• 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 (1 Viewer)

Quaestio said:
More...

Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming – Climate Feedback

Victor Venema, University of Bonn, Germany:
"This text may look like a scientific article to a lay-person, but I would not accept it as a bachelor thesis. It does not cite its data sources, it does not discuss the uncertainties in the data, nor does it discuss that other cloud data sets find the opposite trend. It does not explain sufficiently how computations were made to make the study reproducible and understandable. It does not discuss the conflict between its claimed low climate sensitivity and climatic changes in the (deep) past. It cites six references: one to the IPCC report and one scientific article, both of which they apparently did not read or understand; two of their own unpublished manuscripts and two of their own articles in questionable or predatory journals."
​


Simple translation for climate truthers: It may look "sciencey" to you, but it's dishonest rubbish.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile:

[h=4]Cloud cover changes “explain the linear trend of global temperature” since the 1980s[/h]In a new paper, O.M. Povrovsky of the Russian State Hydrometeorological University analyzes satellite-observed cloud cover changes during 1983-2009 and their relation to global temperature change.
Povrovsky found global and regional cloudiness decreased between 2-6% during these decades, and “the correlation coefficient between the global cloud series on the one hand and the global air and ocean surface temperature series on the other hand reaches values (–0.84) — (–0.86).”
Consequently, Povrovsky (2019) concluded changes in cloud cover explain both the increasing global temperature during 1984-2009, but even the interannual variability.
[h=6]“Since the tropics are dominated by water areas, this fact suggests that the increasing influx of solar radiation primarily entails an increase in the temperature of the ocean surface (TPO). Not surprisingly, the cloud cover values themselves and their temporal trends are close to global characteristics. Thus, changes in cloud cover over three decades during global warming can explain not only the linear trend of global temperature, but also some interannual variability.”[/h]
 
Things Keep Getting Worse For The Fake "Science" Of Human-Caused Global Warming

July 12, 2019/ Francis Menton

[FONT=&quot]. . . Which brings us to the Povrovsky and Kauppinen, et al., papers. Povrovsky did something that somebody should have long since done by now, which is to collect month-by-month satellite cloud-cover data for the earth for the period 1983-2009, and plot it on a graph, and then compare that graph to the month-by-month temperature graphs. What is the correlation of the two? From Povlovsky:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][T]he correlation coefficient between the global cloud series on the one hand and the global air and ocean surface temperature series on the other hand reaches values (–0.84) — (–0.86). . . . Since the tropics are dominated by water areas, this fact suggests that the increasing influx of solar radiation primarily entails an increase in the temperature of the ocean surface (TPO). Not surprisingly, the cloud cover values themselves and their temporal trends are close to global characteristics. Thus, changes in cloud cover over three decades during global warming can explain not only the linear trend of global temperature, but also some interannual variability. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Kauppinen, et al., pick up where Povrovsky leaves off. They provide the following graph, comparing the satellite-based cloud data to temperature data for the 1983-2008 period:[/FONT]


Kauppinen-and-Malmi-2019-cloud-temperature-correlation.jpg






[FONT=&quot]The relationship between more clouds and lower temperatures, and between fewer clouds and higher temperatures, is obvious to the eye. Conclusions (from the abstract of the article):[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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. We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. . . . [/FONT]
 
Quaestio said:
More...

Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming – Climate Feedback

Victor Venema, University of Bonn, Germany:

"This text may look like a scientific article to a lay-person, but I would not accept it as a bachelor thesis. It does not cite its data sources, it does not discuss the uncertainties in the data, nor does it discuss that other cloud data sets find the opposite trend. It does not explain sufficiently how computations were made to make the study reproducible and understandable. It does not discuss the conflict between its claimed low climate sensitivity and climatic changes in the (deep) past. It cites six references: one to the IPCC report and one scientific article, both of which they apparently did not read or understand; two of their own unpublished manuscripts and two of their own articles in questionable or predatory journals."
​


Simple translation for climate truthers: It may look "sciencey" to you, but it's dishonest rubbish.
Click to expand...

The comments about the references are hilarious.

Reminds me of the time Jack posted a Scensmark article that was almost exclusively references to his own work.
 
Threegoofs said:
The comments about the references are hilarious.

Reminds me of the time Jack posted a Svensmark article that was almost exclusively references to his own work.
Click to expand...
Embarrassingly hilarious. I have to wonder if the authors are senile or something...?

Even better, remember the time Jack posted a paper by a different author with the same last name that had nothing at all to do with Svensmark's failed galactic cosmic ray hypothesis? His desperate efforts to try to cover up his silly mistake instead of just admitting it, were even funnier.

This place never really changes.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
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
Click to expand...
That you do not understand the question, is a symptom of the limitations of having a single gatekeeper be the arbitrator
of what is new art!
 
Sampson Simpson said:
That's the thing, the deniers never offer any alternative theories, never provide any sound reasoning, any facts to support it. They just say "oh, climate has always been up and down" or "its fake or biased". They never actually provide any intelligent reasons or alternative.

NOt only does the data support man made climate change, there is sound reasoning as to how its happening. There is none for the other side. It just proves, yet again, they are full of **** and just tools for the oil company propaganda
Click to expand...

We are in a thread discussing a published alternative theory, perhaps the use of "never" is not appropriate?
 
Threegoofs said:
And you’re wrong, at least according to people who study this sort of thing.
Click to expand...
He is not wrong and the people who study this also know that aerosols change insolation.
ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.jpg

They do not go into how much the numbers have changed, the big change in aerosols would have been after 1970.
 
PoS said:
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
Click to expand...

"It's a known fact." I ****ing love claims like this
 
longview said:
We are in a thread discussing a published alternative theory, perhaps the use of "never" is not appropriate?
Click to expand...

Then the thread title should have said “alternative theory” instead of “no evidence.” :lamo
 
calamity said:
Then the thread title should have said “alternative theory” instead of “no evidence.” :lamo
Click to expand...
The thread title is accurate there is no experimental evidence for significant anthropogenic climate change.
and this is a valid alternative theory until dis proven.
What would disprove that the observed warming was related to changes in cloud cover vs changes in anything else?
 
Threegoofs said:
And I bet it was real quality.

Some guy said it on the internet, OH MY GOD ITS IN WRITING SO IT MZuST BE TRUE!

LOL
Click to expand...

Ah more silly ad homs without even reading the links. How predictable these climate jihadists are.
 
Jack Hays said:
No. The fact is that fossil fuels have been the driving force in the greatest advance in human health and wellbeing in history.
Click to expand...

If you think that is true, support it with some facts. Correlation is not causation.
 
manofknowledge said:
If you think that is true, support it with some facts. Correlation is not causation.
Click to expand...
People need to eat!
Without fossil fuels or some equally dense energy carrying package, there are many estimates
that the carrying capacity of the earth is below 2 billion.
Carrying capacity for humans without fossil fuels
Thus, it is not sure that the carrying capacity of the planet after the oil crash will even reach 1.5 billion people.
Click to expand...
CO2 may or may not be a problem, but energy is a very real problem.
 
longview said:
People need to eat!
Without fossil fuels or some equally dense energy carrying package, there are many estimates
that the carrying capacity of the earth is below 2 billion.
Carrying capacity for humans without fossil fuels

CO2 may or may not be a problem, but energy is a very real problem.
Click to expand...

If fossil fuels were only used for farming, it would not be a problem. It's the massive volume used that continuosly increases that is the problem.
 
manofknowledge said:
If fossil fuels were only used for farming, it would not be a problem. It's the massive volume used that continuosly increases that is the problem.
Click to expand...
Farming ,distribution, shipping, refrigeration, ect. but the question remains that we have to still do those things
to keep everyone fed. As for the continuous increases,
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
CO2 levels seemed to have been increasing at below 3 ppm per year for a few years.
 
manofknowledge said:
If fossil fuels were only used for farming, it would not be a problem. It's the massive volume used that continuosly increases that is the problem.
Click to expand...

Farming needs the heavy industries which make the steel which makes the tractors.

These industries work more efficiently with an advancing level of understanding of the world through technological progress. This happens best with a free society with lots of opportunity for individual thought, expression and discovery. Sounds like what we have.

You are being conned with the doom cult.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom