Ferenc sent out reprints of his upcoming manuscript, and graciously acknowledges the contribution of a number of us for support, help and encouragement. I particularly like the perturbation and statistical power analysis, checking that a change in the greenhouse effect due to CO2 would likely have been detected if it had been present in the last 61 years.

**The Stable Stationary Value of the Earth’s Global Average Atmospheric Planc-weighted Greenhouse-Gas Optical Thickness **

by Ferenc Miskolczi,

*Energy & Environment,* 21:4 2010.

ABSTRACT

By the line-by-line method, a computer program is used to analyze Earth atmospheric radiosonde data from hundreds of weather balloon observations. In terms of a quasi-all-sky protocol, fundamental infrared atmospheric radiative flux components are calculated: at the top boundary, the outgoing long wave radiation, the surface transmitted radiation, and the upward atmospheric emittance; at the bottom boundary, the downward atmospheric emittance. The partition of the outgoing long wave radiation into upward atmospheric emittance and surface transmitted radiation components is based on the accurate computation of the true greenhouse-gas optical thickness for the radiosonde data. New relationships

among the flux components have been found and are used to construct a quasi-all- sky model of the earthâ€™s atmospheric energy transfer process. In the 1948-2008 time period the global average annual mean true greenhouse-gas optical thickness is found to be time-stationary. Simulated radiative no-feedback effects of measured actual CO2 change over the 61years were calculated and found to be of magnitude easily detectable by the empirical data and analytical methods used. **The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements.** Apparently major revision of the physics underlying the greenhouse effect is needed.

### Like this:

Like Loading...

Ferenc,

If you are out there, congratulations for having the courage to persevere with this work in the face of such opposition. I hope the new paper will lead to renewed discussion of the theory.

Best, Alex

Ferenc,If you are out there, congratulations for having the courage to persevere with this work in the face of such opposition. I hope the new paper will lead to renewed discussion of the theory.Best, Alex

I am not scientifically trained (unfortunately) but if what i have gleaned fro this article, it appears to throw i rather large spanner into the the climate model works at a fundamental level. Absolutely fascinationg study.

Hi Pesadilla, It would if true, which is one reason why have been interested in it. Other reasons being the range of interesting theoretical issues arising. However, we have been trying to determine if it rises to the level of scientific rigor expected. The new paper represents a good attempt in that direction.

I am not scientifically trained (unfortunately) but if what i have gleaned fro this article, it appears to throw i rather large spanner into the the climate model works at a fundamental level. Absolutely fascinationg study.

Miskolczi’s new paper on the stable global optical thickness

see; http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=483

in section 5, Statistical Testing, states:

“The linear regression coefficient of the actual values of against time has a Student t value of 0.499. This is not even nearly statistically significantly different from zero. The

Student t value that would correspond to the theoretically calculated virtual effect of actual CO2 is 1.940. This would be statistically significant on a one-sided test at the 0.05

significance level. The statistical power of the Student t test for these data at a one-sided significance level of 0.05 is 0.6.”

As I am not familiar with the student t test, could someone explain how this test works? How does one calculate the Student t value of 0.499?

Miskolczi's new paper on the stable global optical thickness see; http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=483 in section 5, Statistical Testing, states:”The linear regression coefficient of the actual values of against time has a Student t value of 0.499. This is not even nearly statistically significantly different from zero. TheStudent t value that would correspond to the theoretically calculated virtual effect of actual CO2 is 1.940. This would be statistically significant on a one-sided test at the 0.05significance level. The statistical power of the Student t test for these data at a one-sided significance level of 0.05 is 0.6.”As I am not familiar with the student t test, could someone explain how this test works? How does one calculate the Student t value of 0.499?

Hi Pesadilla, It would if true, which is one reason why have been interested in it. Other reasons being the range of interesting theoretical issues arising. However, we have been trying to determine if it rises to the level of scientific rigor expected. The new paper represents a good attempt in that direction.

After a quick scan of the new paper, two problems jumped out. The lesser one is Figure 7 where the individual data points for the soundings don’t look very much at all like what I assume is the theoretical curve. The major problem is that cloud cover is ignored in the line by line calculations. Looking at MODTRAN, the flux at the surface looking up increases by anywhere from 60 to 100 W/m2 when cloud cover is present. Also, the surface that actually radiates to space is the cloud top, not the ground.

My gut feeling is that the way that averages are calculated is also flawed. It reminds me of albedo. You can’t average albedo at each latitude and then multiply by the average flux and get the correct answer. You have to average reflected flux at each latitude to calculate the correct average global albedo. The product of the sums is not always equal to the sum of the products. But I would need to spend more time analyzing and I’m not convinced it’s worth the effort.

Essentially the same problem as the first time around this loop.

The implicit assumption, despite a few vague token nods in the general direction, that clouds don’t exist.

After a quick scan of the new paper, two problems jumped out. The lesser one is Figure 7 where the individual data points for the soundings don't look very much at all like what I assume is the theoretical curve. The major problem is that cloud cover is ignored in the line by line calculations. Looking at MODTRAN, the flux at the surface looking up increases by anywhere from 60 to 100 W/m2 when cloud cover is present. Also, the surface that actually radiates to space is the cloud top, not the ground.My gut feeling is that the way that averages are calculated is also flawed. It reminds me of albedo. You can't average albedo at each latitude and then multiply by the average flux and get the correct answer. You have to average reflected flux at each latitude to calculate the correct average global albedo. The product of the sums is not always equal to the sum of the products. But I would need to spend more time analyzing and I'm not convinced it's worth the effort.

Essentially the same problem as the first time around this loop. The implicit assumption, despite a few vague token nods in the general direction, that clouds don't exist.

Pingback: kliknij link

Pingback: witryna

Pingback: odzyskiwanie danych gliwice

Pingback: oprogramowanie sklepu

Pingback: witryna www