A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which ‘climate change’ is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint. Scientists in Finland found “practically no anthropogenic [man-made]climate change” after a series of studies.
“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.
This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers’ theory: “New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth’s climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an ‘umbrella effect’,” the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this ‘umbrella effect’ — an entirely natural occurrence — could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors.
The scientists involved in the study are most concerned with the fact that current climate models driving the political side of debate, most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) climate sensitivity scale, fail to incorporate this crucial and potentially central variable of increased cloud cover.
“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 in Science Daily. “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.”
In their related paper, aptly titled, “No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic [man-made] climate change”, the Finnish scientists find that low cloud cover “practically” controls global temperatures but that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic, or caused by human activity.
The following is a key bombshell section in one of the studies conducted by Finland’s Turku University team:
We have proven that the GCM-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.
This raises urgent questions and central contradictions regarding current models which politicians and environmental groups across the globe are using to push radical economic changes on their countries’ populations.
Conclusions from both the Japanese and Finnish studies strongly suggest, for example, that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “drastic measures to cut carbon emissions” which would ultimately require radical legislation changes to “remake the U.S. economy” would not only potentially bankrupt everyone but simply wouldn’t even work, at least according to the new Finnish research team findings.
To put AOC’s “drastic measures” in perspective — based entirely on the fundamental assumption of the monumental and disastrous impact of human activity on the climate — consider the following conclusions from the Finnish studies:
“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.”
While I am aware of the cosmic particles and cloud agency I hold it in some reserve as a possible foil to SEEM to debunk AGW but then be ‘DESTROYED’ as I also expect ‘popularism’ to be demonised and denied. The larger picture of Cosmology and thus of weather and climate is being uncovered by an understanding of the electrical force and in particular of plasma physics as the primary force and expression OF the Universe – at all scales. The idea of our Planet as a closed system (bar a few ‘cosmic rays’) and Solar radiation is a reflection… Read more »
This makes at least as much sense as any other “denier” of climate change/global warming. This author seems to have done his or her research in a strictly non emotional and disciplined fashion. I find it quite believable.
These current studies are the reconfirmation of the findings of past studies that came to the same conclusions. The voices of scientists being silenced for going against the political agenda being driven by global warming as falsely stated to be based in science is completely disgusting and a sign of our times.
The ultimate goal of the globalists and their use of Technocracy in achieving those goals is human slavery for the masses and the attainment of a God like status for the controllers via trans humanism.
Nail on the head!
Surely there must be someone else the left can point a gun at in order to “save mankind”.
Critical thinkers/researchers know that the area of space into which our planet passed decades ago and in which we are moving today is an increased particle cloud environment. All planets in the solar system are exhibiting climate anomalies. I’m sorry to say that I can’t find the specific link for you guys to read. However, a Russian scientist, after studying Earth’s path through its galaxy, found the evidence. His research, and those who followed his research, agree with the Japanese and Finnish studies. The Earth is being hit by a dense particle cloud and has been in that cloud since… Read more »
The whole IPCC doctrine on climate change is based on a microscopically thin slice of data, ie. about 130 years of recorded weather data vs. the millennia this planet has been here. That limited context, by scientific standards, is preposterous and would be laughed out of existence if it weren’t such a hot political topic. It’s obvious to anyone of average intelligence that their goal is dominance and control and not environmental conservation.