must be thermal equilibrium between the surface and the air above the
surface. This means that Ed = Su, under cloudy conditions. Moreover, for cloudy
conditions, Eu = Fo = OLR, at the top of the atmosphere. Substituting these
relationships in the energy conservation equation above gives the relationship Su –
OLR + Su – OLR = OLR, or, Su = 3/2 OLR. Besides deriving this relationship
mathematically, Miskolczi shows this relationship to be true empirically for the Earth
(see Figure 22).
But what about the case of a clear or partly cloudy atmosphere? In this case another
term must be introduced to account for the window radiation. Miskolczi uses the term
St for this transmitted surface radiation, and in this case, OLR becomes the sum of Eu
and St. Using the above relationship, then, Su = 3/2(St + Eu). As shown in the above
figure, Eu = ½ Su. Substituting this relationship into the Su = 3/2(St + Eu) equation
gives Su = 6 St. By definition, optical depth = -ln(St/Su) = -ln(1/6) = 1.79, which is in
fair agreement with his Hartcode calculations and the empirical relationship shown in
Figure 11.
By definition the transparency Ta = St/Su. Notice that under cloudy skies, St and Ta
are both = 0; whereas, under clear skies, Ta = Su/6. The Earth's atmospheric system
has on average a partial cloud cover with 0 ⇐ Ta ⇐ Su/6. This elevates the optical
depth from 1.79 to 1.87.
Using Miskolczi's new theory we can calculate the influence an extra amount of
greenhouse gas would have on the optical thickness. Starting with an optical depth of
1.86, and it follows that removal of all CO2 reduces the optical thickness to 1.73 for a
perturbation of -7%. Conversely, a 100-fold increase in CO2 concentration increases
the optical thickness to 2.29, a perturbation of +23%.
Figure 13. Perturbations of optical depth by greenhouse gasses.
The figure shows the same perturbation for Ozone or O3, and for water vapor holding
all other concentrations being equal. However, as a consequence of Miskolczi's
theory, the atmosphere responds by reverting to an optical thickness where the
maximum heat transfer to space takes place, i.e. at the optimal optical depth of 1.86.
This has influence on the SU/EU = 2 equation, see the graph of the calculated
functions above. Water below the tropopause has a cooling effect, as shown in Van
Dorland’s figure 2.4. We see that water vapor cools, while the other two gases CO2
and O3 heat the atmosphere, like we saw in Rob van Dorland's graph. When we
increase the CO2 to 3%, 100 times what we have now, the atmosphere increases its
water content about 5% to regulate back to the optical depth of 1.86.
Measurement of absolute humidity, ORL, surface
temperature, compiled by NOAA.
To illustrate the large difference between the new theory and the standard theory, we
now give a few examples, taken from the database of NOAA, all numbers averaged
from 1948 to 2007 or 2008. What we see is the physics underlying FM's theory,
indicating unambiguously that a wet planet regulates its own temperature, by
compensating for large spatial differences in heat input. Like a pan with boiling water,
it does not change its temperature with the heating rate. The underlying heat transfer
mechanisms are much more complex than the simple statements by FM, but indeed
they support his hypothesis clearly. We begin with a history of water content in the
atmosphere on a height of 300 mB: (NCEP Reanalysis data provided by the
NOAA/OAR/ESRL PSD, Boulder, Colorado, USA, from their Web site at
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov disregard “up to 300 mB”).
Figure 14.
We see a very distinct decrease of humidity in the last 50 years, about 19%, from 0.24
gram/kg air to 0.195 gram/kg air. But this is strangely at odds with the assumption in
the preceding paragraph, however. But 300 mbar is far up in the troposphere. When
we look to the time series of absolute water content at 1000 mbar:
Figure 15. This graph is the specific humidity at 1000 mbar, at sea level.
We see that the amount of water vapor increases. Now, water in the lower atmosphere
cools, by increasing cloud cover and by strongly decreasing the temperature lapse
rate, and thus increasing the heat transfer from surface upwards through increased
latent heat fraction from evaporation / condensation of water.
Water in the high atmosphere, where there are almost no clouds, and no vertical
convection, heats, by hindering IR radiation escaping to space. So we see a double
negative feedback through water vapor change! This strongly contradicts the standard
theory, that assumes a positive feedback due to water vapor, increasing the sensitivity
of surface temperature to CO2 doubling from 1 K to 4…6 K!
Figure 16. The correlation of the OLR with surface temperature is positive [red
colour] in the polar regions where the sky is clear and the atmosphere dry. It is
strongly negative when temperature increases, in wet and warm regions, over the
tropic seas. Again we see here the negative feedback by water vapor.
Figure 17. The stratospheric absolute humidity is almost everywhere negatively
correlated with temperature, that is, the top of the atmosphere becomes more
transparent when it is hotter on the surface. Again, a negative feedback.
Figure 18. The humidity in the lower atmosphere [precipitable water] correlates
mostly positively with temperature, and as this lower humidity cools, by lowering the
temperature lapse rate and increasing cloud cover, again represents a negative
feedback.
Figure 19. Here we see the radiation into space, the OLR, integrated over 60 years but
spatially resolved. Dry regions and deserts have the maximum OLR, wet tropical
zones have a much lower OLR. Also here we see that as soon as the surface can
evaporate water, the OLR becomes lower. Striking differences, up to 50%, between
neighboring regions as the Sahara and the Congo, or between the cold Northerly sea
current along Chili and the Brazilian rain forest. Heat transfer from wet regions is not
by infrared radiation, but by turbulent convection taking large amounts of latent heat
with it. This heat transfer is strongly dependent on the temperature level, again being
a strong negative feedback.
Figure 20. Temperature along the surface is strikingly homogeneous, the difference
between the coldest and warmest regions being only 50 °C, or about 17% on the
absolute temperature scale. This 17% should, when the heat transfer would be mainly
by the infrared radiation, represent, less that a factor of 2 in the incoming solar
radiation. But, the difference in solar radiation between poles and equator is much
larger that a factor of 2. The atmosphere as a whole is a spatial and temporal
themostat!
Figure 21. We see that the water content, or specific humidity, neatly correlates with
solar radiation, varying with latitude, at least over the sea surface. This variation is
large, ranging from 22 grams/kg air in the tropics to 4 grams/kg in the polar regions.
The specific humidity determines the adiabatic temperature lapse rate in the
atmosphere, or the gradient of temperature with elevation. In the wettest regions, the
temperature lapse rate is only 4 °C/km. Conversely, in cold and therefore dry regions,
the temperature lapse rate is 10 °C/km. So the upward heat transfer from the surface is
2.5 times as large in warm humid regions, compared to cold dry regions. Water cools
the warm regions, and heats the cold regions. Water cools during the day and warms
at night. It cools in summer and heats in winter. The perfect self-regulating
thermostat.
The feedback number as a function of
surface temperature
We can get an idea about the feedback on “IR radiation forcing” due to increased
latent heat transfer [water evaporation at the surface, condensation in clouds and
precipitation back to surface] by the following reasoning: If, by for instance doubling
of the CO2 concentration, the net radiation from the surface upwards would decrease
with 1.7 W/m2 [see van Dorland’s penultimate figure], the surface temperature
would, to restore the balance, have to increase its temperature by an amount that
restores the upward heat flow. This temperature increase [1.9 K] would be determined
by the equation: dΦR=TA• 4•σ•Τ3•dT, where TA = 0.17 is the effective transparency
of the atmosphere, and 4•σ•Τ3 is the differential to T of the Stefan Boltzmann
equation ΦR= σ•Τ4 . But this increase in temperature has another effect, a negative
feedback, that turns out to be much larger: The increase in latent heat transfer by
water evaporation. It can be estimated by the following reasoning: The mean global
amount of precipitation is 1 m/year or Prmean=1.76e-3 mol H2O/m2 .s, at a mean
global temperature of 288K. The vapor pressure of water is given by the CausiusClapeyron equation; p=exp[ΔS/R-ΔH/RT], and so dp/dT=exp[ΔS/RΔH/RT]•ΔH/RT2, and with R=8.3J/mol.K the gas constant, entropy difference
between vapor & liquid ΔS=119J/mol.K and ΔH=44kJ/mol for water this comes
down to dp/dT=8.7e9/T2•exp[-5300/T]. P at 288K is 1.7e-2 atm, and dp/dT at 288 K
is 1.1e-3 atm/K. The precipitation is due to mass transfer from a wet surface,
proportional with the H2O saturation pressure p in air with a typical relative humidity
rH of 70%: ΦL=k•[1-rH]•p•ΔH. The mass transfer coefficient k, the ΔH and the
relative humidity rH are independent on T, and so we can write for the latent heat flux
as a function of p: ΦL=Prmean•ΔH=78 W/m2 at 288 K, or k•[1-rH]•p•ΔH=1.76e3•0.3•p/1.7e-2•44e3=p•4588 W/m2.atm With every ºC temperature increase there is
an increase of 4588•dp/dT W/m2.K in latent heat transfer. This heat transfer
coefficient, dΦL/dT=4588•8.7e9/T2•exp[-5300/T] helps to restore the balance due to
increase in optical density of the atmosphere dΦR/dT=TA• 4•σ•Τ3. So the feedback
factor is [dΦL/dT] / [dΦR/dT] or dΦL/dΦR becomes dΦL/dΦR=4588•8.7e9/T2•exp[5300/T] /[ TA• 4•σ•Τ3 ] or negative feedback = dΦL/dΦR=1.05e21/T5•exp[-5300/T].
The following table gives an idea of these values as function of the temperature:
T T pH2O dp/dT ΦL ΦR
ºC K atm atm/K W/m2 W/m2
dΦL/dΦR
feedback
-25 248 8.8e-4
-15 258 2.0e-3
-5 268 4.3e-3
5 278 8.8e-3
15 288 1.7e-2
25 298 3.2e-2
35 308 5.6e-2
7.6e-5
1.6e-4
3.2e-4
6.0e-4
1.1e-3
1.9e-3
3.2e-3
4
9
20
40
78
144
257
36
43
50
58
66
76
87
0.6
1.1
2.0
3.3
5.4 global mean
8.4
13
We see that the negative feedback is almost everywhere larger than 1, for instance a
value of 5.4 means that an initial temperature increase due to addition of IR absorbing
gas of 1.9 ºC will become 1.9/[1+5.4]=0.3 ºC. This value is fairly consistent with
Miskolczi’s numbers: In the Miskolczi Idojaras 2004 paper, on p.242, he calculates an
increase of global temperature of 0.482 °C as a result of doubling the CO2
concentration. Later, in his 2006 paper, p.21, he states: For example, a hypothetical
CO2 doubling will….increase in the surface temperature will be 0.24 K. The values
for the feedback over warm seas have been measured by dr. Roy Spencer as being 6.1,
also consistent with this simple calculation. We now get also more insight in the
cooling effect of an increase in galactic cosmic high energy particles that can
penetrate the lower atmosphere only when there are very few sunspots and therefore
few near-earth particle-deflecting magnetic fields. This radiation can create hundreds
of extra condensation nuclei per cm3, increasing the condensation speed and therefore
the upward latent heat transfer.
This figure, from NOAA, shows the mean latent heat flux on surface level. We see,
that where the sea is warmer than the air above it, as in the beginning of the Gulf
Stream, the latent heat flux is maximal. The wide range resulting from my calculation,
4 to 257 W/m2 , is consistent with these NOAA measurements.
Now that we have some idea of the physics of heat transfer behind them, we return to
the FM graphs.
Figure 22. From those measured atmospheric profiles there appears to be a relation of
the OLR into space and the SU, the upward radiation from the surface. In the global
and temporal mean, around SU 400, SU is 1.5·OLR, but on the poles at SU 200,
1.5·OLR=270 and in hot tropical climates, at SU 500, 1.5· OLR is 450. The title,
“energy conservation rule”, is a bit misleading, but the fact is that SU – OLR is
measured to be equal to ED – EU, the difference of the downward and the upward
thermal radiation from the atmosphere, and both are measured to be equal to one half
of the OLR, see FM’s paper from 2004, figure 24, here under.
This graph has led to much discussion, as you could take the blue line as a function
rather than an illustration of a relation. Then you could make an equation of the blue
line, and require that the mathematically derived function ORL/SU = 2/{1+ ?A+ exp[?A]} must be the same equation with ?A=1.86, and this leads to gross inconsistencies,
of course. There cannot be more than one function between two variables in such a
range, and ?A itself is a function of the latitude, and therefore of SU. We expect from
the NOAA charts that the world climate cannot easily be represented in one graph, but
we see that the “greenhouse factor” can be put as a function of surface temperature:
Figure 23. This is a result of the fact that warm regions are necessarily humid, and
therefore opaque for the infrared radiation. But also the cold regions receive much
heat by convection from the warm regions, and therefore their OLR is not much lower
than when it should radiate directly from the polar ice!
The new theory
FM sought a theory that could explain those relations derived from development of
the LBL HARTCODE. This is the core of his new theory.
It lies in the fact that he solves the Eddington differential equations, that describe the
radiation equilibrium in a radiating and thus absorbing atmosphere [originally in the
Sun, 1916] not with the classic boundary conditions of Milne [1922] but with two
different boundary conditions: 1 the surface is in radiation equilibrium with the
atmosphere right above it 2 the atmosphere is bounded in height [about 60 km] and is
partially transparent, the transparency is exp[-tau A] = TA. Both boundary conditions
follow directly from the spectral decomposition of the set of measured [TIGR]
atmospheric temperature, pressure and humidity profiles.
Figure 24.
The resulting solution is ORL/SU = 2/{1+ tau A+ exp[-tau A]} or ORL/SU = 2/[1+
tau A+ TA]. If we compare this single solution to that of the two equations of
standard theory: ORL / SUA = 2/[1+?A] for the lower atmosphere and ORL / SUG =
2/[2+tau A] for the surface, we see that the discontinuity between surface and lowest
atmosphere is gone, and that the known transparency of the atmosphere at certain
wavelengths is accounted for. Both solutions tend to ORL/SU = 1 for the surface
when there is no atmospheric absorbance when tau A=0 and TA =1, and thus not
greenhouse effect, as nearly so on Mars. Both tend to ORL/SU = 0 when tau
A=infinity and therefore TA =0, as on the sun and nearly so on Venus.
It can be shown the maximum heat transfer from surface to space is reached for the
Earth atmosphere when ORL/SU = 2/[1+ tau A+ TA]. The theoretical atmospheric
optical thickness turns out to be 1.86, very close to the observed 1.87. TA= exp[-tau
A] has the value of 15% there, in the mid section of the graph, there ORL=1.5·SU
while 2/[1+ tau A+ TA] there has the value 1.5. In that point global OLR is not
ultimately dependent on the optical density, it has its maximum in a cloudy
atmosphere.
For this situation when OLR and water vapor is constant, FM has calculated transient
mean global temperature increase as a consequence of the doubling of CO2
concentration; see table 6 in the 2004 IDOJARAS paper. The result is 0.48 °C. Where
OLR varies but water is constant the result is 0.24 C. This is consistent with other
empirical determinations by leading physicists Idso, Spencer, etc. This is however
very inconsistent with the estimates of the IPCC, done by climatologists and computer
modelers. This difference that has led to acrimonious debate over the consequences of
CO2 increase, which is ongoing. The IPCC and climate models produce estimates of
3C with a range of 1.5 to 6 for doubling, a very imprecise confidence interval. The
models differ considerably. In comparison is Ferenc has presented a physically
consistent theory, that produces an exact result of CO2 doubling, that is well
supported by empirical measurements.
The regulating mechanism
Now the question is, how does the atmosphere regulate its optical thickness or
transparency so that the ORL is maximized over the long term. Recently we have
quite independent measurements that elucidate this mechanism.
On the following page in Figure 1, we see satellite measurements by Roy Spencer et.
al. during intra-seasonal oscillations, that are periodic weather changes over the
tropical pacific. They traced sea surface temperature, rain intensity, air temperature,
water vapor concentration, shortwave (SW) sunlight reflection, and the outgoing
longwave radiation (OLR), all as a function of time, synchronized around the midpoint of maximum air temperature (Ta) of an ISO.
Every time the air temperature, Ta, increases, more SW light is reflected, the OLR
increases, and rain increases, until, when the maximum air temperature point[=0 days
on the x-axis] is passed, the sunlight begins to penetrate more, the OLR decreases, the
rain stops, until the temperature is normal again.
What we see is a thermostatic system, wherein the atmosphere increases and
decreases its water content, so that the temperature tends towards a constant value. If
the Earth cannot get rid of its heat through radiation from low altitude clear-sky
conditions alone, the adiabat is surpassed, and the heat is transfered by latent heat
high into the atmosphere, so that the OLR is now from a higher altitude, where the
effective IR optical depth is so much lower that the surplus heat can more easily be
sent into space.
The second set of graphs is produced from data from another type of satellite. It
shows the amount of high, or ice clouds, and the amount of low or water clouds,
which are plotted as a function of time, in the same manner as Figure 1. It appears that
cooling from low clouds becomes less, and warming from high clouds becomes more,
as the temperature rises, and vice versa.
We see the cloud top temperature, which is a direct measure of the total OLR increase
by 2 K as a result of only 0.4 K higher surface temperatures. That means a threefold
negative feedback due to atmospheric water content (sigma·[2584-2564]= 7.7
W/m2K; whereas, a difference of 0.4 K at 305 K is sigma·[305.44-305.04]=2.6
W/m2K). Spencer et al. have measured the average feedback as -6.1 W/m2K, a full
100% negative feedback at ground temperature level with average cloudiness.
We see now the physical mechanism behind the observed OLR-SU relations,
empirically found and theoretically founded by Miskolczi, in operation. When the
surface temperature increases, the water content of the atmosphere increases, OLR
increases, and the surface cools (OLR = 2/3Su, so when the surface heats, OLR also
increases). The cooling rate, 0.03 °C per day, conforms to the value 1 K/day in van
Dorland’s figure 2.4 in case water content varies only 3%.
In great contrast, the standard theory assumes a positive feedback due to water content
in the atmosphere, increasing the global warming a factor 2 or 3 as a result of
greenhouse gas emission.
Figure 25.
Figure 26.
Now, in hindsight, this not so unexpected at all. The heat transfer coefficient of all
non-radiation processes is not only larger that that of radiation processes in the low
atmosphere, it is also very strongly dependent on the temperature. That is, because the
water vapor pressure is an exponential function of the sea surface temperature. This is
also the case for vegetation. The only exception are deserts, where there is no liquid
water to evaporate, and indeed, there the solid surface can become much hotter that
the air above it. In the night, however, the desert surface and the air just above it is
much colder. There is documentation that the classic Egyptian technical men could
make ice in that way, screening the surface at day, and exposing it at night.
Tropospheric warming by CO2; measurements
compared to standard theory
In the four graphs hereunder, to be found via
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf and more direct in the
presentation in http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Recent-Evidence-ReducedSensitivity-NYC-3-4-08.ppt the lower atmosphere temperature anomaly, observed by
satellite is compared with a set of standard climate models. In the standard theory, a
sizeable part of the heat transfer is by IR radiation through the absorbing atmosphere,
which becomes thicker with increasing CO2 that radiates back, because it is warming
the lower atmosphere. The measured period is from 1979 until 1999, a period with
substantial climate change or warming, and a substantial increase in greenhouse
gases.
1000 hPa is surface level, 100 hPa is tropopause pressure, about 17 km. The top 4
curves are the results from four different climate models. They all indicate a rising
tropospheric temperature, 150 to 300 milliKelvin per 10 years, i.e. 0.3 to 0.6 °C
climate warming over those 20 years, the known value of IPCC reports. as a
consequence of greenhouse gas increase.
The measurements do not indicate heating, but generally the opposite. Only on the
North hemisphere there is a small warming, but much less than given by the standard
theory. In contrast, the Miskolczi relations, drawn from many radio sonde profiles,
conclude that there is no net radiation transport through the absorbing part of the IR
spectrum of the atmosphere, only through the “window”, where the greenhouse gas
concentration has an order of magnitude less effect. Miskolczi predicts no tropopause
warming, in agreement with radio sonde and satellite measurements.
The temperature effect of CO2 doubling in this study is the same as in the Miskolczi
theory, about 0.5 °C. More consistent. Santer etc.
Figure 27.
Conclusions
1 The new theory is based on relationships discovered from detailed LBL
calculations, in turn based in quantitative determination of absorption properties of
gasses in the laboratory. The theory is also based in more appropriate boundary
conditions used in solving the differential equations describing radiation equilibrium.
Unlike empirical models, his theory contains no parameters that are “fitted” to historic
climate trends and greenhouse gas concentration trends. The greatest areas of
difference are: * Infrared Radiation equilibrium between surface and atmosphere *
Partly infrared transparent atmosphere.
The main consequence of the new theory is that the atmosphere tends to maintain an
globally optimal optical thickness by water vapor take-up or release, in order to
maximize maximum Outgoing Long wave Radiation for a cloudy atmosphere. This
ensures that if perturbed, the system uses negative feedback to revert to a mean
values, based largely on the average solar isolation. The relaxation time at this point is
unknown, but would be expected to be in the order of 60 years.
2 This article shows the new theory better explains radiosonde and satellite
measurements than the standard theory of “Anthropogenic Global Warming”.
Measurements of the correlations with weather patterns in the tropical Pacific show
the negative feedback, via changing water content of the air, and changing cloud
cover and cloud height. Changes in water vapor temperature in the upper troposphere
in the period 1979-1999 predicted by the standard theory as a consequence of the
greenhouse gas contradict the observations.
References
* http://www.heartland.org/newyork08/PowerPoint/Tuesday/miskolczi.pdf * E. van
Andel, Fiwihex. * Ferenc M. Miskolczi Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent
planetary atmospheres IDŐJÁRÁS, Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian
Meteorological Service, Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40 * * Miklós
Zágoni, An Introduction into the Greenhouse Theory of Ferenc Miskolczi,
http://hps.elte.hu/zagoni/Miskolczi/hartcode_v01.pdf {LINK not working 2008/12/17.
See html:
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:Eb7xvhOZLzwJ:hps.elte.hu/zagoni/METZM_v08c_eng.pdf+zagoni+miskolczi&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefoxa} * Ferenc M. Miskolczi and Martin G. Mlynczak The greenhouse effect and the
spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial radiation IDŐJÁRÁS, Quarterly
Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Vol. 108, No. 4, October–
December 2004, pp. 209–251
* Ken Gregory The Saturated Greenhouse Effect June 2008