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

[jc456]

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

Sun spots? The tides? FOX news hot air?

What warming

 

[jc456]

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

Sun spots? The tides? FOX news hot air?

What’s supposed to be the temperature of the globe?

 

[watchingfromafar]

That is totally inaccurate.

Rigby5, just another point of view++++-----
Two things are happening at the same time.
1] Fossil fuels are running out.
[2] Earth’s climate is changing. Our planet has gone through three (3) major climate changes; from being half covered in ice to a heat wave back to ice.

Facts never lie; only people do; or they are just mistaken----

Splitting Of The Polar Vortex: The Arctic Is Melting In The Dead Of Winter
Models show the temperature is above freezing at the North Pole.
Despite the North Pole being shrouded in darkness for another month, temperatures in the Arctic have soared by as much as 45 degrees Fahrenheit above average. This has brought temperatures above freezing in February in one of the coldest places on Earth.
https://tinyurl.com/yc9q9y73

The North Pole just had an extreme heat wave for the 3rd winter in a row
As snow falls in Rome, the Arctic is getting alarmingly hot in the middle of winter.
It’s been downright toasty at the North Pole, at least by Arctic standards.

The northernmost weather station in the world, Cape Morris Jesup in Greenland, saw temperatures stay above freezing for almost 24 hours straight last week, and then climb to 43 degrees Fahrenheit (6.1 degrees Celsius) on Saturday before dropping again.
https://tinyurl.com/ycglzywj

The Arctic recently sent us a powerful message about climate change
Arctic scientists aren’t usually afraid of a little cold. Windy conditions don’t usually get us howling. The beasts we pay attention to are usually polar bears. But last week’s “Beast from the East” triggered a few anxious conversations.
Social media memes aside, our problem isn’t this one extreme weather event per se. Our key fear is that the Beast isn’t really from the East – its birthplace was farther north.
https://tinyurl.com/yconampf

Hasn't Earth warmed and cooled naturally throughout history?
Author: David Herring and Rebecca Lindsey
October 29, 2020
Yes. Earth has experienced cold periods (or “ice ages”) and warm periods (“interglacials”) on roughly 100,000-year cycles for at least the last 1 million years. The last of these ices ended around 20,000 years ago.
Hasn't Earth warmed and cooled naturally throughout history? | NOAA Climate.gov

Earth has been a snowball and a hothouse at different times in its past. So if the climate changed before humans, how can we be sure we’re responsible for the dramatic warming that’s happening today?
How Earth’s Climate Changes Naturally (and Why Things Are Different Now) | Quanta Magazine

The largest global-scale climate variations in Earth’s recent geological past are the ice age cycles (see infobox, p.B4), which are cold glacial periods followed by shorter warm periods . The last few of these natural cycles have recurred roughly every 100,000 years.

Recent estimates of the increase in global average temperature since the end of the last ice age are 4 to 5 °C (7 to 9 °F). That change occurred over a period of about 7,000 years, starting 18,000 years ago. CO2 has risen more than 40% in just the past 200 years, much of this since the 1970s, contributing to human alteration of the planet’s energy budget that has so far warmed Earth by about 1 °C (1.8 °F). If the rise in CO2 continues unchecked, warming of the same magnitude as the increase out of the ice age can be expected by the end of this century or soon after. This speed of warming is more than ten times that at the end of an ice age, the fastest known natural sustained change on a global scale.
6. Climate is always changing. Why is climate change of concern now? | Royal Society

The Snowball Earth hypothesis proposes that during one or more of Earth's icehouse climates, Earth's surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen
Snowball Earth - Wikipedia

Snowball Earth: The times our planet was covered in ice
Ancient rocks suggest that ice entirely covered our planet on at least two occasions. This theory may help explain the rise of complex life that followed.

The Earth has endured many changes in its 4.5-billion-year history, with some tumultuous twists and turns along the way. One especially dramatic episode appears to have come between 700 million and 600 million years ago, when scientists think ice smothered the entire planet, from the poles to the equator — twice in quick succession.
The story of Snowball Earth | Astronomy.com

Rigby5, you are welcome to dispute the above
Hopefully we can still remain friends
-

 

[jc456]

Rigby5, just another point of view++++-----
Two things are happening at the same time.
1] Fossil fuels are running out.
[2] Earth’s climate is changing. Our planet has gone through three (3) major climate changes; from being half covered in ice to a heat wave back to ice.

Facts never lie; only people do; or they are just mistaken----

Splitting Of The Polar Vortex: The Arctic Is Melting In The Dead Of Winter
Models show the temperature is above freezing at the North Pole.
Despite the North Pole being shrouded in darkness for another month, temperatures in the Arctic have soared by as much as 45 degrees Fahrenheit above average. This has brought temperatures above freezing in February in one of the coldest places on Earth.
https://tinyurl.com/yc9q9y73

The North Pole just had an extreme heat wave for the 3rd winter in a row
As snow falls in Rome, the Arctic is getting alarmingly hot in the middle of winter.
It’s been downright toasty at the North Pole, at least by Arctic standards.

The northernmost weather station in the world, Cape Morris Jesup in Greenland, saw temperatures stay above freezing for almost 24 hours straight last week, and then climb to 43 degrees Fahrenheit (6.1 degrees Celsius) on Saturday before dropping again.
https://tinyurl.com/ycglzywj

The Arctic recently sent us a powerful message about climate change
Arctic scientists aren’t usually afraid of a little cold. Windy conditions don’t usually get us howling. The beasts we pay attention to are usually polar bears. But last week’s “Beast from the East” triggered a few anxious conversations.
Social media memes aside, our problem isn’t this one extreme weather event per se. Our key fear is that the Beast isn’t really from the East – its birthplace was farther north.
https://tinyurl.com/yconampf

Hasn't Earth warmed and cooled naturally throughout history?
Author: David Herring and Rebecca Lindsey
October 29, 2020
Yes. Earth has experienced cold periods (or “ice ages”) and warm periods (“interglacials”) on roughly 100,000-year cycles for at least the last 1 million years. The last of these ices ended around 20,000 years ago.
Hasn't Earth warmed and cooled naturally throughout history? | NOAA Climate.gov

Earth has been a snowball and a hothouse at different times in its past. So if the climate changed before humans, how can we be sure we’re responsible for the dramatic warming that’s happening today?
How Earth’s Climate Changes Naturally (and Why Things Are Different Now) | Quanta Magazine

The largest global-scale climate variations in Earth’s recent geological past are the ice age cycles (see infobox, p.B4), which are cold glacial periods followed by shorter warm periods . The last few of these natural cycles have recurred roughly every 100,000 years.

Recent estimates of the increase in global average temperature since the end of the last ice age are 4 to 5 °C (7 to 9 °F). That change occurred over a period of about 7,000 years, starting 18,000 years ago. CO2 has risen more than 40% in just the past 200 years, much of this since the 1970s, contributing to human alteration of the planet’s energy budget that has so far warmed Earth by about 1 °C (1.8 °F). If the rise in CO2 continues unchecked, warming of the same magnitude as the increase out of the ice age can be expected by the end of this century or soon after. This speed of warming is more than ten times that at the end of an ice age, the fastest known natural sustained change on a global scale.
6. Climate is always changing. Why is climate change of concern now? | Royal Society

The Snowball Earth hypothesis proposes that during one or more of Earth's icehouse climates, Earth's surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen
Snowball Earth - Wikipedia

Snowball Earth: The times our planet was covered in ice
Ancient rocks suggest that ice entirely covered our planet on at least two occasions. This theory may help explain the rise of complex life that followed.

The Earth has endured many changes in its 4.5-billion-year history, with some tumultuous twists and turns along the way. One especially dramatic episode appears to have come between 700 million and 600 million years ago, when scientists think ice smothered the entire planet, from the poles to the equator — twice in quick succession.
The story of Snowball Earth | Astronomy.com

Rigby5, you are welcome to dispute the above
Hopefully we can still remain friends
-

So what’s the temperature of the earth supposed to be?

 

[Sunsettommy]

The study is obvious nonsense.
Of course cosmic rays can cause clouds which can retain heat at night, but during the day, clouds increase albedo, which cools the climate.
And cosmic rays have NOT changed.
We constantly measure them and they have not increased while temperature has.
The current temp readings are all record highs.
At this point is it incredibly foolish to claim we are not causing global warming.
Some cities in Canada reached over 130 degrees, and hundreds have died from the increased heat.

No cities went over 121 degrees F why did you lie?

By the way you didn't address anything in post one science claims at all.

 

[Obiwan]

No cities went over 121 degrees F why did you lie?

By the way you didn't address anything in post one science claims at all.

Is it possible the idiot had his head stuck in the oven????

 

[fncceo]

Is it possible the idiot had his head stuck in the oven????

Like Sylvia Plath?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Obviously the heat wave was temporary weather and not global climate, but something had to have changed in order to make these records possible. And that had to be climate. Global warming means more energy in the weather, so you can have more frequent and more powerful storms, more powerful high pressure events that cause heat waves, etc.
Climate is the average of all the local weather, but weather is still driven by climate.
A climate warms, you will have more weather extremes.
When climate cools, weather tends towards being more static.

No, it was simply an unusual set of THREE weather formations that converged on the region.

Dr. Mass a PHD Meteorologist saw it coming days ahead then covered it in his Weather blog as it unfolded, he as well as myself were right in the middle of it.

 

[Lesh]

No cities went over 121 degrees F why did you lie?

That's what Kremlin trolls do

 

[Muhammed]

Why is your thinking so fukked up?
Do you think that sort of comment will appeal to any grownups?

I do not expect facts to influence idiots like you.

You're an idiot.

 

[Flash]

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.

We have been telling these Moon Bats this for years.

 

[Rigby5]

No cities went over 121 degrees F why did you lie?

By the way you didn't address anything in post one science claims at all.

Yes, oops.
Apparently, I must have remembered wrong. Your 121 F appears to be correct.

 

[otto105]

We have been telling these Moon Bats this for years.

What Finnish scientist?

What organization?

 

[Flash]

What Finnish scientist?

What organization?

The Principle Scientists that push this silly AGW bullshit have been caught fabricating data and even admitted doing it.

They have no credibility because their agenda is not science. Their agenda is scamming dumbass Moon Bats like you.

 

[otto105]

The Principle Scientists that push this silly AGW bullshit have been caught fabricating data and even admitted doing it.

They have no credibility because their agenda is not science. Their agenda is scamming dumbass Moon Bats like you.

Answer the questions.

 

[Flash]

Answer the questions.

Being an uneducated Moon Bat you are not smart enough to ask the right questions.

The question is why have the Climate Scientists fabricated and cherry picked data? They were exposed big time with Climategate. Why have organizations like NASA, NOAA, and the UN Climate Organization been caught lying, cherry picking and fabricating data? Not just once but many times.

They have no credibility. Climate change is real but AGW is a scam. If AGW was real there would be no reason to lie about the data, would there? Only idiots like you fall for it. You aren't very smart, are you?

 

[otto105]

Being an uneducated Moon Bat you are not smart enough to ask the right questions.

The question is why have the Climate Scientists fabricated and cherry picked data? They were exposed big time with Climategate. Why have organizations like NASA, NOAA, and the UN Climate Organization been caught lying, cherry picking and fabricating data? Not just once but many times.

They have no credibility. Climate change is real but AGW is a scam. If AGW was real there would be no reason to lie about the data, would there? Only idiots like you fall for it. You aren't very smart, are you?

No, the questions were clearly stated in a previous post.

Why are you deflecting from them?

 

[jc456]

Answer the questions.

You’d never believe, you’re stuck up someone’s butt

 

[Crick]

The Principle Scientists that push this silly AGW bullshit have been caught fabricating data and even admitted doing it.

They have no credibility because their agenda is not science. Their agenda is scamming dumbass Moon Bats like you.

The "Principle Scientists"? Better than 99% of the world's climate scientists accept AGW as completely valid, well-supported science. Are you suggesting that virtually every climate scientist on the planet is involved in a conspiracy to defraud the public? To do what? Get them reserach grants? I'm afraid it's you and yours that qualify as "moon bats".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The "Principle Scientists"? Better than 99% of the world's climate scientists accept AGW as completely valid, well-supported science. Are you suggesting that virtually every climate scientist on the planet is involved in a conspiracy to defraud the public? To do what? Get them reserach grants? I'm afraid it's you and yours that qualify as "moon bats".

Outrageous!!!!

Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann would never defraud anyone.

He would never molest the data.