Climate Change Puts Buildings, Coastlines, The North At Most Risk: Report Extreme wea

[AlbertaFarmer5]

But A5 you don't believe in the science of climate change or that warming at the poles is resulting in sea ice and land ice mass decline. So I don't think there is much point in posting any evidence because you will deny it anyway.

I'm not even asking you for evidence. All I am asking for is the baseline SLR that is happening due to entirely natural causes, to separate it from the human causes of SLR. A very simple question. A hint, you can go back in history to pre industrial times to find out how much ( or if any) SLR there was without elevated levels of CO2.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

As far as see level rise that is well documented.

But A5 you don't believe in the science of climate change or that warming at the poles is resulting in sea ice and land ice mass decline. So I don't think there is much point in posting any evidence because you will deny it anyway.

From your northerly Albertan backwoods observations, you obviously know more than NASA, NOAA, Enviroment Canada, The American Meterolgical Society and all the climate and geoscientists in the world to completely refute their work and deny human caused seal level rise.

Since you are making an effort, I will help you get started on answering the sea level rise question about human influence vs. natural.

A direct quote from the report you started out the thread with:

Estimates of the magnitude of future changes in global sea level by the year 2100 range from a few tens of
centimetres to more than a metre.

So, the authoritative report can't even estimate the magnitude of SLR to less than a factor of four. And even their lowest vague estimate is well above measured SLR today. Seems like a very low confidence level to be making such bold predictions on the outcomes. So, what portion of the few tens of centimetres to more than a metre does the report attribute to natural SLR, and what portion to human caused?

We are now 20% of the way through this century, Can you tell me what acceleration would be required to go from current steady state rates of SLR to achieve the lofty levels speculated on in the report during the remaining 80%?

[chuckChuck]

As far as see level rise that is well documented.

But A5 you don't believe in the science of climate change or that warming at the poles is resulting in sea ice and land ice mass decline. So I don't think there is much point in posting any evidence because you will deny it anyway.

From your northerly Albertan backwoods observations, you obviously know more than NASA, NOAA, Enviroment Canada, The American Meterolgical Society and all the climate and geoscientists in the world to completely refute their work and deny human caused seal level rise.

[chuckChuck]

Thanks for taking the time and effort to to show how clouds have no effect on weather.

Now can you put the same effort into answering the sea level rise question?

Hahaha. Nice try but I didn't say that and neither did the the responses I posted say that either.

But if you want to respond with juvenile attempts to misconstrue what I posted, go ahead as it shows again that you are incapable of a credible response.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

More detailed response from various climate scientists debunking the J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMi paper on climate change and clouds.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

A feeble try Jazz. One unpublished paper with 6 references, 4 of which came from the authors, does not refute the entire work of thousands of other credible climate scientists! LMAO

I see you are back to using consensus as if it had something to do with science. Remember Einstein and his quote when asked about the book 100 authors against Einstein:
"Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough."

A sucker is born every minute.

Thanks for taking the time and effort to to show how clouds have no effect on weather.

Now can you put the same effort into answering the sea level rise question?

[Partners]

More detailed response from various climate scientists debunking the J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMi paper on climate change and clouds.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

A feeble try Jazz. One unpublished paper with 6 references, 4 of which came from the authors, does not refute the entire work of thousands of other credible climate scientists! LMAO

A sucker is born every minute.

Yes chuck..look in the mirror..
A sucker born every minute.lol..

[chuckChuck]

More detailed response from various climate scientists debunking the J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMi paper on climate change and clouds.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

A feeble try Jazz. One unpublished paper with 6 references, 4 of which came from the authors, does not refute the entire work of thousands of other credible climate scientists! LMAO

A sucker is born every minute.

[chuckChuck]

Finnish study finds no evidence of climate change. Says models are flawed.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE

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 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

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/clouds-and-climate-change/

A paper is making the rounds on climate denial sites that claims to debunk human-caused climate change in a single stroke. Predictably, the paper does nothing of the sort, but it does raise a complex issue regarding climate change that is worth reviewing. But first let’s get to the paper itself.

The paper, by J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi, is a pre-publication paper on the Arxiv. This means it is not peer-reviewed. Their central claim, from the abstract:

In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature.

Right in the first sentence is a huge red flag – claiming to be able to “prove” that the IPCC report is false. That’s a bold claim, and suggests a less than rigorous intellectual approach. They also claim to rebuke a rather robust conclusion built on many lines of evidence with a single line of evidence – the single stroke approach. This is also a huge red flag.

The claim is built around one major line of reasoning, that if you compare low cloud cover with changes in global temperatures, you see a strong correlation. In fact, the authors argue, you can explain most of global warming as resulting from a decrease in low cloud cover, leaving almost nothing left for anthropogenic forcing. There is a great deal wrong with this claim. The site ClimateFeedback has helpfully curated much of the response from climate scientists, who eviscerate the Kauppinen paper, and I will give you a summary of their summary.

The main criticisms include:

The authors do not give a reference for the dataset they are using, which appears to be wrong and/or out of date.
They ignore datasets that show the opposite trend they claim.
They are assuming cause and effect without giving any line of evidence or reasoning.
They criticize the use of climate models, but then give their own highly flawed climate model.
They falsely claim CO2 goes from the oceans to the atmosphere, when it’s the other way around.
They dismiss without evidence or argument the entirety of climate science, while referencing their own (mostly unpublished) work.
“It cites six references: one to the IPCC report and one scientific article, both of which they apparently did not read or understand; two of their own unpublished manuscripts and two of their own articles in questionable or predatory journals.”
They present no hypothesis as to how cloud changes are being forced, and therefore no explanation for why the climate is changing.

In short, this paper is a great example of pseudoscience. It would not pass any serious peer-review, but it can seem persuasive to a lay public, especially one that is eager to believe its conclusions. In other words, this looks more like political fodder than a serious scientific paper.

[farmaholic]

Speaking of CO2, It will be mandatory that all homes install a Carbon Dioxide detector to ensure the colorless odorless gas remains at safe levels.

One of the recommended solutions is more house plants and the less popular option of holding your breath.

Some one in government must have a friend manufacturing these things.

[jazz]

Finnish study finds no evidence of climate change. Says models are flawed.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE

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 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