Does this explode the great global warming myth?
By Paul Homewood
Andrew Montford on an important new study:
THE ‘greenhouse effect’ has been with us for so long that it is taken as ‘settled’ science in most quarters. However, as a new paper shows, there is much still to debate.
The author, William Kininmonth, is no bedroom blogger. As a former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre, he deserves careful and respectful attention.
Kininmonth’s suggestion is that the approach of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), based on a concept of radiation forcing at the top of the atmosphere, is logically unsound and ignores important details about what happens at the Earth’s surface. In particular, he notes that there are huge flows of energy – vastly bigger than the effect of greenhouse gases – from the warm tropical oceans to the atmosphere, whence it is transported poleward by the winds, warming the northern latitudes.
Read the full story here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
“Does this explode the great global warming myth?”
Yes.
Will it do any good?
No.
Sadly I have to agree with both
It won’t do any good because too much personal credibility is at stake for those supporters of “the settled science”. And they would rather cause economic damage on a scale hitherto unseen than have their pathetic egos damaged.
I agree and this will be the case for the foreseeable future -unfortunately!
I wonder what kind of relationship William Kininmonth had with Tim Flannery (https://iowaclimate.org/2021/03/28/tim-flannery-a-profit-of-doom-on-climate-scaremongering/)? 🙂
It would have carried more weight if he had still been in his former position. I don’t suppose he would have been there very long after this article though.
The Great Global Warming myth has been exploded many times over the years but as Hot Scot says, it makes no difference the onward progress of the juggernaut.
This intervention by staunch AGW proponent, Kevin Trenberth should have put it to bed in 2007: https://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html
“None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.
I believe the precursor to that statement by Trenberth when challenged on the question of observations vs models was to admit that climate research was not based on observation but on modelling and then elaborated as above.
Why that wasn’t enough to kill the whole scam stone dead remains a mystery. 15 years later we still see scientists being pilloried for daring to ‘observe’ polar bears and the Great Barrier Reef rather than sit in front of a screen and make it all up!
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.
Thanks. The precise quote (and source) escaped me. It should still have been enough to sound the death knell for anything claiming to be a scientific endeavour!
Because it is a wonderful “reason” for all sorts of groups to indulge their biases, prejudices and irrational hatreds. Imagine how happy so many people are that science shows free markets are destroying the world.
Nasa says there has been no warming since the year 2000.
But this is just a pause. Apparently the oceans are soaking up all the heat.
They are measuring the Oceans to check But they don’t have much historical data to compare it with. As checking Ocean temperature change has never been a huge priority. But some have noticed that it was hot in the past.
“The time has come”, the Walrus said, “To talk of many things: Of shoes – and ships – and sealing wax – Of cabbages – and kings- And why the sea is boiling hot – And whether pigs have wings.”
More inconvenient data…
Most Of The Pacific Ocean’s Volume Has Undergone Intensifying Cooling Since 1993
A new preprint details the “surprising” Pacific cooling pattern from two ocean heat content (OHC) datasets over the 1993-2017 period.
Most OHC records only extend to the first 2 km of the ocean. Analyses of trends in the deeper ocean indicate intensified cooling from 2 km to the abyssal waters, or for well more than half the Pacific Ocean’s volume.
https://notrickszone.com/2022/09/19/most-of-the-pacific-oceans-volume-has-undergone-intensifying-cooling-since-1993/
I thought that’s where the “missing heat” was hiding?
Concerning sea surface temperatures.
Note that in the decades before the advent of the significant coverage of the oceans by the buoy networks, the ocean temperature data was acquired in the main by ship’s engine room water inlet temperature data or by measuring the temperature in buckets thrown over the side on a rope.
Ship’s engine cooling water inlet temperature data is acquired from the engine room cooling inlet temperature gauges by the engineers at their convenience, there is no protocol for the recording of the temperatures.
There is no standard for either the location of the inlets with regard especially to depth below the surface, the position in the pipework of the measuring instruments or the time of day the reading is taken and the position of the temperature sensor may be anywhere between the hull of the ship and the engine cylinder head itself.
The instruments themselves are of industrial quality, their limit of error in °C per DIN EN 13190 is ±2 deg C. for a class 2 instrument or sometimes even ±4 deg. C, as can be seen in the tables here: DS_IN0007_GB_1334.pdf . After installation it is exceptionally unlikely that they are ever checked for calibration.
It is not clear how such readings can be compared with the readings from buoy instruments specified (optimistically IMO) to a limit of error of tenths or even hundreds of a degree C. or why they are considered to have any value whatsoever for the purposes to which they are put, which is to produce historic trends apparently precise to 0.001 deg. C upon which spending of literally trillions of £/$/whatever are decided.
But hey, this is climate “science” we’re discussing so why would a little thing like that matter?
I like that bsides2015. Carroll would be bemused at our folly.
“Too big to fail…”
Nothing explodes the great global warming myth (said in Michael Palin voice)
It long ago reached the point where you could explode the global warming myth just by looking out of your window.
Two issues, namely . . .
A :
The ‘greenhouse effect’ has been with us for so long that it is taken as ‘settled’ science in most quarters.
B:
heat there can’t possibly be caused by carbon dioxide; it can only be the result of changes in ocean currents.
“A” would be better expressed as – The greenhouse effect has been accepted as an axiom by the UN, elitists, politicians some teens. It has not been “settled” since first proposed.
As an accepted axiom, it will not be overturned by writers regardless of their abilities.
“B” is ambiguous. Ocean currents do not create energy. They can be warm or cold, but their character is not self-determined.
Much energy does enter water when sunlight strikes (reasonably) directly – near and between the Tropics.
BBC Radio 4 1.45pm to 2pm each day from Monday 26th to Friday 30th September for five days “The Race for Rare Earth Minerals”. It seems an unusual subject for the politically correct BBC. Will it be objective…?
I wonder if it’ll sound anything like this:
This “study” does not explode anything
Global warming is not a myth
It is not caused by changes in ocean currents, which only redistribute heat/
“It is not caused by changes in ocean currents, which only redistribute heat/”
But, the Oceans redistribute heat in known cycles, AMO, PDO, Indian Dipole etc. And don’t forget the Thermohalene circulation up to 800 years. In fact the constant flux makes calculating average temperatures a fools errand.
Even Hansen admitted that “global average temperature is not a useful metric”!
Using max-minbyo calculate the average of a bunch of averages is even more absurd. Its quite possible a max in one place is the “same” max as somewhere else as weather isn’t static. And if you homogenised based on such errors, you get even greater errors but higher averages. We are ruining economies based on wholly fictional data.
Oh yes it is.
Global Warming is a multi-trillion dollar industry that will be hard to shift with so many snouts in the trough.
Kininmonth’s suggestion is that the approach of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), based on a concept of radiation forcing at the top of the atmosphere, is logically unsound and ignores important details about what happens at the Earth’s surface.
. . .
Dr. Ned Nikolov has been saying similar things for years, e.g. in his papers, videos, blog posts etc., and here…
WordPress ignored my link to a comment and linked to an entire post 🤨
Comment link: ‘https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2022/07/11/ned-nikolov-does-a-surface-solar-radiation-dataset-expose-a-major-manipulation-of-global-temperature-records/#comment-179476’
Reblogged this on Calculus of Decay .
ROFLMAO that would require rational thought.
The extent and volume of the sea-ice in the Arctic reached their seasonal minimums a few days ago and are increasing now. Likewise with the Greenland Mass balance where it is snowing widely. All three metrics were quite ‘healthy’ if one wants to regard the ice as some sort of precious resource. Many Wadhams were spotted.
Funnily enough, the Danish Meteorological Institute messed up today’s chart of the extent and showed the Arctic without any ice at all! Wishful thinking, I suppose.
Yes funny how this climate emergency hasn’t reached the place that’s supposed to be warming the most rapidly this year. Its worse that we thought though…
Apparently, everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else, it’s a real paradox.
politics today , BBC1 thursday. Fracking announcement discussed. usual BBC whitewash. Only one positive comment from the Telegraph person. Everyone else spouting the usual lies and half truths about dangers and cheapness and desirability of wind.
>