Finnish study claims Climate Change is a myth

Hercules56

Banned
H
Joined
Aug 4, 2013
Messages
17,176
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.
 
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.
 
Hercules56 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
lomiller said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
jimbob said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Hercules56 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
lomiller said:
“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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hercules56 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
bknight said:
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
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

That makes it even worse. The rate with energy radiates out the top of the atmosphere responds to absolute humidity not relative humidity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom