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

[Toddsterpatriot]

Kill off fifty percent of the population and in one generation you are back where you started.

The population doesn't double every generation.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

No sacrifice. I don't need the money, or the work and aggravation that comes with renting to students. My relatives will use the apartment when they visit. It's all good.

And when they use the apartment, not to mention the energy you currently consume, insulated or not, you’re happy with wasting money on energy?

 

[Woodznutz]

And when they use the apartment, not to mention the energy you currently consume, insulated or not, you’re happy with wasting money on energy?

Energy used to provide for my family isn't wasted. And it costs less to heat that apartment since I insulated. That said many of the resources that we enjoy produce a lot of unnecessary waste. I'm always amazed at how many people accelerate past me as I'm coasting to a red light then have to slam on their brakes. They waste gas and wear out their brakes at the same time. Curious.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Energy used to provide for my family isn't wasted. And it costs less to heat that apartment since I insulated. That said many of the resources that we enjoy produce a lot of unnecessary waste. I'm always amazed at how many people accelerate past me as I'm coasting to a red light then have to slam on their brakes. They waste gas and wear out their brakes at the same time. Curious.

It costs less only relative to usage. But the cost is higher, period. As for the inefficient drivers, at least they have that choice.

 

[jc456]

If we can fill the air with smoke, smog, and volatile chemicals, denude the landscape, and pollute the waters, I'm sure we can alter the climate. We are very 'creative'.

Most don't realize that the region of the atmosphere where "climate" occurs is pretty thin, and close to the earth.

Well provide some proof then

 

[Woodznutz]

Well provide some proof then

Science doesn't deal in proof, just evidence, of which there is plenty.

 

[jc456]

Energy used to provide for my family isn't wasted. And it costs less to heat that apartment since I insulated. That said many of the resources that we enjoy produce a lot of unnecessary waste. I'm always amazed at how many people accelerate past me as I'm coasting to a red light then have to slam on their brakes. They waste gas and wear out their brakes at the same time. Curious.

You enjoy control

 

[Woodznutz]

You enjoy control

Actually I do. Not others but self.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Well provide some proof then

Here's a great graph from grida.no and I believe it is in some of the IPCC publications:

It shows the actual measured temperature anomalies in red and various fits based on "natural forcings" as well as "human forcings".

Look closely and note that natural forcings alone cannot account for the trend, but if you bring in human forcings the data starts to make sense! And lest you think this is all "model stuff", note that these are "hindcast" results, which means taking temperature data already collected and attempting to fit the data to known factors.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

It costs less only relative to usage. But the cost is higher, period. As for the inefficient drivers, at least they have that choice.

They have that choice, but there's about a 100% chance that anytime the price of gasoline goes up they are first in line to complain about it.

It's like Americans who have the choice to buy giant gas-guzzlers or fuel efficient cars. When gas prices are low they buy as if gas prices will always be low. And when gas prices are high suddenly everyone has to care what they think about the stress of higher prices. The President has to open up oil reserves to try to artificially suppress prices and the economy suffers overall.

 

[jc456]

Science doesn't deal in proof, just evidence, of which there is plenty.

Hahaha evidence is proof idiot

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Hahaha evidence is proof idiot

Incorrect.

In science (and mathematics) the concept of "proof" is a bit more nuanced. Scientists seldom if ever professionally speak in terms of "proof" since there is always some degree of error involved.

Instead they have hypotheses which they test and the results are provided in terms of most likely correct hypotheses rather than "proof" per se.

 

[jc456]

Incorrect.

In science (and mathematics) the concept of "proof" is a bit more nuanced. Scientists seldom if ever professionally speak in terms of "proof" since there is always some degree of error involved.

Instead they have hypotheses which they test and the results are provided in terms of most likely correct hypotheses rather than "proof" per se.

Data is data

 

[jc456]

Data is data

I know you think a model is evidence. That’s how fked up you are

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Data is data

Yes. And understanding the limits of what that data says is what it means to be a scientist. All data has noise and variance unexplained by the fit. There's an upper limit that may be close to 100% but it will never be truly 100%.

 

[BackAgain]

This may be true, maybe not, I don't know enough to say, but I'm not sure why it matters. If the sea level rises because of natural or manmade reasons, the sea level still rises and that would spell disaster for many.

Maybe because of the new study is accurate and it’s conclusions proper, the manner in which the global climate alarmists seek to “fix the problem” won’t need to be taken so seriously. Fucking “tax” carbon.

It’s not about “fixing” the possibly non-existent problem. It’s about trying to sneak in by a pretextual back-door some global redistribution of wealth.

 

[jc456]

Yes. And understanding the limits of what that data says is what it means to be a scientist. All data has noise and variance unexplained by the fit. There's an upper limit that may be close to 100% but it will never be truly 100%.

Wtf was that?

 

[Crick]

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.

Thousands of papers on climate are published every year. Why are you choosing to post one that has NOT received peer review and has NOT been published in a refereed journal?

 

[jc456]

Thousands of papers on climate are published every year. Why are you choosing to post one that has NOT received peer review and has NOT been published in a refereed journal?

Still waiting on the number in your 99%

 

[Woodznutz]

Hahaha evidence is proof idiot

Evidence may or may not be sufficient to prove a hypothesis.