Why Co2 Can Not Cause Further Warming...

[Billy_Bob]

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.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/12/observations-show-ipcc-exaggerates.html

This new paper is going to leave huge mark on the alarmists.

Source

 

[SSDD]

There was enough evidence to convince all the world's scientific bodies that AGW was valid.

You will have a small win on your hands when you understand the difference between evidence and proof and how the scientific method works within the natural sciences.

Look up "falsification" for a starter. Or, the phrase "All swans are white".

No, there was enough money, not enough evidence...how many billions have been doled out so far?

 

[SSDD]

I hate to tell you this, but yes, global warming is here and it is affecting all of us. Charts and graphs and websites I don't need, the facts are right out side your bloody window, all you need is a pair of eyes. This is like the passengers on the Titanic arguing whether or not the unsinkable ship is sinking. Please.

What exactly are you seeing outside your bloody window? I look outside my window and see a world that hasn't warmed for two decades now...just the same as you see. I do agree that you are on the equivalent of the Titanic...the doomed ship you are riding on, however, is the SS CAGW....the pseudoscience has failed and the hoax is dying...nature itself is killing it with its refusal to conform to the predictions.

In your mind, how many failures should a hypothesis be allowed before it is rejected and science goes back to the fundamentals to see where they went wrong?...In science, one failure is enough...climate science is clearly not science...it is pseudoscience a hypothesis gets unlimited do overs till the money eventually dries up.

 

[Kosh]

Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2.

 

[mamooth]

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.

This new paper is going to leave huge mark on the alarmists.

Wait a sec. Deniers just told us that Lewis & Curry (2014) was the gold standard paper that was going to rewrite the science. And this paper has totally different methodology and conclusions, and it's apparently also a gold standard.

But then, these are deniers. They've never been bothered before by any of their claims contradicting each other.

As far as Harde goes, he's a retired professor with no climate science experience, and his work was so bad, he could only get in into a pay-to-publish journal.

 

[jc456]

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.

This new paper is going to leave huge mark on the alarmists.

Wait a sec. Deniers just told us that Lewis & Curry (2014) was the gold standard paper that was going to rewrite the science. And this paper has totally different methodology and conclusions, and it's apparently also a gold standard.

But then, these are deniers. They've never been bothered before by any of their claims contradicting each other.

As far as Harde goes, he's a retired professor with no climate science experience, and his work was so bad, he could only get in into a pay-to-publish journal.

And the papers are piling up causing panic in the alarmist world...WiNNiNg

 

[IanC]

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.

This new paper is going to leave huge mark on the alarmists.

Wait a sec. Deniers just told us that Lewis & Curry (2014) was the gold standard paper that was going to rewrite the science. And this paper has totally different methodology and conclusions, and it's apparently also a gold standard.

But then, these are deniers. They've never been bothered before by any of their claims contradicting each other.

As far as Harde goes, he's a retired professor with no climate science experience, and his work was so bad, he could only get in into a pay-to-publish journal.

L2014 specifically used IPCC data to get around many of the criticisms that were sure to come their way. Obviously other data could have been used that would have suggested even lower sensitivities.

I know nothing of Harde but you always seem to go for the ad hom first and ignore the idea.

 

[Crick]

Why are you referencing a pay-to-publish work from someone not qualified to do this sort of work? Harde looks to be a good physicist, particularly in photonics. But he has NO atmospheric physics history that I can see. As for being "renowned"; I could find no mention of him but a stock page at the university where he works and a few articles from the usual denier sources about this recent unverified, unreviewed claim of his re climate sensitivity. Not quite what I'd call "renowned".

 

[IanC]

Muller finally got some of the BEST papers published in the first issues of an Indian Journal years after they were released to the public. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence for work that you would think would be clamoured over.

 

[Crick]

Perhaps if they were publishing something new, rather that something that had been accepted as settled science by a huge majority of climate scientists many years ago. Most journals have a requirement for "new and original". The BEST study, good as it was, was neither.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

This new paper is going to leave huge mark on the alarmists.

Wait a sec. Deniers just told us that Lewis & Curry (2014) was the gold standard paper that was going to rewrite the science. And this paper has totally different methodology and conclusions, and it's apparently also a gold standard.

But then, these are deniers. They've never been bothered before by any of their claims contradicting each other.

As far as Harde goes, he's a retired professor with no climate science experience, and his work was so bad, he could only get in into a pay-to-publish journal.

L2014 specifically used IPCC data to get around many of the criticisms that were sure to come their way. Obviously other data could have been used that would have suggested even lower sensitivities.

I know nothing of Harde but you always seem to go for the ad hom first and ignore the idea.

Mamooth has issues with math.

I have been one of the 0.43 - 0.0 Deg C Rise folks for a long time and the empirical evidence suggests much lower is the correct path.

 

[Kosh]

Perhaps if they were publishing something new, rather that something that had been accepted as settled science by a huge majority of climate scientists many years ago. Most journals have a requirement for "new and original". The BEST study, good as it was, was neither.

Once again the AGW cult will deny this:

 

[mamooth]

Harde (2014) completely contradicts Lewis & Curry (2014). They're not just a little different. They get wildly different outcomes, and use completely different ways to get to it.

Therefore, one of them has to be totally wrong. And by denier standards, that means deliberate fraud is the only possible explanation.

Deniers, which one is the fraud? Is Harde the fraud, or are Lewis and Curry frauds? One of those teams must be fabricating data. Which one is it?

No, I don't expect a crowd as gutless as the deniers here to answer. In their twisted cult minds, anyone who disagrees with the cult's sworn enemies has to be 100% correct, even if they all directly contradict each other.

 

[jc456]

Harde (2014) completely contradicts Lewis & Curry (2014). They're not just a little different. They get wildly different outcomes, and use completely different ways to get to it.

Therefore, one of them has to be totally wrong. And by denier standards, that means deliberate fraud is the only possible explanation.

Deniers, which one is the fraud? Is Harde the fraud, or are Lewis and Curry frauds? One of those teams must be fabricating data. Which one is it?

No, I don't expect a crowd as gutless as the deniers here to answer. In their twisted cult minds, anyone who disagrees with the cult's sworn enemies has to be 100% correct, even if they all directly contradict each other.

who is Harde? I looked up the name and didn't find anything.

 

[mamooth]

who is Harde? I looked up the name and didn't find anything.

Dr. Hermann Harde is the guy Billy is now declaring to be the ultimate authority in climate science. Post #101. Good of you to confirm Harde has no previous history in climate science.

More interesting is how you effectively sang the praises of Harde, in your post #106, by declaring how papers like Harde's were going to doom those warmers. A day later, you don't even remember the guy. That's what happens when you proudly refuse to look at any science, and instead simply kneejerk out your support automatically to anyone who seems to be on your side.

 

[westwall]

Why are you referencing a pay-to-publish work from someone not qualified to do this sort of work? Harde looks to be a good physicist, particularly in photonics. But he has NO atmospheric physics history that I can see. As for being "renowned"; I could find no mention of him but a stock page at the university where he works and a few articles from the usual denier sources about this recent unverified, unreviewed claim of his re climate sensitivity. Not quite what I'd call "renowned".

Well. Those who are supposedly "in the know" wink wink, seem to get their asses handed to them every time their papers get exposed to the real world so I don't they're all that great if you ask me. I'll take someone who is competent over a name any day of the week.

 

[Old Rocks]

Idiots hanging their hats on another failed paper.

Anthony Watts has found another insignificant paper on climate sensitivity
Sou | 2:05 PM23 Comments - leave a comment


Anthony Watts has found an insignificant and wrong paper on climate sensitivity. He thinks it's significant because it claims that climate sensitivity is only 0.43°C. But what would he know?

It wasn't really Anthony Watts who found the paper. It was one of Anthony's blogging denier mates, "hockeyschtick", who he turns to when he needs to fill a space at WUWT. (WUWT article is archived here.)

This insignificant and wrong paper is in some new (insignificant?) journal that calls itself "Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change" and so far (since May 2014) has published two issues with a total of eleven papers. It has one "paper in press", which is the one that Anthony Watts likes.

paper in press is by Hermann Harde, who says he hails from Experimental Physics and Materials Science, Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg. I checked - here and archived here. It looks as if he's not a full time academic there, he's listed as "ehemalige", which Google translates as "former" and might be the same as "adjunct". It could mean he is allowed to keep his association with the university, but is no longer employed there. Perhaps someone who is familiar with universities in Germany can explain.

 

[Old Rocks]

Muller finally got some of the BEST papers published in the first issues of an Indian Journal years after they were released to the public. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence for work that you would think would be clamoured over.

Ian, when Muller first entered the fray, and stated that he was going to do a complere study on the stations, and all the records, you posted that you would accept his findings. Then, when they disagreed with what you wanted to believe, you rejected them. I am glad that you are not in the field of science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why are you referencing a pay-to-publish work from someone not qualified to do this sort of work? Harde looks to be a good physicist, particularly in photonics. But he has NO atmospheric physics history that I can see. As for being "renowned"; I could find no mention of him but a stock page at the university where he works and a few articles from the usual denier sources about this recent unverified, unreviewed claim of his re climate sensitivity. Not quite what I'd call "renowned".

Well. Those who are supposedly "in the know" wink wink, seem to get their asses handed to them every time their papers get exposed to the real world so I don't they're all that great if you ask me. I'll take someone who is competent over a name any day of the week.

Hey, ol' Walleyes, which session is your presention at the AGU going to deconstruct the whole idea of global warming? Been a number of years since I first asked that question. However, if you are a fellow of the Royal Society, as you claim, then I would find a paper with that veneable Scientific Society acceptable. Still waiting.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Idiots hanging their hats on another failed paper.

Anthony Watts has found another insignificant paper on climate sensitivity
Sou | 2:05 PM23 Comments - leave a comment


Anthony Watts has found an insignificant and wrong paper on climate sensitivity. He thinks it's significant because it claims that climate sensitivity is only 0.43°C. But what would he know?

It wasn't really Anthony Watts who found the paper. It was one of Anthony's blogging denier mates, "hockeyschtick", who he turns to when he needs to fill a space at WUWT. (WUWT article is archived here.)

This insignificant and wrong paper is in some new (insignificant?) journal that calls itself "Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change" and so far (since May 2014) has published two issues with a total of eleven papers. It has one "paper in press", which is the one that Anthony Watts likes.

paper in press is by Hermann Harde, who says he hails from Experimental Physics and Materials Science, Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg. I checked - here and archived here. It looks as if he's not a full time academic there, he's listed as "ehemalige", which Google translates as "former" and might be the same as "adjunct". It could mean he is allowed to keep his association with the university, but is no longer employed there. Perhaps someone who is familiar with universities in Germany can explain.

Old CROCK gives up his information source showing where he derives his stupidity from.. The Boys at SKS playing with broken models..... Defaming real scientists all the while holding up thief's and whores as those to follow..(Glieckish of them isn't it)

SO for the alarmists, being retired is now just one more reason to defame people who expose their lies.. You really have taken the boys from SKS lead... Ignore the science but attack the person... standard alarmist wacko crap..

How low can OldCrock go.....