New Finnish Research Paper Finds Practically NO AGW

Veritas

1 Lord, 1 Faith, 1 Baptism
Aug 7, 2003
17,038
2,806
Pacific NW USA
Visit site
✟109,662.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Finnish Scientists: Effect of human activity on climate change insignificant

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

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).

You don't say. Along with fiddling with temp data, it's really just another example of trying to create hysteria regarding climate change.

“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℃.”

Inconvenient facts. Just what would governments do without all those carbon taxes and corporations selling carbon credits? Stop driving cars! Embrace Agenda 21! All hoaxes.
 

Acts2:38

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2017
1,593
660
Naples
✟71,708.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Finnish Scientists: Effect of human activity on climate change insignificant

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

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).

You don't say. Along with fiddling with temp data, it's really just another example of trying to create hysteria regarding climate change.

“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℃.”

Inconvenient facts. Just what would governments do without all those carbon taxes and corporations selling carbon credits? Stop driving cars! Embrace Agenda 21! All hoaxes.

You do realize the box you just opened up here right :laughing:
 
Upvote 0

Paulos23

Never tell me the odds!
Mar 23, 2005
8,168
4,434
Washington State
✟309,277.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Dont get to hopeful about that paper. It hasn't been peer reviewed, and is being criticized for not having enough sources to support their model. If they can do both of those things they may have something.

My bet is they dont.
 
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Finnish Scientists: Effect of human activity on climate change insignificant

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

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).

You don't say. Along with fiddling with temp data, it's really just another example of trying to create hysteria regarding climate change.

“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℃.”

Inconvenient facts. Just what would governments do without all those carbon taxes and corporations selling carbon credits? Stop driving cars! Embrace Agenda 21! All hoaxes.
From your own link:

The paper has been criticised for not being peer reviewed and other climate scientists have refuted the conclusions reached by Kauppinen and Malmi. Critics have said that in addition to not being peer reviewed, Malmi and Kauppinen fail to provide correct physical explanation, have not linked to- or sited to enough sources to support their claims and although they denounce climate models, they use one themselves to prove their own points.gh they denounce climate models, they use one themselves to prove their own points.
 
Upvote 0

Veritas

1 Lord, 1 Faith, 1 Baptism
Aug 7, 2003
17,038
2,806
Pacific NW USA
Visit site
✟109,662.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Dont get to hopeful about that paper. It hasn't been peer reviewed, and is being criticized for not having enough sources to support their model. If they can do both of those things they may have something.

My bet is they dont.

You mean the establishment "scientists" who are paid to critique anything that comes out unfavorable to the accepted view? Or perhaps you missed where the UN IPCC had wondered about the cloud cover issue but didn't really know what to do with it? Maybe it has something to do with all the money tied up in the climate change hoax and people not wanting to lose face for promoting it.
 
Upvote 0

sdowney717

Newbie
Apr 20, 2013
8,712
2,021
✟102,588.00
Faith
Christian
I dont believe in any type of AGW.
I am glad some significantly smart people also dont believe it, which must make me smart like them.

Honestly I think this AGW is an end time delusion on the nations to give over their power to a one world government to be ruled over by the beast.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

Paulos23

Never tell me the odds!
Mar 23, 2005
8,168
4,434
Washington State
✟309,277.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You mean the establishment "scientists" who are paid to critique anything that comes out unfavorable to the accepted view? Or perhaps you missed where the UN IPCC had wondered about the cloud cover issue but didn't really know what to do with it? Maybe it has something to do with all the money tied up in the climate change hoax and people not wanting to lose face for promoting it.
No, it needs to be reviewed by scientists that can point out flaws (if any) and try and repeat any of their tests. There model sounds insane to me, but they have something they should have the evidence to back it up.

I understand you dont trust current climate science, but you need something better than this to have me jump on it.
 
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Honestly I think this AGW is an end time delusion on the nations to give over their power to a one world government to be ruled over by the beast.
I also believe that a certain delusional system exists here, but that would be for a different forum.
 
Upvote 0

Veritas

1 Lord, 1 Faith, 1 Baptism
Aug 7, 2003
17,038
2,806
Pacific NW USA
Visit site
✟109,662.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
No, it needs to be reviewed by scientists that can point out flaws (if any) and try and repeat any of their tests. There model sounds insane to me, but they have something they should have the evidence to back it up.

I understand you dont trust current climate science, but you need something better than this to have me jump on it.

How can you trust something that is made up from whole cloth? Frankly, the data has been so manipulated nobody really knows what the truth is anymore.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
You mean the establishment "scientists" who are paid to critique anything that comes out unfavorable to the accepted view? Or perhaps you missed where the UN IPCC had wondered about the cloud cover issue but didn't really know what to do with it? Maybe it has something to do with all the money tied up in the climate change hoax and people not wanting to lose face for promoting it.

If you're only going to give credence to science when it agrees with your preconceived ideas, there's no point in it. You've already made your decision and you don't care about the truth.
 
Upvote 0

Kentonio

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2018
7,467
10,458
48
Lyon
✟266,564.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
How can you trust something that is made up from whole cloth? Frankly, the data has been so manipulated nobody really knows what the truth is anymore.

I feel like you’re not really getting how this science thing works..
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
How can you trust something that is made up from whole cloth? Frankly, the data has been so manipulated nobody really knows what the truth is anymore.

If no one knows the truth why are you only posting the research one one side of the discussion and arguing that those that disagree are faking their data?
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,028
23,941
Baltimore
✟551,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0

Paulos23

Never tell me the odds!
Mar 23, 2005
8,168
4,434
Washington State
✟309,277.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
How can you trust something that is made up from whole cloth? Frankly, the data has been so manipulated nobody really knows what the truth is anymore.
Because the data has been checked, and then rechecked, and then checked some more.

You have on article about a paper that supports your outlook and you dont even wait. It is one paper, and it hasn't gone through the fire of peer review. At least the climate change supporters are willing to do that.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,028
23,941
Baltimore
✟551,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Looking at the references - four of the 6 are to their own work. That itself is kind of suspect.

On one hand, it suggests that they've published more papers than their university bio pages list. OTOH, the journals in which they've published those works aren't very good.

Energy & Environment - AGW-denialist journal to which I already linked

International Review of Physics - appears to be a nothing of a journal run by a clearinghouse for junky pay-to-publish journals

Of the other two papers of theirs that they cite, one is unpublished and the other only appears to be available through arXiv.
 
Upvote 0

greenguzzi

Post-Evangelical, Social Anarchist, One of The Way
Aug 25, 2015
1,147
733
Sydney Australia
✟33,863.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
The paper has not yet been peer reviewed. So no point speculating on what it means until it has.

The paper didn't "find" anything, it simply postulated an hypothesis.
I could write a paper hypothesising the existence of mermaids and rainbow-unicorns, and upload it to that same server right now. It would mean no less than this AGW paper.

Hypothesis is an essential step in the scientific method, but it is not even close to a conclusion. It's just a guess.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: FireDragon76
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

greenguzzi

Post-Evangelical, Social Anarchist, One of The Way
Aug 25, 2015
1,147
733
Sydney Australia
✟33,863.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
You mean the establishment "scientists" who are paid to critique anything that comes out unfavorable to the accepted view? Or perhaps you missed where the UN IPCC had wondered about the cloud cover issue but didn't really know what to do with it? Maybe it has something to do with all the money tied up in the climate change hoax and people not wanting to lose face for promoting it.
Scientist who actually prove something outside the accepted view, generally get funding far beyond their peers. This is the holy grail of all research scientists. So no, not a problem.

Also, ALL people who accept AGW as a real thing would be delighted to know that they were wrong. There is no money is global warming, it's just bad for all human endeavours.
 
Upvote 0