Finnish study claims Climate Change is a myth

[Ziggurat]

Good, I'm now wondering why your criticism of lomiller for following the paper's assertions to their implications is not redundant.

Do you understand what the difference is between absolute humidity and relative humidity?

 

[jimbob]

"Doesn't really support its central claim". That's a very mild criticism of what is presumably a deliberately provocative paper.

As far as I can see, the authors don't show where they obtained their values for cloud cover.

They present a stupidly simple equation that they suggest accounts for how cloud cover affects temperature - it has four terms and is a simple linear relationship.

Even if you accepted that, they don't explain what affects the cloud cover - this seems to be treated as an independent variable, rather than something that is affected by the very temperature that they are trying to model.

Their concluding paragraph has a logical statement that is based on a false assumption - namely that humans are only responsible for 10% of the increased CO₂.

Their paper has no merit that I can see.

Do you think their paper has any merit, and if so where?

In fact it's so bad, I'm starting to wonder if it is a deliberate attempt to demonstrate junk science.

 

[lomiller]

They present a stupidly simple equation that they suggest accounts for how cloud cover affects temperature - it has four terms and is a simple linear relationship.

Even if you accepted that, they don't explain what affects the cloud cover - this seems to be treated as an independent variable, rather than something that is affected by the very temperature that they are trying to model.

Their concluding paragraph has a logical statement that is based on a false assumption - namely that humans are only responsible for 10% of the increased CO₂.

Their paper has no merit that I can see.

As I pointed out on page 1, they are doing something even worse

The way the calculate “natural temperature change” IOW the supposed non-anthropogenic portion of global warming is:
[(average change in T) / (average change in cloud cover)] * (change in cloud cover)
Which they then compare to the temperature data.

And conclude that the result is a good fit with the observed change in temperature. Of course it is, all they did was take temperature, and multiply and divide it by the same number. Yeah one was averaged first the other was the individual values but the average of the resulting temperate still isn’t going to be any different than the original temperature data no matter how you look at it.

This appears to be entire basis for their claim that humans are not causing the observed warming.

 

[lomiller]

You spoke about absolute humidity. But their claim was about relative humidity.

Water vapor feedback plays an important role in climate sensitive and depends on absolute humidly. If you are going to discuss the actual science relating to climate sensitive you are going to be talking about absolute humidity.

 

[Ziggurat]

Water vapor feedback plays an important role in climate sensitive and depends on absolute humidly. If you are going to discuss the actual science relating to climate sensitive you are going to be talking about absolute humidity.

You are now arguing that absolute humidity matters and relative humidity does not. But that isn't what you said before. Before, you simply stated that absolute humidity is driven by temperature changes. Which may be true, but what you said still didn't speak to relative humidity, which was their claim. And again, since apparently you will misunderstand if I don't make this clear, that remains the case regardless of the truth of their claim, which is why pointing it out isn't really a defense of their claim.

 

[jimbob]

As I pointed out on page 1, they are doing something even worse

The way the calculate “natural temperature change” IOW the supposed non-anthropogenic portion of global warming is:
[(average change in T) / (average change in cloud cover)] * (change in cloud cover)
Which they then compare to the temperature data.

And conclude that the result is a good fit with the observed change in temperature. Of course it is, all they did was take temperature, and multiply and divide it by the same number. Yeah one was averaged first the other was the individual values but the average of the resulting temperate still isn’t going to be any different than the original temperature data no matter how you look at it.

This appears to be entire basis for their claim that humans are not causing the observed warming.

Yes, I kept reading that and disbelieveing what I was actually seeing - which is why I wrote this:

In fact it's so bad, I'm starting to wonder if it is a deliberate attempt to demonstrate junk science.

 

[Warmer1]

"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."

Can't believe I missed that zinger!

 

[jimbob]

"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."

Can't believe I missed that zinger!

That's where I started, so didn't initially bother with the rest.

The more I read the paper, the more I think it has to be something like an attempted Sokal. It would be hard to cram in so many howlers in a short space, inadvertently.

 

[caveman1917]

That's where I started, so didn't initially bother with the rest.

The more I read the paper, the more I think it has to be something like an attempted Sokal. It would be hard to cram in so many howlers in a short space, inadvertently.

Or they were paid for it. Climate change denial is a profitable idea.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

You still seem to be under the mistaken impression that I'm trying to defend the paper,

No, I know you aren't defending it - because it's indefensible.

If I point out the weakness in a particular argument for one side of a debate,

But that's not what you are doing, you're nitpicking. And when the weaknesses in your own arguments are exposed (eg. claiming an inflated 'factor of 100 difference') you brush it aside. Some people may have misread something or been sloppy in their wording, but the correct response is not to jump down their throats. If people are getting emotional it's due to the way you engaged them.

that doesn't actually mean I've taken the opposite side in that debate.

No, of course not. You're just 'correcting their mistakes'. But that's all you have been doing. The OP asked if anyone could 'take apart this study, piece by piece?', but rather than contribute to that effort your response was to 'take apart' any criticism of it by nitpicking.

This is classic a tactic used by debaters looking to score points against the other 'side' without having to reveal their own (perhaps because their side is indefensible, or they want to 'win' the debate, or they just enjoy trolling). Either way the fact that you decided to enter the debate this way shows that your goal is not honest discussion.

logically the sensible thing to do would be to either correct the flaws in that argument or shift to stronger arguments for that side.

If you are on the same 'side' then logically the correct thing to do would be for you to provide any stronger arguments you can think of. But you did not do that. First you asserted that there was 'no evidence' for the OP's impressions of the report. Then you implied that the other 'side' may be correct because relative humidity is not the same as humidity. At this point all you have done is weaken the case for AGW. And yet, though you claim to not be on the other 'side', you presented no arguments against it.

I've only skimmed it. It doesn't seem worth any more of an investment of my time, so my criticism isn't going to be exhaustive.

So you're just here to nitpick?

The paper is indeed quite weak. As jimbob correctly pointed out, their temperature equation is basically unjustified curve fitting which, given the complexity of climate, almost certainly doesn't contain enough information.

And can't even be bothered providing your own analysis? No, your criticism isn't exhaustive - it's nonexistent.