Paper questions the effect of carbon on global warming

I found an interesting article about an engineer that has theorized that the effects of carbon have been applied wrong to the current climate model. If proven correct, this information will have a huge impact on future predictions. The article states that the papers are under peer review.

Here is a link
www.adelaidenow.com.au... 55674611

joannenova.com.au...


He predicts global temperatures, which have plateaued, will begin to cool significantly, beginning between 2017 and 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3C in the 2020s. Some scientists have even forecast a mini ice age in the 2030s.

One thing is for sure, we will know if he is right in the next couple of years. Should be interesting to see how the paper stands up to peer review.


Eta, this man is a former climate modeler for the Australian governments greenhouse office, so he's not unfamiliar with the subject.

This paper won't change a thing nor does any other that disproves man made global warming.

It's become that far that it starts to smell like a religion,
and we know what they want right. There is a good reason they want people to believe the scam

The further you look into it the nastier it becomes.

The war started a looong time ago.

btw. link doesn't work

link

a reply to: intergalactic fire


I'm not taking sides. I just found the article interesting.

I noticed the link and put up another one that should work.

I suppose all it takes is just a different line of reasoning that others can follow and then they will claim that as the new fact.

a reply to: Bluntone22

It's not about picking sides but rather who's in control?

In the end it doesn't really matter, this will all die out in a couple of years and a new culture will give birth.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

new culture will give birth

not if this culture gets wind of such.

I hear they are big on abortion and climate guilt.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Where is the paper?

According to this link, it appears this gentleman has some serious credentials:

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office,
...
Dr Evans is an expert in Fourier analysis and digital signal processing, with a PhD, and two Masters degrees from Stanford University in electrical engineering, a Bachelor of Engineering (for which he won the University medal), Bachelor of Science, and Masters in Applied Maths from the University of Sydney.

He is currently discussing his theories on his wife's blog now and will publish a couple of papers later. Given the number of comments he's receiving on his articles, I think this counts as his theory's peer review. I haven't looked at any of those comments, so I don't know that for sure.

But from a quick scan through one of his posts, it appears to me that he is presenting some cogent arguments.

So far he has written 9 posts.

Enjoy!

-dex

a reply to: mbkennel
This is coming from Joannenova.com.

That is a right wing blogger from Australia who is a shill for their coal industry.

This guys 'breakthrough' is no different than any of the US's right wing think tanks opinion pieces that cast doubt on AGW without actually offering any scientifically valid reasons.

It is interesting how some will take a blog like this and claim it is backed by good science.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: mbkennel
This is coming from Joannenova.com.

That is a right wing blogger from Australia who is a shill for their coal industry.

This guys 'breakthrough' is no different than any of the US's right wing think tanks opinion pieces that cast doubt on AGW without actually offering any scientifically valid reasons.

It is interesting how some will take a blog like this and claim it is backed by good science.

Yes, and in a few years you can laugh your ass off at him. Or not.

itsnotnova.wordpress.com...

Joannenova.com pushes junk science. This is an absolute fact.

It has for a long time seemed to me based on my knowledge of chemistry and physics that more carbon dioxide and water vapor in the atmosphere replacing the oxygen would translate into cooler temperatures. The water vapor that is produced in the combustion reaction would mean more clouds. I always figured that a lot of the machine generated heat that we produce would be converted to kinetic energy by generating air currents, so we would be more likely to see more energetic weather than calmer weather.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Sorry but you are wrong.

Take the time to actually research the science behind AGW and not make some blanket statement based on flawed reasoning.

a reply to: Bluntone22

But world temperatures haven't plateaued... Who told you that?

2015 May Just Be Hottest Year on Record

One for the Record Books: 2014 Officially Hottest Year

NOAA: 2013 Was Tied For The Fourth-Hottest Year On Record

And just for good measure.

10 Warmest Years on Record Globally

With 2014 in the record books, this means that 13 of the 15 hottest years on record have all occurred since 2000. Also, this marks the 38th consecutive year with global temperatures above average. In comparison, the last time we set a global record cold temperature for the year was way back in 1911.

Yea, that TOTALLY looks like a plateau to me.

a reply to: jrod

Every chemical reaction has an equilibrium point. The combustion reaction we are discussing here converts oxygen and hydrocarbons into carbon dioxide and water vapor. By the very nature of this reaction we are removing oxygen from the atmosphere and replacing it with carbon dioxide and water vapor. Clouds are made mostly of water vapor. What exactly is it that I am missing here, then?

Still doesn't change the fact: Global Warming = more habitable zones for people to live. More places to grow crops. Global Cooling: We all gonna die.

That's retarded. Heat kills, not to mention you can't grow crops with no water.

Though I think the whole carbon thing is overrated. Deforestation and covering the planet with concrete is what causes global warming, not to mention all the heat we put into the atmosphere with machines, etc.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie
You are missing out of the radiative forcing of CO2 which results in warming, aka the greenhouse effect.

Please do yourself a favor and look into college level studies on the global warming, man made climate change. This will require more than an elementary understanding of science.

WAIT A DARN MINUTE!

Deep thinkers and science wonks such as Pres Obama, Bill Nye the Science Guy AND AlGore have ALL said "the science is SETTLED...the planet is warming!"

Ya telling me they LIED!

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TheBadCabbie
You are missing out of the radiative forcing of CO2 which results in warming, aka the greenhouse effect.

Please do yourself a favor and look into college level studies on the global warming, man made climate change. This will require more than an elementary understanding of science.

Your replies to TheBadCabbie seem rather dismissive, and presume that your knowledge in this area is superior to his/hers.

Out of curiosity, and for context, what are your qualifications/experience in this branch of science?