Do tell.
The author of this paper resigned from NASA in order to publish it:
http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
Here’s a commentary by another physicist:
” I have read
http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
a couple of times. The conclusions are bombshells. This thread
discusses the impossibility of CO2 induced global warming.
“This figure [figure 13] shows that the Earth has a controlled
greenhouse effect with a
stable [global average flux optical depth tau] = 1.87,
[normalized greenhouse factor] = 0.33,
and the [first derivative of the atmospheric greenhouse function] =
0.185
As long as F0 [the total absorbed shortwave radiation (from the sun)]
+ P0 [total thermal energy from the planetary interior to the surface-
atmosphere system] flux term is constant and the system is in
radiative balance with a global average radiative equilibrium source
function profile, GLOBAL WARMING LOOKS IMPOSSIBLE [emphasis mine].
Long term changes in the planetary radiative balance is governed by
the F0+P0=SU(3/5+2TA/5) , OLR = SU f and F0+P0=OLR equations. The
system is locked to the [equilibrium flux optical depth] because of
the energy minimum principle prefers the radiative equilibrium
configuration ([hemispheric spectral flux optical depth] <[equilibrium
flux optical depth] ) but the energy conservation principle constrains
the available thermal energy ([equilibrium flux optical depth]>
[hemispheric spectral flux optical depth]). The problem for example
with the highly publicized simple ‘bucket analogy’ of greenhouse
effect is the ignorance of the energy minimum principle (Committee on
Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, et al., 2005).” Page 29.
By “global warming looks impossible” in the above quote, it is clear
by the context that Dr. Miskolczi means CO2 induced global warming.
The earth’s surface can get hotter if either
(1) the energy received by the earth from the sun or
(2) the total thermal energy from the earth’s interior
increase.
“For example, a hypothetical CO2 doubling will increase the optical
depth (of the global average profile) by 0.0241, and the related
increase in the surface temperature will be 0.24 K. The related change
in the OLR [Outgoing Long wave Radiation leaving the earth]
corresponds to -0.3 K cooling. This may be compared to the 0.3 K and
-1.2 K observed temperature changes of the surface and lower
stratosphere between 1979 and 2004 in Karl et al., (2006).
From the extrapolation of the ‘Keeling Curve’ the estimated increase
in the average CO2 concentration during this time period is about 22%,
(National Research Council of the National Academies, 2004). Comparing
the magnitude of the expected change in the surface temperature we
conclude, that the observed increase in the CO2 concentration must not
be the primary reason of the global warming.” Page 22.
This is physics, not opinion.
—Mike Jr”
There are other papers of a similar nature which show the physical impossibility of runaway global warming. If I find the time I will post more.
Here’s another one for you:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf
“Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 11 Sep 2007 (this version, v3))
Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.”