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

[COTUR1@43]

Alt righters are hilarious. Just because Al Gore pushed climate change, they have been rustled.
I live in Central Florida for the last 20 years and let me tell you the last couple years it has been hotter than Satan's Taint in the summer. Heat Indexes over 105 on the regular.
I don't need two Finnish Bozos that are cooking data to tell me climate change is fake, I feel it more and more over the summer. It is getting hotter.
Over 90% scientist agree that the climate is changing. They may disagree on the reasons why but they agree. Now every bullshit science paper that disagrees with climate change has to be posted on Sherdog. Sad part is the posters never even bother to read what they are posting.
If this 6 page earth shattering paper that was not peer reviewed, would have been read by the TS, the TS would have thought twice about posting it.

I don't think the study denied climate change/warming, it just stated human influence on it is fairly insignificant.

 

[Ruprecht]

Jyrki Kauppinen is still harping on about clouds huh?
Everything he's said on the topic for the past decade has been "Climate Scepticism", he was even a founding member of "Clexit" (Climate Exit).

 

[ocean size]

Posters here are conflating studies that show temperature rises with studies that definitively prove humans are warming the planet.

There have been plenty of studies that dispute these authors claims. 'Definitely prove' is a nonsensical bar, because that isn't what science does.

Even studies from prominent skeptics that work in the field like Judith Curry agree there is a large anthropogenic component, but just think the % due to humans is somewhat lower than the consensus (50% in her case).

The difference is that those many other studies are peer reviewed and this one isn't.

 

[jk7707]

The only intelligent thing the TS did was bow out of this dumpster fire of a thread early.

 

[BarackLesnar]

Lol climate deniers and antivaxxers sure do love to cherry pick poorly done non peer reviewed papers don't they.

non qeer reviewed

 

[StillWasted]

Where do people think climate change denial come from? it comes from Holocaust denial because they want to make those who question the climate change hysteria into being deneirs of the Holocaust and thus we must ban, maybe even jail them..


Both groups very tribal and now we have extremists in Britain blocking roads because they say their children and grandchildren have no future due to climate change. They are scaring children in schools and it will only lead to a violent mob of next generation protesters.


Both deniers are misunderstood imo


Many climate change deniers don't deny climate change but merely the effect humans are having on climate change. If you look at the developing world and their huge populations and what they could potentially contribute to climate change then what do we propose kill the humans to save the earth? that seems to be the way things are going. On the most extreme they see humans as evil and destroying the planet so they must be eliminated.

Holocaust deniers are Holocuast minimizers.. not even questionining the authenticity of Anne Franks diary is allowed and is considered denial (FindACase Meyer Levin v. Otto Frank)

 

[44nutman]

Where do people think climate change denial come from? it comes from Holocaust denial because they want to make those who question the climate change hysteria into being deneirs of the Holocaust and thus we must ban, maybe even jail them..


Both groups very tribal and now we have extremists in Britain blocking roads because they say their children and grandchildren have no future due to climate change. They are scaring children in schools and it will only lead to a violent mob of next generation protesters.


Both deniers are misunderstood imo


Many climate change deniers don't deny climate change but merely the effect humans are having on climate change. If you look at the developing world and their huge populations and what they could potentially contribute to climate change then what do we propose kill the humans to save the earth? that seems to be the way things are going. On the most extreme they see humans as evil and destroying the planet so they must be eliminated.

Holocaust deniers are Holocuast minimizers.. not even questionining the authenticity of Anne Franks diary is allowed and is considered denial (FindACase Meyer Levin v. Otto Frank)

Sherdog never stop Sherfrontting.
I read this at first I laughed then I got sad.
Do me a favor don't compare the Holocaust deniers to Climate Deniers. It repulsive.

 

[Andy Capp]

lol, you don't get to play the "source isn't relevant" card. you alt right lunatics go around bashing every article / source that are perfectly valid like the new york times (even calling them fake news you fucking psychos) but the second an alt right personality posts a bunk study, you suddenly don't want the source questioned.

either you are retarded or you are a deliberate fraud. either way this thread is shit and should get dumped.

Both.

 

[tonni]

If only all "memes" were this factually accurate.

 

[Andy Capp]

If scientists are right about the predicted 4C increase, then we're pretty well fucked. It's probably to late.

If the data from the early 1900's is any indication, then it's possible they may be over exaggerating. Unless there were other underlying factors controlling the increase.

From this time frame of 1910-40, earths temps increased approximately .5C with an increase of about 10 ppm CO2. If the climate is that sensitive to CO2, we should have seen a massive increase today (or the last few decades), .
Compare to the 1980-2010 increase of .4C with an increase of CO2 levels of 60 ppm.

I haven't read an article on this specific period (1910-40). Not sure if there are any peer reviewed papers out on this.

Maybe CO2/Temp is nonlinear.

Maybe. Maybe not. That's the magic question. What if CO2/temp isn't nonlinear and it isn't the player the IPCC claims it is in the complicated climate system. It's not like it woke up in the 70's and became linear.

I know there was talk on Solar Irradiance vs the temp rises on those time frames I mentioned.

The reason for the difference between actual and expected warming earlier in the century was due to the cooling effect of other pollutants, particularly CFC's, which were banned under the Montreal Protocol in the 80's--hence increased warming after that. They were mitigating the warming effect (while doing massive damage to the ozone layer.) Of course, this never gets mentioned by the crowd trying to discredit climate science.

Sadly, there has been recent evidence someone is disregarding the ban and putting CFC's into the atmosphere again.

Spoiler

Let me know if you young'uns need to be filled in on any other stuff from "back in the day"

 

[laz0001]

Lets actually look at this paper objectively.

1. Turku university is actually a fairly reputable university - 18000 students, second biggest in Finland.
2. J Kaupinnen seems like a legit 'researcher', with quite a list of technical papers
   1. However - J Kaupinnens papers (and qualifications) are largely based in 'Photo-acoustics'. There are no apparent qualifications in climate study.
3. P Malmi suffers the same consequence - some physics based on analysing the properties of hydrogen, but no background in climate research.
4. The references in this document are hugely outdated - with the most modern paper being their OWN paper written in 2014, and other papers dating from 1975!
5. The paper is just 6 pages long with 6 references. Compare to the IPCC report - it's 677 pages long with around 300 PAGES of references.
6. The authors surmise that the the IPCC report doesn't model clouds. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/clouds-and-aerosols/
7. They show some graphs that correlate cloud cover with tempurature. Correlation does not equal causation, and there's really not any text or citations in their paper to show if cloud cover is causing global climate tempurature change, or is it temperature causing more cloud cover)
   1. Even if you assume cloud cover is the driver behind climate change, they show no evidence that cloud cover isn't itself drive by temperature (circular feedback)
8. Just read some of the statements in this paper: "The green line has been calculated using the sensitivity 0.24°C, which seems to be correct." - seems to be correct?!
   1. "In Fig. 4 we see clearly how well a change in the relative humidity can model the strong temperature minimum around the year 1975." - so they have picked a SINGLE datapoint from 50 years ago as validation of their idea - especially when they also state:
      "Unfortunately, the time interval (1983–2008) in Fig 2 is limited to 25 years because of the lack of the low cloud cover data" - i.e., they picked a date of 1975 when there isn't even and cloud cover data during that time to even measure?
9. They just randomly, out of nowhere, state "During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C" - there's no text even leading up to this statement? Where did they even get it from?
10. Even the icon is some random skull and crossbones smiley face, is this a joke or something?

Literally - this paper is rubbish - it's like two physics researchers thought it would be a good idea to take a random idea about cloud cover, throw in some meaningless charts and submit it as a joke paper to see how many people fall for it. Or they are being paid by someone to write a paper about a subject they know nothing about and desperately tried to pull in some shit to fill out the paper.

Edited for clarity...

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Lets actually look at this paper objectively.

1. Turku university is actually a fairly reputable university - 18000 students, second biggest in Finland.
2. J Kaupinnen seems like a legit 'researcher', with quite a list of technical papers
   1. However - J Kaupinnens papers (and qualifications) are largely based in 'Photo-acoustics'. There are no apparent qualifications in climate study.
3. P Malmi suffers the same consequence - some physics based on analysing the properties of hydrogen, but no background in climate research.
4. The references in this document are hugely outdated - with the most modern paper being their OWN paper written in 2014, and other papers dating from 1975!
5. The paper is just 6 pages long with 6 references. Compare to the IPCC report - it's 677 pages long with around 300 PAGES of references.
6. The authors surmise that the the IPCC report doesn't model clouds. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/clouds-and-aerosols/
7. They show some graphs that correlate cloud cover with tempurature. Correlation does not equal causation, and there's really not very much in the way to show cloud cover causing tempurature change
   1. Even if you assume cloud cover is contributing to temperature change, they show no evidence that cloud cover isn't itself drive by temperature (circular feedback)
8. Just read some of the statements in this paper: "The green line has been calculated using the sensitivity 0.24°C, which seems to be correct." - seems to be correct?!
   1. "In Fig. 4 we see clearly how well a change in the relative humidity can model the strong temperature minimum around the year 1975." - so they have picked a SINGLE datapoint from 50 years ago as validation of their idea - especially when they also state:
      "Unfortunately, the time interval (1983–2008) in Fig 2 is limited to 25 years because of the lack of the low cloud cover data" - i.e., they picked a date of 1975 when there isn't even and cloud cover data during that time to even measure?
9. They just randomly, out of nowhere, state "During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C" - there's no text even leading up to this statement? Where did they even get it from?
10. Even the icon is some random skull and crossbones smiley face, is this a joke or something?

Literally - this paper is rubbish - it's like two physics researchers thought it would be a good idea to take a random idea about cloud cover, throw in some meaningless charts and submit it as a joke paper to see how many people fall for it. Or they are being paid by someone to write a paper about a subject they know nothing about and desperately tried to pull in some shit to fill out the paper.

This part is patently false.

"They show some graphs that correlate cloud cover with tempurature. Correlation does not equal causation, and there's really not very much in the way to show cloud cover causing tempurature change"

Cloud cover at night reflects radiation heat from the earth back down reheating the planet. That's why clear nights are often much colder. During the day the earth's surface absorbs heat from the sun and radiates it back up into the atmosphere and into space. This is a careful balance we refer to as the earth's heat budget.

So an increase in cloud cover at night would drastically decrease the amount of radiant heat leaving the earth.

I've been a meteorological technician for 9 years this is an absolute fact.

If the research is correct that cloud cover at night is ignored in all the other"accepted" studies, its game over for the climate alarmists. It's as simple as that.

This factor is so large it's hard to believe it was overlooked, if it was.

I've enjoyed watching people in this thread pretend they have a clue what they're talking about because they can pick apart a study by pointing out how many pages long it is lol.

 

[laz0001]

This part is patently false.

"They show some graphs that correlate cloud cover with tempurature. Correlation does not equal causation, and there's really not very much in the way to show cloud cover causing tempurature change"

Cloud cover at night reflects radiation heat from the earth back down reheating the planet. That's why clear nights are often much colder. During the day the earth's surface absorbs heat from the sun and radiates it back up into the atmosphere and into space. This is a careful balance we refer to as the earth's heat budget.

So an increase in cloud cover at night would drastically decrease the amount of radiant heat leaving the earth.

I've been a meteorological technician for 9 years this is an absolute fact.

If the research is correct that cloud cover at night is ignored in all the other"accepted" studies, its game over for the climate alarmists. It's as simple as that.

This factor is so large it's hard to believe it was overlooked, if it was.

I've enjoyed watching people in this thread pretend they have a clue what they're talking about because they can pick apart a study by pointing out how many pages long it is lol.

You mis-interpreted what I was saying. I'm saying that there's nothing in their paper, either shown, or cited that shows the link between cloud-cover and global temperature change - i.e., the cause-effect. yes - we all know that cloud cover affects the night time tempuerature. But, on a global scale, are higher temperatures causing more cloud cover, or is higher cloud cover causing higher tempuratues - or both? They don't put anything in there to prove their claims.


Edit - and by the fact you use the phrase 'climate alarmists' shows you're not worth responding to further.

 

[no fat chicks]

threads like this are going to be pretty depressing in 20 years

 

[Graves The Elder]

can't get the image of Satan's Taint out of my head
thanks a lot

 

[Andy Capp]

This part is patently false.

"They show some graphs that correlate cloud cover with tempurature. Correlation does not equal causation, and there's really not very much in the way to show cloud cover causing tempurature change"

Cloud cover at night reflects radiation heat from the earth back down reheating the planet. That's why clear nights are often much colder. During the day the earth's surface absorbs heat from the sun and radiates it back up into the atmosphere and into space. This is a careful balance we refer to as the earth's heat budget.

So an increase in cloud cover at night would drastically decrease the amount of radiant heat leaving the earth.

I've been a meteorological technician for 9 years this is an absolute fact.

If the research is correct that cloud cover at night is ignored in all the other"accepted" studies, its game over for the climate alarmists. It's as simple as that.

This factor is so large it's hard to believe it was overlooked, if it was.

I've enjoyed watching people in this thread pretend they have a clue what they're talking about because they can pick apart a study by pointing out how many pages long it is lol.

Of course it hasn't been overlooked. Climate scientists have long been talking about the issue of how increased cloud cover due to warming was inducing a feedback. To wit,
Cloud feedback in IPCC report[edit]
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports contain a summary of the current status of knowledge on the effect of cloud feedback on climate models. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) stated:[16]

By reflecting solar radiation back to space (the albedo effect of clouds) and by trapping infrared radiation emitted by the surface and the lower troposphere (the greenhouse effect of clouds), clouds exert two competing effects on the Earth’s radiation budget. These two effects are usually referred to as the SW (shortwave) and LW (longwave) components of the cloud radiative forcing (CRF). The balance between these two components depends on many factors, including macrophysical and microphysical cloud properties. In the current climate, clouds exert a cooling effect on climate (the global mean CRF is negative). In response to global warming, the cooling effect of clouds on climate might be enhanced or weakened, thereby producing a radiative feedback to climate warming (Randall et al., 2006; NRC, 2003; Zhang, 2004; Stephens, 2005; Bony et al., 2006).

In the most recent, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (2013), cloud feedback effects are discussed in the Working Group 1 report,[17] in Chapter 7, "Clouds and Aerosols",[18] with some additional discussion on uncertainties in Chapter 9, "Evaluation of Climate Models".[19] The report states "Cloud feedback studies point to five aspects of the cloud response to climate change which are distinguished here: changes in high-level cloud altitude, effects of hydrological cycle and storm track changes on cloud systems, changes in low-level cloud amount, microphysically induced opacity (optical depth) changes and changes in high-latitude clouds." The net radiative feedback is the sum of the warming and cooling feedbacks; the executive summary states "The sign of the net radiative feedback due to all cloud types is less certain but likely positive. Uncertainty in the sign and magnitude of the cloud feedback is due primarily to continuing uncertainty in the impact of warming on low clouds." They estimate the cloud feedback from all cloud types to be +0.6 W/m2°C (with an uncertainty band of −0.2 to +2.0), and continue, "All global models continue to produce a near-zero to moderately strong positive net cloud feedback."[18]

Futher, about the supposed failure to take cloud cover into account:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cloudiness.htm, explains that, "The answer is that the climate models deal in terms of energy flows. The role of temperature is to determine the thermal radiation from the Earth. This radiation is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature. This fourth power relationship means that temperature is the fourth root of the thermal radiation flow and thus if the radiation flow is in error by 20 percent the temperature is in error by only one fourth this much or five percent. Thus a model could be in error by a whopping 40 percent and yet the temperature seems to have a modest error of only ten percent."

 

[Andy Capp]

You mis-interpreted what I was saying. I'm saying that there's nothing in their paper, either shown, or cited that shows the link between cloud-cover and global temperature change - i.e., the cause-effect. yes - we all know that cloud cover affects the night time tempuerature. But, on a global scale, are higher temperatures causing more cloud cover, or is higher cloud cover causing higher tempuratues - or both? They don't put anything in there to prove their claims.


Edit - and by the fact you use the phrase 'climate alarmists' shows you're not worth responding to further.

Yeah, sadly he's part of the goof troop around here. I am willing to bet a cool nickle right now we both get a laugh out of his response to my post.

 

[Andy Capp]

I don't think the study denied climate change/warming, it just stated human influence on it is fairly insignificant.

And it even got that wrong.

 

[Victor Maitland]

the whole thing is just a psyop .

 

[ssBaldy]

Human-made climat change is real but not as drastic as environmentalists claim. To this day the main source of CO (and other "greenhouse" gases like methane) emissions in Northern Europe are farting mooses. Think about it.
Pollution, on the other hand, is very real and should be battled globally.