Climate Change: .01% is 'Man-made' According to Results Duplicated Study

Original Research, here:

They feel that they have figured out why the IPCC's figures overestimate anthropogenic global warming, as well: cloud coverage.

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.

Kobe University corroborates most of these findings:

"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. "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. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era."

Regardless of their findings, they did find anthropogenic global warming is a thing. Even after discovering a huge portion of global warming can be attributed to low-cloud coverage, they still find a very minute element of anthropogenic global warming. .01% is still something.

HOWEVER!!!!!

The question should not be about all the global warming man is producing. It should be about moving our energy and industry to sustainable renewable energy sources and environmentally safe, LONG-TERM practices. We need to consider what the world will be like 50-100 years from now and do our best to leave a good planet for our progeny. We don't need to cripple human industry in self-guilt over warming that is almost completely not our fault. But not much changes on what we should be doing - we still need to user cleaner sources of energy.

Galactic Cosmic Rays? Seems like a joke.

so there is confirmed man-made climate change and it cannot be denied any further? or are we supposed to laugh at the percentage number as if we have the understanding to know that it's insignificant? what's the angle here?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
so there is confirmed man-made climate change and it cannot be denied any further? or are we supposed to laugh at the percentage number as if we have the understanding to know that it's insignificant? what's the angle here?

No, you're supposed to enjoy the fact that science has done 2 things:

1. Demonstrate that anthropogenic global warming contribution is 10 times less than previously estimated and it is being overblown by special interest groups after government and private money.

2. New science and new methods confirm that anthropogenic global warming is still a thing even when adjusting for new science - no one can deny that humans have had 0 impact on global warming.

3. My thoughts (for or against) how we should still clean up our act and think much further ahead than 2-5 years.

Edit - At no point should we view human-impact on climate change as negligible, at least for now. We should still take measures to clean up our act. This research just shows that there are other factors and it greatly decreases man's culpability. Get ready for the energy companies eating this research up. Over time, that .01% compounds, exponentially, on the type of impact it has.

You're .01% man-made.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, you're supposed to enjoy the fact that science has done 2 things:

1. Demonstrate that anthropogenic global warming contribution is 10 times less than previously estimated and it is being overblown by special interest groups after government and private money.

2. New science and new methods confirm that anthropogenic global warming is still a thing even when adjusting for new science - no one can deny that humans have had 0 impact on global warming.

3. My thoughts (for or against) how we should still clean up our act and think much further ahead than 2-5 years.

Edit - At no point should we view human-impact on climate change as negligible, at least for now. We should still take measures to clean up our act. This research just shows that there are other factors and it greatly decreases man's culpability. Get ready for the energy companies eating this research up. Over time, that .01% compounds, exponentially, on the type of impact it has.

Who could possibly have a political agenda? 😂 (I wish I bookmarked this blog post from a college professor who stood directly in front of an air vent of a nuclear reactor in response to protests, and some of his own students said "You shouldn't have done that", in a tone that made clear anything less then "Power plant bad" was unacceptable to their cause.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, you're supposed to enjoy the fact that science has done 2 things:

1. Demonstrate that anthropogenic global warming contribution is 10 times less than previously estimated and it is being overblown by special interest groups after government and private money.

2. New science and new methods confirm that anthropogenic global warming is still a thing even when adjusting for new science - no one can deny that humans have had 0 impact on global warming.

3. My thoughts (for or against) how we should still clean up our act and think much further ahead than 2-5 years.

Edit - At no point should we view human-impact on climate change as negligible, at least for now. We should still take measures to clean up our act. This research just shows that there are other factors and it greatly decreases man's culpability. Get ready for the energy companies eating this research up. Over time, that .01% compounds, exponentially, on the type of impact it has.

Damn, I messed up #2. I bolded and italicized the correction:

2. New science and new methods confirm that anthropogenic global warming is still a thing even when adjusting for new science - no one can deny that humans have had greater than 0 impact on global warming.

Originally posted by cdtm
Who could possibly have a political agenda? 😂 (I wish I bookmarked this blog post from a college professor who stood directly in front of an air vent of a nuclear reactor in response to protests, and some of his own students said "You shouldn't have done that", in a tone that made clear anything less then "Power plant bad" was unacceptable to their cause.)

That sounds like something I'd enjoy.

I demand you find it and post it.

I don't know if it's a translation issue or something else but that reads like the most unscientific paper I have ever read. I literally wrote better papers during first year undergraduate studying.

Where was it published and who peer reviewed it?

Actually got it. Cornell U.

The people that virtue signal for climate change are phonies. I do more for the environment then every person here combined besides possibly Jaden if what he says is true. My net zero house in 3 years has offset 30 tons of co2, 2450 gallons of gas saved, 22,370lbs of coal not burned, 48 barrels of crude not refined, grown 327 trees and recycled 16,000lbs raw materials.

Well I turn the water off while I'm brushing my teeth.

They obviously didn't take BF's "Back Fires" in this study..

But are we still causing the extincting of a sh_tload of animal species?

My biggest gripes are the likes of Al Gore, DiCaprio that stands on a pedestal and talk down to me like I’m a child when it concerns the environments, only to turn around, get in there private jets and returned to their multi million dollars house.

I can live 5 lifetimes, and I wouldn’t make a dent in the environment compares to the dents those rich snobs makes.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Originally posted by BackFire
Well I turn the water off while I'm brushing my teeth.

Exactly, no offense but I assume you are a climate change believer but you probably do jack shit in real life to do your part🙂 plus you dump a ton of methane into the environment that is 100 times worse than CO2

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Exactly, no offense but I assume you are a climate change believer but you probably do jack shit in real life to do your part🙂 plus you dump a ton of methane into the environment that is 100 times worse than CO2

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I live in the 3rd world mate. It's all a first world problem.

This might be the biggest winning argument I've seen Whirly pull out ever.

So wait, you're saying we won't be dead in 12 years?

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Exactly, no offense but I assume you are a climate change believer but you probably do jack shit in real life to do your part🙂 plus you dump a ton of methane into the environment that is 100 times worse than CO2