• 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!

Finnish Climate Study Finds No Evidence For Man-Made Climate Change

Desert Storm

Desert Storm

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
4,767
Reaction score
1,493
Location
Toronto & Amsterdam, Holland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Finnish Climate Study Finds No Evidence For Man-Made Climate Change

Study: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

Researchers J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi at the University of Turku, Finland, have found that human contribution to a rise of 0.1°C in global temperatures over the past 100 years century is just 0.01°C., contrary to global climate doomsayers and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Kauppinen and Malmi stated in their research analysis paper, dated June 29, 2019, that they will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the instances of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a minimal natural temperature change leaving a substantial change for the contribution of the greenhouse gases in the observed temperature.

This is the reason why IPCC has to use a considerable sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further, they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds to magnify the sensitivity. Also, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature
Click to expand...
 
Already posted and debunked.
 
Media_Truth said:
Already posted and debunked.
Click to expand...

It was not debunked, the climate jihadists just did their usual ad homs and other fallacies, hoping it would go away, but the facts remain.
 
YorkshirePete said:
One Finnish study?
Want to list the 99% of others?
Click to expand...
In Science, it only takes one piece of contrary data, to invalidate a hypothesis.
Much of AGW is based simply on the fact that they claimed that no other possibilities
existed besides that CO2 caused the observed warming, yet we now know that are many competing possibilities.
For fun, let's review the alternate hypotheses.
Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark's idea that some component related to solar activity blocks
cosmic rays from entering the atmosphere and forming clouds.
This has an amplifying/attenuating effect on solar changes.

J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi have an idea that cloud changes account for most of the warming.

Much of the warming could simply be recording methodology error.

We have warming some in the last century, plants tend to not be deceitful,
and are now growing is places where they did not used to.
How much it has actually warmed, is a bit more subjective.
 
I'm not sure climate CTists want to acknowledge a study claiming 10% of GW is AGW. Isn't that opening the door to their claim's end?
 
longview said:
In Science, it only takes one piece of contrary data, to invalidate a hypothesis.
.
Click to expand...


Presuming it has been properly vetted and peer reviewed it may open new questions, that's all. 'Invalidate' is a bit strong of a word because then it would itself have to be 'valid' in the face of those thousands of other competing studies. It would have to be 'right' whereas all the others are 'wrong', which sounds an unlikely proposition. In other words it cannot be just one or the other and if it is, it's more likely the thousands of other studies are right.

The most likely scenario is at best this latest study - and I haven't checked if it has been debunked - pokes a few holes in the data or conclusions here and there, while exposing a few weaknesses of it's own.
 
uptower said:
Presuming it has been properly vetted and peer reviewed it may open new questions, that's all. 'Invalidate' is a bit strong of a word because then it would itself have to be 'valid' in the face of those thousands of other competing studies. It would have to be 'right' whereas all the others are 'wrong', which sounds an unlikely proposition. In other words it cannot be just one or the other and if it is, it's more likely the thousands of other studies are right.

The most likely scenario is at best this latest study - and I haven't checked if it has been debunked - pokes a few holes in the data or conclusions here and there, while exposing a few weaknesses of it's own.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand the uncertainty of the studies supporting AGW.
The several hundred other studies (not thousands) do not define their claims as points that can be challenged.
There is minimal empirical evidence, it is mostly model runs based on assumptions which have no basis in actual measurements.
The stated ECS range is 1.5 to 4.5 C, but it is based on an input warming perturbation of 1.1 C from doubling the CO2 level.
This means that the uncertainty is an amplification factor of between 1.36 and 4.09.
Again , the basis for claiming the warming is from added CO2, is that no other contributing factors could be found,
(I also think they did not look very hard.).
It is not that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, it is! but that the climates sensitivity to CO2 appears to be much lower
than the assumptions used in the models.
The most fundamental measurement in AGW, is the forcing imbalance caused from doubling the CO2 level.
Most agree that this is ~3.71 Wm-2, but when they actually try to measure this the numbers come out lower.
Feldman, et al 2015,
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
found a .22 Wm-2 increase, as CO2 levels increased from 369 ppm to 392 ppm.
This relates to 2.52 Wm-2 for doubling CO2, not 3.71 Wm-2.
The question is which factor was used in the models?
 
longview said:
I think you misunderstand the uncertainty of the studies supporting AGW.
The several hundred other studies (not thousands) do not define their claims as points that can be challenged.
There is minimal empirical evidence, it is mostly model runs based on assumptions which have no basis in actual measurements.
The stated ECS range is 1.5 to 4.5 C, but it is based on an input warming perturbation of 1.1 C from doubling the CO2 level.
This means that the uncertainty is an amplification factor of between 1.36 and 4.09.
Again , the basis for claiming the warming is from added CO2, is that no other contributing factors could be found,
(I also think they did not look very hard.).
It is not that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, it is! but that the climates sensitivity to CO2 appears to be much lower
than the assumptions used in the models.
The most fundamental measurement in AGW, is the forcing imbalance caused from doubling the CO2 level.
Most agree that this is ~3.71 Wm-2, but when they actually try to measure this the numbers come out lower.
Feldman, et al 2015,
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
found a .22 Wm-2 increase, as CO2 levels increased from 369 ppm to 392 ppm.
This relates to 2.52 Wm-2 for doubling CO2, not 3.71 Wm-2.
The question is which factor was used in the models?
Click to expand...

Your argument falls quite well short, as we may be very close to 1.1 deg C this year, and we're not even close to a doubling of CO2. You have undoubtedly discounted the Positive feedbacks, and now lay hope in some debunked study.
 
Media_Truth said:
Your argument falls quite well short, as we may be very close to 1.1 deg C this year, and we're not even close to a doubling of CO2. You have undoubtedly discounted the Positive feedbacks, and now lay hope in some debunked study.
Click to expand...
I have already told you it is near impossible for the 2019 average to be 1.1 C,
and we are currently at 55.6% of the effects of doubling CO2.
The concept of AGW is based on no other explanations, this is another explanation.
Like introducing an alternative suspect for a crime.
In this case if the observed warming is simply a result of changes in cloud cover,
then there would be no meaningful feedbacks, as the total effect of doubling CO2
would only be 0.1°C.
 
longview said:
I have already told you it is near impossible for the 2019 average to be 1.1 C,
and we are currently at 55.6% of the effects of doubling CO2.
The concept of AGW is based on no other explanations, this is another explanation.
Like introducing an alternative suspect for a crime.
In this case if the observed warming is simply a result of changes in cloud cover,
then there would be no meaningful feedbacks, as the total effect of doubling CO2
would only be 0.1°C.
Click to expand...


LOL.

The people at GISS would.... disagree, denier.


4a151432bfc51e072d65add07ade3ac1.jpg
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

The people at GISS would.... disagree, denier.
Click to expand...

[h=2]Surprise JULY SNOW Falls In Poland… June Temperature Trends See No Rise Across Canada, Iceland[/h]By P Gosselin on 14. July 2019
[h=3]“Snow in July – this surprised everyone. We remember times when it fell in April or even in May, but not during summer vacation.”[/h]By Kirye
and Pierre
Ice Age now here reported, “snow and record low temperatures” in Poland — in July — earlier this week.
According to Polish sources, there was fresh snow on the highest peaks of the Tatras and the temperature fell below zero (-0.2 degrees).
June mean temperatures see no rise in Canada, Iceland
While Europe saw some record heat in June, temperatures have since fallen considerably, with many regions reporting well-below normal readings.
Elsewhere over the northern hemisphere June temperature trends show a decline over the past two decades or more. . . .
 
ecofarm said:
I'm not sure climate CTists want to acknowledge a study claiming 10% of GW is AGW. Isn't that opening the door to their claim's end?
Click to expand...

Svensmark and Shaviv estimate approximately 50% of 20th century warming was AGW. The balance was solar-driven. That's enough to eliminate global warming alarmism.
 
Jack Hays said:
Svensmark and Shaviv estimate approximately 50% of 20th century warming was AGW. The balance was solar-driven. That's enough to eliminate global warming alarmism.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. 50% is enough to take action.
 
ecofarm said:
Nonsense. 50% is enough to take action.
Click to expand...

Nope, because the solar component is now cooling. Brakes are on, and the Paris targets, for example, can be met by doing nothing. Indeed, we won't even get to the Paris targets.
 
ecofarm said:
Nonsense. 50% is enough to take action.
Click to expand...

What empirical proof do you have that the actions you would doubtless advocate would do anything other than condemn billions in the third world to a continued life of wretched poverty and premature death ?
 
longview said:
I think you misunderstand the uncertainty of the studies supporting AGW.
The several hundred other studies (not thousands) do not define their claims as points that can be challenged.
There is minimal empirical evidence, it is mostly model runs based on assumptions which have no basis in actual measurements.
The stated ECS range is 1.5 to 4.5 C, but it is based on an input warming perturbation of 1.1 C from doubling the CO2 level.
This means that the uncertainty is an amplification factor of between 1.36 and 4.09.
Again , the basis for claiming the warming is from added CO2, is that no other contributing factors could be found,
(I also think they did not look very hard.).
It is not that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, it is! but that the climates sensitivity to CO2 appears to be much lower
than the assumptions used in the models.
The most fundamental measurement in AGW, is the forcing imbalance caused from doubling the CO2 level.
Most agree that this is ~3.71 Wm-2, but when they actually try to measure this the numbers come out lower.
Feldman, et al 2015,
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
found a .22 Wm-2 increase, as CO2 levels increased from 369 ppm to 392 ppm.
This relates to 2.52 Wm-2 for doubling CO2, not 3.71 Wm-2.
The question is which factor was used in the models?
Click to expand...

Really long?? I take it to mean that you are planning on continuing to push this completely dishonest comparison for the sole purpose of misinforming the public. It doesn't make any difference to you that I have shown you that this is total BS several times now. Not only does this study you cited point out that the comparison you are making is wrong but it also confirms current consensus thinking on the matter.

Sorry long... but your dishonest comparing of Top Of Atmosphere calculations to surface measurements as if the atmosphere is completely transparent is nothing but willful denialist misinformation.
 
Buzz said:
Really long?? I take it to mean that you are planning on continuing to push this completely dishonest comparison for the sole purpose of misinforming the public. It doesn't make any difference to you that I have shown you that this is total BS several times now. Not only does this study you cited point out that the comparison you are making is wrong but it also confirms current consensus thinking on the matter.

Sorry long... but your dishonest comparing of Top Of Atmosphere calculations to surface measurements as if the atmosphere is completely transparent is nothing but willful denialist misinformation.
Click to expand...
Buzz, Energy cannot be created or destroyed! This means that if there is an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere,
then all the energy (and no more)must be somewhere within the atmosphere.
When the energy level in a volume of gas increases slightly, we will see that increase as increased IR activity.
Do you find it odd that Feldmans empirical data from the ground looking up,
matches Hansen prediction from the top of the atmosphere downward, within 5%?
Hansen 97, 2XCO2 top of atmosphere imbalance 2.62 Wm-2
Feldman 15, 2XCO2 looking up calculated to 2.52 Wm-2
P.S. a detector sitting on the ground and looking up at the sky, sees all the way past the top of the atmosphere.
 
longview said:
I think you misunderstand the uncertainty of the studies supporting AGW.
The several hundred other studies (not thousands) do not define their claims as points that can be challenged.
There is minimal empirical evidence, it is mostly model runs based on assumptions which have no basis in actual measurements.
The stated ECS range is 1.5 to 4.5 C, but it is based on an input warming perturbation of 1.1 C from doubling the CO2 level.
This means that the uncertainty is an amplification factor of between 1.36 and 4.09.
Again , the basis for claiming the warming is from added CO2, is that no other contributing factors could be found,
(I also think they did not look very hard.).
It is not that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, it is! but that the climates sensitivity to CO2 appears to be much lower
than the assumptions used in the models.
The most fundamental measurement in AGW, is the forcing imbalance caused from doubling the CO2 level.
Most agree that this is ~3.71 Wm-2, but when they actually try to measure this the numbers come out lower.
Feldman, et al 2015,
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
found a .22 Wm-2 increase, as CO2 levels increased from 369 ppm to 392 ppm.
This relates to 2.52 Wm-2 for doubling CO2, not 3.71 Wm-2.
The question is which factor was used in the models?
Click to expand...

You know there is one certainty related to studies showing man is responsible for "climate change"...

The continuing flow of money into their coffers.

Show the opposite? Well, starvation will force any organization to reconsider priorities....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom