Monday, March 12, 2012

363 Oxygen depletion driving sea creatures "out of the water". BP's underwater oil plume

(1) Oxygen depletion driving sea creatures "out of the water". BP's underwater oil plume
(2) Oil-eating bacteria gorging on BP oil plume
(3) BP withdraws from Greenland oil bids, owing to Gulf of Mexico spill
(4) Blacklisted Scientist Challenges Global Warming Orthodoxy
(5) No Greenhouse Effect: Water Vapor counter-balances Carbon Dioxide -  Ferenc Miskolczi

(1) Oxygen depletion driving sea creatures "out of the water". BP's underwater oil plume

From: peter.myers@mailstar.net Date: 26.08.2010 07:47 PM

America's Gulf - Updating The Greatest Ever Environmental Crime
By Stephen Lendman
8-24-10
 
http://www.rense.com/general91/updd.htm
 
For months, US media reports distorted and lied about its severity, running cover for BP and the Obama administration, now practically avoiding the crisis altogether as it worsens. An August 20 Inter Press Service report is revealing, quoting Biloxi, MS fisherman Danny Ross saying hypoxia (depleted oxygen) is driving horseshoe crabs, stingrays, flounder, dolphins, and other sea life "out of the water" to escape. Another area fisherman, David Wallis said he's "seen crabs crawling out of the water in the middle of the day."
 
Other reports cite strange marine life behavior, sighted near the surface when they normally stay well submerged. Alabama fisherman Stan Fournier said in 40 years of work, he's never seen anything like it. "It looks like all the sea life is trying to get out of the water," unable to breathe in their normal habitat, what US media reports won't touch, instead hyping success, saying BP's well capped and most oil dissolved when, in fact, it won't degrade for decades, remaining a lethal cocktail combined with dispersants, killing wildlife and poisoning anyone eating it, assuring a coming epidemic of cancers and other diseases.
 
On August 19, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior scientist Bill Lehr, in testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, retracted his earlier claim about most oil dispersed and dissolved. He now says "I would say most of that is still in the environment," as much as 90%, only 6% burned and 4% skimmed, the rest contaminating a large part of the Gulf, spreading, and devastating wildlife.
 
In addition, on August 19, the journal Science published a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) study, confirming a giant oil plume floating about 1,200 meters below the surface - 35 km-long (22 miles), two km wide, and 200 meters thick. Persisting "for months without substantial biodegradation," it poses a serious threat to sea life, one of the article's writers, Dr. Chris Reddy, saying, "At this point, we know the plume exists, and we know more about its potential biological activity in the future" and harm it can cause.
 
It'll be years before the full extent of damage is known. However, it's already extensive and extremely dangerous, containing 50 micrograms per liter of "a group of particularly toxic petroleum compounds," 6 - 7% of it a deadly benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene cocktail - released from BP's Macondo well, the evidence clearly showing it according to research team head Richard Camilli.
 
He expects the plume to spread and biodegrade very slowly in cold waters. In addition, other independent researchers discovered other even larger plumes. University of Georgia Marine Sciences Professor Samantha (Mandy) B. Joye said the WHOI plume "doesn't hold a candle" to one her team found in May. Nonetheless, BP and Obama officials signaled an all-clear, denying their existence and the catastrophic disaster, out of sight and mind instead of dealing with it responsibly.
 
It's why on August 23, the Union of Concerned Scientists alerted members and supporters to "Help end America's dangerous addiction to oil," saying for decades it's warned about the US's "misguided energy and transportation policies (instead of) promoting innovative solutions to reduce our dependence on oil. (The Gulf disaster) is a painful reminder of the work" left to be done and urgency of doing it.
 
On August 20, Kieran Suckling, Center for Biological Diversity Executive Director headlined his press release, "Gulf of Mexico Still in Crisis Four Months After BP Explosion: Center for Biological Diversity Tour Finds Oiled Beaches, Water and Wildlife....Drilling Policy Reforms Still Too Weak, Too Late," saying:
 
The Center's team saw "firsthand how oil is still killing wildlife and fouling beaches and marshes. This crisis is far from over." Grand Isle, LA beaches were contaminated with oil, liquid surface pools and more mixed with sand in hardened mats along the water's edge.
 
"Some beaches appear fine from a distance but are actually sitting atop massive amounts of oil, which bubbled to the surface when the team walked across the sand. Digging into (it) with rubber gloves," oil was found six inches below the surface. Crabs and birds are covered with it as they cross beaches or marsh land. "Fish and sea turtles are forced to swim through oil on the surface and below," looking for food. "In short, (the Gulf) is still an oily mess despite rosy assertions" by BP and Obama officials, claiming most oil is gone. They know damn well it's there to stay, poisoning everything it touches.
 
The Center's survey supports independent scientists saying most remains, fouling beaches, waters, marshes and wildlife. Working for reform and serious remediation, Center officials filed seven lawsuits against BP and government regulators, including "the largest Clean Water Act suit in history," seeking $19 billion in fines from BP. More on their likely resolution below.
 
Firsthand Reports from the Gulf
 
Reporting from the area, investigative journalist Dahr Jamail calls Grand Isle, LA's condition "post-apocalytic," spotting "tar balls that bob lazily underwater, amidst sand ripples in the shallows....Oil-soaked marsh abounds....the island smell(ing) like a gas station. Noxious fumes infiltrate my nose, causing me to cough. Piles of oiled oysters rest on the tide line."
 
Tar balls are everywhere. "In some places, there are literally huge mats of fresh tar....The scene is apocalyptic....It is one of the more disgusting, vile scenes I've even seen....All we can do is take photos. The stench is overpowering. I gag. My eyes water from the burning chemicals....I feel dizzy." The entire Gulf Coast has been raped and destroyed. Official coverup is criminal.
 
Only time will assess the full damage on humans and wildlife. However, the toll already is devastating, the Obama administration complicit with BP, culpable for a crime they want suppressed, ignored and forgotten, what will affect the lives of millions perhaps forever.
 
According to Florida State University ocean scientist Ian MacDonald: "The (disaster's) imprint will be there in the Gulf of Mexico for the rest of my life. It is not gone," and won't ever "go away quickly," warning of a potential tipping point beyond which wildlife and the ecosystem won't recover, the crossed Rubicon after which return no longer is possible, a shocking assessment perhaps already true.
 
JAMA Reports Direct Threats to Human Health
 
In its August 16 edition, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) writers Drs. Gina M. Solomon and Sarah Janssen headlined, "Health Effects of the Gulf Oil Spill," saying "it (and dispersants pose) direct threats to human health from inhalation or dermal contact," besides harming seafood and mental health.
 
Solomon and Janssen explained that crude oil's main components are "aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons." Containing volatile organic compounds (including benezene, toluene and xylene), they "can cause respiratory irritation and central nervous system (CNS) depression."
 
Benzene also causes leukemia, and toluene "is a recognized teratogen (causing embryo malformation) at high doses." Naphthalene and other higher molecular weight chemicals are "reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in humans...."
 
Released hydrogen sulfide gas, nonvolatile polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals from oil "can contaminate the food chain. Hydrogen sulfide gas is neurotoxic and has been linked to both acute and chronic CNS (central nervous system) effects. PAHs include mutagens and probable carcinogens. Burning oil generates particulate matter, which is associated with cardiac and respiratory symptoms and premature mortality."
 
Massive dispersants use greatly exacerbates the problem. They contain toxic detergents, surfactants and petroleum distillates, including known respiratory irritants like 2-butoxyethanol, propylene glycol, and sulfonic acid salts.
 
As a result, area residents and cleanup workers experienced headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, coughs, respiratory distress, chest pain, and other symptoms - warning signs of potentially greater future health problems.
 
"Skin contact with oil and dispersants causes defatting, resulting in dermatitis and secondary skin infections. Some individuals may develop a dermal hypersensitivity reaction, erythema (injured or irritated skin), edema, burning sensations, or a follicular rash."
 
Potential long-term health risks are high, wildlife contamination making anyone eating Gulf seafood vulnerable. "Community residents should not fish" in oil-contaminated areas, nor should federal, state or local officials allow them.
 
Some Final Comments
 
On August 20, New York Times writer Ian Urbina headlined, "BP Settlements Likely to Shield Top Defendants," saying:
 
"People and businesses seeking a lump-sum settlement from BP's $20 billion oil spill compensation fund will most likely have to waive their right to sue not only BP, but also all the other major defendants involved with the spill, according to internal documents from the lawyers handling the fund."
 
In other words, the fix is in, Obama and BP officials conspiring to let responsible parties off the hook, settlement terms designed to deny victims just compensation and for many, perhaps most, none at all, given the strict guidelines of eligibility required.
 
Claims czar Kenneth Feinberg is a notorious "fixer," mandated to save BP, Transocean, Halliburton, and blowout preventer maker Cameron International potentially tens of billions in liabilities, strong-arming victims to waive their right to sue in return for amounts too meager to matter.
 
According to Urbina, the dilemma for those suing is deciding between "years of litigation (or) accept(ing) the (offered) settlement....before the full (extent of) damage" is known. Most important is that "those who cannot demonstrate damages caused by the direct impact of oil on beaches and fisheries will be ineligible for money."
 
For example, small businesses, not located directly on affected beaches, experiencing sharp revenue drops "will not be able to receive compensation...." in violation of the federal Oil Pollution Act that excludes geographical limitations. The same holds for area residents living away from the shoreline.
 
Property owners who've seen sharp valuations drops, will also be cheated. So will cleanup workers and area residents later contracting diseases, mental illness, lost income, or other harmful effects.
 
As point man, Feinberg will deny, obstruct, and let criminal defendants off the hook, then (on BP's payroll) be handsomely paid for his services, the same ones he performed earlier for Wall Street banks, Agent Orange producers, asbestos manufacturers, and Dalkon Shield maker AH Robins as well as against 9/11 victims.
 
Only corporate interests matter, not people whose lives they destroy, Obama officials doing nothing to help them - instead being complicit partners in the greatest ever environmental crime, whitewashing it by giving the all-clear, declaring "mission accomplished," and protecting corporate criminals at all costs.
 
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

(2) Oil-eating bacteria gorging on BP oil plume

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20100825/FEATURES12/100829618/1026/news01?p=2&tc=pg

New microbe chows down on spilled oil 

Associated Press

By ELIZABETH WEISE
USA TODAY

August 25, 2010

Researchers have discovered a previously unclassified species of microbe that appears to be happily gorging away on the long plume of oil left by the BP drilling rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. It’s turning the toxic mixture into non-toxic microbes about twice as fast as had been expected, scientists reported Tuesday in the journal Science.

This could mean that the nature is able to clean up oil spills on its own more quickly than had been realized, at least in the Gulf.

The microbes are related to known cold temperature gamma-proteobacteria, says Terry Hazen, a microbial ecologist with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and lead author on the paper. The research was funded through the Energy Biosciences Institute in Berkeley, Calif., a collaboration between the University of California-Berkeley, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and BP, which supported it with a 10-year, $500 million grant beginning in 2007. The funds are entirely unrestricted, Hazen says.

The group also found that the microbes don’t appear to be using up all the oxygen in the water as they eat and grow. The fear had been that large microbe blooms might deplete water oxygen levels, leading to dead zones that could impact ecosystems and fisheries.

When the bacteria encounter oil in the water, they consume half of it in 1.2 to 6.1 days. That’s compared to an average of seven at the Exxon Valdez site, says Hazen. Other components degrade more slowly and take longer.

The researchers sent two ships into the Gulf on May 25 and have been collecting samples there ever since, Hazen says. Using DNA microarrays they were able to quickly scan for up to 50,000 different species of bacteria and other single-celled organisms. In the oil plume 95 percent of the bacteria are this particular oil-eating type. Outside the plume, they make up only 5 percent of the bacteria, he says.

The researchers speculate that the oil is biodegrading quickly for several reasons. First, Gulf light crude is more biodegradable than other types of oil because it has more volatile components. Also, the use of dispersant may have accelerated biodegradation because the bacteria could more easily get at smaller oil particles.

The findings about the oil plume fit well with a paper released last week in Science by scientists at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. They found a 21-mile plume of oil at 3,600 feet deep. “These are very important findings, particularly from a societal impact point of view,” says Richard Camilli, lead author on last week’s paper.

The Woods Hole group didn’t find evidence of oil-eating microbes, but they weren’t looking for them, Camilli says. “My group was using robots to try to find out if a plume was down there and then try to characterize its shape, extent and chemical composition. Terry (Hazen) was characterizing the microbes.”

(3) BP withdraws from Greenland oil bids, owing to Gulf of Mexico spill

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/25/bp-arctic-greenland-oil-drilling

BP frozen out of Arctic oil drilling race

British energy giant BP forced to abandon hopes of Greenland exploration owing to tarnished reputation from Gulf oil spill

Terry Macalister in Nuuk

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 August 2010 19.30 BST

BP has been forced to abandon hopes of drilling in the Arctic, currently the centre of a new oil rush, owing to its tarnished reputation after the Gulf of Mexico spill.

The company confirmed tonight that it was no longer trying to win an exploration licence in Greenland, despite earlier reports of its interest. "We are not participating in the bid round," said a spokesman at BP's London headquarters, who declined to discuss its reasons for the reverse.

The setback, which follows the announcement this week of a major find in the region by British rival Cairn Energy, is the first sign that the Gulf of Mexico disaster may have permanently damaged BP's ability to operate – not just in US waters, but in other environmentally sensitive parts of the world.

Today the bureau of minerals and petroleum in Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, confirmed that the names of successful bidders for future exploration licences would be announced in the next couple of weeks.

The bureau refused to comment on widespread rumours that it had specifically decided not to consider BP as a result of the recent Macondo well disaster in the US. However, senior sources confirmed to the Guardian that both the Greenland government and BP had agreed it would be inappropriate for the company to be involved. "With the Greenpeace ship already harassing Cairn off Greenland — a company which has an exemplary safety record – everyone realised it would be political madness to give the green light to BP," one source said.

BP has traditionally been at the forefront of breaking into new frontiers such as Russia and Angola, as well as drilling the deepest wells in the Gulf of Mexico, but the blowout and enormous environmental damage in the southern states has completely changed its external image and its own ambitions.

There has been speculation since the Deepwater Horizon accident in April that BP could find itself persona non grata, particularly in sensitive environmental regions such as the Arctic.

BP's current interests around the Arctic region are centred on Alaska, but there has been extensive speculation that the company is in talks with rivals such as Apache to sell these off in a desperate attempt to raise cash to pay for expected oil-spill liabilities of more than $30bn.

Cairn's announcement that it had struck gas this week reinforced the views of the US Geological Survey which said last year that it believed there could be 90bn barrels of oil and 50tn cubic metres of gas in the wider Arctic region.

There will be another round of bidding for drilling off Greenland next year and the year after, but BP's reverse this week shows that it will be difficult for the firm to secure future exploration licences in the area.

Environmentalists are particularly nervous about plans to open up Arctic seas for exploration because the cold conditions would make a spill far more damaging. Last month a report by US government scientists concluded that a quarter of the 4.9m barrels of oil estimated to have been spilled in the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico had evaporated or dissolved. Oil spilled in the Arctic would be far harder to disperse and break down.

Despite the Deepwater Horizon disaster, major oil companies – BP included — still hope to begin drilling in the Arctic off the coast of North America soon. Barack Obama opened up US waters there to exploration shortly before the Deepwater Horizon explosion, but suspended the plans while investigations into the disaster took place.

Additional reporting by Tim Webb in London.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

(4) Blacklisted Scientist Challenges Global Warming Orthodoxy

From: ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@Gmail.com> Date: 14.08.2010 12:24 AM

FRIDAY, 13 AUGUST 2010 22:16 DIANNA C. COTTER

Blacklisted Scientist Challenges Global Warming Orthodoxy

FRIDAY, 13 AUGUST 2010 22:16 DIANNA C. COTTER

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for years has been predicting the greenhouse effect can spin out of control. They claim that there exists a scientific consensus that CO2 is pushing the planet into an unrestrained greenhouse effect, that it's raising global temperatures and it must be stopped. IPCC was created in the 1980s by the United Nations.

They have released findings that say that carbon-based emissions released into the atmosphere by humans, mostly in wealthy, Western countries, must be reduced, or a catastrophe will result. They have frequently used this scare tactic. It has been easy to frighten people, as the science involved takes some significant and serious study. Most people have relied on expert opinions because they lack their own expert knowledge in the field, a factor the IPCC has relied upon in the past.

Today Hungarian atmospheric physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, says he has found and proven that the IPCC and their experts are wrong in their theory about how the greenhouse effect works. In the process, he has shown that changing CO2 concentrations are not the determining factor the IPCC and other scientists claim.

Over the last 20 years Miskolczi achieved several results which prove that the greenhouse effect in the Earth's atmosphere is completely dependent on energy. The IPCC would have the world believe that it is the ingredients of the atmosphere which matter more than the energy, and that it is rising levels of CO2 that are causing global warming.

Working with a number of sets of temperature and humidity data from all over the world, Miskolczi has found that the greenhouse effect is a balance of energy dependent primarily on the sun. This is something reasonable people have recognized for some time but haven't been able to prove without the same sort of heavy science and math the IPCC experts have been using. Those who disagree with the IPCC's conclusions have needed some form of proof to back their positions. Until now, those proofs have been too few in number to slow Anthropogenic Global Warming's (AGW) momentum backed with billions of dollars. Solid science which can be verified and recreated has been needed and Miskolczi claims that his research has finally provided just that. New mathematical equations seem to have put the players in this climate game into their proper aces.

To put it very simply, Dr. Miskolczi has described previously unknown properties of our atmosphere.

Unfortunately it isn't as clean and easy as E=mc2. The very complexity of climate science has been used to kick sand into the eyes of the public, blinding us to alternative theories whether they are correct or not. The science is so difficult to follow that no one can refute the IPCC without discussing concepts most of the public don't have the time or desire to learn. So by default the IPCC has owned the conversation and the playing field. What's more, they have some big allies in supporting positions.

At the time of his original discovery Dr. Miskolczi was a contractor for NASA and had published many times in renowned journals with his colleagues there; he resigned his position in 2005 when NASA refused to publish work contradicting AGW.

Despite being blacklisted by the scientific community supporting AGW, he has continued his research proving and refining his results. However, this same community is also the one which peer reviews work like this. When a scientist is tossed off this team, they can't get their work reviewed and pushed to the press as being "peer reviewed." Despite this handicap Miskolczi has persevered, just this month publishing yet again, this time proving with observations that the greenhouse effect is actually stable.

Miskolczi does not appear to be saying that global warming or cooling doesn't occur. Instead, he shows that CO2 does not and cannot increase the surface temperature of the Earth independently of incoming energy. In his paper he provides a graph spanning 61 years from 1948-2008. It shows that the greenhouse effect remains constant while CO2 concentrations have risen. Miskolczi has found physical proof that the greenhouse effect works differently than previously thought and it isn't affected by changes in carbon dioxide.

Lacking now is an honest scientific community's review of his work, something hard to get once you have been kicked off the team.

The American and international press have also ignored this publication. Though more articles appear daily contradicting the IPCC, this single decisive discovery, if true, completely dismantles the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Amazingly it has yet to make the front page.

For more information Dr. Miskloczi's latest paper can be found here: Ferenc Miskolczi: The stable stationary value of the earth's global average atmospheric Planck-weighted greenhouse-gas optical thickness (Energy & Environment Vol. 21 No 4, 2010 August Special Issue: Paradigms in Climate Research), and is available at Multi-Science Publishing Co., Great Britain.

Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi can be contacted at: fmiskolczi@cox.net . ==

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/the-work-of-ferenc-miskolczi-part-1/

The Work of Ferenc Miskolczi (Part 1)

Posted by jennifer, May 2nd, 2009 - under Opinion.

OUR understanding of the natural world does not progress through the straight forward accumulation of facts because most scientists tend to gravitate to the established popular consensus also known as the established paradigm.  Thomas Kuhn describes the development of scientific paradigms as comprising three stages: prescience, normal science and revolutionary science when there is a crisis in the current consensus.  When it comes to the science of climate change, we are probably already in the revolution state.  In particular there is growing concern that some of the physics underpinning the IPCC climate models may be flawed.  The work of Ferenc Miskolczi is a case in point.

Some years ago this Hungarian physicist, then working for NASA, discovered a flaw in an equation used in the current climate models  discovered a flaw in how those constructing the IPCC climate models deal with the issue of the atmosphere’s boundary conditions.  In order to progress this research Dr Miskolczi eventually resigned from NASA claiming his supervisors at NASA tried to suppress discussion and publication of his findings which have since been published in ID?JÁRÁS, The Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service.

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.

The idea that water vapour is a negative rather than positive feedback is consistent with the findings of other climate scientists undertaking independent research that is also challenging the current paradigm, for example the work of Dr Roy Spencer.

The importance of the hydrological cycle including water vapour and cloud cover, and how their impacts on the global energy budget should be modelled, have been issues for other climate scientists critical of the current paradigm including Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and Henrik Svensmark  from the Danish National Space Centre.


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

THE findings of Dr Miskolczi can be set into two groups.

First, really for the first time in the greenhouse literature, he published a global average infrared optical depth (the exact measure of the greenhouse effect) for the Earth’s atmosphere. This calculation was a distillation of all his efforts. He published his empirical estimate for tau,  , as 1.87 (a dimensionless quantity, describing the optical thickness of the atmosphere – a technical term meaning the climatologically appropriately weighted global average number of times that a statistically typical longwave photon, emitted by the earth’s warm surface, is absorbed and re-emitted on its way through the atmosphere while escaping into outer space).

The second group of Miskolczi’s findings was two new correlations of measurements. Analyzing all of the fluxes in the atmosphere in all possible relations, he noticed that, in global average, the upward emitted atmospheric infrared radiation is nearly equal to half of the surface upward longwave radiation. And, within the clear atmosphere, he also noticed that the downward radiant emittance is about the same as the atmospheric absorbed radiant flux density upwards from the land-sea surface.

These newly discovered relations surely have their theoretical explanation. But here I do not want to entangle myself in theory, explanations and interpretations of how these relations come about. I just want to stay with the simple facts.

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. This was a principled understanding of why the normalized clear-sky greenhouse factor of the Earth takes the remarkably neat value of g = 1/3 precisely. The Miskolczi relations provided an explanation of how this value represents a critical natural balance. The Earth’s greenhouse effect works dynamically to maintain the value g = 1/3 precisely. Miskolczi recognized that his relations occur in nature on any planet that has an ample ocean of water and a solar heating anywhere near that of the Earth. And, looking to the greenhouse literature, for example to the 2006 Cambridge University Press book Frontiers of Climate Modeling by Kiehl and Ramanathan, we can see that according to those authors, the earth’s clear sky normalized greenhouse factor as a strictly empirical fact is 0.334, or 1/3.

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. This effect is shown in Miskolczi’s recent presentation based on the NOAA 61 year global atmospheric database.

And finally, putting together his new findings, one can have an ultimate theoretical equation for tau, (the global average infrared optical depth) value and the  numerical solution is 1.86756093941252 … .

Now recall: in 2004, by his computer calculations on the TIGR radiosonde empirical measurements, Miskolczi found an observed estimate of 1.87. In 2007, theoretically he derived 1.8676… . And in 2009, on the NOAA 61 year global average database, he found another empirical estimate   = 1.86875. According to this 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.

Let us be clear that these results recognise that the surface climate temperature can rise or fall. Of course it can, as it is driven by changing external radiative sources. It is driven mostly by the sun, but also in smaller measure by other natural or human energy sources such as geothermal energy from the interior of the earth or industrial heat generation.

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 that increase the energy input. But it is not at all sensitive to addition of greenhouse gases such as CO2 to the atmosphere. **

Notes and Links

Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres, by Ferenc M. Miskolczi.
ID?JÁRÁS, Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service. Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40. http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

(5) No Greenhouse Effect: Water Vapor counter-balances Carbon Dioxide -  Ferenc Miskolczi

http://climatology.suite101.com/article.cfm/no-greenhouse-effect-in-semi-transparent-atmospheres

No Greenhouse Effect in Semi-transparent Atmospheres

Jun 1, 2010 John O'Sullivan

Comparison of Planets - Paul Stansifer

A peer-reviewed challenge to the greenhouse gas theory by a former NASA scientist sits unrefuted since its publication in 2007.

The scientific publication, ‘Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary Atmospheres,’ has been welcomed by skeptics of the greenhouse gas theory as a robust refutation. The paper encourages climate scientists to think again about whether the greenhouse gas (GHG) theory truly offers an explanation of Earth’s climate.

Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi is finally coming to the fore as a serious critic of the theory behind man-made global warming since he resigned from NASA due to the American space agency’s lack of scientific freedom. Indeed, no advocate of the GHG theory has yet been able to refute Miskolczi’s assertions as laid out below.

New Equation Shows Greenhouse Gas Theory has ‘over-estimation’

Hungarian scientist, Miskolczi, is an atmospheric physicist, who has devised a new equation that indicates that the classic GHG solution significantly overestimates the sensitivity of greenhouse forcing to optical depth perturbations.

Miskolczi has carefully detailed the thermodynamics of carbon dioxide (CO2) and absolute water vapor in the atmosphere and shown that they comprise an essentially constant factor, such that CO2 rises and water vapor decreases.

Water Vapor Effect Counter-balances Carbon Dioxide

Since water vapor is a more effective heat-trapping gas, Miskolczi demonstrates that increasing CO2 and decreasing water vapor might actually cool the climate, in which case climate sensitivity becomes moot.

Miskolsci tells us, “On local scale the regulatory role of the water vapor is apparent. On a global scale, however, there cannot be any direct water vapor feedback mechanism, working against the total energy balance requirement of the system.”

This is startling for advocates of the greenhouse theory of man-made global warming as it indicates that increases in atmospheric CO2 are wholly mitigated by natural forces. Thus, climatologists and policy makers who advocate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions may have been lead astray: reductions in human CO2 output may have no discernible impact on climate.

Strict Application of the Kirchhoff Law is Key

The thrust of the paper is that the sum of all radiation absorbed in the atmosphere is equal to the total internal kinetic energy of the atmosphere. That in turn is equal to the total gravitational potential energy. Kirchhoff’s Law applies to the process of atmospheric radiation in real atmospheres for emissivity and absorption.

Miskolczi insists that through studious application of the Kirchhoff law, his new equation “proves that the classic solution significantly overestimates the sensitivity of greenhouse forcing to optical depth perturbations...In the radiation scheme of Eq. (10) the runaway greenhouse effect is impossible.”

Top Atmospheric Researcher Agrees with Miskolczi

Support of the highest calibre for Miskolczi comes in the person of Hans Jelbring, who is rare among AGW critics in having a Ph.D in Climatology. Both researchers concur on the key fundamentals; the greenhouse gas theory is false and the path to understanding climate is by examining the consistently proven link between atmospheric pressure and temperature.

Miskolczi finds that, “Planets following the radiation scheme of Eq. (8) cannot change their surface temperature without changing the surface pressure (total mass of the atmosphere ).”

Increasing Momentum to Climate Skeptic Argument

It seems more scientists are looking to apply atmospheric pressure to challenge the GHG theory by considering the atmospheres of other planets. By such methods, what appears apparent is there exists no evidence supportive of the trace gas radiative heating theory.

Moreover, in the years since Miskolczi first published his peer-reviewed study, no scientist supportive of the GHG theory has yet been able to refute his challenge to the mathematics underpinning the greenhouse effect conclusions.

References:

Arrhenius. S. (1896), "On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature on the ground." The Philosophic Magazine 41, 237–276.

Jelbring, H. R. Thesis (1998), Wind Controlled Climate. Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University.

Jelbring, H.R. (2002), The "Greenhouse Effect" as a Function of Atmospheric Mass, published in 2003.

Miskolczi, F.M. (2007) "Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres," Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service; Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40.

Copyright John O'Sullivan. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

No comments:

Post a Comment