Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Greenhouse gases explain only 5-10 per cent from global warming
Climate Realists ^ | April 14th 2010 | NA

Posted on 04/23/2010 1:06:31 PM PDT by neverdem

The following article is from a leading Finnish Newspaper and was sent to me via the contact area. I had to use the Google Translate process as my Finnish is not that good.

To show this to you I have had to put the article through as an image, rather then type it. Will this story break to the world press? We will have to see.

Text:

Greenhouse gases account for only 5-10 per cent of global warming Turkus sue Panel on Climate Change predictions Turun Sanomat 14.4 2010 01:30:40

A University of Turku Department of Physics study shows that carbon dioxide has a significantly smaller impact on global warming than previously thought. Its results are based on spectrum analyses. According to research led by Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide accounts for only 5-10 per cent of the observed warming on Earth . "The climate is warming, yes, but not because of greenhouse gases," says Kauppinen.

According to him, projections made the UN climate panel, the International Panel on Climate Change, constitute a class-size error. The IPPC's calculated value is more than ten times larger than our calculated results, Kauppinen says. He intends to publish his results in the June issue of the magazine Nature.

The UN Climate Panel claims that global warming is almost entirely the result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions. [Unintelligible: Kauppinen, climate kestääkin much higher emissions than the IPCC reports have been made to understand.]

"I think it is such a blatant falsification," Kauppinen says.

He is not the first IPCC critic. The Panel has had to admit errors, including the melting of Himalayan glaciers, in its forecasts.

Causing a stir last year, Climategate came about as a result of computer hacking, which leaked e-mails between key IPCC researchers to the public. The aim was to isolate and stigmatize climate change experts; scientists are unconvinced. - AS


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: catastrophism; co2infraredspectrum; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; greenhousegases; ipcc
Comments Have Your Say REPORT Posted by Mike Davis (forum) on Apr 14th 2010, 7:32 PM EDT Thank you for providing this article. I belong to the group that says CO2 is a result of warming rather than warming is a result CO2. long term history provides evidence of that as CO2 levels follow warming and cooling throughout history unless ,as some have attempted, the records are distorted or misinterpreted. REPORT Posted by Wiseguy (forum) on Apr 15th 2010, 11:02 PM EDT Just to clearify the translation, there is one Finnish word left un-translated. It says "... climate kestääkin much higher emissions ...".

This should read "... climate can withstand much higher emissions ...".

kestää : to last or withstand kin : suffix - meaning "also" in this context can withstand works best. Perhaps another Finn could confirm this so it can be corrected in the text.

Comment edited by Wiseguy (forum) on Friday April 16, 2010 at 9:48 AM EDT REPORT Posted by Tomi Itkonen (Twitter) on Apr 18th 2010, 4:49 PM EDT For the wiseguy... Yeah, I confirm; your translation is good:

climate kestääkin much higher emissions -> climate can withstand much higher emissions

end of comments

1 posted on 04/23/2010 1:06:31 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

what warming?


2 posted on 04/23/2010 1:08:16 PM PDT by GeronL (http://libertyfic.proboards.com << Get your science fiction and fiction test marketed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

10% of 0 is 0.


3 posted on 04/23/2010 1:12:42 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Yeah...but this guy doesn’t have a degree in climatology...or computer modeling. Nothing to see here. </sarcasm>


4 posted on 04/23/2010 1:13:25 PM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Mr. Misguided calling someone else misguided??


5 posted on 04/23/2010 1:30:58 PM PDT by Right Wing Assault (The Obama magic is <strike>fading</strike>gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Oops! Wrong thread.


6 posted on 04/23/2010 1:31:38 PM PDT by Right Wing Assault (The Obama magic is <strike>fading</strike>gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
There is no warming and there is no such thing as "green house gas" or "greenhouse effect", it doesn't exist outside of a greenhouse.

Green house gas was a term invented by environmental dimwits getting government grants and the sooner we stop parroting the language of the knuckle dragging left the better off we will be.

There was CO2, weather and vapor, now called green house gas, long before a greenhouse was ever invented.

7 posted on 04/23/2010 1:32:22 PM PDT by lewislynn (What does the global warming movement and the Fairtax movement have in common? Disinformation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I got the rope
...and I hear his college room mate's brother once worked as a cashier at an Exxon mini-mart, therefore he obviously has ties to Big Oil.
8 posted on 04/23/2010 1:33:14 PM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

You want to publish this in Science? Well, I don't think we can allow that, you see.

9 posted on 04/23/2010 1:39:35 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

VOLCANOS!! That’s what we need, more volcanos,, gobs of them!!!!


10 posted on 04/23/2010 1:43:58 PM PDT by Waco (Kalifonia don't need no stenkin oil and no stenkin revenues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
A famous film director was being interviewed by the above liberal creature.

He was very afraid to work for him because he was Jewish.

"We decide who is Jewish!" came the reply.

That's what libbies do, they decide!

11 posted on 04/23/2010 1:48:19 PM PDT by norraad ("What light!">Blues Brothers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Since there is not currently any global warming, how does it explain it?


12 posted on 04/23/2010 1:49:25 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It does NOT even represent that much. Ma’s influence is only on 5% of this picture. The political effort that this really is knows this. That water vapor is not considered shows how much the average person has NOT been educated in this area. This rock is 4/5ths water and the Sun can not be controlled. Our influence is on the 5% part of the thermal heat layer.


13 posted on 04/23/2010 1:52:14 PM PDT by ICE-FLYER (God bless and keep the United States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

White House gas is emitted by Communist dimwits from Kenya getting US government control


14 posted on 04/23/2010 2:09:38 PM PDT by bunkerhill7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Defendingliberty; 4horses+amule; Nervous Tick; Amagi; Beowulf; Tunehead54; Clive; ...
 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

15 posted on 04/23/2010 2:40:37 PM PDT by steelyourfaith (Warmists as "traffic light" apocalyptics: "Greens too yellow to admit they're really Reds."-Monckton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
Green house gas was a term invented by environmental dimwits getting government grants and the sooner we stop parroting the language of the knuckle dragging left the better off we will be.

Source, please. Please give me a citation to find the names of these "environmental dimwits" who were "getting government grants" more than 100 years ago.

After all, Professor R. W. Wood wrote his "Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse" that discussed greenhouse gases and the radiative vs. convective questions back in 1909.

16 posted on 04/23/2010 3:02:43 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER
That water vapor is not considered shows how much the average person has NOT been educated in this area.

As would considering it in the same context as other gases, since it has such a low residence time and acts more in response than as a forcing.

17 posted on 04/23/2010 3:04:12 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Here you go - shows just what the numbers boil down to: Click the pic to get the full 40 page PDF with the details.
18 posted on 04/23/2010 3:05:19 PM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !! )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brityank; neverdem; ICE-FLYER; All

But...but...but...3.4% of 3.62% means human activity causes .00123 (1/8 of 1%) of all GREENHOUSE gases!!!! x2% = .000025 of the entire atmosphere !!!!


19 posted on 04/23/2010 4:14:11 PM PDT by FreeKeys (BP, British Petroleum, insults us with economic illiterates opining on energy policy in their ads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; 75thOVI; aimhigh; Alice in Wonderland; AndrewC; aragorn; aristotleman; ...
:') Wrong by only 5 to 10 percent. Thanks neverdem.
 
Catastrophism
 
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·
 

20 posted on 04/23/2010 4:19:37 PM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; Gondring; Ernest_at_the_Beach

The Greenhouse Effect: Origins, Falsification, & Replacement
Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)
Consulting Geologist
First Uploaded ISO:2009-Oct-13
Abstract
This article focuses on the lack of a clear thermodynamic definition of the greenhouse effect. The idea of a “greenhouse” effect was initially introduced in 1824, an age when only one mode of heat transfer was known and when the theory of “aether” was used to explain how light and heat were conducted through space. As the greenhouse effect was refuted by a simple experiment in 1909, this article finds that the mechanism of heat residence in materials subject to incident radiation, referred to in the modern misuse of the term “greenhouse effect”, would be better referred to via Kirchhoff’s Law. Furthermore, this modern reincarnation of the Greenhouse Effect, perhaps more aptly called the Kirchhoff Effect, is controlled by the material property of emissivity; a thermodynamic property that is poorly understood in translucent materials and as yet undocumented with respect to the temperature of a radiating translucent-body at thermal equilibrium. This article, in clarifying emissivity in this context, critically analyses the role of “greenhouse gases” in a modern radiation budget and finds that the putative relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and air temperature, has no evidentiary underpinning whatsoever. In fact, simple experimentation has shown that not only is visible light not converted into heat on absorbtion, but that carbon dioxide concentration has little if any effect on air temperature in the urban environment. This would indicate an equivalence of carbon dioxide and air emissivities and ergo, that carbon dioxide concentration makes little if any difference to the Kirchhoff Effect as it applies to the temperature of the atmospheric gas mixture we call air. As such, the the mechanism by which the addition of carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere has no empirical basis. Therefore the assertion that global warming is anthropogenic, may well be philosophical and perhaps political, but it is most certainly not scientific.

http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/


21 posted on 04/23/2010 4:41:45 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Good, now to get this information taught in K-12 schools.


22 posted on 04/23/2010 4:44:43 PM PDT by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I got the rope

“Yeah...but this guy doesn’t have a degree in climatology...or computer modeling. Nothing to see here.”

Of course that’s the problem. He only has a PhD in physics. So he’s not nearly as smart as climatologists.


23 posted on 04/23/2010 7:58:15 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

My science knowledge on most topics is conceptual, but I am a numbers guy, and the numbers for the global warming theory have never added up. There is no way something as miniscule as CO2 in our atmosphere could ever have the effect they claim it does.


24 posted on 04/23/2010 9:26:28 PM PDT by Free Vulcan (No prisoners, no mercy. 2010 is here...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; America_Right; ...
DÕÕMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

One-Third of Americans Believe Climate Change is Caused by Human Activity

In the News: US News & World Report: Global Warming, Ethanol, DDT and Environmentalism’s Dark Side

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News

Latest from Real Climate

Latest from Climate Depot

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

25 posted on 04/23/2010 9:58:57 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (I am Ellie Light. I hate slow drivers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Only 10%? I gotta work harder then! See you at the next tire pile burn, LOL!


26 posted on 04/24/2010 4:12:40 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (Save the Earth. It's the only planet with Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson