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

[otto105]

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.

Facts say noooo.
Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

this "climate sensitivity" factor touched upon is a complete and utter unknown ... we have absolutely no idea what number we should be using, not even a clue ... the IPCC needs to set this value at the high end, otherwise they would have no reason to exist

This is what terrifies scientists. They don't know if runaway warming will happen. They don't know if there are tipping points. This isn't like hurricane modeling, wherein scientists get 10-20 chances per year to refine their models. There are no do-overs here.

 

[Rigby5]

I think if it comes to pass it is too late. Kind of like trying to buy health insurance from the ambulance taking you to the hospital. What you should do is pay for insurance and hope you never need it.

So what would you like to do to combat an unprecedented and anomalous rise in sea levels?
And what other one of a kind disasters would you like to change society over?
Simply eliminate all coastal societies?
Place canopys over all of society to prevent a one in a billion collision with a comet that no man made
device could prevent anyway?

Sensible precautions are one things. Trying to protect yourself against unforeseeable and unstoppable
disasters are another. Life on this planet is not guaranteed. Ask a brontosaurus, if you can find one.

Global warming is neither unforeseeable not unstoppable.
We simply should not be adding 500 trillions tons of extra carbon into the atmosphere every single year.
That fossil fuel we burn is hundreds of millions of years worth of concentrated solar energy accumulated by plants and concentrated by microbes.
It is insane to even consider doing that without huge consequences.

Normal climate change cycles are over 110,000 years long.
We are greatly increasing the temperature range of the natural cycle, and shortening it to about 250 yeats.
There is no way life can easily adapt to changes that quick.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

This may be true, maybe not, I don't know enough to say, but I'm not sure why it matters. If the sea level rises because of natural or manmade reasons, the sea level still rises and that would spell disaster for many.

One thing we do know is that civilization thrives when the climate is warmer and suffers when the climate is cooler.

Wrong.
When the climate was cooler, then the Sahara was a highly populated jungle of swamps.
When fishing boats go out, they don't go to the equator, but to the polar regions.

Humans like warm climate because we are too lean and have no fur.
But almost all other animals prefer colder climates, especially plants and fish.

Guess you don't grow a garden. My tomatoes prefer the heat, so long as they get watered enough.

Wrong.
Tomatoes get heat blisters if it is too hot.

The greens of plants need photons, not heat.
Heat is not good for plants.
The only reason why some plants due better in warm climates is that they can't survive frost, not that they like heat.
Here in New Mexico, you always use a shade net to reduce the heat.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

This may be true, maybe not, I don't know enough to say, but I'm not sure why it matters. If the sea level rises because of natural or manmade reasons, the sea level still rises and that would spell disaster for many.

One thing we do know is that civilization thrives when the climate is warmer and suffers when the climate is cooler.

Wrong.
When the climate was cooler, then the Sahara was a highly populated jungle of swamps.

You're wrong, jackass. The Sahara was green during the Holocene climatic optimum period when the climate was warmer than today.

Wrong.
The only time was warm during the Holocene was less than 8000 years ago, and the Sahara was been dry longer than that. The Sahara dried up over 10,000 years ago.

 

[toobfreak]

I think if it comes to pass it is too late. Kind of like trying to buy health insurance from the ambulance taking you to the hospital. What you should do is pay for insurance and hope you never need it.

So what would you like to do to combat an unprecedented and anomalous rise in sea levels?

We simply should not be adding 500 trillions tons of extra carbon into the atmosphere every single year.
That fossil fuel we burn is hundreds of millions of years worth of concentrated solar energy accumulated by plants and concentrated by microbes.
It is insane to even consider doing that without huge consequences.

Those crazy humans! What were they thinking wanting affordable energy for heating, cooking and transportation?!!!

 

[Rigby5]

I think if it comes to pass it is too late. Kind of like trying to buy health insurance from the ambulance taking you to the hospital. What you should do is pay for insurance and hope you never need it.

So what would you like to do to combat an unprecedented and anomalous rise in sea levels?

We simply should not be adding 500 trillions tons of extra carbon into the atmosphere every single year.
That fossil fuel we burn is hundreds of millions of years worth of concentrated solar energy accumulated by plants and concentrated by microbes.
It is insane to even consider doing that without huge consequences.

View attachment 510782 Those crazy humans! What were they thinking wanting affordable energy for heating, cooking and transportation?!!!

Wanting and expecting no consequences are 2 very different things.
If we just grow more bio fuel instead of digging up ancient sequestered fossil fuel, then we remain carbon neutral, because the bio fuel takes out more carbon while growing, then released back later when burned.

 

[toobfreak]

I think if it comes to pass it is too late. Kind of like trying to buy health insurance from the ambulance taking you to the hospital. What you should do is pay for insurance and hope you never need it.

So what would you like to do to combat an unprecedented and anomalous rise in sea levels?

We simply should not be adding 500 trillions tons of extra carbon into the atmosphere every single year.
That fossil fuel we burn is hundreds of millions of years worth of concentrated solar energy accumulated by plants and concentrated by microbes.
It is insane to even consider doing that without huge consequences.

View attachment 510782 Those crazy humans! What were they thinking wanting affordable energy for heating, cooking and transportation?!!!

Wanting and expecting no consequences are 2 very different things.
If we just grow more bio fuel instead of digging up ancient sequestered fossil fuel, then we remain carbon neutral, because the bio fuel takes out more carbon while growing, then released back later when burned.

Aside from the fact that there is good reason (as just posted here elsewhere) to believe that climate change is way overblown, there would be no civilization possible without fossil fuel. Other sources of energy will have to develop as time, practicality and affordability allow.

 

[excalibur]

Then watch as these charalatans' attempt gets laughed out of peer review.

Peer review is a farce.

Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals Don't Really Do Their Job

The rapid sharing of pandemic research shows there is a better way to filter good science from bad.

www.wired.com

 

[BluesLegend]

Don't worry the left will just pivot to the next fabricated 'crisis' and start over. Remember when they told us we are headed for an ice age. Then frogs mutating were proof of man made planet killing pollution, turned out to be a mite infestation. Then global warming and when it snowed on global warming they changed the narrative to climate 'change'. If you listen to the left and their paid shills on government grants you are a blithering idiot.

 

[Rigby5]

I think if it comes to pass it is too late. Kind of like trying to buy health insurance from the ambulance taking you to the hospital. What you should do is pay for insurance and hope you never need it.

So what would you like to do to combat an unprecedented and anomalous rise in sea levels?

We simply should not be adding 500 trillions tons of extra carbon into the atmosphere every single year.
That fossil fuel we burn is hundreds of millions of years worth of concentrated solar energy accumulated by plants and concentrated by microbes.
It is insane to even consider doing that without huge consequences.

View attachment 510782 Those crazy humans! What were they thinking wanting affordable energy for heating, cooking and transportation?!!!

Wanting and expecting no consequences are 2 very different things.
If we just grow more bio fuel instead of digging up ancient sequestered fossil fuel, then we remain carbon neutral, because the bio fuel takes out more carbon while growing, then released back later when burned.

Aside from the fact that there is good reason (as just posted here elsewhere) to believe that climate change is way overblown, there would be no civilization possible without fossil fuel. Other sources of energy will have to develop as time, practicality and affordability allow.

I agree that fossil fuels are something for nothing almost, so are a valuable treasure, that we will have to replace.
But since we only have about 50 years of oil and gas left, we had better start on that alternative.
We have more like 500 years worth of coal, but that is about double the CO2 side effects.
You can't just SAY, "Other sources of energy will have to be develop".
We have to start NOW.
We are running out of time, and the excess CO2 is having serious effects.
If nothing else, melted mountain top glaciers are preventing them from acting as reservoirs.

 

[Rigby5]

Don't worry the left will just pivot to the next fabricated 'crisis' and start over. Remember when they told us we are headed for an ice age. Then frogs mutating were proof of man made planet killing pollution, turned out to be a mite infestation. Then global warming and when it snowed on global warming they changed the narrative to climate 'change'. If you listen to the left and their paid shills on government grants you are a blithering idiot.

No one ever said the predicted ice age would happen quickly.
The full cycle is 110,000 years long normally, and we just crossed over from warming to the start of cooling, so we have over 50,000 years.

And you have frogs and bees mixed up.
The frogs are being killed by fungus, not mites.
It is bees being killed by mites.

Disappearing Frogs

stri.si.edu

And no, it never snowed on global warming.
It is still called global warming, not climate change.

 

[Nostra]

I think if it comes to pass it is too late. Kind of like trying to buy health insurance from the ambulance taking you to the hospital. What you should do is pay for insurance and hope you never need it.

So what would you like to do to combat an unprecedented and anomalous rise in sea levels?

We simply should not be adding 500 trillions tons of extra carbon into the atmosphere every single year.
That fossil fuel we burn is hundreds of millions of years worth of concentrated solar energy accumulated by plants and concentrated by microbes.
It is insane to even consider doing that without huge consequences.

View attachment 510782 Those crazy humans! What were they thinking wanting affordable energy for heating, cooking and transportation?!!!

Wanting and expecting no consequences are 2 very different things.
If we just grow more bio fuel instead of digging up ancient sequestered fossil fuel, then we remain carbon neutral, because the bio fuel takes out more carbon while growing, then released back later when burned.

Aside from the fact that there is good reason (as just posted here elsewhere) to believe that climate change is way overblown, there would be no civilization possible without fossil fuel. Other sources of energy will have to develop as time, practicality and affordability allow.

I agree that fossil fuels are something for nothing almost, so are a valuable treasure, that we will have to replace.
But since we only have about 50 years of oil and gas left, we had better start on that alternative.
We have more like 500 years worth of coal, but that is about double the CO2 side effects.
You can't just SAY, "Other sources of energy will have to be develop".
We have to start NOW.
We are running out of time, and the excess CO2 is having serious effects.
If nothing else, melted mountain top glaciers are preventing them from acting as reservoirs.

Your ilk told us we would be out of oil already.

 

[BluesLegend]

Don't worry the left will just pivot to the next fabricated 'crisis' and start over. Remember when they told us we are headed for an ice age. Then frogs mutating were proof of man made planet killing pollution, turned out to be a mite infestation. Then global warming and when it snowed on global warming they changed the narrative to climate 'change'. If you listen to the left and their paid shills on government grants you are a blithering idiot.

No one ever said the predicted ice age would happen quickly.
The full cycle is 110,000 years long normally, and we just crossed over from warming to the start of cooling, so we have over 50,000 years.

And you have frogs and bees mixed up.
The frogs are being killed by fungus, not mites.
It is bees being killed by mites.

Disappearing Frogs

stri.si.edu

And no, it never snowed on global warming.
It is still called global warming, not climate change.

I have nothing mixed up fool dumb ass Democrats claimed deformed frogs was due to a hole in the ozone hence massive tax increases and government regulations were needed. Actual scientists then studied the deformed frogs and determined this was due to mites. Don't even get us going on the dumb ass Dems 'save the spotted owl' stupidity. There's nothing dumber than a Democrat, it's been proven. And yes it did in fact snow on Ag Gore's global warming summit in Europe, hilarious. It's almost as if God was messing with him. If you wish to debate the issues with me you better bring your A game and arrive informed.

Speaking of Dem stupidity here's another. OMG all these paper grocery bags are killing all the trees and planet, quick BAN paper grocery bags. Lets use plastic bags. Fast forward 30 years...OMG the plastic grocery bags have created a global pollution disaster quick BAN plastic bags and bring back paper bags. DUMB!

 

[Lesh]

Where in Virginia do you live? Lol

Not sure why that matters but currently I don't have a house on the coast and I want to keep it that way.

Look everyone. A "smart leftist." He doesn't live on the coast. You know, like the billions of leftists who claim they believe the sea levels are rising and don't move from the coasts.....around the world.

Lol at you people

Because moving is so fucking easy

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Peer review is a farce.

No it isn't, you know fuck all about any of this, and that is just part of the steaming pile of lies you pull out whenever science doesn't match your political fetishes.

 

[jc456]

One thing we do know is that civilization thrives when the climate is warmer and suffers when the climate is cooler.

Like all those equatorial countries. Which one will you be moving to?

You even admit it’s cold! Can’t make it up

 

[jc456]

this "climate sensitivity" factor touched upon is a complete and utter unknown ... we have absolutely no idea what number we should be using, not even a clue ... the IPCC needs to set this value at the high end, otherwise they would have no reason to exist

This is what terrifies scientists. They don't know if runaway warming will happen. They don't know if there are tipping points. This isn't like hurricane modeling, wherein scientists get 10-20 chances per year to refine their models. There are no do-overs here.

They know nothing

 

[jc456]

Peer review is a farce.

No it isn't, you know fuck all about any of this, and that is just part of the steaming pile of lies you pull out whenever science doesn't match your political fetishes.

Sure it is, bubba’s club . Need secret decoder rings

 

[Skylar]

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.

So you guys finally found ONE study that backs what you want to believe. Only about 4,000 studies to go to catch up with the papers that affirm that Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

Scientific Consensus

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov