It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No Experimental Evidence for Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2019 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Pop goes the consensus...a study from Climate Researchers at Turku University in Finland found that the human contribution to a rise of 0.1°C in global temperatures over the last century is just 0.01°C.

Wait, what, we are supposed to completely reorder our societies, political systems and economic structures because temperatures have increased by 0.1°C over the last 100 years - and humans are likely responsible for just 10% of this?

According to this study...

1) The main problem (with the current "consensus") is missing experimental evidence of the climate sensitivity used in climate models (they do not consider computational results as being valid experimental evidence...results obtained by climate models are questionable because the results often conflict with each other).
2) Low cloud cover and humidity basically controls observed global temperature variations.
3) IPCC climate sensitivity is one order of magnitude too high, because the strong negative feedback of clouds is missing in climate models.
4) Given that only a small portion of increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic (about 10%), it should be accepted that anthropogenic climate change does not actually exist in practice.

New Study Bucks the Consensus

Does this mean we don't have to pay Carbon Taxes to save the world? Can I keep my 1969 Camaro? Is it actually okay for my cows to pass gas? Am I still okay to take that flight to Hawaii?

I am not a Climate Scientist, and I am not qualified to comment on the results of this research...I will leave that for more climate-learned members of ATS to debate.

My interest is more in sharing the fact that there really are qualified voices out there who do not buy in to the so-called Consensus...and these voices should be heard if we are to ever know the complete truth (and before we are forced to completely change our way of life, for what may well be conditions that are more politically motivated than science based).




posted on Jul, 12 2019 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale


. . . contrail cirrus clouds are the single largest source of the aviation industry’s contribution to climate change, far outpacing the impact of aircraft carbon dioxide emissions. Despite this, however, their role is often overlooked and is not included in the United Nation’s upcoming Carbon Offsetting Scheme for International Aviation (Corsia).
physicsworld.com...


. . . research used the post‐9/11 flight groundings in 2001 to detect a contrail effect on diurnal temperature range across the United States. The removal of contrails was found to have increased daytime high temperatures and decreased nighttime low temperatures.


Here we use a very high density network of meteorological stations across the United Kingdom to assess the importance of contrails on diurnal temperature range during a more recent flight grounding following the Eyjafjallajökull volcanic eruption of 2010. We find that subtle, but substantial, temperature shifts related to contrails may have been overprinted by larger shifts in weather systems passing over the United Kingdom.
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

The amount of light reaching the ground increased in the UK while jets were grounded. Mental health improved slightly in the affected area, possibly due to lack of aircraft noise. Contrails cause instant climate change, and its hidden behind chemtrail chatter.

You can only take that flight if you're a celebrity going to a climate protest.



posted on Jul, 12 2019 @ 05:19 PM
link   
If they are ostracized by 97% of climate scientists, then we'll know they may be on to something.
edit on 12-7-2019 by Wardaddy454 because: a better word



posted on Jul, 12 2019 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
If they are ostracized by 97% of climate scientists, then we'll know they may be on to something.


Exactly...

And if they are shunned by the majority of climate scientists who rely on Climate Change study funding (which of course must produce results seemingly in accordance with the expected outcomes), then we will know that the opposition to this study is financially motivated.



posted on Jul, 12 2019 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Do you know what the biggest contributor to co2 in the atmosphere?

It's not man.



The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux. There are estimates that about half of man's emissions are taken up by nature.


notrickszone.com...

This from 2013.
edit on 12-7-2019 by Groot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2019 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

What is wrong with all of you?

Who cares about how much impact man has on the climate? What does that have to do with implementing the biggest financial scheme ever proposed?

Look, the "right" people need to get rich with carbon trading, carbon taxes, and carbon regulations so just stop fighting it and pay the hell up.




posted on Jul, 12 2019 @ 06:42 PM
link   
There are ...what, 6+ Billion Humans living in the Northern Hemisphere of our planet, maybe a billion and a half humans in the Southern Hemisphere.

As the humans of the Northern Hemisphere contribute around 90+% of All human created pollution....it would figure that the Northern Hemisphere is 90 times dirtier, hotter, unlivable etc etc, than us clean people in the South.

Is that the case?

Is the Northern Hemisphere practically unlivable for life on Earth, compared to the South, all because of humans?

Yet, the Southern Hemisphere is still tied up in this conspiracy, even though our contribution to human pollution is miniscule.....oh well, that's life.






posted on Jul, 12 2019 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: gort51
There are ...what, 6+ Billion Humans living in the Northern Hemisphere of our planet, maybe a billion and a half humans in the Southern Hemisphere.

As the humans of the Northern Hemisphere contribute around 90+% of All human created pollution....it would figure that the Northern Hemisphere is 90 times dirtier, hotter, unlivable etc etc, than us clean people in the South.

Is that the case?

Is the Northern Hemisphere practically unlivable for life on Earth, compared to the South, all because of humans?

Yet, the Southern Hemisphere is still tied up in this conspiracy, even though our contribution to human pollution is miniscule.....oh well, that's life.





Your southern hemisphere may contribute 1% of the 4 % that humans contribute.

But it's still the farting cows fault, jeez !

It's because of all us meat eating, straw using assholes that the earth is being destroyed.
edit on 12-7-2019 by Groot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: mobiusmale

What is wrong with all of you?

Who cares about how much impact man has on the climate? What does that have to do with implementing the biggest financial scheme ever proposed?

Look, the "right" people need to get rich with carbon trading, carbon taxes, and carbon regulations so just stop fighting it and pay the hell up.


Oh God! That old chestnut! Your president denies it’s happening so not going to implement anything is he?
Let’s twiddle our thumbs while we wait to fry!
edit on 17/7/2019 by Psychoparrot because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10

log in

join