Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...

[abu afak]

`

Non-Peer-Reviewed manuscript Falsely claims Natural Cloud changes can explain Global Warming​

CLAIM​

During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.​

​

VERDICT​

​

SOURCE: Jyrki Kauppinen, Paul Joseph Watson, Pekka Malmi, Fox News, Sky News Australia, Summit.news, Zero Hedge, 11 July 2019​

​

DETAILS​

Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.​

​

Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.​

​

Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.​

​

KEY TAKE AWAY​

Warming related to human activities is estimated to be around 1°C over the past century. This document claims to overturn decades of scientific findings but provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global temperature.​

​

Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming

Warming related to human activities is estimated to be around 1°C over the past century. This document claims to overturn decades of scientific findings but provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global...

climatefeedback.org

`

 

[task0778]

The cooler weather is a welcome reprieve. The entire town — and much of the surrounding countryside — burned to the ground on June 30, just days after hitting 49.6 C, the hottest temperature ever recorded in Canada. Like hundreds of others, Glasgow and his wife Tricia Thorpe saw their home razed, and lost dozens of animals to the fire.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-sept-7-2021-1.6166608/2-months-after-lytton-b-c-was-destroyed-by-fire-its-future-is-still-unclear-1.6171191

That is 121 F.

New figures released Monday said the deaths of 595 people between June 18 and Aug. 12 were related to the heat. The majority of those deaths — 526 — happened during the "heat dome" that created temperatures above 40 C from late June to early July.6

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-heat-dome-sudden-deaths-revised-2021-1.6232758#:~:text=New%20figures%20released%20Monday%20said,late%20June%20to%20early%20July.

595 people not in the whole of Canada, just in the province of British Columbia.

You owe someone an apology.

I think not. He said the temps reached over 130F. He lied.

He said hundreds of people died from the heat. But he doesn't know that for a fact. He lied again.

And now for the big lie: there is no evidence or proof that this heat wave was created by or the result of anthropogenic causes. He doesn't know that, and neither do you.

Notice the extremely uneven bar graph. If the heat waves are caused by humans then why isn't the graph more consistent? Don't you think it's odd that there was no heat wave at all in 2009, 2011, and 2012, and very little in 2020, and then whammo we get the big heat in 2021? That doesn't sound like the heat was caused by us.

 

[Old Rocks]

I think not. He said the temps reached over 130F. He lied.

He said hundreds of people died from the heat. But he doesn't know that for a fact. He lied again.

And now for the big lie: there is no evidence or proof that this heat wave was created by or the result of anthropogenic causes. He doesn't know that, and neither do you.

View attachment 561465

Notice the extremely uneven bar graph. If the heat waves are caused by humans then why isn't the graph more consistent? Don't you think it's odd that there was no heat wave at all in 2009, 2011, and 2012, and very little in 2020, and then whammo we get the big heat in 2021? That doesn't sound like the heat was caused by us.

He was wrong about the temperature. He was correct about the number people that died because of the heat. And we had a considerable toll here in Oregon and Washington. We hit 116 F.

The Oregon Medical Examiner's Office has released records detailing the names, addresses and other information for 96 people who died from hyperthermia in the extraordinary late-June heat wave.Aug 6, 2021

Aug 11, 2021 — Washington State has officially reported that 95 people died from heat-related causes during the week of the heat wave, but investigations are ...

Apparently you are no better at reading a graph than you are at reading real science. Look at the number of bars from 1910 to 1990. Then look at the number from 1990 to 2020.

 

[jc456]

I do not believe human activity had anything to di with climate change. At one point in earth’s history Half of the earth was covered in ice. The ice has been melting ever since.

-

They still have no answer to that position.
I’m still waiting for one prediction that’s come true

 

[Concerned American]

Being rich does not mean you are smarter than others.

-

Just because you live in the forest doesn't necessarily mean you're rich in a monetary sense either.

 

[Old Rocks]

They still have no answer to that position.
I’m still waiting for one prediction that’s come true

No, you are not. Dr. Hansen's graph from 1981 was spot on. But you and the rest will lie about that, and assume that the person you are lying to does not know that Dr. Hansen's graph had three curves. High emission rate, middle emission rate, and low emission rate. The emission rate for the last 40 years has followed the middle emission rate, and his prediction for that was very accurate. But you liars will show the high emission rate, and claim that is the only one.

 

[watchingfromafar]

They still have no answer to that position.
I’m still waiting for one prediction that’s come true

I predict that the sun will rise in the morning.
-

 

[Old Rocks]

Just because you live in the forest doesn't necessarily mean you're rich in a monetary sense either.

But in today's climate it sure as hell means you had better have your most valuable items packed and ready to go in the summer.

 

[Concerned American]

But in today's climate it sure as hell means you had better have your most valuable items packed and ready to go in the summer.

For the short-sighted, that is true. There are many of us that mitigate our risks by keeping our forests maintained--a concept that is foreign to Newsom and a majority of Californians.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I do not believe human activity had anything to di with climate change. At one point in earth’s history Half of the earth was covered in ice. The ice has been melting ever since.

-

The revealing truth is that alarmist extremists refuse to discuss the issue publicly with experts who dispute the AGW theory. Instead of giving the public a better understanding of why they should apply mitigation strategies that cause economic harm and starvation maybe we should be presented with counter arguments and rethink things.
But the alarmists are being subsidized.

 

[Rigby5]

I do not believe human activity had anything to di with climate change. At one point in earth’s history Half of the earth was covered in ice. The ice has been melting ever since.

-

That is totally inaccurate.
There are 12 documented ice age and warming cycles in world history.
The average cycle length is about 110,000 years long.
And never was it even more than 20% ice covered.
The glaciers did not get even any further south than WI, MT, NY, etc.
That is not even close to half of the northern hemisphere, which is half.

This is my first quick hit.

But look it up.
We did not have a cold prehistoric history, and there has not been just a single ice age.
And while we are at a warm point now, it is supposed to be cooling, not warming.
We are beginning an additional artificial warming on top of the peak natural warming.
That will be a double warming that never before happened.

 

[Circe]

Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​

Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.

Direct link to the study:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which 'climate change' is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint. Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies.
“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.
This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers' theory: "New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an 'umbrella effect'," the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this 'umbrella effect' — an entirely natural occurrence — could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors.

The scientists involved in the study are most concerned with the fact that current climate models driving the political side of debate, most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) climate sensitivity scale, fail to incorporate this crucial and potentially central variable of increased cloud cover.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it," comments Professor Hyodo in Science Daily. "This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect."

In their related paper, aptly titled, “No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic [man-made] climate change”, the Finnish scientists find that low cloud cover "practically" controls global temperatures but that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic, or caused by human activity.

The following is a key bombshell section in one of the studies conducted by Finland's Turku University team:
We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why 6 J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.
This raises urgent questions and central contradictions regarding current models which politicians and environmental groups across the globe are using to push radical economic changes on their countries' populations.

Conclusions from both the Japanese and Finnish studies strongly suggest, for example, that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "drastic measures to cut carbon emissions" which would ultimately require radical legislation changes to "remake the U.S. economy" would not only potentially bankrupt everyone but simply wouldn't even work, at least according to the new Finnish research team findings.

To put AOC's "drastic measures" in perspective — based entirely on the fundamental assumption of the monumental and disastrous impact of human activity on the climate — consider the following conclusions from the Finnish studies:
“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.”
Which leads the scientists to state further:
“Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased carbon dioxide is less than 10 percent, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change,” the researchers concluded.
And the team in Japan has called for a total reevaluation of current climate models, which remain dangerously flawed for dismissing a crucial variable:
This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era.
Failure to account for this results in the following, according to the one in the series of studies: "The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models."

"If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice," the researchers conclude.

Though we doubt the ideologues currently pushing to radically remake the American economy through what ends up being a $93 trillion proposal (according to one study) — including AOC's call for a whopping 70% top tax rate — will carefully inquire of this new bombshell scientific confirmation presented in the new research, we at least hope the US scientific community takes heed before it's too late in the cause of accurate and authentic science that would stave off irreparable economic disaster that would no doubt ripple across the globe, adding to both human and environmental misery.

And "too late" that is, not for some mythical imminent or near-future "global warming Armageddon" as the currently in vogue highly politicized "science" of activists and congress members alike claims.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...exist-practice

is this where one of the board left wing mods says this is a wall of text and it isn't political?

Actually everything is political. Especially man made climate change.

Has little to do with with actual weather.

Duh.

They won't change and we won't change, until everyone gets distracted from this nonsense by some real crisis --- war or another pandemic, for instance.

As long as everyone is having fun and nothing actually is being done about this big Nothingburger.

 

[Circe]

Actually the one thing to know is that civilization suffers whenever there is a change since we've adjusted to current conditions.

No --------- that's not so.

Warmer IS better.

Cold and wet is fatal. There have been some such periods in European history, and it really damaged the societies.

 

[task0778]

He was wrong about the temperature. He was correct about the number people that died because of the heat. And we had a considerable toll here in Oregon and Washington. We hit 116 F.

The Oregon Medical Examiner's Office has released records detailing the names, addresses and other information for 96 people who died from hyperthermia in the extraordinary late-June heat wave.Aug 6, 2021

Aug 11, 2021 — Washington State has officially reported that 95 people died from heat-related causes during the week of the heat wave, but investigations are ...

Apparently you are no better at reading a graph than you are at reading real science. Look at the number of bars from 1910 to 1990. Then look at the number from 1990 to 2020.

"Look at the number of bars from 1910 to 1990. Then look at the number from 1990 to 2020."

When I look at the graph from 1990 to 2020 I see 15 years where the bar is 10% or lower. Half of those years had no heat wave, WTF? What are you saying, during those years human activity ceased? Then all of a sudden people went nuts in the high-bar years? That's BS, if anthropogenic causes were that profound then we should see a more even graph, and BTW haven't we been reducing our GHGs since 1990? How much difference has that made?

Now look at the graph from 1910 to 1990, we were heavily industrialized then, right? We were producing all kinds of shit to fight 2 WWs, where's the heat waves then? Look at 1970 to 1990, almost nothing. No trend at all? Why is that?

I am not going to claim that human activity has no impact at all on GW. But we are already doing something about it, and we have been since 1990 or thereabouts. But to claim that the heat waves and hurricanes and other weather phenomena are increased in numbers or strength due to human activity is unproven and likely wrong. And in view of the fact that countless studies, estimates, projections, and forecasts that have been ballyhooed by the GW alarmists have been wrong about GW over the last 30-40 years does not lend itself to supporting huge expenditures on ideas, programs, and projects that might not even make a dent in GW. Surely you remember the hysteria about polar bears going extinct, no ice left at the north pole, and Florida being under water by now. Hockey stick graph after hockey stick graph that turned out to be wrong, and you guys are still beating the drum about GW. Why don't you guys come up with ways to combat GW that aren't so expensive? It feels to me like there are too many hucksters out there trying to make big bucks from gov't loans and grants that they have no intention of paying back. Fuck that.

 

[jc456]

I predict that the sun will rise in the morning.
-

Damn look at you! Was that a prediction against climate change? Are you suggesting we could survive if the sun didn’t exist? By the way, the sun never moves

 

[jc456]

He was wrong about the temperature. He was correct about the number people that died because of the heat. And we had a considerable toll here in Oregon and Washington. We hit 116 F.

The Oregon Medical Examiner's Office has released records detailing the names, addresses and other information for 96 people who died from hyperthermia in the extraordinary late-June heat wave.Aug 6, 2021

Aug 11, 2021 — Washington State has officially reported that 95 people died from heat-related causes during the week of the heat wave, but investigations are ...

Apparently you are no better at reading a graph than you are at reading real science. Look at the number of bars from 1910 to 1990. Then look at the number from 1990 to 2020.

Are you saying people didn’t die of heat exposure before this year? Really? Dude, you’re loosing it still.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/high-temperatures-result-in-about-702-deaths-in-the-us-each-year/2020/06/26/8a5f0064-b6f5-11ea-a510-55bf26485c93_story.html

 

[alang1216]

No --------- that's not so.

Warmer IS better.

Cold and wet is fatal. There have been some such periods in European history, and it really damaged the societies.

There were prosperous Native American societies from Washington State up through Canada and into Alaska. Cold and wet is not fatal if you've had the time to adapt to it. Warm and dry is also fine, IF you've had the time to adapt to it. That is the point, we need to slow any coming change in climate, regardless of the cause.

 

[Circe]

There were prosperous Native American societies from Washington State up through Canada and into Alaska. Cold and wet is not fatal if you've had the time to adapt to it. Warm and dry is also fine, IF you've had the time to adapt to it. That is the point, we need to slow any coming change in climate, regardless of the cause.

We can't, so no problem.

Probably isn't any change anyway.

PROSPEROUS Native American societies? Compared with what? Not with European societies in Europe, that's for sure. Or any other civilization, like China. The totem poles and potlatch giveaways don't compare well with the teeming big cities and high buildings and high art of Europe.

We need warmer. But I don't suppose it will happen. This climate change foolishness is just leftist claptrap.

 

[alang1216]

We can't, so no problem.

You mean to say that you don't know how to do it.

PROSPEROUS Native American societies? Compared with what? Not with European societies in Europe, that's for sure. Or any other civilization, like China. The totem poles and potlatch giveaways don't compare well with the teeming big cities and high buildings and high art of Europe.

How many Europeans were prosperous enough to enjoy high art and how many were scratching a living?

We need warmer. But I don't suppose it will happen. This climate change foolishness is just leftist claptrap.

I hope you're right. No one has ever stolen any of my cars but I still have insurance, just in case.

 

[otto105]

I do not believe human activity had anything to di with climate change. At one point in earth’s history Half of the earth was covered in ice. The ice has been melting ever since.

-

So.....what is causing the warming?

Sun spots? The tides? FOX news hot air?