Two new science papers strongly question theory of man-made global warming


Readers!
 
For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
 
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.

 

Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

 

You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

The uncertainty of science: Two new science papers, from researchers in Finland and Japan respectively, both strongly question the theory that human activity and the increase of carbon dioxide are causing global warming.

From the Finnish paper’s [pdf] conclusion:

We have proven that the [climate]-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the 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 6 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. [emphasis mine]

From the Japanese paper:

“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.”

Essentially, both criticize the climate models for not considering changes in cloud cover and how those effect the global climate. The first paper looks back at the known climate data and compares it with known changes in cloud cover, and finds that cloud cover is a major factor in temperature changes.

The second paper looks at the causes for some of the changes in cloud cover, noting how the increase in galactic cosmic rays during the solar minimum can be tied to an increase in cloud cover, and thus colder temperatures.

Do these papers disprove man-made global warming caused by the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Of course not. They just demonstrate again that the science here is very unsettled, that there are many large gaps in our knowledge, and that it would be foolish now to abandon western civilization and replace it with socialist totalitarian rule in order to prevent a disaster that either might not be happening, or if it is we may have no power to control.

I want to also point out that this post talks about scientists challenging the theory of man-made global warming. Attention must be paid to their conclusions. As for the ignorant opinions of politicians on this subject, who cares?

Share

11 comments

  • wayne

    Professor Jordan Peterson on climate change and climate policy
    excerpt Cambridge Union November 2018
    https://youtu.be/pBbvehbomrY
    6:30

  • Rick

    The easiest way to get rid of climate change, is to stop giving grants to researchers to prove it.

  • Patrick

    In the current, er, climate, all these researchers have done is ensured that they will never be invited to another scientific conference; that they will be mocked and derided by their peers as “deniers”; and that they will eventually be hung out to dry by their own institutions.

    Sad but true.

  • Max

    Patrick is correct, when you deviate from the orthodoxy, your scientific opinion becomes religious heresy. To protect the church, they must burn the heretics. Especially when you question the most holy of relics, the “computer model”.
    From the article;
    “We do not consider computational results as experimental evidence. Especially the results obtained by climate models are questionable because the results are conflicting with each other.”

    I love the way the graph shows the decrease in cloud cover is mirrored by the increase in temperatures. A “one to one” relationship not considered in the excepted models.
    Scientific incompetence.

    Not only are clouds (water vapor) responsible for 95% of all greenhouse effect, absorbing infrared radiation in the same band width as carbon dioxide, it also displaces air causing a drop in air pressure. (A approaching low pressure system, a storm)
    Clouds reflect sunlight back into space, low air pressure causes a drop in temperature. Always.
    Because these influencers are not in the computer models is one of the reasons their computer estimates are off by a factor of one. (10x)
    True believers in climatology religion (like the progressive left politicians) are demanding the book burning (website denial) and physical imprisonment of climate deniers (burning heretics and witches at the stake) black listing conservatives from PayPal and Facebook denying the ability to conduct Interstate commerce.
    Soon, like in China, your social score will limit all aspects of your life. Credit, travel, social gatherings, Limited availability of necessary items.
    A literal digital concentration camp.
    The sad part is, many of our futures has already been decided for us, just for having white skin. Even Nancy Pelosi is not immune and had to have the president stick up for her. Talking about being hoisted on your own petard.

  • m d mill

    The conclusion of the Finnish paper,
    “Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. ” would seem absurd.
    Every paper I recall seeing on the subject of CO2 increase since 1960 indicates a STRONG correlation between the known (estimated) increase in tonnage of burned hydrocarbons and the measured increase in atmospheric CO2, has been thoroughly studied, and of course it makes complete sense. I know of no well known, respected “skeptic” (ie Curry, Lindzen, Spencer, etc.) who have questioned this relationship, or used this argument. They simply don’t believe the sensitivity to CO2 is nearly as high as most models predict.
    The proof of their assertion lies in the single statement “The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans [6], according to Henry‘s law.”, which references their own unpublished paper [6]. Neither of these Finnish papers has undergone any kind of peer review or scrutiny, and this statement in particular should be taken with extreme skepticism , and generally degrades their credibility (what else have they overlooked?), though i would be happy to be proven wrong.
    However, I do support the main contention that global cloud reflection may indeed increase with average global temperature, thus representing a negative feedback (the opposite of all IPCC supported models, which predict and require a small positive cloud feedback effect in order to derive extremely large sensitivities), and that the modeled calculations of water vapor positive feedback are highly overestimated.

  • Edward

    m d mill wrote: “Every paper I recall seeing on the subject of CO2 increase since 1960 indicates a STRONG correlation between the known (estimated) increase in tonnage of burned hydrocarbons and the measured increase in atmospheric CO2, has been thoroughly studied, and of course it makes complete sense.

    So, then, where is all that absorbed CO2 that is supposedly fatally acidifying the oceans coming from? And where is all that extra carbon that is needed for the measured increase in foliage on the Earth coming from?

    Correlation is most definitely causation. One day at lunch, over a quarter century ago, I was almost run over by someone running a red light, so I spent the next few weeks studying whether cars running red lights cause me to step off the curb or me stepping off the curb causes cars to run red lights. My lunchtime colleagues volunteered to collect the data while I risked life and limb.

  • m d mill

    Edwards responses make little sense to me.
    Co2 caused by burning goes into the atmosphere in a fairly well known rate.
    The density of co2 in the atmosphere increases at a rate consistent with this inflow, minus the rate of co2 continually washed out by rain and net absorbed by plants (natural processes). I don’t see the contradiction.
    These processes have been well studied. I know of no other serious researchers of atmospheric/ocean chemistry who find any other physical process to explain most of the increasing CO2 concentrations post 1965, including the process of increasing CO2 vapor pressure…but i would be happy to be educated on that.
    But what is the Finnish explanation…it is to be found in their own unpublished paper…really?

    The old, tired argument that correlation does not necessarily prove causation is true, but the above explanation is not just based on the correlation but also on proven and reasonable physical principles which are consistent with the observations. If this is not compelling or important then what is the point of scientific method.
    One can always say “Well, you don’t know that for sure; it could just be coincidence”. It ‘s true but that philosophy gets you nowhere.
    True, correlation does not necessarily prove causation, but equally causation necessarily results in a correlation.

  • pzatchok

    The Medieval warming period.

    So far no computer models have both explained the present ‘warming’ so many fear, and at the same time explained the Medieval warming period.

    Every good model should be able to explain all of histories climates and their changes. If it can predict the past accurately then it should be able to predict the future.
    But they just can not do this simple thing. Even with all our knowledge.

    But faith is unbreakable.

  • Edward

    m d mill wrote: “I don’t see the contradiction.

    If man’s CO2 emission tracks the increase in atmospheric CO2, then where is the CO2 coming from that is “polluting” the oceans and killing off the coral reefs as well as the CO2 that allows for the increase in plant coverage on land? That also is supposed to be coming from man, but that contradicts the close tracking of emissions and atmospheric CO2.

    Correlation is not causation. My colleagues and I had been having an ongoing discussion of this about the time I was almost run over by the car. The point to the story is that the correlation of the events did not indicate a cause of either one. The cause of my stepping off the curb was the light turning green in my direction, and the cause of the car running the red is unknown, but presumably it was the driver being in too much of a rush to stop for the freshly minted red light. Neither event, my stepping off the curb and the car running the red light, was the cause of the other event.

    Too many people conflate correlation with causation.

    I know of no other serious researchers of atmospheric/ocean chemistry who find any other physical process to explain most of the increasing CO2 concentrations post 1965, including the process of increasing CO2 vapor pressure…but i would be happy to be educated on that.

    Happy to oblige:
    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
    “Every year, about half of the 10 billion tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere from human activities remains temporarily stored, in about equal parts, in the oceans and plants.”

    If half the carbon emissions go to these places, then there must be another natural source of CO2 that would have been emitted anyway.

    http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2017/03/09/soils-carbon-climate/

    It is also known that as tundra warms it gives off CO2. These are two other known sources of CO2, which also explain why historical samples show that CO2 increased in the atmosphere after temperatures rose, not before.

    The Earth has not only warmed and cooled before, but it has done so without man’s industrialized assistance. Even this round of warming began centuries before man’s industrialization started to free up billions of tonnes of fossilized CO2.

    It seems that nature already has a way of compensating for its own natural changes, so the concerns about man’s contribution may not be as Chicken Little as is often expressed.

    But what is the Finnish explanation…it is to be found in their own unpublished paper…really?

    Just because a paper is unpublished does not make it false, especially in this age of suppression of skeptical climate science. The most prestigious climate science publishers have announced bans on papers that contradict anthropogenic global warming or climate change. It is a bias designed to prevent us from learning anything that does not confirm their predetermined conclusion. It is blatant confirmation bias and is one of the items that skeptics find frustrating. Skepticism has literally been banned from a once-respectable scientific field.

  • m d mill

    Edward says:
    “If man’s CO2 emission tracks the increase in atmospheric CO2, then where is the CO2 coming from that is “polluting” the oceans and killing off the coral reefs”…I did not say the correlation ratio was exactly 1 to 1, or go into the fine points of the CO2 cycle in that one sentence. Your response seems silly, or purposefully argumentative…any long term excess CO2 going into the ocean or plant growth is also coming from the man made CO2 emmision…no contradiction.

    Edward says:
    “Every year, about half of the 10 billion tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere from human activities remains TEMPORARILY stored, in about equal parts, in the oceans and plants.”…Yes temporarily the CO2 concentration varies quite a bit on a yearly cycle, but the yearly average(steady state) storage and emission is about zero, excluding the anthropogenic forcing. Look at the Mauna Loa CO2 concentration graph to see this yearly variation.

    Edward says:
    “Just because a paper is unpublished does not make it false..”. You state the obvious without making any point.
    I was noting that the ONLY verification of their “extraordinary ” statement was their own referenced paper which no one else can check. There is therefore no reason any reader should take is seriously, at this time. But of course “just because a paper is unpublished does not make it false..”. Please.

    Edward again says:
    “Correlation is not causation.” I all ready answered this but will repeat it for thoroughness.
    The old, tired argument that correlation does not necessarily prove causation is true, but the above explanation (of anthropogenic CO2 increase) is not just based on that correlation but also on proven and reasonable physical principles which are consistent with the observations. If this is not compelling or important then what is the point of scientific method. One can always say “Well, you don’t know that for sure; it could just be coincidence”. That is true, but that philosophy gets you nowhere. True, correlation does not necessarily prove causation, but equally, and more importantly, causation necessarily results in correlation.

    Finally, since the oceans ARE becoming slightly more acidic (from CO2 absorption) they must be a net sink, and not a net source of atmospheric CO2 ! , contrary to the seemingly absurd contention of the Finnish paper and apparently Edward.
    As I stated originally, the specific conclusion of the Finnish paper,i.e.
    “Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. ”, would seem completely absurd, as are the attempts here to defend that statement…IMO.
    I did not comment on any of the other statements in that paper.

  • Edward

    m d mill,
    You wrote: “I did not say the correlation ratio was exactly 1 to 1

    There’s the contradiction that you were looking for. Now you have no relationship between man-made CO2 and global warming.

    There is therefore no reason any reader should take is seriously, at this time.

    It is the same thing. You dismiss all skeptics who cannot get published and they cannot get published because the establishment refuses to acknowledge alternate views. Therefore you rationalize the refusal of all alternate views. Please.

    The old, tired argument that correlation does not necessarily prove causation is true, but the above explanation (of anthropogenic CO2 increase) is not just based on that correlation but also on proven and reasonable physical principles which are consistent with the observations.

    This is what is known in science as correlation. It is not proof in any scientific way at all. And that is the point of the scientific method, to avoid assuming correlation is causation.

    Finally, since the oceans ARE becoming slightly more acidic (from CO2 absorption) they must be a net sink, and not a net source of atmospheric CO2 !

    That was my point.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *