I’m no scientist so am not in a position to challenge their results but a quick google and they don’t seem to have a lot of credibility. I watched 45 mins of that video you posted and they still hadn’t got round to explain their theory, just criticism of the scientific community and something about urbanisation. This seemed a credible theory but I studied the heat island effect in A level geography so I would be very surprised if it wasn’t taken into account by modern day science.
A few opinions of their work I found:
the work of the Connolly, is so childish as to be as some one once said, of such low value as to not even be wrong! I hope their hobby is at least amusing LOL!
I note that the content you refer to was self-published in 2014 to a website created just for the purpose of presenting the researchers’ work. They invite an open ‘peer review’ process and did receive a few responses, which to my ear have a crankish sound to them. In short, this effort is not peer-reviewed.
I further note that the authors have felt it necessary to invent a ‘hitherto overlooked’ mechanism of energy transmission which they term ‘pervection’, which appears to be critical for their argument that the atmosphere is in thermodynamic equilibrium. This concept appears to have languished since 2014.
Igor Stravinsky famously declined specific criticism of the Disney treatment of his music from Rite of Spring, saying the segment did not, as an “unresisting imbecility,” merit it. It appears to me that the research community has made a comparable assessment of the work of the Drs. Connolly.
What “article”? It’s not an article, but a presentation in front of a crank group. If I remember correctly, they’ve already been explained that the balloon data they use simply does not have the temporal and locational resolution to see the expected change, so instead of getting it reviewed in credible climate-related journals, they created their own journal and ‘published’ papers in that. And apparently now go to crank groups to present that work…
RB 4: increases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has no influence at all on global temperatures.
BPL: There is so overwhelmingly much evidence to the contrary, we can be sure the authors of the said article slipped up somewhere.
Thanks for posting that link to the YouTube video where the Dr Connollys (C&C) describe their results:
. They provide evidence that supports my research into why the current climate models are unable to reproduce abrupt climate warmings such as those that initiated the Bølling-Allerød inter-stadial and at the end of the Younger Dryas.
It seems to me that the Irish doctors have shown that the greenhouse effect only operates within the boundary layer and not throughout the troposphere and above as is currently envisaged. That is what I argued last month on this forum.
However, their conclusion that because the current models are wrong then “increases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere does not influence at all on global temperatures” is a total non sequitur.
Moreover, the correct model where absorption by CO2 is restricted to the boundary layer means that its effect is driven by the Bouguer-Lambert-Beer law which results in additional warming directly related to the concentration of CO2 rather than the logarithmic relation envisaged by the current models.
The work of C&C fits with the results of Christy and Spencer (C&S) who showed that the rise in temperature in the troposphere measured by satellites was less than that predicted by the computer models. But C&C have gone further and found that there are three regions in the troposphere: boundary layer, convection layer and LTE. The ground stations show a rise in temperature in the boundary layer, and the satellites of C&S measure the change in temperature in the convective and LTE layers. These show a lesser rise as the results of C&C imply. But that shows that global temperatures are rising as a result of the increase in atmospheric CO2.
As far as C&Cs explanation of the temperature lapse rate in the stratosphere goes, I think that will have been solved already by warming from above by the absorption by oxygen of incoming solar UV radiation and cooling from below by emission of longwave radiation from ozone.
Thomas Huxley, not Feynman wrote “The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” The idea that the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is controlled by the outgoing longwave radiation from CO2 has been slain by C&C’s experiment. Occam may have stated that ‘Entities should not be multiplied without necessity’, but Einstein said: “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.” The OLR balance is controlled by outgoing shortwave radiation produced by ice sheets and clouds. They are produced by a warmer surface as CO2 concentration rises. It is an oversimplification to claim that CO2 directly controls the TOA balance.
For those wishing to make a reply to Roy Banks @4 but who consider listening to the two idgits Connolly & Connolly droaning on for half the day, the slides from their talk (all 106 of them) which presents the latest serving of their grand theory are available hear. And to whet your appetites, their grand theory concludes:-
The IPCC was wrong to conclude recent climate changes were due to greenhouse gases. Computer models they were relying on were based on flawed early 20thcentury science. “Carbon mitigation” should no longer be considered a priority.
