Scientific proof of persistent errors in climate science dogma (if proof matters?).
Soon to be peer reviewed... if the peers will oblige...
Also available as a PDF file HERE.
From: Denis Rancourt <>
Date: Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:10 PM
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Dear Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Caspar Ammann, Rasmus Benestad, Ray Bradley, Stefan Rahmstorf, Eric Steig, David Archer, Ray Pierrehumbert, Thibault de Garidel, Jim Bouldin, and William Michael Connolley,
Dear contributors to Real Climate,
Re: A new article for your review
Please consider this new article:
"Radiation physics constraints on global warming
I believe this article contains proof of incorrect/unjustified assumptions and corresponding results published on the Real Climate web site.
I would welcome your reviews of my article for posting.
I will feature all your comments and criticisms on the same blog.
Denis Rancourt, B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D. (Physics)
Former professor and environmental researcher, University of Ottawa, Canada
Peer criticism -- REVISED version of Rancourt radiation physics paper
- Rancourt writes original version of article, HERE.
- Asks for and receives peer criticism, HERE.
- Rancourt writes significantly revised version of article, HERE.
- Asks for and receives further peer criticism about revised version, PRESENT POST.
- It appears that Rancourt's revised paper is correct: The predicted effect of CO2 is two orders of magnitude smaller than the effects of other parameters.