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

[Lesh]

Europeans increasingly burning trees for energy after green policies, Russian war, leave countries hobbled

Suspiciously, I don't see any more loud endorsements in the media about what a great leader Merkel was. No big promotion on the most recent biography on her life and leadership qualities. It's the Twilight Zone in Western media. A full court press on Trump for promoting energy and economic...

www.usmessageboard.com

Stumpy’s worried he’s gonna end up in a fireplace

 

[cnm]

You really ought to read the links you provide

This bit?

The study examined infections in New York and California last summer and fall and found people who were both vaccinated and had survived a prior bout of COVID-19 had the most protection.​

 

[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​

Ha ha
You didn’t read your own article . He’s totally on board with AGW but feels it’s difficult to address for ocean temps as water is denser and harder to shift then air and land. , Geesus, idiot we all knew that.

 

[bripat9643]

Ha ha
You didn’t read your own article . He’s totally on board with AGW but feels it’s difficult to address for ocean temps as water is denser and harder to shift then air and land. , Geesus, idiot we all knew that.

That isn't what he said, numskull.

 

[Dagosa]

That isn't what he said, numskull.

I wouldn’t call me a numb skull then miss spell it. Btw, that isn’t what the fraud article was saying he said. All the quotes out of context completely miss his POV

Actually read it numb skull

 

[Dagosa]

This bit?

The study examined infections in New York and California last summer and fall and found people who were both vaccinated and had survived a prior bout of COVID-19 had the most protection.​

The key word, they survived. Likely because of the vaccinations.

 

[bripat9643]

I wouldn’t call me a numb skull then miss spell it. Btw, that isn’t what the fraud article was saying he said. All the quotes out of context completely miss his POV

Actually read it numb skull

I've already had this discussion with another numskull

Definition of NUMSKULL

numskull​

noun​

num·skull​

​

variant spelling of NUMBSKULL​

​

1: a dull or stupid person : DUNCE​

2: a thick or muddled head​

Thanks for the example.

 

[bripat9643]

I wouldn’t call me a numb skull then miss spell it. Btw, that isn’t what the fraud article was saying he said. All the quotes out of context completely miss his POV

Actually read it numb skull

So you're saying he didn't say what he said?

 

[Dagosa]

bripat9643

So you're saying he didn't say what he said?

Obviously, you have no idea that not putting full quotes down is fraudulent. Figured. You just said, “ So you’re saying …..what he said. “

 

[Dagosa]

I've already had this discussion with another numskull

Definition of NUMSKULL

numskull​

noun​

num·skull​

​

variant spelling of NUMBSKULL​

​

1: a dull or stupid person : DUNCE​

2: a thick or muddled head​

Thanks for the example.

Thank goodness for the internet. Even a numb skull like you can hide your ineptitude.

 

[miketx]

I've already had this discussion with another numskull

No, I just asked if you meant

 

[bripat9643]

bripat9643

Obviously, you have no idea that not putting full quotes down is fraudulent. Figured. You just said, “ So you’re saying …..what he said. “

I'm paraphrasing, numskull.

 

[bripat9643]

Thank goodness for the internet. Even a numb skull like you can hide your ineptitude.

I'm not the one who claimed "NUMSKULL" was a misspelling.

 

[Dagosa]

I'm not the one who claimed "NUMSKULL" was a misspelling.

Numskull was ALWAYS a misspelling till a segment on the net allowed capitulated to you numb skulls. and short hand texting. Now, fk u is legal too. So fk u.

 

[bripat9643]

Numskull was ALWAYS a misspelling till a segment on the net capitulated to you numb skulls. The same with using ” less” vs “ fewer”.

It doesn't matter how it got that way. I simply referred you to the dictionary, moron. Argue with Webster's about it.

 

[Dagosa]

It doesn't matter how it got that way. I simply referred you to the dictionary, moron. Argue with Webster's about it.

Fine. I’ll bring that up at the next time I see that M Fr numb skull, Webster.

 

[miketx]

Fine. I’ll bring that up at the next time I see that M Fr numb skull, Webster.

You wanna see a numskull look in the mirror.

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[Crick]

The rats are starting to abandon ship:

What rats are abandoning what ship? Kininmouth was a doubter from the get go. He retired from active work 25 years ago and so is not a young man. The number of climate scientists who accept AGW is very, very close to the number of climate scientists. There has been NO movement away from the theory.

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​

Kininmouth is not a leading climate scientist. He was a bit of a name in Australian meteorology in the 90s.

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.​

That is incorrect. Consensus among experts is how what is accepted science or widely accepted science or settled science is determined.

One of the great drivers of continual changes in the climate is heat exchange within both the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface.​

Please explain how an exchange within the Earth system can warm the Earth?

Current understanding of the entire picture is limited​

It will never be perfect or omniscient but more than enough is known to thoroughly support AGW.

, and it seems the opportunity has been taken to fill this gap by blaming carbon dioxide almost entirely for the recent gentle warming.​

The evidence was overwhelming when AR4 came out. AR6 now states it is an established fact. I think that's as high as certainty gets.

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.​

A paper which underwent ZERO peer review and was published solely by the GWPF, an organization that lost its charitable status due to its complete lack of impartiality. The organization's "stated aims are to challenge what it calls 'extremely damaging and harmful policies' envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming". --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

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​

In 1990, 33 years ago.

and former head of the Australian Government’s National Climate Centre.​

Till 1998, 25 years ago.

Kininmonth argues that the oceans are the “vital inertial and thermal flywheels” of the climate system.​

Care to explain what that means? And would you care, once more, to explain how exchanges INSIDE the Earth system can cause the entire Earth system to warm?

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.​

Let's skip the Daily Skeptic article and go straight to Kininmouth's paper. It may be found at https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2022/09/Kininmonth-Greenhouse-Effect.pdf

Speaking of links, this paper includes NO citations. He does not base or support any of his contentions with the work of other scientists or even with his own work from other studies. The only addendum to the core document is a set of five notes explaining concepts in his text with which he thought his readership might have trouble.

As I have found common in denier articles, Dr Kininmouth makes a number of accusations against the IPCC and his 'colleagues' in the climate science field without once ever providing supporting evidence either by description or link. For instance, he claims that 1) The IPCC assumes that the Earth was in radiative balance prior to industrialization 2) The IPCC overlooks the fact that the Earth is a sphere and that solar radiation absorption and emission vary by latitude 3) The IPCC's claim that CO2 has warmed the atmosphere which has warmed the oceans must be false because, at least in the tropics, the atmosphere is cooler than the sea surface.

One of Kininmouth's key datasets were the values in Wm^-2 he provided for increased radiative forcing from increased levels of CO2. His numbers look like this:

So he is claiming that raising CO2 levels from 200 ppm to 400 ppm would raise radiative forcing by 1.25 Wm^-2 for a 200 ppm increase in CO2. He claimed that these numbers came from MODTRAN. When I went looking, I found this:

NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Laboratory - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)

The Global Monitoring Laboratory conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.

gml.noaa.gov

Radiative forcing from all greenhouse gases has increased from 1.7 Wm^-2 in 1979, when CO2 was 337 ppm to 3.2 Wm^-2 in 2021 when CO2 was 415. That's an increase of 2.9 Wm^-2 for all GHGs and 1.08 wm^-2 just from CO2 in response to a 78 ppm increase in CO2


And although there were a good dozen other points Kininmouth attempted to make that I would question, let us jump directly to his conclusion. Mind you, he is attempting to refute the Greenhouse Effect. Here is his conclusion:

The characteristics of recent climate change and its cause are clear. The tropical oceans have warmed, not as a result of additional atmospheric carbon dioxide but most likely because of a reduction in the transport of heat, as ocean currents slow. The warmer tropical oceans have raised the temperature of the tropical atmosphere in turn, in particular through the medium of deep equatorial convection clouds. Additional energy flowing from the warmer tropical oceans has been transported by the winds to enhance polar warming, especially in the winter months.

1) Ocean currents, specifically the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current (AMOC) is slowing down BECAUSE of global warming. Supporting studies are numerous. So he's gotten the cart before the horse.
2) Changing the speed of currents has no more effect on the Earth's average temperature than does the Earth's rotation rate (from a previous thread).
3) Kininmouth claims that tropical air at high altitudes (those "deep equatorial convection clouds") moves towards the poles. Unfortunately, the US Weather Service says" The air that rises at the equator does not flow directly to the poles."Prevailing Winds.
4) So, his claim is that the slowing currents (which he never explains) allow a heat build up in the tropical oceans. Small problem with that:

Thermal energy is not building up in tropical waters. It is building up about 40 degrees north and south latitude.


This man's claims are right up there with Trump's voter fraud claims: complete horse shit.

 

[JustAGuy1]

A weather man is not a "leading climate scientist".

Not by a long shot

Tell me, what is heavier, CO2 or O2?