El documento es más extenso, tabla de contenido, wiki, ....

CitarThe 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 en on 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 form 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 re-irradiated 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 non-radiative 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.

...

The new climate theory of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi

Esta teoría me parece mas intuitiva y natural que la que defienden los calentólogos. Los dos últimos párrafos son muy gráficos:

Citar
La teoría de FM, de acuerdo con el mecanismo real de efecto invernadero verificarse empíricamente, nos enseña en cambio que la transferencia de calor de la superficie por procesos no radiativos: la evaporación del agua y la convección vertical, horizontal, la formación de nubes, lluvia y nieve. Y FM nos enseña más: nuestra atmósfera, en el mundial y el tiempo promedio de valor medio, un espesor óptico constante, por lo que, cuando se inyecta más CO2, la atmósfera lo compensa cambiar su contenido de vapor de agua para recuperar el equilibrio.

El ambiente optimiza su espesor óptico para permitir la máxima transferencia de calor al espacio, ajustando su absorbancia de infrarrojos.

Habrá que estar atentos a la polémica que va a traer seguro esta nueva teoría.

ya me extrañaba  que no se hubiese comentado antes, por que la historia tiene tela 

Cita de: Vaqueret en Lunes 19 Enero 2009 18:07:54 PM
...
Algo de esto dice el Sr. Ferenc Miskolczi,  el cual sí es fisico de la Atmósfera, por cierto..... aunque algunas de sus tesis (en especial la igualdad de flujos entrantes y salientes de la atmosfera) me parecen discutibles.
...

pero al parecer pasó desapercibido,

más,

Citar...
"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states.  Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.

So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.

NASA refused to release the results.  Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple.  "Money", he tells DailyTech.  Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research.  Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate.  My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."
...

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"

Citar...
Miskolczi rewrote the equations and the modified equations don't indicate a runaway greenhouse effect.   His equations indicate a limit to any greenhouse effect. Thus even if there is a greenhouse effect it cannot do what the Rev. Al Gore claims it will do.

Research by Stephen Schwartz also challenges claims of a runaway greenhouse effect.
...

Greenhouse Gas Equation Wrong

conclusiones "oficiales", pdf: HEAT CAPACITY, TIME CONSTANT, AND SENSITIVITY OF EARTH'S CLIMATE SYSTEM


His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary, pdf

Citar"In essence Dr Miskolczi showed that the solution to a differential equation for the greenhouse effect developed in 1922 by Arthur Milne, and central to the current paradigm, wrongly assumed an infinitely thick atmosphere. In re-solving this equation a new term and also a new law of physics have been proposed setting an upper limit to the greenhouse effect. Dr Miskolczi's theory indicates that any warming from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide will eventually be offset by a change in atmospheric moisture content. ...

Meanwhile, another Hungarian physicist, Miklos Zagoni, has provided the following summary of the new controversial theory:

    As it happens, these new relations supply a profound new understanding of the old, well-known set of energy balance conditions. Substituting them into the old equations, Miskolczi recognized that a new overall global energetic constraint applies to the atmosphere. ...

    That is to say, the Earth's atmosphere dynamically keeps its greenhouse effect right at its critical value, regardless of our continuing CO2 emissions, regardless of any change in atmospheric CO2 concentration in the past ten thousand years. Miskolczi's dynamic constraint keeps the greenhouse effect "climatically saturated": emitting CO2 into the air cannot increase the normalized greenhouse factor g because any impact of human addition of CO2 is dynamically countered by about 1% decrease of the main greenhouse gas, water vapor (moisture) in the atmosphere. ...
    According to this [NOAA global average] database, the atmosphere's moisture content during 61 years from 1948 to 2008 in global average decreased by about 1%. This amount was the climate process's automatic dynamic response and was enough to counter the impact of any CO2 and methane increase. ...

    But, remarkably and surprisingly, these results say that the ratio of the surface temperature to the sum of the incoming energies is fixed at a critical value; the ratio cannot be altered by adding a greenhouse gas such as CO2. The climate temperature is fully sensitive to real changes in the external drivers [solar and albedo changes] that increase the energy input. But it is not at all sensitive to addition of greenhouse gases such as CO2 to the atmosphere."

Jennifer Marohasy on Ferenc Miskolczi

Esto no hay por donde cogerlo   

¿Que va a ser lo siguiente?¿Decir que está mal el primer principio de la termodinámica? 

Me parece charlatanería, no argumenta de forma comprensible. Este párrafo por ejemplo no tiene sentido, lo que dice simplemente no es verdad.

CitarFM's theory, in agreement with the actual empirically verified greenhouse mechanism, teaches us instead that the heat transfer from the surface is by non-radiative 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.

Según la teoría que se enseña en las universidades, si tenemos en cuenta solo los flujos radiativos la superficie terrestre se enfriaría a 1ºC/día o algo así, cito de memoria, y esto no ocurre porque también hay que tener en cuenta los flujos de calor latente y sensible. Y por supuesto se propaga al resto de la troposfera por convección y por radiación. ¿Estoy entendiendo mal o está presentando esto como un aporte novedoso de su teoría?

Lo de que un descenso mágico de la cantidad de vapor de agua compensa cualquier emisión de CO2 resulta muy difícil de creer.

En fin, que en la NASA no le hicieron ni caso, pues normal...

al parecer es precisamente eso el tema de discusión, según voy leyendo (no le he dedicado tiempo aún), "las ecuaciones del CC" no contemplarían (o no lo harían correctamente) esa realimentación por convección, precipitación,...
y al aplicar esos criterios adecuadamente, los resultados serían diferentes.

Cita de: Markel en Sábado 10 Octubre 2009 20:25:28 PM
Esto no hay por donde cogerlo   

¿Que va a ser lo siguiente?¿Decir que está mal el primer principio de la termodinámica? 

Me parece charlatanería, no argumenta de forma comprensible. Este párrafo por ejemplo no tiene sentido, lo que dice simplemente no es verdad.

CitarFM's theory, in agreement with the actual empirically verified greenhouse mechanism, teaches us instead that the heat transfer from the surface is by non-radiative 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.

Según la teoría que se enseña en las universidades, si tenemos en cuenta solo los flujos radiativos la superficie terrestre se enfriaría a 1ºC/día o algo así, cito de memoria, y esto no ocurre porque también hay que tener en cuenta los flujos de calor latente y sensible. Y por supuesto se propaga al resto de la troposfera por convección y por radiación. ¿Estoy entendiendo mal o está presentando esto como un aporte novedoso de su teoría?

Lo de que un descenso mágico de la cantidad de vapor de agua compensa cualquier emisión de CO2 resulta muy difícil de creer.

En fin, que en la NASA no le hicieron ni caso, pues normal...

Tal vez quieras leer el original http://www.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf

Lo curioso es que esa teoría es coherente con las observaciones. Ya comentamos hace días el efecto de que la radiación observada emitida en i.r aumentaba con la temperatura y en promedio a lo largo de varios años, lo que no se explica según las tesis del IPCC. (entre los trópicos).

Gracias Fortuna por el enlace, 40 páginas...bueno, lo he mirado por encima.

No se con que observaciones es coherente, porque el aumento en la absorción de IR provocado por el CO2 y otros gases si se ha medido de varias maneras, y ellos dicen que no debería de haber ninguno.

Por ejemplo en los artículos que se citan aquí:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html

Aún lo estoy leyendo, básicamente porque voy combinando su lectura con esta publicación anterior. Pero en principio me resulta muy chocante como usa la ley de Kirchhoff.

No se con que observaciones es coherente.

@Markel, lo discutimos aquí: https://foro.tiempo.com/climatologia/articulos+cientificos+en+contra+del+calentamiento+antropogenico-t65417.0.html;msg2112469#msg2112469 y en  http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf aunque @Estrocumulos indicó que eso era posible por ser el estudio en zonas tropicales, que distribuyen el calor hacia los polos. (se habla de esta limitación en el artículo, pero aún así, se estima que la retroalimentación es negativa).

El artículo de http://landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction al menos deja claro que la imagen que se tiene del efecto invernadero es falsa, en el sentido de que es la convección lo más importante. Lo digo porque el ejemplo del automóvil que que se calienta al sol por este efecto es muy popular. (no sé si has leido los experimentos que hace). Por su puesto, nadie niega el efecto, sino más bien los feedbaks y la magnitud y sentidos del mismo. En las últimas páginas del enlace  tienes imágenes de observaciones de satélite que parecen indicar que la tierra responde de forma diferente a los esperado. Figuras 14 a 21.

Sobre el modelo de Miskolczi, lo que no me convence es que indica que la capacidad calorífica de las superficie es 0. Así justifica que hay equlibrio térmico instantáneo entre la superficie y la atmósfera, que no me lo creo. Sobre todo por que, aunque la superfecie continental pudiera estar en promedio a la misma temperatura que el aire en contacto, los océanos sí que pueden absorver o eliminar calor.

Respecto al enlace que pasas, la primera imagen, parece que el metano es mucho más importante que el CO2. Además, hecho de menos el vapor de agua.

Un saludo.

¿Y cómo explica este señor el clima de Venus?

Si lo encuentro lo pongo, imagino que algo sabrá, su especialidad es la climatología planetaria 

aunque me parece que en su "paper" su modelo correlaciona bastante bien con la atmósfera de Venus, o eso he leído,

por cierto: ¿cual es la respuesta de los modelos para un 97% de CO2 en la atmósfera (y un 60% más densa)? ¿correlacionan con lo estudiado en Venus? 
¿que temperatura dan?
¿es ese resultado de acorde a nuestra distancia respecto al sol (comparándolo con venus)?

(yo tengo entendido que la climatología de Venus se debe a la alta densidad más que a que sea CO2, N2, O2, H2O, NO3,...)

Cita de: Estratocumulus en Lunes 12 Octubre 2009 22:39:08 PM
¿Y cómo explica este señor el clima de Venus?

Venus para nada tiene humedad. Ese es su problema principal. Perdió el agua por culpa de no tener campo magnético ni rotación rápida. Además Venus poco tiene que ver pues la luz visible no entra por la opacidad de las nubes de CO2 de la atmósfera que confieren al planeta un albedo del 70%. Curiosamente Venus se calienta exclusivamente por radiación UV ya que el planeta no tiene capa de ozono.
Este señor precisamente habla de atmósferas transparentes y no opacas.