Lesh
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2016
- 67,321
- 33,322
- 2,300
Why?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CO2 Has Almost No Effect on Global Temperature, Says Leading Climate Scientist
- Thread starter bripat9643
- Start date
The Original Tree
Diamond Member
Satan is your noodle!Stumpy here is our "resident climate scientist"...because...Satan
- May 20, 2009
- 144,420
- 66,809
- 2,330
Amen, brother!Pretty much what I have been saying for years.
- Oct 22, 2012
- 20,463
- 5,520
- 198
Ha haI'm paraphrasing, numskull.
That post is short hand for, making up shit.
Let’s play your game….Your quote and I’m just “paraphrasing”.
”I’m …a………….numskull.“
So you admit, you’re a numb skull.
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,017
- 47,208
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #125
Bother someone else, please.Ha ha
That post is short hand for, making up shit.
Let’s play your game….Your quote and I’m just “paraphrasing”.
”I’m …a………….numskull.“
So you admit, you’re a numb skull.
Paddy! I really thought I'd given you more than enough here to think about. Any comments?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.
Kininmouth is not a leading climate scientist. He was a bit of a name in Australian meteorology in the 90s.
That is incorrect. Consensus among experts is how what is accepted science or widely accepted science or settled science is determined.
Please explain how an exchange within the Earth system can warm the Earth?
It will never be perfect or omniscient but more than enough is known to thoroughly support AGW.
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 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
In 1990, 33 years ago.
Till 1998, 25 years ago.
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?
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:
View attachment 745054
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:
View attachment 745055
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:
View attachment 745059
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.
- Oct 22, 2012
- 20,463
- 5,520
- 198
Glad to be of bother.Bother someone else, please.
BriPat, care to attempt to support your claim that "the rats are starting to abandon ship"?Paddy! I really thought I'd given you more than enough here to think about. Any comments?
How about your contention that consensus is a political construct?
How about an explanation how purely internal exchanges can alter the state of the system as a whole?
How about explaining how slowing ocean currents warms the planet as a whole?
How about Kininmouth's claim that all this warming is being driven by a slowdown in ocean currents. What does Kininmouth believe is slowing those ocean currents?
How about explaining Kininmouth's claim that ocean heat is building up at the equator when the data show it is building up at 40 degrees north and south latitude?
Anything Paddy? You're the OP on this thread Paddy. Where's your defense? Or is that six year old flipping me the bird your defense?
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,017
- 47,208
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #129
"Consensus" is a political construct. No legitimate scientists claims that consensus is a valid argument.BriPat, care to attempt to support your claim that "the rats are starting to abandon ship"?
How about your contention that consensus is a political construct?
How about an explanation how purely internal exchanges can alter the state of the system as a whole?
How about explaining how slowing ocean currents warms the planet as a whole?
How about Kininmouth's claim that all this warming is being driven by a slowdown in ocean currents. What does Kininmouth believe is slowing those ocean currents?
How about explaining Kininmouth's claim that ocean heat is building up at the equator when the data show it is building up at 40 degrees north and south latitude?
Anything Paddy? You're the OP on this thread Paddy. Where's your defense? Or is that six year old flipping me the bird your defense?
As for the rest, I will have to review the literature. You dumped a huge load of claims on me.
No legitimate scientist claims that consensus is a valid argument FOR WHAT? The people doing the consensus studies listed at"Consensus" is a political construct. No legitimate scientists claims that consensus is a valid argument.
As for the rest, I will have to review the literature. You dumped a huge load of claims on me.
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
You will have to review the literature? All of those questions come from the OP you posted and have defended for the last 129 responses. I might have thought you'd be familiar with yor own claims.
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,017
- 47,208
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #131
For any scientific issue, moron.No legitimate scientist claims that consensus is a valid argument FOR WHAT?
If they are doing "consensus studies," then they are frauds. They aren't legitimate scientists.The people doing the consensus studies listed at: Naomi Oreskes, Dennis Bray, Hans von Storch, Peter Doran, Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, James Lawrence Powell ARE scientists. The staff of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and Environmental Research Letters (ERL) who conducted studies and wrote articles about the global warming consensus ARE scientists.Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Did you actually try to use consensus to prove that Consensus is valid?
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,017
- 47,208
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #132
You're very good at it.Glad to be of bother.
For every scientific theory, a consensus is how the degree of acceptance is determinedFor any scientific issue, moron.
Besides being a completely circular argument, you are factually incorrectIf they are doing "consensus studies," then they are frauds. They aren't legitimate scientists.
Naomi Oreskes - Wikipedia
Dennis Bray - Wikipedia
Hans von Storch - Wikipedia
Peter Doran - Wikipedia
James L. Powell - Wikipedia
I am disputing your claim that "No legitimate scientists claims that consensus is a valid argument." Are you suffering short term memory loss?Did you actually try to use consensus to prove that Consensus is valid?
For every scientific theory, a consensus is how the degree of acceptance is determined
Besides being a completely circular argument, you are factually incorrect
Naomi Oreskes - Wikipedia
Dennis Bray - Wikipedia
Hans von Storch - Wikipedia
Peter Doran - Wikipedia
James L. Powell - Wikipedia
I am disputing your claim that "No legitimate scientists claims that consensus is a valid argument." Are you suffering short term memory loss?
Oreskes?
Naomi Oreskes (/əˈrɛskəs/;[1] born November 25, 1958)[2] is an American historian of science. She became Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University in 2013, after 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego.[3] She has worked on studies of geophysics, environmental issues such as global warming, and the history of science. In 2010, Oreskes co-authored Merchants of Doubt, which identified some parallels between the climate change debate and earlier public controversies,[4] notably the tobacco industry's campaign to obscure the link between smoking and serious disease.Oreskes?
Naomi Oreskes (/əˈrɛskəs/;[1] born November 25, 1958)[2] is an American historian of science. She became Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University in 2013, after 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego.[3] She has worked on studies of geophysics, environmental issues such as global warming, and the history of science. In 2010, Oreskes co-authored Merchants of Doubt, which identified some parallels between the climate change debate and earlier public controversies,[4] notably the tobacco industry's campaign to obscure the link between smoking and serious disease.
And she has been proven wrong almost as much as erlich!
I wouldn't know since you never post links, but YOU have certainly just been proven wrong.And she has been proven wrong almost as much as erlich!
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,017
- 47,208
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #138
You are using consensus to determine whether consensus is a legitimate argument in favor of a scientific theory: circular logic.For every scientific theory, a consensus is how the degree of acceptance is determined
Besides being a completely circular argument, you are factually incorrect
Naomi Oreskes - Wikipedia
Dennis Bray - Wikipedia
Hans von Storch - Wikipedia
Peter Doran - Wikipedia
James L. Powell - Wikipedia
I am disputing your claim that "No legitimate scientists claims that consensus is a valid argument." Are you suffering short term memory loss?
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,017
- 47,208
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #139
Using the history of the tobacco industry to support climate change theory identifies you as a fraud. There was compelling statistical evidence that tobacco use causes cancer. There is no such evidence in the case of climate change.Naomi Oreskes (/əˈrɛskəs/;[1] born November 25, 1958)[2] is an American historian of science. She became Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University in 2013, after 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego.[3] She has worked on studies of geophysics, environmental issues such as global warming, and the history of science. In 2010, Oreskes co-authored Merchants of Doubt, which identified some parallels between the climate change debate and earlier public controversies,[4] notably the tobacco industry's campaign to obscure the link between smoking and serious disease.
Last edited:
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,017
- 47,208
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #140
Who says those scientists are legitimate?For every scientific theory, a consensus is how the degree of acceptance is determined
Besides being a completely circular argument, you are factually incorrect
Naomi Oreskes - Wikipedia
Dennis Bray - Wikipedia
Hans von Storch - Wikipedia
Peter Doran - Wikipedia
James L. Powell - Wikipedia
I am disputing your claim that "No legitimate scientists claims that consensus is a valid argument." Are you suffering short term memory loss?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 114
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 402
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 38
- Views
- 617
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 10
- Replies
- 563
- Views
- 2K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8069
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-