Posted on 07/12/2019 8:33:33 PM PDT by Simon Foxx
... “During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1 degree celsius because of carbon dioxide,” researchers at the University of Turku noted in their report (.pdf). “The human contribution was about 0.01 degrees celsius.”Mp>
You read that right … 0.01 percent.
“Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased carbon dioxide is less than 10 percent, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change,” the researchers added. “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 Finnish research has been corroborated by research from Kobe University in Japan.
“New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the earth’s climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an ‘umbrella effect,'” the Japanese scientists concluded, noting that this natural phenomenon “has never been considered in climate predictions.”
Here is a quote from professor Masayuki Hyodo, the lead researcher on the Japanese report …
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.
According to Hyodo, the politically driven climate models – including the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – fail to take into account the umbrella effect in their calculations...
(Excerpt) Read more at fitsnews.com ...
Bookmark
“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1 degree celsius because of carbon dioxide,” researchers at the University of Turku noted in their report (.pdf). “The human contribution was about 0.01 degrees celsius.”
You are not understanding simple math. If the temperature increase was 0.1 °C, and humans accounted for 0.01 °C of that, then the human contribution was 10%.
Regards,
Great article.
That Finnishes the debate.
Like I often said, “Humanity’s feeble fires” are incapable of having any significant effect — not to mention that multitudes of green plants are standing ready to gobble up carbon dioxide and turn it into oxygen and cellulose, so the increase of carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is much less than what has been added to the atmosphere.
BFL.
Do we have a paradox? This research seems to indicate that a less active Sun creates a warmer planet, which is counterintuitive.
When solar activity wanes, the sun’s weakened magnetic field, a weakened solar wind that normally keeps the heliosphere inflated, and a flattening heliospheric pattern, allows cosmic rays to penetrate more deeply into our solar system, bombarding Earth and all the other planets surrounding our Sun.
According to this research paper, an increase in solar radiation penetrating our atmosphere due to a decline in solar output leads to a warmer planet.
Who would have thunk it?
+1
l8r
5 l8r
The "cosmic rays cause cloud formation" is NOT new. The warmists simply deny that it exists, because it ameliorates possible warming effects.
Are you kidding... Al Gore is WRONG? /s
Regardless, I’m still going to have to pay over $1000 to have my catalytic converter replaced.
I generally like the article, but this guy is schizophrenic when it comes to Renewable Energy.
You simply can’t have it both ways pale. Renewables can’t survive without crony capitalism.
And despite what the Environmental Communist say Renewables Energy is not good for the environment if you look at the entire package. Both Solar and Wind energy produce huge amounts of toxic sludge due to their need for rare earth metals. Wind also uses huge amounts of copper relative to the amount of energy compared to their energy output compared to coal and nuclear.
Also both wind and solar can never replace conventional electricity generation because both are intermittent and undependable generators. An industrial society can not exist where power in not available on demand and of a high quality. Renewables can not provide this.
The guy needs to pick a side.
The simple math is if gorebull warming was 1% or less for the past 100 years man caused none of it.
One volcano puts more crap in the air than the US does in 10 years.
Man caused Gorebull warning is less than a rounding error.
Unexpectedly
The simple mathematical mistake in the snippet is all that I was taking issue with - not the validity or invalidity of "Global Warming." Your math was wrong.
In arguing against an assertion, there is no need to "fudge" the math.
Be a man, admit you made a math error, and then proceed to tear "Global Warming" apart for all I care.
Regards,
Scientists are funded largely by government and private foundations most if not all are controlled by the rats with an agenda where funding is tied to their agenda driven outcome and promotion
Their whole report was a rounding error, that is my point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.