Hvis det æ fakta…..

Diverse — Drokles on November 27, 2009 at 9:18 am

Det er rystende at følge med i Climate-Gate, sagen om et gruppe forskere på East Anglia Climate Research Unit, der tilsyneladende har manipuleret med deres forskning. På Pajamas Media er man, som mange andre gået i gang med at analysere de mange lækkede e-mails og der tegner sig et billede af noget man kunne kalde for religiøs desperation. Et af de citater, der har fremkaldt en del opmærksomhed er sætningen “The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant.” fordi den antyder erkendelse. Men det afhænger jo selvfølgelig af i hvilken sammenhæng bemærkningen falder og her bliver det uhyggeligt

The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

CERES stands for the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System run by NASA.

Trenberth has “acknowledged the email is genuine,” according to Kim Zetter at Wired’s Threat Level blog. His email leaves two alternatives:

  1. There really is a “lack of warming at the moment” (a decade-plus “moment”).
  2. Warming is still occurring, but “our observing system is inadequate,” i.e., “we can’t trust those lying thermometers and other temperature-measuring devices. It can’t be computer-modeled CERES data, which is telling us what we want to believe.”

Per Ms. Zetter, Trenberth’s defense in the wake of the email’s release chooses door number two:

“It says we don’t have an observing system adequate to track it, but there are all other kinds of signs aside from global mean temperatures — including melting of Arctic sea ice and rising sea levels and a lot of other indicators — that global warming is continuing,” he says.

He can protest until the methane-generating cows come home, but the following implication of Trenberth’s trembling response is inescapable: “Even though we’ve relied on them all along to build our case, we suddenly can’t rely on temperature measurements to prove or disprove the existence of global warming. Our models nonetheless simply have to be right.” His backup argument if the temps are indeed correct — which would mean that the model generating “the CERES data” and other similar simulations will have been proven to be flawed — would be, “Well, even if the models are wrong, we still have proof in melting Arctic sea ice, rising sea levels, etc.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose work Trenberth cites in a recent paper to support his belief that “global warming is unequivocally happening,” doesn’t name any other factors beyond temperature, ice, and sea levels in the pull quote of its “Summary for Policymakers”: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”

So unless Trenberth has something meaningful in the “lot of other indicators” he casually cites in his response to his email’s release, he and his brethren are in a heap of trouble. That’s because by his own logic, temperature measurements must be rejected as credible evidence. Further, his presumptive, supposedly settled-science arguments about Arctic sea ice and rising sea levels melt upon only a cursory review.

Virkeligheden skal ikke spolere en god teori. CRU spiller en afgørende rolle for udviklingen af de klimamodeller man anvender og for at levere de dataset andre forskere arbejder med. Dette er ikke bare alvorligt, men en skandale. Men ikke på Lars Henrik Aagaard blog på Berlingske Tidende

Det kunne godt se ud som om, der er blevet klippet en hæl og hugget en tå enkelte steder for tydeliggøre klimabudskabet over for offentligheden. Men om man ligefrem har benyttet sig af videnskabelig uredelighed synes straks mere tvivlsomt.

(…)Men skaden er sket. Og den såkaldte klimabombe er tilmed bevidst detoneret bare 14 dage før, det går løs i København på den afgørende globale klimakonference.

Hensigten er selvfølgelig at forplumre billedet af en stort set enig klimavidenskab og drage dens motiver og resultater i tvivl i håb om at svage politikere vil lytte til dette resultat af en kriminel handling.

Hr Lars Henrik Aagaard - Du er en idiot. I Aargaards optik er de stærke politikere dem der standhaftigt lytter til løgnerne. “Hensigten er selvfølgelig at forplumre billedet af en stort set enig klimavidenskab og drage dens motiver og resultater i tvivl i håb om at svage politikere vil lytte til dette resultat af en kriminel handling.” skriver han skødesløst men enige på hvilken baggrund? Hos ham er Grima Ormetunge åbenbart en helt og det er eksponeringen af hans forplumrende gerninger, der er “skaden sket“.

Men han slår fast at “Den arktiske afsmeltning er stigende.” og at “Klodens temperaturer har overordnet set været stigende siden midten af 1800-tallet.” og forstærker således påstanden om en langstrakt global trend med et umiddelbart lokalt fænomen. Og Aagaard slår fast at disse klimaforskere er “…ærlige og redelige mennesker, der er optaget af videnskaben og den videnskabelige metode.” Imens i New Zealand er man også begyndt at se på tidligere svært tilgængelige rå data ifølge Watts Up With That

The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre.

In New Zealand’s case, the figures published on NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century:

But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result:

Gone is the relentless rising temperature trend, and instead there appears to have been a much smaller growth in warming, consistent with the warming up of the planet after the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850.

Og så kan det ikke nytte af Aagaard hæfter sig ved en enighed blandt klimaforskere, hvis præmissen er falsk.

Det kunne godt se ud som om, der er blevet klippet en hæl og hugget en tå enkelte steder for tydeliggøre klimabudskabet over for offentligheden. Men om man ligefrem har benyttet sig af videnskabelig uredelighed synes straks mere tvivlsomt.

Så se på denne hæl og denne tå

klimagraf-1

Med de rå data

klimagraf-21

1 Kommentar »

  1. Drokles, kan man skrive til dig, (email forstås)

    Venligst
    Per N

    Comment by Per N — November 28, 2009 @ 2:30 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress