CO2 Has Almost No Effect on Global Temperature, Says Leading Climate Scientist

[bripat9643]

That’s not your made up shit. you claim a few geologists denied it stooopid.
A few geologist is not an institution nit wit dufus igniramous. Show your evidence of denial.

You are so fuckling desperate.

 

[Dagosa]

You are so fuckling desperate.

You’re so fking wrong.
No evidence that an institution DENIED it.
None, zippo. You’re so stupid. You can’t even remember what you claimed. Hilarious.

 

[bripat9643]

Not giologist alone but institutions. You’re hilarious, you have none of them.

The institutions also said the continents don't move, dumbass.

 

[Dagosa]

The institutions also said the continents don't move, dumbass.

Wrong illiterate. That’s not what your reference said. There wasn’t one support of an institution one way or another.
Prove it. Just post a study conducted by a consensus number of universities dumbo. You don’t know shit. There was only a difference because they hadn’t seen enough evidence of HOW it could occur. Geesus, you can’t read can you ?
Five institutional supported evidence of continental drift. You can’t produce anything otherwise can you.

What evidence suggests that continents move? - Our Planet Today

The evidence for continental drift included the fit of the continents; the distribution of ancient fossils, rocks, and mountain ranges; and the locations of

geoscience.blog

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes I did. You can too.

Pussy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes I did. None of it is your made up shit.

So post all the things that make up the consensus already.

 

[Dagosa]

So post all the things that make up the consensus already.

Post you arse, so we can all have a good laugh.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Post you arse, so we can all have a good laugh.

You can't post the consensus? That's funny!

Any luck finding evidence for your "the sun's gravity gave Earth uranium" theory?

 

[Dagosa]

You can't post the consensus? That's funny!

Any luck finding evidence for your "the sun's gravity gave Earth uranium" theory?

Any luck spelling the word fyzicks ?
Post “consensus “, Geesus, did you ever pretend you could make sense ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Any luck spelling the word fyzicks ?
Post “consensus “, Geesus, did you every pretend you could speak English ?

So you'll be running away again? LOL!

 

[Dagosa]

So you'll be running away again? LOL!

You have yet to make a post that makes any sense. Tell us what you think potential energy is and you will be excoriated.
Of course you can’t. You are afraid aren’t you. I bet you looked it up and couldn’t even understand the explanation.

 

[jc456]

None of your made up shit is among it

and it looks like none of your made up shit is among it.

 

[Dagosa]

You can't post the consensus? That's funny!

You do know consensus is a word, and you want it posted ?
OK dumbo. “ consensus“
There you go. It’s been posted.

 

[Dagosa]

So you'll be running away again? LOL!

Running away from what ? You can’t even speak English understandably . Word it correctly so it’s understandable, and we’ll all have a good laugh. Geesus, you illegals are so much alike.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The rats are starting to abandon ship:

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/24/co2-has-almost-no-effect-on-global-temperature-says-leading-climate-scientist/​

CO2 Has Almost No Effect on Global Temperature, Says Leading Climate Scientist​

​

Forget ‘settled’ science or ‘consensus’ – that is a political construct designed to quash debate in the interests of promoting a command-and-control Net Zero agenda. One of the great drivers of continual changes in the climate is heat exchange within both the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface. Current understanding of the entire picture is limited, and it seems the opportunity has been taken to fill this gap by blaming carbon dioxide almost entirely for the recent gentle warming. A new paper on the so-called ‘greenhouse’ effect highlights the vital role played by oceans and water vapour flows. CO2 is said to have “minimal effect” on the Earth’s temperature and climate.​

​

The paper has been published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and is written by meteorologist William Kininmonth, a former consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation’s Commission for Climatology and former head of the Australian Government’s National Climate Centre. Kininmonth argues that the oceans are the “vital inertial and thermal flywheels” of the climate system. If one wants to control climate, it will be necessary to control the oceans, he argues. “Efforts to decarbonise in the hope of affecting global temperatures will be in vain,” he adds.​

​

In Kininmonth’s view, the recent warming is “probably simply the result of fluctuations in the ever-changing ocean circulation”. CO2 “must be recognised” as a very minor contributor to the observed warming, and one that is unlikely to prolong the warming trend beyond the peak generated by the natural oceanic oscillations, he notes. He explains that the main driver of global temperature is the movement of energy in water, both in the oceans and the atmosphere after evaporation.​

​

As CO₂ concentration increases from 0 to 600 parts per million (green bars), the total strength of the greenhouse effect, measured as the energy the greenhouse gases radiate to the Earth’s surface, barely changes (orange line). Source: Kininmonth 2022​

Below is the LOG of CO2, a gas in our atmosphere.

When you look at this graph there is a temperature axis and a PPM axis for CO2. When you look at 280ppm and then to 410ppm you can determine, from the two points, the expected temperature rise from the gas itself without any other forcing applied. One must remember, when doing climatic forecasting, that there are other drivers which do not stop functioning.

When we look at the global rise as a whole, we must then reduce the potential from CO2 by the other known drivers.

---

The expected temperature rise, from CO2 alone, is 2.1 deg Celsius. (280ppm to 410ppm)

To date we have seen just a 1.1 deg Fahrenheit rise in average temperatures or 0.6 deg C.

The resulting Climate sensitivity equation is then 0.3 for each 1.0 deg Celsius (expected rise) written as 0.3/1.0. Remember, we must now reduce this number by the known other drivers. 96% of all warming is not from CO2 emissions.

.3/.04 = 0.012 The Margin of error in this is +/ - 0.07. This means that the potential of CO2 emissions to warm, is well below the MOE for this trace gas in our water driven atmosphere. When we look at the overall atmospheric warming the action potential of CO2 is dampened, by empirically observed evidence.

The end result is 0.024/1. This represents CO2's portion of the warming given the expected log value.

0.024 deg C is the warming contribution to our atmosphere when the expected from CO2 alone was 2.1 deg C. When we place these numbers into context and account for other active drivers in our climatic system, CO2's ability to warm is exposed.

CO2 is not the boogie man the alarmists want you to believe it is. This is why it cannot be discerned from noise in our climatic system. The moment we learned that CO2 was being dampened and that there was no enhancement driving water vapor temperatures, the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis died a sordid death and was falsified by empirically observed evidence.

Dr Heller is correct in his assumptions that CO2 has no ability to adversely impact our atmosphere given its current makeup. That is CO2, by the numbers.

Source: CO2 - By The Numbers, Why it is Statistically Irrelevant in our Atmosphere.

 

[Crick]

The institutions also said the continents don't move, dumbass.

As did the forebearers of whoever you think you can rely on.

 

[jc456]

You do know consensus is a word, and you want it posted ?
OK dumbo. “ consensus“
There you go. It’s been posted.

Hahaha

 

[jc456]

Running away from what ? You can’t even speak English understandably . Word it correctly so it’s understandable, and we’ll all have a good laugh. Geesus, you illegals are so much alike.

Still flailing I see

 

[Crick]

Below is the LOG of CO2, a gas in our atmosphere.

View attachment 746508

When you look at this graph there is a temperature axis and a PPM axis for CO2. When you look at 280ppm and then to 410ppm you can determine, from the two points, the expected temperature rise from the gas itself without any other forcing applied. One must remember, when doing climatic forecasting, that there are other drivers which do not stop functioning.

When we look at the global rise as a whole, we must then reduce the potential from CO2 by the other known drivers.

---

The expected temperature rise, from CO2 alone, is 2.1 deg Celsius. (280ppm to 410ppm)

To date we have seen just a 1.1 deg Fahrenheit rise in average temperatures or 0.6 deg C.

The resulting Climate sensitivity equation is then 0.3 for each 1.0 deg Celsius (expected rise) written as 0.3/1.0. Remember, we must now reduce this number by the known other drivers. 96% of all warming is not from CO2 emissions.

.3/.04 = 0.012 The Margin of error in this is +/ - 0.07. This means that the potential of CO2 emissions to warm, is well below the MOE for this trace gas in our water driven atmosphere. When we look at the overall atmospheric warming the action potential of CO2 is dampened, by empirically observed evidence.

The end result is 0.024/1. This represents CO2's portion of the warming given the expected log value.

0.024 deg C is the warming contribution to our atmosphere when the expected from CO2 alone was 2.1 deg C. When we place these numbers into context and account for other active drivers in our climatic system, CO2's ability to warm is exposed.

CO2 is not the boogie man the alarmists want you to believe it is. This is why it cannot be discerned from noise in our climatic system. The moment we learned that CO2 was being dampened and that there was no enhancement driving water vapor temperatures, the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis died a sordid death and was falsified by empirically observed evidence.

Dr Heller is correct in his assumptions that CO2 has no ability to adversely impact our atmosphere given its current makeup. That is CO2, by the numbers.

Source: CO2 - By The Numbers, Why it is Statistically Irrelevant in our Atmosphere.

An article you have been shown before showing why your assertions here are incorrect.

How could global warming accelerate if CO2 is 'logarithmic'?

After publishing my experiences talking to science 'dismissives' (or 'skeptics', or whatever you'd like to call them) and then participating in the excellent Denial101x course, I was invited to join the volunteer team at SkepticalScience last year.

skepticalscience.com

 

[Billy_Bob]

An article you have been shown before showing why your assertions here are incorrect.

How could global warming accelerate if CO2 is 'logarithmic'?

After publishing my experiences talking to science 'dismissives' (or 'skeptics', or whatever you'd like to call them) and then participating in the excellent Denial101x course, I was invited to join the volunteer team at SkepticalScience last year.

skepticalscience.com

Skeptical BS.... I love the spin they put on this. Tell me how you all stopped natural variational warming and all other atmospheric components. That SKS post is downright anti science from the word go.. It goes against the well-established science of logarithmic decrease in reaction. Just wow.