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

[Sunsettommy]

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.

How did Humans, Corals survive the Meltwater Pulse?

How come humans and corals that survived rapid sea level rise for thousands of years are now in danger of a tiny sea level rise of today?

View attachment 511840

You need to ask the people of Doggerland.

Doggerland - Wikipedia​

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

It was brought into existence BECAUSE of Glaciation, thus its demise was a matter of time. I posted this in front of you not long ago, you ignored it, here is the source I used for it:

Doggerland - The Europe That Was​

Excerpt from National Geographic:

Mesolithic people populated Doggerland. Archaeologists and anthropologists say the Doggerlanders were hunter-gatherers who migrated with the seasons, fishing, hunting, and gathering food such as hazelnuts and berries.

Over time, the Doggerlanders were slowly flooded out of their seasonal hunting grounds. Water previously locked away in glaciers and ice sheets began to melt, drowning Doggerland. Around 6,000 years ago, the Mesolithic people were forced onto higher ground in what is today England and the Netherlands.

View attachment 511902

=====

You left out Corals, which can't walk away from the rising waters, how did they survive far more rapid rise than they face today?

So the Doggerlanders knew their geography and climatology and didn't get trapped by the rising waters?

What happens to corals when water levels change? They die. New ones grow elsewhere but that is not the model I want for my grandchildren.

No they didn't die, they kept up with the changes, but your ignorance made you say wild things.

The Great Barrier Reef in Australia is about 500,000 years old.

You science illiteracy keeps you dumb.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Don't forget though.......

Since millions and millions of years before man ever existed this planet has gone through the same thing we're seeing right now countless times. This planet has had worldwide floods, worldwide droughts, worldwide fires, an ice age, worldwide floods, seismic activity enough to break apart land masses, total reversal of the poles, bombardment of cosmic rays, the total loss and gain of the ozone layer, bombardment by meteors, and so much more.

Earth is chaotic, it's ever changing. We have only been around a ting fraction, not long enough to actually see any of its cycles yet.

To know what has happened to earth and blame this on man when he has only been involved in heavy industry for a 100 years or so is foolish, short sighted and irresponsible.

This planet has been proven to gone through what it is now before us and way worse. The planet is just fine.

We're still in the Ice Age. The Holocene period, when the glaciers retreated. Not the first inter glacial period of the Ice age, just the most recent. Temperatures have risen as high as they've ever been during this period.

I saw this documentary last weekend that says we are now out of the Holocene period and may be beyond the point of no return. For the first time the equilibrium of the Holocene period which gave rise to human development has shifted. We are now in the Anthropocene period.

 

[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.

Don't forget though.......

Since millions and millions of years before man ever existed this planet has gone through the same thing we're seeing right now countless times. This planet has had worldwide floods, worldwide droughts, worldwide fires, an ice age, worldwide floods, seismic activity enough to break apart land masses, total reversal of the poles, bombardment of cosmic rays, the total loss and gain of the ozone layer, bombardment by meteors, and so much more.

Earth is chaotic, it's ever changing. We have only been around a ting fraction, not long enough to actually see any of its cycles yet.

To know what has happened to earth and blame this on man when he has only been involved in heavy industry for a 100 years or so is foolish, short sighted and irresponsible.

This planet has been proven to gone through what it is now before us and way worse. The planet is just fine.

We're still in the Ice Age. The Holocene period, when the glaciers retreated. Not the first inter glacial period of the Ice age, just the most recent. Temperatures have risen as high as they've ever been during this period.

I saw this documentary last weekend that says we are now out of the Holocene period and may be beyond the point of no return. For the first time the equilibrium of the Holocene period which gave rise to human development has shifted. We are now in the Anthropocene period.

Ha ha, there is no such Anthropocene period, you are being fed nonsense.

We are still in the Holocene too.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Don't forget though.......

Since millions and millions of years before man ever existed this planet has gone through the same thing we're seeing right now countless times. This planet has had worldwide floods, worldwide droughts, worldwide fires, an ice age, worldwide floods, seismic activity enough to break apart land masses, total reversal of the poles, bombardment of cosmic rays, the total loss and gain of the ozone layer, bombardment by meteors, and so much more.

Earth is chaotic, it's ever changing. We have only been around a ting fraction, not long enough to actually see any of its cycles yet.

To know what has happened to earth and blame this on man when he has only been involved in heavy industry for a 100 years or so is foolish, short sighted and irresponsible.

This planet has been proven to gone through what it is now before us and way worse. The planet is just fine.

We're still in the Ice Age. The Holocene period, when the glaciers retreated. Not the first inter glacial period of the Ice age, just the most recent. Temperatures have risen as high as they've ever been during this period.

I saw this documentary last weekend that says we are now out of the Holocene period and may be beyond the point of no return. For the first time the equilibrium of the Holocene period which gave rise to human development has shifted. We are now in the Anthropocene period.

Ha ha, there is no such Anthropocene period, you are being fed nonsense.

We are still in the Holocene too.

Sorry dog. Its not officially official yet but thats only a matter of paperwork.

Anthropocene - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Various start dates for the Anthropocene have been proposed, ranging from the beginning of the Agricultural Revolution 12,000–15,000 years ago, to as recently as the 1960s. The ratification process is still ongoing, and thus a date remains to be decided definitively, but the peak in radionuclides fallout consequential to atomic bomb testing during the 1950s has been more favoured than others, locating a possible beginning of the Anthropocene to the detonation of the first atomic bomb in 1945, or the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963."

 

[mamooth]

Otto already posted this link, and most of the deniers ignored it. Tommy, to his credit, posted a debunking from WUWT, which was also ignored.

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

Now here's the really funny part, where I ask the deniers to, in their own words, summarize what that glorious paper supposedly said.

<crickets>

None of them read it, of course. Most of them won't even read their own sources. The cult tells them what's supposed to be right, and they all just BELIEVE. Now, do what you do best, deniers, which is deflect from the really awful "science" of the "paper" with every cult-approved talking point that you know

 

[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.

Don't forget though.......

Since millions and millions of years before man ever existed this planet has gone through the same thing we're seeing right now countless times. This planet has had worldwide floods, worldwide droughts, worldwide fires, an ice age, worldwide floods, seismic activity enough to break apart land masses, total reversal of the poles, bombardment of cosmic rays, the total loss and gain of the ozone layer, bombardment by meteors, and so much more.

Earth is chaotic, it's ever changing. We have only been around a ting fraction, not long enough to actually see any of its cycles yet.

To know what has happened to earth and blame this on man when he has only been involved in heavy industry for a 100 years or so is foolish, short sighted and irresponsible.

This planet has been proven to gone through what it is now before us and way worse. The planet is just fine.

We're still in the Ice Age. The Holocene period, when the glaciers retreated. Not the first inter glacial period of the Ice age, just the most recent. Temperatures have risen as high as they've ever been during this period.

I saw this documentary last weekend that says we are now out of the Holocene period and may be beyond the point of no return. For the first time the equilibrium of the Holocene period which gave rise to human development has shifted. We are now in the Anthropocene period.

Ha ha, there is no such Anthropocene period, you are being fed nonsense.

We are still in the Holocene too.

Sorry dog. Its not officially official yet but thats only a matter of paperwork.

Anthropocene - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Various start dates for the Anthropocene have been proposed, ranging from the beginning of the Agricultural Revolution 12,000–15,000 years ago, to as recently as the 1960s. The ratification process is still ongoing, and thus a date remains to be decided definitively, but the peak in radionuclides fallout consequential to atomic bomb testing during the 1950s has been more favoured than others, locating a possible beginning of the Anthropocene to the detonation of the first atomic bomb in 1945, or the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963."

It has been PROPOSED for years now, this Geologist member stated the following this July 6, 2021:

"As of this morning, the International Commission on Stratigraphy has still not ratified the Anthropocene Epoch. Considering the fact that the Anthropocene Working Group hasn’t come up with a geologically coherent rationale for an Anthropocene Epoch in the 12 years they have been publishing newsletters, it’s a fairly safe bet that we will be living in the Holocene Epoch for the foreseeable future. Simon Turner, co-author of Sarah’s Science Fiction novel is actually a member of the AWG. As of August 2019, they expected to have a proposal ready by 2021. The new target is 2024.

Technically, the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) would have to approve it and it would have to be ratified by the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS).

From Finney & Edwards: “Workflow for approval and ratification of a Global Standard Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) proposal. Extensive discussion and evaluation occurs at the level of the working group, subcommission, and International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) Bureau. If approved at these successive levels, a proposal is forwarded to the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) for ratification. This process is also followed for other ICS decisions on standardization, such as approval of names of formal units, of revisions to the units, and to revision or replacement of GSSPs.”

The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
Finney & Edwards, 2016

Finney, Stanley C. & Lucy E. Edwards. “The “Anthropocene” epoch: Scientific decision or political statement?” GSA Today, 2016; 26 (3): 4 DOI: 10.1130/GSATG270A.1

Dr. Stanley Finney is the Secretary General of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), which would have to ratify any formal changes to the geologic time scale.

LINK

=====

Anthropocene, it is so stupid.

 

[alang1216]

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.

How did Humans, Corals survive the Meltwater Pulse?

How come humans and corals that survived rapid sea level rise for thousands of years are now in danger of a tiny sea level rise of today?

View attachment 511840

You need to ask the people of Doggerland.

Doggerland - Wikipedia​

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

It was brought into existence BECAUSE of Glaciation, thus its demise was a matter of time. I posted this in front of you not long ago, you ignored it, here is the source I used for it:

Doggerland - The Europe That Was​

Excerpt from National Geographic:

Mesolithic people populated Doggerland. Archaeologists and anthropologists say the Doggerlanders were hunter-gatherers who migrated with the seasons, fishing, hunting, and gathering food such as hazelnuts and berries.

Over time, the Doggerlanders were slowly flooded out of their seasonal hunting grounds. Water previously locked away in glaciers and ice sheets began to melt, drowning Doggerland. Around 6,000 years ago, the Mesolithic people were forced onto higher ground in what is today England and the Netherlands.

View attachment 511902

=====

You left out Corals, which can't walk away from the rising waters, how did they survive far more rapid rise than they face today?

So the Doggerlanders knew their geography and climatology and didn't get trapped by the rising waters?

What happens to corals when water levels change? They die. New ones grow elsewhere but that is not the model I want for my grandchildren.

No they didn't die, they kept up with the changes, but your ignorance made you say wild things.

The Great Barrier Reef in Australia is about 500,000 years old.

You science illiteracy keeps you dumb.

The coral species didn't go extinct but individual corals died in great numbers. Mankind will survive any changes in sea level but individual farmers in low-lying Bangladesh will not fare so well.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

How did Humans, Corals survive the Meltwater Pulse?

How come humans and corals that survived rapid sea level rise for thousands of years are now in danger of a tiny sea level rise of today?

View attachment 511840

You need to ask the people of Doggerland.

Doggerland - Wikipedia​

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

It was brought into existence BECAUSE of Glaciation, thus its demise was a matter of time. I posted this in front of you not long ago, you ignored it, here is the source I used for it:

Doggerland - The Europe That Was​

Excerpt from National Geographic:

Mesolithic people populated Doggerland. Archaeologists and anthropologists say the Doggerlanders were hunter-gatherers who migrated with the seasons, fishing, hunting, and gathering food such as hazelnuts and berries.

Over time, the Doggerlanders were slowly flooded out of their seasonal hunting grounds. Water previously locked away in glaciers and ice sheets began to melt, drowning Doggerland. Around 6,000 years ago, the Mesolithic people were forced onto higher ground in what is today England and the Netherlands.

View attachment 511902

=====

You left out Corals, which can't walk away from the rising waters, how did they survive far more rapid rise than they face today?

So the Doggerlanders knew their geography and climatology and didn't get trapped by the rising waters?

What happens to corals when water levels change? They die. New ones grow elsewhere but that is not the model I want for my grandchildren.

No they didn't die, they kept up with the changes, but your ignorance made you say wild things.

The Great Barrier Reef in Australia is about 500,000 years old.

You science illiteracy keeps you dumb.

The coral species didn't go extinct but individual corals died in great numbers. Mankind will survive any changes in sea level but individual farmers in low-lying Bangladesh will not fare so well.

Still no evidence presented, I post evidence that they do survive huge sea level increase.

There are a lot of Corals in various places that survived the rapid rise otherwise we wouldn't see much or none at all, how come you didn't think of it?

You are batting zero so far.

 

[alang1216]

Still no evidence presented, I post evidence that they do survive huge sea level increase.

There are a lot of Corals in various places that survived the rapid rise otherwise we wouldn't see much or none at all, how come you didn't think of it?

You are batting zero so far.

Sounds like you don't think Stalin is such a bad guy since, although he killed 20 million Russians, there are still Russians alive today.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Still no evidence presented, I post evidence that they do survive huge sea level increase.

There are a lot of Corals in various places that survived the rapid rise otherwise we wouldn't see much or none at all, how come you didn't think of it?

You are batting zero so far.

Sounds like you don't think Stalin is such a bad guy since, although he killed 20 million Russians, there are still Russians alive today.

Your stupid reply was dead on arrival because you present no evidence at all.

When are you going to stop making a fool of yourself posting endless opinions?

You are STILL batting zero.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Don't forget though.......

Since millions and millions of years before man ever existed this planet has gone through the same thing we're seeing right now countless times. This planet has had worldwide floods, worldwide droughts, worldwide fires, an ice age, worldwide floods, seismic activity enough to break apart land masses, total reversal of the poles, bombardment of cosmic rays, the total loss and gain of the ozone layer, bombardment by meteors, and so much more.

Earth is chaotic, it's ever changing. We have only been around a ting fraction, not long enough to actually see any of its cycles yet.

To know what has happened to earth and blame this on man when he has only been involved in heavy industry for a 100 years or so is foolish, short sighted and irresponsible.

This planet has been proven to gone through what it is now before us and way worse. The planet is just fine.

We're still in the Ice Age. The Holocene period, when the glaciers retreated. Not the first inter glacial period of the Ice age, just the most recent. Temperatures have risen as high as they've ever been during this period.

I saw this documentary last weekend that says we are now out of the Holocene period and may be beyond the point of no return. For the first time the equilibrium of the Holocene period which gave rise to human development has shifted. We are now in the Anthropocene period.

Thanks.

The primary question that the IUGS needs to answer before declaring the Anthropocene an epoch is if humans have changed the Earth system to the point that it is reflected in the rock strata.

To those scientists who do think the Anthropocene describes a new geological time period, the next question is, when did it begin, which also has been widely debated. A popular theory is that it began at the start of the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, when human activity had a great impact on carbon and methane in Earth’s atmosphere. Others think that the beginning of the Anthropocene should be 1945. This is when humans tested the first atomic bomb, and then dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The resulting radioactive particles were detected in soil samples globally.

In 2016, the Anthropocene Working Group agreed that the Anthropocene is different from the Holocene, and began in the year 1950 when the Great Acceleration, a dramatic increase in human activity affecting the planet, took off.

Anthropocene

The Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth’s history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet’s climate and ecosystems.

www.nationalgeographic.org

 

[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.

Don't forget though.......

Since millions and millions of years before man ever existed this planet has gone through the same thing we're seeing right now countless times. This planet has had worldwide floods, worldwide droughts, worldwide fires, an ice age, worldwide floods, seismic activity enough to break apart land masses, total reversal of the poles, bombardment of cosmic rays, the total loss and gain of the ozone layer, bombardment by meteors, and so much more.

Earth is chaotic, it's ever changing. We have only been around a ting fraction, not long enough to actually see any of its cycles yet.

To know what has happened to earth and blame this on man when he has only been involved in heavy industry for a 100 years or so is foolish, short sighted and irresponsible.

This planet has been proven to gone through what it is now before us and way worse. The planet is just fine.

We're still in the Ice Age. The Holocene period, when the glaciers retreated. Not the first inter glacial period of the Ice age, just the most recent. Temperatures have risen as high as they've ever been during this period.

I saw this documentary last weekend that says we are now out of the Holocene period and may be beyond the point of no return. For the first time the equilibrium of the Holocene period which gave rise to human development has shifted. We are now in the Anthropocene period.

Thanks.

The primary question that the IUGS needs to answer before declaring the Anthropocene an epoch is if humans have changed the Earth system to the point that it is reflected in the rock strata.

To those scientists who do think the Anthropocene describes a new geological time period, the next question is, when did it begin, which also has been widely debated. A popular theory is that it began at the start of the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, when human activity had a great impact on carbon and methane in Earth’s atmosphere. Others think that the beginning of the Anthropocene should be 1945. This is when humans tested the first atomic bomb, and then dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The resulting radioactive particles were detected in soil samples globally.

In 2016, the Anthropocene Working Group agreed that the Anthropocene is different from the Holocene, and began in the year 1950 when the Great Acceleration, a dramatic increase in human activity affecting the planet, took off.

Anthropocene

The Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth’s history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet’s climate and ecosystems.

www.nationalgeographic.org

HA HA HA,

again do I have to point out that it is a proposal that doesn't meet the definition of what is an epoch, I showed at POST 146 is nonsense.

The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
Finney & Edwards, 2016

 

[skookerasbil]

At this point, the debate is moot. Either way. THAT cant be debated. After 20 years of the camps of true believers and skeptics going back and forth, outside of college campuses and internet message boards, nobody is caring about the debate and most importantly, the voters. And frankly, that is all the matters.......if the science cant transcend beyond its own field and into the field of energy, its nothing more than a group navel contemplation exercise.

Heres what we do know.........the whole "97% of climate scientists agree........." has done ZERO to change western nations energy policies over the past 20 years. Renewable energy is still fringe.........and will be for decades btw...........Annual Electric Power Industry Report, Form EIA-861 detailed data files . Read it and weep if you are a climate crusader.

So we can all have fun going back and forth with the science exercise here ( which btw, gets hilarious for skeptic USMB members in here ) but in the end, its about as sensible as debating about which beer is best.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Don't forget though.......

Since millions and millions of years before man ever existed this planet has gone through the same thing we're seeing right now countless times. This planet has had worldwide floods, worldwide droughts, worldwide fires, an ice age, worldwide floods, seismic activity enough to break apart land masses, total reversal of the poles, bombardment of cosmic rays, the total loss and gain of the ozone layer, bombardment by meteors, and so much more.

Earth is chaotic, it's ever changing. We have only been around a ting fraction, not long enough to actually see any of its cycles yet.

To know what has happened to earth and blame this on man when he has only been involved in heavy industry for a 100 years or so is foolish, short sighted and irresponsible.

This planet has been proven to gone through what it is now before us and way worse. The planet is just fine.

We're still in the Ice Age. The Holocene period, when the glaciers retreated. Not the first inter glacial period of the Ice age, just the most recent. Temperatures have risen as high as they've ever been during this period.

I saw this documentary last weekend that says we are now out of the Holocene period and may be beyond the point of no return. For the first time the equilibrium of the Holocene period which gave rise to human development has shifted. We are now in the Anthropocene period.

Thanks.

The primary question that the IUGS needs to answer before declaring the Anthropocene an epoch is if humans have changed the Earth system to the point that it is reflected in the rock strata.

To those scientists who do think the Anthropocene describes a new geological time period, the next question is, when did it begin, which also has been widely debated. A popular theory is that it began at the start of the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, when human activity had a great impact on carbon and methane in Earth’s atmosphere. Others think that the beginning of the Anthropocene should be 1945. This is when humans tested the first atomic bomb, and then dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The resulting radioactive particles were detected in soil samples globally.

In 2016, the Anthropocene Working Group agreed that the Anthropocene is different from the Holocene, and began in the year 1950 when the Great Acceleration, a dramatic increase in human activity affecting the planet, took off.

Anthropocene

The Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth’s history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet’s climate and ecosystems.

www.nationalgeographic.org

HA HA HA,

again do I have to point out that it is a proposal that doesn't meet the definition of what is an epoch, I showed at POST 146 is nonsense.

The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
Finney & Edwards, 2016

"These units are classified based on Earth’s rock layers, or strata, and the fossils found within them. From examining these fossils, scientists know that certain organisms are characteristic of certain parts of the geologic record. The study of this correlation is called stratigraphy. "

In geologic time, 1945 was like a second ago. Radiation from the atomic age will mark our geologic layer We'll never know if the layer we leave behind will mark a dramatic change in the organisms found above our layer. At least that's what I got out of the Nat Geo article I linked to.

 

[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.

Don't forget though.......

Since millions and millions of years before man ever existed this planet has gone through the same thing we're seeing right now countless times. This planet has had worldwide floods, worldwide droughts, worldwide fires, an ice age, worldwide floods, seismic activity enough to break apart land masses, total reversal of the poles, bombardment of cosmic rays, the total loss and gain of the ozone layer, bombardment by meteors, and so much more.

Earth is chaotic, it's ever changing. We have only been around a ting fraction, not long enough to actually see any of its cycles yet.

To know what has happened to earth and blame this on man when he has only been involved in heavy industry for a 100 years or so is foolish, short sighted and irresponsible.

This planet has been proven to gone through what it is now before us and way worse. The planet is just fine.

We're still in the Ice Age. The Holocene period, when the glaciers retreated. Not the first inter glacial period of the Ice age, just the most recent. Temperatures have risen as high as they've ever been during this period.

I saw this documentary last weekend that says we are now out of the Holocene period and may be beyond the point of no return. For the first time the equilibrium of the Holocene period which gave rise to human development has shifted. We are now in the Anthropocene period.

Thanks.

The primary question that the IUGS needs to answer before declaring the Anthropocene an epoch is if humans have changed the Earth system to the point that it is reflected in the rock strata.

To those scientists who do think the Anthropocene describes a new geological time period, the next question is, when did it begin, which also has been widely debated. A popular theory is that it began at the start of the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, when human activity had a great impact on carbon and methane in Earth’s atmosphere. Others think that the beginning of the Anthropocene should be 1945. This is when humans tested the first atomic bomb, and then dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The resulting radioactive particles were detected in soil samples globally.

In 2016, the Anthropocene Working Group agreed that the Anthropocene is different from the Holocene, and began in the year 1950 when the Great Acceleration, a dramatic increase in human activity affecting the planet, took off.

Anthropocene

The Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth’s history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet’s climate and ecosystems.

www.nationalgeographic.org

HA HA HA,

again do I have to point out that it is a proposal that doesn't meet the definition of what is an epoch, I showed at POST 146 is nonsense.

The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
Finney & Edwards, 2016

"These units are classified based on Earth’s rock layers, or strata, and the fossils found within them. From examining these fossils, scientists know that certain organisms are characteristic of certain parts of the geologic record. The study of this correlation is called stratigraphy. "

In geologic time, 1945 was like a second ago. Radiation from the atomic age will mark our geologic layer We'll never know if the layer we leave behind will mark a dramatic change in the organisms found above our layer. At least that's what I got out of the Nat Geo article I linked to.

Again this from the LEADER of the IUGS,

"From Finney & Edwards: “Workflow for approval and ratification of a Global Standard Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) proposal. Extensive discussion and evaluation occurs at the level of the working group, subcommission, and International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) Bureau. If approved at these successive levels, a proposal is forwarded to the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) for ratification. This process is also followed for other ICS decisions on standardization, such as approval of names of formal units, of revisions to the units, and to revision or replacement of GSSPs.”

The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
Finney & Edwards, 2016

Dr. Stanley Finney is the Secretary General of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), which would have to ratify any formal changes to the geologic time scale."

Stop being foolish here, there is NO indication the name Anthropocene will ever be adopted since as clearly pointed out, it doesn't meet the CRITERIA for inclusion.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Don't forget though.......

Since millions and millions of years before man ever existed this planet has gone through the same thing we're seeing right now countless times. This planet has had worldwide floods, worldwide droughts, worldwide fires, an ice age, worldwide floods, seismic activity enough to break apart land masses, total reversal of the poles, bombardment of cosmic rays, the total loss and gain of the ozone layer, bombardment by meteors, and so much more.

Earth is chaotic, it's ever changing. We have only been around a ting fraction, not long enough to actually see any of its cycles yet.

To know what has happened to earth and blame this on man when he has only been involved in heavy industry for a 100 years or so is foolish, short sighted and irresponsible.

This planet has been proven to gone through what it is now before us and way worse. The planet is just fine.

We're still in the Ice Age. The Holocene period, when the glaciers retreated. Not the first inter glacial period of the Ice age, just the most recent. Temperatures have risen as high as they've ever been during this period.

I saw this documentary last weekend that says we are now out of the Holocene period and may be beyond the point of no return. For the first time the equilibrium of the Holocene period which gave rise to human development has shifted. We are now in the Anthropocene period.

Thanks.

The primary question that the IUGS needs to answer before declaring the Anthropocene an epoch is if humans have changed the Earth system to the point that it is reflected in the rock strata.

To those scientists who do think the Anthropocene describes a new geological time period, the next question is, when did it begin, which also has been widely debated. A popular theory is that it began at the start of the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, when human activity had a great impact on carbon and methane in Earth’s atmosphere. Others think that the beginning of the Anthropocene should be 1945. This is when humans tested the first atomic bomb, and then dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The resulting radioactive particles were detected in soil samples globally.

In 2016, the Anthropocene Working Group agreed that the Anthropocene is different from the Holocene, and began in the year 1950 when the Great Acceleration, a dramatic increase in human activity affecting the planet, took off.

Anthropocene

The Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth’s history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet’s climate and ecosystems.

www.nationalgeographic.org

HA HA HA,

again do I have to point out that it is a proposal that doesn't meet the definition of what is an epoch, I showed at POST 146 is nonsense.

The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
Finney & Edwards, 2016

"These units are classified based on Earth’s rock layers, or strata, and the fossils found within them. From examining these fossils, scientists know that certain organisms are characteristic of certain parts of the geologic record. The study of this correlation is called stratigraphy. "

In geologic time, 1945 was like a second ago. Radiation from the atomic age will mark our geologic layer We'll never know if the layer we leave behind will mark a dramatic change in the organisms found above our layer. At least that's what I got out of the Nat Geo article I linked to.

Again this from the LEADER of the IUGS,

"From Finney & Edwards: “Workflow for approval and ratification of a Global Standard Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) proposal. Extensive discussion and evaluation occurs at the level of the working group, subcommission, and International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) Bureau. If approved at these successive levels, a proposal is forwarded to the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) for ratification. This process is also followed for other ICS decisions on standardization, such as approval of names of formal units, of revisions to the units, and to revision or replacement of GSSPs.”

The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
Finney & Edwards, 2016

Dr. Stanley Finney is the Secretary General of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), which would have to ratify any formal changes to the geologic time scale."

Stop being foolish here, there is NO indication the name Anthropocene will ever be adopted since as clearly pointed out, it doesn't meet the CRITERIA for inclusion.

The name will not matter if it truly is the beginning of a new epoch. I'm not saying it is. I'm saying we'll never know.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Don't forget though.......

Since millions and millions of years before man ever existed this planet has gone through the same thing we're seeing right now countless times. This planet has had worldwide floods, worldwide droughts, worldwide fires, an ice age, worldwide floods, seismic activity enough to break apart land masses, total reversal of the poles, bombardment of cosmic rays, the total loss and gain of the ozone layer, bombardment by meteors, and so much more.

Earth is chaotic, it's ever changing. We have only been around a ting fraction, not long enough to actually see any of its cycles yet.

To know what has happened to earth and blame this on man when he has only been involved in heavy industry for a 100 years or so is foolish, short sighted and irresponsible.

This planet has been proven to gone through what it is now before us and way worse. The planet is just fine.

We're still in the Ice Age. The Holocene period, when the glaciers retreated. Not the first inter glacial period of the Ice age, just the most recent. Temperatures have risen as high as they've ever been during this period.

I saw this documentary last weekend that says we are now out of the Holocene period and may be beyond the point of no return. For the first time the equilibrium of the Holocene period which gave rise to human development has shifted. We are now in the Anthropocene period.

Ha ha, there is no such Anthropocene period, you are being fed nonsense.

We are still in the Holocene too.

Sorry dog. Its not officially official yet but thats only a matter of paperwork.

Anthropocene - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Various start dates for the Anthropocene have been proposed, ranging from the beginning of the Agricultural Revolution 12,000–15,000 years ago, to as recently as the 1960s. The ratification process is still ongoing, and thus a date remains to be decided definitively, but the peak in radionuclides fallout consequential to atomic bomb testing during the 1950s has been more favoured than others, locating a possible beginning of the Anthropocene to the detonation of the first atomic bomb in 1945, or the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963."

It has been PROPOSED for years now, this Geologist member stated the following this July 6, 2021:

"As of this morning, the International Commission on Stratigraphy has still not ratified the Anthropocene Epoch. Considering the fact that the Anthropocene Working Group hasn’t come up with a geologically coherent rationale for an Anthropocene Epoch in the 12 years they have been publishing newsletters, it’s a fairly safe bet that we will be living in the Holocene Epoch for the foreseeable future. Simon Turner, co-author of Sarah’s Science Fiction novel is actually a member of the AWG. As of August 2019, they expected to have a proposal ready by 2021. The new target is 2024.

Technically, the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) would have to approve it and it would have to be ratified by the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS).

From Finney & Edwards: “Workflow for approval and ratification of a Global Standard Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) proposal. Extensive discussion and evaluation occurs at the level of the working group, subcommission, and International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) Bureau. If approved at these successive levels, a proposal is forwarded to the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) for ratification. This process is also followed for other ICS decisions on standardization, such as approval of names of formal units, of revisions to the units, and to revision or replacement of GSSPs.”

The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
Finney & Edwards, 2016

Finney, Stanley C. & Lucy E. Edwards. “The “Anthropocene” epoch: Scientific decision or political statement?” GSA Today, 2016; 26 (3): 4 DOI: 10.1130/GSATG270A.1

Dr. Stanley Finney is the Secretary General of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), which would have to ratify any formal changes to the geologic time scale.

LINK

=====

Anthropocene, it is so stupid.

Just sharing some knowledge with people that have the ability to learn. Its not my job to convince you.

 

[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.

Don't forget though.......

Since millions and millions of years before man ever existed this planet has gone through the same thing we're seeing right now countless times. This planet has had worldwide floods, worldwide droughts, worldwide fires, an ice age, worldwide floods, seismic activity enough to break apart land masses, total reversal of the poles, bombardment of cosmic rays, the total loss and gain of the ozone layer, bombardment by meteors, and so much more.

Earth is chaotic, it's ever changing. We have only been around a ting fraction, not long enough to actually see any of its cycles yet.

To know what has happened to earth and blame this on man when he has only been involved in heavy industry for a 100 years or so is foolish, short sighted and irresponsible.

This planet has been proven to gone through what it is now before us and way worse. The planet is just fine.

We're still in the Ice Age. The Holocene period, when the glaciers retreated. Not the first inter glacial period of the Ice age, just the most recent. Temperatures have risen as high as they've ever been during this period.

I saw this documentary last weekend that says we are now out of the Holocene period and may be beyond the point of no return. For the first time the equilibrium of the Holocene period which gave rise to human development has shifted. We are now in the Anthropocene period.

Thanks.

The primary question that the IUGS needs to answer before declaring the Anthropocene an epoch is if humans have changed the Earth system to the point that it is reflected in the rock strata.

To those scientists who do think the Anthropocene describes a new geological time period, the next question is, when did it begin, which also has been widely debated. A popular theory is that it began at the start of the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, when human activity had a great impact on carbon and methane in Earth’s atmosphere. Others think that the beginning of the Anthropocene should be 1945. This is when humans tested the first atomic bomb, and then dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The resulting radioactive particles were detected in soil samples globally.

In 2016, the Anthropocene Working Group agreed that the Anthropocene is different from the Holocene, and began in the year 1950 when the Great Acceleration, a dramatic increase in human activity affecting the planet, took off.

Anthropocene

The Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth’s history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet’s climate and ecosystems.

www.nationalgeographic.org

HA HA HA,

again do I have to point out that it is a proposal that doesn't meet the definition of what is an epoch, I showed at POST 146 is nonsense.

The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
Finney & Edwards, 2016

"These units are classified based on Earth’s rock layers, or strata, and the fossils found within them. From examining these fossils, scientists know that certain organisms are characteristic of certain parts of the geologic record. The study of this correlation is called stratigraphy. "

In geologic time, 1945 was like a second ago. Radiation from the atomic age will mark our geologic layer We'll never know if the layer we leave behind will mark a dramatic change in the organisms found above our layer. At least that's what I got out of the Nat Geo article I linked to.

Again this from the LEADER of the IUGS,

"From Finney & Edwards: “Workflow for approval and ratification of a Global Standard Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) proposal. Extensive discussion and evaluation occurs at the level of the working group, subcommission, and International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) Bureau. If approved at these successive levels, a proposal is forwarded to the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) for ratification. This process is also followed for other ICS decisions on standardization, such as approval of names of formal units, of revisions to the units, and to revision or replacement of GSSPs.”

The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
Finney & Edwards, 2016

Dr. Stanley Finney is the Secretary General of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), which would have to ratify any formal changes to the geologic time scale."

Stop being foolish here, there is NO indication the name Anthropocene will ever be adopted since as clearly pointed out, it doesn't meet the CRITERIA for inclusion.

The name will not matter if it truly is the beginning of a new epoch. I'm not saying it is. I'm saying we'll never know.

Ha ha ha, there is no new epoch needed, that is the problem you can't handle.

What is official is already good enough, no need to add a politicized pile of bullshit in a classification scheme.

You and others have yet to show that such an addition meets the standard for inclusion anyway and I already showed you twice what is the standard is, you ignored it.

You guys are so bereft of critical thinking since there have been MANY periods of far more CO2 in the atmosphere than the last 70 years, it currently at some of the lowest values of the last 570 Million years.

You people are that stupid?

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Don't forget though.......

Since millions and millions of years before man ever existed this planet has gone through the same thing we're seeing right now countless times. This planet has had worldwide floods, worldwide droughts, worldwide fires, an ice age, worldwide floods, seismic activity enough to break apart land masses, total reversal of the poles, bombardment of cosmic rays, the total loss and gain of the ozone layer, bombardment by meteors, and so much more.

Earth is chaotic, it's ever changing. We have only been around a ting fraction, not long enough to actually see any of its cycles yet.

To know what has happened to earth and blame this on man when he has only been involved in heavy industry for a 100 years or so is foolish, short sighted and irresponsible.

This planet has been proven to gone through what it is now before us and way worse. The planet is just fine.

We're still in the Ice Age. The Holocene period, when the glaciers retreated. Not the first inter glacial period of the Ice age, just the most recent. Temperatures have risen as high as they've ever been during this period.

I saw this documentary last weekend that says we are now out of the Holocene period and may be beyond the point of no return. For the first time the equilibrium of the Holocene period which gave rise to human development has shifted. We are now in the Anthropocene period.

Thanks.

The primary question that the IUGS needs to answer before declaring the Anthropocene an epoch is if humans have changed the Earth system to the point that it is reflected in the rock strata.

To those scientists who do think the Anthropocene describes a new geological time period, the next question is, when did it begin, which also has been widely debated. A popular theory is that it began at the start of the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, when human activity had a great impact on carbon and methane in Earth’s atmosphere. Others think that the beginning of the Anthropocene should be 1945. This is when humans tested the first atomic bomb, and then dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The resulting radioactive particles were detected in soil samples globally.

In 2016, the Anthropocene Working Group agreed that the Anthropocene is different from the Holocene, and began in the year 1950 when the Great Acceleration, a dramatic increase in human activity affecting the planet, took off.

Anthropocene

The Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth’s history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet’s climate and ecosystems.

www.nationalgeographic.org

HA HA HA,

again do I have to point out that it is a proposal that doesn't meet the definition of what is an epoch, I showed at POST 146 is nonsense.

The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
Finney & Edwards, 2016

"These units are classified based on Earth’s rock layers, or strata, and the fossils found within them. From examining these fossils, scientists know that certain organisms are characteristic of certain parts of the geologic record. The study of this correlation is called stratigraphy. "

In geologic time, 1945 was like a second ago. Radiation from the atomic age will mark our geologic layer We'll never know if the layer we leave behind will mark a dramatic change in the organisms found above our layer. At least that's what I got out of the Nat Geo article I linked to.

Again this from the LEADER of the IUGS,

"From Finney & Edwards: “Workflow for approval and ratification of a Global Standard Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) proposal. Extensive discussion and evaluation occurs at the level of the working group, subcommission, and International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) Bureau. If approved at these successive levels, a proposal is forwarded to the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) for ratification. This process is also followed for other ICS decisions on standardization, such as approval of names of formal units, of revisions to the units, and to revision or replacement of GSSPs.”

The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
Finney & Edwards, 2016

Dr. Stanley Finney is the Secretary General of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), which would have to ratify any formal changes to the geologic time scale."

Stop being foolish here, there is NO indication the name Anthropocene will ever be adopted since as clearly pointed out, it doesn't meet the CRITERIA for inclusion.

The name will not matter if it truly is the beginning of a new epoch. I'm not saying it is. I'm saying we'll never know.

Ha ha ha, there is no new epoch needed, that is the problem you can't handle.

What is official is already good enough, no need to add a politicized pile of bullshit in a classification scheme.

You and others have yet to show that such an addition meets the standard for inclusion anyway and I already showed you twice what is the standard is, you ignored it.

You guys are so bereft of critical thinking since there have been MANY periods of far more CO2 in the atmosphere than the last 70 years, it currently at some of the lowest values of the last 570 Million years.



View attachment 512333
You people are that stupid?

Looks like you're just dancing with yourself.

 

[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.

Don't forget though.......

Since millions and millions of years before man ever existed this planet has gone through the same thing we're seeing right now countless times. This planet has had worldwide floods, worldwide droughts, worldwide fires, an ice age, worldwide floods, seismic activity enough to break apart land masses, total reversal of the poles, bombardment of cosmic rays, the total loss and gain of the ozone layer, bombardment by meteors, and so much more.

Earth is chaotic, it's ever changing. We have only been around a ting fraction, not long enough to actually see any of its cycles yet.

To know what has happened to earth and blame this on man when he has only been involved in heavy industry for a 100 years or so is foolish, short sighted and irresponsible.

This planet has been proven to gone through what it is now before us and way worse. The planet is just fine.

We're still in the Ice Age. The Holocene period, when the glaciers retreated. Not the first inter glacial period of the Ice age, just the most recent. Temperatures have risen as high as they've ever been during this period.

I saw this documentary last weekend that says we are now out of the Holocene period and may be beyond the point of no return. For the first time the equilibrium of the Holocene period which gave rise to human development has shifted. We are now in the Anthropocene period.

Thanks.

The primary question that the IUGS needs to answer before declaring the Anthropocene an epoch is if humans have changed the Earth system to the point that it is reflected in the rock strata.

To those scientists who do think the Anthropocene describes a new geological time period, the next question is, when did it begin, which also has been widely debated. A popular theory is that it began at the start of the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, when human activity had a great impact on carbon and methane in Earth’s atmosphere. Others think that the beginning of the Anthropocene should be 1945. This is when humans tested the first atomic bomb, and then dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The resulting radioactive particles were detected in soil samples globally.

In 2016, the Anthropocene Working Group agreed that the Anthropocene is different from the Holocene, and began in the year 1950 when the Great Acceleration, a dramatic increase in human activity affecting the planet, took off.

Anthropocene

The Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth’s history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet’s climate and ecosystems.

www.nationalgeographic.org

HA HA HA,

again do I have to point out that it is a proposal that doesn't meet the definition of what is an epoch, I showed at POST 146 is nonsense.

The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
Finney & Edwards, 2016

"These units are classified based on Earth’s rock layers, or strata, and the fossils found within them. From examining these fossils, scientists know that certain organisms are characteristic of certain parts of the geologic record. The study of this correlation is called stratigraphy. "

In geologic time, 1945 was like a second ago. Radiation from the atomic age will mark our geologic layer We'll never know if the layer we leave behind will mark a dramatic change in the organisms found above our layer. At least that's what I got out of the Nat Geo article I linked to.

Again this from the LEADER of the IUGS,

"From Finney & Edwards: “Workflow for approval and ratification of a Global Standard Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) proposal. Extensive discussion and evaluation occurs at the level of the working group, subcommission, and International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) Bureau. If approved at these successive levels, a proposal is forwarded to the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) for ratification. This process is also followed for other ICS decisions on standardization, such as approval of names of formal units, of revisions to the units, and to revision or replacement of GSSPs.”

The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
Finney & Edwards, 2016

Dr. Stanley Finney is the Secretary General of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), which would have to ratify any formal changes to the geologic time scale."

Stop being foolish here, there is NO indication the name Anthropocene will ever be adopted since as clearly pointed out, it doesn't meet the CRITERIA for inclusion.

The name will not matter if it truly is the beginning of a new epoch. I'm not saying it is. I'm saying we'll never know.

Ha ha ha, there is no new epoch needed, that is the problem you can't handle.

What is official is already good enough, no need to add a politicized pile of bullshit in a classification scheme.

You and others have yet to show that such an addition meets the standard for inclusion anyway and I already showed you twice what is the standard is, you ignored it.

You guys are so bereft of critical thinking since there have been MANY periods of far more CO2 in the atmosphere than the last 70 years, it currently at some of the lowest values of the last 570 Million years.



View attachment 512333
You people are that stupid?

Looks like you're just dancing with yourself.

No it is your inability to understand what is actually going on, you fell for a stupid idea that doesn't meet the guideline on it, showed why too, you ignored it as the warmist/alarmist moron you are because you don't know jack shit about it.

The Person who wrote the article is a GEOLOGIST and a member of the organization under discussion.