July 25, 2019
Global Warming; Natural or Man Made
Timothy Birdnow
Thar she blows! Scientists are starting to leave the Climate Change plantation.
Finnish Scientists: Effect of human activity on climate change insignificant
From the article:
They've got THAT right; it's an algorithmic mirage, a statistical sleight-of-hand.There never has been any there there; Global Warming was a con, a generations-long War of the Worlds scare to stampede the public into world government and redistribution of wealth. But the endless crying of wolf has the public in a mood to disbelieve, or at least take it with a grain of salt.
The article continues:
Yawp! They ignore the fact that, out of the four molecules of carbon dioxide in the ten thousand molecules of air in our atmosphere, we have contributed well under one of them.
They ignore negative feedbacks.
They ignore solar and other influences.
All they can do is say the paper was not peer reviewed. But we know from the Climategate e-mails that there was a concerted effort to sabotage peer review, to make it impossible for "denier" scientists to get published. Then they use that as ground to dispute any work that disagrees with them. Cute trick.
There's more:
It is now accepted that Heinrick Svensmark's theory on cosmic rays and cloud cover is correct. I remember when The Gang Green screamed bloody murder whenever someone mentioned Svensmark's theory. Now they have had to quietly assent to it.
The science behind global warming is overturning the theory, despite the best efforts of the alarmists and international order - and the media - to keep it alive. Sadly, young people only get information promoting the exploded theory, so they believe it. If it's written online it must be true!
Thar she blows! Scientists are starting to leave the Climate Change plantation.
Finnish Scientists: Effect of human activity on climate change insignificant
From the article:
A new paper published by researchers form the University of Turku in Finland suggests that even though observed changes in the climate are real, the effects of human activity on these changes are insignificant. The team suggests that the idea of man made climate change is a mere miscalculation or skewing the formulas by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi, from the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, in their paper published on 29th June 2019 claim to prove that the "GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature.â€
Thus, in order to come to the results matching the actual climate change the IPCC has to "use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity.†In addition, Kauppinen and Malmi claim that their paper proves that "the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.â€
The authors argue that the IPCC has used computational results which can not be considered experimental evidence, and site this as the reason for contradictory conclusions.
Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi, from the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, in their paper published on 29th June 2019 claim to prove that the "GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature.â€
Thus, in order to come to the results matching the actual climate change the IPCC has to "use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity.†In addition, Kauppinen and Malmi claim that their paper proves that "the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.â€
The authors argue that the IPCC has used computational results which can not be considered experimental evidence, and site this as the reason for contradictory conclusions.
They've got THAT right; it's an algorithmic mirage, a statistical sleight-of-hand.There never has been any there there; Global Warming was a con, a generations-long War of the Worlds scare to stampede the public into world government and redistribution of wealth. But the endless crying of wolf has the public in a mood to disbelieve, or at least take it with a grain of salt.
The article continues:
"The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude (i.e. 10 times) 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 recognise that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice, write Kauppinen and Malmi. "The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans, 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℃ because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01℃.â€
Yawp! They ignore the fact that, out of the four molecules of carbon dioxide in the ten thousand molecules of air in our atmosphere, we have contributed well under one of them.
They ignore negative feedbacks.
They ignore solar and other influences.
All they can do is say the paper was not peer reviewed. But we know from the Climategate e-mails that there was a concerted effort to sabotage peer review, to make it impossible for "denier" scientists to get published. Then they use that as ground to dispute any work that disagrees with them. Cute trick.
There's more:
In a separate study, Japanese scientists have also suggested a much more important role for low clouds cover caused by an increase in cosmic rays resulting form the weakening of the earths magnetic filed.
Prof. Masayuki Hyodo and his team Yusuke Ueno, Tianshui Yang and Shigehiro Katoh from the University of Kobe in Japan in their paper published this month in propose that the "umbrella effect†is the main factor behind climate change.
"When galactic cosmic rays increased during the Earth’s last geomagnetic reversal transition 780,000 years ago, the umbrella effect of low-cloud cover led to high atmospheric pressure in Siberia, causing the East Asian winter monsoon to become stronger. This is evidence that galactic cosmic rays influence changes in the Earth’s climate.â€
Prof. Masayuki Hyodo and his team Yusuke Ueno, Tianshui Yang and Shigehiro Katoh from the University of Kobe in Japan in their paper published this month in propose that the "umbrella effect†is the main factor behind climate change.
"When galactic cosmic rays increased during the Earth’s last geomagnetic reversal transition 780,000 years ago, the umbrella effect of low-cloud cover led to high atmospheric pressure in Siberia, causing the East Asian winter monsoon to become stronger. This is evidence that galactic cosmic rays influence changes in the Earth’s climate.â€
It is now accepted that Heinrick Svensmark's theory on cosmic rays and cloud cover is correct. I remember when The Gang Green screamed bloody murder whenever someone mentioned Svensmark's theory. Now they have had to quietly assent to it.
The science behind global warming is overturning the theory, despite the best efforts of the alarmists and international order - and the media - to keep it alive. Sadly, young people only get information promoting the exploded theory, so they believe it. If it's written online it must be true!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:26 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 758 words, total size 6 kb.
1
I think that leftists/liberals are desparate to be RIGHT about something, and the more portentious it is, the more they want it. "The world is coming to an end; women and minorities hardest hit. Give up your luxurious way of life, supported by cheap energy, and go back to living in caves; burn wood, breath the smoke and ruin your lungs, live like the cave painters."
Or something like that. Meanwhile, THEY will take over everything, and even if (when) their predictions don't come true, they will have the joy of running the show and running OVER us.
Don't think so? AOC's Svengali recently admitted that the Green Nude Eel wasn't about energy, or climate change. It was about changing the economy. As the late wonderful baseball manager Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up."
Or something like that. Meanwhile, THEY will take over everything, and even if (when) their predictions don't come true, they will have the joy of running the show and running OVER us.
Don't think so? AOC's Svengali recently admitted that the Green Nude Eel wasn't about energy, or climate change. It was about changing the economy. As the late wonderful baseball manager Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up."
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at July 25, 2019 09:33 PM (rIYC+)
2
Absolutely true Dana! And if they have their way they will put us into a new dark age. Liberalism is essentially irrationalism.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at July 26, 2019 06:45 AM (+wQqK)
3
Amen, Dana!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at July 26, 2019 04:10 PM (OJ4VN)
25kb generated in CPU 0.0105, elapsed 0.1847 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1769 seconds, 161 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.1769 seconds, 161 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
