Ironisk dissonans

Diverse, IPCC, Klima, Pressen, Videnskab, venstrefløjen — Drokles on March 27, 2014 at 4:53 pm

Nick Cohen har et herligt rablende indlæg i Guardian. Klimabenægterne, der beskrives som “cultish fanatics“, drevet af et af had til venstrefløjsere og sympati for markedskræfter har nemlig vundet kampen om klimaet stik mod al fornuft

The Royal Society, the Royal Institution, Nasa, the US National Academy of Sciences, the US Geological Survey, the IPCC and the national science bodies of 30 or so other countries have said that man-made climate change is on the march. A survey of 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published in the last 20 years found that 97% said that humans were causing it.

Der er med andre ord, “no scientific debate” om den snarlige katastrofe: “Man-made global warming and the man-made mass extinction of species define this hot, bloody and (let us hope) brief epoch in the world’s history“, ”The evidence for man-made global warming is as final as the evidence of Auschwitz.

Faktisk er der en debat helt inde i kernen af FNs konsensus, som man forleden kunne læse om i ellers så klima alarmistiske Economist. De 15-17 års manglende opvarmning af atmosfæren, der, uanfægtet af usikkerhed, er døbt “the Pause”, bortforklares ved antagelser om ekstra partikler i atmosfæren især fra øget vulkanaktivitet, lavere sol-aktivitet og at oceanerne diskret har optaget den ekstra varme fra atmosfæren. Et enestående sammenfald af omstændigher der tegner et falsk billede af normalitet. Som Economist formulerer det, så er ‘pausen’ gået fra at være uforklarlig til at være overforklaret

Der er heller ikke, som Cohen eller er overbevist om, den store frygt hos klimapanelet for at lidt bedre vejr vil føre til “mass extinction” - dyr og planter er sejere end som så.

Den officielle ‘pause’ var altså uforudset, der hersker uenighed om dens årsager, hvilket vil sige at der ikke eksisterer et nagelfast konsensus om klimaet og konsekvenserne af en global opvarmning er alligevel ikke problematiske. Alligevel mener Cohen at det er skeptikerne der lider af ‘kognitiv dissonans’…

…a condition first defined by Leon Festinger and his colleagues in the 1950s . They examined a cult that had attached itself to a Chicago housewife called Dorothy Martin. She convinced her followers to resign from their jobs and sell their possessions because a great flood was to engulf the earth on 21 December 1954. They would be the only survivors. Aliens in a flying saucer would swoop down and save the chosen few.

When 21 December came and went, and the Earth carried on as before, the group did not despair. Martin announced that the aliens had sent her a message saying that they had decided at the last minute not to flood the planet after all. Her followers believed her. They had given up so much for their faith that they would believe anything rather than admit their sacrifices had been pointless.

Og hvis det skulle forholde sig så ironisk, at det er Cohen selv, der lider af kognitiv dissonans, så ville det jo også forklare, hvorfor han heller ikke kan se det ironiske i at lancere en konspirationsteori, som forklaring på andres konspirationsteorier

Rightwing billionaires in the United States and the oil companies have spent fortunes on blocking action on climate change. A part of the answer may therefore be that conservative politicians in London, Washington and Canberra are doing their richest supporters’ bidding. There’s truth in the bribery hypothesis. In my own little world of journalism, I have seen rightwing hacks realise the financial potential of denial and turn from reasonable men and women into beetle-browed conspiracy theorists.

article-2294560-18b8846f000005dc-184_634x4273

Navnelegen

Diverse, IPCC, Klima, Videnskab, miljø — Drokles on March 12, 2014 at 12:50 pm

Ord former vores tanker. Ja, vi kan kun tænke gennem sprog som Vygotsky og Piaget kom frem til uafhængigt af hinanden (De kunne også have læst Biblens I begyndelsen var ordet… afsnit). Og derfor er det også vigtigt for enhver politisk og religiøs bevægelse at forme ord og sprog og vendinger, som tjener sagen bedst.

For klimadagsordenen startede man med udtrykket Global Opvarmning, da teorien var og er at den ekstra CO2 vi udleder i atmosfæren har drastisk indvirkning på drivhuseffekten som øger den globale temperatur. Egentlig effekt har CO2 så ikke haft alligevel indtil videre, hvilket er meget over tiden. Det er jo en bet at have et udtryk for noget der ikke sker. Og som det derfor er blevet pinligere at tale virkeligheden midt imod ændrer man sit sprog.

Det nye ord blev klimaforandringer, hvor det nye for de progressive pludselig blev en trussel, mens det sædvanlige og derfor reaktionære nu var at foretrække. Det var i det mindste en positiv forandring. Ordet var godt så langt at alt kunne fyldes i det da klimaet er foranderligt. Hvorfor lade sig trække ned i regnskabets sump af videnskabelige udsagn når intetsigende ord opflammer journalister og politikere?

Men fordi klimaforandringer lyder lige så meget som en mulighed som en trussel hos almindeligt og rettænkende mennesker måtte man finde på noget mere presserende. Klimaforstyrrelser blev derfor lanceret for en 5 års tid siden, men slog ikke igennem fordi det havde ikke det catchy ekstra der fik det til at rulle godt ud af munden. Og man kunne let risikere at skulle stå til regnskab for, hvad en forstyrrelse var eller ikke var. Var en særlig mild vinter en forstyrrelse?

Så derfor har man prøvet at få gang i ekstremt vejr. Det kan man bruge hver gang vejret er ekstremt og det er det jo altid et eller andet sted. En storm, tørke, skybrud, hedebølge, selv snevejr og frost, alt kan komme i mangler, ekstreme mængder og varierende intensitet fra tid til anden. Det er catchy og det kan bruges hver gang folk plages mest så der er automatisk signalindlæring. Men desværre skal også dette underkastes regnskabet (vejret er ikke mere ekstremt end for 30 år siden, tværtimod) og man skal forklare hvorfor vejr og klima alligevel hænger sammen efter at have brugt 20 år på at forklare at vejr og klima ikke hænger sammen når folk har ironiseret over at skulle skovle sne.

Denne navneleg er påtvunget af naturen der nu på 17. år ikke har ladet den globale temperatur stige. At temperaturen ikke stiger vil sige at der ikke er global opvarmning. Når der ikke er global opvarmning forandrer klimaet sig ikke (udover det sædvanlige), når klimaet ikke forandrer sig er der ingen forstyrrelser og ekstremt vejr er kun naturligt, som det altid har været. Det er altså blot din påklædning der er forkert.

Sagt på en anden måde så er teorien om mennesket drastiske påvirkning af klimaet gennem udledning af CO2 forkert. Men den udgør en karriere for mange journalister, forskere, politikere, foreninger der i skøn forening sponserer opbygningen og vedligeholdelsen af en industri af forældet og dyr industri af vind, vand og solfangere som har taget arbejdere og ingeniører ud af arbejdsstyrken og forvandlet dem til lige så relevante fagfolk som bødkere. Og alle disse økonomisk belastende arbejdspladser går tabt, hvis ikke skatteborgeren betaler lidt mere hele tiden.

Og så er det at man ikke kan sige at vi tog fejl og vi lige har sænket den økonomiske vækst med 1%/år og brugt tid og ressourcer på at løse pseudo problemer i stedet for reelle problemer. Så derfor opfinder man et nyt begreb, nemlig mysteriet om den manglende varme. Nature skriver

The biggest mystery in climate science today may have begun, unbeknownst to anybody at the time, with a subtle weakening of the tropical trade winds blowing across the Pacific Ocean in late 1997. These winds normally push sun-baked water towards Indonesia. When they slackened, the warm water sloshed back towards South America, resulting in a spectacular example of a phenomenon known as El Niño. Average global temperatures hit a record high in 1998 — and then the warming stalled.

For several years, scientists wrote off the stall as noise in the climate system: the natural variations in the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere that drive warm or cool spells around the globe. But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field. Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. Climate sceptics have seized on the temperature trends as evidence that global warming has ground to a halt. Climate scientists, meanwhile, know that heat must still be building up somewhere in the climate system, but they have struggled to explain where it is going, if not into the atmosphere. Some have begun to wonder whether there is something amiss in their models.

Now, as the global-warming hiatus enters its sixteenth year, scientists are at last making headway in the case of the missing heat. Some have pointed to the Sun, volcanoes and even pollution from China as potential culprits, but recent studies suggest that the oceans are key to explaining the anomaly. The latest suspect is the El Niño of 1997–98, which pumped prodigious quantities of heat out of the oceans and into the atmosphere — perhaps enough to tip the equatorial Pacific into a prolonged cold state that has suppressed global temperatures ever since.

Den manglende varme kan kun være manglende hvis den skulle have været der, som teorien siger at den skal være. Normalt og før staterne satte sig på forskningen og skabte en usund alliance mellem viden og politik ville man blot konstatere at der ikke var kommet nogen ekstra varme og at teorien derfor var forkert eller blæst ud af proportion. En simpel sammenligning mellem teoriens forudsigelser og empiriens dom.

Man taler i samme forståelse også om pause i den globale opvarmning. Altså mener man at temperaturen vil vende tilbage. Ingen kan forklare, hvorfor varmen gemmer sig eller hvor den gemmer sig, men ingen lader sig slå ud af det helt uventede og behandler virkeligheden som et kuriosum til den teori, hvorom ingen tvivl hersker.

Gud er måske død, men religioner trives. Måske det var bedst om Ordet var blevet hos Gud.

Oh Mann…

IPCC, Michael Mann, Videnskab — Drokles on February 27, 2014 at 12:23 pm

Michael Mann er skaberen af den berømte ishockeystavsgraf, der viste en stabil temperatur tusind år tilbage i tiden indtil den industrielle revolution tog fart og tvang temperaturen opad i en stadig stejlere gradient. ’skabt’ var ordet for der er ingen basis for rigtigheden og temperaturen er ikke steget de seneste 17 år, mens CO2 udledningen er acceleret.

Grafen var så stærkt et propagandaredskab at den erstattede hidtidig konsensus om romersk og middelalder varmeperioder og små istider som Maunder og Dalton minimaerne og den blev plastret udover klimapanelets rapport 2001. Den begejstrede modtagelse fra klimaekspertisens konsensus der vendte op og ned på alt, den troede at vide med vanlig skråsikkerhed baseret på en enkelt graf lavet af en mand, der opnåede at blive professor ved samme graf talte sit eget tydelige sprog om confirmation bias, at ville se sin forudindtagethed bekræftet.

Siden er grafen blevet diskrediteret som i det mindste et stykke makværk og Mann har brugt de seneste mange år og trukket på stadigt flere af sine gode kontakter på at smæde enhver der borede i hans metoder og resultater. Manns store netværk af villige journalister og kollegaer og institutioner har endda givet ham mod på at føre law-fare mod kritikere. Men det er et dårligt træk når man ikke har rent mel i posen og folk ikke lader sig skræmme. Principia Scientific skriver

Massive counterclaims, in excess of $10 million, have just been filed against climate scientist Michael Mann after lawyers affirmed that the former golden boy of global warming alarmism had sensationally failed in his exasperating three-year bid to sue skeptic Canadian climatologist, Tim Ball. Door now wide open for criminal investigation into Climategate conspiracy.

Buoyed by Dr Ball’s successes, journalist and free-speech defender, Mark Steyn has promptly decided to likewise countersue Michael Mann for $10 million in response to a similar SLAPP suit filed by the litigious professor from Penn. State University against not just Steyn, but also the National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg. Ball’s countersuit against Mann seeks “exemplary and punitive damages. ” Bishop Hill blog is running extracts of Steyn’s counterclaim, plus link.

Mann’s chief undoing in all such lawsuits is highlighted in a quote in Steyn’s latest counterclaim:

“Plaintiff continues to evade the one action that might definitively establish its [his science’s] respectability - by objecting, in the courts of Virginia, British Columbia and elsewhere, to the release of his research in this field. See Cuccinelli vs Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia…”

At last, after 3 years of legal wrangling, it is made clear why I was so bold as to formally undertake an indemnity to fully compensate Dr Ball for my own actions in the event Mann won the case.  Respected Aussie climate commentator, Jo Nova was one of the few to commend my unparalled commitment to Ball’s cause.

Steyn’s legal team, aware of the latest developments from Vancouver, have correctly adduced that Ball has effectively defeated Mann after the Penn. State pretender’s preposterous and inactive lawsuit against Ball was rendered dormant for failure to prosecute. Under law, Mann’s prevarications, all his countless fudging and evasiveness in the matter, establishes compelling evidence that his motive was not to prove Ball had defamed him, but more likely a cynical attempt to silence fair and honest public criticism on a pressing and contentious government policy issue.

The fact Mann refused to disclose his ‘hockey stick’ graph metadata in the British Columbia Supreme Court, as he is required to do under Canadian civil rules of procedure, constituted a fatal omission to comply, rendering his lawsuit unwinnable. As such, Dr Ball, by default, has substantiated his now famous assertion that Mann belongs “in the state pen, not Penn. State.

Mann er som sagt ikke blot en enkelt svindler, der har forurenet den videnskabelige suppe. Han blev ophøjet og fejret fordi han fortalte et konsensus den historie de ville høre. Og den historie var en løgn.

Klimaforandringer befordrer islamisk terrorisme

Arabiske forår, IPCC, Jihad, Klima, Terror, Ulande, islam, miljø, venstrefløjen — Drokles on December 3, 2013 at 9:54 am

Teorien om CO2 drevne klimaforandringer er teorien om alting viser det sig.

Calamity Calling: How climate change is helping Al Qaeda from GlobalPost on Vimeo.

Tyfonjægerne

Diverse, IPCC, Klima, Pressen — Drokles on November 13, 2013 at 12:29 pm

justaintso

Spiked Online skriver om dommedagsprofeterne, der falder over hinanden i håbet om at næste uvejr vil indvarsle Jordens undergang.

Let’s hear it for science! The UK Met Office was issuing warnings days ago about a storm that would sweep across the Atlantic and hit the UK on Sunday and Monday. Before the storm even existed. But if the storm was a great piece of forecasting, you didn’t need a supercomputer to predict the reaction to the storm’s approach.

From the first inkling that the country was going to be hit by unusually strong winds and heavy rain, the nation’s panicmongers went into overdrive. There were days of repeated warnings about just how bad it was going to be - with lots of allusions to the ‘Great Storm’ of 1987 (itself only a ‘great storm’ in a country that doesn’t really do big storms). This week’s storm was christened ‘St Jude’ (the patron saint of lost causes) by a Weather Channel forecaster, and the name quickly became common currency. The UK prime minister, David Cameron, made great play of holding an ‘emergency meeting’ to make sure the country was ready. Train operators decided to institute blanket cancellations of services across the south of England. At every stage, we were told to ‘be prepared’.

The result, however, was by and large a damp squib.

Tyfonen ”Haiyan” var dog meget mere end a damp squib. Og dommedagsprofeterne kom da også ud i stort tal for at smede mens ligene endu var varme. Jyllands-Posten skrev f.eks under overskriften “En forsmag på fremtiden

Tyfonen ”Haiyan”, der har dræbt over 10.000 mennesker, fordrevet andre 478.000 fra deres hjem og berørt i alt 4,5 mio., kan være en forsmag på, hvad der er i vente i et varmere klima. Tyfonen er formentlig den kraftigste, der nogensinde er registreret, og ifølge klimaforskere tyder meget på, at det hænger sammen med den globale opvarmning.

»Der er ingen tvivl om, at dette er en konsekvens af, at det bliver varmere på kloden,« lyder det fra klimaforsker Sebastian Mernild fra Center for Scientific Studies i Valdivia i Chile.

Filipinernes klimakommisær, ja, der er sådan en alle vegne, erklærede at han vil sultestrejke “indtil et meningsfuldt mål er i sigte“, men kun så længe han var i Polen, hvor der lige nu er klimakonference.

For alle jer der stadig benægter, at klimaforandringer er virkelighed; Jeg udfordrer jer til at komme ned fra jeres gyldne tårn og væk fra lænestolens komfort,” lød det.

1393116_10152067151878128_1726406800_n

God tur hjem og velbekomme. Noget mere nuanceret kunne man læse på Climate Central, der i overskriften “A hint of what’s to come?” trods alt satte et spørgsmålstegn ved hvad fremtiden byder.

…there is more consensus about the stormier future than there is about the present. The researchers also urged caution in attributing Haiyan’s strength to global warming, given the lack of evidence that manmade global warming has had any detectable influence on Western Pacific typhoons, let alone tropical cyclones in general (an umbrella term that includes typhoons and hurricanes).

Brian McNoldy, a a senior research associate at the University of Miami, told Climate Central that, “While Haiyan was absolutely amazing, it’s not alone. It’s in an elite company of a handful of other tropical cyclones scattered across the decades and across the world.”

McNoldy downplayed global warming’s role in helping to fuel Super Typhoon Haiyan, saying, “We don’t get to pick and choose which storms are enhanced by a warmer climate and which ones aren’t, so this was just as subject to this year’s climate as the numerous others that weren’t so impressive. Extremely intense tropical cyclones are rare, but have always been a part of nature — we don’t need to find an excuse for them.”

Gabe Vecchi, a research oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), said that if global warming altered Haiyan, it did not do so to a significant extent. “I expect that the contribution of global warming to Haiyan’s extreme intensity is likely to have been small, relative to other factors like weather fluctuations and climate variability.”

Climate research has not yet provided a clear picture of how global warming is altering tropical cyclones around the world.

(…)

The most recent IPCC report said: “Globally, there is low confidence in attribution of changes in tropical cyclone activity to human influence.” The IPCC found that insufficient observational evidence, a lack of understanding regarding the physical connection between manmade climate change and tropical storms, and considerable disagreement between studies justified downplaying any detectable changes in tropical cyclones due to global warming.

Og grunden til at “ there is more consensus about the stormier future than there is about the present” er fordi der er et konsensus om at forlade sig på computermodeller. Virkelighedens observationer viser nemlig ikke at have synderlig sammenhæng mellem tyfoner og stigende gennemsnitstemperatur, som Bjørn Lomborg skrev på Facebook

Yet, even *after* Haiyan, the Accumulated Cyclone Energy of all cyclones in the Western North Pacific is below normal (99%, http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical.php). The global ACE is at 74%.

As you can see in the graph below, both Northern Hemisphere ACE and global ACE are at the lowest since the 1970s.

Yes, there are ferocious cyclones in the world, as they always have been. But first, you can’t argue that global warming is making them worse, when the indicators are *lower*.

Second, claiming that CO? cuts is the way to tackle cyclone damages is simply immoral. Even if we cut emissions dramatically, it will have only little impact in 50-100 years. If you want to help places like Tacloban and the Philippines, it is all about adaptation.

1456661_10152081546708968_1547519889_n

Og klima og vejr er to forskellige størrelser, som vi ofte bliver belært om. Den tyske meterolog fortæller ifølge No Tricks Zone

What’s climate change got to do with it?

As always: immediately after an event is observed on the planet that supposedly ’had never happened before’, a discussion about the cause breaks out. And once again the discussion turns to the term: ‘climate change’.

‘Haiyan was one of the most powerful typhoons ever observed’ – at first that sounds very suspenseful, but an important small piece of information gets left out, namely: ‘Since weather records started being kept’.  And when it comes to tropical storms, regular weather records have been kept only for a few decades! When we speak of the strongest storm of ‘all time’, this ‘all-time’ is not even 100 years long.

The earth is really already more than 100 years old, and we don’t know at all what natural catastrophes occurred 500 or 1000 years ago - and we also don’t know which tropical storms took place.

For many ‘climate expert’ this recent event is a feeding frenzy that allows them to pound the drums of ‘evil climate change’. And here not a single one of these ladies and gentlemen are able to show that such storms never existed over the past hundreds of years, let alone that this storm is connected to a man-made climate change.

What came out of the mouths of climate experts after the last cold winters had gripped Central Europe?:

‘A few colder-than-normal winters are in no way any indication of a trend change when it comes to climate change.’ Well, using that logic, how is a single large typhoon then supposed to confirm climate change? A truly fascinating thought process!

De mange dødsfald er desværre heller ingen nyhed og de skyldes som så ofte før at de berørte samfund ikke har haft ressourcerne til at beskytte sig imod naturens luner fortæller Washington Post

If this death toll estimate holds up, however, it wouldn’t even put Haiyan in the top 35 deadliest tropical cyclones on record.

The story behind the destructiveness of Haiyan rings true of most powerful cyclones that occur in this region of the world: 33 of the 35 deadliest tropical cyclones on record have occurred in southern or southeastern Asia – due to a confluence of meteorology, geography, population density, poverty and government.

In the case of Super Typhoon Haiyan, Tacloban city and its 220,000 inhabitants are located at the tip of a funnel-shaped bay in the Leyte Gulf. The center of Haiyan’s eye brushed just a few miles south of Tacloban, putting the city right in the strongest part of the storm’s right-front quadrant. This unfortunate location along Haiyan’s track led to Tacloban receiving the brunt of the storm’s Category 5-equivalent winds, destroying “up to 80%” of the city’s buildings.

byzrdprcuaa4lwp

Så den filipinske klimakommisær burde måske hellere bruge sine ressourcer på at bygge sit land op så det bliver i stand til at tåle sin egen natur, frem for at sultestrejke.

Vinteren kommer

Diverse, IPCC, Klima, Pressen — Drokles on November 7, 2013 at 4:02 pm

Man kan ikke ligefrem kalde et nyt konsensus eller et paradigmeskift indenfor klimaforskning, men de stemmer, der taler for Solens afgørende indflydelse på temperaturen er blevet stærkere og flere. Og de giver ikke meget for den menneskeskabte globale opvarmning. Medierne taler stadig om at al isen kan smelte med en havspejlsstigning på imponerende 66 meter til følge og at klodens opvarmning vil gøre ubehagelige dyr som slanger store som busser, mens gode dyr som heste små som katte. Men tag roligt jeres hest på skødet, ingen kæmpeslange vil trække jer under dybet lidt nord for Næstved. Den globale opvarmning udvikler sig så langt fra de skrækhistorier, der sælger så mange aviser og vindmøller. Daily Mail skriver f.eks. at de 17 år, der er gået uden at den globale temperatur er steget kan meget vel vare indtil 2030′erne

A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt – amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy.

Not only does it explain the unexpected pause, it suggests that the scientific majority – whose views are represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – have underestimated the role of natural cycles and exaggerated that of greenhouse gases.

(…)

The pause means there has been no statistically significant increase in world average surface temperatures since the beginning of 1997, despite the models’ projection of a steeply rising trend.

According to Dr Hawkins, the divergence is now so great that the world’s climate is cooler than what the models collectively predicted with ‘five to 95 per cent certainty’.

Curry and Wyatt say they have identified a climatic ‘stadium wave’ – the phenomenon known in Britain as a Mexican wave,  in which the crowd at a stadium stand and sit so that a wave seems to circle the audience.

(…)

In similar fashion, a number of cycles in the temperature of air and oceans, and the level of Arctic ice, take place across the Northern hemisphere over decades. Curry and Wyatt say there is evidence of this going back at least 300 years.

According to Curry and Wyatt, the theory may explain both the warming pause and why the computer models did not forecast it.

It also means that a large proportion of the warming that did occur in the years before the pause was due not to greenhouse gas emissions, but to the same cyclical wave.

‘The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,’ said Wyatt. This is in sharp contrast with the IPCC’s report, which predicts warming of between 0.3 and 0.7C by 2035.

Og BBC’s Paul Hudson interviewede Professor Mike Lockwood om en kommende Lille Istid (nok snarere Daltons minimum end Maunders)

Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.

He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now - and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.

Based on his findings he’s raised the risk of a new Maunder minimum from less than 10% just a few years ago to 25-30%.

And a repeat of the Dalton solar minimum which occurred in the early 1800s, which also had its fair share of cold winters and poor summers, is, according to him, ‘more likely than not’ to happen.

He believes that we are already beginning to see a change in our climate - witness the colder winters and poor summers of recent years - and that over the next few decades there could be a slide to a new Maunder minimum.

It’s worth stressing that not every winter would be severe; nor would every summer be poor. But harsh winters and unsettled summers would become more frequent.

Professor Lockwood doesn’t hold back in his description of the potential impacts such a scenario would have in the UK.

He says such a change to our climate could have profound implications for energy policy and our transport infrastructure.

Although the biggest impact of such solar driven change would be regional, like here in the UK and across Europe, there would be global implications too.

Og i Cern fortsætter Jasper Kirkby med sit CLOUD projekt, der empirisk skal eftervise danske Svensmarks teori om kosmisk strålings effekt på skydækket

Så hav vintertøjet parat, vinteren kommer, som de siger igen og igen og igen i Game of Thrones.

Så stop dog det fordrukne klimavrøvl

IPCC, Klima — Drokles on November 4, 2013 at 5:55 pm

I forrige uge henviste jeg til Nir Shavivs simple og informative graf over hvorlangt klimavidenskaben er kommet siden 1979 med at sige noget meningsfuldt om CO2’s indflydelse på atmosfærens temperatur. Grafen viser de forskellige FN rapporters usikkerhed ved en fordobling af CO2 i atmosfæren, fra mellem 1,5 til 4,5C.

sensitivityvstime1

Som man kan se er der efter mere end 30 år ikke kommet mere klarhed end den indledende rapport fra Charney rapporten. Denne mangel på forståelse forhindrer dog ingenlunde klimapanelet i at blive mere og mere overbevist om sin dommedagsforudsigelser, som Roy Spencer illustrerede med denne graf

1380364_10151934283967591_89494564_n

Spagetti-kurverne er de mange klimamodeller, som FN’s klimapanel dels bruger som projektion for mulige fremtidsscenarier, dels som bevis for deres teori, da de bekræfter deres antagelser. Ja, man tror det er løgn, men cirkelslutninger går aldrig af mode. Som man vil bemærke er de alle for opadgående og afspejler altså alle den samme antagelse. I og med at virkeligheden ikke afspejler den opadgående tendens er det den nærliggende slutning at det er deres fælles antagelse, der er forkert, hvilket altså er teorien om CO2’s dramatiske indvirkning på temperaturen.

Den fede sorte kurve er gennemsnittet af de mange kurver, en afsindig kurve. Det er det, som James Delingpole kalder Dog S**t Yoghurt Fallacy, nemlig at hvis man har noget som er rent så blander man det ikke med lort. Det rene bliver ikke bare mindre rent, det bliver rent faktisk at sammenligne med lort. Hvis der er en af de mange grafer, som kan afspejle virkeligheden bliver et gennemsnit, hvor alle andre, der jo er forkerte qua de er anderledes end den rigtige, regnes med forkert.

De runde og trekantede felter afspejler henholdsvis ballonmålinger (måleinstrumenter, der er sendt op gennem atmosfæren med ballon) og satellit målinger.

Og slutteligt markerer de skrevne felter klimarapporternes udgivelse og den tiltro de har haft til deres teori. Og som man kan se er tiltroen til at temperaturen går op blevet stærkere jo længere tid der er gået, hvor temperaturen ikke er gået op.

Den ellers klimatro Berkeley forsker udi klimarelaterede emner Jane Long indrømmer også problemerne med FN’s klimamodellers evne til at forudsige klimaet ifølge Media Research Center

“We’ve gotten worse … We don’t know, any more, with any more precision. We know with less precision how much warming will occur for a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. That means we can say we want to reduce by 20 percent or 80 percent and therefore, we’ll keep it under two degrees. We don’t know that.”

She still advocated reducing carbon emissions and claimed it would help. Host Josh Zepps summed up her point saying, “the predictions are getting worse rather than better.” Long referred to the declining accuracy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecasts. The left uses these models to aggressively attack opponents whom they insultingly label “climate deniers.”

Judith Curry spørger hvilke implikationer klimamodellernes diskrepans med virkeligheden skaber?

hawkins

Panel b) indicates that the IPCC views the implications to be that some climate models have a CO2 sensitivity too high — they lower the black vertical bar (indicating the likely range from climate models) to account for this.  And they add the ad hoc red stippled range, which has a slightly lower slope and lowered range  that is consistent with the magnitude of the current model/obs discrepancy.  The implication seems that the expected warming over the last decade is lost, but future warming will continue at the expected (albeit slightly lower) pace.

The existence of disagreement between climate model predictions and observations doesn’t provide any insight in itself to why the disagreement exists, i.e. which aspect(s) of the model are inadequate, owing to the epistemic opacity of knowledge codified in complex models.

Hun citerer Matt Briggs der minder om at en teori der kun taler om muligheder (probabilistic) aldrig kan falsificeres, men at modellerne vil miste deres relevans som årtierne slægter på uden opvarmning. Og hvad skal så fodre vores angst

Miljø-evangelisten David Suzuki

Diverse, Grøn energi, IPCC, Klima, Satire, Vandmelon, miljø, venstrefløjen — Drokles on October 19, 2013 at 10:43 am

‘Det religiøse højre’ i USA, er en fast forklaringsmodel for hvorfor amerikanerne ikke kan komme til fornuft og indrette deres samfund efter europæisk forbillede. ‘Det religiøse højre’ udgør ofte en moralsk forkastelig vælgerbase for de mest upopulære republikanske præsidenter og den står i naturligt ledtod med ‘den jødiske/israelske lobby’, der gør mod Mellemøsten og verdensfreden, hvad ‘det religiøse højre’ gør mod USA. Men populære abstraktioner er intet at regne for den rene levendegørelse og tele-evangelister er selve billedet på amerikansk åndelig afstumpethed (selv om det er svært at stå for Jimmie Swaggert).

Men der religiøse er ikke isoleret til højre i USA. Det er lige så rigt repræsenteret til venstre og i Europa dominerer det religiøse netop til venstre. Men det religiøse venstre er en uerkendt religiøsitet thi de tror sig vaccineret i dyrkelse af gudløsheden. For det religiøse handler ikke om hvilken tro på det der ligger ud over det menneskeligt erkendtlige, men om man sorterer og manipulerer virkeligheden efter hvor godt den passer ind i den fortælling man antager som faktuel såvel som moralsk sandhed. Med Reagans ord handler det om man er bange for at se det man ser. Konklusionerne kan vi altid siden skændes om.

I forrige uge henviste jeg til Ezra Lavant, der gjorde sig kostelig på en af venstrefløjens store miljø-evangelister, canadiske David Suzuki og hans manglende viden om klimaet, som det blev eksponeret i et australsk debatprogram. Lavant forsøger i dette opfølgende show at gå en undvigende Suzuki på klingen, som han også opruller det ernorme økonomiske og moralske hykleri, der følger af den ukritiske tilbedelse af et selvbekræftende evangelium

Klimavidenskaben har stået i stampe i 30 år

IPCC, Klima, Videnskab — Drokles on October 10, 2013 at 4:29 pm

Grafen herunder, der er udarbejdet af den israelske astrofysiker Nir Shaviv og som han kalder den kedeligste nogensinde, viser udviklingen i FN’s klimapanels vurdering af klimaet’s følsomhed eller sensitivitet om man vil. Klimaet’s følsomhed er, som udtrykket sig, hvor stærkt det reagerer på en påvirkning. Har klimaet således en høj følsomhed, som klimapanelet antager, vil en lille ændring i f.eks. atmosfærens indhold af CO2 have stor betydning. Omvendt, har klimaet en lille følsomhed kan man sagtens udlede store mængder CO2 uden at det gør en synderlig forskel.

sensitivityvstime

Som man kan se på grafen, der går tilbage til før klimapanelet, til Charney rapporten’s glade dage i 1979, er der, bortset fra klimapanelets rapport fra 2007 (AR4) ikke sket en ændring af klimaforskningens konsensus om en gennemsnitlig temperaturstigning på mellem 1,5 og 4,5 grader, for hver gang CO2 indholdet i atmosfæren fordobles. Med alle de mia. af dollars man har hældt i klimaforskningen netop for at finde ud af klimaets følsomhed er man altså ikke nået et skridt videre efter mere end 30 års forskning.

One of the statements which wonderfully exemplifies the absurdity of the new report is this paragraph discussing the climate sensitivity in the summary for policy makers. They write:

“The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence) 16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing.”

Now, have you noticed something strange? According to the AR4 report, the “likely equilibrium range of sensitivity” was 2.0 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling. According to the newer AR5 report, it is 1.5 to 4.5°C, i.e., the likely equilibrium sensitivity is now known less accurately. But they write:  “This assessment reflects improved understanding”. How ridiculous can you be?

Shaviv leverer det indlysende svar for alle jer, der holder af Popper og Kuhn eller blot logik. Hvis en teori i udgangspunktet er forkert, vil flere data, mere empiri, ikke føre til en præcisering fordi teori og virkelighed ikke stemmer overens - tværtimod. Er teorien derimod rigtig, vil mere indsamling af data, mere ophobning af empiri, føre til en præcisering, da teorien vil afspejle virkeligheden.

Mistillid til FNs klimapanel

Diverse, IPCC, Klima, Videnskab, miljø — Drokles on September 23, 2013 at 5:35 am

FN udkommer snart med sin 5. rapport (AR5) om verdens klima. Klimapanelets rapporter definerer klimavidenskabens konsensus og er blevet kaldt ‘guldstandarden’ indenfor klimavidenskaben. Følgeligt er definitionsretten også diktionsmagten, da ingen sand videnskabsmand kan gå op imod en guldstandard af et flertal af kollegaers opfattelse. Klimapanelets troværdighed bygger altså på denne cirkelslutning, hvor retten er hvad de mange siger og man har ret fordi man er mange. Et flertal kan ikke tage fejl thi da er konsensus ikke autoritet. Og man kan derfor ikke ændre sin oprindelige position skulle virkeligheden begynde at løbe fra den uden da at indrømme at et flertal kan tage fejl og således at opgive konsensus’ autoritet. Alt man kan er at skærpe, præcisere, perspektivere og detaljere på den oprindelige tese. Judith Curry skriver om det

The IPCC was seriously tarnished by the unauthorized release of emails from the University of East Anglia in November 2009, known as Climategate.  These emails revealed the ‘sausage making’ involved in the IPCC’s consensus building process, including denial of data access to individuals who wanted to audit their data processing and scientific results, interference in the peer review process to minimize the influence of skeptical criticisms, and manipulation of the media.  Climategate was quickly followed by the identification of an egregious error involving the melting of Himalayan glaciers.  These revelations were made much worse by the actual response of the IPCC to these issues. Then came the concerns about the behavior of the IPCC’s Director, Rachendra Pachauri, and investigations of the infiltration of green advocacy groups into the IPCC. All of this was occurring against a background of explicit advocacy and activism by IPCC leaders related to CO2 mitigation policies.

The IPCC does not seem to understand the cumulative impact of these events on the loss of trust in climate scientists and the IPCC process itself. The IPCC’s consensus building process relies heavily on expert judgment; if the public and the policy makers no longer trust these particular experts, then we can expect a very different dynamic to be in play with regards to the reception of the AR5 relative to the AR4.

But there is another more vexing dilemma facing the IPCC.  Since publication of the AR4, nature has thrown the IPCC a ‘curveball’ — there has been no significant increase in global average surface temperature for the past 15+ years.

Based upon early drafts of the AR5, the IPCC seemed prepared to dismiss the pause in warming as irrelevant ‘noise’ associated with natural variability. Under pressure, the IPCC now acknowledges the pause and admits that climate models failed to predict it. The IPCC has failed to convincingly explain the pause in terms of external radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, aerosols, solar or volcanic forcing; this leaves natural internal variability as the predominant candidate to explain the pause.  If the IPCC attributes to the pause to natural internal variability, then this begs the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural internal variability.  Not to mention raising questions about the confidence that we should place in the IPCC’s projections of future climate change.

Nevertheless, the IPCC appears to be set to conclude that warming in the near future will resume in accord with climate model predictions.

Virkeligheden er ved at løbe fra klimapanelet og tilliden til dets autoritet falder. The Telegraph fortæller om absurde diskussioner om damage control

Several governments who fund the body have since complained about how the issue is tackled in the report.

Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries.

The US also urged the authors to include the “leading hypothesis” that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.

Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for any statistics. That year was exceptionally warm, so any graph showing global temperatures starting with 1998 looks flat, because most years since have been cooler.

While Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for sceptics.

Til det siger Dr Lubos Motl tørt

Quite generally, one could say that the American delegation prefers to publish the facts and supplement it with a (bogus) explanation while the European climate alarmists prefer downright censorship. This opinion is also supported by the comment in The Boston Globe that the U.S.-based Union of Concerned Scientists And Anthony Watts’ Dogs is worried that people will be saying “look, the IPCC is silent about the lull” which would be even worse than for “the cause” than a confession that there’s been no warming for nearly two decades.

There just isn’t any competitive hypothesis about the lack of warming that would be compatible with the meme about a dangerously high (and all natural factors beating) warming trend caused by the anthropogenic man-made emissions. Everyone knows that no such explanation that one wouldn’t be ashamed of exists in the scientific literature which is why no one will recommend you any paper of this type. There just isn’t one. The leading interpretation of the absence of the warming is that the global warming hypothesis with the numbers that were dominant among the “concerned institutions” in the recent decade has been falsified by the observations. Too bad that politicians are trying to play painful and childish games to misinterpret the results of the scientific research, research that they claim to be listening to but research that they actually want to control so that it suits their political needs.

Som klimapanelets formand Rajendra Pachauri sagde ganske åbent i et interview med Times of IndiaLet’s face it, we are an intergovernmental body and our strength and acceptability of what we produce is largely because we are owned by governments.

Nogle foreløbige reaktioner på IPCC’s tilbagetog

Akademia, Diverse, FN, Grøn energi, IPCC, Klima, Pressen, miljø, venstrefløjen — Drokles on September 18, 2013 at 11:56 am

FN’s klimapanel IPCC barsler med en ny rapport, der skal tjene beslutningstagere over hele verden, som en vejledning i hvilken trussel menneskeheden står overfor og subsidiært hvorledes vi kan beskattes for at kunne beskyttes. Men 17 år uden global opvarmning, uden mere ekstremt vejr og uden en eneste klimaflygtning har sået tvivl i de ellers ubetvivlelige konklusioner. Ross McKitrick skriver i Financial Post

Everything you need to know about the dilemma the IPCC faces is summed up in one remarkable graph.

IPCC

The figure nearby is from the draft version that underwent expert review last winter. It compares climate model simulations of the global average temperature to observations over the post-1990 interval. During this time atmospheric carbon dioxide rose by 12%, from 355 parts per million (ppm) to 396 ppm. The IPCC graph shows that climate models predicted temperatures should have responded by rising somewhere between about 0.2 and 0.9 degrees C over the same period. But the actual temperature change was only about 0.1 degrees, and was within the margin of error around zero. In other words, models significantly over-predicted the warming effect of CO2 emissions for the past 22 years.

Chapter 9 of the IPCC draft also shows that overestimation of warming was observed on even longer time scales in data collected by weather satellites and weather balloons over the tropics. Because of its dominant role in planetary energy and precipitation patterns, models have to get the tropical region right if they are credibly to simulate the global climate system. Based on all climate models used by the IPCC, this region of the atmosphere (specifically the tropical mid-troposphere) should exhibit the most rapid greenhouse warming anywhere. Yet most data sets show virtually no temperature change for over 30 years.

(…)

To those of us who have been following the climate debate for decades, the next few years will be electrifying. There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of the 20th century, and the implications for policy and global politics could be staggering.

Roy Spencer siger på sin blog

For the last 10-20 years or more, a few of us have been saying that the IPCC has been ignoring the elephant in the room…that the real climate system is simply not as sensitive to CO2 emissions as they claim. Of course, the lower the climate sensitivity, the less of a problem global warming and climate change becomes.

This elephant has had to be ignored at all costs. What, the globe isn’t warming from manmade CO2 as fast as we predicted? Then it must be manmade aerosols cooling things off. Or the warming is causing the deep ocean to heat up by hundredths or thousandths of a degree. Any reason except reduced climate sensitivity, because low climate sensitivity might mean we really don’t have to worry about global warming after all.

And, if that’s the case, the less relevant the IPCC becomes. Not good if your entire professional career has been invested in the IPCC.

But forecasting the future state of the climate system was always a risky business. The Danish physicist, Niels Bohr, was correct: “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.”

Unlike daily forecasts made by meteorologists, the advantage to climate prognosticators of multi-decadal forecasts is that few people will remember how wrong you were when your forecast finally goes bust.

Yet, here we are, with over 20 years of forecasts from the early days of climate modelling, and the chickens are finally coming home to roost.

I’m sure the politicians believed we would have had new energy policies in place by now, in which case they could have (disingenuously) claimed their policies were responsible for global warming “ending”. Not likely, since atmospheric CO2 continues to increase, and even by the most optimistic estimates renewable energy won’t amount to more than 15% of global energy generation in the coming decades.

But it’s been nearly 20 years since Al Gore privately blamed us (now, the UAH satellite temperature dataset) for the failure of his earliest attempt at CO2 legislation. Multiple attempts at carbon legislation have failed. The lack of understanding of basic economic principles on the part of politicians and scientists alike led to the unrealistic expectation that humanity would allow the lifeblood of the global economy — inexpensive energy — to be restricted.

Tyske Fritz Vahrenholt siger i et interview med bloggen No Tricks Zone

It’s now obvious that the IPCC models are not correctly reflecting the development of atmospheric temperatures. What‘s false? Reality or the models? The hackneyed explanation of a deep sea warming below 700 meters hasn’t been substantiated up to now. How does atmospheric warming from a climate gas jump 700 meters deep into the ocean? If you consider the uncertainties in the Earth’s radiation budget measurements at the top of the atmosphere, and those of the temperature changes at water depths below 700 meters, where we are talking about changes of a few hundredths of a degree Celsius over many years, such a “missing heat” cannot be ascertained today. The likelihood is that there is no “missing heat”. Slight changes in cloud cover could easily account for a similar effect. That would mean the end of the alarmist CO2 theory. Perhaps this is why we’ve been hearing speculation about the deep ocean.  On the other hand, perhaps this discussion tells us that the alarmist faction needs to deal more with oceanic cycles. It is possible that this is a step in recognizing the central impacts of the PDO and AMO on our climate.

NTZ: Hans von Storch confirms that 98% of the climate models have been wrong so far. Do you think the directors of world’s leading climate research institutes risk damaging the once sterling reputations of their institutes if they do not soon admit there’s a problem with climate science?

FV: They certainly find themselves in a serious jam. That‘s why they are now trying to gain time by claiming that the models first become falsified if there has been no warming over a period of 30 years – never mind that the warming of 1977 to 1998 was only 22 years and deemed to be long enough to “prove“ the CO2 theory. A few years ago climate scientist Ben Santer said only 17 years were necessary before we could talk about a real climate trend. Now that reality is pulling the rug from under models, some scientists are having misgivings. Some are praying for an El Nino year, which would allow them to beat the drums of fear again. They’ll hype up every single weather effect to get attention.

NTZ: Some prominent climate experts have been expressing second thoughts about the seriousness of man-made climate change, e.g. Hans von Storch, Lennart Bengtsson. Do you expect more scientists to follow as more data come in?

FV: Certainly. That’s what’s so fascinating about science. It proposes theories. And when they don’t fit reality, they get changed. The chaff gets separated from the wheat.

NTZ: Spiegel for example has been publishing some articles critical of alarmist climate science. Do you expect the rest of Germany’s media to soon follow and to start taking a more critical look?

FV: This process is fully under way. But it’s going to take a long time because an entire generation has been convinced that CO2 is a climate killer. But the shrill tones have been quieting down.

NTZ: What danger does Germany face should it continue down its current path of climate alarmism and rush into renewable energies?

FV: Twenty billion euros are being paid out by consumers for renewable energies in Germany each and every year. Currently that amounts to 250 euros per household each year and it will increase to 300 euros next year.

Worse, it’s a gigantic redistribution from the bottom to top, from the poor who cannot afford a solar system to rich property owners who own buildings with large roof areas. The German Minister of Environment fears a burden of 1000 billion euros by 2040.

It is truly outrageous that 1) 40% of the world’s photovoltaic capacity is installed in Germany, a country that sees as much sunshine as Alaska, 2) we are converting wheat into biofuel instead of feeding it to the hungry, and 3) we are covering 20% of our agricultural land with corn for biogas plants and thus adversely impacting wildlife. We are even destroying forests and nature in order to make way for industrial wind parks.

On windy days we have so much power that wind parks are asked to shut down, yet they get paid for the power they don’t even deliver. And when the wind really blows, we “sell” surplus power to neighboring countries at negative prices. And when the wind stops blowing and when there is no sun, we have to get our power from foreign countries. In the end we pay with the loss of high-paying industrial jobs because the high price of power is making us uncompetitive.

The agitators in climate science here in Germany have done us no favors. Renewable energies do have a big future, but not like this. It’s been a run-away train and it’s too expensive. We are putting Germany’s industry in jeopardy. In reality there really isn’t any urgency because the solar cycles and nature are giving us time to make the transition over to renewable energies in a sensible way.

NTZ: Has the weather become more extreme? Why are we getting bombarded by scary reports from the media – even after a normal thunderstorm with hail?

FV: Extreme weather is the only card they have left to play. We see that Arctic sea ice extent is the highest since 2007. At the South Pole sea ice is at the highest extent in a very long time, hurricanes have not become more frequent, the same is true with tornadoes, sea level is rising at 2-3 mm per year and there’s been no change in the rate, and global temperature has been stagnant for 15 years. Indeed we are exposed to bad weather. And when one is presented with a simplistic explanation, i.e. it’s man’s fault, it gladly gets accepted. CO2 does have a warming effect on the planet. However, this effect has been greatly exaggerated. The climate impact of CO2 is less than the half of what the climate alarmists claim. That’s why in our book, The Neglected Sun, we are saying there is not going to be any climate catastrophe.

NTZ: What do you expect from the soon-to-be-released IPCC 5th Assessment Report?

FV: It is truly remarkable that some countries are urging IPCC 5AR authors to address the reasons for the temperature hiatus in the summary for policymakers. Dissatisfaction with the IPCC’s tunnel vision is growing. But let’s not kid ourselves: In the coming days and weeks the media are not going to be able to refrain from the IPCC catastrophe-hype. However, what will be different from the previous four reports is that the hype will die off much more quickly. Those who ignore nature and its fluctuations will end up on the sidelines soon enough. I think this is going to be the last report of this kind.

Og Roger Pielke Jr. kommer med en venlig opsang til

More seriously, rather than engaging in proxy wars over media reporting and the short-term PR spin associated with it — which may in fact just make things worse — it would be in the long-term interests of the climate science community to take a step back and consider the role of their spokespeople (official or otherwise) in aiding and abetting the skeptics, deniers and other nefarious evil-doers.

A difficult question for the climate science community is, how is it that this broad community of researchers — full of bright and thoughtful people — allowed intolerant activists who make false claims to certainty to become the public face of the field?

Joanna Nova tror ikke at klimamiljøet tager imod sådanne gode råd og minder i stedet om at  ”They offer no credit to those who were right”

We are over the peak. Years late, the IPCC concedes some territory and wears headlines they must hate (“Global warming is just HALF what we said“, “We got it wrong on warming“), but PR still rules, and in the big game, this will quickly spin to a minor bump. It’s a classic technique to release “the bad news” before the main report, to clear the air for the messages the agents want to stick.

Since 2007 they’ve burned through their credibility in so many ways:  think Climategate, and getting caught pretending activist material was science, being busted for 300-year-typos like the Himalayan Glaciers, plus 15 years of no warming, no hot spot, models being wrong, droughts ending, and ice returning, all the while pouring scorn and derision on anyone who questioned them. The IPCC were being hammered and they had to change tacks. Now, for the first time, the IPCC is making a serious retreat, presumably in the hope of being able to still paint itself as “scientific” and to fight from a different trench. Anything to continue the yearly junkets and to save face. What they hope is that no one will notice that the deniers were right and the experts were wrong, and the “government panel” has helped governments waste billions of your dollars.

They were 90% certain in 2007, which was never a scientific probability, but a hands-up vote. Now, in the most meaningless of ways, they are 95% certain of something more vague: the range has gone from 2°C to 4.5°C, to 1°C to 6°C. (See Matt Ridley in the Wall St Journal). They just made the barn door even wider. In years to come this allows them more room to pretend they hit the target, without acknowledging that they missed it for 23 years. And even that new supersize barn door may still not be wide enough.

Og nu Joanna Nova anbefaler Matt Riddley, der kalder bortforklaringerne af den manglende varme for “a cottage industry in climate science“, i Wall Street Journal

A more immediately relevant measure of likely warming has also come down: “transient climate response” (TCR)—the actual temperature change expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide about 70 years from now, without the delayed effects that come in the next century. The new report will say that this change is “likely” to be 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius and “extremely unlikely” to be greater than 3 degrees. This again is lower than when last estimated in 2007 (”very likely” warming of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius, based on models, or 1 to 3.5 degrees, based on observational studies).

Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.

Og han fortsætter

Yet these latest IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity may still be too high. They don’t adequately reflect the latest rash of published papers estimating “equilibrium climate sensitivity” and “transient climate response” on the basis of observations, most of which are pointing to an even milder warming. This was already apparent last year with two papers—by scientists at the University of Illinois and Oslo University in Norway—finding a lower ECS than assumed by the models. Since then, three new papers conclude that ECS is well below the range assumed in the models. The most significant of these, published in Nature Geoscience by a team including 14 lead authors of the forthcoming IPCC scientific report, concluded that “the most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 degrees Celsius.”

Two recent papers (one in the Journal of the American Meteorological Society, the other in the journal Earth System Dynamics) estimate that TCR is probably around 1.65 degrees Celsius. That’s uncannily close to the estimate of 1.67 degrees reached in 1938 by Guy Callendar, a British engineer and pioneer student of the greenhouse effect. A Canadian mathematician and blogger named Steve McIntyre has pointed out that Callendar’s model does a better job of forecasting the temperature of the world between 1938 and now than do modern models that “hindcast” the same data.

The significance of this is that Callendar assumed that carbon dioxide acts alone, whereas the modern models all assume that its effect is amplified by water vapor. There is not much doubt about the amount of warming that carbon dioxide can cause. There is much more doubt about whether net amplification by water vapor happens in practice or is offset by precipitation and a cooling effect of clouds.

Forleden sagde Connie Hedegaard at selv om videnskaben skulle være forkert er politikken stadig rigtig. Selv om patienten alligevel ikke var syg var det rigtigt at operere? Selv om den anklagede alligevel var uskyldig…. Mon ikke absurditeten i at underkende præmissen for en beslutning vil fremstå mere tydelig for selv de definerende klasser de kommende år?

« Previous Page

Monokultur kører på WordPress