Paper: CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas.

[I'mConvinced]

57 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

That is what the Paper is about.

No it isn't. 

From the conclusion:

Quote

This paper, similar to a previous version 14, must not, however, become a pretext for 
unlimited burning of fossil fuels. Incomplete oxidization together with heavy metal, 
aerosol and radioactivity emissions coupled with dangerous chemical reaction products 
are harmful to the health and the environment.

In fact he quite specifically states that we need to look deeper at the drivers of climate change because CO2 isn't the only problem. He is making the point that CO2 levels are already at a level where increasing amounts won't cause a runaway effect and trading certificates is a nonsense (I agree).

How does any of this paper help us understand what is going on beyond the upper absorption limit of CO2? Information that has been known for a while now.

I still don't understand your point. Are you saying there is no such thing as MMGW?

[lost_shaman]

7 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

How does any of this paper help us understand what is going on beyond the upper absorption limit of CO2?

Because it addresses that very question. Are you dense? 

[I'mConvinced]

1 minute ago, lost_shaman said:

Because it addresses that very question. Are you dense? 

No it doesn't. Please quote he part of the study that you are referring to as proof that MMGW doesn't exist.

I'll ignore the ad hominems. 

[lost_shaman]

13 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

Information that has been known for a while now.

Read the Paper. What is being said that is new is basically what you are falsely claiming the Paper doesn't do! The Paper is saying that colisions between CO2 molecules and other molecules in the Atmosphere have a significant effect on the CO2 molecules thermal profile in the Atmosphere. 

[I'mConvinced]

1 minute ago, lost_shaman said:

Read the Paper. What is being said that is new is basically what you are falsely claiming the Paper doesn't do! The Paper is saying that colisions between CO2 molecules and other molecules in the Atmosphere have a significant effect on the CO2 molecules thermal profile in the Atmosphere. 

Produce your quotes, I've read the paper. Where does it say that MMGW is not real and where does it provide this proof?

[lost_shaman]

Just now, I'mConvinced said:

Where does it say that MMGW is not real and where does it provide this proof?

Again are you dense? Quote me saying that!

[I'mConvinced]

1 hour ago, I'mConvinced said:

How is this proof of anything beyond the upper heating limit of CO2?

That is what I said and you replied:

1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

That is what the Paper is about.

I asked you to provide quotes and asked what your position was. You failed to either clarify your position or provide the quotes. Please show where this paper proves anything beyond the upper limit of CO2 heating. 

I'm trying to have a discussion, you are trying to insult and demean with ad hominems.

Edited October 30, 2017 by I'mConvinced
Auto incorrect

[lost_shaman]

8 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

Please show where this paper proves anything beyond the upper limit of CO2 heating. 

I have not said it proves anything beyond that. 

 

8 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

I'm trying to have a discussion, you are trying to insult and demean with as hominems.

You are constructing Strawman arguments!

Edited October 30, 2017 by lost_shaman

[I'mConvinced]

1 minute ago, lost_shaman said:

I have not said it proves anything beyond that. 

 

You are constructing Strawman arguments! 

Did you not look at the quote above? I asked how it proves anything beyond the upper limit of CO2 heating. Your answer was:

"That is what the Paper is about."

I said it isn't and asked you to provide quotes. Now you are saying the opposite and telling me I'm setting up a strawman?

What is your point? What is this discussion about? My stance is that MMGW is a real thing and this paper does nothing to disprove that. It might help us understand CO2's role but that is not the only driver.

[lost_shaman]

2 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

upper limit of CO2 heating. Your answer was:

"That is what the Paper is about."

Yes that is what the Paper is about! You have the problem with this FACT not me! So excuse me of your holier than thou attitude please! 

[I'mConvinced]

5 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Yes that is what the Paper is about! You have the problem with this FACT not me! So excuse me of your holier than thou attitude please! 

Considering your two statements contradict each other and you can't even provide your position for debate then I guess we're done here? 

Oh and I excuse you so don't worry about it.

[lost_shaman]

5 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

Considering your two statements contradict each other and you can't even provide your position for debate then I guess we're done here? 

I did not contradict myself you just have a reading comprehension issue. You asked how the Paper proves anything beyond an upper limit and I told that is what the Paper is attempting. Not to prove some conspiracy beyond that but to quantify the upper limit of CO2s thermal contribution, here you simply misunderstand my reply as opposed to me contradicting myself! lol! 

[I'mConvinced]

17 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

I did not contradict myself you just have a reading comprehension issue.

So lets recap:

Quote

 

I said: How is this proof of anything beyond the upper heating limit of CO2?

Your answer: That is what the Paper is about.

 

This would imply the paper contains proof and that I should read it to find out.

Quote

 

You then again quote me saying: How is this proof of anything beyond the upper heating limit of CO2?

Your answer: Because it addresses that very question. Are you dense?

 

This again implies that the paper does have proof of something beyond the upper heating limit of CO2.  You then quote me:

Quote

 

I said: Please show where this paper proves anything beyond the upper limit of CO2 heating.

You replied: I have not said it proves anything beyond that.

 

This is now a statement that the paper does not include any proof beyond the upper limit of CO2 heating and is in direct contradiction to your previous answers that this is what the paper is all about...sheesh, and you talk about my comprehension issues.

I go on to ask you the following:

Quote

 

I said: What is your point? What is this discussion about? My stance is that MMGW is a real thing and this paper does nothing to disprove that. It might help us understand CO2's role but that is not the only driver.

Your reply: You asked how the Paper proves anything beyond an upper limit and I told that is what the Paper is attempting.

 

So now the paper is attempting to prove something beyond an upper limit? Yet you go on to say:

Quote

Not to prove some conspiracy beyond that but to quantify the upper limit of CO2s thermal contribution, here you simply misunderstand my reply as opposed to me contradicting myself! lol!

So it's not trying to prove anything beyond that? I really wish you'd make up your mind.

[Doc Socks Junior]

*leans in to the microphone

Okay, it's been a very spirited discussion, but we need to keep this session on time. Please step into the hallway to continue this (now rather pointless) semantics argument or stay until the end of our session for the scheduled discussion time.

For what it's worth, there is a lot of willful obtuseness going on here. I'm convinced of that.

[seeder]

Quote

 

Record surge in atmospheric CO2 seen in 2016

Concentrations of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere surged to a record high in 2016, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

Last year's increase was 50% higher than the average of the past 10 years.

Researchers say a combination of human activities and the El Niño weather phenomenon drove CO2 to a level not seen in 800,000 years.

Scientists say this risks making global temperature targets largely unattainable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41778089

 

 

[ChrLzs]

I'm not going to claim I understand the paper.

• Which is unpublished, apparently.
• Which means it is also not peer reviewed.
• The author, F.K. Reinhart, is according to his own bio - trained in the fields of ... Materials Science, Experimental Physics, Solid State Physics.
• Which makes me wonder what experience he has in the sort of analysis involved in climate modelling.
• And which probably explains why I can find little in the way of agreement that the analysis is in any way valid.
• Although a lot of 'enthusiasts' seem to have adopted the paper as their new bible.

Me, I'll wait to see a thorough discussion by the wider climate community, *after* the paper gets published - and that discussion probably wouldn't include very many of the self-proclaimed experts posting here...

[I'mConvinced]

10 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

and that discussion probably wouldn't include very many of the self-proclaimed experts posting here...

I got an invitation to heckle from the sidelines! 

[I'mConvinced]

16 hours ago, Socks Junior said:

For what it's worth, there is a lot of willful obtuseness going on here. I'm convinced of that.

I see what you did there . 

[lost_shaman]

On 10/30/2017 at 5:16 PM, ChrLzs said:

Which is unpublished, apparently.

Which means it is also not peer reviewed.

ChrLsz doesn't know that. The Paper is obviously published by the "Swiss Federal Institute of Technology" in Lausanne, Switzerland. This school is ranked 12th in the World. Maybe ChrLzs can contact them and ask what the Publishing policies are?

 

[ChrLzs]

For heaven's sake, LS, that's a University, not a peer reviewed journal.  The guy may indeed work at that University, but your link is to a BLOG site.  NOT a journal, and not on that Uni's site.

Don't make claims about scientific publication if you don't understand what 'published' or 'peer reviewed' actually means.  Any moron can write a 'paper' and publish it on a blog or even two...

 

I'll say it again - this paper is neither published or peer reviewed, and a further quick check on Google Scholar shows it has been completely ignored and is uncited by any other paper, study or report.  It appears on just two blogs as far as I can see, and neither of those blogs screams credibility - the second is a vitriolic Climate Change Denial blog.

 

You've been had.  And that's what these folks do.

Edited November 1, 2017 by ChrLzs

[lost_shaman]

*snip*

You seem to think there is some magic to any of this and there is NOT. There is no requirement to put anything in Science in any Journal, Institutes have always published as well.  

Einstein published 4 papers in his Miracle year (1905) using his home address, he was said to be "without "institute"". 

Edited November 1, 2017 by Saru
Please do not modify the content of quotes from other members.

[lost_shaman]

22 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

You've been had.  And that's what these folks do.

The Paper was just published this year. The Author has been cited 116 times according to Google Scholar. 

[Derek Willis]

1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

You seem to think there is some magic to any of this and there is NOT. There is no requirement to put anything in Science in any Journal, Institutes have always published as well.  

Einstein published 4 papers in his Miracle year (1905) using his home address, he was said to be "without "institute"". 

Maybe Einstein did use his home address when submitting his papers to Annalen der Physik in 1905, which, by the way, was one of the most respected journals in the world. But let's not forget that peer review as we know it now did not exist a century ago. And also, let's not forget that it was Max Planck who read Einstein's papers before they were accepted for publication. At the time Planck was an associate editor, and in 1907 became the editor.

[ChrLzs]

1. LS, don't edit my quotes.

2. The cites he has as an AUTHOR (we were talking about the PAPER not the author, but I can see why you wanted to (futilely) change the goalposts) are all on papers with NOTHING to do with Climate modelling.

3.  Did you notice how those other papers mention the Journal they were published in, and how the paper you posted, DOESN'T?

 

ALL of my points are correct, namely:

This paper is neither published nor peer reviewed, not in ANY journal, let alone a credible one.

The author has no background in the topic.

The paper has not been cited by anyone.  

Edited November 1, 2017 by ChrLzs

[Doc Socks Junior]

Notwithstanding issues with the magical peer review process...

Glancing over the blog - which is self-described as a way for senior scientists to spout out off (which by the way can be a terribly dangerous game) - I see a wonderful paper on catastrophic true polar wander. Which is definite hooey. I would unhesitatingly reject it if it was offered for peer review - based on a number of blatantly incorrect statements made, etc.

If this blog is publishing that, I'd assume it's not actually interested in the quality of science it propagates. And that was from its "editor"!

Interestingly, the great "sin" of these scientists is their disagreement with the climate community. However, looking at some other publications (as it were) from the blog, they're definitely concerned about global warming - and even about the effects of CO2. At least one of them just doesn't think its the main driver.