Global oppvarming

[hulaboer]

Ser at du tok agnet jeg inn til slutt og mesker deg med de, men de vanskeligere tingene utelater du konsekvent og kaller det for løgner eller irrelevant og går ikke det så er det fordi jeg er dum

Agnet? Det eneste jeg ser er en som hater vitenskapen, og som ikke har egne ord, så han bare spammer med lange og løgnaktige innlegg fra andre fora.

1. Vi går kaldere tider i møte.

Nei, det gjør vi ikke. Det blir fortsatt varmere.

2. Solen forårsaker klimaendringer.

Solen forårsaker ikke klimaendringene vi ser nå, nei. I snart 40 år har solaktiviteten hatt en svakt negativ trend samtidig som temperaturen har økt. Solen og klimaet har altså gått i motsatt retning av hverandre.

3. Al Gore tok feil om CO2.

Al Gore er irrelevant. Men jeg vet jo at du og andre klimanektere ikke vet hva forskning er. Dere tror at politiske uttalelser er forskning.

4. Det finnes ingen vitenskaplige bevis for økende stormaktivitet.

Skal denne stråmannen være relevant, mener du? Les og lær.

5. Det har vært varmere før. Varmt nok til å gro tomater på Nordpolen.

Et tåpelig stråmannargument som bare beviser at klimanektere er fjols som ikke vet hva de snakker om. Les og lær.

6. Klimahysteriet baserer seg på modeller som ikke virker.

Helt feil. Nok et bevis på at du ikke vet hva du snakker om. Les og lær.

Ryddet for personangrep og spekulasjoner.

Phaedra,mod

[Gjest Gjest]

Temaet er politikkens innvirkning på "vitenskapen". Spyingen din kommer vel fra her?

Altså en side med ikke mindre enn 153 fiks ferdig skrevne argumenter eller "oneliners" som en kan benytte mot klimaskeptikere. En ren propagandaside altså. Så fulgte jeg denne propagandasiden litt "bakover" og kom da til denne siden -> http://gci.uq.edu.au/Research.aspx

Denne nettsiden igjen tilhører noen som kaller seg "Global Change Institute". Ikke Climate Change, men Global Change. For på denne siden er klima skjøvet litt mer i bakgrunnen bare som en av tre pillarer for deres politiske visjoner.

Som jeg tidligere sa så.. From the Skeptical Science "leak": Interesting stuff about generating and marketing "The Consensus Project" , en propagandaside som er sponset med flusst av dollars og dermed er alt annet enn objektiv.

Som IPCC fordreier, utelater de så mye at det er skremmende, fra et annet forum:

Vi står for tiden overfor et bekymringsfullt vitenskapelig paradoks: Det brukes stadig større summer på alle slags former for «klimaforskning» mens det blir stadig vanskeligere å identifisere faktisk status for jordens klimatilstand. Noe av årsaken bør finnes her:

1. IPCCs varslede «globale oppvarming» siden etableringen i 1988 har hatt sin storhetstid parallellt med en varmere global trend fra 1976. Denne trenden synes imidlertid nå å være i ferd med å snu til en like forventet naturlig kjøligere syklus. Hos bl.a. solforskere, havforskere og andre syklusanalytikere er dette høyst forventet.

2. De som i stor grad kontrollerer måledataene som kan vise dette trendskiftet tydeligst (IPCC-miljøet med underliggende dataleverandører; NOAA, GISS, CRU, osv.) fører imidlertid en stadig mer åpenbar kamp for å tåkelegge data som kan bidra til å sterkt undergrave deres grunnleggende påstander om en vedvarende global oppvarming basert på AGW/CO2-hypotesen.

3. Likevel, etter flere år med udiskutabel temperaturutflating og etter hvert avkjøling og breer som ikke smelter likevel, ser vi nå de underligste faglige krumspring for å forklare hvorfor verden ikke utvikler seg slik modellene har foreskrevet:

a. «Global oppvarming» er forlengst endret til det uspesifiserte «klimaendringer»

b. Alarmismen er deretter taktisk utvidet til at disse «klimaendringene» truer det meste, dvs. at de ikke bare innebærer «varmere», men også «våtere» og «villere» forhold, inkludert at det biologiske artsmangfoldet er under en voldsom trussel av disse «endringene»

c. At man likevel nærmer seg en faglig endestasjon indikeres av at det kjøres stadig flere og hyppigere – og dessverre ufrivillig komiske - bortforklaringer av den nye kalde trenden med at dette ikke er «klima» på samme måte som «global oppvarming» og skyldes derfor egentlig oppvarming det også, og som siden den for tiden ikke viser seg så tydelig kan den f.eks. være midlertidig skjult/magasinert i havene, osv., som så gir uventede regionale/lokale utslag.

d. Og som alltid når modellene til IPCC-miljøet slår feil: dette er aldri en feil med betydning for AGW/CO2-hypotesens gyldighet, men alltid bare en enkel justeringsfaktor som uten betydning for den vitenskapelige konsensus kan korrigeres for i nye oppdaterte modeller, osv.

e. Fra en skråsikker konsensus-retorikk fra IPCC ser vi altså en ryggende, pinlig uvitenskapelig og politisk fundert maktprosess for å redde stumpene av en hypotese som har vist seg å være alarmistisk overdrevet og uten vitenskapelig grunnlag

Som grunnlag for denne vedvarende øyenlukking overfor keiserens nakne kropp har IPCC m/sine støttemiljøer hele tiden hatt som vitenskapelig credo at «the science is settled» og at det knapt finnes fagfellevurdert vurdert forskning som er i stand til å imøtegå ACW/CO2-hypotesen på et faglig grunnlag

Javel?

I denne artikkelen vil jeg bare kort summere en rekke fagartikler fra en rekke fagområder der det har foreligget fagfellevurdert (men av IPPC oversett og undertrykt) forskning som har vist at man har vært på ville vitenskapelige veier på en rekke områder (bl.a. oppumpede sensitivitetsfaktorer for utvalgte klimagasser og nedgradering av alternative klimadrivende faktorer som sol, osv.) for å kunne klare å trykke oppvarmingsalarmismen inn i en samlet vitenskapelig pakke. Til støtte for arbeidet har jeg hatt stor glede av det omfattende oversiktsarbeidet som Madhav Khandekar gjorde i 2007 med tittelen Questioning the Global Warming Science: An Annotated bibliography of recent peer-reviewed papers (2007)

Hvorfor har heller ikke jeg gått lenger opp i tid enn til 2007 i min oppsummering her? Etter 2007 finnes jo en økende strøm av IPCC-kritisk forskning?! Jo, nettopp for å vise at IPCC aldri har hatt rett i at det tidligere ikke har foreligget forskning som kunne rokke ved deres konsensus-påstand.

La oss derfor ta en runde i dette, og vise hvor IPCC til de grader - og lenge etter at de burde visst bedre - fremdeles fortsetter å feilinformere verden med sine påstander om manglende faglige innsigelser til deres egne påstander.

Khandekars arbeid tar utgangspunkt i sju hovedområder som er blitt brukt som argument for påstandene om «global oppvarming» (GW), i praksis hele tiden hevdet av IPCC som menneskeskapt global oppvarming (AGW). Problemet for IPCC å forsvare nå i ettertid - når det blir stadig klarere at IPCC burde utvist bedre vitenskapelig skjønn og at deres alarmtrender igjen og igjen viser seg å ikke holde vann – er at det hele tiden har foreligget viktig forskning som har imøtegått IPCCs påstander på disse sentrale områdene:

1. Temperaturrekonstruksjoner ved bruk av proxydata (hockeykølla)

2. Betydningen av solvariabilitet for jordens klima

3. Havnivåstigning, oppvarming/kjøling av havoverflaten, osv.

4. Arktiske og Antarktiske temperaturer: Fra holocene til idag

5. Betydningen av storskala sirkulasjonsmønstre

6. Ytre (i betydningen “extraneous”) påvirkningsfaktorer på middeltemperaturtrender (typisk: urbanisering, jordoverflateendringer)

7. Usikkerheter i klimamodellsimuleringer

8. Diverse andre AGW/CO2-kritiske studier

1. Temperaturrekonstruksjoner ved bruk av proxydata (hockeykølla)

a. “Corrections to Mann et al (1998) proxy data base and northern hemisphere average temperature series” S McIntyre & R McKitrick Energy & Environment Vol. 14 (2003) p. 751-777

b. “Reconstructing past climate from noisy data” H von Storch et al Science Vol. 306 (2004) p. 679-682

c. “Hockey sticks, principal components and spurious significance” S McIntyre & R McKitrick Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32 (2005) L03710

d. “Highly variable northern hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data” A Moberg et al Nature Vol. 433 (2005) p. 613-617

e. Wegman Edward, Scott D W and Said Yasmin H 2006: Ad Hoc Committee Report to Chairman of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce and to the Chairman of the House subcommittee

on Oversight & Investigations on the Hockey-stick global climate reconstructions. US House of Representatives, Washington USA. Available for download from ITTP://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006 Wegman Report.pdf

f. “Reconstruction of temperature in the central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a delta18O stalagmite record” A Mangini, C Spotl & P Verdes Earth & Planetary Science Letters, 235(2005)p. 741-751

Khandekar kommenterte disse arbeidene slik i 2007:

The above studies demonstrate conclusively that the highly publicized Hockey-stick graph was based on several erroneous calculations and assumptions. The graph is now abandoned in favor of a more recent reconstruction of the earth’s temperature by Moberg et al (2005) as shown below [Figure 1(b)]. An investigation on the Hockey-stick graph was conducted by the US House Committee on Energy & Commerce which appointed a panel of three well-known mathematicians to look into the mathematical aspects of the Hockey-stick graph. Their findings are available in the Wegman Report which has severely criticized the methodology used by Mann et al. in their reconstruction of earth’s mean temperature for the past six centuries.

A US National Research Council Panel, chaired by Prof. G North (Texas A & M University USA) confirmed in a public meeting in Washington (EOS Vol. 87, No. 27, 4 July 2006) that “the late twentieth century was the warmest in at least the last 400 years and likely in the last millennium”. The NRC Panel further added that the evidence from further past is murky and therefore not conclusive. In summary the well publicized Hockey-stick representation of the earth’s mean temperature is now discarded. The question of whether the MWP was indeed warmer than the present remains open, however the paper listed under (f) presents isotopic analysis of stalagmites from Spannagel Cave in the Central Alps and concludes that during the MWP from about 800 and 1300 AD, temperature maxima was about 1.7C higher than during the LIA and this temperature maxima is similar to the present value.

It is now generally accepted that the MWP was at least as warm as the present mean temperature of the earth. What is of interest here is that the earth’s mean temperature changed significantly from the MWP to LIA and back to the warm period in the first half of the twentieth century during which the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has remained essentially unchanged. The earth’s temperature history of the last 600 years appears to be driven more by natural variability than by anthropogenic GHG variations. The next section provides more evidence of natural variability of the earth’sclimate through changes in solar irradiance. Moberg et.al. (2005)

2. Betydningen av solvariabilitet for jordens klima

a. “Solar variability and the earth’s climate: introduction and overview” George Reid Space Science Reviews 94 (2000) p.1-11

b. “Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays” N D Marsh & H Svensmark Physical Review Letters 85 (2000) p. 5004-5007

c. “Global temperature forced by solar irradiation and greenhouse gases?” Wibjorn Karlen Ambio, Vol. 30 (2001)p. 349-350

d. “The sun’s role in climate variations” D Rind Science Vol. 296 (2002) p. 673-677

e. “Solar influence on the spatial structure of the NAO during the winter 1900-1999” Kunihiko Kodera Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30 (2003) 1175 doi:10.1029/2002GL016584

f. “Can slow variations in solar luminosity provide missing link between the sun and the climate?” Peter Fokul EOS, Vol. 84, No. 22 (2003)p.205&208

g. “Celestial driver of phanerozoic climate?” N Shaviv & J Veizer Geological Society of America 13 (2003) p.4-10

h. “Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record for the past 130 years” Willie W-H Soon Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 32 (2005) L16712

i. “solar forcing of the polar atmosphere” P A Mayewski et al Annals of Glaciology Vol. 41 (2005) p. 147-154

j. “The influence of the 11-yr solar cycle on the interannualcentennial climate variability” Hengyi Weng J of Atmosphere and solar-terrestrial physics Vol. 67 (2005) p. 793-805

k. “Living with a variable sun” Judith Lean Physics Today (2005) Vol 58, No. 6 p. 32-37 American Inst. Of Physics USA

l. “Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming” N Scafetta & B J West Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 33 (2006) L05708

m. “Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed northern hemisphere temperature record” N Scafetta & B J West Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 33 (2006) L17718

n. “Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds” R G Harrison & D B Stephenson Proceedings of the Royal Society A (UK): 10.1098/rspa.2005.1628 (2006)

Khandekar 2007:

The above list includes papers which cover several areas of solar/climate link. The papers by Reid (a) and by Rind (d) provide a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the LIA as well as through geological times and the complexity in establishing the solar/climate link. The study (j) by Weng re-confirms the solar variability impact on earth’s climate by analyzing monthly sunspot numbers in conjunction with global and regional SSTs using a wavelet transform analysis technique. This powerful mathematical technique of wavelet transform is once again used by Willie Soon in study (h) to demonstrate a strong link between Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) and Arctic-wide surface temperature over a long period from 1875-2000.

In study (e) the NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation), an important large-scale atmospheric oscillation, is shown to be strongly modulated by high & low solar activity as identified through sunspot cycles. Study (i) analyzes high-resolution calibrated proxies for atmospheric circulation from several Antarctic ice cores which reveal decadal-scale association with solar variability over the last 600 years. The study further demonstrates that changes in solar irradiance can significantly impact the earth’s polar atmosphere, thus reinforcing the findings of other studies on solar variability and its linkage to the Arctic and Antarctic climate.

Two other recent studies [(l) & (m)] construct a phenomenological model to include solar forcing and demonstrate its linkage to the earth’s temperature change over last 400 years. In © Prof. W Karlen (a well-known paleo-climate expert) argues that the present interglacial has been cooler by about 2C than the previous ones during the last 400,000 thousand years when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 100 ppmv less than at present. If the earth’s climate is sensitive to CO2 concentration only, then the present interglacial should be warmer than what it is and thus it can be concluded that the earth’s climate during previous interglacials has responded more to solar variability than to CO2 changes. Extending this argument, Prof. Karlen concludes in study © that the present warming is more due to solar variability than due to CO2 concentrations. The studies by Peter Fokul (f) and Judith Lean (k) present additional evidence of recent changes in solar irradiance and make a case for solar impact on the earth’s climate via more complex mechanism through changes in ultraviolet radiation, plasmas and fields. In study (g), authors Shaviv & Veizer document using a “sea-shell thermometer” how the earth’s temperature over last 500 million years is decoupled with atmospheric CO2 levels while showing strong correlation with variations in the cosmic ray flux. Two more recent studies (b & n) document how galactic cosmic rays can influence the earth’s low cloud cover and how this in turn would impact the mean temperature.

Many more studies on solar/climate link have appeared in recent peer reviewed literature. When all these studies are carefully scrutinized, a new and irrefutable solar/climate link emerges. The physical mechanism for this link still remains complex and not well understood, however there is now mounting evidence that the present climate change may be driven more by solar variability than by anthropogenic GHG. An experiment at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) to study the impact of high-energy particles on a prototype reaction chamber to recreate the earth’s atmosphere is planned for 2008. This experiment may shed more light on the linkage between cosmic ray flux and changes in the earth’s cloud cover.

3. Havnivåstigning, oppvarming/kjøling av havoverflaten, osv.

a. “New perspectives for the future of the Maldives” N-A Morner M Tooley & G Possnert Global and Planetary Change 40 (2004) p. 177-182

b. “Estimates of the regional distribution of sea-level rise over the 1950-2000 period” J A Church et al J of Climate 17 (2004) p. 2609-2625

c. “Low sea-level rise projections from mountain glaciers and icecaps under global warming” Sarah Raper & Roger Braithwaite Nature V. 439 (2006) p. 311-313

d. “Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea-level records” S Jevrejeva et al J of Geophysical Research V.111(2006) C09012

e. “On the decadal rates of sea level changes during the twentieth century” S J Holgate Geophysical Research Letters 34 (2007) doi:10.1029/2006GL028492

Khandekar 2007 om disse arbeidene:

These and many other papers bring out a number of uncertainties re: SLR in the past and future. Prof. Morner and coworkers demonstrate [study(a)] that in the region of Maldives a general fall in SLR occurred some 30 years ago possibly due to increased evaporation in the central Indian Ocean and

intensification of the NE Monsoon. Further, there does not appear to be any evidence of increasing SLR in the near future. Authors Church and coworkers [study (b)] analyze patterns of regional SLR over the period 1950-2000 and conclude that it is not possible to detect a significant SLR over this period anywhere. These authors obtain global-averaged SLR rise of 1.8 mm +/- 0.3 mm per year over the 1950-2000 period. In study © Raper & Braithwaite obtain future projection of SLR from mountain glacier and icecaps (outside of Greenland & Antarctic Ice Sheets) as only about 5.1 cm by 2100, half of previous projections.

The recent study (d) obtains global SLR trend of 2.4 mm per year for the period 1993-2000 and further document that over last 100 years the rate of 2.5 mm per year occurred from 1920-1945 and this trend is likely to be as large as the recent trend. This study further documents a nonlinear trend in various ocean regions and a 2 to 14 year variability in sea-level records which appears to be increasing in recent years. The latest study (e) [published January 2007] makes a careful analysis of nine long and continuous records of sea-level changes from 1904 through 2003 and obtains sea-level change of ~2.03 +/-.35 mm/yr from 1904-1953 while for the latter period 1954-2003, sea-level change is found to be lower ~1.45 +/-.34 mm/yr. The study further documents high decadal variability in sea-level changes with the highest decadal rate (~5.3 mm/yr) for the 1980s and the lowest rate (~1.74 mm/yr) for the ten-year period around 1964.

The warming and cooling of ocean surface as revealed by world-wide SST distribution has become an important topic of research in recent years. The warming of the world oceans by about 0.50C from the surface to a depth of ~750 m is now identified as the potential heat storage in the earth’s atmosphere-ocean system which could lead to future warming of the earth’stemperature. Several recent studies have documented warming as well as cooling of the upper ocean.

Khandekar trekker fram flere arbeider:

a. “The sustained North American warming of 1997 and 1998” A Kumar et al J of Climate 14 (2001)p.345-353

b. “Recent cooling of the upper ocean” J Lyman J Willis & G Johnson Geophysical Research Letters 33 (2006) L18604

c. “Anomaly of heat content in the northern Atlantic in the last 7 years: Is the ocean warming or cooling?” V Ivchenko N Wells & D Aleynik Geophysical Research Letters 33 (2006) L22606

d. “How much is the ocean really warming?” V Gouretski & K P Koltermann Geophysical Research Letters 34 (2007) L01610

These studies demonstrate the short-term variability of ocean surface warming & cooling and its significant impact on the earth’s temperature structure. The paper by Kumar et al (a) shows how the sustained North American land warming was primarily due to the intense El Nino event of 1997/98 which produced and maintained high SST values over the Pacific basin as well as over other ocean basins through the middle of 1998. The North American warming contributed significantly to make 1998 the warmest year of the twentieth century according to the IPCC.

In studies (b) and © recent cooling of the upper oceans and in particular of the southern North Atlantic is documented. A net loss of 3.2x1022 J of heat from the upper ocean between 2003 and 2005 is documented in study (b) and this loss is found to be comparable to the previous rapid cooling of 6x1022 J in the 0-750m layer from 1980 to 1983. In study (d) data from the Argo profiling buoys are analyzed for the North Atlantic and it is found that the southern North Atlantic has cooled in the last seven years. The latest study (d) [published January 2007] takes a closer look at the global hydrographic data as provided by bathythermographs (XBT) and finds a warming bias when the XBT data are compared against bottle and CTD (current, temperature, density) data. This warming bias is estimated to be between 0.2 to 0.40C on average giving an ocean warming artifact by a factor of 0.62. When taken together, the various studies discussed above suggest considerable variability: ocean surface warming & cooling in recent years. Additionally recent cooling of ocean surface, which is not simulated by climate models, warrants further analysis on ocean heat storage and its long-term variability.

The IPCC 2007 Documents now estimate the total SLR over next one hundred years to be about 29cm +/- 15cm, this estimate being considerably smaller than some of the earlier estimates. The decadal variability of SLR as evidenced in the latest study suggests that future increase in sea level may be subject to considerable uncertainty.

4. Arktiske og Antarktiske temperaturer: Fra Holocene til idag

a. “First survey of Antarctic sub-ice shelf sediment reveals mid-Holocene ice shelf retreat” C J Pudsey & J Evans Geology 29 (2001) p.787-790

b. “Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response” P Doran et al Nature online 13 January 2002 (DOI:10.1038/nature 710)

c. “Variability and trends of air temperature and pressure in the maritime Arctic, 1875-2000” I V Polyakov et al Journal of Climate 16 (2003) p. 2067-2077

d. “Holocene climate variability” P A Mayewski et al Quaternary Research 62 (2004) p. 243-255

e. Global warming & the Greenland ice sheets” P Chylek J E Box & G Lesins Climatic Change (2004) 63 p. 201-221

f. “A multi-proxy lacustrine record of Holocene climate change on northeast Baffin Island, Arctic Canada” Quaternary Research (2006) 65 p. 431-442

g. “Greenland warming of 1920-1930 and 1990-2005” P Chylek M K Dubey & G Lesins Geophysical Research Letters 33 (2006) L11707

h. “Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century” B M Winter et al J of Geophysical Research 111 (2006) D11105

i. “Ice shelf history from petrographic and foraminiferal evidence, Northeast Antarctic Peninsula” C J Pudsey et al Quaternary Science Reviews 25 (2006) p. 2357-2379

Khandekar 2007:

The papers listed above and several others in recent literature now clearly document how the temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic regions have changed dramatically during the early to mid-Holocene as well as in the recent historical past. The paper by Mayeski et al (d) identifies Rapid Climate Change (RCC) throughout the Holocene involving cool polar regions and wet (or dry) tropical regions. Studies (a) and (i) document that the Larsen A & B Ice Shelves in the northeastern Antarctic Peninsula were probably altogether absent about two thousand years ago when the Antarctic temperatures in that region were likely as warm or perhaps warmer than the present-day temperatures.

The study (i) further concludes that the CO2 concentration was about 100 ppm lower than the present so the warming of the Antarctic during the mid-Holocene was due to reasons other than anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. In study (b) Doran et al document a cooling trend in the Antarctica using recent temperature data. Study © presents a long series of temperature and pressure data (1875-2000) over the Arctic basin and document strong multi-decadal variability on a time scale of 50-80 years. These multi-decadal oscillations are identified as LFO (Low Frequency Oscillations) which strongly influence the Arctic (as well as the Antarctic) basin climate. Study (f) analyzes multiproxy lacustrine records in northeast Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic to show a pronounced Holocene temperature maximum, about 5C warmer than the present. In studies (e) and (g), it is shown that a rapid warming over all of coastal Greenland occurred in the 1920s when the average annual temperature rose between 2 and 4C in less than ten years.

Further, it is shown that Greenland warmed at a faster rate during 1920-1930 than during the recent ten years 1995-2005. Finally study (h) extends Greenland temperature records back to the year 1784, using old records from the Danish Meteorological Institute. A careful analysis of the data shows that the 1930s and the 1940s were the warmest decades with 1941 as the warmest year. The study also documents that the 1810s were the coldest years in Greenland with the possible influence of volcanic eruptions including that of Mt Tambora in 1815. These and many other recent studies now demonstrate the existence of RCC over the Arctic and the Antarctic during the entire Holocene. As the lead author Mayewski of study (d) and also of study (h) in section 4 concludes:“Bipolar expansion of high latitude atmospheric circulation systems and subsequent redistribution of low latitude atmospheric circulation begs a

symmetrical forcing such as solar variability”. The present warming of the Arctic basin thus appears to be part of this natural variability and not a consequence of the GHG increase.

5. Betydningen av storskala sirkulasjonsmønstre

Her snakker vi selvsagt om storskala sirkulasjonsmønstre som:

• El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO),

• Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO),

• North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO),

• Arctic & Antarctic Oscillation (AO & AAO), og

• Pacific North American flow pattern (PNA).

a. “A study of NAO variability and its possible non-linear influences on European surface temperatures” D Pozo-Vazquez et al Climate Dynamics, Vol. 17 (2001) p. 701-715

b. “Impacts of low frequency variability modes on Canadian winter temperature” B Bonsal, A Shabbar & K Higuchi Int’l journal of Climatology, Vol. 21 (2001) p. 95-108

c. “Are stronger North-Atlantic southwesterlies the forcing to the late-winter warming in Europe?” J Ottermann et al Int’l J of Climatology, Vol. 22 (2002) p. 743-750

d. “Variability of extreme temperature events in south-central Europe during the twentieth century and its relationship with large-scale circulation” P Domonkos et al Int’l J of Climatology, Vol. 23 (2003) p. 987-1010

e. “January Northern Hemisphere circumpolar vortex variability and its relationship with hemispheric temperature and regional teleconnection” R Rohli, K Wrona & M McHugh Int’l J of Climatology, Vol. 25 (2005) p. 1421-1436

Khandekar:

The studies referenced above demonstrate the significant impact of largescale circulation patterns on regional and hemispheric temperature trends. Studies (a) and (d) show that a positive value of the NAO index can produce winter season warming in Europe, while study (b) shows how an El Nino event together with positive values of the PDO index can provide strong positive winter temperature anomalies over most of Canada. In study ©, it is suggested that stronger southwesterlies in the North Atlantic may be producing early spring-like conditions in parts of Europe. In study (e) the circumpolar vortex and its linkage to AO variability as well as to the PNA pattern is discussed. It is hypothesized that the GW signal in surface temperature would cause a size reduction in the Northern Hemisphere circumpolar vortex as the cold pool of air over the poles would shrink. The study analyzes January data over a period from 1951-2001 and shows no change in the circumpolar vortex, thus suggesting no GW signal in the circumpolar vortex variability. Several other studies now suggest a definite role of large-scale circulation patterns and their inter-annual or decadal variability on temperature trends over Europe and North America.

These circulation changes are not directly affected by observed GW at this point in time. Some of the recent studies (listed in earlier sections) suggest a definite impact of solar variability on large-scale circulation patterns like NAO. Thus it can be argued here that the large-scale circulation changes are driven primarily by natural climatevariability and there is no evidence of GHG-induced forcing on these circulation patterns at this point in time. Most climate models do not fully simulate the natural variability of these large-scale circulation patterns. Consequently, future projections of climate change based on present climate models have little reliability.

6. Ytre (i betydningen “extraneous”) påvirkningsfaktorer på middeltemperaturtrender (typisk: urbanisering, jordoverflateendringer)

a. “The influence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system: relevance to climate-change policy beyond the radiative effect of greenhouse gases” R A Pielke sr et al Phil. Trans. R soc. London UK (2002)360 p.1705-1719

b. “Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate” E. Kalnay & M Cai, Nature, Vol. 423, 29 May 2003, p. 528-531

c. “The urban heat island in winter at Barrow, Alaska” K Hinkel et al International J of Climatology, Vol. 23, 2003, p. 1889-1905

d. “Impacts of anthropogenic heat on regional climate patterns” A Block, K Keuler & E Schaller Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 31, L12211, 2004

e. “A test of correction for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data” R McKitrick & P Michaels, Climate Research, Vol. 26, 2004, p. 159-173

f. “Evidence for a significant urbanization effect on climate in China” L Zhou et al Proc. National Academy of Science(USA) V. 101 (2004) p.9540-9544

g. “Evidence for influence of anthropogenic surface processes on lower tropospheric and surface temperature trends” A T J De Laat & A N Maurellis, International J of Climatology, 26, 2006, p. 897-913

h. “Urban heat island effect analysis for San Juan, Puerto Rico” A Velazquez-Lozada, J E Gonzalez & A Winter, Atmospheric Environment, 40, 2006, p. 1731-1741

In the above, the paper (a) by Pielke sr et al is considered a landmark paper in the present GW debate, as this paper brings out an important aspect of land-use change and its dominating impact which could overwhelm the GHG forcing of the climate system in future. Study (b) uses the NCAR

(National Centre for Atmospheric Research, USA) re-analysis of upper-air data and an extrapolation to the surface to obtain the urbanization impact on mean temperature trend to be about 0.280C over 100 years and about 0.180C over the recent 30 years. Study © obtains the urban-rural temperature

difference of over 20C during the winter months at Barrow, Alaska, while study (d) shows how anthropogenic heat release from highly industrialized and populated areas can produce a permanent warming from 0.15 to 0.50C with additional heat flux between 2 to 20 Wm-2 over affected areas. In study (e), the impact of economic activity (e.g, per capita income, growth rate, coal use etc) on mean temperature trend (1979-2000) measured at over 200 locations in 93 countries was estimated using a linear regression analysis. The study documented a definite warm bias in the temperature trend as a result of non-climatic impact of local (and regional) economic activity. Study (f) uses an integrated modeling approach to delineate urban influence on the mean temperature and obtains urbanization impact over China to be more than the estimated 0.270C in the USA during the twentieth century.

In study (g), the influence of anthropogenic surface processes on mean temperature trends were estimated using GHG emission world-wide database as proxy for industrial activity. The mean temperature trends at highly industrial regions and locations were found to be higher than elsewhere, thus confirming the impact of non-GHG anthropogenic processes on surface temperature changes.

Finally the study (h) documents a strong urban heat island effect at San Juan, Capital city of Puerto Rico. The urban heat island effect is estimated to be increasing at a rate of about 0.060C per year over last forty years and it is estimated that the urban-rural temperature difference could increase to about 80C by the year 2050 at the present urbanization growth rate in and around San Juan. These and several other recent studies confirm that urbanization and land use change impact on the earth’s climate system is much larger than what the IPCC and its supporting scientists have assessed so far. The upcoming IPCC Document on Climate Change to be published in early 2007 recognizes urban influences but discounts its impact on mean temperature trend as small and insignificant. The papers listed above clearly demonstrate significant non-GHG impact which must be removed from the mean temperature trend so as to determine the mean temperature rise due to human-added CO2 only.

Removing the urban influence may reduce the mean temperature rise to just about 0.100C per decade over recent 25 to 30 years which is not of major concern. A careful assessment of the mean temperature trend in recent 25 to 30 years is needed to confirm if the recent increase in earth’s mean temperature is primarily due to human-added GHG or is a combination of a number of other parameters that are being debated in peer-reviewed literature at present.

7. Usikkerheter i klimamodellsimuleringer

Der er uendelig med kritiske artikler på dette nå, men i 2007 var det også solide grunner til å ha stor tvil om modellenes verdi på noe som helst vis:

a. “Potential role of solar variability as an agent for climate change” C Bertrand & J Van Ypersele Climatic Change V 43 (1999) p.387-411

b. “Simulated impacts of historical land-cover changes on global climate in northern winter” T N Chase et al Climate Dynamics V 16 (2000) p. 93-10

c. “Monsoon prediction-why yet another failure?” S Gadgil M Rajeevan & R Nanjundiah Current Science(India) V 88 (2005) P.1389-1400

d. “Detection and attribution of twentieth-century northern & southern African rainfall change” M Hoerling et al J of Climate V 19 (2006) p. 3989-4008

e. “ENSO evolution and teleconnections in IPCC’s twentiethcentury climate simulations: realistic representation?” R Joseph & S Nigam J of Climate V 19 (2006) p.4360-4377

f. “Precipitation characteristics in eighteen coupled climate models” Aiguo Dai J of Climate V 19 (2006) p.4605

g. “Is the thermohaline circulation changing?” M Latif et al J of Climate V 19 (2006) p.4631-4637

These and many other recent papers bring out several uncertainties in climate model simulations. In study (a) a two-dimensional model is used to assess the potential impact of solar variability on the earth’s surface temperature from 1700 to 1992. It is shown that although total solar irradiance reconstruction is insufficient to reproduce observed warming of the 20th century, the model response suggests that the Gleissberg cycle (~88yr) solar forcing should not be neglected in explaining the century-scale time variations. In study (b) the authors examined ten years of modeled equilibrium January climate differences between simulations which were forced at the surface by spatially realistic depiction of current land surface and an estimate of natural potential vegetation in equilibrium with currentclimate. The simulations suggest that anthropogenic land cover changes can produce teleconnection patterns affecting global temperature and precipitation distributions.

In study © the authors examine prediction of the Indian monsoon for 2004 made by empirical as well as by dynamical models and conclude that the skill in forecasting the Indian summer monsoon variability has not improved in the last fifty years or so when some of the empirical models were introduced. The skill of dynamical models was found to be even worse. In comparing observed monsoon rainfall totals with simulated values from 20 state-of-the-art GCM, the authors found that none of the dynamical models were able to “simulate correctly the interannual variation of the summer monsoon rainfall over the Indian region” The authors lament the fact that after so many years of climate model development, the models are still not able to simulate one of the largest and regionally the most important atmospheric phenomena, the tropical monsoon and further question the validity of many GCM for simulating the impact of anthropogenic GHG forcing on future projections of the earth’s climate.

In study (d) the impact of Atlantic and global SST patterns on African rainfall changes for the twentieth century is investigated using five coupled GCM as part of the IPCC fourth (2007) assessment project and it is found that the Sahel region drought from 1950-2000 period was not influenced by the GHG forcing, indicating that the Sahel drought conditions were likely of natural origin. The same study further concludes that natural variability will continue to be the primary driver of Sahel region’s low frequency rainfall variations during the next century.

In another similar model inter-comparison study (f), precipitation characteristics of eighteen coupled climate models were examined by analyzing monthly and 3-hourly precipitation output and it is found that most models produce too much convective and too little stratiform precipitation over most of the low latitude regions. The same study further concludes that considerable improvements in precipitation simulations are still desirable for the latest generation of the world’s coupled climate models.

Two other studies listed above relate to simulation of two important largescale features of the earth-atmosphere system, namely the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Thermohaline Circulation (THC) in the North Atlantic. In study (e), the authors examined ENSO simulations by a suite of coupled models as part of IPCC Fourth (AR4) assessment project and conclude that climate models are still unable to simulate many features of ENSO variability, its circulation and hydroclimatic teleconnections. Further the climate system models are not quite ready for making projections of regional-to-continental scale hydroclimatic variability and change.

The final study (g) in this section examines the THC in the North Atlantic which is responsible for large amounts of heat and freshwater transport by the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic current. Analyses of ocean observations and model simulations suggest that the changes in the THC during the twentieth century are likely to be the result of natural multidecadal climate variability and are driven by low-frequency variations of the NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation).

The study further concludes that there is no evidence of sustained weakening of the Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) as reported in several recent studies.

In summary the present suite of climate models cannot as yet provide reliable projection of the earth’s climate over the next fifty to one hundred years. In a recent paper “Will our ride into the greenhouse future be a smooth one?” GSA Today (2007), Prof. Wallace Broecker, recipient of the 2006 Craaford Prize (Sweden) succinctly summarizes the present state of the earth’s climate and climate models as follows:

“My lifetime study of Earth’s climate system has humbled me. I am convinced that we have greatly underestimated the complexity of this system. Global climate change predictions are mostly mental masturbation in the final analysis"

8. Diverse andre AGW/CO2-kritiske studier

Her listes en del studier som angår påstander rundt bl.a. det som allerede da ble populært å kalle «ekstremvær», økonomiske tap knyttet til dette, osv.

a. “Reconciling observations of global temperature change” Richard Lindzen & Constantine Giannitsis Geophysical Research Letters V 29 (2002) No 12 10.1029/2001GL014074

b. “Compilation and discussion of trends in severe storms in the United States: Popular perception vs climate reality” Robert Balling Jr & Randall Cerveny Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p.

103-112 c. “On destructive Canadian Prairie windstorms and severe winters: A climatological assessment in the context of global warming” Keith Hage Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 207-228

d. “Shifting economic impacts from weather extremes in the Unites States: a result of societal changes, not global warming” Stanley Changnon Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 273-290

e. “The global warming debate: A review of the present state of science” M L Khandekar T S Murty & P Chittibabu Pure & Applied Geophysics V 162 (2005) p. 1557-1586

f. “Extreme weather trends vs dangerous climate change: A need for a critical reassessment” M L Khandekar Energy & Environment V 16 (2005) p.327-331

g. “The interaction of climate change and the carbon dioxide cycle” A Rorsch R S Courtney & D Thoenes Energy & Environment V 16 (2005) p. 217-238

h. “Can we detect trends in extreme tropical cyclones?” Christopher Landsea et al Science V 313 (2006)p.452-454

i. “Trends in western North Pacific tropical cyclone intensity” MC Wu K-H Yeung & W-L Chang EOS Transactions AGU V 87 (2006) No 48 28 November 2006

j. “On global forces of nature driving the earth’s climate: Are humans involved?” L F Khilyuk & G V Chilinger Environmental Geology V 50 (2006) p. 899-910

Khandekar kommenterer disse arbeidene slik:

Three of the studies (b, c & f) listed above discuss the GW impacts in terms of extreme weather (EW) events and their trends in recent years. Recent media reports and popular scientific articles often discuss about increasing trends in EW events and its linkage to rising temperature of the earth’s

surface in response to increasing GHG in the atmosphere. The three studies listed above carefully analyze available data on EW events in the USA, Canada and elsewhere and discount any possible link between EW & GW.

Study (b) documents the mismatch between popular perception as created by media reports and climate reality which does not show EW as increasing in the USA. Study © makes a painstaking analysis of large amount of data extracted from Canadian Prairie farm news letters and other sources over a long period 1880-1984. Based on a detailed analysis of these data, the author (Emeritus Prof. Keith Hage, University of Alberta) documents a temporal frequency peak in severe windstorms and associated tornadoes during the Dust Bowl years of 1920s and 1930s. The windstorm frequency shows a steady decline since 1940 through 1980s. A steep rise in tornado frequency since 1970 is attributed to increasing awareness and reporting of tornado activity in recent years and NOT due to change in tornado climatology.

In study (f) the EW events over Canada and elsewhere are carefully analyzed and it is shown that EW events like heat waves, winter blizzards, rainstorms, droughts etc are not increasing anywhere in Canada, USA or elsewhere where sufficient data are available for adequate analysis; some of the EW events like winter blizzards are definitely on the decline on the Canadian Prairies in the last 40 years. In study (d) the author (Stanley Changnon, a respected US climatologist) documents that increasing economic impacts of EW events in the USA is a result of societal change and NOT global warming.

In study (a) the authors Lindzen & Giannitsis analyze the discrepancy between global mean temperature trends obtained by satellite microwave data and surface temperature measurements. The authors argue that the warming of the troposphere in recent 25 years is likely associated with tropospheric jump and atmospheric regime change occurring around 1976/77. The authors further argue that the troposphere/surface temperature discrepancy can be reconciled if the earth’s climate sensitivity (earth’s mean temperature rise due to doubling of carbon dioxide) is assumed small, just

about 1C or so.

The paper (e) is a review paper in which the authors (Khandekar et al) conclude that the recent warming of the earth’s surface is primarily due to urbanization, land-use change etc and not due to increasing GHG in the atmosphere. The authors further document the possible role of

solar variability on the mean temperature increase and discuss the SLR in and around the Maldive Islands as a regional change not associated with any global change in SLR.

In study (g) the authors develop a mathematical model for atmospheric carbon cycle and argue that the relatively large rise of carbon dioxide in the twentieth century was caused by the increase in the mean temperature that preceded it. The rise in the carbon dioxide was possibly due to disorption (release of CO2) from the oceans with an observed time lag of half a century or about. The authors further argue that a rigorous mathematical analysis cannot be made to prove that the recent rise in the atmospheric CO2 can be attributed solely to anthropogenic emission. Other processes such as microbiological activity cannot be discounted as possible source for the recent rise of CO2 .

The next two studies (h) & (i) deal with the issue of strengthening of tropical cyclones/hurricanes due to GW and in particular due to warming of the oceans. The lead author (Chris Landsea, a leading hurricane expert) in study (h) suggests that the Dvorak technique developed to estimate hurricane strength was not available in the early 1970s or before when some of the hurricanes & tropical cyclones [e.g. Bay of Bengal cyclone 1970; hurricane Camille (USA) 1969] may have been stronger than estimated then.

The recent paper from EOS [study (i)] suggests that the western North Pacific tropical cyclone climatology does not reveal increasing strength for typhoon records from 1965 till 2004. These two studies (h) & (i) demonstrate the uncertainty in establishing a definitive link between GW and hurricane strength.

The last study (j) is a comprehensive review of the global forces driving the earth’s climate over geological times going back to two billion years and argues that the present warming of the last 150 years is a short warming episode in the earth’s geologic history. The authors further argue that the earth’s temperature history of last 1000 years suggest that we are in a cooling geologic epoch and further the human activity (anthropogenic GHG emission) may be responsible for only 0.010C of approximately 0.560C warming of the twentieth century.

Konklusjoner

Vi har sett på 69 peer-reviewede papers valgt ut av en langt større gruppe arbeider som kom ut i forskjellige internasjonale vitenskapelige journaler de første 6 årene etter 2000. De fleste reiser stor tvil om forskningen rundt global oppvarming.

Khandekar kunne allerede summere dette slik i 2007:

1. The recent warming of the earth’s surface (~0.40C ) is significantly influenced by human activity on ground like urbanization, land-use change etc. The warming due solely to human-added CO2 appears to be a smaller part of the total recent warming.

2. Solar variability and changes in large-scale atmospheric flow patterns in recent years have also contributed to some of the recent warming of the earth’s surface.

3. The Arctic Basin temperature changes of the last 125 years appear to be intimately linked to the Total Soar Irradiance (TSI) while showing a weak correlation with atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

4. The earth’s climate experienced Rapid Climate Change during the entire Holocene period and in particular during the last 5000 years or so. Ice core and other proxy data document mid-Holocene warming of the Arctic as well as of the Antarctic. This Holocene warming appears to be strongly linked to solar variability and not to the greenhouse gas forcing.

5. There does not appear any discernible link between Global Warming and recent increase in extreme weather events world-wide. The apparent increase in extreme weather events is more a perception than reality, this perception being created due to increased media attention and publicity of extreme weather events.

6. North Atlantic hurricanes appear to have strengthened in recent years; however typhoons and tropical cyclones in other ocean basins do not show consistent increase in strength in recent years.

7. The SLR (Sea Level Rise) of the twentieth century is influenced significantly by inter-decadal variability. The most recent study (published January 2007) shows that the sea-level change in the last fifty years were smaller than those in the early part of the twentieth century. There is no evidence of accelerated sea-level change in recent years.

8. Present state-of-the-art coupled climate models still cannot simulate many important features of major climate events like ENSO and tropical and/or Asian Monsoon at this time. The climate models do not simulate many features of convective or large-scale precipitation characteristics.

9. The Thermohaline Circulation (THC) in the North Atlantic has exhibited considerable variability in the twentieth century; however this variability appears to be part of natural multi-decadal climate variability and does not appear to be linked to Global Warming.

Og til slutt, den endelige spiker i kista:

10. Future projections of earth’s climate using present climate models do not have sufficient reliability for climate policy decisions.

Yeah, baby

[hulaboer]

Temaet er politikkens innvirkning på "vitenskapen". Spyingen din kommer vel fra her?

Nei, temaet er:

"Vi er alle litt lei av det, men hva synes dere er årsaken til global oppvarming? Er det så ille som politikerne skal ha det til?"

Vitenskapen taler for seg selv. Det er svindlere som deg som prøver å erstatte vitenskapen med politisk ideologi. Dette påviste jeg i mitt forrige innlegg, der jeg peker på hvordan du innrømmer at du kun tenker politikk, og ignorerer vitenskapelige fakta.

Altså en side med ikke mindre enn 153 fiks ferdig skrevne argumenter eller "oneliners" som en kan benytte mot klimaskeptikere. En ren propagandaside altså.

Nei, Skeptical Science tilsvarer "An Index to Creationist Claims - Talk Origins". Altså en liste over vanlige løgner fra vitenskapshatere.

Så fulgte jeg denne propagandasiden litt "bakover" og kom da til denne siden -> http://gci.uq.edu.au/Research.aspx

Javel. Relevansen er? Og hvor fant du den, helt nøyaktig?

Som jeg tidligere sa så.. From the Skeptical Science "leak": Interesting stuff about generating and marketing "The Consensus Project" , en propagandaside som er sponset med flusst av dollars og dermed er alt annet enn objektiv.

Nei og nei, tenk at de som støtter vitenskapen ønsker å slå tilbake mot vitenskapshaternes propaganda! Så fælt!

Som IPCC fordreier, utelater de så mye at det er skremmende, fra et annet forum:

Hva er det IPCC utelater, helt konkret?

Ryddet for spekulasjoner.

Phaedra,mod

[Gjest Gjest]

Dette var ganske så stor samling med vitenskaplige publikasjoner innenfor tidsrammen som helt soleklart holdt alle tidsfrister for å bli seriøst vurdert i AR4. Hvor er så den "vitenskapelige" unnskyldningen for ikke å ha fått dette med i AR4 - hvis man hadde ønsket det?

Ubekreftede meldinger sier at papere ble utelatt hvis de var i strid med gjeldende paradigme. Relativt ofte lider disse vitenskapsmennene med avvikende standpunkter under den illusjonen om det IPCC er en vitenskapelig organisasjon som skal fortelle oss sannheten om klimaet. I slike tilfeller har IPCC et rikt utvalg av torturmetoder: man sørger for å skrive om konklusjonen slik at papirarbeidet stemmer, og avvikerne blir frekt og freidig tatt til inntekt for den omskrevne konklusjonen. De som ikke aksepterer slikt kan enkelt og greit fjernet fra IPCC via byråkratiske triks.

Klimapanelet er et propagandaorgan for et bestemt syn, eller tro om man vil.

[hulaboer]

Dette var ganske så stor samling med vitenskaplige publikasjoner innenfor tidsrammen som helt soleklart holdt alle tidsfrister for å bli seriøst vurdert i AR4. Hvor er så den "vitenskapelige" unnskyldningen for ikke å ha fått dette med i AR4 - hvis man hadde ønsket det?

Her må du nesten komme med et enkelt eksempel så det går an å ettergå påstandene dine. Du kan ikke forvente at folk skal lese gjennom en ekstremt lang, usammenhengende og løgnaktig tekst.

Så host opp et konkret eksempel, er du snill. Og det holder med ETT eksempel. Spamming trenger vi ikke.

Ubekreftede meldinger sier at papere ble utelatt hvis de var i strid med gjeldende paradigme.

Som for eksempel?

Relativt ofte lider disse vitenskapsmennene med avvikende standpunkter under den illusjonen om det IPCC er en vitenskapelig organisasjon som skal fortelle oss sannheten om klimaet.

Det eneste IPCC gjør er å oppsummere forskningen. Du har fortsatt ikke klart å forklare hvordan alle anerkjente vitenskapelige organisasjoner kan støtte IPCC hvis de er så fæle.

I slike tilfeller har IPCC et rikt utvalg av torturmetoder: man sørger for å skrive om konklusjonen slik at papirarbeidet stemmer, og avvikerne blir frekt og freidig tatt til inntekt for den omskrevne konklusjonen. De som ikke aksepterer slikt kan enkelt og greit fjernet fra IPCC via byråkratiske triks.

Flere tomme påstander. Gjesp.

Klimapanelet er et propagandaorgan for et bestemt syn, eller tro om man vil.

Ryddet for spekulasjoner.

Phaedra,mod

[Gjest Gjest]

[Gjest Gjest]

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

Rart med det... at IPCC først nå.. begynner å se hva Pielke har påpekt.

Hva kommer da annet enn flisespikkeri inn i lala-land?

Trolig dette..

Pielke sprer feilinformasjon

I følge the Church of IPCC?

[Gjest Gjest]

CERN experiment confirms cosmic ray action - The global warmists’ dam breaks

Yet another trick of cosmic rays - In the climax to the Danes’ experiments, cloud seeds flout the theories

Climate Physics 101 - Sorry folks, cosmic rays really are in charge

Som den franske filosofen Montesquieu en gang midt på 1700-tallet sa: "All makt korrumperer, absolutt makt korrumperer absolutt"

Although they never said so, the High Priests of the Inconvenient Truth – in such temples as NASA-GISS, Penn State and the University of East Anglia – always knew that Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis was the principal threat to their sketchy and poorly modelled notions of self-amplifying action of greenhouse gases.

In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and in applying the same mechanism to the 20th warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk – and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise.

For the dam that was meant to ward off a growing stream of discoveries coming from the spring in Copenhagen, the foundation was laid on the day after the Danes first announced the link between cosmic rays and clouds at a space conference in Birmingham, England, in 1996. “Scientifically extremely naïve and irresponsible,” Bert Bolin declared, as Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

As several journalists misbehaved by reporting the story from Birmingham, the top priority was to tame the media. The first courses of masonry ensured that anything that Svensmark and his colleagues might say would be ignored or, failing that, be promptly rubbished by a warmist scientist. Posh papers like The Times of London and the New York Times, and posh TV channels like the BBC’s, readily fell into line. Enthusiastically warmist magazines like New Scientist and Scientific American needed no coaching.

Similarly the journals Nature and Science, which in my youth prided themselves on reports that challenged prevailing paradigms, gladly provided cement for higher masonry, to hold the wicked hypothesis in check at the scientific level. Starve Svensmark of funding. Reject his scientific papers but give free rein to anyone who criticizes him. Trivialize the findings in the Holy Writ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Scandals of a political character engulf climate physics these days, but future historians may shake their heads more sadly over scientific negligence. Isn’t it amazing that such a fundamental activity of sulphuric acid, going on over your head right now, has passed unnoticed since 1875 when cloud seeding was discovered, since 1996 when Svensmark found the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover, and since 2006 when the Danes suggested the catalytic role of electrons? Perhaps the experts were confused by the ever-present dislike of the role of the Sun in climate change.

But some people still want to dismiss all the meticulous experimental, observational and theoretical work of Henrik Svensmark and his colleagues in the Danish National Space Institute by saying there is simply no link between cosmic rays and the climate.

Having written two books on the subject, and still engaged with it, I could in rebuttal flood this post with evidence of many kinds, on time scales from days to millennia or longer. I’ll content myself with just one pair of graphs spanning 50 years. They’re from a 2007 report by Svensmark and the Institute’s director, Eigil Friis-Christensen, and they’re based on a European Space Agency project called ISAC. The carbon dioxide boys and girls would die for a match of cause and effect of this quality.

Cosmic ray intensity is in red and upside down, so that 1991 was a minimum, not a maximum. Fewer cosmic rays mean a warmer world, and the cosmic rays vary with the solar cycle. The blue curve shows the global mean temperature of the mid-troposphere as measured with balloons and collated by the UK Met Office (HadAT2).

In the upper panel the temperatures roughly follow the solar cycle. The match is much better when well-known effects of other natural disturbances (El Niño, North Atlantic Oscillation, big volcanoes) are removed, together with an upward trend of 0.14 deg. C per decade. The trend may be partly due to man-made greenhouse gases, but the magnitude of their contribution is debatable.

From 2000 to 2011 mid-tropospheric temperatures have remained pretty level, like those of the surface, despite the continuing increase in the gases – in “flat” contradiction to the warming predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Meanwhile the Sun is lazy, cosmic ray counts are high and the oceans are cooling.

Tilbake til dette med penger og politikk -> Europæiske lande kan kræve erstatning for milliardtab efter CO2-skandalen

De som har lest posten om Chomsky ser dette som nok et bevis på at bare du gjør det som er politisk forventet av deg, da blir du kastet oppover i systemet, ikke nedover, til tross for at din udugelighet koster ditt lands innbyggere enorme summer.

Udugeligheten er som jeg allerde har sagt... nytale.

Syme bit off another fragment of the dark-coloured bread, chewed it briefly, and went on:

'Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we're not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak,' he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. 'Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?'

[Gjest Koala]

Denne debatten viser vel egentlig bare hvorfor klmaspørsmål bør undersøkes av virkelige forskere og ikke synsere.

Og det pågår en klimadebatt i forskningsmiljøene men den refereres ikke i pressen eller på internett og den handler om virkningene av den globale oppvarmingen. Årsakene debatters i liten grad.

[Gjest Gjest]

Det er jeg aldeles ikke enig i Koala, mye av vitenskapen er avhengig av penger og da blir det fort mye surr. Dette ser en innen medisin, der kan jeg si deg det er mye dritt. Så kan en lure på hvordan verdens økonomiske eksperter ikke så finanskrisen som kom, slik jeg ser det skyldes dette mye nytale og korrupsjon.

Climate Money: The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – trillions to come

The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.

Noe som jeg synes er karakteristisk for denne debatten er makt og hersking..

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument till vördnad) och ipse dixit (han själv sade det), att hävda att något är sant för att det är värt att respektera och vörda eller för att en auktoritet (ofta akademisk) tycker så.

Ad hominem-argument eller argumentum ad hominem (latin "argument mot personen"), är ett osakligt argument och därmed ett argumentationsfel eller felslut inom retoriken som handlar om en argumentatörs karaktär, förmåga eller avsikter i stället för själva sakfrågan. Ett ad hominem-argument kan antingen vara ett personangrepp eller ett genetiskt argument.

Genetisk argumentation, typ av argumentationsfel eller felslut där man låter trovärdigheten hos en tes avgöras av vem/vilka som argumenterar för eller mot tesen. Detta är irrelevant, och således är genetisk argumentation en typ av ignoratio elenchi.

Ignoratio elenchi är ett argumentationsfel som grundar sig på ett irrelevant stödargument. Stödargumentet må vara sant, men saknar praktisk betydelse för huvudargumentet.

[hulaboer]

Rart med det... at IPCC først nå.. begynner å se hva Pielke har påpekt.

Dette er jo blank løgn. Det har lenge vært kjent at f.eks. fjerning av skog bidrar til endringene som finner sted.

CERN experiment confirms cosmic ray action - The global warmists’ dam breaks

Hvorfor limer du inn dette tullet når jeg allerede har svart på dette:

"Nå mistenker jeg at du i din ekstreme mangel på kunnskap tenker på en forskningsrapport som klimanekterfjols som ikke hadde klart å gjenkjenne forskning om det sto om livet tror motsier menneskeskapt global oppvarming. Men den gjør altså ikke det."

Det er løgn at CERN sier noe som helst om dette:

CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate

Nok en gang er klimanekteren tatt med buksa nede.

Udugeligheten er som jeg allerde har sagt... nytale.

Nytalen er det klimanekterne som står for.

Det er jeg aldeles ikke enig i Koala, mye av vitenskapen er avhengig av penger og da blir det fort mye surr. Dette ser en innen medisin, der kan jeg si deg det er mye dritt. Så kan en lure på hvordan verdens økonomiske eksperter ikke så finanskrisen som kom, slik jeg ser det skyldes dette mye nytale og korrupsjon.

Økonomi er ikke vitenskap, og hvis du mener medisin ikke fungerer så får du heller gå til healere og andre kvakksalvere når du blir syk.

Ryddet for personangrep og spekulasjoner.

Phaedra,mod

[Gjest Gjest]

Det har lenge vært kjent at f.eks. fjerning av skog bidrar til endringene som finner sted.

Ja det er hva jeg sier, men IPCC har lenge ignorert dette ettersom det forkludrer deres CO2-mantra og det er hva jeg påpeker.

Hvorfor limer du inn dette tullet når jeg allerede har svart på dette:

"Nå mistenker jeg at du i din ekstreme mangel på kunnskap tenker på en forskningsrapport som klimanekterfjols som ikke hadde klart å gjenkjenne forskning om det sto om livet tror motsier menneskeskapt global oppvarming. Men den gjør altså ikke det."

Det er løgn at CERN sier noe som helst om dette:

CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate

Nok en gang er klimanekteren tatt med buksa nede.

At dansken er mer nøktern og tilbakeholden med noe før han vet mer ser jeg er helt uhørt for en AGW-tilhenger, men nå er det engang slik at han ikke hauser opp ting som IPCC har som stygg uvane å gjøre.. skjønner dog ikke helt greia med at en nær sagt hopper i taket for noe slikt.

Nytalen er det klimanekterne som står for.

Ikke i følge boken 1984, det er mer slik at en bruker Occam's Razor... "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck".

Økonomi er ikke vitenskap, og hvis du mener medisin ikke fungerer så får du heller gå til healere og andre kvakksalvere når du blir syk.

Svineinfluensa, masse penger er vel og bra... at endel fikk narkolepsi er sånt som skjer.

Javel. Relevansen er? Og hvor fant du den, helt nøyaktig?

Rart du ikke vet det?

About Skeptical Science bla bla bla About the author

Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.

Den siden ser på AR4 som selveste Bibelen, alt annet er irrelevant og dermed blir de sekti og noen papirene som nevnt tidligere interessant, samt linken til CO2-målingene gjort i forbindelse med forskning på fotosyntesen. Flere av disse målingene er gjort av Nobelprisvinnere, men er allikevel underslått av IPCC.

Ikke rart da at IPCC bommer så fælt som dette..

[Gjest Gjest]

Jeg valgte bevisst dette med solen som en Red Herring ettersom det var endel papirer som IPCC avviste om solen, du ba meg om å komme med et papir og jeg nevnte også Pielkes papir på landforandring og jeg har ikke hørt en pip om det. Dog så ser jeg at interessen til en tur til flisespikkerenes lala-land er rimelig høy, og din stolhet med å foklare dette med solen blinder deg.

Du må nesten være blind for å ikke se dette -> http://www.gci.uq.edu.au/AboutUs/OurStories/MrJohnCook.aspx

IPCC avvist disse målingene uten adekvat begrunnelse. I den nevnte perioden har de valgt å satse på målinger av borekjerner fra isbreer i Antarktis og på Grønland, til tross for at disse er vesentlig mer usikre. For målingene i is, som går 600 000 år tilbake, har IPCC systematisk valgt bort verdier mange ganger høyere enn dagens nivå.

[hulaboer]

Jeg valgte bevisst dette med solen som en Red Herring ettersom det var endel papirer som IPCC avviste om solen, du ba meg om å komme med et papir og jeg nevnte også Pielkes papir på landforandring og jeg har ikke hørt en pip om det. Dog så ser jeg at interessen til en tur til flisespikkerenes lala-land er rimelig høy, og din stolhet med å foklare dette med solen blinder deg.

Hva er det du babler om her egentlig? Hvilke "papirer" avviste IPCC om solen?

Og Pielkes rapport om landforandring er med i AR4, så jeg skjønner ikke helt hva du babler om der heller. Men hvis det skal være ditt konkrete eksempel på noe som ble utelatt så har du nok en gang feilet totalt.

Du må nesten være blind for å ikke se dette -> http://www.gci.uq.edu.au/AboutUs/OurStories/MrJohnCook.aspx

Hva er det du mener jeg skal se der? Skal dette være linken som ligger ute på skepticalscience.com? Det kan jeg ikke se at den gjør.

IPCC avvist disse målingene uten adekvat begrunnelse. I den nevnte perioden har de valgt å satse på målinger av borekjerner fra isbreer i Antarktis og på Grønland, til tross for at disse er vesentlig mer usikre. For målingene i is, som går 600 000 år tilbake, har IPCC systematisk valgt bort verdier mange ganger høyere enn dagens nivå.

Hvilke målinger er det du snakker om nå da?

Ryddet for personangrep og spekulasjoner.

Phaedra,mod

[Gjest Gjest]

Og Pielkes rapport om landforandring er med i AR4

Nei, ikke i følge oversiktsarbeidet som Madhav Khandekar gjorde i 2007 med tittelen Questioning the Global Warming Science: An Annotated bibliography of recent peer-reviewed papers

Hvilke målinger er det du snakker om nå da?

http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/cv.htm

[Gjest Gjest]

For de som er interessert i saken -> co2: The Great Scienticif Scandal Of Our Time, kapitelen Direct CO2 Measurements in the Atomossphere er særdeles interessant. Mer info. om saken finner en her-> CO2 History

[Gjest Gjest]

Noen husker kanskje at Norge ga 1 milliard dollar (rundt 6 milliarder norske kroner) til Indonesia for et par år siden for at Indonesi ikke skulle hogge skog. Kritikerne av avtalen påsto at det var galskap å gi en milliard dollar til et så korrupt land som Indonesia, og det ser ut til at kritikerne får rett. Det viser seg nå at Indonesia hogger friskt i Aceh-provinsen, som er tilholdssted for omtrent 200 orangutanger. Disse orangutangene kommer antagelig til å dø i løpet av få uker dersom ikke noe blir gjort for å stoppe hogsten. Les mer her:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-indonesia-environment-idUKBRE82R0NK20120328

http://www.orangutans-sos.org/news/425_scandal-in-tripa-highlights-lack-of-transparency-in-revision-of-the-moratorium-map-promised-investigation-into-suspicious-changes-not-yet-materialised

[Gjest Koala]

Merkelig hvordan all kritikk mot klimavitenskapen kommer fra:

- bloggere

- pensjonerte professorer med irrelevant publiseringsliste

- folk som har skrevet bøker som er utgitt på eget forlag

- geologer med tilknytning til oljebransjen eller andre forurensningsbedrifter

- Personer som har en utdannelse og bakgrunn som ikke er relevant

- Politikere

- GjestGjest og Anonymbruker.

Svært få om noen kritiserer klimavitenskapen med utgangspunkt i en relevant utdanning og en relevant og jevn publiseringsliste i anerkjente tidsskrifter

[Gjest Gjest]

Dette her er komiske "argumenter", hva er grunnen til at USA og Russland driter en lang marsj i Kyoto-avtalen?

Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2 (Statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation)

The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning. The climatically inefficient and economically disastrous Kyoto Protocol, based on IPCC projections, was correctly defined by President George W. Bush as “fatally flawed”. This criticism was recently followed by the President of Russia Vladimir V. Putin. I hope that their rational views might save the world from enormous damage that could be induced by implementing recommendations based on distorted science.

Si meg er det bare jeg som følger med på nyhetene?

USA slakter klimapanelet

Levetiden til Klimapanelet (IPCC) ser nå ut til å gå mot slutten. I USA har man gjort kort prosess og vil ikke lenger gi finansiell støtte til IPCC. De vil heller ikke ha deres klimarapporter.

Den 19. februar 2011 får vi denne gode nyheten fra USA: Representantenes hus har vedtatt med stort flertall at USA ikke lenger skal gi finansiell støtte til IPCC. Samtidig vil de at IPCC (Nobel fredsprisvinner i 2007) skal slutte å gi ut sine klimarapporter. Obama har også mistet sine nærmeste klimarådgivere da deres lønninger ble fjernet under budsjettbehandlingen. Begrunnelsen fra saksordfører Blaine Luetkmeyer var følgende: ”IPCC er gjennomsyret av sløsing og svindel, og beskjeftiget med tvilsom vitenskap, noe som er det siste hardt arbeidende amerikanske skattebetalere bør betale for.” Kommentatorer i USA skriver at dette er en historisk seier for seriøs vitenskap, i Norge prøver media og holde denne viktige nyheten hemmelig for befolkningen.

Det er nå stadig flere politikere i verden som forstår at de har blitt ført bak lyset av IPCC og at menneskeskapt global oppvarming på grunn av CO2 er en stor bløff. I tillegg til USA har Japan, Saudi-Arabia og Canada uttalt at de ikke vil være med på å fornye Koyoto-avtalen som går ut i 2012. Og i 2010 økte Canada sine utslippskvoter kraftig! I tillegg viser det seg nå at både Russland, Kina, India og Brasil taler IPCC midt imot. Disse åtte landene representerer over halvparten av jordens befolkning.

Og i Australia har det utrolige skjedd at statsminister Kevin Rudd i arbeiderpartiet ALP (Australian Labor Party) i 2010 måtte gå av på grunn av at forslaget til ny klimalov om CO2-kvoter og utslippsreduksjoner ble nedstemt tre ganger. Samtidig flyktet velgerne fra hans parti så han ble avsatt av sine egne. Australia er det første landet i verden som har undertegnet Koyoto-protokollen, og hvor statsministeren har måttet gå av på grunn av klimagalskap. Den nye statsministeren Julia Gillard som også er fra ALP lovet på tro og ære før hun ble valgt at hun ikke skulle innføre nye CO2-avgifter. Men ALP i Australia er tydeligvis like lite å stole på som Ap i Norge, for like etter at hun hadde tiltrådt innførte hun CO2-avgifter allikevel.

I Australia er det i motsetning til Norge ”tillatt” for media og si sannheten om klima så de fleste er godt kjent med CO2-bløffen. Reaksjonen fra velgerne kom da det nå i april 2011 var nyvalg i delstaten New South Wales, der Sydney og Melbourne ligger. Denne staten har ca 1/3 av Australias befolkning, og velgerne der tok en grusom hevn. De ville verken ha CO2-avgifter eller arbeiderpartiet. Arbeiderpartiet ble så grundig avsatt etter 16 år ved makten at man snakker om en ren massakre, skriver avisen ” The Australian”.

Her i Norge omfavner alle partiene unntatt Fremskrittspartiet IPCC. Stoltenberg, Erik Solheim og Pål Prestrud snakker om hvordan vi skal løse klimaproblemene. Men vi får ikke høre hva problemene går ut på, og det er jo naturlig, for vi har ingen klimaproblemer. Det klimaet vi har på jorda i dag er så nær opp til det ideelle som det er mulig å komme. På de 110 årene siden 1900 har det bare vært ubetydelige klimasvingninger hvor temperaturen har gått opp og ned noen få tidels grader. Noen steder på jorda er det i varmeste laget, mens det andre steder er i kaldeste laget, men de som bor der tilpasser seg til forholdene.

Uansett hvor mye vi driver med CO2-fangst og deponering under havbunnen, vil vi aldri kunne påvirke CO2-nivået i atmosfæren. Vi oppnår bare å bruke en masse penger til ingen nytte. Det eneste som kan senke CO2-nivået, er at havet blir kaldere. Dette styres av to naturlover, nemlig Henrys lov og massevirkningsloven. Det eneste vi mennesker kan gjøre er å tilpasse oss eventuelle naturlige klimaendringer som måtte komme. Den neste store klimaendringen vi må tilpasse oss til er en ny stor istid som vil medføre at befolkningen i Skandinavia, mye av Russland og Canada må flytte til sydligere strøk.

[hulaboer]

Nei, ikke i følge oversiktsarbeidet som Madhav Khandekar gjorde i 2007 med tittelen Questioning the Global Warming Science: An Annotated bibliography of recent peer-reviewed papers

Khandekar er åpenbart ikke spesielt kompetent eller opplyst (heller inkompetent og uærlig), siden Pielkes rapport står oppført i referanselisten til AR4. Dette kan hvem som helst med enkelhet sjekke selv.

Se om du klarer å finne det. Det får bli din hjemmelekse til neste gang!

Ryddet for personangrep og spekulasjoner.

Phaedra,mod