After correcting basic flaws in the original equation used for calculating greenhouse gases, Miklós Zágoni has revealed that “runaway warming” is impossible.

Miklós Zágoni isn’t just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.
That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Langley Research Center.

“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.

This has been a growing trend, and one which continues to be ignored by the mainstream media. Year after year more scientists speak out against the so-called consensus, only to have their voices ignored by the same news outlets who drop everything when Al Gore speaks. The global warming consensus as it has become to be called is nothing more than a farce perpetrated by those who stand to make windfall profits once new legislation is written.

Any scientist worth his or her salt would understand that although the current “consensus” may be their best hypothesis, it is by no means an unavoidable fact. Scientific theory is a hypothesis which has been tested over and over again and produces the same results. Obviously if different results are produced, the theory does not hold true. Al Gore’s entire documentary has been shown by many scientists to be flawed, yet many continue to look upon it as the holy grail of climate change.

Recently there was a conference in New York for prominent scientists to come and speak of their skepticism of the United Nations imposed consensus. What was most alarming about the talks was not that there were so many competitive theories, it was the stories of ’scientific suppression’ by groups like NASA.

Miskolczi, who also presented his peer-reviewed findings at the conference, said he wanted to release his new research that showed “runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations,” but he claims NASA refused to allow him.

“We [fellow skeptical scientists] talked mostly of work and upcoming papers and went through the standard ritual of griping about journal editors and the ridiculous hoops we sometimes have to jump through to get papers published. But some of the guys had absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ views. Really outrageous and unethical behavior on the parts of some editors. I was shocked,” wrote conference participant Dr. William M. Briggs,

Of course most warm-mongers as I like to call them will not see any problem with the fact that editors have been blocking the release of new studies which discredit the consensus. In their minds the debate is over, yet if you ask any of them who actually held a debate on the subject they would not be able to answer. The truth is there was no real debate, and probably never will be. With the media on their side their is no reason for the IPCC to let science get in the way of their politics as they attempt to institute the first ever global tax.

In the meantime please watch this video put out by the Heartland group which discusses the numerous errors in Al Gore’s mockumentary.

Sphere: Related Content

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Features, Global Warming, Media, Politics, Taxes, Video