• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Paper Suggests AGW Theory has the Science Backwards

Lord of Planar said:
That is how the climate sciences decided to differentiate between them, ass it allows a simple clarification between the to, though not 100% technically correct. It's not quite the proper definition though. But then, what else can one expect from a science that is in it's infancy, and mostly funded to deceive?
Click to expand...

Oh... it is climate science that decided what is short and what is longwave infrared radiation. Do you have any proof of this or are you just pulling more BS out of your backside?

Lord of Planar said:
All your graph shows is the spectral relationship between two sources of thermal radiation, with atmospheric transparency added in.
Click to expand...

No. What it shows is that infrared radiation coming from the sun is considered shortwave. And what is emitted from the Earth that cools the planet is considered longwave. All that is required to get this is knowing at about what frequency the cutoff is. And that cut off is right between the two peaks of radiation in the top graph.

Lord of Planar said:
What do you think you have there?
Click to expand...

What I have here is an OP from Jack Hayes where his first comment was just outright wrong. And it was wrong because the denialist pundit he was quoting was wrong. And then you and longview decided to make fools of yourselves by trying to back up Jack and Kenneth Richard's misinformation. And now all of you are completely unable to admit you were wrong.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Anyway, we agree we disagree on the longwave energy part of this debate. Though we do know what each other is talking about, OK?

This paper says what I have been saying for how long now? That the greenhouse effect is modulated by incoming solar, that heats the surface.

You guys keep calling me bat-feces crazy, or some other derogatory term, but I do know what I am talking about. We will see more and more researchers write papers of what I tell you guys.

Who knows...

Maybe I'm one of the authors...

Would that just put you guys to shame if I was?
Click to expand...

:lamo
 
flogger said:
Wow ! I wish I was that easily impressed by an ad hom smear !:doh
Click to expand...

What? It's a very clever way to say that someone is trying to save face. "'Tis But A Scratch!" Hilarious scene from what can be a pretty annoying movie.

Did you know there's an entire wikipedia page of insulting names Trump has come up with? It has brilliant names like "Goofball Atheist Penn" to refer to Penn Jillette, who is almost unquestionably a genius by anyone's definition of that word. But millions - tens of millions, likely - will start saying "Fat Kamala" if Trump tweets it. But you zero in on "Black Knighting" and I'm going to take a wild stab and say you've seen part of the movie and it was several decades ago. Long enough to not actually understand what it's implying.
 
Mustachio said:
What? It's a very clever way to say that someone is trying to save face. "'Tis But A Scratch!" Hilarious scene from what can be a pretty annoying movie.

Did you know there's an entire wikipedia page of insulting names Trump has come up with? It has brilliant names like "Goofball Atheist Penn" to refer to Penn Jillette, who is almost unquestionably a genius by anyone's definition of that word. But millions - tens of millions, likely - will start saying "Fat Kamala" if Trump tweets it. But you zero in on "Black Knighting" and I'm going to take a wild stab and say you've seen part of the movie and it was several decades ago. Long enough to not actually understand what it's implying.
Click to expand...

Don’t mind flogger.

He’s just desperate for attention.

Feeding him just trains him to be annoying- like a stupid puppy.
 
Mustachio said:
What? It's a very clever way to say that someone is trying to save face. "'Tis But A Scratch!" Hilarious scene from what can be a pretty annoying movie.

Did you know there's an entire wikipedia page of insulting names Trump has come up with? It has brilliant names like "Goofball Atheist Penn" to refer to Penn Jillette, who is almost unquestionably a genius by anyone's definition of that word. But millions - tens of millions, likely - will start saying "Fat Kamala" if Trump tweets it. But you zero in on "Black Knighting" and I'm going to take a wild stab and say you've seen part of the movie and it was several decades ago. Long enough to not actually understand what it's implying.
Click to expand...

I'm British so why would you think I'd give a damn about what your imbecile president thinks ?
 
[h=2]New Study In Journal Of Earth Sciences: Human Activities “Not Responsible For Observed CO2 Increase”[/h]By P Gosselin on 3. July 2019
A new paper appearing in the journal Earth Sciences here authored by Hermann Harde of the Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg Germany, is stirring up more controversy among the climate science community, which generally claims humans have been responsible for rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the mid 19th century.
The opposite is true
According to Harde, it is not the added CO2 that is causing the global temperature to rise, but just opposite: “The temperature itself dominantly controls the CO2 increase. Therefore, not CO2 but primarily native impacts are responsible for any observed climate changes.”
Harde claims this is backed up by and “in agreement with all observations.”
The paper is expected to generate much opposition in a science whose claimed consensus has increasingly come under fire.
What follows below is the paper’s abstract:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes that the inclining atmospheric CO2 concentration over recent years was almost exclusively determined by anthropogenic emissions, and this increase is made responsible for the rising temperature over the Industrial Era. Due to the far reaching consequences of this assertion, in this contribution we critically scrutinize different carbon cycle models and compare them with observations. We further contrast them with an alternative concept, which also includes temperature dependent natural emission and absorption with an uptake rate scaling proportional with the CO2 concentration. We show that this approach is in agreement with all observations, and under this premise not really human activities are responsible for the observed CO2increase and the expected temperature rise in the atmosphere, but just opposite the temperature itself dominantly controls the CO2 increase. Therefore, not CO2 but primarily native impacts are responsible for any observed climate changes.”
​
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]New Study In Journal Of Earth Sciences: Human Activities “Not Responsible For Observed CO2 Increase”[/h]By P Gosselin on 3. July 2019
A new paper appearing in the journal Earth Sciences here authored by Hermann Harde of the Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg Germany, is stirring up more controversy among the climate science community, which generally claims humans have been responsible for rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the mid 19th century.
The opposite is true
According to Harde, it is not the added CO2 that is causing the global temperature to rise, but just opposite: “The temperature itself dominantly controls the CO2 increase. Therefore, not CO2 but primarily native impacts are responsible for any observed climate changes.”
Harde claims this is backed up by and “in agreement with all observations.”
The paper is expected to generate much opposition in a science whose claimed consensus has increasingly come under fire.
What follows below is the paper’s abstract:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes that the inclining atmospheric CO2 concentration over recent years was almost exclusively determined by anthropogenic emissions, and this increase is made responsible for the rising temperature over the Industrial Era. Due to the far reaching consequences of this assertion, in this contribution we critically scrutinize different carbon cycle models and compare them with observations. We further contrast them with an alternative concept, which also includes temperature dependent natural emission and absorption with an uptake rate scaling proportional with the CO2 concentration. We show that this approach is in agreement with all observations, and under this premise not really human activities are responsible for the observed CO2increase and the expected temperature rise in the atmosphere, but just opposite the temperature itself dominantly controls the CO2 increase. Therefore, not CO2 but primarily native impacts are responsible for any observed climate changes.”
​
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see how he reaches his conclusion.
 
Jack Hays said:
Some of his earlier work:

[h=3]Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming ...[/h]
[url]https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2017/9251034/
[/URL]



by H Harde - ‎2017 - ‎Cited by 4 - ‎Related articles
Nov 1, 2016 - Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming by CO2 ... Particularly cloud effects, surface temperature variations, and ...
Click to expand...
I agree with much of this,
Our investigations further indicate that a CO2 climate sensitivity larger than 1°C seems quite improbable, whereas a value of 0.6–0.8°C, depending on the considered solar anomaly, fits well with all observations of a changing solar constant, the cloud cover, and global temperature. A climate sensitivity as specified in AR5 (1.5–4.5°C) would only be possible when any solar influence could completely be excluded and the negative feedbacks further be attenuated.
Click to expand...
The numbers simply do not add up for a high amplification factor to be real.
 
*Does Surface Temperature Respond to or Determine Downwelling Longwave Radiation? [link]
 
Jack Hays said:
*Does Surface Temperature Respond to or Determine Downwelling Longwave Radiation? [link]
Click to expand...

It is the energy that is modulated by other factors. Now I open the link.
 
The abstract says what I have been saying for years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom