There are many scientifically invalid assumptions in the “greenhouse gas hypothesis” that the editors of the journal Earth System Dynamics (ESD) now insist they will never again allow to be subjected to critical analysis in future publications, as the editors of this journal are committed to only publishing studies agreeing with the “consensus.” [emphasis, links added]
In an editorial comment published in the MDPI journal Entropy responding to an editorial written by the editors of ESD, two Portuguese scientists (Khmelinskii and Woodcock, 2023) identify at least 8 assumptions in the “greenhouse gas hypothesis” that lack scientific validation.
Despite the lack of observational evidence supporting [AGW] viewpoints, proponents of the man-made global warming hypothesis prefer to dismiss and ignore challenges to what they believe is the “consensus” – the opposite of what the scientific method requires.
For brevity’s sake, only a few of the challenges are summarized below.
• CO2 can only absorb 10% of all radiation in the specific IR bands CO2 affects. CO2 “absorbs absolutely nothing at all other IR wavelengths.” Thus, CO2 has no effect on IR in 90% of absorption bands.
• CO2 can only absorb IR in the top 300 m, or 0.3 km of the surface troposphere, which is 10 km thick. Thus, CO2 can only affect 10% of the IR in 3% of the surface troposphere where climate change occurs.
• Because of its vanishingly small effects, doubling CO2 concentrations could only lead to a 0.015°C surface temperature change, at most. Understatedly, “this effect would not even be measurable.”
• Uncertainty in the Earth’s radiation balance is ±17 W/m². The estimated radiation imbalance is 0.6 W/m², which is “orders of magnitude” smaller than the uncertainty in its derivation. Thus, the “global balance of energy fluxes…cannot be derived from measured fluxes“… and this “profoundly affects our ability to understand how Earth’s climate responds to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.”
The editors at ESD do not view observational uncertainty – or questions regarding the magnitude of CO2’s effects – as worthy of critical analysis.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Super, j’adore ce siteweb, merci beaucoup..
N’oubliez pas de visiter ce blog: https://ohmondieu.ovh
Google Translate: Great, I love this website, thank you very much..
Don’t forget to visit this blog: https://ohmondieu.ovh
The blog appears to be human interest stories.
We need finally scientifically founded causal proofs, ergo proofs for the causes of the climate change! Transformations on the basis of unproven hypotheses are sacrilege to mankind.
To be fair, about 90% of the articles here are good and I recommend them on my daily reading lists on my Climate and Energy blog, with almost 92,000 page views so far this year. And then there is the rare CO2 does nothing article here, which is just as bad as any bizarre leftist claim, such as: “CO2 will kill your dog” !
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/
Appreciate the comments but all non-alarmist voices are welcome. And it is not a CO2 does nothing article. It challenges key aspects of global warming theory. I post both viewpoints and don’t subscribe to the “consensus” fiction (there’s no such thing in science). If we don’t challenge assumptions and hypotheses and theories, science would be at a standstill (like the Dark Ages). There are so many examples of “consensus science” being flipped on its head by a few determined souls pushing real science forward. From Galileo to Alfred Wegener, the scientific method challenged what 99.9% of scientists believed and turned out to be right. I’d rather see 100 challenges to a “consensus” even if only one challenge ends up being right than seeing none at all. There’s no such thing as complacency in science.
There is a 99.9% consensus that some amount of AGW exists, based on data.
There is a 59% consensus (2022 survey of scientists) that CAGW exists, or is coming.
If we climate realists want to refute AGW, or claim it is too tiny to matter, we have a HUGE job, and no data, to persuade people.
If we climate realists focus on refuting CAGW, all we have to do is to reduce the 59% consensus to a 49% consensus and then the new consensus will be anti-CAGW.
The article claims:
“doubling CO2 concentrations could only lead to a 0.015°C surface temperature change”
That is a data free conclusion, that completely rejects all lab spectroscopy measurements of the effects of CO2 not to mention a potential doubling of those CO2 effects by a water vapor positive feedback.
That is the lowest wild guessed ECS of CO2 I have ever seen in 26 years of climate science reading, and is wild speculation not supported by any lab data or atmospheric data. Just what the world need — more guesses of ECS.
The article is as close to saying CO2 does nothing as I have ever seen, and biased Mr. Richard at NTZ loves such claims. He will NEVER publish any study that claims CO2 is an important, or even semi-important, climate change variable. That’s bias, not fair and balanced reporting.
I assume this claptrap is from Mr. Richard at NTZ, who will publish ANY study that falsely claims CO2 does little or nothing to the climate, contradicting 99.9% of scientists living on our planet.
The extremely biased Richard completely disregards all spectroscopy measurements of CO2 in laboratories, with and without water vapor, compiled in the HITRAN and MODTRAN databases.
That means Richard REJECTS the work of the best “skeptic” scientists on our side, such as Richard Lindzen, William Happer, Roy Spencer and John Christy — all science Ph.D’s — every time he publishes a CO2 does nothing article.
There are far too many leftists who claim CO2 does everything and some positions of fools. conservatives who claim CO2 does nothing. Both are the extreme positions of fools who reject all evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is capable of mild effects on earth’s ability to cool itself at night. That is a moderate position based on data. Not an extreme position rejecting data, as Mr. Richard prefers.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.”
Sometimes a consensus is right and soimetimes it is wrong
The consensus that a greenhouse effect exists and that CO2 is part of it is right, has been claimed for over a century, and never disproved by any skeptic scientists on our side who works to refute CAGW but have never refuted AGW.
The 99.9% consensus on CO2 being a greenhouse gas is correct because it is supported by data. The claim that CO2 does nothing contradicts the data.
.
When 100 physicists sign a letter challenging Einstein’s theory of relativity he responded that if even one of them was right, that would be all that mattered. Consensus has no place in science.
Carbon dioxide is a powerful green house gas. At only 20 ppm it will cause 2.4 degrees of warming. At 40 ppm, another 0.6 degrees. However, this is a declining logarithmic curve. Before we get out to 420 ppm, additional carbon dioxide concentrations has a negligible impact. Empirical data supports this. One of the most compelling is that 40% of the warming blamed on man occurred between 1910 and 1941 when the carbon dioxide levels were relatively low and raising very slowly. Yet, the warming pause earlier in this century happened at a time when CO2 levels were rising rapidly.
One possible explanation that consensus is considered valid among so many commenting on climate change could be educational back grounds. In the social sciences consensus is everything. In the 1970’s I took a class for those intending to become public hearth professionals, which was outside of my major. The professor said that all of the eggheads publishing in public health journals supported universal health care. With that overwhelming consensus she said that I should support it. Consensus is often nothing more than the product of group think. With consensus so important in many areas, it is no wonder that there are those who want to apply it to climate change.
Any hypothesis that is actively protected from critical analysis is false. Therefore, the climate change/AGW consensus immune to challenge via critical analysis is bogus. Climate change/AGW/greenhouse effect lack empirical verification; they’re simply a fabricated religion.