“Pausen” i den globale opvarmning nærmer sig hastigt officiel erkendelse

Diverse — Drokles on January 16, 2013 at 6:54 am

Forrige år offentliggjorde den engelske avis Daily Mail en graf på baggrund af det engelske meterologiske institut MET, der viste at den globale temperatur ikke var steget de sidste 15 år. Sidste år gjorde de det igen, blot havde den manglende temperaturstigning nu varet i 16 år.

skc3a6rmbillede-2013-01-16-kl-045727

Begge gange vakte det en del vrede og benægtlse i det klimahysteriske miljø og MET påpegede at de intet havde med grafen at gøre. Sandt var det da også at Daily Mail selv havde udfærdiget grafen, men de havde gjort det på baggrunde af data, som MET diskret offentliggør når virkeligheden tegner sig anderledes end spådommene. Men truth will out, som de siger derovre og nu har MET måttet revidere deres barske forudsigelser om den nærmeste fremtid, meget til især Daily Mail’s store begejstring

But then last week, the rest of the media caught up with our report. On Tuesday, news finally broke of a revised Met Office ‘decadal forecast’, which not only acknowledges the pause, but predicts it will continue at least until 2017. It says world temperatures are likely to stay around 0.43 degrees above the long-term average – as by then they will have done for 20 years.

This is hugely significant. It amounts to an admission that earlier forecasts – which have dictated years of Government policy and will cost tens of billions of pounds – were wrong. They did not, the Met Office now accepts, take sufficient account of  ‘natural variability’ – the effects of phenomena such as ocean temperature cycles – which at least for now are counteracting greenhouse gas warming.

Surely the Met Office would trumpet this important news, as it has done when publishing warnings of imminent temperature rises. But there was no fanfare. Instead, it issued the revised forecast on the ‘research’ section of its website – on Christmas Eve. It only came to light when it was noticed by an eagle-eyed climate blogger, and then by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the think-tank headed by Lord Lawson.

Med det ind mente er det mere end småkomisk at læse at “København skal redde New York fra druknedøden“. “Overborgmester Frank Jensen skal stå i spidsen for globalt storbynetværk om grøn vækst - og lære newyorkerne at sikre sig mod oversvømmelser“. “The wheels are in motion”, som de siger i Yes Minister når den store forvaltningsmaskine  gøre en udvikling uafvendelig og sætte modparten ud af spillet. Politikere, medier og forskningsmiljøers alliance med rød-grønne organisationer af forskelligt tilsnit har skabt et imponerende bæst, der næsten lever sit eget, men også kun næsten. Dets liv næres af en tyrkertro på at skæbnen står for døren og den bruger enorme økonomiske ressourcer på at erstatte arbejde med aktivitet.

Men alt det er efterhånden udhulet til de sidste parodiske 1. maj parader i Rumænien eller Albanien. Skæbnen har stået og tøvet for døren for længe til at man gider tage den alvorligt og den økonomiske smalhals fører til en mere kritisk revision af udgifterne. Ingen er interesseret i at optræde i TV3’s Luksusfælden. Vi har ikke længere råd til at forfølge tant og fjas, mens virkelighedens problemer tårner sig op.

Daily Mail scorer gode point på deres historie, hvor de årligt ydmyger en prestigefyldt statslig organisation og udstiller dens slet skjulte dagsordner. En historie der rammer lige ned i de mest basale folkelige skepsis om at blive løjet for og om offentligt overforbrug. Skandalen lurer. Det er for godt til at andre medier ikke vil følge op om føje tid.

2 Kommentarer »

  1. Hvordan forklarer man den stadigt hastigere afsmeltning af den arktiske is, hvis man ikke kan bruge den globale opvarmning som bekvem årsag?

    Med venlig hilsen

    Comment by Emeritus — January 22, 2013 @ 5:04 pm
  2. Havstrømme er en ofte brugt forklaring. Havstrømme er svære at hitte rede på, men da Arktis er et ishav er det nærliggende at tænke netop havets egen foranderlighed ind i ligningen. En anden er sod, som The Economist fortæller
    http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21569686-soot-even-worse-climate-was-previously-thought-new-black
    ——————————–
    The new black
    Soot is even worse for the climate than was previously thought
    Jan 19th 2013 |From the print edition
    SOOT—also known as black carbon—heats up the atmosphere because it absorbs sunlight. Black things do. That is basic physics. But for years the institutions that focus on climate policy have played down the role of pollutants such as black carbon that stay in the atmosphere for a short time, and concentrated on carbon dioxide, which, once generated, tends to remain there. That may soon change.

    On January 15th, the fifth day that smog-darkened Beijing’s air-quality index was registering “hazardous” (see article), the most comprehensive study of black carbon yet conducted was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. It concluded that the stuff was the second-most-damaging greenhouse agent after CO2 and about twice as bad for the climate as had been thought until now. The implications are profound.

    This study, a four-year affair conducted under the auspices of the International Global Atmospheric Chemistry Project, an umbrella group for research into such matters, is based on a lot more information about soot than was previously available, and a better understanding of how it affects the climate. It found that the black carbon around at the moment has a warming effect of about 1.1 watts per square metre of the Earth’s surface (W/m2). This is greater than that of methane and second only to the 1.7W/m2 of carbon dioxide. An earlier estimate by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) put the black-carbon effect at only 0.3-0.6W/m2. The higher the figure, the worse the warming.

    In this section
    An Antipodean Raj
    Blown up in orbit
    The new black

    In a hole
    ReprintsRelated topics
    Europe
    Environmental problems and protection
    Science
    Climatology
    Climate change
    Black carbon is especially damaging to frozen regions, because when soot falls on snow and ice it increases the amount of light and heat they absorb. The new assessment may therefore help explain why the Arctic has been melting faster than anyone had expected. The study argues that warming is likely to be especially marked in the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere—northern Canada, Alaska, northern Europe and Siberia. It also gives a warning that black carbon, by changing regional precipitation patterns, may affect Asian monsoons.

    Sweep it away

    The biggest impact of soot, though, is not on the climate but on health—through lung and other diseases. The UNEP study reckoned that controlling emissions of black carbon could save 2.4m lives a year, regardless of any effects on the climate.

    It might seem that the new study is one more item of bad environmental news. Not so. It should be easier to deal with black carbon than with carbon dioxide. Whereas CO2 is long-lasting and an inevitable by-product of burning fossil fuels, soot drops out of the atmosphere within weeks. Stop putting it there and it will rapidly go away—a potentially easy win.

    That win is made easier still by the fact that about 70% of emissions in Europe and the Americas come from diesel engines. Better exhausts, to trap carbon particles before they are emitted, and the scrapping of old, highly polluting vehicles could make an immediate impact. In other countries the problem is more often inefficient stoves and dirty fuel—again, things that are easy to deal with, at least in principle.

    Dealing with them is also cheaper than cutting CO2 emissions and does not need global agreement, because the local benefits would be the main point, so no one could free-ride on the emission-cutting efforts of others. Instead, the good of the climate would be free-riding on local self-interest. Piers Forster of Leeds University, in England, one of the study’s authors, argues that if people did everything they could to reduce black-carbon emissions, it would strip half a degree of temperature rise out of the process of global warming—or, to put it another way, would give politicians two extra decades to tackle the less tractable question of what to do about CO2.
    ——————————–

    Læg mærke til at den manglende stigning af den globale gennemsnitstemperatur over de seneste 15 år nu deles mellem CO2 og sod.

    Comment by Drokles — January 23, 2013 @ 4:22 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress