|there is no proof more CO2 can cause warming27-01-2016 19:29|
|Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆
|It is a hypothesis unsubstantiated by experimental data from experimentation done to Earth. Al Gore's chart is wrong. If that chart were correct, at today's 404 ppm the world would be 25 C rather than 15 C.|
Edited on 27-01-2016 19:29
"A new paper published in the Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change by renowned professor of physics and expert on spectroscopy Dr. Hermann Harde finds that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels is only about [0.6C], about 7 times less than the IPCC claims, but in line with many other published low estimates of climate sensitivity."
"Renowned professor of physics"?
German laser spectroscopist Hermann Harde doesn't even come up at all on a Google Scholar search, despite Anthony Watts calling him a "world renowned scientist"
The paper was 'published' in an Open Source pay-to-publish, non peer-reviewed vanity 'Journal' by a predator publisher - Science Online Publishing (SOP). The sort of disreputable junk "Journal" a high-school student could publish in if they paid the fees.
The publishers made the 2014 list of Predatory Publishers
List of Predatory Publishers 2014 | Scholarly Open Access
If you look up the service address of Scientific Online Publishing, you'll find it's a single family home in a residential area in Nashville Illinois. It shares the same address as a Chinese company which sells anticorrosive paint. *grin*
For a laugh, read the "Journal" FAQ:
When I looked up that 'paper' the first time in 2014 when the fake 'skeptics' were lauding it, the junk "Journal" only had 11 papers of really poor quality. It doesn't seem to have many more now.
The only people who even mentioned that paper were junkscience conspiracy blogs like The Hockeyschtick and Watts Up With That, although one poster on Judith Curry's skeptic blog wrote:
"It's always entertaining to see a hobbyist dabble in applying math to something entirely outside his field of understanding and try to force it all to work from first principles without the necessary background study.
Harde's paper is a bit like watching someone apply the principles of Latin grammar to Mandarin, and with similar results.
While a rigorous approach of this type is laudable, it's also worth noting that this work has been done before, for decades, by others just as good at math, only with actual experiments and measurement, not just a preconceived notion and confirmation bias.
Though the colored diagrams charting the progress of confirmation bias as study after study by those who just can't stand the idea of Climate Sensitivity shows their increasing desperation to deny it.. that's of interest. To sociologists. I suppose. Maybe Lewandowsky can make something of it?"
Edited on 11-02-2016 13:10
|There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2||40||20-11-2019 11:11|
|Poulation controll revisited - CO2 compensation through population control||8||14-11-2019 23:28|
|Is it not true that brains shrink due to increase in CO2 displacing O2?||2||08-11-2019 18:45|
|Next year will the first year since lord knows when CO2 is more than 400 ppm all year at Moana Loa||3||05-11-2019 18:15|
|Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)||169||03-11-2019 19:37|