Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures
I have edited some of Mike's comments from this article. They strike me as being unnecessarily inflammatory. This is not my favourite web site, but articles like this don't appear on mainstream news sites because #PCMadness is rampant on mainstream media.
Mike Adams
Natural News
Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures
The climate change hoax has collapsed. A devastating series of research papers has just been published, revealing that human activity can account for no more than a .01°C rise in global temperatures, meaning that all the human activity targeted by radical climate change alarmists — combustion engines, airplane flights, diesel tractors — has virtually no measurable impact on the temperature of the planet.
Finnish scientists spearheaded the research, releasing a paper entitled, “No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change.”
The paper explains that IPCC analysis of global temperatures suffers from a glaring error — namely, failure to account for “influences of low cloud cover” and how it impacts global temperatures. Natural variations in low cloud cover, which are strongly influenced by cosmic radiation’s ability to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere due to variations in the strength of our planet’s magnetosphere, account for nearly all changes in global temperature, the researchers explain.
As this chart reveals, more cloud cover is inversely related to temperature. In other words, clouds shield the surface of the Earth from the sun, providing shade cover cooling, while a lack of clouds results in more warming:
Cloud cover accounts for the real changes in global temperatures
This is further supported by researchers at Kobe University in Japan who published a nearly simultaneous paper that reveals how changes in our planet’s magnetic field govern the intensity of solar radiation that reaches the lower atmosphere, causing cloud formation that alters global temperatures.
That study, published in Nature, is called, “Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition.” It states:
Records of suborbital-scale climate variation during the last glacial and Holocene periods can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of rapid climate changes… At least one event was associated with a decrease in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. Thus, climate records from the MIS 19 interglacial can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of a variety of climate changes, including testing the effect of changes in geomagnetic dipole field strength on climate through galactic cosmic ray (GCR)-induced cloud formation…
In effect, cosmic rays which are normally deflected via the magnetosphere are, in times of weak or changing magnetic fields emanating from Earth itself, able to penetrate further into Earth’s atmosphere, causing the formation of low-level clouds which cover the land in a kind of “umbrella effect” that shades the land from the sun, allowing cooling to take place. But a lack of clouds makes the surface hotter, as would be expected. This natural phenomenon is now documented to be the primary driver of global temperatures and climate, not human activity.
Burn all the oil you want, in other words, and it’s still just a drop in the bucket compared to the power of the sun and other cosmic influences. All the fossil fuel consumption in the world barely contributes anything to actual global temperatures, the researchers confirmed.
As they explain, the IPCC’s climate models are wildly overestimating the influence of carbon dioxide on global temperatures:
…the [IPCC] models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10%, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.
The entire “climate change” hoax is a fraud
Carbon dioxide, in other words, isn’t the “pollutant” that climate change alarmists have long claimed it to be. CO2 won’t destroy the planet and barely has any effect on global temperatures (the IPCC’s estimate of its effect is, according to Finnish researchers, about one order of magnitude too large, or ten times the actual amount).
In fact, NASA was forced to recently admit that carbon dioxide is re-greening the Earth on a massive scale by supporting the growth of rainforests, trees and grasslands. See this map showing the increase in green plant life, thanks to rising CO2:
Importantly, reducing our global consumption of fossil fuels will have virtually no impact on global temperatures. The far bigger governor of climate and temperatures is the strength and configuration of Earth’s magnetosphere, which has always been in flux since the formation of the planet billions of years ago. The weaker the magnetosphere, the more cosmic rays penetrate the atmosphere, resulting in the generation of clouds, which shield the planet’s surface from the sun. Thus, a weaker magnetosphere causes global cooling, while a stronger magnetosphere results in global warming, according to this research. This phenomenon is called the “Svensmark Effect.” (See bottom of story on link).
As reported by Science Daily:
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.
Of course, there was immediate reaction to the posting of these studies. Here's one:
Timothy Osborn, Professor, University of East Anglia, and Director of Research, Climatic Research Unit:
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.
Hmmm. I thought an overestimate in the effect of anthropogenic CO2 was a good demonstration.
(2) They instead make a new climate model (despite this being in contradiction of (1)).
It's not a contradiction if you are not overestimating one effect by a factor of 10.
(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).
Many climate models are unvalidated - not put out for examination and testing by other scientists as good science would require, yet they go unquestioned by scientists and media.
No question cloudiness is difficult to measure, yet there are those who claim to measure global sea levels to within a millimeter. They two are unquestioned by scientists and media. If they actually can do that, it would require an astonishing degree of accuracy.
'No process is given...' Seriously. You need to have explained that higher humidities lead to more clouds?
(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).
You forgot about Kobe U research and Svensmark (at least 3 studies see references at bottom of link)
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.
Professor Murry Salby revealed that over eons of history peaks in CO2 levels tend to follow peaks in temperature by about 800 years. This, of course, indicates that warming temperatures produce increased CO2, and since 96% of CO2 comes from the ground or the oceans, only a very tiny increase in natural CO2 production would exceed large increases in anthropogenic production.
In all this, we have to also consider sunspot activity - reduced activity results in cooler temperatures as per the Maunder Minimum. Solar scientists expect sunspot activity to reduce significantly sometime in the next ten years or so. Scientists in China and Russia are both more concerned about global cooling than global warming.
The biggest problem with the current climate change alarmism is the extraordinary stresss that it is putting on children. They are being targeted by #PCMadness to the point where many don't think they will live long enough to be an adult. What incredible child abuse! It takes away the dreams and plans of an entire generation. It reduces birth rates among young adults who see no point in bringing a child into a dying world. It is insanity and evil! But, at least I'm not unnecessarily inflammatory.
No comments:
Post a Comment