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

[LazyLion]

Well, that's just the point... they are, but they shouldn't be linked.

 

[Techne]

I did an edit.

Penalize energy producers heavily for polluting the air not for producing plant food.

 

[Swa]

87 Percent of Americans Unaware There's Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

https://weather.com/science/environment/news/americans-climate-change-scientific-consensus

Maybe because there isn't. Not in the sense of it being man-made or that there's global warming. A nice straw man to say that it is because we know the climate is changing like it always had before man arrived.

 

[RaptorSA]

Maybe because there isn't. Not in the sense of it being man-made or that there's global warming. A nice straw man to say that it is because we know the climate is changing like it always had before man arrived.

Wow if only all those scientists over the past 150 years could have realized that.


Some real f***ing nobel prize winners in this read.

 

[Geoff.D]

Sorry, didn't know anyone was still trying to follow this thread:
1: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8
2: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703121407.htm
3: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019...man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-practice
Watch the phrases and degree of certainty change over the three levels: from scientific publication, to commentary, to propaganda.

Edit: If the OP had posted the articles in this order, this thread would have been much shorter. Instead the conclusions were posted first, with a link to the original paper buried in the article.

Back on topic.
Starting with the article in reference 3.

1. The IPCC has been criticised time and again since the publication of AR1 in 1990, that it has failed to address all the concerns of many of the scientists involved in the debate.
2. One of those concerns is the failure of the IPCC GCM models and analysis of the data over the years has been the failure to properly identify ALL the factors that affect the climate of the earth, and then to try and estimate to contributions of each of the identified factors. One of those has since AR1 has been the effect of cloud cover.
3. It is still the case now as the IPPC prepares for ist next report (AR6). the more the focus is on the man-made contributions to the increases in temperature. the more urgent it has become to make sure that the entire World does not end up staking ALL its efforts into trying to combat GW, and end up achieving nothing because we have not properly quantified ALL known reasons why global temperatures are rising.

So along comes a group of Scientists in a specific country who take on the task to analyse the current GM models.
They come up with a very controversial series of papers, which still have to be peer-reviewed that suggest that the current ASSUMPTION, that man-made CO2 IS solely responsible for the difference in the measured results versus what the models are predicting.

Papers and alternative explanations cannot be peer-reviewed before they are published always. The process has to start somewhere.

Leaving out the Journalists interpretations of what was published, the conclusions drawn from their analysis is radicle for some. So what! That IS the essence of the Scientific Method. A set of data has been taken, analysed in a slightly different way and tabulated showing that the "GAP" cannot be explained by man-made increases in CO2 ,
proposes that one of the factors that should be properly quantified is cloud cover.

That is all their papers are tabling. It is now up to their detractors and peers to tear apart their analysis and show why it is not correct. or verify it. In other words, try and falsify their science.

Forget the sensationalist journalism and see it for what it is --- part of the process at getting to a better answer.
Hopefully before the World destroys the entire basis on which the World Economy depends, in pursuit of a target temperature increase that is inevitable anyway, simply because "we" failed to quantify the natural variables and the man-made variables correctly.

So, those on the forum, with access to the raw data they used and sufficiently capable of doing the maths, tear apart their mathematical analysis. THAT would be a useful contribution! The rest of the shouting and screaming is just noise.

Here is the link buried in the article for those that are interested.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

Abstract. In this paper we will prove that 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. This is the reason why 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, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.

Tough fighting words are used. Just read the abstract. It shows just how upset some climate scientists are about how AR5 has distorted the discourse. It IS ALWAYS acceptable for generalised reports to be criticised. Especially reports that could be used by people with agendas to achieve their own ends.

Would you not want to know if the above assertions are correct or not? I certainly would!.

 

[Gordon_R]

Back on topic.
Starting with the article in reference 3.

1. The IPCC has been criticised time and again since the publication of AR1 in 1990, that it has failed to address all the concerns of many of the scientists involved in the debate.
2. One of those concerns is the failure of the IPCC GCM models and analysis of the data over the years has been the failure to properly identify ALL the factors that affect the climate of the earth, and then to try and estimate to contributions of each of the identified factors. One of those has since AR1 has been the effect of cloud cover.
3. It is still the case now as the IPPC prepares for ist next report (AR6). the more the focus is on the man-made contributions to the increases in temperature. the more urgent it has become to make sure that the entire World does not end up staking ALL its efforts into trying to combat GW, and end up achieving nothing because we have not properly quantified ALL known reasons why global temperatures are rising.

So along comes a group of Scientists in a specific country who take on the task to analyse the current GM models.
They come up with a very controversial series of papers, which still have to be peer-reviewed that suggest that the current ASSUMPTION, that man-made CO2 IS solely responsible for the difference in the measured results versus what the models are predicting.

Papers and alternative explanations cannot be peer-reviewed before they are published always. The process has to start somewhere.

Leaving out the Journalists interpretations of what was published, the conclusions drawn from their analysis is radicle for some. So what! That IS the essence of the Scientific Method. A set of data has been taken, analysed in a slightly different way and tabulated showing that the "GAP" cannot be explained by man-made increases in CO2 ,
proposes that one of the factors that should be properly quantified is cloud cover.

That is all their papers are tabling. It is now up to their detractors and peers to tear apart their analysis and show why it is not correct. or verify it. In other words, try and falsify their science.

Forget the sensationalist journalism and see it for what it is --- part of the process at getting to a better answer.
Hopefully before the World destroys the entire basis on which the World Economy depends, in pursuit of a target temperature increase that is inevitable anyway, simply because "we" failed to quantify the natural variables and the man-made variables correctly.

So, those on the forum, with access to the raw data they used and sufficiently capable of doing the maths, tear apart their mathematical analysis. THAT would be a useful contribution! The rest of the shouting and screaming is just noise.

Here is the link buried in the article for those that are interested.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf


Tough fighting words are used. Just read the abstract. It shows just how upset some climate scientists are about how AR5 has distorted the discourse. It IS ALWAYS acceptable for generalised reports to be criticised. Especially reports that could be used by people with agendas to achieve their own ends.

Would you not want to know if the above assertions are correct or not? I certainly would!.

I don't have the time or energy to debunk that paper, but try searching for links to it: https://www.google.com/search?q=citation+https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

Try this one: https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2019/07/that-kauppinen-and-malmi-paper-is-junk.html

That Kauppinen and Malmi Paper is Junk

If you even glance through the article, you see that they assumed a CO2 climate sensitivity value of just 0.24°C (top of page 4). That's an absurdly low value, given that we've already had 1°C of warming and atmospheric CO2 hasn't even increased by 50% yet. Climate models put CO2's climate sensitivity at 2-4°C.

The authors themselves justify this claim by citing three articles of their own work(!) -- one which appeared in Energy and Environment (enough said), The International Review of Physics (clearly amateurish), and another unpublished preprint. They also made the Ed Berry Bullshit Error:

If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic....​

In fact, all the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is anthropogenic (and the part that's due to the 1°C temperature rise is also anthropogenic because that warming is anthropogenic.)

They also assume that almost all temperature change is the result of low cloud cover changes:

In Figure 2 we see the observed global temperature anomaly (red) and global low cloud cover changes (blue). These experimental observations indicate that 1 % increase of the low cloud cover fraction decreases the temperature by 0.11°C.​

and assume all that cloud cover change is "natural." And so on and so on.

Deniers: Don't believe everything you read. Especially when it supports your preconceived notions. Especially when it supports denialism. Especially when you haven't even read the paper.

(Triple this when it comes from WUWT or Infowars.)

 

[Gordon_R]

Another link: https://climatefeedback.org/claimre...ral-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.
Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.
Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.

Some news outlets are publishing articles stating that this claim is based on a new study. In reality, there is no new published study. The claim comes from a six-page document uploaded to arXiv, a website traditionally used by scientists to make manuscripts available before publication. This means that this article has not been peer-reviewed, so there is no guarantee to its credibility.

If the blogs that covered this as a new study had contacted independent scientists for insight, instead of accepting this short document as revolutionary science, they would have found that it does not have any scientific credibility.

As the scientists who examined this claim explained, the document relies on circular reasoning to claim that cloud cover and relative humidity have caused the change in global temperature, and ignores many additional factors affecting global temperature—including aerosol pollution, volcanic eruptions, and natural ocean oscillations. The published, peer-reviewed scientific research on this topic clearly shows that human activities are responsible for climate change.

The unpublished paper by Kauppinen & Malmi is deeply flawed and the claims that (1) CO2 has caused only 0.1 degC of warming and that (2) only 10% (0.01 degC) of this warming is from human activity are both unsupported claims.

The paper should not be relied upon.

Their claims are based on a chain of reasoning with multiple flaws:
(1) They claim that climate models cannot be relied upon but do not demonstrate this.
(2) They instead make a new climate model (despite this being in contradiction of (1)).
(3) Their new climate model is unvalidated. It is based upon datasets of cloud and humidity without any sources given and which are not up-to-date. They provide no assessment of the accuracy of the data used—these variables are very difficult to measure on a global basis over the time period used. No physical basis is given for their new climate model (e.g. no process is given for how higher relative humidity can make the globe cool).
(4) They fail to consider cause and effect. For example, they assume without any support that a decrease in relative humidity is natural. They give no reasons why it would have decreased. They fail to consider whether climate change could have caused relative humidity to change.

(5) They state without any support that most of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to emissions from the oceans. They ignore anthropogenic CO2 emissions which are more than large enough to explain the full increase. They ignore observational evidence that shows that the oceans are net sinks of CO2 at present, not net sources.
(6) They dismiss the entire body of climate science—especially that there is a significant greenhouse effect—and instead cite their own work (unpublished or published in journals outside the field).

In reality there is strong scientific evidence for conclusions in stark contrast to those of Kauppinen and Malmi, namely that (a) all of the CO2 rise is from human activity, (b) that 100% of the CO2-induced warming is therefore anthropogenic, and (c) that (together with anthropogenic emissions of other greenhouse gases like methane) the total anthropogenic warming is around 1 degC.

This document is not a proper scientific paper and would not pass peer review in an academic journal.
The crucial data sources (e.g. of the dataset claimed to be low cloud cover) are not provided, and the figure purporting to show changes in cloud cover is at odds with peer-reviewed papers like Eastman et al. That published scientific paper does not show the decline in low cloud cover claimed in this document.

This document only cites 6 references, 4 of which are the authors’ own, and of these 2 are not actually published. Therefore I would not regard this document as having any scientific credibility.

Even if the claimed observational cloud data turned out to be of good quality, the authors inaccurately describe figure 2 as “experimental observations”. “Experimental” would imply that it was derived by experiment: i.e., some sort of controlled scientific study, as opposed to observations of the uncontrolled natural world. (Unless they are claiming to have carried out an actual experiment on the Earth, which would be a bizarre claim!). All they are doing is correlating two datasets (of unknown source). This does not “prove” anything, despite their claims that it does.

Their overall conclusion of small anthropogenic contribution to observed global warming is very different to the conclusions of numerous properly-documented scientific studies, which have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the observed warming in recent decades is due to human influence.

From a logic perspective, this effort makes two utterly unjustified assumptions:
(1) That any changes in low cloud cover are natural, rather than human-induced. The research discipline of aerosol-cloud interactions exists to explore this relationship; and the charlatans selling cloud-seeding would argue vociferously against all cloud changes being natural.
(2) Correlation = causality. Just because two time series show a strong correlation, does not mean that one causes the other. In fact, I’ve no idea why the authors think reducing cloud cover drives warming, rather than the over way around. The IPCC report, (Boucher et al, cited by them) states that warming causes low cloud cover. An enlightening example to highlight this kind of error is the correlation between the number of storks and birth rate in Europe.

But this article also misses some important hallmarks of real science:
(1) It gives only one reference to research by other scientists.
(2) Even this is a mis-application: they authors neglect to include any time-variation in their equation. This effectively assumes that the Earth responds instantaneously to any drivers.
(3) They explicitly state at the outset that they do not consider models as evidence.
(4) They do not explain where their data has come from (I guess though that the cloud cover has come from satellite irradiance, processed through a model).
(5) They infer meaning well-beyond the scope of their data, without any justification.

Errors in this manuscript include:

(1) The climate model comparison shows the opposite of what Kaupinen & Malmo claim.

(2) Their assumed warming effects of CO2 are much smaller than we’ve measured.

(3) They say that clouds and humidity are causing all the temperature change but satellite measurements suggest, if anything, the opposite.

(4) Humans caused the CO2 rise and the oceans are absorbing CO2, this is changing ocean pH. Kaupinen and Malmi falsely say the opposite: that oceans are adding CO2 to the air.

There’s tons of observational evidence that human activity is driving global warming, and this data supports the projected range of ongoing and future global warming. The Kaupinen and Malmi conclusions are based on misrepresenting research, ignoring most of the evidence, correlating things then mixing up what causes what, and using false numbers.

Climate models simplify and apply the laws of physics to calculate Earth’s climate. Include human pollution since 1880 and they show global warming as observed, but if you only include natural changes (e.g. in the Sun and volcanoes) they calculate almost no warming. Kaupinen and Malmi’s article is totally confused and thinks this shows that the models can’t be trusted. It actually shows that if our physics is right then most observed warming is due to human activity.

The biggest single factor is increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the air. This is a gas that traps infrared heat trying to escape Earth and warms us up. Venus has many times more CO2, and it’s the main reason its surface is hot enough to melt lead. We’ve measured CO2 heating Earth1,2 and Planck’s Law tells us that this would directly warm Earth by about 300% more than assumed by Kaupinen and Malmi3.

Most of their article talks about changes in clouds and humidity. Physics tell us what to expect from clouds, and satellites have measured these changes4,5. We’ve also measured tropical clouds getting higher6, low clouds retreating when it warms7, and changes in ice and liquid mixtures in clouds8.

Newer work shows that cloud changes and how they insulate Earth and reflect sunlight can be calculated and predicted from changing temperature patterns9,10,11,12, i.e., the temperature patterns can mostly explain monthly cloud changes instead of the other way around.

Finally, after using a bunch of nonsense calculations to say that 0.1 °C warming is from CO2, they say that 90% of the change in CO2 is caused by the oceans. This violates conservation of mass from basic chemistry13: the oceans are actually absorbing CO214,15 which, again, is the complete opposite of what Kaupinen and Malmi claim. Without claiming the opposite of reality, their conclusions cannot be supported.

10,000 character limit exceeded. Rest posted below.

 

[Gordon_R]

More comments from the same link:

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.

Still even if we would grant this work to show that climate models do not give the right estimates of climate sensitivity, it would still not show that the Earth has a low climate sensitivity. There are several independent lines of evidence which give us estimates of the climate sensitivity, only one of which is climate models. A summary of this evidence can be found in the figure below from the last IPCC, which the authors cite.

It’s not clear how to respond to disingenuous summaries of an unpublished paper regarding global warming written by authors that appear to have limited training in climate science. The websites that have promoted this paper provide no counterpoint or basic fact checking on the bold claims made by the authors. The websites mislead readers regarding the well-documented scientific consensus that human activities have made a substantial contribution to the observed warming of the Earth’s surface. The paper itself is flawed: it doesn’t provide sufficient methodological details, including the datasets used in the study, misrepresents basic, well-accepted information about climate change, and ignores research studies undertaken by climate scientists.

The main claim is based on a correlation: that as the Earth warms, low clouds disappear. The authors’ narrative is that low clouds are decreasing due to some natural cause (no mechanism provided by the authors) and the disappearance of low clouds then results in surface warming. This is akin to claiming that increased ice cream sales leads to warmer temperatures. In reality, the feedback is a known and documented phenomenon and works the other way: as the surface of the Earth warms, low cloud coverage decreases, allowing more sunlight to reach and warm the Earth’s surface.

Global temperature datasets, developed by a number of independent research groups, show robust warming in the troposphere and at the Earth’s surface. The radiative effect of carbon dioxide has also been observed. Considering multiple lines of evidence, the IPCC concluded that it is “extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” More recent analysis of satellite data shows that tropospheric warming from the satellite record is pronounced and cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone.

This is an area of active research, and other estimates (e.g. from Hegerl et al, 2018) suggest that natural variability could contribute around 50% of the warming during that period. But no one suggests that early 20th century warmth was solely due to natural variability. Many of the natural factors that played a role in early 20th century warmth, such as increased solar output, have been moving the other direction over the past 50 years. Natural factors alone would have resulted in cooling rather than warming over the past few decades

Climate Feedback is a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to science education. Our reviews are crowdsourced directly from a community of scientists with relevant expertise. We strive to explain whether and why information is or is not consistent with the science and to help readers know which news to trust.

Please get in touch if you have any comment or think there is an important claim or article that would need to be reviewed.

Reviewers

Mark Richardson Research Assistant, UCLA/NASA JPL

Patrick Brown Assistant Professor, San Jose State University

Richard Betts Professor, Met Office Hadley Centre & University of Exeter

Stephen Po-Chedley Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Timothy Osborn Professor, University of East Anglia, and Director of Research, Climatic Research Unit

Victor Venema Scientist, University of Bonn, Germany

Zeke Hausfather Research Scientist, Berkeley Earth

 

[Swa]

Wow if only all those scientists over the past 150 years could have realized that.


Some real f***ing nobel prize winners in this read.

Stop being smug in your ignorance. It's not something that's news to anyone.

I don't have the time or energy to debunk that paper, but try searching for links to it: https://www.google.com/search?q=citation+https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

Try this one: https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2019/07/that-kauppinen-and-malmi-paper-is-junk.html

Except we do not have a temperature rise of 1°C. It's only 1°C if you look at a specific period. So why do some climate scientists not look at the overall picture? If we include the last mini ice age and the temperatures before that we may indeed still be coming out of a cooling period. That places the so-called debunking of the paper in the category of junk.

 

[Gordon_R]

Except we do not have a temperature rise of 1°C. It's only 1°C if you look at a specific period. So why do some climate scientists not look at the overall picture? If we include the last mini ice age and the temperatures before that we may indeed still be coming out of a cooling period. That places the so-called debunking of the paper in the category of junk.

And there we have a classic denialist response:
1. Move the goalposts.
2. Add speculative theories.
3. Ad hominem attack.

This thread could go on forever.

My point was to establish that the OP is false. I believed that from my first post, and those articles confirm my repeated comments in this very lengthy thread.

 

[Swa]

And there we have a classic denialist response:
1. Move the goalposts.
2. Add speculative theories.
3. Ad hominem attack.

This thread could go on forever.

My point was to establish that the OP is false. I believed that from my first post, and those articles confirm my repeated comments in this very lengthy thread.

Far from it. The OP isn't false and the only reasonable stance is that we do not know and likely never will. You are the denialist if you can't recognise that fact.

Let me spell it out:
1. You have moved the original goalposts.
2. You believe speculative theories about climate change that have always been subject to criticism.
3. You started off with ad hominem attacks.

 

[RaptorSA]

So why do some climate scientists not look at the overall picture?

Maybe educate yourself first then come back.

In fact, everyone in this thread should watch ALL of the videos before commenting here.. since I keep seeing the same claims over and over again.

This is about the densest summary of the debate I know about without being too long and it's much nicer to listen than having to read walls of text. It's from someone who actually understands and reads the scientific papers and has been following up on and covering the debate for decades.
They're also incredibly interesting videos, and nothing else you'd actually end up learning something I'm sure.

The answer to your ridiculous question is covered in video #5.
Spoiler alert: THEY DO... of couse they f***ing do.

 

[RaptorSA]

...continued:

 

[lumeer]

The Dunning-Kruger effect comes to mind when reading this thread.

 

[Gordon_R]

Far from it. The OP isn't false and the only reasonable stance is that we do not know and likely never will. You are the denialist if you can't recognise that fact.

Let me spell it out:
1. You have moved the original goalposts.
2. You believe speculative theories about climate change that have always been subject to criticism.
3. You started off with ad hominem attacks.

I went through all 17 pages of this thread, and cannot find a single useful contribution from you. Your first comment was an ad hominem attack on me personally, and the rest were a mix of speculation, moving goalposts, and more attacks. In other words, a troll...

 

[Geoff.D]

Thanks for the response Gordon_R and the links to the efforts being made to challenge the claims.
Will go through them. It is absolutely amazing to me how one simple paper can take on at the same time so many of the established theories on Climate Change with so little supporting evidence for their views.

It reminds me of the anti-evolutionary debate where precisely the same thing happens. Established Science is simply discarded at a pen stroke, well camouflaged by a veneer of vague references to established existing scientific principles. The evolutionary debate --- The use of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. And this one the use of Henry's Law and Boyles' Law to bolster an argument relating to the CO2 cycle between the oceans and the atmosphere.

 

[Swa]

Maybe educate yourself first then come back.

In fact, everyone in this thread should watch ALL of the videos before commenting here.. since I keep seeing the same claims over and over again.

This is about the densest summary of the debate I know about without being too long and it's much nicer to listen than having to read walls of text. It's from someone who actually understands and reads the scientific papers and has been following up on and covering the debate for decades.
They're also incredibly interesting videos, and nothing else you'd actually end up learning something I'm sure.

The answer to your ridiculous question is covered in video #5.
Spoiler alert: THEY DO... of couse they f***ing do.

tl;dw.
Tired of propaganda. Fact is nobody knows. Climate scientists know about the overall picture but it's not the one presented in the media propaganda.

I went through all 17 pages of this thread, and cannot find a single useful contribution from you. Your first comment was an ad hominem attack on me personally, and the rest were a mix of speculation, moving goalposts, and more attacks. In other words, a troll...

As I thought. You have nothing of value to add to this and won't acknowledge the obvious.

 

[Geoff.D]

...continued:

I don't watch youtube videos! Give me real written references to read.

 

[RaptorSA]

tl;dw.
Tired of propaganda. Fact is nobody knows. Climate scientists know about the overall picture but it's not the one presented in the media propaganda.

You're a f**ing troll.
Get off the thread please.

 

[RaptorSA]

I don't watch youtube videos! Give me real written references to read.

Too bad for you then because all the papers are mentioned in the videos.