Finnish study claims Climate Change is a myth

[Hercules56]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

Above is the study from a Finnish University.

It claims humans contribute only .1% of atmospheric CO2.

It also claims most of our warming over the last 100 years is due to cosmic rays.

Can anyone take apart this study, piece by piece?

Thanks.

 

[caveman1917]

One thing to quickly note here, even assuming that their data and analysis is accurate, is that they've only shown a correlation between cloud cover and temperature and not a causation. It's still possible that CO2 increase causes temperature increase which in turn causes cloud cover variation.

 

[Steve001]

While looking into the qualifications of these two I took a look here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07...the-significant-anthropogenic-climate-change/
I was surprised there wasn't the cheering I expected in the comments section. I also question the exertise of the two.

 

[theprestige]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf



Above is the study from a Finnish University.



It claims humans contribute only .1% of atmospheric CO2.



It also claims most of our warming over the last 100 years is due to cosmic rays.



Can anyone take apart this study, piece by piece?



Thanks.

Why piece by piece? I can do the whole thing at once:

The science is settled.

https://www.motherjones.com/environ...otes-entire-show-to-threat-of-climate-change/

You're welcome.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

Above is the study from a Finnish University.

It claims humans contribute only .1% of atmospheric CO2.

It also claims most of our warming over the last 100 years is due to cosmic rays.

Can anyone take apart this study, piece by piece?

Thanks.

What this paper did is take the largest reinforcing feedback in the system, water vapor, and its direct correlation, cloud cover, and claim that is the forcing rather than the reinforcing feedback.

Increasing temps are a direct cause for increasing evaporation rates. That in turn increases cloud cover. Which indeed does correlate very closely back to temperature increases, as predicted.

However, this is not evidence against CO2 increases being the primary driver of global warming. In fact it is evidence for global warming being caused by anthropogenic emissions.

Unless a different and better cause for the original forcing of temperature increases can be found, the best evidence suggests it is indeed fossil carbon emissions. Or more precisely, a human caused disruption of the natural carbon cycle.

Evidence for that can be found here: Berkeley Earth Summary of Findings

Any further questions?

 

[Warmer1]

"Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming"

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

"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."

 

[Venom]

myth?

 

[Cheetah]

Mythical.

 

[lomiller]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

Above is the study from a Finnish University.

It claims humans contribute only .1% of atmospheric CO2.

It also claims most of our warming over the last 100 years is due to cosmic rays.

Can anyone take apart this study, piece by piece?

Thanks.

Of the top of my head…

Where was this “paper” published?

Claims on human CO2 contribution are objectively wrong. Isotope analysis confirms that 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the past 100 years comes from fossil sources.


The “paper” claims most of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been emitted by the oceans, but the amount of CO2 in the oceans is rising not falling as you would expect of the oceans are the source of the CO2 (and causing Ocean acidification)

Human CO2 emissions are more than double the increase in atmospheric CO2. The rest is being absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial eco-systems. How can the oceans be both the source of new CO2 while simultaneously being the destination of the CO2 humans are emitting?

I don’t see them mentioned in the link but since you mention them in your post Cosmic rays having a meaningful impact on cloud formation has been tested and rejected


Claims on cloud impact on climate sensitivity contradict recent published results, which suggest clouds most likely net out to a slight positive feedback


Paper claims climate sensitivity is low, but low climate sensitivity would make glacial/interglacial cycles impossible.


Low climate sensitivity would put a halt to any climate change regardless of the source, so it would choke out the proposed “cosmic ray” induced change as well.

The energy required to warm the atmosphere is incredibly massive. The only viable source is increased retention of solar energy.

Sunlight entering the earths atmosphere (as opposed to being reflected) has dropped ~2% in the last 100 years. (AKA global dimming) Only a greenhouse effect can explain rising temperatures when Energy entering the atmosphere in is dropping.


“paper” claims molding temperature change with humidity works better. It’s trivially true that temperature and humidity are linked because warmer air can hold more H2O and H2O is a greenhouse gas. In the context of climate, however, H2O can only remain in the atmosphere if the atmosphere is warmed first, otherwise it simply falls out as precipitation within a couple weeks.

 

[a_unique_person]

Of the top of my head…



Where was this “paper” published?



Claims on human CO2 contribution are objectively wrong. Isotope analysis confirms that 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the past 100 years comes from fossil sources.





The “paper” claims most of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been emitted by the oceans, but the amount of CO2 in the oceans is rising not falling as you would expect of the oceans are the source of the CO2 (and causing Ocean acidification)



Human CO2 emissions are more than double the increase in atmospheric CO2. The rest is being absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial eco-systems. How can the oceans be both the source of new CO2 while simultaneously being the destination of the CO2 humans are emitting?



I don’t see them mentioned in the link but since you mention them in your post Cosmic rays having a meaningful impact on cloud formation has been tested and rejected





Claims on cloud impact on climate sensitivity contradict recent published results, which suggest clouds most likely net out to a slight positive feedback





Paper claims climate sensitivity is low, but low climate sensitivity would make glacial/interglacial cycles impossible.





Low climate sensitivity would put a halt to any climate change regardless of the source, so it would choke out the proposed “cosmic ray” induced change as well.



The energy required to warm the atmosphere is incredibly massive. The only viable source is increased retention of solar energy.



Sunlight entering the earths atmosphere (as opposed to being reflected) has dropped ~2% in the last 100 years. (AKA global dimming) Only a greenhouse effect can explain rising temperatures when Energy entering the atmosphere in is dropping.





“paper” claims molding temperature change with humidity works better. It’s trivially true that temperature and humidity are linked because warmer air can hold more H2O and H2O is a greenhouse gas. In the context of climate, however, H2O can only remain in the atmosphere if the atmosphere is warmed first, otherwise it simply falls out as precipitation within a couple weeks.

Excellent rebuttal but you may as well go out and smell the roses. These facts have been out there for decades and people like the authors of that paper will continue to ignore them.

 

[jimbob]

You can even do the sums based on amount of fossil fuels burned per year and the measured carbon dioxide numbers. I used wiki and assumed that the atmosphere has a mass of a column of water 10m deep across the Earth's surface.

Doing that, I got an overestimation by about a factor of two - which wasn't bad as I hadn't accounted for any being taken up by plants.

Or you could look at the isotope results that lomiller pointed to.

 

[lomiller]

You can even do the sums based on amount of fossil fuels burned per year and the measured carbon dioxide numbers. I used wiki and assumed that the atmosphere has a mass of a column of water 10m deep across the Earth's surface.

Doing that, I got an overestimation by about a factor of two - which wasn't bad as I hadn't accounted for any being taken up by plants.

Or you could look at the isotope results that lomiller pointed to.

More than just "not bad". The airborne fraction, the share of CO2 emissions that remain in the atmosphere has held steady at around 45% for most of the last 100 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_fraction

 

[jimbob]

More than just "not bad". The airborne fraction, the share of CO2 emissions that remain in the atmosphere has held steady at around 45% for most of the last 100 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_fraction

Glad to know I can do simple sums using publicly-available information.

 

[lomiller]

Glad to know I can do simple sums using publicly-available information.

Per the OP, it's a skill that seems to challenge some internet scientists.

 

[Ziggurat]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

Above is the study from a Finnish University.

It claims humans contribute only .1% of atmospheric CO2.

It also claims most of our warming over the last 100 years is due to cosmic rays.

Can anyone take apart this study, piece by piece?

Thanks.

I skimmed the paper, and cannot find any evidence for your summary of it. The closest thing I can find regarding your "humans contribute only .1% of atmospheric CO2" is the statement from the conclusion that "the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO₂ is less than 10%". Whether or not that claim is correct, that's still about a factor of 100 difference in what the paper claims and what you say it claims.

The paper makes no reference to cosmic rays anywhere. It claims that most of the warming is due to changes in low level cloud cover, which in turn it suggests is controlled mostly by relative humidity, not by cosmic rays. There have been other works that attempted to correlate cloud cover with cosmic ray flux, but this paper makes no mention of it.

 

[Ziggurat]

“paper” claims molding temperature change with humidity works better. It’s trivially true that temperature and humidity are linked because warmer air can hold more H2O and H2O is a greenhouse gas. In the context of climate, however, H2O can only remain in the atmosphere if the atmosphere is warmed first, otherwise it simply falls out as precipitation within a couple weeks.

The paper claims a correlation between warming and relative humidity, not absolute humidity. That isn't trivially true, because relative humidity can drop even as temperatures and absolute humidity rise.

 

[bknight]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

Above is the study from a Finnish University.

It claims humans contribute only .1% of atmospheric CO2.

It also claims most of our warming over the last 100 years is due to cosmic rays.

Can anyone take apart this study, piece by piece?

Thanks.

Whether humans contribute more than .1% I would presume depends on how one evaluates the additions, but one aspect that I strongly disagree is that the climate isn't changing/getting warmer just look at the images from space over the last 20 or so years and the ice caps/glaciers are receding.
Whether humans can slow the warming or reverse should be the discussion. IMO

 

[Ziggurat]

Whether humans contribute more than .1% I would presume depends on how one evaluates the additions, but one aspect that I strongly disagree is that the climate isn't changing/getting warmer

Who said it isn't changing or that there's no warming? Certainly not the link in the OP.

 

[jimbob]

I skimmed the paper, and cannot find any evidence for your summary of it. The closest thing I can find regarding your "humans contribute only .1% of atmospheric CO2" is the statement from the conclusion that "the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO₂ is less than 10%". Whether or not that claim is correct, that's still about a factor of 100 difference in what the paper claims and what you say it claims.

The paper makes no reference to cosmic rays anywhere. It claims that most of the warming is due to changes in low level cloud cover, which in turn it suggests is controlled mostly by relative humidity, not by cosmic rays. There have been other works that attempted to correlate cloud cover with cosmic ray flux, but this paper makes no mention of it.

As lomiller has pointed out, at the moment, the increase in CO₂ levels is due to human emissions, as can be shown from isotope analysis.

 

[lomiller]

The paper claims a correlation between warming and relative humidity, not absolute humidity. That isn't trivially true, because relative humidity can drop even as temperatures and absolute humidity rise.

That makes it even worse. The rate with energy radiates out the top of the atmosphere responds to absolute humidity not relative humidity

 

[lomiller]

The closest thing I can find regarding your "humans contribute only .1% of atmospheric CO2"

No, the closest thing it says is that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for 0.1% of warming. It's a miss-read in the OP but hardly a big enough one to make an issue of.

The paper makes no reference to cosmic rays anywhere.

Cosmic rays are referenced in the authors own Press Release regarding this “paper”.

I think it’s also in the several of the papers they wrote previously and cite in this none, where they attribute changes in cloud cover to cosmic rays.

Again, this is firmly debunked pseudo science. There is no relationship between cosmic ray intensity and past climate change and even the basic mechanism proposed for such a connection has been investigated and dismissed as too small to have significant impact. Furthermore their assumptions about the effect clouds have on global temperatures are at least questionable as well.

which in turn it suggests is controlled mostly by relative humidity

Give us a non pseudo-science explanation for what can cause long-term changes in relative humidity for the atmosphere as a whole and maybe your “point” is worth discussing.

 

[bknight]

Who said it isn't changing or that there's no warming? Certainly not the link in the OP.

Then the title of the OP is incorrect:
Finnish study claims Climate Change is a myth

Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Ziggurat]

Give us a non pseudo-science explanation for what can cause long-term changes in relative humidity for the atmosphere as a whole and maybe your “point” is worth discussing.

You seem to be confused about what my point is. I make no claims about the accuracy of their claims. Their claims may indeed be completely wrong. But your representation of their claim was definitely wrong. Absolute humidity is different than relative humidity, and the argument that you made about why they are wrong only makes sense for absolute humidity, not relative humidity. You're right that it's not worth really discussing, because simply pointing out the mistake should suffice. Other arguments for why they're wrong about relative humidity may still exist, but the lack of non-temperature explanations for relative humidity changes is much weaker than your argument would have been if they had actually made an argument about absolute humidity.

As for other drivers of relative humidity, vegetation cover and farming probably have a role. I have no idea what direction any change in those factors over time would have produced, so I can't say if that would support or refute them, but that's certainly one place to look.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then the title of the OP is incorrect:
Finnish study claims Climate Change is a myth

Wouldn't you agree?

Yes, obviously.

 

[Ziggurat]

That makes it even worse. The rate with energy radiates out the top of the atmosphere responds to absolute humidity not relative humidity

But the top of the atmosphere isn't the only place radiative transfer is occurring.

If there is no condensation, then absolute humidity and not relative humidity determines how opaque the atmosphere is at wavelengths where water vapor absorbs. But once you get condensation (ie, clouds), then there's a dramatic shift in radiative transfer of energy across a very broad spectrum. And that condensation is controlled by relative humidity, not absolute humidity.

 

[bknight]

Yes, obviously.

And further the title of the paper:
NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE

Indicates that human activity has no evidence of climate change, so yes the link doesn't indicates that humans are not responsible for the anthropogenic climate change.
That is two strikes against your thoughts concerning my initial post.

ETA Now I will admit that there is no mention that climate is not changing. I concede your point.

 

[theprestige]

And further the title of the paper:
NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE

Indicates that human activity has no evidence of climate change, so yes the link doesn't indicates that humans are not responsible for the anthropogenic climate change.

I'm having trouble parsing this.

This:

Indicates that human activity has no evidence of climate change​

Seems to be inverted. I think probably you meant to say, "indicates that climate change has no evidence of human activity".

But even that is not a good paraphrase of the paper's title. The title seems to indicate only something like "there's no experimental evidence that anthropogenic effects are a significant factor in climate change".

It doesn't indicate no evidence of human activity, just that there's no experimental evidence that human activity plays a significant role. Whether or not the paper is actually correct about the claim in the title, I don't think the claim in the title indicates what you say it indicates (assuming I understand what you say it indicates).

And this:

so yes the link doesn't indicates that humans are not responsible for the anthropogenic climate change​

I can't quite make sense of at all. Can you rephrase it in a simpler way?

 

[Ziggurat]

Can you rephrase it in a simpler way?

I think he already did.

ETA Now I will admit that there is no mention that climate is not changing. I concede your point.

 

[lomiller]

But the top of the atmosphere isn't the only place radiative transfer is occurring.

WTF are you talking about? How else is heat going to escape the earth other than radiating out the top of the atmosphere?

If there is no condensation, then absolute humidity and not relative humidity determines how opaque the atmosphere is at wavelengths where water vapor absorbs. But once you get condensation (ie, clouds), then there's a dramatic shift in radiative transfer of energy across a very broad spectrum. And that condensation is controlled by relative humidity, not absolute humidity.

What direction is this “dramatic shift”? Are you claiming it’s a dramatic warming effect, or are you claiming it’s a dramatic cooling effect? (or are you simply waving your arms around in a dramatic fashion)

edit to add, you've also neglected to explain what you think could cause such a change in relative humidity in the first place.

 

[lomiller]

LOL I went back to the “paper” to find out what they were actually claiming so I’d know if it matched Zigs claim and noticed this:

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. This number is in very good agreement with the theory given in the papers [3, 2, 4]. Using this result we are able to present the natural temperature anomaly by multiplying the changes of the low cloud cover by 0:11°C.

They are calculating change in T/ change in cloud cover then multiplying the result by change in cloud cover and observing that the result matches the observed temperature change. Of course the two match, how could they not!

They call this “the natural temperature change” (they go on to hand wave a new “natural temperature change” of -0.15 Deg C for 1% increase in humidity. ) and claim that since they can already explain all the observed climate change with it there can’t be any CO2 contribution!

 

[Ziggurat]

WTF are you talking about? How else is heat going to escape the earth other than radiating out the top of the atmosphere?

How do you think it gets from the surface to the top of the atmosphere? Do you think the rate at which it does that is irrelevant?

What direction is this “dramatic shift”?

It dramatically decreases radiative transfer. I thought that was obvious.

Are you claiming it’s a dramatic warming effect, or are you claiming it’s a dramatic cooling effect? (or are you simply waving your arms around in a dramatic fashion)

During the day cloud cover tends to cool. During the night cloud cover tends to warm. Again, I thought this was obvious.

edit to add, you've also neglected to explain what you think could cause such a change in relative humidity in the first place.

I make no claims in that regard. I'm only pointing out that relative humidity is what this is about. It's possible that they're wrong, that relative humidity is caused by temperature and not vice versa. But that's not a given. The relationship isn't going to be as simple as temperature and absolute humidity.

 

[Ziggurat]

LOL I went back to the “paper” to find out what they were actually claiming

Shouldn't you have done that to begin with?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Whether humans contribute more than .1% I would presume depends on how one evaluates the additions, but one aspect that I strongly disagree is that the climate isn't changing/getting warmer just look at the images from space over the last 20 or so years and the ice caps/glaciers are receding.
Whether humans can slow the warming or reverse should be the discussion. IMO

Bingo, these silly papers like this are nothing more than a diversion.

 

[lomiller]

How do you think it gets from the surface to the top of the atmosphere? Do you think the rate at which it does that is irrelevant?

We already know there is a top of atmosphere radiative imbalance, and that it’s causing the planet to warm. The only thing we can infer from how much energy gets to the top of the atmosphere is whether the warming we are observing is caused by a greenhouse effect on not. Turns out it is.

It dramatically decreases radiative transfer. I thought that was obvious.

Water absorbs outbound IR in both liquid and vapor form. Why would it be obvious whether having water vapor condense into clouds would have a weaker or stronger greenhouse effect?

BTW it was a trick question. Clouds both absorb outbound IR and reflect incoming sunlight. Best current estimate suggest low level clouds seem to net out as a small cooling effect on global temperatures while high level clouds net out as a small warming effect. Combined, an increase in cloud cover probably has a slight warming effect but it’s near enough to zero that no effect at all is within the error bands.

Shouldn't you have done that to begin with?

I note that you didn’t notice the nonsensical calculation either so I guess I could say the same to you.

Actually, since you are the one defending a paper that purport to overturn decades of research and tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers I’d suggest you would have the greater responsibility to have read it more carefully.

 

[Ziggurat]

Water absorbs outbound IR in both liquid and vapor form. Why would it be obvious whether having water vapor condense into clouds would have a weaker or stronger greenhouse effect?

For one thing, the absorption spectrum for water vapor isn't continuous. But the scattering spectrum for water droplets is.

I note that you didn’t notice the nonsensical calculation either so I guess I could say the same to you.

Except I didn't opine on the calculation either. But you're on much better grounds there than on in regards to absolute vs. relative humidity.

Actually, since you are the one defending a paper

Only against one very specific criticism that I saw as flawed. I'm not defending it in general.

 

[Reality Check]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf...

The pre-print has been taken apart over the last couple of weeks - it is just wrong.

The title is wrong. It is the experimental evidence that has convinced most climate scientists that we are causing climate change.

The abstract is dubious with statements that the IPCC selected a "very large sensitivity", etc.. The IPCC does not do climate research - it collates and reports on climate research. The climate sensitivity is measured from many lines of evidence. Climate models include the negative feedback due to the clouds.

There are 6 references with 4 to their own work, 2 of which are not published.

The paper seems to think that climate sensitivity is only worked out using models. But we use physical evidence as well, e.g. How sensitive is our climate?

The main limit on the sensitivity value is that it has to be consistent with paleoclimatic data. A sensitivity which is too low will be inconsistent with past climate changes - basically if there is some large negative feedback which makes the sensitivity too low, it would have prevented the planet from transitioning from ice ages to interglacial periods, for example. Similarly a high climate sensitivity would have caused more and larger past climate changes.QUOTE]
The lower limit is ~ 1 °C which is an enormous problem with "...our sensitivity 0:24°C.".

Jyrki Kauppinen works in a Materials Research Laboratory at the University of Turku (Google Translate). 4 papers listed, one on climate.

Pekka Malmi is a university lecturer in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Turku (Google Translate). He has 1 paper listed which is on climate.

 

[lomiller]

For one thing, the absorption spectrum for water vapor isn't continuous. But the scattering spectrum for water droplets is.

This only matters if significant amounts of IR is being emitted in those ranges and if there are no other greenhouse gases that absorb IR in that part of the spectrum. The point being that the effect of clouds is non-trivial or easy to understand as you make out and this is abundantly clear in the literature. It’s one the more active and pressing subjects in climatology and I summarized the best current understanding as expressed in the actual literature.

Except I didn't opine on the calculation either. But you're on much better grounds there than on in regards to absolute vs. relative humidity.

Except the paper doesn’t actually discuss relative humidity it talks about low-level clouds and hand waves that into relative humidity ignoring higher altitude clouds along the way. Why would I follow it down rabbit holes when I can just give the best current understanding that can be found in the literature.
- Water vapour is a positive feedback effect in the climate system. The response in to absolute not relative humidity
- Clouds have considerable uncertainly, but are most likely a small positive feeback
- Multiple lines of evidence put a minimum value on climate sensitivity. Any claim of a climate sensitivity below this would need extraordinary evidence backing it up because it would need an associated theory that fits the different lines of evidence as well as the currently theory does.

Only against one very specific criticism that I saw as flawed. I'm not defending it in general.

The role the absolute amount of water vapor plays in climate sensitivity is well documented. Why would explain this represent a “flaw”?

 

[lomiller]

The main limit on the sensitivity value is that it has to be consistent with paleoclimatic data. A sensitivity which is too low will be inconsistent with past climate changes - basically if there is some large negative feedback which makes the sensitivity too low, it would have prevented the planet from transitioning from ice ages to interglacial periods, for example. Similarly a high climate sensitivity would have caused more and larger past climate changes.

The lower limit is ~ 1 °C which is an enormous problem with "...our sensitivity 0:24°C.".

Since clouds are a topic it’s also worth noting that the Climate models that most accurately represent observed cloud behavior are the ones that show a higher climate sensitivity, while those that arrive at a lower climate sensitivity do not match well with observations.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/338/6108/792
https://www.nature.com/articles/nat...u7U3Qnv&tracking_referrer=www.realclimate.org

 

[Ziggurat]

Except the paper doesn’t actually discuss relative humidity it talks about low-level clouds and hand waves that into relative humidity ignoring higher altitude clouds along the way.

And that's a valid criticism. But it's not what you said.

The role the absolute amount of water vapor plays in climate sensitivity is well documented. Why would explain this represent a “flaw”?

Because you can't substitute your claim (absolute humidity) for theirs (relative humidity), even when their claim is wrong.

 

[lomiller]

Because you can't substitute your claim (absolute humidity) for theirs (relative humidity), even when their claim is wrong.

If explaining the actual science is a flawed argument, does that mean that explaining what the fossil record says about the Earth’s evolutionary history a flaws argument against creationism?