Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

Climate change means a changing climate.
Climate is recorded by paleoclimatologists.
Global weather is monitored by global weather stations and the data contributes to a pattern of global climate over time.

These are very simple and accepted fundamentals. You morons can't even troll properly. Haw, haw...........................haw.
 
Havana Moon said:
Revealing the impact of cosmic rays on the Earth’s climate

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”.

When galactic cosmic rays increased during the Earth’s last geomagnetic reversal transition 780,000 years ago, the umbrella effect of low-cloud cover led to high atmospheric pressure in Siberia, causing the East Asian winter monsoon to become stronger. This is evidence that galactic cosmic rays influence changes in the Earth’s climate. The findings were made by a research team led by Professor Masayuki Hyodo (Research Center for Inland Seas, Kobe University) and published on June 28 in the online edition of Scientific Reports.

http://www.kobe-u.ac.jp/research_at_kobe_en/NEWS/news/2019_07_03_01.html
Click to expand...

Why aren't cosmic rays causing additional cloud cover on Mars? How do you know what cosmic rays were falling on Earth 780,000 years ago? Were you there? How would Hyodo-san know? Was he there? I think Hyodo-san is guessing. This has nothing to do with science. There is no falsifiable theory here.
 
Into the Night said:
Why aren't cosmic rays causing additional cloud cover on Mars? How do you know what cosmic rays were falling on Earth 780,000 years ago? Were you there? How would Hyodo-san know? Was he there? I think Hyodo-san is guessing. This has nothing to do with science. There is no falsifiable theory here.
Click to expand...

LOL
Are you missing the water vapor part of the process? Nucleation of water vapor is triggered by cosmic rays.
Try understanding the theory next time, climate alarmist retard
 
Cypress said:
To me, there is always valuable pointing out that the Climate Deniers are unable to use, point to, or leverage a large body of peer-reviewed scientific literature from trained climate science experts with a track record of original research and publication.

They are left to grasp at blogs written by stock market analysts, blogs by mentally deranged "mushroom farmers", and in this case a non-peer reviewed article written by a materials scientist who specializes in optical spectroscopy and has no training or expertise in climate.

The few legitimate experts they can point to, aka Judith Curry, do not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere should result in global warming - though they question how well the impacts are understood and how severe they will be.
Click to expand...

Dumbfuck, your predictions have failed. Evidence is apparent. It's only the religious and those vulnerable to your message that still buy this discredited theory. We are on the cusp of running you idiots out of the positions you hold so enjoy your beliefs while you can still tell yourself they're true.
 
Cypress said:
The operations manager for the website that hosted the paper -- arXiv.org -- confirmed to Lead Stories in an email that there was no peer review and the simple posting of the short paper (11 pages) is not the same as being "published."

Did a peer-reviewed and published scientific study in Finland conclude that "man-made climate change doesn't exist in practice"? No, that's not true: A draft of a short research paper that has not been reviewed by scientific peers or published in an accredited scientific journal did make the claim, however, it has been called "deeply flawed" and discredited by other climate change scientists.

The proliferation of questionable "academic journals" that publish papers for a fee is a concern if they do not include a legitimate peer review process. Scientific studies are usually published in peer-reviewed journals relevant to the topic before journalists write about their conclusions. This is basic and important so that the reader has more confidence a research paper is valid.

https://hoax-alert.leadstories.com/...ind-man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist.html
Click to expand...

Consensus is not used in science. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a 'study'. It is not a 'research'. It is not even a scientist. It is just the falsifiable theories themselves. Hyodo-san's theory is not science not because of a lack of consensus (or peer review), it is because the theory proposed by him is not falsifiable. His theory probably originated from observing a cloud chamber machine. Cosmic rays can indeed induce clouds to form under the right conditions. The rest of Hyodo-san's story is complete speculation.
 
Cypress said:
To me, there is always valuable pointing out that the Climate Deniers are unable to use, point to, or leverage a large body of peer-reviewed scientific literature from trained climate science experts with a track record of original research and publication.
Click to expand...
I guess the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law mean nothing to you, eh?
Cypress said:
They are left to grasp at blogs written by stock market analysts, blogs by mentally deranged "mushroom farmers", and in this case a non-peer reviewed article written by a materials scientist who specializes in optical spectroscopy and has no training or expertise in climate.
Click to expand...
No.
* You can't create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics).
* You can't decrease entropy in any system (2nd law of thermodynamics).
* You can't heat the surface using a colder gas (2nd law of thermodynamics).
* You can't slow or trap heat (1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics).
* You can't slow or trap light (1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and Plancks law).
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature the same time (Stefan-Boltzmann law).

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'.
Cypress said:
The few legitimate experts they can point to, aka Judith Curry, do not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere should result in global warming -
Click to expand...
Don't need Judith. All I need are the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you deny, just like your climate 'scientists' deny.
Cypress said:
though they question how well the impacts are understood and how severe they will be.
Click to expand...
None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Nul. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
 
Into the Night said:
I've been asking for a definition of 'global warming' or 'climate change' for years in many forums. So far no one has been able to define either of them with a single exception, found here.

Oddly enough, no one from the Church of Global Warming has been able to refute that definition.
Click to expand...

Somebody spent some time writing about the Church of Global Warming and its beliefs. That was awesome. Almost as good as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
 
moon said:
Climate change means a changing climate.
Click to expand...
Circular definition. You can't define a word with itself. Try again. Oh...that's right, you have already repeated this idiocy multiple times. I guess by that condition you are insane.
moon said:
Climate is recorded by paleoclimatologists.
Click to expand...
No such thing.
moon said:
Global weather is monitored by global weather stations and the data contributes to a pattern of global climate over time.
Click to expand...
No such thing. There is no global weather station.

As far as the weather stations you are trying to claim:
Math error. Failure to remove biasing influences from raw data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to declare conditions of collection (namely, time and authority).

moon said:
These are very simple and accepted fundamentals.
Click to expand...
No, they are math errors. Go learn statistical mathematics.
moon said:
You morons can't even troll properly. Haw, haw...........................haw.
Click to expand...

So,
* you can't define 'climate change'.
* you can't define the parameters of temperature 'change'.
* you are illiterate in statistical mathematics.
* you somehow think that calling a bunch of weather stations 'global' weather stations gives them magick power.
* you somehow think that proxy data means anything useful to science. Proxies are not used in science. All quantifiable values used in science must be by direct measurement.
* you somehow think that 'climate' is a quantifiable value.

All you have demonstrated is your own ineptitude in science and mathematics.
 
tinfoil said:
LOL
Are you missing the water vapor part of the process? Nucleation of water vapor is triggered by cosmic rays.
Try understanding the theory next time, climate alarmist retard
Click to expand...

No. I am not missing that. I have already mentioned Wilson's cloud chamber. Such nucleation of water vapor can only occur under certain conditions.

You should also pay more attention to the conversations in here. I abhor the Church of Global Warming. I am not a member of the Church of Global Warming, the Church of Green, the Church of the Ozone Hole, or the Church of Karl Marx.
 
Into the Night said:
No. I am not missing that. I have already mentioned Wilson's cloud chamber. Such nucleation of water vapor can only occur under certain conditions.

You should also pay more attention to the conversations in here. I abhor the Church of Global Warming. I am not a member of the Church of Global Warming, the Church of Green, the Church of the Ozone Hole, or the Church of Karl Marx.
Click to expand...
So then you think mars has enough water vapor to form clouds due to cosmic rays? LOL
 
Damocles said:
Somebody spent some time writing about the Church of Global Warming and its beliefs. That was awesome. Almost as good as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I'll pass along your comments to the various authors involved. That definition came about on another forum when I opened a thread entitled 'The Wordsmith' and invited anyone to define words in it so long as the source of that definition was provided. Dictionaries could not be used as a source, since no dictionary defines any word. In other words, I was asking for the etymology of the word.

These definitions started showing up. The source was given as the Church of Global Warming itself. So far, no member from the Church of Global Warming has disputed them by providing an alternate definition.
 
tinfoil said:
So then you think mars has enough water vapor to form clouds due to cosmic rays? LOL
Click to expand...

Good. You caught it.

Mars does indeed have water, but it's sparse and locked away in ice. What sublimates to the atmosphere produces a humidity that is less than Earth's driest deserts.

One of the conditions of formation of clouds by cosmic rays is sufficient humidity. There is one another condition on Mars that is different from Earth that affects such cloud formation. Can you name it?
 
Into the Night said:
Good. You caught it.

Mars does indeed have water, but it's sparse and locked away in ice. What sublimates to the atmosphere produces a humidity that is less than Earth's driest deserts.
Click to expand...

That's why I scoffed at your cosmic ray mars/earth juxtaposition. Clearly apples and oranges
 
archives said:
The usual Flat Earther "arguement," they attempt to create a false paradigm, introduce some study from usually a questionable source as if it or dozens like it were going to cancel out the thousands of other studies validating man made climate change. Cook alone surveyed over fourteen thousand research projects to come up with the ninety seven percent, and now this study, or the dozens others like it, are going to negate all of those other studies? Common sense takes precedent

Been there, done that, nothing new
Click to expand...
Consider the OP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top