Rethinking The Greenhouse Effect
By Paul Homewood
London, 16 September – A former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre is arguing that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has adopted an overly simplistic approach to global warming and has ended up exaggerating the human contribution to recent climate change.
William Kininmonth argues that the warming of the planet is fastest in winter and in high latitudes near the poles. He argues that this is mostly due to increased heat transport from the tropical oceans.
However, the recent warming of the tropical oceans can’t be explained by the greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide, because that effect is small in the humid tropical atmosphere. The most probable explanation is natural changes in ocean currents.
William Kininmonth says:
“The IPCC’s radiation balance approach is very simplistic, ignoring the fact that nowhere on the Earth’s surface is in radiation balance. Mainstream climate science may have led us all up a blind alley”.
GWPF invited the Royal Society and the Met Office to review this paper, and to submit a response to be published as an appendix to it. No reply was received.
William Kininmonth: Rethinking the Greenhouse Effect (pdf)
About the author
William Kininmonth joined the Australian Bureau of Meteorology in 1960, and retired in 1998 as head of the National Climate Centre. He was a consultant to the World Meteorological Organization’s Commission for Climatology and participated in regional coordination and training programs. William Kininmonth is author of Climate Change: A Natural Hazard.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Too right mate, these’experts’ are making a b**b out of scare tactics.
“No reply was received. ”
Well now! There’s a surprise!!
They should be chivvied and got at until they reply. They should not be able to dismiss it just by not answering.
Like climate change, realisation of reality is dawning, but equally slowly.
Unlike climate change this will soon accelerate to a change of minds of even the most obtuse Academic theorists and there will be a real tipping point into reason when suddenly the “Attenborough Effect” will be seen for what it is:- totally wrong and a lethal political ploy.
As the IPCC ONLY look at human caused climate change, for them to accept that natural drivers predominate, as this paper suggests, would be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas. And these turkeys won’t be doing that. There’s simply way too much money and political engineering riding on Mother Nature and that great light bulb in the sky NOT having any significant influence on the climate. Gobble, gobble!
Unfortunately William Kininmonth has been saying similar things for nearly 20 years, all to no effect. I don’t expect anything different now.
The pattern of warming since the 1970s in the Northern Hemisphere is exactly what is expected from increased greenhouse gases;
Mainly high TMINs rather than higher TMAXs
Mainly in the coldest, driest six months of the year
Mainly in the colder, dryer higher latitudes
The author seems to be forgetting that much of the global warming is located in land-locked Siberia and Northern Canada, which could not be affected by changes in ocean circulation. This article is a strikeout.
The IPCC approach to blame global warming on humans is the original goal of the organization. They started with that conclusion. By 1995 they had dismissed all natural causes of climate change as “noise”. That leaves only manmade causes of global warming, or AGW.
The prediction of AGW would not scare anyone, so the IPCC multiplies their already high AGW estimate by 3x to add a long term water vapor positive feedback that does exist, but is mild, and something limits the feedback.
Probably more clouds result from more water vapor in the warmer troposphere, blocking more sunlight. The AGW plus the mild water vapor positive feedback is what I call AGW+, which is far from being CAGW (AGW x3) that the IPCC predicts every year.
Simple IPCC junk science:
Assume all warming is manmade and dangerous
Predict all future warming will be manmade and dangerous.
Circular reasoning logical fallacy.
Meanwhile, no warming in the past seven years — that is only a short term weather trend, but does contradict the CAGW predictions:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2022/09/no-global-warming-in-past-seven-years.html
I am interested to know more about your suggestion that much of the global warming is located in land-locked Siberia and Northern Canada, something I had not realised before. Could you perhaps give more detail?
Global Warming by Latitude
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2022/09/global-warming-by-latitude.html
“The pattern of warming since the 1970s in the Northern Hemisphere is exactly what is expected from increased greenhouse gases…”
Where can one find those temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere? It would be good to compare them with the Southern Hemisphere. Add the two together. Divide by two and see if the global value agrees. The 20th century global mean is 57°F., 14°C.
Glabal means are based on non-existent global data, pre satellites.
I agree. Almost all is numerical guesswork, especially in the high latitudes. Nevertheless they are used and the data should be somewhere.
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2022/09/global-warming-by-latitude.html
UAH source data:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Thank you, Cliff. I was aware of much of that. What I was looking for were the annual values for the two hemispheres that would show how much more the NH has warmed than the SH. The total global anomaly since the middle of the last century is up plus 0.84°C. That’s 14.84°C. The NH must be warmer? How much?
From the early 2000’s alarmists were queuing up to put forward dates when summer sea ice would fade away in the Arctic. But it’s still here and the queue seems to be a lot shorter, and the dates a lot further away.
I’ve always thought the concept of the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is dubious, especially since scientific text books get it wrong. Not to say that it doesn’t exist, but that its global effects are far from properly understood when applied to a planetary atmosphere.
The Greenhouse Effect is real, however it is not simply a consequence of atmospheric thermal radiant opacity, rather it is the consequence of adiabatic convection of a thermally radiant opaque troposphere that has a surface atmospheric pressure of greater than 0.1 bar.
See our latest work here for further details:
The Application of the Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport Climate Model (DAET) to Earth’s semi-opaque troposphere.
Philip Mulholland and Stephen P.R. Wilde
September 2022
Without having to re-think the greenhouse effect it is possible to see that humans are not the culprits. The OCO2 orbiting carbon observatory that came into service in 2015 shows where the CO2 comes from and basically that’s the world’s forests, the Amazon, North America, equatorial Africa and Siberia.
It also shows that the CO2 is rapidly absorbed throughout the year.
It’s a bit of a killer and so naturally there are no frightening time-lapse simulations coming out of NASA.
Nature is a net CO2 absorber
Humans emit about +2ppm of CO2 a year
So if ” Nature is a net CO2 absorber” then if we were not emitting CO2 then the total atmospheric CO2 would continually reduce presumably until everything would die without our input. Really?
Last year humans emitted about 38 billion metric tons. That’s about five ppm (4.87). Nature is an absorber but not a NET absorber because aerobic respiration recycles most of it.
Actually, it shows most CO2 downwind of sun warmed ocean surfaces,
When the airflow slows down over land the CO2 accumulates and that helps forest growth which is already present due to enhanced rainfall.
There are no plumes of CO2 downwind of human population centres.
That seems to be the case but NASA seeks to confuse it by ignoring the end of the LIA.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-pinpoints-cause-of-earth-s-recent-record-carbon-dioxide-spike
” decaying forest wood in symbiosis with insect exudes more carbon dioxide annually than all global human emissions ……
Another scientific fact that intrigued me is the 45 Gigaton CO2 surge discernible in the Antarctic ice cores [ See Andy Mays graphs on his blog ] dated somewhere between 1330 – 1350 AD first noticed by Siegenthaler et al in a 1988 study yet timescale refined by later researchers …According to NASA Co2 is supposed to be a temperature ‘control knob ” yet even when the dial was turned up in the mid 14th century, in the southern hemisphere at least , the planet continued to cool
Remember the IPCC is a Political body Not a Science body.
Regards
Climate Heretic
I think a good description is an ‘advocacy group’.
Where’s the greenhouse? No enclosed air zone exists. Experiments with closed containers are redundant. CO2 ‘blankets’ in the atmosphere are a joke at 0.04% concentration. And so on.
Climate reality has been suspended by the UN IPCC for far too long.
I wounder whether the HADCRUT compilers will ever look up from their computers and ask why the northern hemisphere is warming much faster than the southern hemisphere despite both having the same CO2 level?
Could it be something to do with the precession of the Earth’s axis? No! that’s not man-made.
The HadCrut compilers never noticed – or failed to act on it if they did – the numerous errors in the HadCrut 4 dataset uncovered by Professor Peter Ridds PhD student John McLean ……It took an Australian PhD student to audit and rectify the dataset used by the worlds meteorological agencies and climate institutes …..
They will never let the facts get in the way of their sorry story. The paper will be cancelled within both organisations, and we will lurch closer and closer to Armageddon. Perhaps they could be served a court order to disprove Kininmonth’s data? Howard Dewhirst
Sent from my iPhone
>
“…organizations…”
There are many organizations which ‘seemed like a good idea at the time.’
Sitting on a cuckoo’s egg must seem like a good idea to a meadow pipit.
But the egg becomes an enfant terrible, and progresses to being a fratricidal delinquent.
Mancur Olson, the political economist, pointed out that societies gradually become stifled by an accretion of outdated viewpoints, quasi-religious rituals, and incorrigible ‘establishments.’ There is little that reason can do in an advanced case of this disease.
But pitchforks haven’t been banned yet 😎
Reblogged this on Unorthodox Truth.