Damned if it is, damned if it isn’t

Diverse — Drokles on October 24, 2010 at 9:15 pm

Det kan være svært for en lægmand, som jeg at følge klimadebattens mange argumenter når man bliver fortalt at to væsensforskellige temperaturkurver bestyrker hinanden. Bloggen Skeptical Science er blevet træt af at skeptikere hele tiden slår tvivl om FN’s ikoniske ishockeystav-graf, der viser et stabilt klima siden tusindtallet for med industialiseringens og CO2-udledningens begyndelse at stige “unpreecedentet”. Det er FNs Klimapanel (IPCC) rygende pistol vi taler om. Med følgende polemiske fif vender Skeptical Science argumentation

The hockey stick, a reconstruction of temperature over the last 1000 or so years, is a much maligned graph. Critics of the hockey stick insist it underestimates past climate change. In particular, many insist that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were warmer than now. The next logical leap is that if past natural climate change is comparable to today, then current climate change must also also natural. The irony of this line of thinking is that if the Medieval Warm Period did turn out to be much warmer than currently thought, this doesn’t prove that humans aren’t causing global warming. On the contrary, it would mean the danger from man-made global warming is greater than expected.

(…)

The temperature response to a climate forcing is known as climate sensitivity. Technically, climate sensitivity is defined as the change in global temperature if the planet experiences a climate forcing of 3.7 Watts/m2 (which is how much climate forcing you get from a doubling of CO2). The amount of positive feedback in our climate system determines how sensitive our climate is. If there’s net negative feedback, the climate sensitivity will be less than 1.2°C. If climate sensitivity is greater than 1.2°C, our planet has net positive feedback. Climate sensitivity can be calculated by using temperature change over the past 750 years along with the change in radiative forcing (Hegerl et al 2000).

(…)

Can you now see the irony in insisting on a warmer Medieval Warm Period? If for some reason, temperatures over the Medieval Warm Period turn out to be warmer than previously thought, this means climate sensitivity is actually greater than 3°C. The climate response to CO2 forcing will be even greater than expected. So to argue for a warmer Medieval Warm Period is to argue for greater climate sensitivity and greater future warming due to human CO2 emissions.

Argumentet er altså at eventuelle tidligere temperaturudsving blot understreger klimaets følsomhed mod selv de mindste påvirkninger. Men se de to grafer

warming_graph

Den øverste er altså Klimapanelets fornemmeste bevis da der er en klar og direkte sammenhæng mellem CO2 indhold i atmosfæren og den globale temperatur, men den nederste og helt anderledes er endnu fornemmere og bekræfter, ja ligefrem bygger på klimapanelets forudsigelser. I de fleste andre videnskabelige discipliner vil den ene graf med forklaring udelukke den anden.

[Det skal lige med at den nederste graf omhandler Europa, hvis klimahistorie man kun havde interesseret sig for indtil forskningen blev en politisk og ideologisk krigszone, men som hypotetisk argument er det altså blot det grafen afspejler, der er væsentligt]

Og så kan man blive skræmt af Star City News historie om cigaretternes egentlige skadevirkninger

Some interesting facts about the hazards of smoking are:
· About 111,000 people die annually due to active or passive smoking.
· One person dies in every 5 minutes with smoking related diseases.
· About 40% of the total number of fires in a year is caused by smoking accidents.
· Tobacco is most widely grown cash crop in most countries; hence less land is available for growing food crops.
· Burning tobacco causes pollution, since it emits 4000 dangerous gases into the atmosphere.
· Cigarettes produce two gases, methane and carbon dioxide, which are responsible for global warming through green house effect.

Eller hvad med helbreddet, som man kan læse om hos Spiked Online?

But it was the president of the RCPsych, which ‘represents 13,000 psychiatrists in the UK’, who provided some truly nutty reasons why reducing carbon emissions is good for us.

Professor Dinesh Bhugra declared: ‘Research shows a low-carbon lifestyle can improve mental health – which is why the RCPsych is proud to be playing its part in the 10:10 campaign.’ As another one flew over the cuckoo’s nest, Bhugra continued: ‘People who engage in active, low-carbon activities, such as walking or cycling more often, are not only cutting emissions but keeping their bodies and minds healthy. For mild depression, physical activity can be as good as antidepressants or psychological treatments such as cognitive behavioural therapy.’

(…)

Ironically, green living has been fingered as a cause of stress. For example, a poll in May 2010 by a green energy company found that 60 per cent of couples argue over energy wastage while others have described the tensions between partners over how to live ‘ethically’ (see Saving the planet, killing the passion, by David Bowden).

Jeg forstår intett andet end at vi er færdige, som gårdsangere. Fra Information

Danskerne har haft rig lejlighed til at lære at lave klimavenlig mad. Aviserne har bugnet med opskrifter, Fødevarestyrelsen har bl.a. udgivet kogebøger om klima-mad, supermarkederne har formuleret råd til kunderne om klimahensyn, og Forbrugerstyrelsen har lavet en kampagne, der skal hjælpe forbrugerne til at nedsætte CO2-udledningen via valget af varer til indkøbskurven. Topkokke har sågar lavet mad uden brug af el og gas.

Ifølge en ny måling foretaget af Ugebrevet Mandag Morgen er vi stadig voldsomt bekymrede for klimaet. Alligevel er klimamad ikke blevet en del af vores hverdag.

Klimavenlig mad? Wtf?

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress