How Human Emissions are Restoring Vital Atmospheric CO2
Ferdinand Engelbeen, Renee Hannon, and David Burton
Post Views:76
2 thoughts on “CO2 Coalition: The Human Contribution to Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”
DMA
This paper demonstrates lots of analysis and study. It enumerates several lines of thinking that can reasonably lead to the conclusion that most of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is human caused. I don’t think any of these can be considered proof. They all must, in my opinion, be viewed as evidence to be evaluated. What this paper lacks is proper discussion of alternate interpretations, data shortcomings, or an analysis of atmospheric CO2 flows such as Dr.Ed’s and Salby’s. I remain skeptical of their conclusion.
On another line of thought: Here is a link to a video where Tom Shula falsifies the greenhouse effect hypothesis and shows a good analysis of the processes in the atmosphere that have produced the data that, even by the best, has been misinterpreted as evidence of that effect.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this work that seems to me to be valid and well reasoned. If it withstands review it should be the end of the CAGW hysteria.
This paper demonstrates lots of analysis and study. It enumerates several lines of thinking that can reasonably lead to the conclusion that most of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is human caused. I don’t think any of these can be considered proof. They all must, in my opinion, be viewed as evidence to be evaluated. What this paper lacks is proper discussion of alternate interpretations, data shortcomings, or an analysis of atmospheric CO2 flows such as Dr.Ed’s and Salby’s. I remain skeptical of their conclusion.
On another line of thought: Here is a link to a video where Tom Shula falsifies the greenhouse effect hypothesis and shows a good analysis of the processes in the atmosphere that have produced the data that, even by the best, has been misinterpreted as evidence of that effect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtvRVNIEOMM
I would appreciate your thoughts on this work that seems to me to be valid and well reasoned. If it withstands review it should be the end of the CAGW hysteria.
—
David M. Albert, PLS