[E. Pluribus Unum]

"But when you find an old paper which has attracted fundamental criticisms shortly after publication and has few if any technically competent current defenders, it's generally safe to assume that the critics were right."

More "consensus" science, eh?

Consensus is not science. Consensus is politics.

I contacted Dr. Essenhigh with the information that his paper had been thoroughly refuted. He was genuinely surprised to hear this.

Here is his response:

---

Dear (E. Pluribus Unum)

Very much appreciate your interest.  I didn't know that the article had been refuted.  If the "refutees" (if there is such a word) had a point it would have been a professional courtesy to have contacted me, but nothing like that has yet come my way.  In fact, since the article was published -- 6 years ago (and republished the same year, with ACS permission, in Energy and Environment [12(4), 351 – 355 (2001)] -- I've been getting comments every few weeks ever since, with some questions, but mostly approval and support.

On the matter of more, this is the Attachment, just published last year in another ACS journal, Energy and Fuels, that as a chemist you are probably familiar with.  As you will see, this is more analytical, but it comes up with essentially the same result regarding the (radiative) dominance of water over CO2, and the conclusion that anthopogenic CO2 is unlikely to be possible to have significant impact on global warming.  You will see one change between this and the original article which is setting the (average) water/CO2 absorption/emission properties to about 75-80% for water and 15-20% for CO2 compared with the (original) estimate of about 95%/5%.  The change was taking into account the very much faster drop in water with altitude compared with CO2, but it still sets water as the dominant gas.

If you have time to read it (it is rather long), I'd be interested in your comments.

Thanks again for the interest

Robert H. Essenhigh
E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion; Department of Mechanical Engineering
The Ohio State University; Columbus, OH: 43210
 
http://rclsgi.eng.ohio-state.edu/~essenhig/
http://rclsgi.eng.ohio-state.edu/~essenhig/ACE.html
http://rclsgi.eng.ohio-state.edu/~essenhig/hier.html
http://www.mecheng.ohio-state.edu/people/essenhig.html

[PeaceBeWithYou]

Ping the list please.

RealClimate.org dishonesty on display.('Mannmade science' strikes again.)

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Thanks for posting that, and the link to the newer paper.

I'll take a look.

[Excellence]

You will see one change between this and the original article which is setting the (average) water/CO2 absorption/emission properties to about 75-80% for water and 15-20% for CO2 compared with the (original) estimate of about 95%/5%.

In which of the links does he make this statement? I'm not seeing it, and in the last letter to the editor I wrote, I used the 95/5 ratio. If that's wrong, I really need to know. If we are going to successfully argue this, we need to work with the latest information so the people on the wrong (left) can't come back and say the people on the right (us) are lying. Thank you.

[AFPhys]

TREMENDOUS!

Time for me to run to Good Friday services, but I will spend a lot of time checking these sources from the good professor.

Of course, the alarmists will state “he’s been refuted”...

He hasn’t been, though... and solar scientists have been making it more and more clear that the SUN, not CO2, is responsible for the warming trend of the earth.

Eventually the UN may catch on... but they’re still in the throes of believing socialism is the best form of government, too... they’re a bit slow... as is algore.