Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on globa

[evenflow1969]

I have never met some one who uses as many words as you do to say nothing.

You rival other liberals here in ignorance.... The feeling is mutual...

It amazes me how a failed model is more accurate than observed evidence... Stunning ignorance by the left...

While you tout sources like these go fuck your self.

LOL...

The source is not the issue.. It is the facts you ignore that are. When a fantasy is more accurate than observed empirical evidence that calls it into question, you have a sever credibility problem. I deal in FACTS I can prove.. They do not... Its as simple as that.

The source offers no facts. Mean while I am a civil engineer and I am one of the people tasked to deal with the extra water and soil erosion occuring due to climate change. It is already effecting my wallet ass hole as I currently need to spend 250k on new floating docks and my fish cutting building, I will likely just knock down. Those of us that make a living on the water and near the water know what the fuck is going on. My fuel expenditures are rising every year because I have to travel 20 miles to find clear water for fishing because of constant flood and with drawl. I have real choices to make with my marina on lake erie and my marina down in the keys. My buildings and docks are flooding. I had to cancel 30 percent of my trips last year because the docks were flooded and it was to dangerous to unload and load people onto my boats. Real costs coming out of my pocket and I do not like it. So ya show up here in a couple of months while my docks are being built and tell me I do not need to spend the money. I will give a free one way trip on one of my fishing vessles.

The nature of the earth is change. Humans love the coastal or areas near water. Barrier islands and the areas closest to the ocean have their topography change. We are specks to that. The same with living in flood plains. If it makes you feel better to blame climate change on humans because you have been personally affected, is wrong. I am not gloating. Especially if you worked hard for what you have. i am tired of being scammed. Every agenda started by Progs have never stopped expanding. As one example...it is going to pay to be handicapped soon if it is not all ready. Perhaps that is why half the people on disability are questionable in deserving those benefits. And there are many. From parking lots to cruise ships to hotels, to stores to construction costs to many other ways of living. And the costs are passed on to the consumer/taxpayer. Who get a big fuck you for not doling out even more.

Ya well mean while conservative bull shit about shit on side walks is going to be true in the very near future. We have to fund the infrastructure changes needed to keep up with the change. What do you think is going to happen to your sewers when they flood.Regardless of the cause the change is hear and is fucking up our infrastructure. Fund fixing it or live with the shit and other issues just around the corner. Most of you say it is not happening but it is, the cause is kinda irregardless when the costs are real. We can debate the cause but the reality is it is costing us money right now and if we do not start keeping up with it it will cost more in the future.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You rival other liberals here in ignorance.... The feeling is mutual...

It amazes me how a failed model is more accurate than observed evidence... Stunning ignorance by the left...

While you tout sources like these go fuck your self.

LOL...

The source is not the issue.. It is the facts you ignore that are. When a fantasy is more accurate than observed empirical evidence that calls it into question, you have a sever credibility problem. I deal in FACTS I can prove.. They do not... Its as simple as that.

The source offers no facts. Mean while I am a civil engineer and I am one of the people tasked to deal with the extra water and soil erosion occuring due to climate change. It is already effecting my wallet ass hole as I currently need to spend 250k on new floating docks and my fish cutting building, I will likely just knock down. Those of us that make a living on the water and near the water know what the fuck is going on. My fuel expenditures are rising every year because I have to travel 20 miles to find clear water for fishing because of constant flood and with drawl. I have real choices to make with my marina on lake erie and my marina down in the keys. My buildings and docks are flooding. I had to cancel 30 percent of my trips last year because the docks were flooded and it was to dangerous to unload and load people onto my boats. Real costs coming out of my pocket and I do not like it. So ya show up here in a couple of months while my docks are being built and tell me I do not need to spend the money. I will give a free one way trip on one of my fishing vessles.

The nature of the earth is change. Humans love the coastal or areas near water. Barrier islands and the areas closest to the ocean have their topography change. We are specks to that. The same with living in flood plains. If it makes you feel better to blame climate change on humans because you have been personally affected, is wrong. I am not gloating. Especially if you worked hard for what you have. i am tired of being scammed. Every agenda started by Progs have never stopped expanding. As one example...it is going to pay to be handicapped soon if it is not all ready. Perhaps that is why half the people on disability are questionable in deserving those benefits. And there are many. From parking lots to cruise ships to hotels, to stores to construction costs to many other ways of living. And the costs are passed on to the consumer/taxpayer. Who get a big fuck you for not doling out even more.

Ya well mean while conservative bull shit about shit on side walks is going to be true in the very near future. We have to fund the infrastructure changes needed to keep up with the change. What do you think is going to happen to your sewers when they flood.Regardless of the cause the change is hear and is fucking up our infrastructure. Fund fixing it or live with the shit and other issues just around the corner. Most of you say it is not happening but it is, the cause is kinda irregardless when the costs are real. We can debate the cause but the reality is it is costing us money right now and if we do not start keeping up with it it will cost more in the future.

"Regardless of the cause the change is hear and is fucking up our infrastructure."

The failure of engineers to understand our cyclical climate leads to the failure and ability to plan appropriately. Nature leaves massive clues and man has chosen to ignore them, to their own peril. Laying blame where it does not belong, due to abject ignorance, is nothing short of dereliction of duties and a failure of basic engineering tents.

 

[ReinyDays]

"Regardless of the cause the change is hear and is fucking up our infrastructure."

The failure of engineers to understand our cyclical climate leads to the failure and ability to plan appropriately. Nature leaves massive clues and man has chosen to ignore them, to their own peril. Laying blame where it does not belong, due to abject ignorance, is nothing short of dereliction of duties and a failure of basic engineering tents.

I'm not sure which infrastructure won't need a major overhaul/rebuilding within 100 years ... these things need constant repair and maintenance ... buildings today will be hovels and need razing long before any of this begins ...

Today's weather is from today's climate at today's temperatures ... that has nothing to do with these things in the distant future ... several generations from now ...

 

[Kilroy2]

But it is making the rounds on the right wing news cites as proof positive

And you ignore the facts they presented and linked too.

You people are so busy laying blame and using credibility smears that you ignore the facts they present and the sources where they can be obtained. You are so invested in smearing those who do not agree with you that you accept bastardized and politicized crap without question.

Again, provide your empirically observed and quantified evidence which supports your assumptions.. I'll wait..

does this paper state anything that has not already been stated

I just said that it is just a paper and unless it is reviewed then you are making the same claim

ignoring the facts

but go ahead and tell us who wrote this paper and what are his credentials

I dont really care who wrote it. Like I said before, I deal in empirical evidence and fact. That is how I judge a papers validity. Is it science based and can it be reproduced? Those are the questions I ask as I read all kinds of papers and opinion pieces. "peer review" has been bastardized and is no longer acceptable as standard that gives credibility to anything. You can thank Phil Jones, the EAU, and the CRU for that gate keeping which discredited journals and that process. The Blog-O-Sphere now allows open discussions among real scientist in real time. I have about 60 people with whom I communicate regularly from all sides of the climate debate.

I was referring to the topic of this thread

Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global

did this paper tell you anything new or is this what most scientist already know

The clouds what a mystery, they just float around doing whatever they want to do

positive or negative feedback

obviously one supports the climate hoax whereas the other doesn't

does this story cause the collapse that human activity has virtually zero impact

 

[skookerasbil]

More bad news for the climate crusaders who havent been able to generate dick for climate change action for 20 years now!

@www.whosnotwinning.com

 

[daveman]

Oddly, that doesn't seem to affect the papers linked in the article.

Funny you should say that.

This Paper Has Climate Change Deniers Very Excited. There's Just One Tiny Problem

This Paper Has Climate Change Deniers Very Excited. There's Just One Tiny Problem

"Some news outlets are publishing articles stating that this claim is based on a new 'study'," Climate Feedback stated in a detailed debunking. "If they had contacted independent scientists for insight, instead of accepting this short document as revolutionary science, they would have found that it does not have any scientific credibility."

They were quick to point out what the study is actually based on is unclear, as the paper "provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global temperature," and the document declares the authors do not consider computer models as evidence.

The scientists and experts the organization asked to review this paper – vital in the peer-review process – list among the many issues the fact that "[the] document only cites six references, four of which are the authors’ own, and of these, two are not actually published." Crucial data sources are not provided, figures used to support their claims are at odds with peer-reviewed studies, and the authors make claims "well beyond the scope of their data, without justification" they concluded.​

You're kidding, right? You complain about my source, then post something from "I Fuckin' Love Science", written by their social media manager?

Your article is nothing but a big fat "NUH UH!!"

Dismissed.

 

[daveman]

That study, published in Nature, is called, “Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition.” It states:

Records of suborbital-scale climate variation during the last glacial and Holocene periods can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of rapid climate changes… At least one event was associated with a decrease in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. Thus, climate records from the MIS 19 interglacial can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of a variety of climate changes, including testing the effect of changes in geomagnetic dipole field strength on climate through galactic cosmic ray (GCR)-induced cloud formation…

In effect, cosmic rays which are normally deflected via the magnetosphere are, in times of weak or changing magnetic fields emanating from Earth itself, able to penetrate further into Earth’s atmosphere, causing the formation of low-level clouds which cover the land in a kind of “umbrella effect” that shades the land from the sun, allowing cooling to take place. But a lack of clouds makes the surface hotter, as would be expected. This natural phenomenon is now documented to be the primary driver of global temperatures and climate, not human activity.

So magnetic polarity reversal would lead to cooling from the increased cloud cover, not increased temperatures as we are seeing, right?

Depends on the strength of the magnetic field during the reversal.

And we're not seeing increased temperatures.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Regardless of the cause the change is hear and is fucking up our infrastructure."

The failure of engineers to understand our cyclical climate leads to the failure and ability to plan appropriately. Nature leaves massive clues and man has chosen to ignore them, to their own peril. Laying blame where it does not belong, due to abject ignorance, is nothing short of dereliction of duties and a failure of basic engineering tents.

I'm not sure which infrastructure won't need a major overhaul/rebuilding within 100 years ... these things need constant repair and maintenance ... buildings today will be hovels and need razing long before any of this begins ...

Today's weather is from today's climate at today's temperatures ... that has nothing to do with these things in the distant future ... several generations from now ...

Understanding your region and its weather patterns allows you to build and maintain things for 100's of years. The Romans and Mayans understood this and have structures still functioning to this day. Some of the Mayans aqueducts still deliver water today... that's impressive!

 

[flacaltenn]

Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures

Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures

(Natural News) The climate change hoax has collapsed. A devastating series of research papers has just been published, revealing that human activity can account for no more than a .01°C rise in global temperatures, meaning that all the human activity targeted by radical climate change alarmists — combustion engines, airplane flights, diesel tractors — has virtually no measurable impact on the temperature of the planet.

Finnish scientists spearheaded the research, releasing a paper entitled, “No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change.”

The paper explains that IPCC analysis of global temperatures suffers from a glaring error — namely, failure to account for “influences of low cloud cover” and how it impacts global temperatures. Natural variations in low cloud cover, which are strongly influenced by cosmic radiation’s ability to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere due to variations in the strength of our planet’s magnetosphere, account for nearly all changes in global temperature, the researchers explain.

As this chart reveals, more cloud cover is inversely related to temperature. In other words, clouds shield the surface of the Earth from the sun, providing shade cover cooling, while a lack of clouds results in more warming:

Cloud cover accounts for the real changes in global temperatures
This is further supported by researchers at Kobe University in Japan who published a nearly simultaneous paper that reveals how changes in our planet’s magnetic field govern the intensity of solar radiation that reaches the lower atmosphere, causing cloud formation that alters global temperatures.

That study, published in Nature, is called, “Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition.” It states:

Records of suborbital-scale climate variation during the last glacial and Holocene periods can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of rapid climate changes… At least one event was associated with a decrease in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. Thus, climate records from the MIS 19 interglacial can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of a variety of climate changes, including testing the effect of changes in geomagnetic dipole field strength on climate through galactic cosmic ray (GCR)-induced cloud formation…

In effect, cosmic rays which are normally deflected via the magnetosphere are, in times of weak or changing magnetic fields emanating from Earth itself, able to penetrate further into Earth’s atmosphere, causing the formation of low-level clouds which cover the land in a kind of “umbrella effect” that shades the land from the sun, allowing cooling to take place. But a lack of clouds makes the surface hotter, as would be expected. This natural phenomenon is now documented to be the primary driver of global temperatures and climate, not human activity.​

So it looks like the Climate Change Cult doesn't know about clouds. Can't wait to hear how this attack on dogma is wrong simply because it's an attack on dogma.

Insane. We are destroying this planet. For thousands of other species who are endangered. This is happening in South America, the rain forests.

we are the idiots on krypton.

Natural News - Media Bias/Fact Check

A factual search reveals that Natural News has failed too many fact checks to list here. Overall, we rate Natural News a Questionable source based on promotion of quackery level pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, as well as extreme right wing bias. This is one of the most discredited sources on the internet.​

Save your breath horsefeathers. The OP INCLUDED the links to the research.. The monsoon study linked in the OP is a valid study.. This paper with the chart has not been confirmed or picked up by others yet -- but it probably will be... It's the bias and control of publishing any science CONTRARY to the "popular wisdom" is getting in the way..

Rather than researching the source, have you ever considered taking a crack at reading the studies???

same question for you @evenflow

 

[flacaltenn]

They were quick to point out what the study is actually based on is unclear, as the paper "provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global temperature," and the document declares the authors do not consider computer models as evidence.

So you whine about sources and then source rebuttal from a biased blog.. That's a head case level of hypocrisy right there. In the paragraph above "": WHO IS THEY"??? I need names and titles.. And the assertion that "nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global temperature" is laughable.. Physics of cloud cover is well known and your weather forecasts could not BE ACCURATE if it were not...


And then THIS GEM -- """ the document declares the authors do not consider computer models as evidence.,"""

Here is where you show your real ignorance and reliance on blogs rather than THINKING INDEPENDENTLY and without even ATTEMPTING to find the AUTHORS explanation for this statement..

I can TELL YOU (without even reading the paper) why this probably got cherry picked out of their conclusions.

Because the MODELS don't DO monthly cloud correction completely or well.. On SATELLITE, this might be easier, but with the "trumped up" LAND AND SEA BASED temperature data, cloud cover is NOT ACCURATELY reported.. Not from standard NOAA "temperature stations" or sea buoys...

If you're just looking for dismissive propaganda and don't want to invest the time UNDERSTANDING GW science (and it is no harder than reading Scientific American) that's your problem...

 

[flacaltenn]

Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures

Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures

(Natural News) The climate change hoax has collapsed. A devastating series of research papers has just been published, revealing that human activity can account for no more than a .01°C rise in global temperatures, meaning that all the human activity targeted by radical climate change alarmists — combustion engines, airplane flights, diesel tractors — has virtually no measurable impact on the temperature of the planet.

Finnish scientists spearheaded the research, releasing a paper entitled, “No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change.”

The paper explains that IPCC analysis of global temperatures suffers from a glaring error — namely, failure to account for “influences of low cloud cover” and how it impacts global temperatures. Natural variations in low cloud cover, which are strongly influenced by cosmic radiation’s ability to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere due to variations in the strength of our planet’s magnetosphere, account for nearly all changes in global temperature, the researchers explain.

As this chart reveals, more cloud cover is inversely related to temperature. In other words, clouds shield the surface of the Earth from the sun, providing shade cover cooling, while a lack of clouds results in more warming:

Cloud cover accounts for the real changes in global temperatures
This is further supported by researchers at Kobe University in Japan who published a nearly simultaneous paper that reveals how changes in our planet’s magnetic field govern the intensity of solar radiation that reaches the lower atmosphere, causing cloud formation that alters global temperatures.

That study, published in Nature, is called, “Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition.” It states:

Records of suborbital-scale climate variation during the last glacial and Holocene periods can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of rapid climate changes… At least one event was associated with a decrease in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. Thus, climate records from the MIS 19 interglacial can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of a variety of climate changes, including testing the effect of changes in geomagnetic dipole field strength on climate through galactic cosmic ray (GCR)-induced cloud formation…

In effect, cosmic rays which are normally deflected via the magnetosphere are, in times of weak or changing magnetic fields emanating from Earth itself, able to penetrate further into Earth’s atmosphere, causing the formation of low-level clouds which cover the land in a kind of “umbrella effect” that shades the land from the sun, allowing cooling to take place. But a lack of clouds makes the surface hotter, as would be expected. This natural phenomenon is now documented to be the primary driver of global temperatures and climate, not human activity.​

So it looks like the Climate Change Cult doesn't know about clouds. Can't wait to hear how this attack on dogma is wrong simply because it's an attack on dogma.

It's great to know.. EXCEPT that paper is not yet published or accepted.. And the other you cited IS published and reviewed, but your naturalSource folks BLEW the analysis of it..

It's important to get more eyes on the cloud issues.. The models are sorely lacking in how the Earth's mag field and cosmic radiation interact with surface temps due to clouds...

 

[flacaltenn]

I've heard this tale before ... that the IPCC assumes average cloud cover remains constant with rising temperatures ... they kind of have to or they'd have nothing to report ... if average cloudiness increases then we have a rather profound negative feedback mechanism ... the numbers involved seem to speak to an overwhelming negative feedback ...

Alas ... this is an insanely difficult thing to measure accurately ... don't confuse these new generation GOES images with anything we have for the past 100 years ... we cannot say at this time whether clouds are increasing or decreasing ...

There's very good reason to believe there will be more average cloudiness ... higher temperatures at the surface cause more water to evaporate, which in turn means more water condenses into clouds aloft, increasing albedo, decreasing solar energy, decreasing surface temperatures ... all without violating any of the laws of thermodynamics ...

I have no idea whether the IPCC says cloudiness remains constant or not ... I'll need book, chapter and verse before I believe such an outrage ...

THere's 2 different "forcings" with cloud cover.. During the DAY, they do ABSORB a lot of the spectrum of the sun.. And water vapor when present just overwhelms the CO2 absorption.. That leads to slight surface cooling complicated by the FACT that their coverage is mostly transient and variable.

BUT during the day, the same GW "backradiation" is hitting the surface from the "stored" heat energy in the clouds thru optical IR radiation to the surface that compensates for small fractions of lost direct sunlight. Same 24 hr effect for water vapor as for CO2...

AT NIGHT -- clouds are a DOMINANT surface temp event.. The surface is losing heat ALL NIGHT LONG to the sky, clouds or not... At night, ANY amount of water vapor puts a LARGE damper on the heat loss rate.. So surfaces are storing more heat all night long..

The models are not very good at this, because the models ASSUME a rather static and simple cloud parameters. And the LAND and sea BASED sensor systems that record "weather" don't generally record dynamics of cloud cover.. And the WHOLE DISCIPLINE of CC/GW has been pushing satellite data aside in favor of the 109,000 thermometer approach..

And the models don't consider mag field strength or ionization gen of clouds like they SHOULD so this area NEEDS "more light shed on it" ... LOL....

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't get to excited by a reach paper written by two guys that doesn't even appear to have had a peer review

But it is making the rounds on the right wing news cites as proof positive

Just goes to show anything can be placed on the internet

Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku E-mail address: [email protected]

This is not a journal paper. It is on ArXiv, which is not peer-reviewed.

and that is how the wheels go round and around

Just guys writing a paper with their perceptions and do not even have a peer review because they know what will happen

believe it or not

its the same argument and really changes nothing

Sad fact is -- no matter how outrageously flawed or simplified it might be -- any PRO-warming study like that WOULD be published.. ESPECIALLY, if it had the right buzz words in it....

 

[flacaltenn]

Not my fucking job nor my discipline, what I can attest to is that the water is rising due to loss of ice.

Actually about 60% of the last century rise in sea level is simply thermal expansion of the oceans.. (easy for you to confirm that), Not added water. That's how incredibly small this is.. And just the increase in asphalt and concrete heating of surface run-off over a century would account for a great deal of the local sea level expansion..

 

[daveman]

Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures

Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures

(Natural News) The climate change hoax has collapsed. A devastating series of research papers has just been published, revealing that human activity can account for no more than a .01°C rise in global temperatures, meaning that all the human activity targeted by radical climate change alarmists — combustion engines, airplane flights, diesel tractors — has virtually no measurable impact on the temperature of the planet.

Finnish scientists spearheaded the research, releasing a paper entitled, “No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change.”

The paper explains that IPCC analysis of global temperatures suffers from a glaring error — namely, failure to account for “influences of low cloud cover” and how it impacts global temperatures. Natural variations in low cloud cover, which are strongly influenced by cosmic radiation’s ability to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere due to variations in the strength of our planet’s magnetosphere, account for nearly all changes in global temperature, the researchers explain.

As this chart reveals, more cloud cover is inversely related to temperature. In other words, clouds shield the surface of the Earth from the sun, providing shade cover cooling, while a lack of clouds results in more warming:

Cloud cover accounts for the real changes in global temperatures
This is further supported by researchers at Kobe University in Japan who published a nearly simultaneous paper that reveals how changes in our planet’s magnetic field govern the intensity of solar radiation that reaches the lower atmosphere, causing cloud formation that alters global temperatures.

That study, published in Nature, is called, “Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition.” It states:

Records of suborbital-scale climate variation during the last glacial and Holocene periods can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of rapid climate changes… At least one event was associated with a decrease in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. Thus, climate records from the MIS 19 interglacial can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of a variety of climate changes, including testing the effect of changes in geomagnetic dipole field strength on climate through galactic cosmic ray (GCR)-induced cloud formation…

In effect, cosmic rays which are normally deflected via the magnetosphere are, in times of weak or changing magnetic fields emanating from Earth itself, able to penetrate further into Earth’s atmosphere, causing the formation of low-level clouds which cover the land in a kind of “umbrella effect” that shades the land from the sun, allowing cooling to take place. But a lack of clouds makes the surface hotter, as would be expected. This natural phenomenon is now documented to be the primary driver of global temperatures and climate, not human activity.​

So it looks like the Climate Change Cult doesn't know about clouds. Can't wait to hear how this attack on dogma is wrong simply because it's an attack on dogma.

It's great to know.. EXCEPT that paper is not yet published or accepted.. And the other you cited IS published and reviewed, but your naturalSource folks BLEW the analysis of it..

It's important to get more eyes on the cloud issues.. The models are sorely lacking in how the Earth's mag field and cosmic radiation interact with surface temps due to clouds...

Finally. A rational response. One that isn't NUH UH!!

There are far more variables to climate than just how much American coal and SUV CO2 is in the atmosphere. Well, for real science. For climate "science"...those other variables don't matter.

 

[Dick Foster]

To the gutless and nameless mod who deleted my post in this thread supposedly for the following reason "Reason: way too much personal flaming or jousting without topical discussion" . I call BULLSHIT!
I pointed out that the real evidence of global warming was crap simply because of low lying coral atolls that I've personally visited in the early 70s remain high and dry today and I named them for others to look up on Google maps themselves.
If you don't have the guts or the balls to fight fair or present up your own evidence, then fuck you and fuck off.

 

[Andylusion]

Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures

Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures

(Natural News) The climate change hoax has collapsed. A devastating series of research papers has just been published, revealing that human activity can account for no more than a .01°C rise in global temperatures, meaning that all the human activity targeted by radical climate change alarmists — combustion engines, airplane flights, diesel tractors — has virtually no measurable impact on the temperature of the planet.

Finnish scientists spearheaded the research, releasing a paper entitled, “No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change.”

The paper explains that IPCC analysis of global temperatures suffers from a glaring error — namely, failure to account for “influences of low cloud cover” and how it impacts global temperatures. Natural variations in low cloud cover, which are strongly influenced by cosmic radiation’s ability to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere due to variations in the strength of our planet’s magnetosphere, account for nearly all changes in global temperature, the researchers explain.

As this chart reveals, more cloud cover is inversely related to temperature. In other words, clouds shield the surface of the Earth from the sun, providing shade cover cooling, while a lack of clouds results in more warming:

Cloud cover accounts for the real changes in global temperatures
This is further supported by researchers at Kobe University in Japan who published a nearly simultaneous paper that reveals how changes in our planet’s magnetic field govern the intensity of solar radiation that reaches the lower atmosphere, causing cloud formation that alters global temperatures.

That study, published in Nature, is called, “Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition.” It states:

Records of suborbital-scale climate variation during the last glacial and Holocene periods can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of rapid climate changes… At least one event was associated with a decrease in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. Thus, climate records from the MIS 19 interglacial can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of a variety of climate changes, including testing the effect of changes in geomagnetic dipole field strength on climate through galactic cosmic ray (GCR)-induced cloud formation…

In effect, cosmic rays which are normally deflected via the magnetosphere are, in times of weak or changing magnetic fields emanating from Earth itself, able to penetrate further into Earth’s atmosphere, causing the formation of low-level clouds which cover the land in a kind of “umbrella effect” that shades the land from the sun, allowing cooling to take place. But a lack of clouds makes the surface hotter, as would be expected. This natural phenomenon is now documented to be the primary driver of global temperatures and climate, not human activity.​

So it looks like the Climate Change Cult doesn't know about clouds. Can't wait to hear how this attack on dogma is wrong simply because it's an attack on dogma.

Insane. We are destroying this planet. For thousands of other species who are endangered. This is happening in South America, the rain forests.

we are the idiots on krypton.

(translation)
SCIENCE SCHMIANCE! We don't need all that research and data crap! We're destroying the planet, and we need socialism to fix everything!

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Insane. We are destroying this planet. For thousands of other species who are endangered. This is happening in South America, the rain forests.[/qute]

he just showed you that is not the case you broken record you

we are the idiots on krypton.

Liberals will not escape that moniker on any planet, just continue to share it with the undeserving among us

 

[flacaltenn]

To the gutless and nameless mod who deleted my post in this thread supposedly for the following reason "Reason: way too much personal flaming or jousting without topical discussion" . I call BULLSHIT!
I pointed out that the real evidence of global warming was crap simply because of low lying coral atolls that I've personally visited in the early 70s remain high and dry today and I named them for others to look up on Google maps themselves.
If you don't have the guts or the balls to fight fair or present up your own evidence, then fuck you and fuck off.

Since you brought this up even though the rules state that "discussing specific mod actions outside of PM" is not legal --- I'm gonna illustrate here WHY we ask members to CONTACT moderation if they have beefs with SPECIFIC actions... We just don't like to confront member complaints with an audience present... We in NO WAY are out to embarrass anyone publicly... But you continued this by opening a whole 'nother thread about it..

I hate doing this in the open but let me address your gripe... I deleted about 8 posts in this thread because they were 100% personal abuse and bickering "with no topical content"... THat's the key to understanding how USMB work.. We don't care if you bicker or flame as long as the TOPIC is PRIMARY to every post...

So about at Post 48 you posted this content.. It's the TOTAL content of that post..

Go fuck your self piece of shit! you are a lying sack of shit!

and a 2nd one..

Well at least we all know one idiot, YOU. LOL

That's not legal content because the TOPIC wasn't in there anywhere..

And now you KNOW WHY we should continue this in PM like the rules suggest...

Also -- don't REPLY to this post.. It's as uncomfortable for me as it is for you.. That's also in the rules. PM me or any other mod(s) you wish to continue your complaint...

If you understood the simple ass rules that allows almost ALL content, we wouldn't be meeting like this...

 

[Old Rocks]

Same shit we saw from Lindzen, and consequently falsified.