Virkeligheden mod institutionerne

“Verden er efterhånden ved at vågne op til klimaforandringernes dilemma, og det er ikke et øjeblik for tidligt” skriver Duncan Clark i Information. Amerikanerne er i så fald ikke en del af den verden ifølge PEW

pew-bekymring-over-global-opvarmning

Og det er til trods for at ingen miljøsag har fået så megen promovering, som klimaet. Hysteriet toppede omkring 2006, hvor Al Gore fik en Nobel pris for filmen En Ubekvem Sandhed. I 2009 lækkede nogen interne emails fra en gruppe centrale klimaforskere tilknyttet East Anglia Universitetet i England. Angiveligt var det medvirkende til at man ikke opnåede enighed ved klimakonferencen i København nogle uger senere. Ifølge Watt’s Up With That har lande som Kina, Indien, Canada, Australien og Rusland endnu ikke besluttet sig for om de gider deltage i klimakonferencen i Paris til december i år.

Ifølge satellit målingerne er atmosfærens temperatur ikke steget de seneste 18 år. Den udvikling, sammen med andre historier som diskrepansen mellem modller og virkelighed, har man først for nyligt indrømmet og da kun med en lang række forbehold. Klimaet ser bare ikke ud til at være så påvirkeligt, eller følsomt, som det hedder indenfor den videnskabelige disciplin, som forskerne selv. Greg Jones skriver i Climate Change Dispatch at de træge modvillige indrømmelser fra klimahysteriets konsensus følger Kübler-Ross modellen for en psykologi konfronteret med det uafvendelige.

Now, after a roller coaster of emotions and barrage of media tantrums, it seems the issue is settled, sort of. In a recent paper in the journal Science, a team of researchers actually acknowledges the pause and attempts to explain it.

(…)

“The Pause in Global Warming is Finally Explained,” Scientific Americanassures us; “The global warming slowdown is real—but that’s no reason to question climate science,” sneers the Washington Post; “Scientists now know why global warming has slowed down and it’s not good news for us,” proclaims a recent headline on Quartz.com.

As is often the case with predicting the climate, however, the certainty proclaimed in the headlines is anything but certain. This isn’t the first time researchers have attempted to explain what they have previously denied. To date, there are more than 52 scientific theories attempting to solve the pause that doesn’t exist, from a lazy sun to trade winds to the wrong types of El Niño’s. But for some reason Mann’s explanation is the one; 53 is apparently the magic number.

(…)

Mann’s paper encapsulates perfectly the issue between skeptics of climate change and the hard-core believers: something in the models is always missing that is later found. What was wrong last time has been corrected, even though last time nothing was wrong. The same models that are considered gospel always come up short, only to be revised as gospel yet again.

Everyone understands that climate change research is tricky; countless variables constantly interacting with one another at ever-changing time and distance scales. And studying the Earth’s climate is indeed a worthwhile pursuit. But there is nothing scientific about denying actual, physical data, in this case the global average temperature over two decades. And nothing is academic or open-minded about demonizing an entire portion of the population pointing out the obvious by labeling them “deniers” as if they doubt the Holocaust.

(…)

Don’t expect full acceptance anytime soon, however. In fact, a recent Nature paper defends the accuracy of the very models that failed to predict the very pause that didn’t exist that now does exist but only because the models were wrong. No, this is not a Zen koan: it’s modern climate science.

Klimahistorien har haft det svært, men trods dens lunkne opbakning er den stadig hos os. Måske fordi de n er blevet to big to fail, spekulerer Paul Driesen ligeledes i Climate Change Dispatch

Lockheed Martin, a recent Washington Post article notes, is getting into renewable energy, nuclear fusion, “sustainability” and even fish farming projects, to augment its reduced defense profits. The company plans to forge new ties with Defense Department and other Obama initiatives, based on a shared belief in manmade climate change as a critical security and planetary threat. It is charging ahead where other defense contractors have failed, confident that its expertise, lobbying skills and “socially responsible” commitment to preventing climate chaos will land it plentiful contracts and subsidies.

As with its polar counterparts, 90% of the titanic climate funding iceberg is invisible to most citizens, businessmen and politicians. The Lockheed action is the mere tip of the icy mountaintop.

The multi-billion-dollar agenda reflects the Obama Administration’s commitment to using climate change to radically transform America. It reflects a determination to make the climate crisis industry so enormous that no one will be able to tear it down, even as computer models and disaster claims become less and less credible – and even if Republicans control Congress and the White House after 2016. Lockheed is merely the latest in a long list of regulators, researchers, universities, businesses, manufacturers, pressure groups, journalists and politicians with such strong monetary, reputational and authority interests in alarmism that they will defend its tenets and largesse tooth and nail.

Above all, it reflects a conviction that alarmists have a right to control our energy use, lives, livelihoods and living standards, with no transparency and no accountability for mistakes they make or damage they inflict on disfavored industries and families.

Selv om temperaturen holder ‘pause’ fortsætter debatten. Lawrence Solomon skriver i Financial Post at den russiske forsker Habibullo Abdussamatov

His latest study, published in Thermal Science, delivers this week’s second whammy. It continues the analysis he has long pursued, which consistently arrives at the same conclusion: Earth is now entering a new Little Ice Age, Earth’s 19th Little Ice Age, to be precise. Abdussamatov has been quite confident of his findings for what might strike some as odd reasons: His science is based on that of the giants in the field — astronomers like Milutin Milankovitch, who a century ago described how tilts in its axis and other changes in the Earth’s movements determine its climate, and William Herschel, who two centuries ago noticed an inverse correlation between wheat prices on Earth and the number of sunspots generated by the Sun’s cycles. (Hint: the more energy from the Sun that Earth gets, the more warmth Earth receives, the more abundant the wheat crops, the lower the price of wheat; the less energy from the Sun, the less warmth, the more wheat crop failures, the higher the wheat price.)

Greenhouse gases — CO2 and water vapour — play a role in this drama but the gases come not from SUVs and other man-made activities but from the oceans, which contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. As the oceans warm or cool because of the Sun, they release or absorb these gases, whose greenhouse effect is secondary and relatively minor.

Abdussamatov’s model incorporates the Sun’s 200-year cycles and the feedback effects from greenhouse gases released by the oceans, and sees how they acted on Earth’s previous 18 Little Ice Ages. “All 18 periods of significant climate changes found during the last 7,500 years were entirely caused by corresponding quasi-bicentennial variations of [total solar irradiance] together with the subsequent feedback effects, which always control and totally determine cyclic mechanism of climatic changes from global warming to Little Ice Age.”

If the 19th Little Ice Age follows the pattern of the previous 18, Earth slipped into an ice age in the winter just concluded and will become progressively colder over the next 50 years, reaching its depth around 2060. Another half century, taking us to the 22nd century, and we’ll arrive back at today’s temperatures.

Mens Joe Romn i Think Progress betror os at pausen er slut

We may be witnessing the start of the long-awaited jump in global temperatures. There is “a vast and growing body of research,” as Climate Central explained in February. “Humanity is about to experience a historically unprecedented spike in temperatures.”

A March study, “Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change,” makes clear that an actual acceleration in the rate of global warming is imminent — with Arctic warming rising a stunning 1°F per decade by the 2020s.

Scientists note that some 90 percent of global heating goes into the oceans — and ocean warming has accelerated in recent years. Leading climatologist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research explained here in 2013 that “a global temperature increase occurs in the latter stages of an El Niño event, as heat comes out of the ocean and warms the atmosphere.”

In March, NOAA announced the arrival of an El Niño, a multi-month weather pattern “characterized by unusually warm ocean temperatures in the Equatorial Pacific.”

How much of a temperature jump should we expect? Last month, Trenberth explained to Living on Earth:

I interviewed Trenberth this week, and he told me that he thinks “a jump is imminent.” When I asked whether he considers that “likely,” he answered, “I am going to say yes. Somewhat cautiously because this is sticking my neck out.”

Trenberth explained that it’s significant the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) “seems to have gone strongly positive” because that is “perhaps the best single indicator to me that a jump is imminent.” During a PDO, he explains, “the distribution of heat in the oceans changes along with some ocean currents.”

“Through it all, Gallup will be describing the public’s opinion of global warming.” slutter Lawrence sit indlæg.

En antagelse er bevis i klimavidenskab

Akademia, Diverse, IPCC, Klima, Michael Mann, Videnskab — Drokles on April 2, 2014 at 11:44 am

Bloggen Realclimate er det nærmste man kommer et uofficielt talsrør for FNs Klimapanel. Dens formål er at forklare klimavidenskab for en apatisk offentlighed og er stiftet af og består af nogle af klimapanelets mest centrale klimaforskere og de mest advokerende for menneskets uheldige indflydelse på klimaet som ishockeystavgrafens skaber Michael Mann og klimamodeløren Gavin A Schmidt. Så niveauet er derefter

Does global warming make extreme weather events worse? Here is the #1 flawed reasoning you will have seen about this question: it is the classic confusion between absence of evidence and evidence for absence of an effect of global warming on extreme weather events. Sounds complicated? It isn’t. I’ll first explain it in simple terms and then give some real-life examples.

The two most fundamental properties of extreme events are that they are rare (by definition) and highly random. These two aspects (together with limitations in the data we have) make it very hard to demonstrate any significant changes. And they make it very easy to find all sorts of statistics that do not show an effect of global warming – even if it exists and is quite large.

(…)

While statistical studies on extremes are plagued by signal-to-noise issues and only give unequivocal results in a few cases with good data (like for temperature extremes), we have another, more useful source of information: physics. For example, basic physics means that rising temperatures will drive sea levels up, as is in fact observed. Higher sea level to start from will clearly make a storm surge (like that of the storms Sandy and Haiyan) run up higher. By adding 1+1 we therefore know that sea-level rise is increasing the damage from storm surges – probably decades before this can be statistically proven with observational data.

Så altså, hvis vi antager at klimaet ikke opfører sig som et komplekst og dynamisk system så behøver vi slet ikke empiri for at bevise vores teorier. Teorierne står i deres egen ret og er deres eget bevis. Det kunne de jo godt have sagt inden de hævede deres løn for at beskære træer og programmere dyre computermodeller. Som illustration på deres cirkellogik kommer de med dette fornemme eksempel

Imagine you’re in a sleazy, smoky pub and a stranger offers you a game of dice, for serious money. You’ve been warned and have reason to suspect they’re using a loaded dice here that rolls a six twice as often as normal. But the stranger says: “Look here, I’ll show you: this is a perfectly normal dice!” And he rolls it a dozen times. There are two sixes in those twelve trials – as you’d expect on average in a normal dice. Are you convinced all is normal?

You shouldn’t be, because this experiment is simply inconclusive. It shows no evidence for the dice being loaded, but neither does it provide real evidence against your prior suspicion that the dice is loaded. There is a good chance for this outcome even if the dice is massively loaded (i.e. with 1 in 3 chance to roll a six). On average you’d expect 4 sixes then, but 2 is not uncommon either. With normal dice, the chance to get exactly two sixes in this experiment is 30%, with the loaded dice it is 13%[i]. From twelve tries you simply don’t have enough data to tell.

Så altså, den videnskabelige tilgang er at stole på en blanding af rygter og ens instinkter frem for eksperimenter. Problemet med klimaet, som et eksperiment, er, at man kun har det ene og intet at sammenligne med. Hvis denne beværtning er symbolet på verden, hvorfor opfatter man den så som snudsket fremfor normal? Åh, det er antagelsen om virkelighedens korrumperede ulidelighed og den bliver kun bekræftet af empiriens afkræftelse.

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.

Monokultur kører på WordPress