Page 1 of 15 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 224

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

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default 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.

  2. The Following User Groans At dukkha For This Awful Post:

    Rune (07-13-2019)

  3. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Bigdog (07-13-2019), cancel2 2022 (07-12-2019), rjhenn (07-25-2019), Stretch (07-12-2019), Terri4Trump (07-13-2019), Truth Detector (07-15-2019)

  4. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    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
    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.

    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

    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."

  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Bigdog (07-13-2019), Stretch (07-12-2019), Truth Detector (07-15-2019)

  6. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    40,213
    Thanks
    14,475
    Thanked 23,679 Times in 16,485 Posts
    Groans
    23
    Groaned 585 Times in 561 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Oh boy. This is going to get interesting!

  7. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,994
    Thanks
    12,115
    Thanked 14,177 Times in 10,395 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    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
    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.

    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

    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."
    Zerohedge:

    Zero Hedge an extreme right biased conspiracy website.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to domer76 For This Post:

    Althea (07-17-2019), Cypress (07-12-2019), Guno צְבִי (07-12-2019), Rune (07-13-2019)

  9. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Zerohedge:

    Zero Hedge an extreme right biased conspiracy website.
    idiot.. it's reporting on the study
    -do you need more sources or do you just want to stay stupid?

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Bigdog (07-13-2019), Truth Detector (07-15-2019)

  11. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    40,213
    Thanks
    14,475
    Thanked 23,679 Times in 16,485 Posts
    Groans
    23
    Groaned 585 Times in 561 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    idiot.. it's reporting on the study
    -do you need more sources or do you just want to stay stupid?
    He was born that way. One cannot fix stupid.

  12. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,994
    Thanks
    12,115
    Thanked 14,177 Times in 10,395 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    idiot.. it's reporting on the study
    -do you need more sources or do you just want to stay stupid?
    Zerohedge:

    Zero Hedge an extreme right biased conspiracy website.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to domer76 For This Post:

    Guno צְבִי (07-12-2019), Rune (07-13-2019)

  14. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Zerohedge:

    Zero Hedge an extreme right biased conspiracy website.
    ROFL.. that's what we love about you..You put yourself into a hole and invariably dig it deeper

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Sailor (07-12-2019), Truth Detector (07-15-2019)

  16. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    40,213
    Thanks
    14,475
    Thanked 23,679 Times in 16,485 Posts
    Groans
    23
    Groaned 585 Times in 561 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    ROFL.. that's what we love about you..You put yourself into a hole and invariably dig it deeper
    Not a deep hole either! He is a physical and mental midget!

  17. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    10,126
    Thanks
    3,145
    Thanked 4,536 Times in 2,978 Posts
    Groans
    84
    Groaned 107 Times in 102 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Zerohedge:

    Zero Hedge an extreme right biased conspiracy website.
    That didn’t take long.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to leaningright For This Post:

    Stretch (07-12-2019)

  19. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,963
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    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

  20. The Following User Groans At archives For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (07-12-2019)

  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to archives For This Post:

    Guno צְבִי (07-12-2019), moon (07-13-2019)

  22. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,994
    Thanks
    12,115
    Thanked 14,177 Times in 10,395 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    ROFL.. that's what we love about you..You put yourself into a hole and invariably dig it deeper
    Fake news. Fake site

  23. The Following User Groans At domer76 For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (07-12-2019)

  24. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,994
    Thanks
    12,115
    Thanked 14,177 Times in 10,395 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by leaningright View Post
    That didn’t take long.
    Look it up. Fake site.

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to domer76 For This Post:

    Guno צְבִי (07-12-2019)

  26. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,794
    Thanks
    35,483
    Thanked 50,295 Times in 27,100 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    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.
    Why didn't you provide a link to this?

  27. The Following User Groans At Cypress For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (07-12-2019)

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    Rune (07-13-2019)

  29. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    Why didn't you provide a link to this?
    i did,but it's in middle of the text . my cursor must have jumped when I pasted it.

    but heres another one as well for those who object to the source
    this looks like the original study (pdf) https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

  30. The Following User Groans At dukkha For This Awful Post:

    Rune (07-13-2019)

  31. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Bigdog (07-13-2019), Stretch (07-12-2019)

Similar Threads

  1. 97 percent of scientists believe in man made climate change. FALSE!
    By Grugore in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-13-2018, 04:45 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-20-2018, 05:52 AM
  3. Scientists find way to "disarm" AIDS virus
    By Damocles in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-19-2011, 11:33 PM
  4. APP - Surprisingly, the THIRD "Climate Gate" Review vindicates climate scientists
    By Cypress in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-14-2010, 10:55 AM
  5. Is it "global warming" now--or is it "climate change"?
    By theMAJORITY in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-01-2008, 07:13 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •