- Re: New Finnish Study Finds No Evidence For Man-Made Climate Change - not really.... Archived Message
Posted by John Monro
on July 13, 2019, 10:35 pm, in reply to "New Finnish Study Finds No Evidence For Man-Made Climate Change"
|
First, this is a very short paper indeed. You'd expect such a profoundly controversial study (which if true overturns the whole of global warming science and the work of tens of thousands of the world's best scientists, and that would make these two hugely wealthy from oil and coal corporations and governments sponsors anxious to keep digging, drilling and burning) would contain rather more science than what is published here. Unlike Derek Lane, who says he doesn't worry too much if the study is accurate or not, because we're doing so much other damage to the planet, I'd say this is vital for several reasons. First, if true, the damage it'd do to the reputation of science in general would be incalculable ..and that would include the science of the studies of all the other problems that we're inflicting on the planet, including those worrying Derek. Secondly, these matters are all interrelated, as we know. If global warming is real, there are huge effects on the planet in so many ways, most of which is to exacerbate all this other problems and the stresses on life on land and in the sea. If global warming is real, then we know the cause, and it's a simple matter to fix it. (in scientific terms).compared with so many other things going on which are so multifaceted. So yes, it's important straight away to blow this study out of the water before it gains any traction at all. We could start off by pointing out that this paper was not published in any scientific journal. It was not peer reviewed. It was published on-line in "arXiv" - wiki tells us this: arXiv (pronounced "archive"—the X represents the Greek letter chi [χ])[2] is a repository of electronic preprints (known as e-prints) approved for posting after moderation, but not full peer review. It consists of scientific papers in the fields of mathematics, physics, astronomy, electrical engineering, computer science, quantitative biology, statistics, mathematical finance and economics, which can be accessed online. In many fields of mathematics and physics, almost all scientific papers are self-archived on the arXiv repository. Begun on August 14, 1991, arXiv.org passed the half-million-article milestone on October 3, 2008,[3][4] and had hit a million by the end of 2014.[5][6] By October 2016 the submission rate had grown to more than 10,000 per month.[6][7] In other words, basically anyone who claims some expertise and is able to publish a paper that looks as though there has been some thought put into it, will be allowed to publish their thesis on this repository. The articles are screened to stop obvious stupidity, but not otherwise reviewed or peer reviewed. So that's the first obvious clue that this study is likely to prove dubious. Secondly, who is J Kauppinen? No details are provided. You have to google to find out. He works for the "materials laboratory" of the University of Turku. He and his co-worker, Pekka Malmi, published a very similar article in "Energy and Environment" in 2014 - the summary reads almost identically to this paper we're discussing here.He merely seems to have re-submitted the same material to the arXiv site. We will present the evidence of this argument using the observed relative humidity between years 1970 and 2011 and the observed low cloud cover between years 1983 and 2008. One percent increase in relative humidity or in low cloud cover decreases the temperature by 0.15 °C and 0.11 °C, respectively. In the time periods mentioned before the contribution of the CO2 increase was less than 10% to the total temperature change. it is true that cloud cover is difficult to estimate and fit into models. But the fact is, apart from the outliers mentioned in the study, models run backwards from what is happening today, prove remarkably accurate as to the course of global temperatures. Maybe cloud cover isn't accurately reflected but perhaps it really isn't as important as this study is trying to suggest. Even Hansen's original forecast of temperature rise made now 30 years ago have proved essentially correct. I am not scientifically literate enough to follow all the arguments in this study, but there is at least one massive howler which makes the whole study dubious in the extreme. That's the claim, almost a throw-away line, that "If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increase ed CO2 concentration is anthropogenic....". This is simply wrong. Almost all the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is anthropogenic, and some very simple and repeated evidence and calculations prove this. No contrary evidence is provided by these two scientist to back this extraordinary claim. https://skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html#volcanic is the best place to read the arguments. Basically it can be proven by radioisotope studies that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is "old" carbon, coming from fossil sources, not ocean or volcanic outgassing. Indeed CO2 concentrations in the ocean are rising, so it can't be outgassing. O2 concentrations are falling at exactly the rate you'd calculate by the burning of fossil fuels etc. etc, there are 10 examined evidences. (read the article) Going back to the Finnish paper, note too that there are only 6 references, 5 of which are to articles published by the lead scientist himself, J Kauppinnen, and the other refers to a multi author paper in which J Kauppinnen has contributed. In other words, not a single scientific paper outwith the author's own work. Cloud cover and its effect is contentious, but this has always been recognised by bona fide atmospheric scientists, ie the vast majority. High cloud cover, such as induced by air travel, increases global warming, thick low cloud such as the UK so often enjoys, cools the climate locally. Some studies show there's likely to be an increase in low cloud cover in some areas, but perhaps less cloud cover in others. Again, Skeptical Science covers this matter very well. https://skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback-intermediate.htm Finally, this study states: During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1 C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01 C. We know from repeated reliable measurement that the world's climate has warmed about 1 C since the late 1800s, during which time a known global warming gas has increased its concentration by almost 50% (It will be exactly this figure in the next three years when concentrations reach 420 ppm) Calculations as to the increase of heat retention by this CO2 were first done with pen and paper over a hundred years ago. so this basic calculation now could be done on your smart phone in a a few seconds, probably. So first, this paper is denying this simple science and measurement. Secondly, there's the argument that what CO2 is going into the atmosphere is outgassing from the ocean - apart from that being scientifically proven to be wrong, there'd have to be some underlying "cause" of his outgassing. This cause is not described or debated. The most obvious cause of CO2 outgassing would be if the ocean was warming. Which it is, due to CO2 being poured into the atmosphere by us. No other mechanism is being proffered - probably because there isn't one. . This paper doesn't stand to any scrutiny at all - it doesn't meet any robust scientific requirements, it contradicts well established science and measurement, and it even manages to contradict its own arguments. . I've probably wasted an hour of my life dealing with this article but I think it's important when any contrarian science rears its ugly head to shoot it down before it gains any traction at all. |