Dailytech nonsense aside, I have not looked into Miskolczi but I see no evidence (yet) to call him a wingnut or liar or what have you, though I can say this paper will not go very far (that is, revolutionize our textbooks, flip science upside down, win a nobel, etc). At best, a known journal would have been nice.
I have read roughly the first 25 pages of the original document in detail. Most of the mathematics is rather standard textbook material, and although it looks fancy it amounts to simple energy balance equations which translate to the fact that the net solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) must equate to the outgoing longwave radiation at the TOA. In addition, the surface energy budget must close to zero after accounting for all the surface terms (i.e., convection, conduction, upwelling heat from the mantle, downward solar, downward IR, upward IR, etc, etc).
This paper also does not assume constant optical depth as iNOW puts it (see first full paragraph on pg. 22). However, I do not think this paper gives full justice to the TOA energy balance, and over emhasizes what happens at the surface. The planet does not necessarily warm on the simple basis that more longwave radiation is absorbed and emitted downward, but because the net radiation downward is greater than zero until the planet can come back to equilibrium. That is simply due to the fact that when you add CO2, the same amount of solar radiation is being absorbed, but the planet is emitting less. I tried to explain this in very much detail, but with laymen terminology in these two posts
Physics of the Greenhouse Effect Pt 1 « Climate Change
Physics of the Greenhouse Effect Pt 2 « Climate Change
There are several fatal assumptions in this paper, such as the idea that water vapor should decrease when you add CO2 (middle to end of page 23). They gave a quick paragraph on this, without any mention of the mainstream views on this subject.
Venus is an example of immediate falsification by example, which clearly had a runaway greenhouse effect. The paper says that the OLR must increase for the planet to come back to balance, but in the runaway case this happens only after the Kombayashi-Ingersoll limit (see my pt. 2) is exceeded and the oceans have evaporated. The original paper has only to say this:
"At this time the Venusian atmosphere is not included in our study. The
major problem with the Venusian atmosphere is the complete cloud cover and
the lack of knowledge of the accurate surface SW and LW fluxes."
This is pure dismissal. The Venus surface receives considerably less sunlight than Earth, and is yet much, much hotter. Not saying we know every detail about Venusian clouds, but the fact a runaway occurred on the well-known basis of CO2 does not give this paper a good start.
So far, the only way to argue for the low climate sensitivity in the paper is to introduce substantial negative feedback. This paper has not done this in any justifiable sense, and has given a sensitivity far lower than the Planck response. There is a lot more explaining to do: Cretaceous hothouse? Faint Young sun in the archaean times? Ice Ages? PETM?
