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

[ReinyDays]

Which particular math would you like to see and what lie do you believe I've been telling?

You dispute Stefan-Boltzmann's Law ... (that Earth's surface temperature is proportional to the fourth root of solar irradiation) ... because you LIE ...

You have to ... because with SB we see that obliquity doesn't change irradiation, thus it doesn't change temperature ... and has NO effect on climate ... the loss or gain at any single solstice is gained and lost again 6 months later ... our annual average is the exactly same ...

Changes in eccentricity are trivial ... we can start with the fact that the Earth's orbit is less than an Earth's diameter from a perfect circle ... so using SB, we can calculate the difference between irradiation at 149,000,000 km distance and 148,988,000 km ... and don't forget to take the fourth root ... you're a natural LIAR, so you'll `want` to use the fourth power ... you're also a STUPID MOTHERFUCKER, so I'll point out that the Line of Apsis is only 15º skew from the Earth's orbit's major axis ...

=====

The only orbital thing known to change climate is perturbation ... Jupiter's gravitation force on Earth is tiny, but it's been acting on earth for over four billion years ... and we can calculate this easily with Newton's n-body gravitation equation ...

 

[EMH]

No one can separate your "questions" from your butthurt rambling, so you need to be specific about what your "questions" are.

Ahead of time, I'm going to guess that "You're just making stupid crap up" will be the correct response to the "questions".

I base that on the fact that "You're just making stupid crap up" is the correct answer to 95% of questions from deniers. Their questions usually aren't actually questions. They're big ol' lies phrased as questions.

In debate class, such a response would be considered a forfeit, not to mention grounds to question mental status...

 

[Dagosa]

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​

Doodle berry.

 

[MarathonMike]

In debate class, such a response would be considered a forfeit, not to mention grounds to question mental status...

LOL do they even have debate class anymore in schools? I'd love to see if young people can actually make cogent points without dissolving into emotional hyperbole.

 

[Dagosa]

LOL do they even have debate class anymore in schools? I'd love to see if young people can actually make cogent points without dissolving into emotional hyperbole.

Really. You’ve debated before ? You do get that just like a court trial, you need to apply a form of the scientific method to win debates like you would a trial to get consensus from the judges or a jury.Look up what the most advanced law degree is…..

 

[Crick]

You dispute Stefan-Boltzmann's Law ... (that Earth's surface temperature is proportional to the fourth root of solar irradiation) ... because you LIE ...

I have never disputed SB. So that statement is a lie.

You have to

No, I do not.

... because with SB we see that obliquity doesn't change irradiation, thus it doesn't change temperature ... and has NO effect on climate ... the loss or gain at any single solstice is gained and lost again 6 months later ... our annual average is the exactly same ...

An explanation of how obliquity changes planetary insolation

https://atmos.uw.edu/~dennis/321/321_Chapter_11_Notes.pdf

Changes in eccentricity are trivial ... we can start with the fact that the Earth's orbit is less than an Earth's diameter from a perfect circle ... so using SB, we can calculate the difference between irradiation at 149,000,000 km distance and 148,988,000 km ... and don't forget to take the fourth root ... you're a natural LIAR, so you'll `want` to use the fourth power ... you're also a STUPID MOTHERFUCKER, so I'll point out that the Line of Apsis is only 15º skew from the Earth's orbit's major axis ...

Has it occurred to you that the Earth might have some positive feedback mechanisms? You know, like CO2, water vapor and methane.

The only orbital thing known to change climate is perturbation ... Jupiter's gravitation force on Earth is tiny, but it's been acting on earth for over four billion years ... and we can calculate this easily with Newton's n-body gravitation equation ...

Years ago, Scientific American had a feature in the back called Mathematical Recreations. One of the columns was about righting a program using Newton n-body to simulate the 20 stars nearest to Earth. They had a table with positions, masses and velocities. Plug it all in and crank it up. This was on an 8 MHz 8088 with an 8087 co-processor so it could take a while. And there's a problem there with procedural coding is that when two objects get close to each other, the first object you handle can get a huge acceleration from the gravity of the other, but ends up too far away when the second items gets figgered to return the energy of that boost. So any close passes result in one of the two shooting off the screen at hyperspeed.

I really am beginning to worry about your stability here dude. Have you got some personal stressors going in RL? You are WAY more upset than a stupid internet conversation ought to make you.

 

[ReinyDays]

I have never disputed SB. So that statement is a lie.

Then recite it ... factor by factor ... what is known about the factor and how changes within the error margin effect surface temperature ... use a spreadsheet if your arithmetic is poor, or fading, a girl your age should be sharp with math, it's what girls are good at ...

You won't ... because you dispute SB ... it gives answers you don't like ...

 

[Crick]

Then recite it ... factor by factor ... what is known about the factor and how changes within the error margin effect surface temperature ... use a spreadsheet if your arithmetic is poor, or fading, a girl your age should be sharp with math, it's what girls are good at ...

You won't ... because you dispute SB ... it gives answers you don't like ...

No thanks. But if you'd like to find a post where I dispute it, I'd realy like to see that. Otherwise, I'll have to point out that you're lying.

 

[otto105]

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​

The so-called expert writes what the fuck...

In a letter to to The Age newspaper, Kininmonth wrote that "Greenhouse gases emit more radiation than they absorb and their direct impact is to cool the atmosphere. More greenhouse gases will not cause the atmosphere to warm..." This claim defies the fundamental laws of physics, critics have pointed out.

Great...there's that.

 

[otto105]

LOL do they even have debate class anymore in schools? I'd love to see if young people can actually make cogent points without dissolving into emotional hyperbole.

You mean like an old white grievance fuckups as seen every day on this board.

Especially ones that claim Democracy dies under Democrats while whining that J6 wasn't an insurrection.

 

[bripat9643]

You mean like an old white grievance fuckups as seen every day on this board.

What's an "old white grievance fuckup?"

Especially ones that claim Democracy dies under Democrats while whining that J6 wasn't an insurrection.

Both statements are true.

 

[Dagosa]

What's an "old white grievance fuckup?"


Both statements are true.

Assume everything the right says is true, you have to admit they are supremely incompetent letting your claimed old dementia riddled white guy out smart them and win an election.

All the while, an even older near 80 year old woman holds the fort that was too dangerous not only for Trump and his detail to hang around for, but even the guard units to not show up on time. I have no doubt that had things gotten any worse, Nancy would have easily been forced to take more stringent action.

You’re lucky the insurrectionists back off when they did.

Both Joe and Nancy have been kicking your ass for two years.

 

[bripat9643]

Assume everything the right says is true, you have to admit they are supremely incompetent letting your claimed old dementia riddled white guy out smart them and win an election.

All the while, an even older near 80 year old woman holds the fort that was too dangerous not only for Trump and his detail to hang around for, but even the guard units to not show up on time. I have no doubt that had things gotten any worse, Nancy would have easily been forced to take more stringent action.

You’re lucky the insurrectionists back off when they did.

Both Joe and Nancy have been kicking your ass for two years.

Nancy Pelosi is no longer speaker, moron.

 

[Dagosa]

Nancy Pelosi is no longer speaker, moron.

And Trump is no longer president bubba. What’s your point ?

 

[bripat9643]

And Trump is no longer president bubba. What’s your point ?

Where did I mention Trump?

 

[Dagosa]

Where did I mention Trump?

Did I say you did ?

 

[bripat9643]

Did I say you did ?

You brought him up, turd.

 

[Crick]

You brought him up, turd.

"Turd"? I didn't think anyone over ten used that term.

So, I hear from an earlier post that this "leading climate scientist" claimed that CO2 emitted more radiation than it absorbed. A ten year old student would understand the mistake there. But a "leading climate scientist" didn't. Makes me think this fellow isn't a leading climate scientist. Or perhaps he's an old one that has not aged well at all.

 

[mamooth]

In Kininmonth’s view, the recent warming is “probably simply the result of fluctuations in the ever-changing ocean circulation”.

And that's totally wrong, because the evidence says it's wrong.

If that theory were true, we'd see ocean temperatures dropping as the oceans transferred heat to the atmosphere.

We 've never seen that. Instead, we see the oceans warming steadily along with the atmosphere.

Thus, Kininmonth's really stupid theory is disproved.

Remember, denier cult bois, it doesn't matter how much you love your cult dogma, or how enraged you get when your crank pseudoscience is debunked. The facts say that your weirdass conspiracy theories are wrong, therefore they're wrong. You can scream and rage and cry about that, you can invoke even more butthurt political conspiracy theories, you can troll like you've never trolled before, but you'll still be just as wrong.

 

[otto105]

"Turd"? I didn't think anyone over ten used that term.

So, I hear from an earlier post that this "leading climate scientist" claimed that CO2 emitted more radiation than it absorbed. A ten year old student would understand the mistake there. But a "leading climate scientist" didn't. Makes me think this fellow isn't a leading climate scientist. Or perhaps he's an old one that has not aged well at all.

Also, he was just a meteorologist with a bloated sense of need.