Global oppvarming

[Gjest Gjest]

Det er vel heller du som viser at du ikke har peiling på hva IPCC driver med. Hvilke feil gjør de, og hvilke har jeg forsvart?

IPCC overspiller rollen CO2 har, dette har jeg da flere ganger belyst og da har du kommet med personangrep ettersom du ikke har noe fornuftig å si.

Vennligst bevis at "IPCC innrømmer at de tok feil angående CO2". Hva skal feilen ha bestått i? Bruk dine egne ord, og gjør det kort. Jeg vil selvsagt også se selve sitatet fra IPCC som bekrefter at de innrømmer at de tok feil.

Som sagt.. IPCC overspiller rollen CO2 har, dette har jeg da belyst og "sagt" at nå innrømmet de en feil.

[Gjest Gjest]

Dermed faller egentlig ressonementet vekk i sin helhet.

Gjør det?

IPCC begynner slik jeg ser det endelig å akseptere at menneskelig landforandring er en første-ordens klimaeffekt som da også CO2 er.

[Gjest Gjest]

Vi har brukt 1 trillion fat olje så langt siden 1859. Vi har brukt et ukjent antall tonn kull siden den industrielle revolusjon. Eksisterer det virkelig noen som tror at den enorme mengden opplagret CO2 i disse fossile brennstoffene ikke har hatt noen som helst negativ effekt på klimaet? Seriøst? Og hvilke mennesker er det? De som surver på e24.no og vg.no når det meldes at bensinprisen har gått opp noen øre?

Illusjonene vil etter hvert briste, folk har ikke aning om hvilken enorm og vanskelig verdikjede som skal til for å utvinne olje og raffinere den til bensin.

[hulaboer]

IPCC overspiller rollen CO2 har, dette har jeg da flere ganger belyst og da har du kommet med personangrep ettersom du ikke har noe fornuftig å si.

Se der ja. Der kommer det. Du prøver å late som du sa noe annet enn du egentlig sa, som var:

"IPCC innrømmer at de tok feil angående CO2"

Denne påstanden var det du kom med, og det er den du må komme med bevis på.

At IPCC overspiller rollen CO2 har er rent vrøvl fra din side. Du har åpenbart ikke peiling på hva du snakker om. Og med din "snuoperasjon" som jeg påviser her, beviser du at du er villig til å si hva som helst for å vende folk til din politise ideologi og agenda.

Det er herved bevist at du bevisst forkaster fakta, og at du bevisst fremsetter feilaktige påstander for å tåkelegge saken.

I rest my case.

[hulaboer]

IPCC begynner slik jeg ser det endelig å akseptere at menneskelig landforandring er en første-ordens klimaeffekt som da også CO2 er.

IPCC begynner å akseptere hva da sier du?

[Gjest Gjest]

..at menneskelig landforandring er en første-ordens klimaeffekt som da også CO2 er

[Gjest Koala]

Gjør det?

IPCC begynner slik jeg ser det endelig å akseptere at menneskelig landforandring er en første-ordens klimaeffekt som da også CO2 er.

Jeg tror du bommer litt her. IPCC driver ikke selvstendig klimaforskning, men de publiserer sammendrag av den klimaforskningen som drives ved universiteter verden over.

[AnonymBruker]

global oppvarming er ikke noe jeg er bekymret for.

[Gjest Gjest]

Du bør heller ikke være bekymret for. Vær bekymret for å ikke ha mat på bordet og å måtte kjempe om ressurser. Se for dere at lastebilene som fyller dagligvarebutikker med mat stopper å komme. Da blir det hardaball..

[Ivana]

Om klimaendringer er menneskeskapt bør vi ikke la tiden vise.

[Gjest Gjest]

Jeg tror du bommer litt her. IPCC driver ikke selvstendig klimaforskning, men de publiserer sammendrag av den klimaforskningen som drives ved universiteter verden over.

Det sammendraget er for min del uriktig, IPCC underdriver også klimaeffekten av biologiske aerosol partikler -> lenke.

[AnonymBruker]

Tøys, det diskuteres at vi muligens når peak coal om ikke lenge også. Dessuten tar du "vekst" i betraktning. At vi går tom for øknomisk utvinnbart kull om 100 år betyr at vi når toppunktet for produksjon LENGE før det skjer, slik at tilbudet ikke vil kunne møte etterspørselen (med alt av problemer det fører med seg).

Før du sier "tøys" til noen bør du i det minste spandere på deg et enkelt google-søk. Alt du sier er feil eller irrelevant. "Peak" i denne sammenhengen betyr bare at man ikke kan øke utvinningstakten merkbart, ikke at det er tomt. Bare de påviste og utvinnbare ressursene med dagens teknologi er nok til 147 år med dagens forbruk. Etter hvert vil man sannsynligvis utvikle teknologi som gjør at man f.eks. kan ta ut de enorme kullressursene i Nordsjøen.

Øker forbruket slik at kullet varer kortere betyr det bare at CO2-nivået stiger omtrent tilsvarende mye mer på samme tid. Det er derfor definitivt ikke et argument mot at global oppvarming vil bli et alvorlig problem. Det vil heller ikke føre til at man slutter å bruke kull, bare at prisene blir høyere.

[Mann 42]

Før du sier "tøys" til noen bør du i det minste spandere på deg et enkelt google-søk. Alt du sier er feil eller irrelevant. "Peak" i denne sammenhengen betyr bare at man ikke kan øke utvinningstakten merkbart, ikke at det er tomt. Bare de påviste og utvinnbare ressursene med dagens teknologi er nok til 147 år med dagens forbruk. Etter hvert vil man sannsynligvis utvikle teknologi som gjør at man f.eks. kan ta ut de enorme kullressursene i Nordsjøen.

Øker forbruket slik at kullet varer kortere betyr det bare at CO2-nivået stiger omtrent tilsvarende mye mer på samme tid. Det er derfor definitivt ikke et argument mot at global oppvarming vil bli et alvorlig problem. Det vil heller ikke føre til at man slutter å bruke kull, bare at prisene blir høyere.

Jeg kunne ikke unngå å feste meg ved forbeholdet i innlegget ditt: "Med dagens forbruk." Dersom kull skulle overta for olje som energibærer, så er ikke dette særlig relevant lenger, for da snakker vi ikke lenger om "dagens forbruk" av kull, men om noe som er mange ganger høyere. Og man får det samme problemet som med olje.

Man trenger energikilder som kan overta både for olje og kull, enten det er en ikkefornybar kilde som er rikelig nok til at den i overskuelig fremtid er ubegrenset, og/eller en kilder som er fornybare.

Problemet er bare at det ikke investeres på langt nær nok i å utvikle slike energikilder, hva enten de er fornybare eller ikke.

Thorium kunne gitt oss kjernekraft i store mengder, men det finnes ingen fungerende reaktorteknologi, og det ville måtte investeres enorme summer for å utvikle en.

Solkraft er ikke på langt nær moden, og det finnes ikke en effektiv infrastruktur som kan samkjøre forbruk og produksjon i et globalt eller regionalt nettverk.

[AnonymBruker]

Jeg kunne ikke unngå å feste meg ved forbeholdet i innlegget ditt: "Med dagens forbruk." Dersom kull skulle overta for olje som energibærer, så er ikke dette særlig relevant lenger, for da snakker vi ikke lenger om "dagens forbruk" av kull, men om noe som er mange ganger høyere.

Jeg er usikker på hvor mange ganger jeg må understreke at poenget ikke er hvor lenge det vil vare, men at CO2-utslippene er alt annet enn over selv om vi går tom for olje. Alt kullet kan bli brukt opp på en dag uten at det gjør saken noe bedre.

[Gjest Gjest]

IPCC er korrupt..

The IPCC Is A Hopelessly Corrupt Brat – It Must Be Euthanized

The IPCC is the panel that produces all sorts of reports on “global warming” and “climate change” for the governments of the world. The IPCC is considered by radical greens as the fountain of all truth when it comes to all-things-climate. And, of course, the EPA relies on the IPCC for much of its information on climate change. Here we have liars relying on other liars to produce policies that are designed to destroy the free enterprise system.

Yet, as Lafamboise documents, the IPCC is a fraud from top to bottom. It is not a scientific body at all, but a gaggle of hard-left green activists who use their immense influence to push for a one-world government and the destruction of thriving capitalistic societies – primarily the United States.

The compliant media considers the information provided by the IPCC to governments around the world to be objective, science-based, and thoroughly researched by IPCC scientists.

None of this is true, as Lafamboise discovers in her two-year research project.

In her quest for the truth about the IPCC, she discovered some disturbing facts, including:

IPCC authors are frequently not reputable scientists at all, but graduate students.

Sources cited in IPCC documents are frequently from radical green groups, not objective scientists.

The IPCC routinely censors scientists who do not agree with the current global warming hysteria about greenhouse gases.

The IPCC is pursuing a leftist, globalist political agenda, not a scientific one.

The “peer review” process used in determining what articles get published by the IPCC is a charade. Only radical green viewpoints get favorable treatment.

The IPCC seeks out articles with predetermined conclusions to fit the IPCC agenda.

Is there any chance that the IPCC can be reformed? Not according to Lafamboise. She observes:

For years we’ve been told the IPCC is a reputable and professional organization – a grownup in a pinstripe suit. In reality, it’s a rule-breaking, not-to-be-trusted, delinquent teenager.

Surely climate activists and climate skeptics can agree on this one thing: the future of the planet is too important to be left in hands such as these. Governments should suspend funding immediately. The IPCC must be disbanded.

She’s right. The IPCC is so hopelessly compromised, it can’t simply be reformed. It must be shut down – for the safety of sovereign nations and the future of free markets everywhere. Its reports are worthless, its “scientists” are radical greens, and its conclusions are destructive of self-government and capitalism. The merciful thing to do is to euthanize it.

[AnonymBruker]

IPCC er korrupt..

Og bare for å understreke hvor alvorlig dette er siterer jeg første kommentar til den avslørende artikkelen på denne særdeles seriøse og viktige bloggen:

What is even worse, global warming is just another marxist lie! Even the Scriptures written in Genesis 8:22 that it is a lie! In fact, the ocean recently was recorded to be 1% cooler than last year. p.s. I bet that the 97 1/2% of the people that believe this marxist(anti-christ, as Islam) lie are women! The same people that elected this promised "fundamental transformation of our government" into marxism! What chance did Adam really have after Eve(Hawah) and Cain made their earthly first-born blood covenant? ABSOLUTELY NONE!

[Gjest Gjest]

Climate change: are you willing to take the risk?

Debate about the character of knowledge and uncertainty will continue to be a formative discussion of the 21st century.

What exactly is knowledge?

In today’s complex world, is it possible to know everything about even a relatively small problem? And if complete knowledge eludes us, is partial knowledge still better than ignorance? And what if knowledge is not only partial but also accompanied by uncertainty, as is often the case in science? Does uncertain partial knowledge trump ignorance?

How do we navigate an uncertain world in which most knowledge is partial?

Fortunately, it turns out that we can act on our knowledge with considerable confidence even if it is partial and even if it is accompanied by uncertainty.

The value of partial knowledge is readily illustrated with an example: Suppose your doctor presented you with the choice between laser surgery and likely blindness, would you have surgery to re-attach your retina? I bet you would.

You would opt for the laser surgery because you know that it can prevent blindness, even though most of us personally don’t understand the details of how a laser does its magic. But it’s not just you and me who don’t understand how lasers work; physicists don’t understand all aspects of the quantum mechanics that underlie laser technology. Their knowledge of lasers is partial.

And we nonetheless all use lasers every day, from laser pointers to laser printers to laser surgery.

Lest you think that this is an isolated example, consider the most basic of scientific facts: gravity. You may be surprised to hear that our scientific understanding of gravity is only partial. Contemporary theories of gravity predict the existence of gravity waves, analogous to the electromagnetic waves that drive your TV; however, my colleagues in physics tell me that those gravity waves have yet to be observed directly. Scientific knowledge of gravity is only partial.

And we nonetheless don’t jump out of airplanes or off bridges without a parachute and we nonetheless know that apples will fall to the ground when dislodged from a tree.

The message is clear: All scientific knowledge is partial, but that doesn’t mean we are ignorant.

Far from it; our partial scientific knowledge is vastly preferable to ignorance because even with partial knowledge of retroviruses we can control AIDS, and with partial knowledge of nanotechnology we can develop cheaper solar cells to deliver more clean energy at an affordable price. Partial knowledge of gravity is governing our daily lives, and partial knowledge of quantum mechanics is sufficient for surgeons to re-attach retinas to preserve a patient’s eyesight.

Much the same applies to the uncertainty that accompanies some - but not all - scientific knowledge.

To illustrate, consider the following two statements:

Apples fall down.

Driving your car into a brick wall at 80 km per hour is a bad idea.

Most of us would accept both statements as factual - and this despite the fact that the latter statement has some uncertainty attached to it. After all, when you hit a brick wall at 80 km per hour you might - just might! - get away with a few bruises and a concussion. Of course, it is far more likely that you would break a leg or worse.

No-one in their right mind would drive into a brick wall because the outcome is “uncertain”. And no-one in their right mind would deny that apples fall from trees, just because gravity waves have yet to be observed directly.

It is helpful to bear this in mind when considering important scientific issues that confront society, such as the public health effects of tobacco smoke and the - potentially even greater - impact on public health posed by climate change. Those issues, and many others, are characterised by some degree of uncertainty: After all, no scientist can predict exactly whether or not you will develop lung cancer if you continue to smoke eight packs a day for the next 30 years. The particular outcome is uncertain - but it is nonetheless certain that smoking causes lung cancer, and it is certain that it is a good idea to quit now in order to avoid adverse health consequences later. Likewise, no climate scientist can predict the exact temperature rise during the next decade to two decimal places - but there is virtual certainty that temperatures will continue to rise, and it is certain that it is a good idea to cut greenhouse gas emissions now in order to avoid adverse planetary consequences later.

It is therefore intriguing, and only at first glance surprising, that the history of tobacco reads so much like the history of climate change: In both instances, partial scientific knowledge accompanied by uncertainties was available for decades before meaningful action was taken - in the case of tobacco - or will be taken - in the case of climate change. In both cases, real debate about the fundamentals ceased in the scientific community long before those fundamentals became firmly embedded in the public’s knowledge.

Why the delay? Why did so many more people have to die needlessly from lung cancer for so long after the medical community had clearly identified the risk?

The answer is illustrated with devastating clarity in a recent book by Professor Oreskes, a historian of science at the University of California, who revealed in painstaking detail how a handful of ideologues, aided by shadowy but well-funded “think tanks” were able to manufacture doubt in the public’s mind about the link between smoking and lung cancer. Oreskes and co-author Professor Conway show how those few people, by creating pseudo-scientific “institutes” with pseudo-scientific “conferences”, created the appearance of a scientific debate when there was none. And human nature being what it is, the appearance of debate, and the presence of scientific uncertainty, was sufficient to delay life-saving interventions and public-health campaigns against smoking.

Precisely the same pseudo-scientific “institutes,” using the same pseudo-scientific jargon and the same pseudo-scientific “conferences” are now seeking to create the appearance of a “debate” about the fundamentals of climate science. Indeed, the very same people - yes, the same individuals - who were involved in manufacturing doubt about the link between smoking and cancer are now also involved in manufacturing doubt about climate science.

Anyone who wonders why smoking and climate science should attract the attention of the same clique of manufacturers of doubt can attend one of Professor Oreskes’ lectures later this month: She will be touring Australia in November, with lecture stops at universities in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, and Perth.

Putting aside the manufacturing of doubt by ideologues, how do we best deal with the uncertainty inherent in climate science? In particular, what are we to make of the IPCC’s latest assessment report, published in 2007, which some have labelled “alarmist” despite the fact that it painstakingly circumscribed the scientific uncertainties?

Sadly, the IPCC report was not alarmist but was probably overly conservative.

My fellow cognitive scientist Professor Budescu, from the University of Illinois, recently showed that people’s perception of uncertainty deviates from that intended by the IPCC; in particular, most people underestimate the certainty and confidence that the IPCC assigned to “likely” and “very likely” events. Thus, events that are 90 per cent or more certain to occur - such as the increased frequency of extreme weather events - people perceive as being only 75 per cent probable, simply because the popular understanding of phrases such as “very likely” is more conservative than intended.

Thus, far from being alarmist, the carefully chosen phraseology of the IPCC fails to communicate the urgency of the situation.

The IPCC’s conservatism is not confined to people’s perceptions but extends to the physical climate as well. The planet’s climate is changing more rapidly than anticipated by the IPCC: According to a recent peer-reviewed analysis by Professors Freudenburgs and Muselli of the University of California, nearly 90 per cent of all reports about new scientific findings since the IPCC’s 2007 assessment reveal global climate disruption to be worse, and progressing more rapidly, than expected.

This, then, is the crux of the matter that is too often overlooked or ignored: Uncertainty cuts both ways. Uncertainty means things could be worse, or indeed far worse, than the generally conservative assessment of the state of the climate provided by the IPCC and other bodies, such as the recent document published by the UK’s Royal Society.

Uncertainty doesn’t mean we needn’t worry - because uncertainty also means that things could be worse than anticipated.

Anyone who argues that we need not act on climate change because of uncertainty is really inviting you come along for a ride into a brick wall at 80 km/h because it might hurt only a little.

Are you feeling lucky?

IPCC science: are you willing to take the risk?

If IPCC Climate scientists were Physicists: The IPCC has found that the total net anthropogenic forcing is 1.6 W.m-2 with an error range of 0.6 to 2.4 W.m-2. If the IPCC’s same errors for Radiative Forcing Components were applied to the universal gravitational constant, IPCC climate scientists would tell us that the UGC is 6.67 × 10-11 N·m2/kg2 with a range of 2.5-10 N·m2/kg2. They would then assure us there is 90% certainty that acceleration due to gravity on Earth at sea level is in the range 3.7 to 14.7 m.s-2. IPCC climate scientists would tell us apples may be as light as a feather or as heavy as a brick. They would tell us apples fall down, but they’d be unable to tell us how fast, and occasionally they may actually fall upwards. As a result of their endeavours, Newtonian physics and Relativity would be tossed on its head. Quantum physics, built on the uncertainty principal, would have no place in a world where the science is settled. Speaking about gravity IPCC climate scientists would say things like: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of gravity at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." They would earnestly explain that there was no statistically significant gravity from 1995, and suggest that anyone disagreeing with their assessment must be a gravity denier.

If IPCC Climate Scientists were engineers: If IPCC climate scientists were engineers they wouldn’t use rulers to measure distance, they’d use the wind. IPCC climate models predict a hot-spot over the tropics but thermometers attached to weather balloons show no sign of it, the hotspot is missing. So with no warming in the thermometers IPCC climate modelers looked elsewhere and claimed to have found it in wind shear. Throw away your calculators, they would tell the engineers the answer is blowing in the wind. So how would IPCC climate scientists go at engineering? Early attempts at engineering by IPCC climate scientists are documented in the image to accompany this piece above; the effect of wind shear not accounted for in this case: Would you trust an IPCC climate scientist to build your building?

If IPCC Climate scientists were laser eye surgeons. In a report titled "Draft Water Sharing Plan Greater Metropolitan Region unregulated river water sources.", the NSW Office of Water has forecast rainfall and runoff across NSW using 15 global climate models for the IPCC SRES A1B climate scenario; finding:

For the Greater Metropolitan Region the worst case forecast is a 5-10 per cent reduction in mean annual rainfall by 2030, while the best case is a 5-10 per cent increase in mean annual rainfall. 7 of 15 models predict that mean annual rainfall would decrease by between 2 and 10 per cent, while 8 of 15 models predict that rainfall would increase by between 2 and 10 per cent by 2030.

Half of these models are wrong! What other science happily promotes incorrect models and expects politicians to make decisions based on spurious outputs? And Lewandowsky suggests that IPCC climate science has the same precision as laser surgery!

Applying the same laser like precision of the climate models to eye surgery in 7 out of 15 cases IPCC climate scientists as laser surgeons would blind the left eye, while in 8 out of 15 cases they would blind the right.

If IPCC climate scientists were historians. The palaeo-temperature study that gave the world the Hockey Stick Graph has now been debunked so many times that even the Australian Academy of Sciences concedes the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. Based on the mess they made of the last 1000 years of climate, if IPCC climate scientists were historians they’d find no evidence for the French and Russian Revolutions. Copernicus, Galileo and Einstein would be cast into the dustbin denounced as deniers of prevailing authority. They would ignore Napoleon’s defeat in Russia because the weather could never have been so cold in the 19th century. There’d be no Renaissance, the authorities would not allow it. Aristotelian philosophy would rule supreme over the scientific method. If IPCC climate scientists were historians, history would only record those events officially sanctioned by governments, queen and kings. Only those facts that supported the prevailing view would be recorded for posterity; inconvenient truths have no place in the official accounts. Thankfully IPCC climate scientists are hopeless at history.

If IPCC Climate scientists were climate scientists: With current warming trends at about 0.1 degrees C per decade, well short of the warming required to lend credence to IPCC climate models that forecast rates of 0.3 to 0.7 degrees C per decade it seems climate scientists are not even capable of doing their own job let alone anyone else’s.

And if IPCC climate scientists were fruit pickers: they would obviously pick the cherry. They appear so used to cherry picking data to fit the models there simply is no other fruit, except perhaps the Durian, which is a nice metaphor for the current state of the IPCC.

IPCC science: are you willing to take the risk?

[Gjest Gjest]

Og bare for å understreke hvor alvorlig dette er siterer jeg første kommentar til den avslørende artikkelen på denne særdeles seriøse og viktige bloggen:

Det var heller et dårlig forsøk på brønnpissing.. det er ikke en blogg, det er en bok -> Amazon.

[Gjest Gjest]

Før du sier "tøys" til noen bør du i det minste spandere på deg et enkelt google-søk. Alt du sier er feil eller irrelevant. "Peak" i denne sammenhengen betyr bare at man ikke kan øke utvinningstakten merkbart, ikke at det er tomt. Bare de påviste og utvinnbare ressursene med dagens teknologi er nok til 147 år med dagens forbruk. Etter hvert vil man sannsynligvis utvikle teknologi som gjør at man f.eks. kan ta ut de enorme kullressursene i Nordsjøen.

Øker forbruket slik at kullet varer kortere betyr det bare at CO2-nivået stiger omtrent tilsvarende mye mer på samme tid. Det er derfor definitivt ikke et argument mot at global oppvarming vil bli et alvorlig problem. Det vil heller ikke føre til at man slutter å bruke kull, bare at prisene blir høyere.

Hvor skrev jeg "tomt"? Vi vil ALDRI gå tom for hverken olje, kull eller naturgass, for vi vil være nødt til å stanse utvinning når det ikke lenger er øknomisk fornuftig (dvs. når du bruker 1 fat olje på å få ut 1 fat - sannsynligvis før dette også).

Peak vil si at man er på toppunktet for produksjon, og går løs på et ubarmhjertig, endeløst fall i produksjon. Med 5% fall i oljeproduksjon går verdens produksjon fra 85 millioner fat/dag til 50 på 10 år. Dersom fallet er høyere, si 7%, går vi til 40 millioner fat. Det finnes ingen store, uoppdagede felt i verden som kan klare å kompensere for dette fallet. Norge er for eksempel nettoimportør om 10-15 år med mindre vi finner større ressurser eller senker produksjonsnivået.

Og dagens forbruk er meningsløst, ettersom verden har en vekst på 1-2-3% hvert eneste år. Mennesker som ikke forstår eksponensialfunksjoner klarer selvsagt ikke å se at det bærer feil vei. Dette er gjerne menneskene som har en altfor stor tro på "teknologisk innovasjon" og "forskning vil redde verden". Selv med de enorme ressursene olje, kull og naturgass har gitt oss de siste 150 årene har problemene bare økt i omfang.

[Gjest Koala]

Det sammendraget er for min del uriktig, IPCC underdriver også klimaeffekten av biologiske aerosol partikler -> lenke.

Synes du virkelig vitenskapen skal ta hensyn til hva denne bloggeren syns ?