Analysis shows climate modeling fraud.. Pal Review by Journals

[GreenBean]

Now Mr. Westwall is going to claim that all the scientists in the AGU are engaged in fraud, or that only the top guys agree with this. Yet, at the their conferences, the papers present for the last decade have all said that the Earth is warming

There are roughly 90 Peer Reviewed papers from climate change skeptics. Unlike much of the leftarded "Research" they are peer reviewed not "beer" reviewed . Personally I am not sure if climate change is for real or just another libtard scam - my life experience, research Historical research and observation has taught me to take anything being promoted by the Democratic party and left wing with a grain of salt

 

[GreenBean]

Its amazing how many of these faults are done daily by climate scientists who have their heads stuck in modeling..

Are they "Errors" or could they possibly be intentionally designed to mislead ?? Given the disposition of leftarded "Researchers" to skew the numbers, alter statistics to suit their agenda and basically attempt to underhandedly alter public opinions - I tend to think many of these so called errors are intentional.

Given the level of scientific knowledge of people like you I tend to think that most of you would struggle to achieve a room temperature IQ. And then you call scientists that have worked decades in gaining the knowledge they have, frauds. Tell me, have you ever taken any science at the 200 level in college at all? What basis do you have to make the judgement you have? I bet the answer is zero.

I have a masters degree in one field and a Bachelors in another. NEITHER is relevant to meteorology. However you have totally side stepped the sum and substance of my post - credible scientists have submitted roughly 90 peer reviewed papers debunking climate change theory .... adress that if you will

 

[GreenBean]

Here - start with this one Mr. Rocket Sciientist
Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect
Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect



Conventional theory of global warming states that heating of atmosphere occurs as a result of accumulation of CO2 and CH4 in atmosphere. The writers show that rising concentration of CO2 should result in the cooling of climate. The methane accumulation has no essential effect on the Earth’s climate. Even significant releases of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime and the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Moreover, CO2 concentration increase in the atmosphere results in rising agricultural productivity and improves the conditions for reforestation. Thus, accumulation of small additional amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic activities has practically no effect on the Earth’s climate.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"An analysis that invalidates every single climate model study for the past 30 years, demonstrates that a global climate impact of CO2 emissions, if any, is presently unknowable, and that indisputably proves the scientific vacuity of the IPCC, does not reach a priority sufficient for a full review in Science Bulletin."

As I read the article and then the paper I found very egregious errors, basic errors, in how modeling is done today in climate science. As one who works with some of the models he evaluated I have to take a real hard look at how they work. The author of the paper is right on the money and his math is solid. I know PhD's who make the common errors he lists daily...

Its amazing how many of these faults are done daily by climate scientists who have their heads stuck in modeling..

A skeptic attempts to break the ‘pal review’ glass ceiling in climate modeling

Its an excellent read.. and if you have your math skills sharpened up the comments on this are awesome.... arguments both ways.. Better than any journal review by far. There are no less than about 78 PhD's who have responded to this paper over at WUWT and have given their points of view.

The paper is available at the link.
Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
NOTICE: link is a download site to a pdf which is 13.4mb.

The author is a lying liar tryong to fool people into not noticing his own incompetence. His articles are rejected by journals not because his findings are unwelcome, but because his articles use poor methods and his analysis is bad analysis. Scientific journals do not reject articles for such silly reasons. They respond with analysis of the articles, often from several sources, and explain why the methods are poor. You and your denier bloggers are such suckers.

And you would not know if the author is "right on the money, or if his math is "solid". You know nothing about climate acience or the mathematics involved in climate models. You are an even bigger fraud than the author.

If the inputs to a function are uncertain, then the output of the function will at best be equally uncertain.
In reality, every time you perform an operation on uncertain data, you increase the uncertainty.

Guess what...The author is right and you are clueless... 6 different journals equivocated his correct position but refused to publish because their "readers would not approve" ... I thought we were dealing in science not feelings..

Ah yes...the author is right, you are sure of that, and all the others are icompetent or lying. And you understand all his math, and everyone else's climate model math, too.

Seems legit, if you don't think about it.

WOW...

Not once have you even addressed the BASIC CONCEPTS of physical error or range (margin) of error. One is quantifiable the other is determined on the error found on each iteration (cycle) of the program.

If you have a program that has multiple stacks of programs (each grid cell is a program of itself) and each program has a physical error, when those programs interact the range of possible error becomes n x n1 x n2 x n3 FOR EACH CYCLE. This is why the spaghetti graphs of the alarmist predictions ALWAYS explode into unrealistic ranges and enters a physical systems range that can never be obtained.. IE; Model FAILURE

The Good Dr is correct in his paper... SO sad that you can not address the real facts of the climate alarmists pseudo-science.

Correct, I will not be hashing out the math of models with a know-nothing internet hack. If you want to debate the math, then get an education , publish papers, and go speak at universities. But that will never happen.

Guess who has addressed the math? The global scientific community, and those whondedicate their lives to these models. You know, the people you are calling liars and incompetent. Imagine the nerve...an uneducated slob who knows less than nothing about any of this, calling them liars and incompetent. You deniers are a joke. The only reason you don't feel like everyone is laughing at you is because you hide on the internet and insulate yourself with fellow idiot deniers.

This "know-nothing internet hack" has a Masters in Atmospheric Physics and is currently a doctoral candidate doing research work.

Your name calling tells me you are nothing but a paid shill who 1) Has no functional knowledge of CAGW, 2) Is incapable of even a basic understanding of the original premise, 3) AND, can not understand even the basic premise of LOG theory and in depth model operations.

I could go on, but as you say, trying to debate with a clueless Idiot is pointless...

 

[Old Rocks]

Sure, Silly Billy, sure. LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

Here - start with this one Mr. Rocket Sciientist
Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect
Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect



Conventional theory of global warming states that heating of atmosphere occurs as a result of accumulation of CO2 and CH4 in atmosphere. The writers show that rising concentration of CO2 should result in the cooling of climate. The methane accumulation has no essential effect on the Earth’s climate. Even significant releases of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime and the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Moreover, CO2 concentration increase in the atmosphere results in rising agricultural productivity and improves the conditions for reforestation. Thus, accumulation of small additional amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic activities has practically no effect on the Earth’s climate.

Now if that author has shown that, why is it not being published in the PNAS papers? After all, that only overturns more than 150 years of science concerning the physics of the absorption spectra of the GHG's?

 

[mamooth]

Here - start with this one Mr. Rocket Sciientist
Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect

Sure. Let's look at that paper.

""The conventional anthropogenic theory (backed and promoted by IPCC and other national and international organizations over the last 25 years) completely ignores the main physical phenomena of the heat transfer in the atmosphere. In particular, it assumes that the heat transfer in atmosphere occurs EXCLUSIVELY by radiation."

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Conventional theory makes no such assumption. It assumes the exact opposite. Heat transfer by convection is always included. It's what makes the Lapse Rate, which has been a bedrock part of the science since Hubert in 1931.

Your authors are engaged in a practice called "making shit up." If they're going to refute the established science, they have to start by understanding what the established science is. They don't. They start out getting things totally wrong, and move on from there.

So, you're not off to a good start with that near-fraudulent paper. I'll be charitable and assume the authors are just dopes, instead of open frauds. Point is, you had no clue why it was a stupid paper.

Given the degree of your ineptitude, you're not qualified to be in the discussion. If you've got integrity, you'll take your failure here as a signal that you need to up your game, and you'll apologize to the honest scientists that you slurred out of your ignorance.

 

[bripat9643]

Wegmans wrote a report for the Congressional investigation into Mann's hockey stick. In it he pointed out the severe inbreeding of the authors who both produce and review Paleo reconstructions used to form the IPCC position. He especially recommended that climate science reach out to statisticians for help in their methods.

That hasn't happened.

Two egregious examples are the use of a five sigma outlier tree ring in a truncated cohort of less than one hundred samples, and the upsidedown use of a sediment proxy. Both were used by Mann, both were left uncorrected to contaminate following papers by authors using Mann as a reference.

Just how useful is a proxy that can be used upsidedown? Very. Mann's non tree ring paper fell apart without its inclusion, or with it used in the proper orientation.

The difficulties in getting the rebuttal of the upsidedown Tiljander proxy published is yet another black eye for pal review in climate science.

The Hockey Stick has been validated many times over.

Climate scientists work closely with statisticians. Not sure who gavr you that bad info.

You're an idiot. The Hockey stick has been debunked time after time after time. Mann never consulted a statistician. Everything you "know" is a lie.

 

[SSDD]

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Conventional theory makes no such assumption. It assumes the exact opposite. Heat transfer by convection is always included. It's what makes the Lapse Rate, which has been a bedrock part of the science since Hubert in 1931.

Poor hairball...it seems that you just can't manage to be right about anything...ever. Here, lets check out some of the mainstream sites that explain the greenhouse hypothesis...

What Is the Greenhouse Effect?

the word convection does not appear.

An Explanation of the Greenhouse Effect

the word convection does not appear

Greenhouse_effect

Convection is mentioned in the article 3 times but in reference to the way actual greenhouses work...no reference to convection being the main pathway for energy movement from the surface to the upper atmosphere.

Greenhouse Effect: Background Material

the word convection does not appear

Department of the Environment and Energy

the word convection does not appear

Greenhouse Effect | Climate Education Modules for K-12

the word convection does not appear

The Greenhouse Effect Explained |

the word convection does not appear

Here..the IPCC itself...
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf

One mention of convection but it is in reference to precipitation...not the workings of the greenhouse hypothesis..

https://scied.ucar.edu/teaching-box/greenhouse-effect

the word convection does not appear

and I could go on and on...no mention of convection in any explanation of the greenhouse effect hypothesis...you must look to the skeptics to find mention of the fact that convection overwhelms radiation in the troposphere. So no, hairball, convection is not always included when the alarmist left is describing the greenhouse effect...in fact, I couldn't find a single honest reference to convection at its part in the movement of energy through the troposphere from any mainstream source.

Your authors are engaged in a practice called "making shit up." If they're going to refute the established science, they have to start by understanding what the established science is. They don't. They start out getting things totally wrong, and move on from there.

Maybe you could show us some mainstream sources that discuss the role of convection vs the role of radiation in the movement of energy through the troposphere...or you could simply admit that you are guilty of just making shit up.

We all already know that you will say whatever you think will support your religious belief in AGW without regard to its veracity...in short.....you are now, and always have been a bald faced liar hairball.

 

[mamooth]

Poor hairball...it seems that you just can't manage to be right about anything...ever. Here, lets check out some of the mainstream sites that explain the greenhouse hypothesis...

Let me help you out, little fascist.

The greenhouse effect is a subset of atmosphere physics. The greenhouse effect does not directly involve convection. Hence, the sources you quote are accurate.

Now, atmospheric physics as a whole _does_ involved convection. That would be why every atmospheric scientist is very familar with it, why every textbook teaches it, why every model incorporates it, why all the science includes the effects.

You tried to pull a fast one by pretending the greenhouse effect was the totally of atmospheric physics. Did you do that because you were being deliberately dishonest, or because you're a brainless cult retard?

It's not debatable that climate scientists always account for convection. Your heroes lied, and you're lying along with them.

On Missing the Point by Chilingar et al (2008)

That link has screenshots of the TOC of 3 such textbooks. They all talk about convection. That link rips apart that stupid paper in other ways. Give it up, liar. You've been busted for fraud, again.

 

[SSDD]

Poor hairball...it seems that you just can't manage to be right about anything...ever. Here, lets check out some of the mainstream sites that explain the greenhouse hypothesis...

Let me help you out, little fascist.

The greenhouse effect is a subset of atmosphere physics. The greenhouse effect does not directly involve convection. Hence, the sources you quote are accurate.


Sorry hairball...I forgot that you are quite unable to read for comprehension in addition to being a bald faced liar.

The post you were answering was speaking explicitly to the greenhouse hypothesis, and the fact that it does not take convection into consideration...

To which you made the claim that conventional theory says the exact opposite. Sorry hairball, the fact that atmospheric physics grasps convection has no bearing on the fact that the greenhouse hypothesis makes no mention of it...

And again poor hairball...fascists belong to the house of socialism so they are closely related to you while being a conservative, neither they nor any of the residents of the house of socialism bear no acquaintance with me...

 

[GreenBean]

Here - start with this one Mr. Rocket Sciientist
Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect

Sure. Let's look at that paper.

""The conventional anthropogenic theory (backed and promoted by IPCC and other national and international organizations over the last 25 years) completely ignores the main physical phenomena of the heat transfer in the atmosphere. In particular, it assumes that the heat transfer in atmosphere occurs EXCLUSIVELY by radiation."

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Conventional theory makes no such assumption. It assumes the exact opposite. Heat transfer by convection is always included. It's what makes the Lapse Rate, which has been a bedrock part of the science since Hubert in 1931.

Your authors are engaged in a practice called "making shit up." If they're going to refute the established science, they have to start by understanding what the established science is. They don't. They start out getting things totally wrong, and move on from there.

So, you're not off to a good start with that near-fraudulent paper. I'll be charitable and assume the authors are just dopes, instead of open frauds. Point is, you had no clue why it was a stupid paper.

Given the degree of your ineptitude, you're not qualified to be in the discussion. If you've got integrity, you'll take your failure here as a signal that you need to up your game, and you'll apologize to the honest scientists that you slurred out of your ignorance.

I shant delve into the merits or lack thereof for your post as I see SSDD already tore your argument to shreds. What I will comment on is your inability to follow a simple thread that was one of about 90 peer reviewed papers that oppose global warming theory posting at Old Rocks to demonstrate that his opinion that the global warming argument is settled science. So far as "Given the degree of your ineptitude, you're not qualified to be in the discussion." go fk yourself - given the ineptitude of your reply I would say you have some serious intellectual; flaws

 

[Billy_Bob]

Poor hairball...it seems that you just can't manage to be right about anything...ever. Here, lets check out some of the mainstream sites that explain the greenhouse hypothesis...

Let me help you out, little fascist.

The greenhouse effect is a subset of atmosphere physics. The greenhouse effect does not directly involve convection. Hence, the sources you quote are accurate.

Sorry hairball...I forgot that you are quite unable to read for comprehension in addition to being a bald faced liar.

The post you were answering was speaking explicitly to the greenhouse hypothesis, and the fact that it does not take convection into consideration...

To which you made the claim that conventional theory says the exact opposite. Sorry hairball, the fact that atmospheric physics grasps convection has no bearing on the fact that the greenhouse hypothesis makes no mention of it...

And again poor hairball...fascists belong to the house of socialism so they are closely related to you while being a conservative, neither they nor any of the residents of the house of socialism bear no acquaintance with me...

Bravo! Excellent post SSDD!

 

[GreenBean]

Here - start with this one Mr. Rocket Sciientist
Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect
Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect



Conventional theory of global warming states that heating of atmosphere occurs as a result of accumulation of CO2 and CH4 in atmosphere. The writers show that rising concentration of CO2 should result in the cooling of climate. The methane accumulation has no essential effect on the Earth’s climate. Even significant releases of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime and the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Moreover, CO2 concentration increase in the atmosphere results in rising agricultural productivity and improves the conditions for reforestation. Thus, accumulation of small additional amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic activities has practically no effect on the Earth’s climate.

Now if that author has shown that, why is it not being published in the PNAS papers? After all, that only overturns more than 150 years of science concerning the physics of the absorption spectra of the GHG's?

You do comprehend the diff. between theory and fact do you not ? I will not defend or attempt to debunk this work - my only purpose in posting ot was to demonstrate that the argument is far from settled amongst qualified non biased researchers ,... nobody on this forum is anywhere near the level od expertise of the papers authors

Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect

Authors:
Chilingar, G. V.;
Sorokhtin, O. G.;
Khilyuk, L.; Gorfunkel, M. V.

Affiliation:
AA(Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Rudolf W. Gunnerman Energy and Environment Laboratory, University of Southern California), AB(Institute of Oceanology of Russian Academy of Sciences), AC(Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, American Branch), AD(Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, American Branch)

 

[GreenBean]

Here's another one for one gor you to suck on
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/idso98.pdf


Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena
that reveal how Earth’s near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These
studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration could raise
the planet’s mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C. Even this modicum of warming may
never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are
intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are
enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that drives the warming. Several of these
cooling forces have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of opposite sign, to
the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a doubling of the air’s CO2 content, which suggests to me
that little net temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of CO2 in Earth’s
atmosphere. Consequently, I am skeptical of the predictions of significant CO2-induced global warming
that are being made by state-of-the-art climate models and believe that much more work on a wide
variety of research fronts will be required to properly resolve the issue.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here - start with this one Mr. Rocket Sciientist
Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect
Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect



Conventional theory of global warming states that heating of atmosphere occurs as a result of accumulation of CO2 and CH4 in atmosphere. The writers show that rising concentration of CO2 should result in the cooling of climate. The methane accumulation has no essential effect on the Earth’s climate. Even significant releases of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime and the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Moreover, CO2 concentration increase in the atmosphere results in rising agricultural productivity and improves the conditions for reforestation. Thus, accumulation of small additional amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic activities has practically no effect on the Earth’s climate.

Now if that author has shown that, why is it not being published in the PNAS papers? After all, that only overturns more than 150 years of science concerning the physics of the absorption spectra of the GHG's?

You do comprehend the diff. between theory and fact do you not ? I will not defend or attempt to debunk this work - my only purpose in posting ot was to demonstrate that the argument is far from settled amongst qualified non biased researchers ,... nobody on this forum is anywhere near the level od expertise of the papers authors

Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect

Authors:
Chilingar, G. V.;
Sorokhtin, O. G.;
Khilyuk, L.; Gorfunkel, M. V.

Affiliation:
AA(Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Rudolf W. Gunnerman Energy and Environment Laboratory, University of Southern California), AB(Institute of Oceanology of Russian Academy of Sciences), AC(Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, American Branch), AD(Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, American Branch)

This is from the American Institute of Physics, the single largest scientific society in the world.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[mamooth]

I shant delve into the merits or lack thereof for your post as I see SSDD already tore your argument to shreds

The paper lied, SSDD lied, I ripped him apart, and he's weeping uncontrollably now, just like you are. All of you deniers are my bitches, and that will never change. The sooner you understand that, the less humiliation you'll suffer.

I almost feel sorry for you. Almost. Your cult fed you a load of crap, and being that you're clearly a person of limited intelligence, you believed it all without question. So, you ran over here, ready to stick it to those dirty liberals ... and you did a face plant into a cow patty.

What I will comment on is your inability to follow a simple thread that was one of about 90 peer reviewed papers that oppose global warming theory posting at Old Rocks to demonstrate that his opinion that the global warming argument is settled science.

Yet you won't list those 90 papers, even after being asked to do so.

So, it appears you're just lying. I'll comment on that. You're lying. So why should we care what you say?

So far as "Given the degree of your ineptitude, you're not qualified to be in the discussion." go fk yourself - given the ineptitude of your reply I would say you have some serious intellectual; flaws

I understand. You're shocked by the degree of your failure. You thought you'd win, but instead you got humiliated. That hurts.

Now, you could display some integrity here, by taking the people who lied to you to task, and demanding to know why they lied to you.

But you won't. Like all your fellow cultists, you're a sort of oozy spineless creature. You're going to crawl back to your masters now, lick their boots, and beg for more lies. I've seen it before many times. All of you cultists combined couldn't muster a functioning neuron or a functioning gonad.

 

[westwall]

I shant delve into the merits or lack thereof for your post as I see SSDD already tore your argument to shreds

The paper lied, SSDD lied, I ripped him apart, and he's weeping uncontrollably now, just like you are. All of you deniers are my bitches, and that will never change. The sooner you understand that, the less humiliation you'll suffer.

I almost feel sorry for you. Almost. Your cult fed you a load of crap, and being that you're clearly a person of limited intelligence, you believed it all without question. So, you ran over here, ready to stick it to those dirty liberals ... and you did a face plant into a cow patty.

What I will comment on is your inability to follow a simple thread that was one of about 90 peer reviewed papers that oppose global warming theory posting at Old Rocks to demonstrate that his opinion that the global warming argument is settled science.

Yet you won't list those 90 papers, even after being asked to do so.

So, it appears you're just lying. I'll comment on that. You're lying. So why should we care what you say?

So far as "Given the degree of your ineptitude, you're not qualified to be in the discussion." go fk yourself - given the ineptitude of your reply I would say you have some serious intellectual; flaws

I understand. You're shocked by the degree of your failure. You thought you'd win, but instead you got humiliated. That hurts.

Now, you could display some integrity here, by taking the people who lied to you to task, and demanding to know why they lied to you.

But you won't. Like all your fellow cultists, you're a sort of oozy spineless creature. You're going to crawl back to your masters now, lick their boots, and beg for more lies. I've seen it before many times. All of you cultists combined couldn't muster a functioning neuron or a functioning gonad.

The only person you humiliate is you silly kitty. You are so far out of your depth it is painful to watch. Best for you to crawl under your rock and hide.

 

[mamooth]

Here's another one for one gor you to suck on
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/idso98.pdf

Sherwood Idso?

AHAHAHHAHAHAHA.

You're really scraping bottom here, by quoting the crazy dude as some kind of scientist.

Here's a clue, junior. When some kook types up some nonsense and puts it on the internet, that's not a "paper". And that's pretty much all you have, crazy people dumping crap on the internet.

So, Idso made some predictions in that 1998 paper.
---
Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena
that reveal how Earth’s near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These
studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration could raise
the planet’s mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C.
---

We _know_ the sensitivity is at least 2.0C, since half a doubling has raised temp by 1.0C.

Idso said < 0.4C. Reality says > 2.0C. Idso was about as wrong as it's possible to be. And you didn't know that, because you're remarkably ignorant of all the basics.

Look up Dunning-Kruger syndrome. It describes a person who is too stupid to understand how stupid he is. I'm hoping to cure your Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, by making you understand how goddamned stupid you are. I tried doing it more gently, but you're thick as a brick, hence you need to be beaten over the head regarding how goddamned stupid you are.

 

[westwall]

Here - start with this one Mr. Rocket Sciientist
Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect
Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect



Conventional theory of global warming states that heating of atmosphere occurs as a result of accumulation of CO2 and CH4 in atmosphere. The writers show that rising concentration of CO2 should result in the cooling of climate. The methane accumulation has no essential effect on the Earth’s climate. Even significant releases of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime and the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Moreover, CO2 concentration increase in the atmosphere results in rising agricultural productivity and improves the conditions for reforestation. Thus, accumulation of small additional amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic activities has practically no effect on the Earth’s climate.

Now if that author has shown that, why is it not being published in the PNAS papers? After all, that only overturns more than 150 years of science concerning the physics of the absorption spectra of the GHG's?

You do comprehend the diff. between theory and fact do you not ? I will not defend or attempt to debunk this work - my only purpose in posting ot was to demonstrate that the argument is far from settled amongst qualified non biased researchers ,... nobody on this forum is anywhere near the level od expertise of the papers authors

Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect

Authors:
Chilingar, G. V.;
Sorokhtin, O. G.;
Khilyuk, L.; Gorfunkel, M. V.

Affiliation:
AA(Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Rudolf W. Gunnerman Energy and Environment Laboratory, University of Southern California), AB(Institute of Oceanology of Russian Academy of Sciences), AC(Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, American Branch), AD(Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, American Branch)

This is from the American Institute of Physics, the single largest scientific society in the world.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Yes, and they rely on "Simple Models" to justify their BS. Simple models are for simpletons. They don't conform to reality and instead hive the desired results of the creator, they have nothing to do with science, but everything to do with science fiction. It is so bad they mention "simple models" TWICE in there puff piece. A sure sign of failure.


Like many Climate cycles

One possible Simple models

Tyndall (1)




<=Other gases

<=Simple models