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

[ding]

If you're saying climate change is normal, I agree. If you say is it OK, I disagree. Extinction is normal too.

Actually what I am saying is that our planet is uniquely configured for climate fluctuations, environmental uncertainty and colder temperatures because of the planet's landmass configuration and ocean circulation pattern. Never before have BOTH polar regions been thermally isolated from warmer ocean waters at the same time. Never before has our planet experienced bipolar glaciation. It's this feature which has been the driving planet's climate for the past 10 million years.

 

[ding]

Pass. Through all the condescension I sense you're going to give me your historical climate model. You may well be right but I doubt it would be much comfort to a Bangladeshi farmer facing the flooding of his fields. It seems settled that the ice is melting and sea levels are rising.

You should be more concerned with colder temperatures because that would be much worse than warmer temperatures. But I think it's wonderful that you can ignore 50 million years of data which shows a cooling planet.

 

[alang1216]

Was there any math at your link?

Plenty of data but you'll have to do your own math. Sorry.

 

[alang1216]

Communities from Nicaragua to Newfoundland are already protected ... look at what Japan is doing with her 50 foot sea walls ... all we need is to add three feet on top ... super easy and cheap ... far far cheaper than 43,000 miles of interstate freeways that crisscross the United States ...

My chalenge is for you to go to the beach ... high tide ... next full or new moon ... find the place the waves reach the furthest up the beach ... now add two feet and level over .... ha ha ha ha ha ... you're still on the beach ... ha ha ha ha ... maybe ten feet of land disappeared ... in 100 years ... just magical ... ha ha ha ha ...

You may right about Japan but I live on the US East Coast and a small change in sea level might equate to miles of coast disappearing. Already many of the beaches are constantly bringing in sand from offshore to offset beach losses.

 

[alang1216]

The first claim is an outright lie ... from 1915 to 1945, temperatures rose 0.7ºC, or 0.023ºC/yr ... from 1972-2022, temperatures rose 0.9ºC, or 0.018ºC/yr ... {Cite} ...

Fucking lying sack of shit ...

Take it up with the climatologists at NASA if you don't like their math or conclusions.

 

[alang1216]

If your curious about the math ... I'd be happy to help ... it's not hard if we go factor-by-factor ... or do you just not what to understand, rather just lie ...

If you don't think the scientists at NASA know what they are doing, that is your choice, one I disagree with. Maybe we can move to an analysis of whether bumblebees can fly?

 

[alang1216]

Can't massage math, not without having your paper sent back for correction ... that is one function of peer-review ... mathematicians double check the math ...

I doubt the real world is ever so simple. Polling is a good example, how you choose your sample determines the outcome.

 

[alang1216]

I don't believe 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 is a problem like you do, so why should I? I'm willing to bet your carbon footprint is not materially different than mine. Since you believe it IS a problem, what have you done to reduce your carbon footprint?

First off, my hypocrisy is none of your concern and deserves a thread of its own.

Secondly, whatever the truth about CO2, do you accept that the Earth is warming and the seas are rising?

 

[alang1216]

Actually what I am saying is that our planet is uniquely configured for climate fluctuations, environmental uncertainty and colder temperatures because of the planet's landmass configuration and ocean circulation pattern. Never before have BOTH polar regions been thermally isolated from warmer ocean waters at the same time. Never before has our planet experienced bipolar glaciation. It's this feature which has been the driving planet's climate for the past 10 million years.

View attachment 745603

Lots of things are perfectly natural but will kill us just as dead.

 

[alang1216]

You should be more concerned with colder temperatures because that would be much worse than warmer temperatures. But I think it's wonderful that you can ignore 50 million years of data which shows a cooling planet.

Culturally, we are adapted this climate. Any change will require us to adapt and that will mean winners and losers. The US is rich and will likely be among the winners. Should we care about the losers?

 

[Crick]

Lots of things are perfectly natural but will kill us just as dead.

Please explain how either pole but particularly Antarctica is thermally isolated from the equatorial regions of the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Indian Oceans

Ocean Currents Map – HIS 3460: Digital History

blogs.baruch.cuny.edu

 

[Mac-7]

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.

The problem is that liberals have been brainwashed to accept the mam-made global warming doomsday scam and their minds are closed to new information

 

[Crick]

The problem is that liberals have been brainwashed to accept the mam-made global warming doomsday scam and their minds are closed to new information

Your problem is that it's not the liberals that have been convinced, it's all the world's scientists, no matter what their position on the political spectrum.

 

[westwall]

Your problem is that it's not the liberals that have been convinced, it's all the world's scientists, no matter what their position on the political spectrum.

What a laughable assertion. The majority of scientists have either no opinion, or disagree.

 

[jc456]

If you're saying climate change is normal, I agree. If you say is it OK, I disagree. Extinction is normal too.

Where has climate changed that suggests catastrophe?

 

[jc456]

Your problem is that it's not the liberals that have been convinced, it's all the world's scientists, no matter what their position on the political spectrum.

Name one conservative unfunded scientist agrees with your nonsense?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your problem is that it's not the liberals that have been convinced, it's all the world's scientists, no matter what their position on the political spectrum.

Money for nothing, chicks for free.

 

[Crick]

Money for nothing, chicks for free.

I got my MTV...

 

[alang1216]

Please explain how either pole but particularly Antarctica is thermally isolated from the equatorial regions of the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Indian Oceans

Ocean Currents Map – HIS 3460: Digital History

blogs.baruch.cuny.edu

Why?

Please explain how either pole but particularly Antarctica is thermally isolated from the equatorial regions of the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Indian Oceans

Ocean Currents Map – HIS 3460: Digital History

blogs.baruch.cuny.edu

 

[Mac-7]

Your problem is that it's not the liberals that have been convinced, it's all the world's scientists, no matter what their position on the political spectrum.

Nonsense

There are plenty of skeptics but they are afraid to speak because the global warming nazis are vicious