Klimakonsensus?

Diverse — Drokles on December 11, 2009 at 6:53 pm

BBC besluttede for et par år siden at dække klima-problematikken ud fra den antagelse at forskerne havde nået til en enighed om at temperaturen steg globalt og at det var menneskets skyld. Richard S. Lindzen er ikke enig i den betragtning i Wall Street Journal under den klare overskrift The Climate Science Isn’t Settled

The main statement publicized after the last IPCC Scientific Assessment two years ago was that it was likely that most of the warming since 1957 (a point of anomalous cold) was due to man. This claim was based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn’t reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.

Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.

Og han konkluderer

The notion that complex climate “catastrophes” are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate. Many disasters associated with warming are simply normal occurrences whose existence is falsely claimed to be evidence of warming. And all these examples involve phenomena that are dependent on the confluence of many factors.

Our perceptions of nature are similarly dragged back centuries so that the normal occasional occurrences of open water in summer over the North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc. are all taken as omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways (as epitomized by our carbon footprint). All of these phenomena depend on the confluence of multiple factors as well.

Den er meget anbefalelsesværdig i disse tider, hvor de uoplyste erobrer gaderne.

1 Kommentar »

  1. Ja, men vi skylder. Vi skylder. Det er nok vores skyld. Vi kan ikke være bekendt at være så rige, når nogle er så fattige, at de er ude af stand til at klare sig selv. Vi må støtte dem, gøre noget. Vi må sætte nogle penge af.

    Med venlig hilsen

    Comment by Emeritus — December 12, 2009 @ 2:18 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress