• 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!

There is no climate crisis says a new study published in the International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences.

Havana Moon

New member
Joined
Nov 26, 2021
Messages
10
Reaction score
13
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
There is no climate crisis says a new study published in the International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences.

The study Citation:

David Coe, Walter Fabinski, Gerhard Wiegleb, The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures, International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. Vol. 5, No. 2, 2021, pp. 29-40. doi: 10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12.

You can read the abstract and download the complete paper here. http://www.ijaos.org/article/298/10....os.20210502.12

From the paper: “It has long been accepted that the ‘greenhouse effect’, where the atmosphere readily transmits short wavelength incoming solar radiation but selectively absorbs long wavelength outgoing radiation emitted by the earth, is responsible for warming the earth from the 255°K effective earth temperature, without atmospheric warming, to the current average temperature of 288°K.” Of the 33°K warming, the authors conclude that water vapor (H2O) is responsible for 29.4°K , with carbon dioxide (CO2) contributing 3.3°K, and methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) combined just 0.3°K. This result, the authors say, strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in Earth’s temperature and that increases in CH4 and N2O will have a very little discernable impact. A four-fold increase in CO2 concentrations to 1,600 ppm will increase temperatures by 1°C and it would take around 800 hundred years to reach that point at the current rate of CO2 level increases.

The authors conclude:

“There is, and never can be, a tipping point. As the concentrations of greenhouse gases increase, the temperature sensitivity to those increases becomes smaller and smaller. The Earth’s atmosphere is a near perfect example of a stable system.”

“The atmosphere, mainly due to the beneficial characteristics and impact of H2O absorption spectra, proves to be a highly stable moderator of global temperatures. There is no impending climate emergency and CO2 is not the control parameter of global temperatures, that accolade falls to H2O. CO2 is simply the supporter of life on this planet as a result of the miracle of photosynthesis.”

Bottom line: This study, and other studies, show that carbon dioxide has an insignificant effect on global temperature. Therefore all efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and achieve “net-zero” will not stop climate change and are just very expensive and futile exercises.

 
Bottom line: This study, and other studies, show that carbon dioxide has an insignificant effect on global temperature. Therefore all efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and achieve “net-zero” will not stop climate change and are just very expensive and futile exercises.
And other studies show the opposite. For the best picture, you should looks at what the broader body of evidence shows...unless of course that would be inconvenient.
 
There is no climate crisis says a new study published in the International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences.

The study Citation:

David Coe, Walter Fabinski, Gerhard Wiegleb, The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures, International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. Vol. 5, No. 2, 2021, pp. 29-40. doi: 10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12.

You can read the abstract and download the complete paper here. http://www.ijaos.org/article/298/10....os.20210502.12

From the paper: “It has long been accepted that the ‘greenhouse effect’, where the atmosphere readily transmits short wavelength incoming solar radiation but selectively absorbs long wavelength outgoing radiation emitted by the earth, is responsible for warming the earth from the 255°K effective earth temperature, without atmospheric warming, to the current average temperature of 288°K.” Of the 33°K warming, the authors conclude that water vapor (H2O) is responsible for 29.4°K , with carbon dioxide (CO2) contributing 3.3°K, and methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) combined just 0.3°K. This result, the authors say, strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in Earth’s temperature and that increases in CH4 and N2O will have a very little discernable impact. A four-fold increase in CO2 concentrations to 1,600 ppm will increase temperatures by 1°C and it would take around 800 hundred years to reach that point at the current rate of CO2 level increases.

The authors conclude:

“There is, and never can be, a tipping point. As the concentrations of greenhouse gases increase, the temperature sensitivity to those increases becomes smaller and smaller. The Earth’s atmosphere is a near perfect example of a stable system.”

“The atmosphere, mainly due to the beneficial characteristics and impact of H2O absorption spectra, proves to be a highly stable moderator of global temperatures. There is no impending climate emergency and CO2 is not the control parameter of global temperatures, that accolade falls to H2O. CO2 is simply the supporter of life on this planet as a result of the miracle of photosynthesis.”

Bottom line: This study, and other studies, show that carbon dioxide has an insignificant effect on global temperature. Therefore all efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and achieve “net-zero” will not stop climate change and are just very expensive and futile exercises.

Of course there isnt one. All you have to do is look at all the apocalyptic predictions of the climate kooks have made in the past 50 years that have all failed. They say the same BS over and over again and the same idiots keep falling for it.

 
And other studies show the opposite. For the best picture, you should looks at what the broader body of evidence shows...unless of course that would be inconvenient.

They would be inconvenient. Until death, the subhumans only require one study that tells them exactly what they need to hear.
 
The International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences is a publication of the Chinese - Science Publishing Group

According to two sites that rate the Impact Factor of academic publications, the IJAOS doesn't rate in the top 100 of atmospheric science journals

Top Journals in Atmospheric Science

and

Journal Rankings in Atmospheric Science
What matters is not the journal's ranking, but it's quality, is it peer reviewed, can people publish by paying the fee, ect.
This is not to say the study is invalid!
They make some interesting assumptions, about CO2, like the assumption that the CO2 portion of the 33C greenhouse effect is 3.3C.
Actual estimates range from 11% to 26% of the total, which would be from 3.6C to 8.58C, With places like NASA's GISS settling on
20 %, or 6.6C.
What is strange is that the 33C is based on the preindusterial CO2 level of 280 ppm, and it would take 8.09 doubling s of CO2,
to move between 1ppm and 280 ppm. This would make the range of total warming attributed to CO2 to be between,
3.6C/8.09 =.445C, and 8.58/8.09 = 1.06C. Does anyone find it odd that the stated forcing warming from 2XCO2, is slightly higher than
the maximum total attribution for all the CO2 since Earth had an atmosphere?
How about that the predicted equalized warming from 2XCO2, is mysteriously nearly 3 times higher
that how all the CO2 since Earth had an atmosphere contributed?
 
What matters is not the journal's ranking, but it's quality, is it peer reviewed, can people publish by paying the fee, ect.
This is not to say the study is invalid!
They make some interesting assumptions, about CO2, like the assumption that the CO2 portion of the 33C greenhouse effect is 3.3C.
Actual estimates range from 11% to 26% of the total, which would be from 3.6C to 8.58C, With places like NASA's GISS settling on
20 %, or 6.6C.
What is strange is that the 33C is based on the preindusterial CO2 level of 280 ppm, and it would take 8.09 doubling s of CO2,
to move between 1ppm and 280 ppm. This would make the range of total warming attributed to CO2 to be between,
3.6C/8.09 =.445C, and 8.58/8.09 = 1.06C. Does anyone find it odd that the stated forcing warming from 2XCO2, is slightly higher than
the maximum total attribution for all the CO2 since Earth had an atmosphere?
How about that the predicted equalized warming from 2XCO2, is mysteriously nearly 3 times higher
that how all the CO2 since Earth had an atmosphere contributed?

Your comment is incomprehensible. If you are posting from your phone, I can understand having problems with grammar and punctuation but I don't understand the points you are trying to get across to the readers - due to the issues noted.
 
Your comment is incomprehensible. If you are posting from your phone, I can understand having problems with grammar and punctuation but I don't understand the points you are trying to get across to the readers - due to the issues noted.
The first point is that perfectly valid scientific research can be published in a lessor ranked journal.
The other points relate to the study, and pointing out how the study and the IPCC for example
choose the extremes for their beginning assumptions of climate sensitivity!
 
There is no climate crisis says a new study published in the International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences.

The study Citation:

David Coe, Walter Fabinski, Gerhard Wiegleb, The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures, International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. Vol. 5, No. 2, 2021, pp. 29-40. doi: 10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12.

You can read the abstract and download the complete paper here. http://www.ijaos.org/article/298/10....os.20210502.12

From the paper: “It has long been accepted that the ‘greenhouse effect’, where the atmosphere readily transmits short wavelength incoming solar radiation but selectively absorbs long wavelength outgoing radiation emitted by the earth, is responsible for warming the earth from the 255°K effective earth temperature, without atmospheric warming, to the current average temperature of 288°K.” Of the 33°K warming, the authors conclude that water vapor (H2O) is responsible for 29.4°K , with carbon dioxide (CO2) contributing 3.3°K, and methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) combined just 0.3°K. This result, the authors say, strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in Earth’s temperature and that increases in CH4 and N2O will have a very little discernable impact. A four-fold increase in CO2 concentrations to 1,600 ppm will increase temperatures by 1°C and it would take around 800 hundred years to reach that point at the current rate of CO2 level increases.

The authors conclude:

“There is, and never can be, a tipping point. As the concentrations of greenhouse gases increase, the temperature sensitivity to those increases becomes smaller and smaller. The Earth’s atmosphere is a near perfect example of a stable system.”

“The atmosphere, mainly due to the beneficial characteristics and impact of H2O absorption spectra, proves to be a highly stable moderator of global temperatures. There is no impending climate emergency and CO2 is not the control parameter of global temperatures, that accolade falls to H2O. CO2 is simply the supporter of life on this planet as a result of the miracle of photosynthesis.”

Bottom line: This study, and other studies, show that carbon dioxide has an insignificant effect on global temperature. Therefore all efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and achieve “net-zero” will not stop climate change and are just very expensive and futile exercises.

Nice to see some actual science on this subject instead off the politicized pseudo science of the lockstep liberal crowd.
 
There is a climate crisis, says literally thousands of papers published that same month.

Yeah, but how many of them are written by what appears to be a couple of electrical engineers from ABB and the Dept of Electrical Engineering at the university of Applied Sciences?
 
Last edited:
And other studies show the opposite. For the best picture, you should looks at what the broader body of evidence shows...unless of course that would be inconvenient.

How do we go about doing that?
 
Nice to see some actual science on this subject instead off the politicized pseudo science of the lockstep liberal crowd.

What was the most compelling piece of evidence you found in the paper? And how did it definitively destroy all the science which has accumulated over the last half century saying rather the opposite?
 
How do we go about doing that?
Well, for example you could look at a work that involved a large portion of the global scientific climate community to produce, like the ICCP report. That involved a comprehensive look at data from many sources that dozens of difference scientific groups had to flesh out and agree on.
 
The first point is that perfectly valid scientific research can be published in a lessor ranked journal.

I bet you've never had to settle for a lesser ranked journal for your publications!

The other points relate to the study, and pointing out how the study and the IPCC for example
choose the extremes for their beginning assumptions of climate sensitivity!

Do they really? Do they honestly go with the absolute max in the estimate range and use that for all their calculations? Because in the AR6 they say: "The AR6 assessed best estimate is 3 C with a likely range of 2.5 C to 4 C (high confidence), compared to 1.5 C to 4.5 C in AR5, which did not provide a best estimate."

That looks a lot like they are NOT using the extreme but rather a point in the middle.
 
Well, for example you could look at a work that involved a large portion of the global scientific climate community to produce, like the ICCP report. That involved a comprehensive look at data from many sources that dozens of difference scientific groups had to flesh out and agree on.

But how many of us on here actually have the ability to understand it? And if I'm reading correctly from some of our own folks on this forum we can't (shouldn't) trust the IPCC.

How do we understand the data for ourselves?
 
I bet you've never had to settle for a lesser ranked journal for your publications!



Do they really? Do they honestly go with the absolute max in the estimate range and use that for all their calculations? Because in the AR6 they say: "The AR6 assessed best estimate is 3 C with a likely range of 2.5 C to 4 C (high confidence), compared to 1.5 C to 4.5 C in AR5, which did not provide a best estimate."

That looks a lot like they are NOT using the extreme but rather a point in the middle.
The beginning of the assumption for climate sensitivity, starts with how much forcing 2XCO2 will cause.
In the current concept a doubling of the CO2 level would cause an energy imbalance of 3.71 W m-2,
which in turn would force warming of about 1.1C, that warming would trigger the feedbacks,
that would eventually cause a total of 3C of warming.
American Chemical Society -Climate Sensitivity
ΔFCO2 = (5.35 W·m–2) ln(265/185) = 1.9 W·m–2
ΔT ≈ [0.3 K·(W·m–2)–1] (2.2 W·m–2) ≈ 0.7 K
5.35 X ln(2) =3.708, 3.708 X .3 = 1.112C
So the range of estimates for 2XCO2, is between .445C and 1.06C,
and the starting point for 2XCO2 forcing is 1.1C, the top end of the range!
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
The beginning of the assumption for climate sensitivity, starts with how much forcing 2XCO2 will cause.
In the current concept a doubling of the CO2 level would cause an energy imbalance of 3.71 W m-2,
which in turn would force warming of about 1.1C, that warming would trigger the feedbacks,
that would eventually cause a total of 3C of warming.
American Chemical Society -Climate Sensitivity

5.35 X ln(2) =3.708, 3.708 X .3 = 1.112C
So the range of estimates for 2XCO2, is between .445C and 1.06C,
and the starting point for 2XCO2 forcing is 1.1C, the top end of the range!

And you don't believe the feedbacks are real?
 
The first point is that perfectly valid scientific research can be published in a lessor ranked journal.
The other points relate to the study, and pointing out how the study and the IPCC for example
choose the extremes for their beginning assumptions of climate sensitivity!
They just rarely put out good stuff. Its like going to mankind quarterly for scientific knowledge.
 
But how many of us on here actually have the ability to understand it? And if I'm reading correctly from some of our own folks on this forum we can't (shouldn't) trust the IPCC.

How do we understand the data for ourselves?
I dont pretend i can understand advanced astrophysics so i listen to astrophysicists. Its ok to have some trust when you dont have the resources to do it yourself.
 
And you don't believe the feedbacks are real?
Not that they are not real, but that the net of the positive and negative feedbacks is near zero.
Keep in mind that the total of all of the CO2 between 1 ppm and 280 ppm, 8.09 doubling s, is thought
to be responsible for between 3.6C and 8.58C, and that includes all the feedbacks.
 
Not that they are not real, but that the net of the positive and negative feedbacks is near zero.
Keep in mind that the total of all of the CO2 between 1 ppm and 280 ppm, 8.09 doubling s, is thought
to be responsible for between 3.6C and 8.58C, and that includes all the feedbacks.

Wow. That's pretty cool. So most of the scientists on earth think that feedbacks will result in higher climate sensitivity for CO2 than you do? How did you discover their error?
 
They just rarely put out good stuff. Its like going to mankind quarterly for scientific knowledge.
It is also possible that Some of the reviewers are limiting what gets into the better journals.
Remember the quote from the climate gate emails.
“we'll keep these papers out even if we have to redefine what peer review means
 
Back
Top Bottom