Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

[Gingerbeardman]

You may be late to the discussion, and must have missed my point. The OP takes two dodgy sources, and conflates them with a genuine Nature story which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, to create veneer of credibility.

You are being dishonest.

There is no reason to call science daily dodgy. It reports on the Nature article. The Nature article is indeed about the amount of cooling and cloud cover caused during the last geomagnetic reversal.

The abstract from Nature:

The strength of Earth’s magnetic dipole field controls galactic cosmic ray (GCR) flux, and GCR-induced cloud formation can affect climate. Here, we provide the first evidence of the GCR-induced cloud effect on the East-Asian monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition. Bicentennial-resolution monsoon records from the Chinese Loess Plateau revealed that the summer monsoon (SM) was affected by millennial-scale climate events that occurred before and after the reversal, and that the winter monsoon (WM) intensified independently of SM variations; dust accumulation rates increased, coinciding with a cooling event in Osaka Bay. The WM intensification event lasted about 5000 years across an SM peak, during which the Earth’s magnetic dipole field weakened to <25% of its present strength and the GCR flux increased by more than 50%. Thus, the WM intensification likely resulted from the increased land–ocean temperature gradient originating with the strong Siberian High that resulted from the umbrella effect of increased low-cloud cover through an increase in GCR flux.

So the Nature article stipulates that the increase in GCR causes cloud formation causes climate change.

The science daily news report has this to say about the nature article:

In both locations, for about 5000 years during the geomagnetic reversal 780,000 years ago, they discovered evidence of stronger winter monsoons: particles became coarser, and accumulation speeds were up to > 3 times faster. These strong winter monsoons coincide with the period during the geomagnetic reversal when the Earth's magnetic strength fell to less than ¼, and galactic cosmic rays increased by over 50%. This suggests that the increase in cosmic rays was accompanied by an increase in low-cloud cover, the umbrella effect of the clouds cooled the continent, and Siberian high atmospheric pressure became stronger. Added to other phenomena during the geomagnetic reversal -- evidence of an annual average temperature drop of 2-3 degrees Celsius, and an increase in annual temperature ranges from the sediment in Osaka Bay -- this new discovery about winter monsoons provides further proof that the climate changes are caused by the cloud umbrella effect.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it," comments Professor Hyodo. "This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era."

Which claims here are inaccurate? You want the IPCC models to consider the impact of cloud cover on climate, don't you?

This is typical of denialists, throw in just enough facts to make it seem plausible, but leaving huge logic gaps in the argument.

You're the fscking denialist here.

I am neither a skeptic nor bogus, but have learned (over many decades) to poke holes in fallacies, and disregard those with an obvious agenda.

Yes, your agenda is plain for all to see, high on character assassination, low on substantive discussion.

That was all clear to me within seconds of the OP, and my first post reflects this. Everything after that is a tedious attempt to deal with multiple trolls.

You're the troll.

 

[lumeer]

Also, this load of horseshit:

"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. "

This. Is. A. Load. Of. K@k.
It's literally just bunch of claims/comments being made, nothing with actual value behind it except for some lame graph manipulation about cloud cover that's not even remotely adequate for the claims in the conclusion.

Jissesfok, the fact that we're all actually arguing about this is p0es weak.

So this bombshell discovery - that the human contribution to global warming over the last century was about 0.01°C - defers its evidence to a yet-to-be-published paper. Mkay...

 

[Gingerbeardman]

So this bombshell discovery - that the human contribution to global warming over the last century was about 0.01°C - defers its evidence to a yet-to-be-published paper. Mkay...

Regardless of where the CO2 is coming from, is there any reason why that should affect the total impact of CO2 overall? Let's assume it's ALL from human fossil fuel consumption; 0.1 degree is still tiny.

Nobody is very impressed when you annihilate a straw man.

 

[lumeer]

The OP takes two dodgy sources, and conflates them with a genuine Nature story which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, to create veneer of credibility.

I like how the Zero Hedge article states how this discovery is contained in "one among a series of papers". Let's look at what these papers are:

• there's the Nature paper by the Japanese authors, which has nothing to do with the Finnish paper being cited;
• there's the Finnish paper being cited, as yet only available on arXiv and not having undergone peer review;
• the Finnish paper cites four papers by its own authors. These are:
  • [2], which is the only one of the four that appears in an ISI-accredited journal;
  • [3], which appears in International Review of Physics, a journal that is not ISI-accredited and appears to be a predatory journal (authors pay to have their work published in it);
  • [4], another arXiv paper that is yet, if at all, to appear in a peer-reviewed journal;
  • [6], a yet-to-be-published paper, not even available on arXiv, which contains evidence for the main claim of the paper that is being cited by the Zero Hedge article as a "bombshell discovery".

Of course, with all the climate science experts here on MyBroadband, who needs peer review by actual climate scientists who research these things for a living.

 

[Gordon_R]

You are being dishonest.

There is no reason to call science daily dodgy. It reports on the Nature article. The Nature article is indeed about the amount of cooling and cloud cover caused during the last geomagnetic reversal.

The abstract from Nature:


So the Nature article stipulates that the increase in GCR causes cloud formation causes climate change.

The science daily news report has this to say about the nature article:

Which claims here are inaccurate? You want the IPCC models to consider the impact of cloud cover on climate, don't you?


You're the fscking denialist here.


Yes, your agenda is plain for all to see, high on character assassination, low on substantive discussion.


You're the troll.

The problem with most of these articles (papers in Nature jargon) is not the raw science, but the interpretation placed on them.

This is particularly true of the Science Daily story, where the author has exaggerated the relevance of a highly technical paper about events tens of thousands of years ago, into current climate and weather models.

A good antidote to this can be seen in reviews of the Svensmark Effect: https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/cosmic-ray-theory-of-global-warming-gets-cold-response

Other scientists are less impressed. “The press release goes way beyond what the paper actually shows,” says Steven Sherwood, an expert in atmospheric climate dynamics at the University of New South Wales, in Sydney, Australia.

Svensmark’s theory in a nutshell is this: cosmic rays are atomic fragments – mostly nuclei – blown into space from exploding stars that constantly bombard the Earth. When they enter the atmosphere, their electric charge helps form clusters of molecules – aerosols – that in turn act as seeds, or nuclei, for water droplets to condense around, creating clouds.

Scientists involved in related research, however, doubt the new findings make much difference to accepted climate models.

“The authors need to quantify the effects in an atmospheric model rather than just speculating,” says Ken Carslow, of the University of Leeds, UK, who has also studied potential links between cosmic rays and aerosol formation as part of CERN’s Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment. “It’s a tiny effect and previous studies suggest it will not be important,” he states.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

The problem with most of these articles (papers in Nature jargon) is not the raw science, but the interpretation placed on them.

This is particularly true of the Science Daily story, where the author has exaggerated the relevance of a highly technical paper about events tens of thousands of years ago, into current climate and weather models.

Exaggerated the importance how? The change in cloud cover by the weakening of the Earth's magnetic field produced a 2-3 degree cooling effect.

True or false: Before now, the effect of cloud cover on climate was not something previously modelled.

If you don't know, you should at least be open to the possibility that this rather significant aspect of climate has been overlooked instead of assuming out of ignorance that such a thing is not possible. Especially if you want people to take your repeated endorsements of good science seriously.

A good antidote to this can be seen in reviews of the Svensmark Effect: https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/cosmic-ray-theory-of-global-warming-gets-cold-response

“The authors need to quantify the effects in an atmospheric model rather than just speculating,” says Ken Carslow, of the University of Leeds, UK, who has also studied potential links between cosmic rays and aerosol formation as part of CERN’s Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment. “It’s a tiny effect and previous studies suggest it will not be important,” he states.

True or false: The nature paper we've been discussing so far quantifies the effects, negating the very criticism you are trying to cite to throw cold water on this affair.

How many times does your lazy thinking have to cause you to contradict your own argument before you start to suspect that maybe, just maybe, the person here suffering from motivated reasoning is you?

 

[Gordon_R]

Exaggerated the importance how? The change in cloud cover by the weakening of the Earth's magnetic field produced a 2-3 degree cooling effect.

True or false: Before now, the effect of cloud cover on climate was not something previously modelled.

If you don't know, you should at least be open to the possibility that this rather significant aspect of climate has been overlooked instead of assuming out of ignorance that such a thing is not possible. Especially if you want people to take your repeated endorsements of good science seriously.




True or false: The nature paper we've been discussing so far quantifies the effects, negating the very criticism you are trying to cite to throw cold water on this affair.

How many times does your lazy thinking have to cause you to contradict your own argument before you start to suspect that maybe, just maybe, the person here suffering from motivated reasoning is you?

Ignoring the ad-hominem attack (I had to look up motivated reasoning since I have never heard it used by a normal person, not even a psychologist).

The problem with the Kobe Nature paper is that it does a lot of heavy science to establish a correlation to one single factor of cloudiness. It then takes that correlation as proof of a mechanism linking cosmic rays, which has no physical basis.

The added conmentary (in Science Daily, not in Nature) then extrapolates events that happened tens of thousands of years ago, to recent climate change, during which there has been no magnetic reversal, and no change in cosmic ray flux.

And you expect me to believe that?

Edit: The discussion in the Kobe Nature paper ends with this conclusion:

The intensive coarsening of the dust may be the result of a GCR-induced cloud effect combined with the glacial cold, dry climate.

Does "may be the result of" sound like proof to anyone? Is this sufficient to overturn decades of climate science?

 

[Sl8er]

You want me to contact a crackpot scientist and engage in a discussion on a theory he has been promoting for six decades. How much time do you think I have to waste?

As opposed to taking the word of people who either get a piece of that $64bn-a-year industry or use the flawed data?
You seem to have more than enough time arguing (I can't say discuss, because you're not trying to get to the truth...you're just trying to be right at all costs) on the internet, though
(If this was something that really interested you, you'd jump at the chance to get into contact with someone doing the actual science...and not just take the word of the "I-base-all-my-work-on-one-or-two-flawed-papers-from-the-70's / 80's- 97-percenters" .

Many eminent scientists with great credentials come up with ridiculous theories. The most prominent example is Linus Pauling, who won two separate Nobel Prizes. His pet theory was that Vitamin C is a cure for the common cold (or cancer, I forget which). How does that theory seem to be holding up.

In any case this has nothing to do with the original topic. See my last post.

Pauling was, like, one guy -maybe there were another two or three, I'm not familiar with him -whereas Tinsley is absolutely not alone in this.
There are thousands of scientists who agree with him -and more are coming to the same conclusion.
(Those scientists, who did not jump on the "97-percenter" bandwagon and, instead, decided to do the science from scratch -thereby eliminating the flaws everyone else incorporates into their work Ie. "the 97-percenters" )

16th century Gordon_R:

Copernicus: Y'know the earth revolves around the sun, right?
16th century Gordon: Oh please! 97% of priests say the sun revolves around the earth!
Copernicus: No really, here's some proof I came across *tries to hand over some credible information*
16th century Gordon: Ha! That other guy did some stuff and he's a liar! And so, that means you're a liar too!
Copernicus: No. Seriously, here, just take a look.
* Copernicus tries to hand over some proof, but 16th century Gordon slaps it out of his hand *
16th century Gordon: *sticks fingers in ears* LALALALALALALALALALA!-Crackpot!-LALALALALALALA

It doesn't seem like you're willing to even look at any new science -based on proof, not interpretation.
It's pretty pointless having any type of "argument-not-discussion" with you on this.

Your type of thinking (complete disregard for anything plausible that legitimately challenges "old" science) is what hampers real human progress / evolution.
All I can say is: Thank goodness people don't live forever.

...moving on....

EDIT: And if he's (Tinsley) legitimately disproven in the end, then that's great! At least someone asked the hard questions / challenged the status quo -to get to the bottom of it all (y'know what science is all about) and we figured out
that that was not correct. So now we know what not to do. BUT, as long as no one challenges anything because "we're always right" we -humanity- will never get to the bottom of it. If we don't know what the root of the problem
actually really is -because we don't, else all the global warming models wouldn't be as flawed as they are- we will never be able to "fix" it...if it's even possible to. I'm all for human progress. I'm all for asking questions, not stifling it.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Ignoring the ad-hominem attack (I had to look up motivated reasoning since I have never heard it used by a normal person, not even a psychologist).

You've been only too happy to label people denialists of various stripes. If you don't like the ad-homs, maybe you should have thought twice before resorting to them so readily.

The problem with the Kobe Nature paper is that it does a lot of heavy science to establish a correlation to one single factor of cloudiness. It then takes that correlation as proof of a mechanism linking cosmic rays, which has no physical basis.

It would be rather strange if mass bombardment by cosmic rays did not have an effect on the atmosphere. You don't need to understand the physical basis in order to measure the effects. And again, if you're going to complain about a correlation being taken as proof, then I'm just going to throw that right back in your face with respect to all the science on the greenhouse effect of CO2.

The added conmentary (in Science Daily, not in Nature) then extrapolates events that happened tens of thousands of years ago, to recent climate change, during which there has been no magnetic reversal, and no change in cosmic ray flux.

The change in cloudiness drove the temperature changes, that's what the paper shows. You think that only clouds caused by cosmic rays would affect the climate, or what?

And you expect me to believe that?

I expect you to acknowledge that you don't have a substantive criticism as to why the idea itself should not be plausible.

 

[Arthur]

Copernicus: Y'know the earth revolves around the sun, right?
16th century Gordon: Oh please! 97% of priests say the sun revolves around the earth!

Small aside: I'm sure you know that Copernicus was a Catholic cleric.

 

[lumeer]

As opposed to taking the word of people who either get a piece of that $64bn-a-year industry or use the flawed data?

On the other side of the fence, researchers who dispute man-made global warming, could get a slice of the carbon fuels pie, which is currently much larger than the renewables pie, so your conspiracy theory that these mainstream scientists are making up fake science for the money, holds no water, and is very insulting to these scientists, as it implies that they are unethical and corrupt.

One might argue the opposite even, namely that man-made global warming denial is being funded by the fossil fuel industry, much the same as how tobacco companies used to fund campaigns aimed at downplaying the health risks of tobacco, some even suggesting that tobacco was actually healthy. "More doctors smoke Camel than any other brand" advertisements used to be a thing.

 

[Sl8er]

Small aside: I'm sure you know that Copernicus was a Catholic cleric.

No I didn't

 

[Arthur]

No I didn't

First a deacon, later a priest. The king of Poland put his name forward for an episcopacy (bishopric).

 

[Sl8er]

On the other side of the fence, researchers who dispute man-made global warming, could get a slice of the carbon fuels pie, which is currently much larger than the renewables pie, so your conspiracy theory that these mainstream scientists are making up fake science for the money, holds no water, and is very insulting to these scientists, as it implies that they are unethical and corrupt.

One might argue the opposite even, namely that man-made global warming denial is being funded by the fossil fuel industry, much the same as how tobacco companies used to fund campaigns aimed at downplaying the health risks of tobacco, some even suggesting that tobacco was actually healthy. "More doctors smoke Camel than any other brand" advertisements used to be a thing.

What conspiracy theory? It's a fact. There's plenty of proof of people being paid to get the science to prove what they want.
Mainstream scientists aren't making things up, they're using flawed data. So while their calculations are 100% correct, the result is not.
(Don't be like Gordon, watch the clips I posted earlier, that explains it pretty well )

People get funded on both sides, I absolutely don't dispute that. (They are -were- quite easy to track down and expose, though -and they have been.)
Not Tinsley, though
And there are many "nameless" scientists working on the ground who don't either -the guys you never hear about, the "grunt-workers."
Are you suggesting we just throw away all the legit work done, because there are some bad apples in the industry?

 

[Gordon_R]

Lets do a reality check here:
This highly prestigious and ground breaking paper was published on 28 Jun 2019 (two weeks ago). A Google search today returns a grand total of 21 results. This is amazing, how can such an important result be kept a secret? /sarcasm

Hint: Only those who extrapolate from reality think its important. For the rest its a ho-hum scientific paper, with some speculation added on.

Search: https://www.google.com/search?q=citation+https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8

 

[Gingerbeardman]

On the other side of the fence, researchers who dispute man-made global warming, could get a slice of the carbon fuels pie, which is currently much larger than the renewables pie, so your conspiracy theory that these mainstream scientists are making up fake science for the money, holds no water, and is very insulting to these scientists, as it implies that they are unethical and corrupt.

The fuel industry can do without climate scientists. The climate change industry cannot. It's not really surprising that people whose jobs depend on certain results will continue to perpetuate the claims that keep them employed.

And ya, humans are corrupt.

One might argue the opposite even, namely that man-made global warming denial is being funded by the fossil fuel industry, much the same as how tobacco companies used to fund campaigns aimed at downplaying the health risks of tobacco, some even suggesting that tobacco was actually healthy. "More doctors smoke Camel than any other brand" advertisements used to be a thing.

The problem is that the arguments regarding climate change being an established fact sounds exactly like the Camel propaganda we used to hear. And the same thing has happened with the food industry wrt sugar and carbs vs fat. And the field of psychology is undergoing a replication crisis. And that's not even to mention the outright activist disciplines that have blossomed under the guise of gender studies and the like. Why should climate science be magically exempted from this morass?

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Lets do a reality check here:
This highly prestigious and ground breaking paper was published on 28 Jun 2019 (two weeks ago). A Google search today returns a grand total of 21 results. This is amazing, how can such an important result be kept a secret? /sarcasm

Hint: Only those who extrapolate from reality think its important. For the rest its a ho-hum scientific paper, with some speculation added on.

Search: https://www.google.com/search?q=citation+https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8

Reality check: Plenty of highly significant discoveries were ignored/ridiculed when they were first announced.

Here's one of my favourites: https://phys.org/news/2016-10-re-examination-paul-kammerer-scientific-fraud.html

Edit: Another honourable mention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Harlen_Bretz#The_Spokane_floods:_an_outrageous_hypothesis

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Science is self correcting, over long timescales

Couldn't agree more!

To now say that one crackpot mechanism disproves decades of climate science, as the OP and thread title imply, is preposterous.

By the same token, to pretend decades of climate "science" has put the debate to bed and cannot and will not also be "self corrected" is equally preposterous.

That would go for every scientific field of course, but in the case of climate science we're talking of a field that has always had questionable results to begin with, let's not pretend it is more credible than it truly is.

 

[quovadis]

The data/chart in there only spans 800k years. I don't deny climate change for the last 800k years but the chart is incomplete without the other 4.6billion years.

It's so extreme, it's like looking at the Bitcoin price chart for the last 10 hours and ignoring the 10 years before it.

Earth is only estimated to be 4.5 billion years old. So your analogy is invalid. Moving on.

 

[quovadis]

Lets do a reality check here:
This highly prestigious and ground breaking paper was published on 28 Jun 2019 (two weeks ago). A Google search today returns a grand total of 21 results. This is amazing, how can such an important result be kept a secret? /sarcasm

I'm starting my own paper. Global warming is caused by hot water geysers. There is a direct correlation between the number of geysers installed in the last 150 years and the warming of our oceans and atmosphere.