Low clouds causing global warming.

kneemos

Due to increased cosmic rays from a weakening magnetic field.
More rays,more clouds,more trapped heat.

http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16562-finnish-scientists-effect-of-human-activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html

jamesbere

Jaysus

arainagusime

The OP has either never taken a science class in their life or they learned nothing.

Clouds do not trap heat. If anything, they cool us down as light rays reflect off their surfaces and back into space.

Hamsterchops

I always thought clouds acted like a duvet/blanket by trapping heat beneath, hence it's always much colder on a clear starry night with no clouds, as all the heat escapes up through the atmosphere and out into space .......

kneemos

arainagusime wrote: »

The OP has either never taken a science class in their life or they learned nothing.

Clouds do not trap heat. If anything, they cool us down as light rays reflect off their surfaces and back into space.

The OP at least read the bleedin article.

TheValeyard

arainagusime wrote: »

The OP has either never taken a science class in their life or they learned nothing.

Clouds do not trap heat. If anything, they cool us down as light rays reflect off their surfaces and back into space.

Isnt that during the day, but at night they can trap a certain amount of heat.

Hamsterchops

I always knew the sun was to blame!
Sorted, respect...

suicide_circus

i would sure find it amusing if this turns out to be true. another religion put to the sword.

Bobblehats

Harry Palmr

The paper has been criticised for not being peer reviewed and other climate scientists have refuted the conclusions reached by Kauppinen and Malmi. 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.

.

Just going to leave this here.

Plenty of more detailed commentary in the link from climate scientists, but this is the summary.

Note also, the research hasn't been successfully published in an academic journal, just by some small media outlets, some with a clear anti-science agenda.


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

Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.

Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.

Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.

kneemos

Harry Palmr wrote: »

.

It also say a Japanese study came up with similar findings.

AllForIt

Is it just me that things that ppl who are really genuinely worried about climate change, even it it's absolutely true, are in fact just a little bit weird.

Harry Palmr

kneemos wrote: »

It also say a Japanese study came up with similar findings.

https://skepticalscience.com/a-detailed-look-at-galactic-cosmic-rays.html

this is a long read but at least it contains the workings of the rebuttal.

and

https://home.cern/science/experiments/cloud

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDo7saKaEys

Some more stuff from CERN (who no doubt are in the pay of an evil cabal of pro-environment billionairs )

https://home.cern/news/news/experiments/cloud-experiment-sharpens-climate-predictions

In the latest work, published in Science, researchers built a global model of aerosol formation using CLOUD-measured nucleation rates involving sulphuric acid, ammonia, ions and organic compounds. Although sulphuric acid has long been known to be important for nucleation, the results show for the first time that observed concentrations of particles throughout the atmosphere can be explained only if additional molecules - organic compounds or ammonia - participate in nucleation. The results also show that ionisation of the atmosphere by cosmic rays accounts for nearly one-third of all particles formed, although small changes in cosmic rays over the solar cycle do not affect aerosols enough to influence today’s polluted climate significantly.

“This is a huge step for atmospheric science,” says lead author Ken Carslaw of the University of Leeds, UK. “It’s vital that we build climate models on experimental measurements and sound understanding, otherwise we cannot rely on them to predict the future. Eventually, when these processes get implemented in climate models, we will have much more confidence in aerosol effects on climate.”

This work still ongoing so watch this space - this space (the earth, not that space the sun - until it explodes)

RobbingBandit

I knew it was the clouds, floating around up there doing nothing useful ****ing fluffy bastards

TheValeyard

Bobblehats wrote: »

To be fair, that cloud was a d1ck

TheValeyard

RobbingBandit wrote: »

I knew it was the clouds, floating around up there doing nothing useful ****ing fluffy bastards

Hamsterchops

Many hundred warmings, many hundred coolings, and the Earth has always had a failsafe switch to stop the impending end of days scenario! .....Mini ice age, Big ice age, Hot periods, cooling down periods, since God was in short trousers there has been "Climate Change", and guess what, it's happening again :eek:

EmmetSpiceland

arainagusime wrote: »

The OP has either never taken a science class in their life or they learned nothing.

Clouds do not trap heat. If anything, they cool us down as light rays reflect off their surfaces and back into space.

Tell that to Venus!

Harry Palmr

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Tell that to Venus!

The atmosphere of Venus is constituted of a very different mix of gases. 96% co2 with sulphuric acid for good measure.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Clouds definitely trap heat, at night obviously, and the high level clouds that are too thin to stop solar in can stop infra red getting out.

The claim in the op is probably bunk though.

kneemos

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Clouds definitely trap heat, at night obviously, and the high level clouds that are too thin to stop solar in can stop infra red getting out.

The claim in the op is probably bunk though.

Is the whole global warming industry too big to fail at this stage?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

kneemos wrote: »

Is the whole global warming industry too big to fail at this stage?

It’s too true to be debunked.

Subcomandante Marcos

How are you all missing this paragraph in the article?

Some cranks put something on a blog, whoopdeedoo.

The paper has been criticised for not being peer reviewed and other climate scientists have refuted the conclusions reached by Kauppinen and Malmi. 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.

AllForIt

AllForIt wrote: »

Is it just me that things that ppl who are really genuinely worried about climate change, even it it's absolutely true, are in fact just a little bit weird.

Hmm, maybe not just you who thinks that.

I just think it's ironic that perhaps the biggest challenge to us in Western Europe will be mass migration, and it's the people who are most opposed to migration who are usually most dismissive of climate change.

johnmcdnl

The paper has been criticised for not being peer reviewed and other climate scientists have refuted the conclusions reached by Kauppinen and Malmi. 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.

Sounds like a top notch study by the first year science students.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

johnmcdnl wrote: »

Sounds like a top notch study by the first year science students.

Actually some of those criticisms don’t make sense. They can’t “site” other climate scientists because it’s an unique theory, and it’s not much of an argument to say they also use climate models, of course they would do that except correcting for their own inputs (low clouds or whatever).

The Satanist

I don't trust clouds cuz that's where god lives

is_that_so

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Actually some of those criticisms don’t make sense. They can’t “site” other climate scientists because it’s an unique theory, and it’s not much of an argument to say they also use climate models, of course they would do that except correcting for their own inputs (low clouds or whatever).

The kneejerk reaction seems to be the default. That's not to say it's right or wrong but it should be evaluated by investigation not by knocking it on what it appears to be. Some more details from the authors would help a lot.

topper75

suicide_circus wrote: »

i would sure find it amusing if this turns out to be true. another religion put to the sword.

I'll just have put my carbon credits up on the shelf...
... alongside my Eircom share certs, my Anglo deposit book, and my plenary indulgence letter from the Vatican. Ah well.