IN recent years, a major advance in our understanding of the physical dynamics of the climate process has come from the work of Ferenc Miskolczi. A summary of this important work is now available at the Science and Public Policy website:
The Earth’s atmosphere differs in essence from that of Venus and Mars. Our atmosphere is not totally cloud-covered, as is Venus: globally, about 40% of the sky is always clear. Also we have huge ocean surfaces that serve as a practically unlimited reservoir of water vapour for the air.
With the help of these two conditions, the Earth’s atmosphere attains what the other two planets cannot: a constant, maximized, saturated greenhouse effect, so that adding more greenhouse gases to the mix will not increase the magnitude of the greenhouse effect and, therefore, will not cause any further “global warming”.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/co2_cannnot_cause.html
Previous blog posts on the saturated greenhouse effect:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/the-climatically-saturated-greenhouse-effect/
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/the-work-of-ferenc-miskolczi-part-1/
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/03/new-theory-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
This is fantastic, thanks for putting it up! Your efforts are helping make a Merry Christmas for all of us!
A thought and a question:
1.) How about updating this post with a small audio file that provides the correct pronunciation of the of the Hungarian scientists’ first and last names. (I’m totally clueless how one would pronounce either name correctly.)
2.) Isn’t the term “saturation” also used to describe the logarithmic nature of increased CO2 impact on temperatures? If that is correct, does that “saturation” mean CO2 molecules are “saturated” with radiated energy or does it refer to the atmosphere being over- “saturated” with CO2 molecules? (Trying to get my “saturations” straight for the various theories.) 🙂
Interesting article which raises a few questions.
Is it possible to find correlations between recent past CO2 conc (is it Beck?) and absolute global humidity as mentioned in this piece?
Does this mean that increasing CO2 conc would have the drying effect prophesised by IPCC?
How does this article stack up against the commonly stated view (on this blog ) that the greenhouse effect is a myth?
Does this suggest that during glacial periods, there is probably virtually no humidity, therefore no cloud cover, as to maintain an equilibrium GHE by allowing more sunlight to reach the surface? (not sure if that last one makes any sense at all).
Cheers.