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

[justoffal]

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.

I absolutely believe this article simply because it's completely impossible to claim that we are aware of all the CO2 and inputs into our atmosphere from the Earth. For example there are numerous undersea volcanoes ( that we know of and most likely many that we don't ) that spew hundreds of thousands of tons constantly into the ocean waters which then becomes dissolved into the water and later on expelled or re-absorbed as the temperature of the water either cools down or heats up.

 

[Crick]

If, as you claim, it is "completely impossible" that we should be aware of all the significant CO2 inputs to our atmosphere, how is it that YOU know of these apparently otherwise unknown volcanoes?

Two separate lines tell us that almost every single molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere above the 280 ppm that was there at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (and many thousands of years prior) originated from the combustion of fossil fuels:
1) Simple book keeping. It is possible to make an accurate estimation of the total quantity of coal and oil that man has burned since the Industrial Revolution. Given that quantity, it is possible to calculate how much CO2 levels in the atmosphere would have been increased.
2) Isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the atmosphere can show us directly what portion was produced by fossil fuels and what was not.

Both tell us the exact same thing: that humans are responsible for just about every single speck of CO2 above 280 ppm.

 

[The Original Tree]

Cool...let's do nothing then.

Maybe places like California run by idiots should build reservoirs instead of dumb ass high speed railroads.

California’s $100 Billion Nightmare High-Speed Rail Project

The California High-Speed Rail Authority has caused a fiscal nightmare for the state.

www.cagw.org

 

[Crick]

The sea level isn't rising...do you know how I know?

the high priests of the man made global warming religion are buying up all the beachfront mansions........

There are no forest fires. Do you know how I know? Rich people still buy expensive houses in the woods.
There are no hurricanes. Do you know how I know? Rich people still buy ocean front property.
There

If, as you claim, it is "completely impossible" that we should be aware of all the significant CO2 inputs to our atmosphere, how is it that YOU know of these apparently otherwise unknown volcanoes?

Two separate lines tell us that almost every single molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere above the 280 ppm that was there at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (and many thousands of years prior) originated from the combustion of fossil fuels:
1) Simple book keeping. It is possible to make an accurate estimation of the total quantity of coal and oil that man has burned since the Industrial Revolution. Given that quantity, it is possible to calculate how much CO2 levels in the atmosphere would have been increased.
2) Isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the atmosphere can show us directly what portion was produced by fossil fuels and what was not.

Both tell us the exact same thing: that humans are responsible for just about every single speck of CO2 above 280 ppm.

So, no one cares to attempt to refute either of the measurements indicating that humans are completely responsible for the elevated CO2 levels. And no one can deny that the absorption spectrum of CO2 vis-a-vis that of water vapor and the other gases in the Earth's atmosphere provide a framework by which solar energy is trapped in our atmosphere raising the planet's equilibrium temperature. Global warming is real, it is caused by increasing CO2 and that CO2 is increasing because of human combustion of fossil fuels. Period.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Global warming is real, it is caused by increasing CO2

Except for tree CO2. It's transparent to LWIR.

 

[watchingfromafar]

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.

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

-

 

[watchingfromafar]

There are no forest fires. Do you know how I know? Rich people still buy expensive houses in the woods.

Being rich does not mean you are smarter than others.

-

 

[themirrorthief]

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.

dude canada is one cold fucking place

 

[themirrorthief]

Being rich does not mean you are smarter than others.

-

if youre rich you dont need to b smart

 

[Old Rocks]

Except for tree CO2. It's transparent to LWIR.

Now you have posted a lot of dumb ass posts, but that is a lulu. While trees do emit CO2 sometimes, they absorb far more than they ever emit. Not only that, but most of the mass in a tree is the result of it building lignin and other molecules from the CO2.

 

[Old Rocks]

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

-

Milankovitch Cycles, John Tyndall's experiment, the total amount of fossil fuels we have burned. You really need to learn something about a subject before flapping yap on it.

The Discovery of Global Warming

A hypertext history of how scientists came to (partly) understand what people are doing to cause climate change. An abridged web version of Spencer R. Weart's book presented by the American Institute of Physics.

history.aip.org

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real and a clear and present danger.

 

[task0778]

Rigby: At this point is it incredibly foolish to claim we are not causing global warming.

It could be that GW exists and that human activity is a reason. But only a fool would declare that it is the only reason, or even the strongest factor. That is absolutely unknown, no one knows the extent to which GW is caused by us. To state otherwise is a lie.


Rigby: Some cities in Canada reached over 130 degrees, and hundreds have died from the increased heat.

Now this is a bald-faced lie, both parts. there's no way the temps anywhere in Canada ever got even close to 130 degrees, nor is it anywhere near true that hundreds have died from the increased heat. You sir are a liar.

 

[abu afak]

`

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

CLAIM​

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

​

VERDICT​

​

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

​

DETAILS​

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

​

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

​

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

​

KEY TAKE AWAY​

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

​

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

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

climatefeedback.org

`


`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now you have posted a lot of dumb ass posts, but that is a lulu. While trees do emit CO2 sometimes, they absorb far more than they ever emit. Not only that, but most of the mass in a tree is the result of it building lignin and other molecules from the CO2.

CO2 from burning trees doesn't contribute to global warming.

At least according to Crick.

That CO2 must be transparent to LWIR.

 

[Old Rocks]

How could they.....the data has been "adjusted".

Yessirreeeeeeeeeeee Bob, them thar reptilians done skewed the data. And they prevented JFK Jr. from appearing Dallas this week, also. How long did you wait until you realized he wasn't going to show, Toddster?

 

[Old Rocks]

Rigby: At this point is it incredibly foolish to claim we are not causing global warming.

It could be that GW exists and that human activity is a reason. But only a fool would declare that it is the only reason, or even the strongest factor. That is absolutely unknown, no one knows the extent to which GW is caused by us. To state otherwise is a lie.


Rigby: Some cities in Canada reached over 130 degrees, and hundreds have died from the increased heat.

Now this is a bald-faced lie, both parts. there's no way the temps anywhere in Canada ever got even close to 130 degrees, nor is it anywhere near true that hundreds have died from the increased heat. You sir are a liar.

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

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

That is 121 F.

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

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

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

You owe someone an apology.

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2 from burning trees doesn't contribute to global warming.

At least according to Crick.

That CO2 must be transparent to LWIR.

And what is your point here? The GHG's we have put into the atmosphere has increased the conditions that are ideal conditions for very large fires, like measure in a thousand square miles. Yes, that puts huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, which increases the chance of large fires because of higher temperatures and more extreme weather. We created this feedback loop with the amount of GHGs that we put into the atmosphere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And what is your point here? The GHG's we have put into the atmosphere has increased the conditions that are ideal conditions for very large fires, like measure in a thousand square miles. Yes, that puts huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, which increases the chance of large fires because of higher temperatures and more extreme weather. We created this feedback loop with the amount of GHGs that we put into the atmosphere.

And what is your point here?

That Crick was wrong.

The GHG's we have put into the atmosphere has increased the conditions that are ideal conditions for very large fires, like measure in a thousand square miles.

Baloney.

 

[wamose]

Democrats need a fantasy to get excited about. They love chasing their tails.

 

[justoffal]

If, as you claim, it is "completely impossible" that we should be aware of all the significant CO2 inputs to our atmosphere, how is it that YOU know of these apparently otherwise unknown volcanoes?

Two separate lines tell us that almost every single molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere above the 280 ppm that was there at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (and many thousands of years prior) originated from the combustion of fossil fuels:
1) Simple book keeping. It is possible to make an accurate estimation of the total quantity of coal and oil that man has burned since the Industrial Revolution. Given that quantity, it is possible to calculate how much CO2 levels in the atmosphere would have been increased.
2) Isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the atmosphere can show us directly what portion was produced by fossil fuels and what was not.

Both tell us the exact same thing: that humans are responsible for just about every single speck of CO2 above 280 ppm.

The deep reaches of the oceans are nearly totally unknown to us....after a certain depth it becomes impossible to operate with any technical proficiency.... We can assume that much of it is similar to what we are able to observe in more shallow depths....based on that it is almost certain that there are numerous unnamed volcanic outlets that we have yet to locate.