• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot computecorrectly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. Thereason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fractionon the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too largeportion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why6 J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMIIPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude largerthan our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increasedCO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. Thelow clouds control mainly the global temperature.
Click to expand...
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

A good read. Well worth the time, even if you do not agree with their conclusions.
 
Its a known fact that the IPCC engages in data editing and fudging the numbers so their models appear to be accurate. What they do not account for are others who try to replicate their models and are unable to come up with the same doctored results.

It's clear evidence that manmade AGW is a cherry picked lie.

Six New Peer-reviewed Studies Show Climate Models Are Useless
 
AGW denial threads should be in the conspiracy theory forum.
 
Aristaeus said:
AGW denial threads should be in the conspiracy theory forum.
Click to expand...

Yeah, cause science isn't about testing, questioning and challenging the data! REAL Science get's settled, and never questioned, EVER!
 
I remember when aerosol was making holes in the ozone layer.
 
Renae said:
Yeah, cause science isn't about testing, questioning and challenging the data! REAL Science get's settled, and never questioned, EVER!
Click to expand...

So a thread espousing a flat earth shouldn't be in the conspiracy forum either, because it's challenging science?

The moon landings were fake because humans can't survive in space. Can't put that into the conspiracy forum either because I'm just challenging science.
 
Aristaeus said:
AGW denial threads should be in the conspiracy theory forum.
Click to expand...

Aristaeus said:
So a thread espousing a flat earth shouldn't be in the conspiracy forum either, because it's challenging science?

The moon landings were fake because humans can't survive in space. Can't put that into the conspiracy forum either because I'm just challenging science.
Click to expand...

The paper was published by Cornell University's e-print service. Do you believe Cornell is part of the conspiracy?
 
Aristaeus said:
So a thread espousing a flat earth shouldn't be in the conspiracy forum either, because it's challenging science?
Click to expand...
The way science works, is that if someone wants to present a theory of why the earth is flat, they are free to do so,
as long as they support the claim with empirical evidence, and include a falsifiability criteria.
No one would actually do this, since the falsifiability criteria would quickly be validated.
AGW is still really just a hypothesis, not an actual theory, as it never had a quantifiable falsifiability criteria.
There is scant empirical evidence that CO2 actually does what is claimed as a greenhouse gas.
 
[h=4]Anthropogenic climate change isn’t supported by experimental evidence[/h]Dr. Jyrki Kauppinen was an expert reviewer for the IPPC’s last climate report (AR5, 2013).
In a comment to the IPCC overseers, Kauppinen strongly suggested the “experimental evidence for the very large sensitivity [to anthropogenic CO2 forcing] presented in the report” is missing (Kauppinen and Malmi, 2019).
In response, the IPCC overseers claimed experimental evidence could be found in the report’s Technical Summary.
But the Technical Summary merely contained references to computer models and non-validated assumptions. Kauppinen writes:
[h=6]“We do not consider computational results as experimental evidence. Especially the results obtained by climate models are questionable because the results are conflicting with each other.”[/h]
Upon examination of satellite data and cloud cover changes, Dr. Kauppinen concluded the IPCC’s claims of high climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing (2 to 5°C) are about ten times too high, and “the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature.”
[h=4]Evidence for natural climate change supported by satellite observations[/h]When low cloud cover data from satellite observations are considered, a very clear correlation emerges.
Kauppinen-and-Malmi-2019-cloud-temperature-correlation.jpg

As low cloud cover decreases, more solar radiation can be absorbed by the oceans rather than reflected back to space. Thus, decadal-scale decreases in low cloud cover elicit warming.
When cloud cover increases, cooling ensues.
In this manner, Kauppien and Malmi (2019) find “low clouds practically control the global temperature,” which leaves “no room for the contribution of greenhouse gases i.e. anthropogenic forcing.”
In fact, Kauppinen and Malmi boldly conclude that the total warming contribution from anthropogenic CO2 emissions reached only 0.o1°C during the last 100 years, which means “anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice.”
 
[h=2]Kauppinen and Malmi, 2019[/h][h=2]No experimental evidence for the[/h][h=2]significant anthropogenic climate change[/h][h=6]“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 major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans [6], according to Henry‘s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.”[/h][h=6]“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.”[/h]
Low-CO2-sensitivity-because-clouds-control-climate-Kauppinen-and-Malmi-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Kauppinen and Malmi, 2019[/h]
 
longview said:
The way science works, is that if someone wants to present a theory of why the earth is flat, they are free to do so,
as long as they support the claim with empirical evidence, and include a falsifiability criteria.
No one would actually do this, since the falsifiability criteria would quickly be validated.
AGW is still really just a hypothesis, not an actual theory, as it never had a quantifiable falsifiability criteria.
There is scant empirical evidence that CO2 actually does what is claimed as a greenhouse gas.
Click to expand...

So why do 98% of climatologists around the world believe it's real? are they all stupid? Are they part of a mass conspiracy? What is the motive of the conspiracy?
 
Aristaeus said:
So why do 98% of climatologists around the world believe it's real? are they all stupid? Are they part of a mass conspiracy? What is the motive of the conspiracy?
Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Global Warming Zealotry: A case study in groupthink[/h][FONT=&quot]NEW STUDY: CLIMATE GROUPTHINK LEADS TO A DEAD END London, 21 February: A new report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) shows that both the science and policy of the climate debate are shaped and driven by an almost flawless example of classical Groupthink. Written by one of Britain’s leading newspaper columnists Christopher…
[/FONT]
February 20, 2018 in Climate News.
 
Jack Hays said:
The paper was published by Cornell University's e-print service. Do you believe Cornell is part of the conspiracy?
Click to expand...

it is if the study was Koch funded
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/20/global-warming-zealotry-a-case-study-in-groupthink/"]
global-warming-groupthink.png
[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Global Warming Zealotry: A case study in groupthink[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]NEW STUDY: CLIMATE GROUPTHINK LEADS TO A DEAD END London, 21 February: A new report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) shows that both the science and policy of the climate debate are shaped and driven by an almost flawless example of classical Groupthink. Written by one of Britain’s leading newspaper columnists Christopher…[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/20/global-warming-zealotry-a-case-study-in-groupthink/"]February 20, 2018[/URL] in Climate News.
Click to expand...


:roll:
 
calamity said:
it is if the study was Koch funded
Click to expand...

Jyrki Kauppinen

Professor Emeritus
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of Turku
Finland
Biography

Jyrki Kauppinen is a professor of Physics at the University of Turku.Professor Kauppinen has published about 180 papers in international scientific journals and he has presented about 150 conference presentations and about 60 invited lectures. He has written invited review articles in Encyclopedia of Applied Physics, in Encyclopedia of Spectroscopy and Spectrometry, in Spectrometric Techniques, in Optics Encyclopedia, and in Handbook of Vibrational Spectroscopy. In 2001 Kauppinen and Partanen published a book Fourier Transforms in Spectroscopy (Wiley-VCH).
 
Aristaeus said:
So why do 98% of climatologists around the world believe it's real? are they all stupid? Are they part of a mass conspiracy? What is the motive of the conspiracy?
Click to expand...

At the turn of the 20th Century, Major scientific institutions, with the full backings of governments from the UK to the USA and all the inbetween you could find, believed in something. Anyone that doubted this science was attacked, lambasted as being against science. This theory was going to save mankind, and dire warnings were given, drastic measures taken... and then well, the Nazi's went and took the whole thing to a very logical (by the standards of the idea) if dark place and the idea was abandoned, as well as science progressing to show it wasn't all that people for DECADES claimed it was. I'm of course referring to Eugenics. AGW is the same sort of group think. You have a "Threat to mankind" you have "science to back it" and of course there are powerful political rewards as well as monetary gains. It's not a "conspiracy" so much that is is group think with high incentives and low risks at this time.
 
Aristaeus said:
So why do 98% of climatologists around the world believe it's real? are they all stupid? Are they part of a mass conspiracy? What is the motive of the conspiracy?
Click to expand...
What the consensus is about is that most Scientist agree that the global average temperatures have increased in the last century,
and the Human activity is likely responsible for some or most of that warming.
I actually agree with the consensus, which strangely does not mention CO2.
"Human activity" is a broad paint brush and could include topics as diverse as Land use, to outright manipulation of the
temperature data sets, as well as CO2 increases.
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
Currently, there is a strong scientific consensus that the earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities.
Click to expand...
The responses in a 2009 survey are very telling,
https://ncse.com/files/pub/polls/20...cerning_Climate_Science_&_Climate_Change_.pdf
among the Scientist doing the work, they are not that confident in the models producing good predictions.

What does AGW is real mean to you?
Does it mean the CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
or that Human emissions of CO2 will destroy the environment, and render the earth uninhabitable?
The two are not the same!
 
Renae said:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

A good read. Well worth the time, even if you do not agree with their conclusions.
Click to expand...

A ridiculous read.

Two page, non peer reviewed papers claiming they have ‘proven’ decades of fundamental work in the climate sciences completely wrong are only thought of as ‘good reads’ by... well... you can guess.
 
Threegoofs said:
A ridiculous read.

Two page, non peer reviewed papers claiming they have ‘proven’ decades of fundamental work in the climate sciences completely wrong are only thought of as ‘good reads’ by... well... you can guess.
Click to expand...

If ti doesn't say what I want it to say, it's STUPID!!! HOW DARE ANYONE CHALLENGE THE MIGHT THAT IS AGW!!! algore SAYS IT IS TRUE!!! You're so predictable it is sad.
 
Renae said:
If ti doesn't say what I want it to say, it's STUPID!!! HOW DARE ANYONE CHALLENGE THE MIGHT THAT IS AGW!!! algore SAYS IT IS TRUE!!! You're so predictable it is sad.
Click to expand...

Oh.

I’m sorry.

Im supposed to say ‘fantastic paper! They were able to overturn dozens (if not hundreds) of studies going back 40 years in JUST TWO PAGES! AMAZING!

I can see why they didn’t bother to submit to a respected, peer reviewed journal, because it’s so good that those journals are clearly not worthy of it!

I mean MY GOD...IT WAS REPOSTED ON AN OIL COMPANY LOBBYISTS BLOG!!! Those lobbyists are the best and brightest- we need to take them seriously!

You’re so predictable it’s sad.
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh.

I’m sorry.

Im supposed to say ‘fantastic paper! They were able to overturn dozens (if not hundreds) of studies going back 40 years in JUST TWO PAGES! AMAZING!

I can see why they didn’t bother to submit to a respected, peer reviewed journal, because it’s so good that those journals are clearly not worthy of it!

I mean MY GOD...IT WAS REPOSTED ON AN OIL COMPANY LOBBYISTS BLOG!!! Those lobbyists are the best and brightest- we need to take them seriously!

You’re so predictable it’s sad.
Click to expand...
The entire concept of AGW is attached to the idea that CO2's predicted greenhouse gas response and the
feedbacks to that response, were the only explanation of the observed warming.
If someone has a different explanation, it should be evaluated for merit.
If the newer concept fails it's invalidation test, no issue, but a concept should
not be summarily dismissed because of the quantity of work that has come before!
 
longview said:
The entire concept of AGW is attached to the idea that CO2's predicted greenhouse gas response and the
feedbacks to that response, were the only explanation of the observed warming.
If someone has a different explanation, it should be evaluated for merit.
If the newer concept fails it's invalidation test, no issue, but a concept should
not be summarily dismissed because of the quantity of work that has come before!
Click to expand...

If it was that groundbreaking, it would be in PNAS.
 
Threegoofs said:
If it was that groundbreaking, it would be in PNAS.
Click to expand...
Why? Why would it be necessary for a new concept or idea to be presented through the traditional channels?
 
longview said:
Why? Why would it be necessary for a new concept or idea to be presented through the traditional channels?
Click to expand...

You're so right.

I dont know why he bothered with arXiv when he could have just sent it to WUWT. They are so good
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom