Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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:

    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

  • #2
    Well that sucks. I guess the Dems can just warn us about throwing batteries in the trash?

    Comment


    • #3
      I have an idea, why don't you Repubs go stick your face at the end of a tail pipe for about 30 minutes and come back and tell us that pollution isn't all that bad, LMAO. So......I take it the official Republican stance is just go ahead and keep on polluting the air and water, no harm done?

      Comment


      • #4
        There was a paper recently showing that the actual increase in C02 in the atmosphere -- if you factor in the equivalence for nitrous oxide and methane - both of which are much more powerful greenhouse gases than C02 -- adds up to around 560 ppm C02 -- which is much much worse than 413 ppm which is where they claim we are at present. So the actual situation is much worse than the IPCC reports indicate.

        Also, there was another cautionary report -- about the likely consequence of so much C02 and heat going into the oceans. The oceans are now absorbing most of the increased heat -- and are taking into solution much of the added C02 we've put into the air. The likely effect will be to acidify the oceans -- which if it passes a certain level could have an extinction level impact.

        Some scientists attribute the Permian extinction to this kind of reaction -- in the ocean -- to an out of control spike of methane.

        Comment


        • #5
          Taco it's nuts to conclude we are not impacting the global environment with the pollution we are releasing. Even if it's C02 and methane.

          Comment


          • #6
            But but but ...

            Comment


            • #7
              There are literally thousands of studies that say it is real, but of course Taco only believes the one that supports his right wing, nut-job worldview. Also Zero Hedge...rofl...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Agamemnon View Post
                There are literally thousands of studies that say it is real, but of course Taco only believes the one that supports his right wing, nut-job worldview. Also Zero Hedge...rofl...
                No kidding.

                That was a thigh slapper.

                At any rate, W*GS will undoubtedly have fun eviscerating this clown

                Comment


                • #9
                  Clearly the fins and Japanese are racist nazis.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate


                    I remember making that point to Wagsy once. He assured us this wasn't something worth wasting time worrying about.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I'm quite certain there are probably some reports out there floating around that say swimming in the ocean with sharks while you have a bleeding wound is not dangerous. Leave it up to a handful of nut job right wing extremists to believe it. Better to not side with caution, consequences be damned is their motto for life.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        L O L !!! Nutjobs gotta nutjob. Anything, I mean ANYTHING, TJ quotes about Climate change is absolutely suspect. I have it on poor authority that TJ is a shill for right-wing conspiracy theorists. He and Alex Jones would be best buds.....

                        What a crock of shyte,,,,

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ZONA View Post
                          Better to not side with caution
                          Is that what you think they're doing?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            This seems like a study done with a desired pre-determined outcome, even if the evidence gathered for the study would not support that outcome.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              LABF is frantically loading the Meme machine, this should be a epic meme meltdown.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X