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

[westwall]

Actually there is carbon sequestration. Kind of the point of it all, sorry you missed it.

So what. The simple fact is there is ZERO requirement to reduce pollution. Kind of stupid if the claims are so dire.

 

[westwall]

You also don't object when others make predictions. Why is that?

Why would we object to people who make legit predictions?

Here's a genius explaining it to you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So they were under estimations and the truth is even worse? Great news.

They made a "prediction" for 2070 and then they said, in 2012, it may be 2032?

Do we have to wait until 2032 to see if the second prediction is an overestimation?

Or could they decide 2070 is still good?

Does either of those predictions mean we need to spend $76 trillion?

Tell me about the 2001 prediction foiled by 1993 data. Because, you have to admit,
that was fucking hilarious!

 

[alang1216]

We're not making predictions ... we're claiming it's too soon to try ... that's the difference ... one side scream doom and gloom and the other side says prove it ...

My prediction that average power in the atmosphere is decreasing is based on simple physics ... and this is routinely assumed in the scientific papers being published regarding polar climates ... it's too small of an effect to be measurable in the temperate or tropical cells ... so WAY too soon to say whether is will make any difference in the weather ... but I'm not saying is will, just average power will be less, maybe only slightly ...

I'm no climatologist but I went to Iceland and saw for myself how much the glaciers there have retreated. That water went somewhere and that shrinking glaciers and ice sheets have been the trend globally for years. If sea level rises it will be a global disaster and waiting for it to happen means we'll suffer the full force of it.

If we can do reasonable things to mitigate this scenario, I have no idea what they are, it seems like something my grandkids might appreciate.

 

[alang1216]

Why would we object to people who make legit predictions?

Here's a genius explaining it to you.

Experimenting is kind of the opposite of what you said: "meaningless efforts that can't succeed". How do you know what can or can't succeed before you try them?

 

[ding]

I'm no climatologist but I went to Iceland and saw for myself how much the glaciers there have retreated. That water went somewhere and that shrinking glaciers and ice sheets have been the trend globally for years. If sea level rises it will be a global disaster and waiting for it to happen means we'll suffer the full force of it.

If we can do reasonable things to mitigate this scenario, I have no idea what they are, it seems like something my grandkids might appreciate.

We are in an interglacial period. That's what they do in interglacial periods. Please educate yourself on the planet's climate and not a computer model because they really are stacking the deck in their model. It's almost criminal how much transparency they lack.

 

[ding]

If we can do reasonable things to mitigate this scenario, I have no idea what they are, it seems like something my grandkids might appreciate.

The US and Europes CO2 emissions have been declining for almost two decades while China and the Rest of the World are increasing by 1 billion tons each and every year. That means every five years they produce a new US equivalent amount of emissions. So in 5 years you can pretend like there's a new USA and 5 years after that another new USA. And so on and so on. Are you getting the picture?

How are you going to mitigate that?

 

[Dante Reawakened]

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.

Huh? Zero Hedge - Wikipedia

and is this the old shit from 3 1/2 years ago: Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming

3. 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..."

YES. YOU POSTED A TWO YEAR OLD BS PAPER AS IF WERE NEW IN 2021

 

[westwall]

Experimenting is kind of the opposite of what you said: "meaningless efforts that can't succeed". How do you know what can or can't succeed before you try them?

Because with no requirement to reduce pollution there CAN be no success.

 

[alang1216]

I hold a PhD in geology. You know, a "HARD" science. As opposed to the soft science of climatology.

A simple sports analogy for you as simple seems the best you are capable of. A hard science requires exact measurement, and observable action. So track and field or football, or racing are excellent analogies. Whoever wins the race, is the winner. There is no second guessing, there is no guessing, there are no "maybes", there is only 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.

Climatology though, is akin to gymnastics or ice dancing. A bunch of judges watch the performance, and then they agree amongst themselves who they liked better. CONSENSUS!

See, so simple even a moron, like you, can understand.

This is the internet doc, everyone here has a Ph.D. Not every science is 'hard' or easily quantifiable. It is a challenge. But if sea level rises, for whatever reason, that is 'hard'.

 

[alang1216]

So what. The simple fact is there is ZERO requirement to reduce pollution. Kind of stupid if the claims are so dire.

So carbon in the atmosphere has no effect on climate? I thought you were a geologist, not a climatologist?

 

[ding]

So carbon in the atmosphere has no effect on climate? I thought you were a geologist, not a climatologist?

It's never been shown to drive the planet's climate before. It didn't keep the planet from cooling from a super greenhouse state when it was ~1,000 ppm. It didn't keep the planet from transitioning from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet when it was over 400 ppm. It didn't prevent glacial periods from turning into interglacial periods when it was 150 ppm.

In fact the only known correlation is from before the industrial revolution when CO2 correlated to temperature because of its solubility in water versus temperature. But that correlation is broken now and CO2 only correlates with emissions but not on a 1 for 1 basis.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

So carbon in the atmosphere has no effect on climate? I thought you were a geologist, not a climatologist?

Maybe they meant they're a dermatologist?

 

[Dante Reawakened]

So carbon in the atmosphere has no effect on climate? I thought you were a geologist, not a climatologist?

they just ignore:

Why is carbon in the atmosphere a problem?


Without carbon dioxide, Earth's natural greenhouse effect would be too weak to keep the average global surface temperature above freezing. By adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, people are supercharging the natural greenhouse effect, causing global temperature to rise.Jun 23, 2022

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

In the past 60 years, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 100 times faster than it did during the end of the last ice age.

www.climate.gov

 

[alang1216]

Because with no requirement to reduce pollution there CAN be no success.

So you don't believe in the greenhouse effect?

 

[ding]

I like this graphic because it really puts things into perspective. And just begs for questions to be asked.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

I hold a PhD in geology. You know, a "HARD" science. As opposed to the soft science of climatology.

A simple sports analogy for you as simple seems the best you are capable of. A hard science requires exact measurement, and observable action. So track and field or football, or racing are excellent analogies. Whoever wins the race, is the winner. There is no second guessing, there is no guessing, there are no "maybes", there is only 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.

Climatology though, is akin to gymnastics or ice dancing. A bunch of judges watch the performance, and then they agree amongst themselves who they liked better. CONSENSUS!

See, so simple even a moron, like you, can understand.

even brittanica dot com gets it:

climatology, branch of the atmospheric sciences concerned with both the description of climate and the analysis of the causes of climatic differences and changes and their practical consequences.

 

[ding]

they just ignore:

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

In the past 60 years, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 100 times faster than it did during the end of the last ice age.

www.climate.gov

Actually my issue is with climate sensitivity. Do you know anything about that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

they just ignore:

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

In the past 60 years, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 100 times faster than it did during the end of the last ice age.

www.climate.gov

Supercharging? Sounds serious!

How many new nuclear reactors should we build?

 

[alang1216]

they just ignore:

It's not science it's ideology. The softest 'science'.