Posted on 09/27/2022 5:41:10 AM PDT by Red Badger
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
Kininmonth proposes that tropical oceans have warmed recently, not as a result of additional atmospheric CO2, but most likely because of a reduction of heat as ocean currents have slowed. Heat has been exchanged with the tropical atmosphere, and transported by the winds to enhance northern polar warming. It is accepted that warming over the Arctic has been greater in the recent past than elsewhere over the globe. Ocean surface temperature in the tropics has warmed much less than the Arctic. However Arctic warming has occurred predominantly during the cold winter half of the year, when the surface is largely in darkness. For Kininmonth, this implies that it can only be the result of heat transport from warmer latitudes. Kininmonth’s conclusions are of course a subject for scientific argument and debate, but It might be noted that they provide a plausible insight into why temperatures at the South Pole have barely moved for at least 50 years.
Settled science is all in on the predominant role of CO2 acting as the climate control thermostat. As we reported recently in the Daily Sceptic, a bizarre ‘fact check’ by Facebook partner Climate Feedback of one of our previous articles stated: “Natural (non-human) drivers of climate change have been mostly stable since the onset of modern warming and all the available scientific evidence implicates human greenhouse gas emissions as the primary culprit.” As I argued, the claim that the climate has not undergone any natural change for almost 200 years is nonsense. Not a scrap of evidence can be submitted to back up this proposition, and Climate Feedback’s claim is little more than a denial of climate change.
The political narrative, however, seems to demand that like the White Rabbit in Alice in Wonderland, six impossible things must be believed before breakfast. To back up the narrative, imprecise science often ends up being fed into climate models, along with improbable guesses of massive CO2-caused future global warming. But as Dr. John Christie, Professor of Atmospheric and Earth Sciences at the University of Alabama, recently noted: “Models fail to reproduce accurate energy flows, and this is the guts of how the climate system works.”
Despite this, climate models remain exhibit A in the attempt to prove that we are on a path to climate disaster unless humans stop using fossil fuels. But increasingly, their controversial role is being called into question. The recent World Climate Declaration signed by around 250 university professors, and led by a Nobel physics laureate, noted that models had many shortcomings, “and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools”. We must free ourselves from the “naïve belief” in immature climate models. In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science, it states.
Of course Kininmonth’s work will be largely ignored in the mainstream. The BBC will bin it, the Guardian might be tempted to run its usual in-house slur that bungs are being paid by BP; anyone publicising its conclusions runs the risk of woke corporations like PayPal suddenly withdrawing financial transactional services, while footling ‘fact checks’ will ensure black marks and warnings across social media. GWPF invited the Royal Society and the Met Office to review the Kininmonth paper, promising any response would be published as an appendix. “No reply was received,” noted the Foundation.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor
I agree. The three narrow spectral lines in the IR spectrum that CO2 absorbs would all be absorbed anyway by water vapor which absorbs a very broad spectrum of IR. If there is no difference in IR absorption, then there is no difference in the amount of heat capture.
My theory... leftists (Marxists) love when people are starved to death. Optimal CO2 levels are half of what they should be....more CO2 means more vigorous plant growth would yield more food. My question is why are they wanting to lower CO2 levels more when we’re only 50% of optimal?
Ask a climate activist why the Earth was ice-free for 200 million years and watch them squirm.
The colder the oceans get, the more CO2 they can absorb.
When the oceans get warmer, they expel CO2
You can see the yearly fluctuation in the Mauna Loa graph as the ocean warms and cools with the seasons.
He would be ostracized from the climate community just like all of the other fact-based scientists in the field.
The "leading" scientists in the field all toe the IPCC line...
The left will say it’s anti-sceience and sounds racist and anti women’s choice?
I know it doesn’t make any sense..but when did that stop a psycho leftard?
Yes! And if real data are analyzed (not the phony, manipulated IPCC data), temperature increases due to natural climate variability from solar activity have *preceded* the rise in CO2 levels.
Man-made “climate change” is a monumental hoax perpetrated by the global Communists bent on worldwide tyranny.
A smaller population is easier to control...................
“Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.”
― George Orwell, 1984
“The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.”
― George Orwell, 1984
“The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed.”
― George Orwell, 1984
“It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realise that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.”
― George Orwell, 1984
“So long as they (the Proles) continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern...Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer and above all, gambling filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult.”
― George Orwell, 1984
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”
― George Orwell, 1984
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
― George Orwell, 1984
Well, gee whizz. Who could have guessed a trace gas that makes up less than 1/10th of one percent of the atmosphere isn’t cooking the planet?
Here’s a question to ask the climate religious zealots; rounded to the nearest 1/10th of one percent, what is the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere? ZERO!!!
Watch ‘em squirm while they avoid answering.
“My theory... leftists (Marxists) love when people are starved to death. “
~~~
I’m not suggesting that most leftist’s bleeding-heartism isn’t just a propaganda tool and that they really couldn’t care even less about real people, but I think the author nailed the true motivation right at the start;
“...the interests of promoting a command-and-control”
The globalists hate individual autonomy (as a pervasive phenomenon) just as much as they hate national sovereignty. If there are people out there with a diverse range of power and heat generating capacities, they are harder to control. Same is true for nations.
Do climate scientist abstain from all carbon producing activities..or are they yet a nother well funded group who tells others to do as they say and not as they do?
If CO2 is so damn bad, why do we put it in soda pop and beer?..........................
Yep, from the article:
” ... 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.*
(Asterisks added for emphasis.)
The global warming scam is just that.
The world has heated and cooled since it was formed. I have personally seen global heating and cooling. I have seen weather patterns change multiple times. I’m sure we contribute some but the volcanos in the beginning contributed more.
Just another way to panic and control the masses.
Exactly like a Beer or soda pop.......................
The exact same thing is true about COVID models for illness, hospitalization, death and vaccine efficacy.
These people are using bogus models to scam the transfer of income to themselves. In the case of CO2-driven global warming, hundreds of billions of dollars have already been transferred (soon to be trillions); conventional, reliable and low-cost energy systems wrecked; and global poverty, hunger and serious political instability is now ensured.
Heretic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.