LOL.
And behold. Climate deniers have managed to get a another dung paper “published” in a shit journal, and now they are activating their anti science propaganda machineand their web of denier trolls around the world.
Climate deniers are “so cute” when they send their junk around in their echo chambers of idiot denier blogs, their right wing biased conspiracy sites and anti-science tribe catering ultra conservative libertarian propaganda outlets poorly drag queened as “newspapers”.
Hallelujah.
The Finnish paper is amateur work. It’s not peer reviewed and it never will be.
Remember how the scientific method works:
One (1) study, a new hypothesis, is not evidence of anything yet. New hypotheses must be able to be recreated by others through new experiments, thus confirming them. Or improve them. Then they can eventually be elevated to a theory. It is only when there are many, often hundreds of studies that support each other and improve each other, that we can talk about new knowledge. Most papers will be rejected
because,
The science of climate science is nearly 200 years old science and is based upon basic physics. There are tens of thousands of studies and millions of data filtered through the scientific method for nearly two centuries.
The physics we use to understand the earth’s climate system is the same physics that explains how stoves, fridges, airplanes and more work. And most people don’t really have a problem with the physics of non-linear fluid dynamics and radiative transfer that have been well understood for decades, even centuries.
It is very unlikely something revolutionary new about the greenhouse effect will enter the table at this stage. Especially not something as crazy as this paper suggest. If anything in this paper was just remotely true it would turn everything we know about the physical world upside down. It would be a world sensation in the scientific world, not in the echo chamber of denier blogs.
So no surprise, it’s total junk.
Critics have said that in addition to not being peer reviewed, Malmi and Kauppinen fail to provide correct physical explanation, have not linked to- or sited to enough sources to support their claims and although they denounce climate models, they use one themselves to prove their own points.
The IPCC has no formulas of its own on climate and even the Finnish scientists have no idea what the clouds are like. Moreover, it is not only model calculations that form the basis of the analysis that say that global warming is man-made.
Full debunk :
Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming
Pekka Malmi - Climate Feedback
The sad story behind it all.
Turku University has been infested by the Denial for profit movement:
Jyrki Kauppinen decided to join the shameless, oil-financed gang of climate deniers who founded "Clexit"
Climate Exit (Clexit) is a climate change denial group formed shortly after the UK's decision to leave the EU.
According to Clexit's founding statement :
“The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade. One does not and cannot control the climate. ”).
The University of Turku has thus a serious problem there, hoping they solve it well.
Back to the paper:
When the paper makes claims like
“ this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature. “
and
“During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.”
and
“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. The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans [6], according to Henry‘s law”
It’s just total junk. Can probably only be used as toilet paper.
Lets debunk this crappy paper:
What the science says about clouds:
“Although the cloud feedback is one of the largest remaining uncertainties in climate science, evidence is building that the net cloud feedback is likely positive, and unlikely to be strongly negative.
In short, while more research of the cloud-climate feedback is needed, the evidence is building against those who argue for a strongly negative cloud feedback. It\'s also important to remember that clouds are just one feedback among many, and there is a large amount of evidence that the net feedback is significantly positive, and climate sensitivity is not low.”
https://skepticalscience.com/clo...
We know the temperatures have increased about 1.1 C since 1900:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/giste...
June 2019:
Study: NASA’s estimate of Earth's long-term temperature rise in recent decades is accurate to within less than a tenth of a degree Fahrenheit, providing confidence that past and future research is correctly capturing rising surface temperatures.
The study also confirms what researchers have been saying for some time now: that Earth's global temperature increase since 1880 – about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, or a little more than 1 degree Celsius – cannot be explained by any uncertainty or error in the data. Going forward, this assessment will give scientists the tools to explain their results with greater confidence.
We know the extra CO2 is NOT coming from the oceans:
- The carbon in the atmospheric CO2 contains information about its source, so that scientists can tell that fossil fuel emissions comprise the largest source of the increase since the pre-industrial era. The carbon from burning fossil fuels have a different isotope signal (radioactivity) than C02 coming from natural sources. Its like a fingerprint. It’s like DNA proof in a murder investigation.”
- The increase in CO2 from 280 ppm in 1880 to 409 ppm in 2019 isa 46% increase of Co2(128/280*100) and 31.4% of the atmosphere CO2 is thus from humans (128/408*100).
__________________________________________________
Full debunk :
Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming
Pekka Malmi - Climate Feedback
SUMMARY:
This will only be referred to by the usual echo chamber of idiot amateur denier blogs and conspiracy sites. This is how the Denial for profit movement works. It manages now and then to get a junk study published, and as soon it’s out there, it will be recycled through the echo chamber of think tanks, front groups and social media and denier blogs.
Not to challenge the science, but to create noise, to create doubt- to disturb the flow of information between the real science and the public.
The goal of the fossil fuel industry is to keep its profits rolling in without interference by government or by new, competing energy sources. To do this they need the public embroiled in doubt and suspicion; they need to degrade public confidence in science and scientists; they need to harm America’s future—and the world’s future—so that one of the wealthiest industries on Earth can indulge itself in even more wealth.
The biggest misconception is how amateur deniers thinks that the contrarian “science” is actually existing because there is a genuine scientific doubt about the theory of AGW. But there is no doubt about this.
The contrarian “science” is simply noise. It’s fossil fuels self interests hidden in ideology and politics like you would hide your dogs pill inside it’s food.All those denier “arguments”, most of them contradicting each other, are not there to challenge the science.
The only reason why fossil fuels attacks the science of climate change is to create enough doubt about it so it can’t be used as an argument to regulate the polluters; to interfere with the money flow. They are protecting their self interests, and Co2 is their monetary crane. It has NOTHING to do with the science.
Now deniers have another pet theory they can add to the other idiot ones.
One (1) study, a new hypothesis, is not evidence of anything yet. New hypotheses must be able to be recreated by others through new experiments, thus confirming them. Or improve them. Then they can eventually be elevated to a theory. It is only when there are many, often hundreds of studies that support each other and improve each other, that we can talk about new knowledge.
If the study fails to be tested by the Scientific method, it remains alone, it remains only a hypothesis rejected by better science.
You can't overlook the 99.99% other studies that find another conclusion.