Post by northsphinx on Jan 9, 2010 18:15:38 GMT
Back to the topic:
"According to our estimate, a CO2 doubling would rise the global average surface temperature by 0.48 K, corresponding to a global average primary greenhouse forcing of 2.53 W m–2. The detailed results are included in Table 6.
We note, that the direct estimate using the left hand side of Eq. (5):
ΔSU = (dSU / dτ )Δτ = A (Δτ / 2) OLR will give the same greenhouse forcing. For reference, our estimate is about 1.7 W m–2 (35%) less than the one published by Hansen
(Table 1 on page 12754 in Hansen et al., 1998). Hansen et al. (1998)
used the correlated k-distribution method for the optical thickness calculations which compares well with LBL results. The reason of the relatively large differences in the greenhouse forcing must be the different method of relating the changes in the total optical thickness to the changes in the fluxes."
From
"The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of
the clear-sky terrestrial radiation
Ferenc M. Miskolczi and Martin G. Mlynczak"
met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol108_No4_01.pdf
Then from
"Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary
atmospheres
Ferenc M. Miskolczi"
met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
"On global scale, however, there can not be any direct water vapor feedback mechanism, working against the total energy balance requirement of the system. Runaway greenhouse theories contradict to the energy balance equations and therefore, can not work"
and
"Considering the magnitude of the observed global average
surface temperature rise and the consequences of the new greenhouse equations, the increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must not be the reason of global warming."
Co-autor for the first document, Martin G. Mlynczak
are also involved in some very intresing research:
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=42048
and
mls.jpl.nasa.gov/library/Stratopause2006Submitted.pdf
and
www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/AGU-SABER_prt.htm
"According to our estimate, a CO2 doubling would rise the global average surface temperature by 0.48 K, corresponding to a global average primary greenhouse forcing of 2.53 W m–2. The detailed results are included in Table 6.
We note, that the direct estimate using the left hand side of Eq. (5):
ΔSU = (dSU / dτ )Δτ = A (Δτ / 2) OLR will give the same greenhouse forcing. For reference, our estimate is about 1.7 W m–2 (35%) less than the one published by Hansen
(Table 1 on page 12754 in Hansen et al., 1998). Hansen et al. (1998)
used the correlated k-distribution method for the optical thickness calculations which compares well with LBL results. The reason of the relatively large differences in the greenhouse forcing must be the different method of relating the changes in the total optical thickness to the changes in the fluxes."
From
"The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of
the clear-sky terrestrial radiation
Ferenc M. Miskolczi and Martin G. Mlynczak"
met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol108_No4_01.pdf
Then from
"Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary
atmospheres
Ferenc M. Miskolczi"
met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
"On global scale, however, there can not be any direct water vapor feedback mechanism, working against the total energy balance requirement of the system. Runaway greenhouse theories contradict to the energy balance equations and therefore, can not work"
and
"Considering the magnitude of the observed global average
surface temperature rise and the consequences of the new greenhouse equations, the increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must not be the reason of global warming."
Co-autor for the first document, Martin G. Mlynczak
are also involved in some very intresing research:
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=42048
and
mls.jpl.nasa.gov/library/Stratopause2006Submitted.pdf
and
www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/AGU-SABER_prt.htm