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
All according to plan.
Just ask them what the “correct” temperature of the earth is. Was it more correct during the Medieval warming period of the 11th-14th centuries or during the Little Ice Age of the 14th-19th centuries? And what caused those two extremes? Cow farts? SUVs? Fossil fuel burning power plants?
Indeed, but such people are not ‘scientists’, no matter their title or letters after their names.
Here a tic,
There a tic,
Everywhere a heretic..................😊
Easy solution, drain the oceans
Plug all the volcanoes......................😜
Does the climate change? Yes. Just look at evidence of previous ice ages. Does man cause climate change? No, that can’t be proven. Can man stop climate change? No, every proposal is based on politics, not hard science, because there is no hard climate science.
Apparently she might have got that right.
She also believed that New York City would be buried in ice and snow withing the next few years.
Tell Swiftboat Rear Admiral John F’ing Kerry. He is spending millions of American Tax Payers dollars running around the World in his private jet with a different idea. Of course he charges the American Gov’t three times what it costs to use his private Jet.
Climate Change is a slush fund where Snowflakes with worthless diplomas can go to get free money.
I heard it’s all this Evil Water on this planet that control temperature , how will they get rid of water ,LOL
Bill Gates and other nitwits want to “dim the sun” by putting crap into the atmosphere. “Geoengineering” they call it. If they do this, there will be crop failures and mass starvation.
Any level >400ppm has no effect on temp. That has been known for years — but yah better not point it out or you will be banned on most media centers.
But, up to 1200ppm plants thrive, especially loads of food plants.
A minimal level of CO2 is essential for all life. More CO2 improves — except for the corrupt liars who personally profit off the climate crisis lie.
He is not God.
CO2 is a TRACE gas in our atmosphere at a level of about 400 parts per MILLION. Most CO2 is from natural sources and is essential for life on this planet as it sustains all green plants from single called algae to giant red wood trees. Human activity accounts for perhaps 15% of atmospheric CO2…amounting to only a few parts per million. The Climate Change Cult religion would have us believe that the entire climate of this planet is driven by part per million changes in a single trace gas in the atmosphere and that variations of solar output, the wobble in the earths axis affecting the amount of solar heating of the planet and deep ocean currents play little or no role in our climate. On its face this position is preposterous.
I believe that her speculation - largely based upon still-absent knowledge because these cycles are so LONG (and the reason for the shift from GW to CC) - wasn't misplaced. Irony being that I believe we were one major volcanic (or meteoric) event away from just such a scenario.
...still.
I’m sorry, but if this “scientist” says that CO2 has no effect on climate, then he can’t be a “leading” scientist in the field.
______________________________________________________
He doesn’t say no effect, just negligible effect.
When Carbon dioxide is only four one thousandths of one percent of the other chemicals that make up our air, the the effect is only negligible. .004%
The idea that Carbon Dioxide has any meaningful effect on our climate is erroneous. If Carbon Dioxide has any effect then it is because plants require less water when there is more Carbon Dioxide for them. Plants then have an effect on climate. Think what might happen if the Sahara Desert turns green for instance. While you may not have heard it reported the Sahara is in fact greening. While it is not green the last decade has seen remarkable greening in the Sahara.
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.