Judith Curry gør op med et konsensus

Diverse, IPCC, Klima, Videnskab — Drokles on May 10, 2015 at 9:04 pm

En af de mest sejlivede myter i klimadebatten er myten om det videnskabeligt konsensus. Ofte citeres en undersøgelse, der påstår at 97% af alle relevante klimaforskere er enige i fortællingen om global opvarmning. Men, som Larry Bell forklarer til Forbes, har undersøgelsen en lang række gravende fejl, som den kun måler på to udsagn; 1) er temperaturen steget siden forrige århundrede? 2) Har mennesket indflydelse på klimaet?

FNs klimapanel blev nedsat med det formål at formulere et konsensus, således at politikerne havde lettere ved at orientere sig. Men selv om politiseringen af den videnskabelige debat ganske udadtil har skabt en illusion om konsensus så eksisterer uenighederne og tvivlen desuagtet. Judith Curry forklarer her hvorledes offentlige forskningskroner fordrejer klimaforskningen til at passe med konsensus

Og på Master Resource er der et sammendrag af hendes ponter, som de kom frem ved en høring for House Committee on Science, Space and Technology

Bias from Climate Change Orthodoxy

The censure of scientists disagreeing with the IPCC consensus was particularly acute during the period 2005-2010. As revealed by the Climategate emails, there was a cadre of leading climate scientists that were working to sabotage the reviews of skeptical research papers (and presumably proposals for research funding). Further, scientists challenging climate change orthodoxy are subjected to vitriolic treatment in news articles, op-eds and blogs, damaging the public reputation of these scientists. I have heard from numerous scientists who are sympathetic to my efforts in challenging climate change orthodoxy, but are afraid to speak out or even publish skeptical research since they are fearful of losing their job.

Since 2010, things have improved somewhat especially in Europe; I think this has largely been due to reflections following Climategate and the fact that disagreement about climate change is not as starkly divided along the lines of political parties (i.e. the issue is somewhat less politicized). In the U.S., with President Obama’s recent pronouncements about climate denial and climate deniers (as anyone who does not agree with the consensus) has increased the toxicity of the environment (both academic and public) for scientists that question the IPCC consensus on climate change.

Climate Model Overwarming/Problems

Particularly for the past decade, climate models have been running too hot, predicting more warming than has been observed (refer to the figure on page 6 of my testimonyhttp://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/.

The discrepancies between observed surface temperatures and climate model simulations indicates that climate models are not useful for predicting climate on decadal time scales (out to 20 years) or for regional spatial scales. If the so-called warming hiatus continues for another few years, then the observations will be completely outside of the envelope of climate model predictions.

I have argued that climate models are not fit for the purpose of simulating decadal scale and regional climate variability. Climate models are mainly useful for scientific exploration of mechanisms in the climate system. Whether they are at all useful for projections of century scale climate change remains to be seen, but I am doubtful.

Lower-Sensitivity Modeling?

For the main climate models used in the CMIP5 simulations for the IPCC AR5, climate sensitivity is an emergent property and not one that is easily tuned. For simpler climate models, such as MAGICChttp://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/, climate sensitivity can be tuned, seehttp://www.cato.org/blog/002degc-temperature-rise-averted-vital-number-missing-epas-numbers-fact-sheet

10553515_10152287856623869_8189818733335583637_n

Global opvarmning bliver nok alligevel ikke skyld i mange fremtidige jordskælv

Diverse, Klima, Videnskab — Drokles on May 5, 2015 at 8:09 am

“[A] series of life-threatening “extreme geological events” – earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis – is predicted by a group of eminent geologists and geophysicists” kan man læse i Newsweek Europe. Årsagen er: Klimaforandringer. Visse steder er forkastninger i jordskorpen særligt følsomme overfor relativt små ændringer i det tryk, som afsmeltning af større gletchere eller havspejlsstigninger foresager. “These stress or strain variations – just the pressure of a handshake in geological terms – are perfectly capable of triggering a quake if that fault is ready to go,” fortælles der. Undersøgelsen er foretaget ved hjælp af computermodeller.

The disappearing ice, sea-level rise and floods already forecast for the 21st century are inevitable as the earth warms and weather patterns change – and they will shift the weight on the planet. Professor McGuire calls this process “waking the giant” – something that can be done with just a few gigatonnes of water in the right – or wrong – place.

“These stress or strain variations – just the pressure of a handshake in geological terms – are perfectly capable of triggering a quake if that fault is ready to go,” he tells Newsweek.

Uha, og så lige i kølvandet på et jordskævl. Man bliver jo helt bekymret om ens livsstil nu også er helt forsvarlig. Og det er den helt sikkert ikke, men af så mange andre grunde end at bilen står i tomgang natten over. Klimamodeller er nemlig ikke helt så sikre, som deres advokater advokerer for. FNs klimapanel slog i deres 2001 rapport fast (h/t Nir Shaviv) at forskellige modeller kan give forskellige projektioner af det samme

“Different models may give quite different patterns of response for the same forcing, but an individual model may give a surprisingly similar response for different forcings. The first point means that attribution studies may give different results when using signals generated from different models. The second point means that it may be more difficult to distinguish between the response to different factors than one might expect, given the differences in radiative forcing.”

Dette diagram viser hvor forskelligt de klimamodeller FNs klimapanel benytter opfører sig.

cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means1

Et argument for klimamodellernes pålidelighed er deres evne til ‘hind-casting’, at kunne rekonstruere fortidens klima. Ideen er at, hvis modellerne kan rekonstruere, hvad vi ved, der er sket (med eller uden ishockey-stav?) har de demonstreret deres grundlæggende forståelse af klimaets komplicerede dynamikker og bestået den afgørende test for også forudsige fremtidens klima. Men, som man kan se, er der så mange forskellige bud på fremtidens klima, at de tilsammen negerer den påstand.

Og Daily Mail skrev forleden at ifølge et studie ved Duke University er de eksisterende klimamodeller (der er udviddede vejrmodeller) påviseligt ude af stand til at gennemskue naturlige variationer indenfor årtier

The team examined whether climate models, such as those used by the IPCC, accurately account for natural chaotic variability that can occur in the rate of global warming.

To test these, created a new statistical model based on reconstructed empirical records of surface temperatures over the last 1,000 years.

‘By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the ‘big picture’ right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,’ Brown said.

‘Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013.’

‘Statistically, it’s pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections,’ Brown said.

‘Hiatus periods of 11 years or longer are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario.’

Under the IPCC’s middle-of-the-road scenario, there was a 70 per cent likelihood that at least one hiatus lasting 11 years or longer would occur between 1993 and 2050, Brown said.

‘That matches up well with what we’re seeing.’

There’s no guarantee, however, that this rate of warming will remain steady in coming years, Li stressed.

‘Our analysis clearly shows that we shouldn’t expect the observed rates of warming to be constant. They can and do change.’

Modellernes fejlbarlighed gælder også for der de beflitter sig med temperaturudviklingen i dybhavet, som Roy Spencer skriver. Og det er jo havet, som en vandmasse underforandring det skulle handle om med sin evne til at udløse jordskælv før tid. I Weekendavisen skriver Frede Vestergaard nemlig, at der ifølge ny dansk forskning ingen påviselig effekt er mellem menneskeskabt global opvarmning og havspejlsniveauet. De målte ændringer skyldes Månens effekt på tidevandet og det går imod FNs klimapanels argumentation.

Herved skaber de fem oscillationer de svingninger, der observeres på målestationerne.

Disse såkaldte kvasi-oscillationer har en maksimal bølgehøjde på 70-140 millimeter.

Én af dem begyndte omkring 1970, og det har skabt den opfattelse, at der siden 1970 er sket en menneskeskabt havstigning. Men nej, siger de tre forskere efter deres analyser. Det er månen, der spiller ind.

Én af de fem oscillationer hænger sammen med månens styring af tidevandet i nord-sydlig retning.

Månens (og solens) tyngdefelt skaber nemlig ikke kun en øst-vest-bevægelse omkring Jorden ved samspil med Jordens rotation. Månen har også en nord-syd-bevægelse i forhold til Jorden, der strækker sig over cirka 35 breddegrader. Det er noget, som kun få er opmærksomme på, siger Jens Morten Hansen.

Denne bevægelse kaldes månens nodal-oscillation.

Længden er 18,6 år, og den giver i sig selv en bølge på 70 millimeter i havene omkring Danmark. Månen skaber altså en tidevandsbølge, der varer 18,6 år, og som løber nord-syd i modsætning til det daglige tidevand, der løber øst-vest. Ligesom højden af det daglige tidevand er højden af nord-sydbølgen afhængig af lokale, geografiske forhold.

Nord-syd-bølgen styrer og spiller sammen med fire andre bølger. Den nordatlantiske oscillation er en svingning på ca. 60 år, der styres af forskelle i lufttrykket mellem f. eks. Azorerne og Island. Den viser sig som en bølge i havniveauet på 22,7 millimeter og som følge af synkronisering med den måneskabte nord-syd-bølge får den en nøjagtig tre gange så lang periodelængde (55,8 år).

Den atlantiske multidekadale oscillation er en periodisk svingning på 70-80 år, der styres af havoverfladens vandtemperatur. Bølgehøjden er 35,5 millimeter, og som følge af synkronisering med månens nord-sydbølge får den en periodelængde på nøjagtig fire gange måne-perioden (74,4 år). Dertil kommer to små, periodiske svingninger i havniveauet med periodelængder på hhv. nøjagtig 1,5 og 6 gange månens periodelænge på 18,6 år. Deres bølgehøjder er hhv. 8,5 og 8,0 millimeter.

De fem bølgesvingninger påvirker altså hinanden og skaber flere forskellige bølgebevægelser med en længde på op til 60-80 år, hvor den daglige tidevandsbølge løber Jorden rundt en gang i døgnet.

Og modtagelsen af denne interessante opdagelse, der kan have stor betydning for, hvor mange og hvor vi kaster penge hen til kystsikring? Ikke ligefrem begejstring

Jens Morten Hansen kalder opdagelsen »ubehagelig for IPCC, fordi den viser, at man ikke kan finde menneskeskabt påvirkning af verdenshavets højde og havstrømme - og at Jordens klima primært styres af en række velkendte, naturlige svingninger.

Forskningsresultater, der peger i den retning, forties eller underbetones af kredsene omkring det internationale klimapanel, IPCC. Det tolker konsekvent forskningsresultater i én bestemt retning uden at belyse andre muligheder«. Publiceringen Én ting er opdagelsen af disse sammenhænge. En anden er problemerne med at få artiklen om den omtalt i et videnskabeligt tidsskrift. Det har taget flere år og flere afslag, selv om man måske skulle tro, redaktørerne ville gribe begærligt efter en artikel med denne opdagelse. Først forsøgte forskerne at få deres artikel optaget i tidsskriftet Nature.

»Det er det bedste sted at få banebrydende forskningsresultater omtalt. Vi har påvist, at der ikke i de sidste årtier er noget tegn på menneskeskabt påvirkning af havniveauet omkring Danmark og i Østersøen, og at de udsving, der faktisk sker, foregår i samme takt som i de sidste 160 år og styres af månens nord-syd bevægelse i forhold til Jorden.

Det - synes vi - er et så vigtigt resultat, at det har stor international interesse for klimaforskningen. Og der er særlig opmærksomhed om den forskning, der omtales i tidsskrifterne Nature og Science«, siger Jens Morten Hansen.

»Men vi fik artiklen tilbage - uden nogen som helst seriøs bedømmelse. Jeg tror ikke, at Nature’s redaktion kunne lide vores opdagelse. Vi var godt klar over, at Nature er meget tilbageholdende med at optage artikler, hvis resultater strider mod det billede, som FNs klimapanel, IPCC, tegner. IPCC bygger på de satellitmålinger af havoverfladen, der begyndte i 1993, og som derfor kun registrerer den kvasi-oscillation, der begyndte omkring 1970. Men over de blot 22 år optræder de 56-og 74-årige oscillationer ikke med en fuld svingning og kan derfor ikke udskilles.

Vores resultater rokker afgørende ved IPCCs udsagn om stigende havniveau. De er ikke klimapolitisk korrekte.« Jens Morten Hansen fortæller, at artiklen siden blev sendt til Nature Geoscience. Her fik den i første omgang to faglige bedømmelser. Den ene var positiv, den anden negativ, men uden at vurderingen forholdt sig til substansen i artiklen. En tredje reviewer blev herefter sat på, også denne bedømmelse var ifølge Jens Morten Hansen negativ uden dog at forholde sig til artiklens metoder og resultater.

Derefter blev artiklen sendt til tidsskriftet Nature Climate, som blot sendte en mail tilbage om, at man ikke ville bringe den. Også et andet tidsskrift i Nature-familien (Earth Science Reviews) blev forsøgt, men redaktøren her svarede, at man ikke ville bringe artiklen, fordi den burde kulegrave alt, hvad der er skrevet om tidevand - en nærmest livslang opgave.

»Endelig sendte vi artiklen til et tidsskrift uden for Nature-familien, tidsskriftet Journal of Coastal Research, hvor vi dels fik to meget positive vurderinger og et begejstret brev fra redaktøren, der også gerne så flere forskningsartikler fra vores hånd. Alt i alt har artiklen været godt fire år undervejs, efter at den blev færdig. Måske skulle vi være begyndt med Journal of Coastal Research, men den ville givetvis have fået mere opmærksomhed, hvis den var publiceret i et mindre specialiseret tidsskrift. Jeg kan oplyse, at vi også uden held to gange har forsøgt at få en omtale i Videnskab. dk. Det er trist, at forskningsformidling og politisk korrekthed er blevet så stærkt sammenblandet, som tilfældet er på klimaforskningens område.

Man kan få fyldig omtale af stort set hvad som helst, blot det ikke rokker ved IPCCs politiske dagsorden.

Forleden dag fik jeg dog en henvendelse fra Aktuel Naturvidenskab, der gerne vil have en større omtale.«.

Så hvis dine kaffekopper klirrer, så er det nok helt naturligt.

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.

Temperaturskandale 2

Diverse — Drokles on February 18, 2015 at 1:32 pm

Jeg henvist for et par uger siden til Christoffer Booker, der skrev at der var blevet fiflet med temperaturdata fra Paraguay til Patagonien så de understøttede en fortælling om stigende temperaturer. Varmen kommer gerne, hvor ingen oplever den, hvorfor der nu også advokeres for den er sprunget i dybhavet. Og nu viser det sig tilsyneladende at der også er blevet fiflet med temperaturdata fra Arktis. Christoffer Booker skriver i Telegraph

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.

One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.

Og Selwyn Duke tilføjer på New American

One might first note, as The New American has reported before, that “consensus” itself is often manipulated, a good example being the debunked claim that “97 percent of scientists affirm anthropogenic global warming.” Even more significantly, however, citing scientific consensus is just a version of the argumentum ad populum fallacy — and it is a thoroughly unscientific appeal.

Late author Michael Crichton expressed this truth brilliantly in a 2003 Caltech lecture, saying, “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.” Crichton pointed out that consensus is a political concept, not a scientific one, stating that science “requires only one investigator who happens to be right.” He continued, “In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

After providing numerous examples of castigated, consensus-condemned scientists who turned out to be right, Crichton cut to the matter’s heart, saying, “Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

In other words, when you have the facts, you present them. Consensus is something you talk about when you don’t have the facts.

This brings us to why the government is “adjusting” temperature data. Government climate models that had predicted climatic changes haven’t at all fit the facts of how the climate has changed, but the government still wants to use what they say about future climate to make today’s policy. So they need to change the “facts.”

And this data rape is no small matter. As meteorologist Anthony Watts told Fox News, “In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data”

Joanna Nova giver et eksempel på hvorledes det britiske meteorologiske institut MET, arbejder kreativt med grafikken for at fremme deres fortælling.

Klimaet cykler på vulkaner

Diverse, Historie, IPCC, Klima, Videnskab — Drokles on February 8, 2015 at 6:56 am

Daily Mail skriver at undersøiske vulkaner ifølge et nyt studie påvirker klimaet mere end ellers antaget.

Volcanoes lurking hidden under the world’s oceans may play a far greater role in climate change than previously thought, according to a new study.

Scientists have found that underwater volcanoes, which were long assumed to ooze lava at relatively steady rates, in fact erupt in pulses.

A new study has shown that these submarine eruptions follow regular cycles that can range from just a couple of weeks to 100,000 years.

Surprisingly the researchers also found that these eruptions also appear to be clustered during the first six months of each year.

The findings may now mean that models predicting how human activity will change the climate will need to be adjusted.

Volcanic eruptions are known to throw huge amounts of gas into the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide that are thought to increase global warming.

However, volcanoes also release aerosol gases that are now known to reduce global warming by creating a reflective barrier against the sun.

Dr Maya Tolstoy, a marine geophysicist at the Lamond-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, said: ‘People have ignored seafloor volcanoes on the idea that their influence is small, but that’s because they are assumed to be in a steady state, which they’re not.

‘They respond to both very large forces, and to very small ones, and that tells us that we need to look at them much more closely.’

Watts Up With That har mere om den videnskabelige del. No Tricks Zone referer til et andet og tysk studie, der mener at vise at klimaet ligger under for ganske mange cyklusser, hvilket måske gør det muligt at spå lidt om fremtidens klima (og heri ligger intet om mennesket ændrer på præmisserne gennem afbrænding af fossile brændstoffer)

In principle these cycles are sinusoidal in behavior as depicted in Figure 1. Bob Tisdale has also shown how the temperature increase of the 65-year cycle from 1975 to 1998 led to the assumption that it is due CO2 emissions because they too happened to be parallel. This has been naively extended all the way to the year 2100 and forms the basis for the climate models and the invention of the so-called “climate catastrophe”.


Figure 1:  Sine wave characteristic of the 60/65-year ocean cycle (Source: Bob Tisdale at WUWT).

In this analysis we will attempt to see how the temperature development could be over the next 700 years, assuming of course that the mentioned climate cycles of the past will continue on into the future. This should not be (mis)understood as a forecast for the future climate. Up to now there is only the IPCC forecast that the global temperature will rise by 2 to 5°C by the year 2100 – based only on the expected CO2 increase. However that theory has failed to work over the last 18 ears because the various natural climate factors and cycles never got considered, or they were not allowed to be considered in the climate models. Included among these factors are the mean cloud cover (albedo) and the resulting effective solar insolation (watts per sqm) at the earth’s surface, or the sea surface, which is decisive for the temperature development.Next Figure 2 below depicts the 1000-year cycle and the 230-year cycle, which have been reconstructed from historical proxy data. They stem from a combination of results from various publications in the field of paleoclimatology over the last years. The diagram of the last 3200 years distinctly shows a 1000-year cycle; the last 2000 years of which are confirmed by historical documents. In fact this cycle goes back all the way to the end of the last ice age, i.e. some 9000 years. The reason for the cycle is still unknown today, yet its existence is undisputed.

The current warm period is no “anthropogenic product”, rather it is the natural result of a repeating 1000-year cycle that goes back far into the past. Today’s warm period does not even reach the temperatures seen in the past warm periods, which at times were 1 to 2°C higher. Moreover it is important to note that during both of the past temperature maxima of 1000 and 2000 years ago, the CO2 values were at 280 ppm while today they are at 400 ppm. This indicates that the earlier warmer periods likely were related to natural solar activity and not to a rise in CO2 because there was no CO2 rise during those warm phases.

Figure 2: Global temperature over the last 3200 years shows a distinct 1000-year cycle along with the 230-year cycle.

Of historical significance is the fact that over the course of human history warm periods were always times of economic and cultural prosperity. The cooler periods always led to serious problems that led to starvation and huge waves of human migration in Europe. Here it becomes undeniably clear that the alarmist claims that “the earth has a fever” made by politicians such as Al Gore are patentedly preposterous.

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/02/german-analysis-current-warm-period-is-no-anthropogenic-product-major-natural-cycles-show-no-signs-of-warming/#sthash.VkC0WQJT.BRFPqPLu.dpuf

Men hvad forstår bønder sig på agurkesalat?

Climategate, the sequel?

Marlo Lewis skriver i Global Warming.org om, hvad der er udråbt til klodens varmeste år i målingernes historie ifølge de data man har fra jordbaserede målestationer med traditionelle termometre. Men der er andre og bedre målemetoder

According to NOAA, the 2014 temperature in the troposphere was the third highest in the 1979-2014 record, as analyzed by the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) satellite program, and the sixth highest on record, as analyzed by the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite program.

So why don’t the agencies’ press releases proclaim 2014 the third or sixth warmest year? Or just say that it was one of the warmest in the instrumental record? Perhaps because “warmest on record” feeds the sense of crisis, which helps feed agency budgets. Notice the self-promotional aspect of NASA’s press release: “The observed long-term warming trend and the ranking of 2014 as the warmest year on record reinforces the importance for NASA to study Earth as a complete system, and particularly to understand the role and impacts of human activity.”

Even based on surface station records alone, 2014 may not be a record breaker. James Hansen of Columbia University and colleagues who analyzed the data estimate that 2014 is only 0.02ºC warmer than 2010 and 0.03ºC warmer than 2005, making all three years a “statistical tie.”

According to the Climatic Research Unit of the UK Met Office, the margin of error in estimating global surface temperature is 0.1ºC. That is five times larger than the increment by which 2014 supposedly surpassed 2010.

So how certain are NOAA and NASA that 2014 was in fact the warmest year? NOAA assigns a probability of 48%; NASA, a probability of 38%.

Og som en god perspektivering vedlægger han denne graf, hvor målinger foretaget henholdsvis med ballon og og satellit holdes op imod de modeller, som FNs Klimapanel bruger til at afspejle deres teorier

models-v-observations-christy-mcknider-wsj-feb-20-2014

Der er nogle åbenbare problemer med traditionelle målestationer fordi de kun er nogle få tusinde punkter spredt over hele jordens landmasse (nogle skal måle områder på størrelse med Ungarn). Derudover kan der være omskiftelige lokalforhold, som bebyggelse, der ændrer præmisserne for målingerne. Til at kompensere bruger man store og avancerede statistiske forarbejdninger, der i sig selv også er følsomme. Men ikke nok med det, så frister de mange komplicerede dataset også svage sjæle til at hjælpe fortællingen eller advarslen om man vil mere på vej i de obskure dele af de indsamlede data.  skriver i Telegraph om endnu en lurende skandale i den langstrakte klimadebat om, hvorfor de faste målestationer er mere alarmerende end de bedre ballon målinger og overlegne satellit målinger

Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a climate blog: “Massive tampering with temperatures in South America”. The evidence on Notalotofpeopleknowthat, uncovered by Paul Homewood, was indeed striking.

Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay.

Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.

But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.

Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world’s scientists. And in particular by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has driven the greatest and most costly scare in history: the belief that the world is in the grip of an unprecedented warming.

How have we come to be told that global temperatures have suddenly taken a great leap upwards to their highest level in 1,000 years? In fact, it has been no greater than their upward leaps between 1860 and 1880, and 1910 and 1940, as part of that gradual natural warming since the world emerged from its centuries-long “Little Ice Age” around 200 years ago.

This belief has rested entirely on five official data records. Three of these are based on measurements taken on the Earth’s surface, versions of which are then compiled by Giss, by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit working with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, part of the UK Met Office. The other two records are derived from measurements made by satellites, and then compiled by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California and the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH).

(…)

An early glaring instance of this was spotted by Steve McIntyre, the statistician who exposed the computer trickery behind that famous “hockey stick” graph, beloved by the IPCC, which purported to show that, contrary to previous evidence, 1998 had been the hottest year for 1,000 years. It was McIntyre who, in 2007, uncovered the wholesale retrospective adjustments made to US surface records between 1920 and 1999 compiled by Giss (then run by the outspoken climate activist James Hansen). These reversed an overall cooling trend into an 80-year upward trend. Even Hansen had previously accepted that the “dust bowl” 1930s was the hottest US decade of the entire 20th century.

Assiduous researchers have since unearthed countless similar examples across the world, from the US and Russia to Australia and New Zealand. In Australia, an 80-year cooling of 1 degree per century was turned into a warming trend of 2.3 degrees. In New Zealand, there was a major academic row when “unadjusted” data showing no trend between 1850 and 1998 was shown to have been “adjusted” to give a warming trend of 0.9 degrees per century. This falsified new version was naturally cited in an IPCC report (see “New Zealand NIWA temperature train wreck” on the Watts Up With That science blog, WUWT, which has played a leading role in exposing such fiddling of the figures).

(…)

One of the more provocative points arising from the debate over those claims that 2014 was “the hottest year evah” came from the Canadian academic Dr Timothy Ball when, in a recent post on WUWT, he used the evidence of ice-core data to argue that the Earth’s recent temperatures rank in the lowest 3 per cent of all those recorded since the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago.

James Delingpole skriver også om det i Spectator. Som en af tvivlens medløbere vil jeg præsentere en 5 år gammel film (som jeg ikke har kunnet finde gratis førend nu).

Not Evil Just Wrong is a 2009 documentary film by Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer that challenges Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth by suggesting that the evidence of global warming is inconclusive and that the impact global warming legislation will have on industry is much more harmful to humans than beneficial.

Hård tid for rødhårede og fisk

Akademia, IPCC, Indvandring, Klima, Videnskab — Drokles on July 10, 2014 at 6:34 pm

Når man kan huske at Dan Jørgensen i 2011 gav os “Fem år til at redde verden” kan det måske undre at han nu synes det er mere vigtigt blande sig i danskernes spisevaner. Men måske er han blevet immuniseret af sit eget vrøvl. Richard Littlejohn skriver ganske fornuftigt om skræmmehistoriernes modsatte effekt i Daily Mail

Officially, we don’t have weather any more.

We have ‘climate change’, a catch-all excuse for everything from raising taxes and refusing to empty the bins to exploding manhole covers.

That’s right, exploding manhole covers. The Health and Safety Executive has warned pedestrians to be on the alert after a series of manhole cover explosions in London’s West End.

There have been 64 such incidents already this year, compared with just nine in 2011. ‘Experts’ blame the ‘wettest winter on record’ for rainwater damaging underground electric cables.

The heavy rainfall, which brought flooding to many parts of the country, is naturally attributed to ‘climate change’, which is also allegedly responsible for last week’s hot weather and the subsequent deluge at the weekend.

Self-appointed ‘experts’ refuse to acknowledge that we had extreme weather before ‘man-made global warming’ was invented.

You don’t have to go as far back as the 17th century, when ice fairs were held on the frozen River Thames and vineyards flourished across the South of England.

Within living memory, we had the famous floods of 1953, the big freeze ten years later, and the unusually dry summers of 1976 and 1977.

Even then, the Government thought it had to do something. Denis Howell, a former football referee turned MP, was appointed Minister of Drought.

Within three days of him taking the job, it started to rain heavily and he was made Minister of Floods. During the harsh winter of 1978/9, his job description changed again and he became Minister for Snow.

You couldn’t make it up.

Littlejohn pointerer at den slags historier og medfølgende formaninger, som han giver morsomme eksempler på er “insulting to our intelligence” og i sidste end kontraproduktivt for deres sag. Mon ikke for, hvad tænker folk dog ikke når de i MX.dk kan læse at klimaforandringerne udsletter de rødhårede?

Flere britiske forskere vurderer, at de rødhårede gener kan nemlig være på vej retur i takt med at kviksølvet stiger i termometret. Det skriver The Independent.

Generne bag den lyse hud, blå øjne og den ildrøde hårpragt menes at være fremelsket i det overskyede Skotland for at optage så meget sol som muligt.

Den blege hud gør også huden følsom overfor sol og giver hyppigere tilfælde af forbrændinger og hudkræft - og hvis den stigende temperatur fortsætter opad på alle klodens termometre, så kan de rødhårede gener høre fortiden til.

- Vi mener, at den lyse hud og det røde hår er kommet af, at man ikke fik sol nok og derfor skulle optage så meget D-vitamin som muligt, vurderer Dr. Alistair Moffat fra ScotlandsDNA.

- Hvis klimaet ændrer sig, og det bliver mere eller mindre skyet, så vil det påvirke generne, siger Moffat til The Independent.

- Hvis det så bliver mindre skyet og der var mere sol, så ja, ville der bliver færre mennesker, der bærer det rødhårede gen, siger Dr. Alistair Moffat.

Stop hellere indvandringen, hvis man vil bevare den lyse teint, det røde hår og de blå øjne. Global Post kunne dagen efter fortælle om hjerteproblemer der ellers kun rammer fede fisk

Rising sea temperatures brought about by climate change could kill fish by causing heart failure, New Zealand scientists said Monday.

A study of ecotherms, or cold-bodied animals that rely on their surroundings to maintain optimum body temperature such as most fish showed they were clearly affected by climate change, according to University of Auckland biologists.

“This research shows that the heart acts as a ‘bio-indicator’ of which species may survive rises in ocean temperature, but exactly why heart failure occurs we still don’t know,” Dr Anthony Hickey said in a statement.

The study found that mitochondria, cell structures that control energy production, within heart cells began to fail as temperatures rose.

I mellemtiden er temperaturen ikke steget de seneste 17 år, som Christoffer Monckton of Brenchley skiver hos Climate Depot

Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for 17 years 10 months. This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for more than half the entire satellite temperature record. Yet the lengthening Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

skc3a6rmbillede-2014-07-10-kl-174628

The hiatus period of 17 years 10 months, or 214 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a zero trend. Yet the length of the pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed. The First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded: “Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.” That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. A quarter-century after 1990, the outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 1.4 Cº/century, or exactly half of the central estimate in IPCC (1990) and well below even the least estimate (Fig. 2).

Og når man fornærmer folks intelligens så skal man ikke ikke undre sig over deres barnligt humoristiske protester

Klimahysteriske krampetrækninger?

Akademia, Diverse, IPCC, Klima, Videnskab — Drokles on May 17, 2014 at 12:43 pm

Daily Mail skriver at det videnskabelig tidsskrift Environmental Research Letters har forkastet en videnskabelig artikel fordi den såede tvivl om der herskende konsensus om menneskets katastrofale indflydelse på klimaet

Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of five authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published.

‘The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,’ he told the Times.

Prof Bengtsson’s paper suggests that the Earth’s environment might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought.

If he and his four co-authors are correct, it would mean that carbon dioxide and other pollutants are having a far less severe impact on climate than green activists would have us believe.

The research, if made public, would be a huge challenge to the finding of the UN’s Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double.

The paper suggested that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out ‘to reduce the underlying uncertainty’.

The five contributing scientists submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters – a highly regarded journal – but were told it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote: ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’

Prof Bengtsson, 79, said it was ‘utterly unacceptable’ to advise against publishing a paper on the political grounds.

He said: ‘It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models.

Bengtson tiltrådte den uafhængige tænketank Global Warming Policy Foundation, stiftet af den tidligere Thatcher minister Nigel Lawson. Tænketanken er i opposition til FNs Klimapanels konsensus og det har givet voldsomme reaktioner fra andre klimaforskere - en tysk fysiker kaldte det ligefrem et medlemskab af Ku Klux Klan. Og den slags var for voldsomt for den gamle mand, der trak sit medlemskab af tilbage, kunne man ligeledes læse i Daily Mail

In his resignation letter, published on the think-tank’s website, he wrote: ‘If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety.

‘I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life.

‘Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

‘I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy.

Lord Lawson, the former Tory Chancellor condemned the behaviour as ‘appalling’ and said the reference to ‘McCarthyism’ was ‘fully warranted’.

Judith Curry fandt det sørgeligt, med dette seneste eksempel på at klimakonsensus forsvarer position med en mobbekultur

I deeply regret that any scientist, particularly such a distinguished scientist as Bengsston, has had to put up with these attacks.  This past week, we have seen numerous important and enlightening statements made by Bengtsson about the state of climate science and policy, and science and society is richer for this.  We have also seen a disgraceful display of Climate McCarthyism by climate scientists, which has the potential to do as much harm to climate science as did the Climategate emails.

Rupert Darwall er ganske enig i McCathyisme sammenligning, men konkluderer anderledes Ghandisk i National Review at det er tegn på sammenbrud

Especially significant was a tweet from Gavin Schmidt, a leading climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute, who for many years worked alongside James Hansen. “Groups perceived to be acting in bad faith should not be surprised that they are toxic within the science community,” Schmidt tweeted. “Changing that requires that they not act in bad faith and not be seen to be acting in bad faith.”

Evidently the right to practice and discuss climate science should be subject to a faith test. It is an extraordinarily revealing development. Fears about unbelievers’ polluting the discourse, as some academics put it, illustrate the weakness of climate science: The evidence for harmful anthropogenic global warming is not strong enough to stand up for itself.

Inadvertently Schmidt’s tweet demonstrates how far climate science has crossed the boundary deep into pseudo-science. Karl Popper observed of the trio of pseudo-sciences prevalent in 1920s Vienna that their followers could explain why non-believers rejected their manifest truths. For Marxists, it was because of their class interests. For subscribers to Freudian psychoanalysis and Alfred Adler’s psychology, non-belief was evidence of unanalyzed repressions crying out for treatment. So it is with climate science. Only the pure of heart should be allowed an opinion on it.

Science regresses if it becomes intolerant of criticism.

Jeg er enig med Darwall, men det har jeg været længe uden at noget er brudt sammen. Marc Morano har samlet et par af det mobberi der længe har været standard

NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for “high crimes against humanity.” Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics in 2007, declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors” In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared CEO’s ‘should be in jail… for all of eternity.”

In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled in their beds. “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,” stated the remarks, which Romm defended by calling them “not a threat, but a prediction.”

In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.” In 2007, The Weather Channel’s climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.

A 2008 report found that ‘climate blasphemy’ is replacing traditional religious blasphemy. In addition, a July 2007 Senate report detailed how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation.

In 2007, then EPA Chief Vowed to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called ‘Climate Criminals’ who are committing ‘Terracide’ (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007) In addition, in May 2009, Climate Depot Was Banned in Louisiana! See: State official sought to ‘shut down’ climate skeptic’s testimony at hearing.

Below are many more examples of the threats, name calling and intimidation skeptics have faced in recent times.

November 12, 2007: UN official warns ignoring warming would be ‘criminally irresponsible’ Excerpt: The U.N.’s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible.” Yvo de Boer’s comments came at the opening of a weeklong conference that will complete a concise guide on the state of global warming and what can be done to stop the Earth from overheating.

September 29. 2007: VA State Climatologist skeptical of global warming loses job after clash with Governor: ‘I was told that I could not speak in public’ Excerpt: Michaels has argued that the climate is becoming warmer but that the consequences will not be as dire as others have predicted. Gov. Kaine had warned. Michaels not to use his official title in discussing his views. “I resigned as Virginia state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise, global warming, as state climatologist,” Michaels said in a statement this week provided by the libertarian Cato Institute, where he has been a fellow since 1992. “It was impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech restriction.” (LINK)

Skeptical State Climatologist in Oregon has title threatened by Governor (February 8, 2007) Excerpt: “[State Climatologist George Taylor] does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change…So the [Oregon] governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor.

Skeptical State Climatologist in Delaware silenced by Governor (May 2, 2007) Excerpt: Legates is a state climatologist in Delaware, and he teaches at the university. He`s not part of the mythical climate consensus. In fact, Legates believes that we oversimplify climate by just blaming greenhouse gases. One day he received a letter from the governor, saying his views do not concur with those of the administration, so if he wants to speak out, it must be as an individual, not as a state climatologist. So essentially, you can have the title of state climatologist unless he`s talking about his views on climate?

October 28, 2008: License to dissent: ‘Internet should be nationalized as a public utility’ to combat global warming skepticism – Australian Herald Sun – Excerpt: British journalism lecturer and warming alarmist Alex Lockwood says my blog is a menace to the planet. Skeptical bloggers like me need bringing into line, and Lockwood tells a journalism seminar of some options: There is clearly a need for research into the ways in which climate skepticism online is free to contest scientific fact. But there is enough here already to put forward some of the ideas in circulation. One of the founders of the Internet Vint Cerf, and lead for Google’s Internet for Everyone project, made a recent suggestion that the Internet should be nationalized as a public utility. As tech policy blogger Jim Harper argues, “giving power over the Internet to well-heeled interests and self-interested politicians” is, and I quote, “a bad idea.” Or in the UK every new online publication could be required to register with the recently announced Internet watchdog…

November 5, 2008: UK Scientist: ‘BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE’ – UK Daily Express

Excerpt: FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV. A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm. Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists. His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming. Here he reveals why – and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change.

U.N. official says it’s ‘completely immoral’ to doubt global warming fears (May 10, 2007)

Excerpt: UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus.”

Alligevel har jeg trods den langsomme udvikling, med sprække på sprække i klimapanelets panser en tiltro til at deres imperium braser sammen. Ja, det går meget langsommere end mine klimadebat modeller har forudset, men min tiltro til deres prognoser er kun stigende.

Vinteren kommer

Diverse, IPCC, Klima, Pressen — Drokles on November 7, 2013 at 4:02 pm

Man kan ikke ligefrem kalde et nyt konsensus eller et paradigmeskift indenfor klimaforskning, men de stemmer, der taler for Solens afgørende indflydelse på temperaturen er blevet stærkere og flere. Og de giver ikke meget for den menneskeskabte globale opvarmning. Medierne taler stadig om at al isen kan smelte med en havspejlsstigning på imponerende 66 meter til følge og at klodens opvarmning vil gøre ubehagelige dyr som slanger store som busser, mens gode dyr som heste små som katte. Men tag roligt jeres hest på skødet, ingen kæmpeslange vil trække jer under dybet lidt nord for Næstved. Den globale opvarmning udvikler sig så langt fra de skrækhistorier, der sælger så mange aviser og vindmøller. Daily Mail skriver f.eks. at de 17 år, der er gået uden at den globale temperatur er steget kan meget vel vare indtil 2030′erne

A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt – amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy.

Not only does it explain the unexpected pause, it suggests that the scientific majority – whose views are represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – have underestimated the role of natural cycles and exaggerated that of greenhouse gases.

(…)

The pause means there has been no statistically significant increase in world average surface temperatures since the beginning of 1997, despite the models’ projection of a steeply rising trend.

According to Dr Hawkins, the divergence is now so great that the world’s climate is cooler than what the models collectively predicted with ‘five to 95 per cent certainty’.

Curry and Wyatt say they have identified a climatic ‘stadium wave’ – the phenomenon known in Britain as a Mexican wave,  in which the crowd at a stadium stand and sit so that a wave seems to circle the audience.

(…)

In similar fashion, a number of cycles in the temperature of air and oceans, and the level of Arctic ice, take place across the Northern hemisphere over decades. Curry and Wyatt say there is evidence of this going back at least 300 years.

According to Curry and Wyatt, the theory may explain both the warming pause and why the computer models did not forecast it.

It also means that a large proportion of the warming that did occur in the years before the pause was due not to greenhouse gas emissions, but to the same cyclical wave.

‘The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,’ said Wyatt. This is in sharp contrast with the IPCC’s report, which predicts warming of between 0.3 and 0.7C by 2035.

Og BBC’s Paul Hudson interviewede Professor Mike Lockwood om en kommende Lille Istid (nok snarere Daltons minimum end Maunders)

Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.

He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now - and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.

Based on his findings he’s raised the risk of a new Maunder minimum from less than 10% just a few years ago to 25-30%.

And a repeat of the Dalton solar minimum which occurred in the early 1800s, which also had its fair share of cold winters and poor summers, is, according to him, ‘more likely than not’ to happen.

He believes that we are already beginning to see a change in our climate - witness the colder winters and poor summers of recent years - and that over the next few decades there could be a slide to a new Maunder minimum.

It’s worth stressing that not every winter would be severe; nor would every summer be poor. But harsh winters and unsettled summers would become more frequent.

Professor Lockwood doesn’t hold back in his description of the potential impacts such a scenario would have in the UK.

He says such a change to our climate could have profound implications for energy policy and our transport infrastructure.

Although the biggest impact of such solar driven change would be regional, like here in the UK and across Europe, there would be global implications too.

Og i Cern fortsætter Jasper Kirkby med sit CLOUD projekt, der empirisk skal eftervise danske Svensmarks teori om kosmisk strålings effekt på skydækket

Så hav vintertøjet parat, vinteren kommer, som de siger igen og igen og igen i Game of Thrones.

Normalvidenskaben i problemer

Diverse — Drokles on October 24, 2013 at 1:52 pm

The Economist har en glimrende artikel, som jeg kun kan anbefale at læse i sin fulde længde om en stadigt mere stagnerende videnskab.

A few years ago scientists at Amgen, an American drug company, tried to replicate 53 studies that they considered landmarks in the basic science of cancer, often co-operating closely with the original researchers to ensure that their experimental technique matched the one used first time round. According to a piece they wrote last year in Nature, a leading scientific journal, they were able to reproduce the original results in just six. Months earlier Florian Prinz and his colleagues at Bayer HealthCare, a German pharmaceutical giant, reported in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, a sister journal, that they had successfully reproduced the published results in just a quarter of 67 seminal studies.

The governments of the OECD, a club of mostly rich countries, spent $59 billion on biomedical research in 2012, nearly double the figure in 2000. One of the justifications for this is that basic-science results provided by governments form the basis for private drug-development work. If companies cannot rely on academic research, that reasoning breaks down. When an official at America’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) reckons, despairingly, that researchers would find it hard to reproduce at least three-quarters of all published biomedical findings, the public part of the process seems to have failed.

Academic scientists readily acknowledge that they often get things wrong. But they also hold fast to the idea that these errors get corrected over time as other scientists try to take the work further. Evidence that many more dodgy results are published than are subsequently corrected or withdrawn calls that much-vaunted capacity for self-correction into question. There are errors in a lot more of the scientific papers being published, written about and acted on than anyone would normally suppose, or like to think.

Various factors contribute to the problem. Statistical mistakes are widespread. The peer reviewers who evaluate papers before journals commit to publishing them are much worse at spotting mistakes than they or others appreciate. Professional pressure, competition and ambition push scientists to publish more quickly than would be wise. A career structure which lays great stress on publishing copious papers exacerbates all these problems. “There is no cost to getting things wrong,” says Brian Nosek, a psychologist at the University of Virginia who has taken an interest in his discipline’s persistent errors. “The cost is not getting them published.”

First, the statistics, which if perhaps off-putting are quite crucial. Scientists divide errors into two classes. A type I error is the mistake of thinking something is true when it is not (also known as a “false positive”). A type II error is thinking something is not true when in fact it is (a “false negative”). When testing a specific hypothesis, scientists run statistical checks to work out how likely it would be for data which seem to support the idea to have come about simply by chance. If the likelihood of such a false-positive conclusion is less than 5%, they deem the evidence that the hypothesis is true “statistically significant”. They are thus accepting that one result in 20 will be falsely positive—but one in 20 seems a satisfactorily low rate.

(…)

The idea that there are a lot of uncorrected flaws in published studies may seem hard to square with the fact that almost all of them will have been through peer-review. This sort of scrutiny by disinterested experts—acting out of a sense of professional obligation, rather than for pay—is often said to make the scientific literature particularly reliable. In practice it is poor at detecting many types of error.

John Bohannon, a biologist at Harvard, recently submitted a pseudonymous paper on the effects of a chemical derived from lichen on cancer cells to 304 journals describing themselves as using peer review. An unusual move; but it was an unusual paper, concocted wholesale and stuffed with clangers in study design, analysis and interpretation of results. Receiving this dog’s dinner from a fictitious researcher at a made up university, 157 of the journals accepted it for publication.

Dr Bohannon’s sting was directed at the lower tier of academic journals. But in a classic 1998 study Fiona Godlee, editor of the prestigious British Medical Journal, sent an article containing eight deliberate mistakes in study design, analysis and interpretation to more than 200 of the BMJ’s regular reviewers. Not one picked out all the mistakes. On average, they reported fewer than two; some did not spot any.

Another experiment at the BMJ showed that reviewers did no better when more clearly instructed on the problems they might encounter. They also seem to get worse with experience. Charles McCulloch and Michael Callaham, of the University of California, San Francisco, looked at how 1,500 referees were rated by editors at leading journals over a 14-year period and found that 92% showed a slow but steady drop in their scores.

As well as not spotting things they ought to spot, there is a lot that peer reviewers do not even try to check. They do not typically re-analyse the data presented from scratch, contenting themselves with a sense that the authors’ analysis is properly conceived. And they cannot be expected to spot deliberate falsifications if they are carried out with a modicum of subtlety.

Fraud is very likely second to incompetence in generating erroneous results, though it is hard to tell for certain. Dr Fanelli has looked at 21 different surveys of academics (mostly in the biomedical sciences but also in civil engineering, chemistry and economics) carried out between 1987 and 2008. Only 2% of respondents admitted falsifying or fabricating data, but 28% of respondents claimed to know of colleagues who engaged in questionable research practices.

Peer review’s multiple failings would matter less if science’s self-correction mechanism—replication—was in working order. Sometimes replications make a difference and even hit the headlines—as in the case of Thomas Herndon, a graduate student at the University of Massachusetts. He tried to replicate results on growth and austerity by two economists, Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, and found that their paper contained various errors, including one in the use of a spreadsheet.

Economist’s leder, der ligeledes kan anbefales at læses i sin helhed konkluderer

Science still commands enormous—if sometimes bemused—respect. But its privileged status is founded on the capacity to be right most of the time and to correct its mistakes when it gets things wrong. And it is not as if the universe is short of genuine mysteries to keep generations of scientists hard at work. The false trails laid down by shoddy research are an unforgivable barrier to understanding.

I en notorisk email til en kollega afviser klimaforsker professor Phil Jones (leder af det klimaforskningsenhed ved East Anglia universitetet, CRU, der blev afsløret i fordækt praksis i climategate skandalen) en kollegas henvendelser om at frigøre sine data til efterprøvelse

Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

Jones’ kollega Michael Mann, der havde skabt sig et navn på at konstruere den berømte ishockeystav graf, en graf der viste en stabil global temperatur fra for 1.000 år indtil den industrielle revolution, hvor temperaturen begyndte at stige drastisk for siden at stige faretruende med forbrugersamfundet, afviste ligeledes en forespørgsel. Hans rå data blev dog ufrivilligt trukket ud af ham, men hans metode, en algoritme han havde programmeret ind i et computerprogram, ville han ikke frigive under hensyn til at det var beskyttet af hans intellektuelle rettigheder. Det er en god undskyldning for en tryllekunstner, der lever af at bedrage folks øjne. Begge eksempler, som flere andre, blev bakket op af deres alarmistiske kollegaer, som det naturligste i verden.

Reaktioner på klimaraporten

Diverse — Drokles on September 29, 2013 at 3:52 pm

En vejrmand tweetede ifølge Daily Mail, at han var brudt grædende sammen da han stod i lufthavnen og tænkte over den seneste klimarapports skræmmende perspektiver. Aldrig mere ville han tage en flyver, svor han og han overvejede endda vasektomi. Det kan jeg anbefale alle klimatosser, hvor ville vores børn få det rart. Men der har også været mere velovervejede reaktioner. Steven Goddard konstaterer tørt at klimapanelets overbevisning om global opvarmning er steget som den globale temperatur er faldet

screenhunter_1013-sep-28-00-13

Og Goddard konstaterer også at at der ikke har været global opvarmning i 70% af klimapanelets levetid! Dr. Det har været det helt store problem for klimapanelet, hvad skal man fortælle offentligheden når man ikke har noget at berette. Under forhandlingerne om de endelige formuleringer i klimarapporten var der stor uenighed, regeringerne imellem fortalte Telegraph. Tyskerne ville slette alle referencer til den manglende temperaturstigning, belgierne at man regnede fra et særligt statistisk fordelagtigt år og amerikanerne at man fandt på en masse bortforklaringer. Som Lubos Motl, ridsede op, så var europærerne for censur, mens amerikanerne ville lyve. Alle var de bange for, hvorledes skeptikerne kunne udnytte det. Det var et dilemma, som ikke havde nogen løsning og det er ikke så overraskende at resultatet er under kritik. Benny Peisler siger til Express

Dr Benny Peiser, of Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, branded the report “insincere hype” and “scare tactics”.

He said: “This is nothing but a political statement to cover up the fact that continual predictions about climate change are just not happening. The IPCC said global temperatures would rise by up to 0.2C [0.36F] a decade and this is not happening.

“This is a political attempt to divert attention away from the fact that they would otherwise have to admit they were wrong. This report is not a scientific, ­honest assessment of their performance in the past or the performance of climate.”

Marc Moraneo siger til Daily Caller

“You have to pity the UN. The climate events of 2013 has been one of the most devastating to the UN’s political narrative on global warming,” said Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot, a climate skeptic website.

Morano added that “[b]oth poles have expanding ice, with the Antarctic breaking all time records, global temperatures have failed to rise for 15 plus years, global cooling has occurred since 2002, polar bear numbers are increasing,  wildfire’s are well below normal, sea level rise is failing to accelerate, tornadoes are at record lows, hurricanes are at record low activity,  Gore’s organization is flailing and losing donors amid layoffs, former climate believers like Judith Curry are growing more skeptical by the day.”

Heller ikke den australske geolog Bob Carter er imponeret, som han fortæller i et interview med BBC ifølge Scottish Sceptic, mens han forsøger med lidt simpel indføring i basal videnskabelighed

That the IPCC has an idea. It is not actually their idea it was why they were set up. They were told to go away and consider the business, not of climate change in the round, but of climate change caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. So what it does it that it goes out and looks for evidence, for humans having a dangerous impact on climate. Now real science doesn’t work that way.

Now as you probably know science proceeds in general by setting up what is called a null hypothesis which is the simplest hypothesis. And that is: we look out the window and we see everyday change in the weather and in the longer term the climate. The distribution and patterns of nesting and flowering and so on of animals and plants. So we know the real world is variable the whole time.

The null hypothesis therefore is: that those changes we observe are due to natural variation. And the NIPCC report tries to invalidate that hypothesis. And the really interesting thing is that after looking at several thousand papers just like the IPCC, we come to the opposite conclusion. One of our conclusions is that climate has always changed and it always will. There is nothing unusual about the modern magnitudes or rates of change: of temperature; of ice-volume; of sea-level, or of extreme weather events.

(…)

The problem with what you just said to me about 95% probability is that it is hocus pocus science. In science the phrase 70% probable or 90% probable had definite meanings. They imply controlled trials, they imply numerical quantitative information objectively assessed. If you ask the IPCC they will tell you that when they use the term 95% probable it is based on the expert opinion of a group of people gathered around a table. It is completely wrong to use probability terminology to describe what is albeit an expert opinion.

Lawrence Solomon skriver i Financial Post

So what, says Connie Hedegaard, the EU’s Commissioner for Climate Action. “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”

So, it’s come down to this — we now have widespread agreement from numerous true believers that the models — the only source of scary scenarios — are junk. But the true believers want us to take action on climate change regardless, out of prudence, on the mere possibility that the sky could be falling. It’s an “insurance policy,” Pindyck explains, with other true believers nodding in agreement.

This is a peculiar species of insurance policy, one where the premiums that we’re being asked to pay total literally trillions of dollars, where the perils that we’re being protected against are ill- or undefined, and where — should any of the perils ever materialize — no benefits will be paid out to us policyholders.

This is also a peculiar species of insurance because the insurance industry has traditionally insured on the basis of past experience — this is the tradecraft of actuaries, who ground their assessment of risks on the likelihood that “actual” events that have occurred will reoccur. But in all of known human history — some 5,000 years — and even what’s known of human pre-history — some 200,000 years — none of the many periods of global warming that we’re aware of has led to human harm.

Judith Curry er også direkte i sin vurdering af, hvor stort dilemmaet er for FN’s klimapanel, fortæller Fox News

Judith Curry, professor and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, was even blunter.

IPCC has thrown down the gauntlet – if the pause continues beyond 15 years (well it already has), they are toast.

Og tvivlen breder sig midt i medie hysteriet. BBC’s seere blev nogle dage inden rapportens offentliggørelse konfronteret med denne simple sandhed (h/t Watts Up With That)

bbc_no_rise_1998

Og tyske Der Spiegel skrev

For a quarter of a century now, environmental activists have been issuing predictions in the vein of the Catholic Church, warning people of the coming greenhouse effect armageddon. Environmentalists bleakly predict global warming will usher in plagues of biblical dimensions — perpetual droughts, deluge-like floods and hurricanes of unprecedented force.

The number of people who believe in such a coming apocalypse, however, has considerably decreased. A survey conducted on behalf of SPIEGEL found a dramatic shift in public opinion — Germans are losing their fear of climate change. While in 2006 a sizeable majority of 62 percent expressed a fear of global warning, that number has now become a minority of just 39 percent.

One cause of this shift, presumably, is the fact that global warming seems to be taking a break. The average global temperature hasn’t risen in 15 years, a deviation from climatologists’ computer-simulated predictions.

(…)

The researchers’ problem: Their climate models should have been able to predict the sudden flattening in the temperature curve. Offering explanations after the fact for why temperatures haven’t increased in so long only serves to raise doubts as to how reliable the forecasts really are.

Despite this, most Germans have not yet lost their faith in climate research. According to the SPIEGEL survey, 67 percent of Germans still consider the predictions reliable.

(…)

Environmental policymakers within the IPCC fear, though, that climate skeptics and industry lobbyists could exploit these scientific uncertainties for their own purposes. The IPCC’s response has been to circle the wagons. To ensure it remains the sole authority on climate predictions, the panel plans not to publish the complete report for some time after the release of the summary and not even release transcripts from the negotiations in Stockholm.

This despite the IPCC’s promise for more transparency after hair-raising mistakes in the last assessment report — from 2007 — emerged three years ago and tarnished the panel’s credibility. One result of that scandal was a commitment to avoiding future conflicts of interest. Yet scientists who previously worked for environmental organizations still hold leading roles in the creation of the IPCC report. This includes at least two “coordinating lead authors” who are responsible for individual chapters of the report.

Times skriver i sin leder bl.a

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has an image problem. It appears unsure how to regain the trust of voters and politicians, but not of the science it is supposed to assess. This week’s report is expected to conclude with more confidence than ever that humans have caused more than half the planet’s warming in the past 60 years. This may seem provocative in the circumstances, but the truth is that the real question for scientists now is not whether climate change is happening but how fast. So far there are only theories as to why the Earth has warmed so much slower in the past 15 years than some models predicted. The models may have been wrong. The scenarios inferred from them may have been alarmist. This much is clear: the IPCC must tackle head-on what it calls the “hiatus” in global warming, and follow the evidence rather than buckle to political pressure from either side of the debate.

Det bliver mere normalt for medierne at fortælle om global opvarmning, med den bemærkning at temperaturen ikke er steget i 17 år. Man vil spørge guruerne, i hvis skrækscenarier man tidligere har betrygget sin verdensopfattelse med og de vil i bedste fald væve og ævle udenom. I værste fald vil de optræde så tåkrummende pinlige at selv ikke medierne kan lade være med at blive ved med at spørge. Den anden Irakkrig huskes jo for Komiske Ali.

Mistillid til FNs klimapanel

Diverse, IPCC, Klima, Videnskab, miljø — Drokles on September 23, 2013 at 5:35 am

FN udkommer snart med sin 5. rapport (AR5) om verdens klima. Klimapanelets rapporter definerer klimavidenskabens konsensus og er blevet kaldt ‘guldstandarden’ indenfor klimavidenskaben. Følgeligt er definitionsretten også diktionsmagten, da ingen sand videnskabsmand kan gå op imod en guldstandard af et flertal af kollegaers opfattelse. Klimapanelets troværdighed bygger altså på denne cirkelslutning, hvor retten er hvad de mange siger og man har ret fordi man er mange. Et flertal kan ikke tage fejl thi da er konsensus ikke autoritet. Og man kan derfor ikke ændre sin oprindelige position skulle virkeligheden begynde at løbe fra den uden da at indrømme at et flertal kan tage fejl og således at opgive konsensus’ autoritet. Alt man kan er at skærpe, præcisere, perspektivere og detaljere på den oprindelige tese. Judith Curry skriver om det

The IPCC was seriously tarnished by the unauthorized release of emails from the University of East Anglia in November 2009, known as Climategate.  These emails revealed the ‘sausage making’ involved in the IPCC’s consensus building process, including denial of data access to individuals who wanted to audit their data processing and scientific results, interference in the peer review process to minimize the influence of skeptical criticisms, and manipulation of the media.  Climategate was quickly followed by the identification of an egregious error involving the melting of Himalayan glaciers.  These revelations were made much worse by the actual response of the IPCC to these issues. Then came the concerns about the behavior of the IPCC’s Director, Rachendra Pachauri, and investigations of the infiltration of green advocacy groups into the IPCC. All of this was occurring against a background of explicit advocacy and activism by IPCC leaders related to CO2 mitigation policies.

The IPCC does not seem to understand the cumulative impact of these events on the loss of trust in climate scientists and the IPCC process itself. The IPCC’s consensus building process relies heavily on expert judgment; if the public and the policy makers no longer trust these particular experts, then we can expect a very different dynamic to be in play with regards to the reception of the AR5 relative to the AR4.

But there is another more vexing dilemma facing the IPCC.  Since publication of the AR4, nature has thrown the IPCC a ‘curveball’ — there has been no significant increase in global average surface temperature for the past 15+ years.

Based upon early drafts of the AR5, the IPCC seemed prepared to dismiss the pause in warming as irrelevant ‘noise’ associated with natural variability. Under pressure, the IPCC now acknowledges the pause and admits that climate models failed to predict it. The IPCC has failed to convincingly explain the pause in terms of external radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, aerosols, solar or volcanic forcing; this leaves natural internal variability as the predominant candidate to explain the pause.  If the IPCC attributes to the pause to natural internal variability, then this begs the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural internal variability.  Not to mention raising questions about the confidence that we should place in the IPCC’s projections of future climate change.

Nevertheless, the IPCC appears to be set to conclude that warming in the near future will resume in accord with climate model predictions.

Virkeligheden er ved at løbe fra klimapanelet og tilliden til dets autoritet falder. The Telegraph fortæller om absurde diskussioner om damage control

Several governments who fund the body have since complained about how the issue is tackled in the report.

Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries.

The US also urged the authors to include the “leading hypothesis” that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.

Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for any statistics. That year was exceptionally warm, so any graph showing global temperatures starting with 1998 looks flat, because most years since have been cooler.

While Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for sceptics.

Til det siger Dr Lubos Motl tørt

Quite generally, one could say that the American delegation prefers to publish the facts and supplement it with a (bogus) explanation while the European climate alarmists prefer downright censorship. This opinion is also supported by the comment in The Boston Globe that the U.S.-based Union of Concerned Scientists And Anthony Watts’ Dogs is worried that people will be saying “look, the IPCC is silent about the lull” which would be even worse than for “the cause” than a confession that there’s been no warming for nearly two decades.

There just isn’t any competitive hypothesis about the lack of warming that would be compatible with the meme about a dangerously high (and all natural factors beating) warming trend caused by the anthropogenic man-made emissions. Everyone knows that no such explanation that one wouldn’t be ashamed of exists in the scientific literature which is why no one will recommend you any paper of this type. There just isn’t one. The leading interpretation of the absence of the warming is that the global warming hypothesis with the numbers that were dominant among the “concerned institutions” in the recent decade has been falsified by the observations. Too bad that politicians are trying to play painful and childish games to misinterpret the results of the scientific research, research that they claim to be listening to but research that they actually want to control so that it suits their political needs.

Som klimapanelets formand Rajendra Pachauri sagde ganske åbent i et interview med Times of IndiaLet’s face it, we are an intergovernmental body and our strength and acceptability of what we produce is largely because we are owned by governments.

Nogle foreløbige reaktioner på IPCC’s tilbagetog

Akademia, Diverse, FN, Grøn energi, IPCC, Klima, Pressen, miljø, venstrefløjen — Drokles on September 18, 2013 at 11:56 am

FN’s klimapanel IPCC barsler med en ny rapport, der skal tjene beslutningstagere over hele verden, som en vejledning i hvilken trussel menneskeheden står overfor og subsidiært hvorledes vi kan beskattes for at kunne beskyttes. Men 17 år uden global opvarmning, uden mere ekstremt vejr og uden en eneste klimaflygtning har sået tvivl i de ellers ubetvivlelige konklusioner. Ross McKitrick skriver i Financial Post

Everything you need to know about the dilemma the IPCC faces is summed up in one remarkable graph.

IPCC

The figure nearby is from the draft version that underwent expert review last winter. It compares climate model simulations of the global average temperature to observations over the post-1990 interval. During this time atmospheric carbon dioxide rose by 12%, from 355 parts per million (ppm) to 396 ppm. The IPCC graph shows that climate models predicted temperatures should have responded by rising somewhere between about 0.2 and 0.9 degrees C over the same period. But the actual temperature change was only about 0.1 degrees, and was within the margin of error around zero. In other words, models significantly over-predicted the warming effect of CO2 emissions for the past 22 years.

Chapter 9 of the IPCC draft also shows that overestimation of warming was observed on even longer time scales in data collected by weather satellites and weather balloons over the tropics. Because of its dominant role in planetary energy and precipitation patterns, models have to get the tropical region right if they are credibly to simulate the global climate system. Based on all climate models used by the IPCC, this region of the atmosphere (specifically the tropical mid-troposphere) should exhibit the most rapid greenhouse warming anywhere. Yet most data sets show virtually no temperature change for over 30 years.

(…)

To those of us who have been following the climate debate for decades, the next few years will be electrifying. There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of the 20th century, and the implications for policy and global politics could be staggering.

Roy Spencer siger på sin blog

For the last 10-20 years or more, a few of us have been saying that the IPCC has been ignoring the elephant in the room…that the real climate system is simply not as sensitive to CO2 emissions as they claim. Of course, the lower the climate sensitivity, the less of a problem global warming and climate change becomes.

This elephant has had to be ignored at all costs. What, the globe isn’t warming from manmade CO2 as fast as we predicted? Then it must be manmade aerosols cooling things off. Or the warming is causing the deep ocean to heat up by hundredths or thousandths of a degree. Any reason except reduced climate sensitivity, because low climate sensitivity might mean we really don’t have to worry about global warming after all.

And, if that’s the case, the less relevant the IPCC becomes. Not good if your entire professional career has been invested in the IPCC.

But forecasting the future state of the climate system was always a risky business. The Danish physicist, Niels Bohr, was correct: “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.”

Unlike daily forecasts made by meteorologists, the advantage to climate prognosticators of multi-decadal forecasts is that few people will remember how wrong you were when your forecast finally goes bust.

Yet, here we are, with over 20 years of forecasts from the early days of climate modelling, and the chickens are finally coming home to roost.

I’m sure the politicians believed we would have had new energy policies in place by now, in which case they could have (disingenuously) claimed their policies were responsible for global warming “ending”. Not likely, since atmospheric CO2 continues to increase, and even by the most optimistic estimates renewable energy won’t amount to more than 15% of global energy generation in the coming decades.

But it’s been nearly 20 years since Al Gore privately blamed us (now, the UAH satellite temperature dataset) for the failure of his earliest attempt at CO2 legislation. Multiple attempts at carbon legislation have failed. The lack of understanding of basic economic principles on the part of politicians and scientists alike led to the unrealistic expectation that humanity would allow the lifeblood of the global economy — inexpensive energy — to be restricted.

Tyske Fritz Vahrenholt siger i et interview med bloggen No Tricks Zone

It’s now obvious that the IPCC models are not correctly reflecting the development of atmospheric temperatures. What‘s false? Reality or the models? The hackneyed explanation of a deep sea warming below 700 meters hasn’t been substantiated up to now. How does atmospheric warming from a climate gas jump 700 meters deep into the ocean? If you consider the uncertainties in the Earth’s radiation budget measurements at the top of the atmosphere, and those of the temperature changes at water depths below 700 meters, where we are talking about changes of a few hundredths of a degree Celsius over many years, such a “missing heat” cannot be ascertained today. The likelihood is that there is no “missing heat”. Slight changes in cloud cover could easily account for a similar effect. That would mean the end of the alarmist CO2 theory. Perhaps this is why we’ve been hearing speculation about the deep ocean.  On the other hand, perhaps this discussion tells us that the alarmist faction needs to deal more with oceanic cycles. It is possible that this is a step in recognizing the central impacts of the PDO and AMO on our climate.

NTZ: Hans von Storch confirms that 98% of the climate models have been wrong so far. Do you think the directors of world’s leading climate research institutes risk damaging the once sterling reputations of their institutes if they do not soon admit there’s a problem with climate science?

FV: They certainly find themselves in a serious jam. That‘s why they are now trying to gain time by claiming that the models first become falsified if there has been no warming over a period of 30 years – never mind that the warming of 1977 to 1998 was only 22 years and deemed to be long enough to “prove“ the CO2 theory. A few years ago climate scientist Ben Santer said only 17 years were necessary before we could talk about a real climate trend. Now that reality is pulling the rug from under models, some scientists are having misgivings. Some are praying for an El Nino year, which would allow them to beat the drums of fear again. They’ll hype up every single weather effect to get attention.

NTZ: Some prominent climate experts have been expressing second thoughts about the seriousness of man-made climate change, e.g. Hans von Storch, Lennart Bengtsson. Do you expect more scientists to follow as more data come in?

FV: Certainly. That’s what’s so fascinating about science. It proposes theories. And when they don’t fit reality, they get changed. The chaff gets separated from the wheat.

NTZ: Spiegel for example has been publishing some articles critical of alarmist climate science. Do you expect the rest of Germany’s media to soon follow and to start taking a more critical look?

FV: This process is fully under way. But it’s going to take a long time because an entire generation has been convinced that CO2 is a climate killer. But the shrill tones have been quieting down.

NTZ: What danger does Germany face should it continue down its current path of climate alarmism and rush into renewable energies?

FV: Twenty billion euros are being paid out by consumers for renewable energies in Germany each and every year. Currently that amounts to 250 euros per household each year and it will increase to 300 euros next year.

Worse, it’s a gigantic redistribution from the bottom to top, from the poor who cannot afford a solar system to rich property owners who own buildings with large roof areas. The German Minister of Environment fears a burden of 1000 billion euros by 2040.

It is truly outrageous that 1) 40% of the world’s photovoltaic capacity is installed in Germany, a country that sees as much sunshine as Alaska, 2) we are converting wheat into biofuel instead of feeding it to the hungry, and 3) we are covering 20% of our agricultural land with corn for biogas plants and thus adversely impacting wildlife. We are even destroying forests and nature in order to make way for industrial wind parks.

On windy days we have so much power that wind parks are asked to shut down, yet they get paid for the power they don’t even deliver. And when the wind really blows, we “sell” surplus power to neighboring countries at negative prices. And when the wind stops blowing and when there is no sun, we have to get our power from foreign countries. In the end we pay with the loss of high-paying industrial jobs because the high price of power is making us uncompetitive.

The agitators in climate science here in Germany have done us no favors. Renewable energies do have a big future, but not like this. It’s been a run-away train and it’s too expensive. We are putting Germany’s industry in jeopardy. In reality there really isn’t any urgency because the solar cycles and nature are giving us time to make the transition over to renewable energies in a sensible way.

NTZ: Has the weather become more extreme? Why are we getting bombarded by scary reports from the media – even after a normal thunderstorm with hail?

FV: Extreme weather is the only card they have left to play. We see that Arctic sea ice extent is the highest since 2007. At the South Pole sea ice is at the highest extent in a very long time, hurricanes have not become more frequent, the same is true with tornadoes, sea level is rising at 2-3 mm per year and there’s been no change in the rate, and global temperature has been stagnant for 15 years. Indeed we are exposed to bad weather. And when one is presented with a simplistic explanation, i.e. it’s man’s fault, it gladly gets accepted. CO2 does have a warming effect on the planet. However, this effect has been greatly exaggerated. The climate impact of CO2 is less than the half of what the climate alarmists claim. That’s why in our book, The Neglected Sun, we are saying there is not going to be any climate catastrophe.

NTZ: What do you expect from the soon-to-be-released IPCC 5th Assessment Report?

FV: It is truly remarkable that some countries are urging IPCC 5AR authors to address the reasons for the temperature hiatus in the summary for policymakers. Dissatisfaction with the IPCC’s tunnel vision is growing. But let’s not kid ourselves: In the coming days and weeks the media are not going to be able to refrain from the IPCC catastrophe-hype. However, what will be different from the previous four reports is that the hype will die off much more quickly. Those who ignore nature and its fluctuations will end up on the sidelines soon enough. I think this is going to be the last report of this kind.

Og Roger Pielke Jr. kommer med en venlig opsang til

More seriously, rather than engaging in proxy wars over media reporting and the short-term PR spin associated with it — which may in fact just make things worse — it would be in the long-term interests of the climate science community to take a step back and consider the role of their spokespeople (official or otherwise) in aiding and abetting the skeptics, deniers and other nefarious evil-doers.

A difficult question for the climate science community is, how is it that this broad community of researchers — full of bright and thoughtful people — allowed intolerant activists who make false claims to certainty to become the public face of the field?

Joanna Nova tror ikke at klimamiljøet tager imod sådanne gode råd og minder i stedet om at  ”They offer no credit to those who were right”

We are over the peak. Years late, the IPCC concedes some territory and wears headlines they must hate (“Global warming is just HALF what we said“, “We got it wrong on warming“), but PR still rules, and in the big game, this will quickly spin to a minor bump. It’s a classic technique to release “the bad news” before the main report, to clear the air for the messages the agents want to stick.

Since 2007 they’ve burned through their credibility in so many ways:  think Climategate, and getting caught pretending activist material was science, being busted for 300-year-typos like the Himalayan Glaciers, plus 15 years of no warming, no hot spot, models being wrong, droughts ending, and ice returning, all the while pouring scorn and derision on anyone who questioned them. The IPCC were being hammered and they had to change tacks. Now, for the first time, the IPCC is making a serious retreat, presumably in the hope of being able to still paint itself as “scientific” and to fight from a different trench. Anything to continue the yearly junkets and to save face. What they hope is that no one will notice that the deniers were right and the experts were wrong, and the “government panel” has helped governments waste billions of your dollars.

They were 90% certain in 2007, which was never a scientific probability, but a hands-up vote. Now, in the most meaningless of ways, they are 95% certain of something more vague: the range has gone from 2°C to 4.5°C, to 1°C to 6°C. (See Matt Ridley in the Wall St Journal). They just made the barn door even wider. In years to come this allows them more room to pretend they hit the target, without acknowledging that they missed it for 23 years. And even that new supersize barn door may still not be wide enough.

Og nu Joanna Nova anbefaler Matt Riddley, der kalder bortforklaringerne af den manglende varme for “a cottage industry in climate science“, i Wall Street Journal

A more immediately relevant measure of likely warming has also come down: “transient climate response” (TCR)—the actual temperature change expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide about 70 years from now, without the delayed effects that come in the next century. The new report will say that this change is “likely” to be 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius and “extremely unlikely” to be greater than 3 degrees. This again is lower than when last estimated in 2007 (”very likely” warming of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius, based on models, or 1 to 3.5 degrees, based on observational studies).

Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.

Og han fortsætter

Yet these latest IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity may still be too high. They don’t adequately reflect the latest rash of published papers estimating “equilibrium climate sensitivity” and “transient climate response” on the basis of observations, most of which are pointing to an even milder warming. This was already apparent last year with two papers—by scientists at the University of Illinois and Oslo University in Norway—finding a lower ECS than assumed by the models. Since then, three new papers conclude that ECS is well below the range assumed in the models. The most significant of these, published in Nature Geoscience by a team including 14 lead authors of the forthcoming IPCC scientific report, concluded that “the most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 degrees Celsius.”

Two recent papers (one in the Journal of the American Meteorological Society, the other in the journal Earth System Dynamics) estimate that TCR is probably around 1.65 degrees Celsius. That’s uncannily close to the estimate of 1.67 degrees reached in 1938 by Guy Callendar, a British engineer and pioneer student of the greenhouse effect. A Canadian mathematician and blogger named Steve McIntyre has pointed out that Callendar’s model does a better job of forecasting the temperature of the world between 1938 and now than do modern models that “hindcast” the same data.

The significance of this is that Callendar assumed that carbon dioxide acts alone, whereas the modern models all assume that its effect is amplified by water vapor. There is not much doubt about the amount of warming that carbon dioxide can cause. There is much more doubt about whether net amplification by water vapor happens in practice or is offset by precipitation and a cooling effect of clouds.

Forleden sagde Connie Hedegaard at selv om videnskaben skulle være forkert er politikken stadig rigtig. Selv om patienten alligevel ikke var syg var det rigtigt at operere? Selv om den anklagede alligevel var uskyldig…. Mon ikke absurditeten i at underkende præmissen for en beslutning vil fremstå mere tydelig for selv de definerende klasser de kommende år?

Stemningen skifter. Også for alternativ energi

Diverse — Drokles on August 19, 2013 at 10:06 pm

Benny Peisler skriver i The Australian

Slowly but gradually, Europe is awakening to a green energy crisis, an economic and political debacle that is entirely self-inflicted.

The mainstream media, which used to encourage the renewables push enthusiastically, is beginning to sober up too. With more and more cracks beginning to appear, many newspapers are returning to their proper role as the fourth estate, exposing the pitfalls of Europe’s green-energy gamble and opening their pages for thorough analysis and debate. Today, European media is full of news and commentary about the problems of an ill-conceived strategy that is becoming increasingly shaky and divisive.

A study by British public relations consultancy CCGroup analysed 138 articles about renewables published during July last year in the five most widely circulated British national newspapers: The Sun, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail and Daily Mirror, which enjoy a combined daily circulation of about 6.5 million.

“The analysis revealed a number of trends in the reporting of renewable energy news,” the study found. “First and foremost, the temperature of the media’s sentiment toward the renewables industry is cold. More than 51 per cent of the 138 articles analysed were either negative or very negative toward the industry.”

Reuters Gerard Wynn ser også et fald i den politiske vilje til at støtte alternativ energi

EU countries are likely to pare back support for renewable energy further after Spain’s recent proposed overhaul.

Those most likely to take action are countries with more expensive schemes, programmes nearing their environmental targets or nations with higher political risk.

Energy consumers are paying more for expanding, subsidised renewable power, causing tensions over such programmes amid wider austerity measures.

As a result, almost all EU countries have reduced support to keep pace with falls in technology costs, with some having made more drastic cuts, or taken retroactive action which has jolted investors and undermined confidence.

While countries are working to EU targets, authorities in Brussels appear powerless to prevent such retroactive steps.

Larry Bell skriver i Forbes om den økologiske førernation’s svindende interesse i vindenergi

Although blades on the 150-meter wind turbines at the new German offshore Riffgat power plant nine miles off the North Sea island of Bokum are finally turning, there is one big problem. They are doing so only because they are being powered by onshore fossil-fueled generators to prevent the rotors from corroding in salty air. And why might that be? Well although they otherwise function perfectly, the underfinanced grid operator hasn’t yet connected a power line because of problems attracting investor financing. Prospective investors attribute their reluctance to a lack of market confidence.

While half a dozen wind farms are still being built in the North Sea, there are no follow-up contracts. As Ronney Meyer, managing director of Windenergie Agentur (EWE) based in the northern port city of Bremerhaven said, “The market has collapsed.” EWE developer Riffgat reportedly doesn’t plan to invest in any more offshore turbines.

There is little mystery regarding a clear lack of clamor for wind in the energy marketplace. Namely, taxpayers and ratepayers are recognizing that the subsidy-dependent and performance-costly industry makes no economic sense.

Politicians are getting the message.

Indeed, den engelske premierminister David Cameron skriver i Telegraph om den ‘nye’ fracking teknologi’s velsignelser i at hente fossile brændstoffer op af undergrunden

Fracking has become a national debate in Britain – and it’s one that I’m determined to win. If we don’t back this technology, we will miss a massive opportunity to help families with their bills and make our country more competitive. Without it, we could lose ground in the tough global race.

As with any advance in technology, fracking – drilling for so-called “unconventional” gas – has rightly drawn scrutiny. But a lot of myths have also sprung up. So today I want to set out why I support it – and deal with the worst of the myths at the same time.

First, fracking has real potential to drive energy bills down. Labour’s mismanagement of the economy means that many people are struggling with the cost of living today. Where we can act to relieve the pressure, we must. It’s simple – gas and electric bills can go down when our home-grown energy supply goes up. We’re not turning our back on low carbon energy, but these sources aren’t enough. We need a mix. Latest estimates suggest that there’s about 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas lying underneath Britain at the moment – and that study only covers 11 counties. To put that in context, even if we extract just a tenth of that figure, that is still the equivalent of 51 years’ gas supply.

This reservoir of untapped energy will help people across the country who work hard and want to get on: not just families but businesses, too, who are really struggling with the high costs of energy. Just look at the United States: they’ve got more than 10,000 fracking wells opening up each year and their gas prices are three-and-a-half times lower than here. Even if we only see a fraction of the impact shale gas has had in America, we can expect to see lower energy prices in this country.

Alternativ energi er en misforstået moralsk luksus vi har tilladt os dengang vi troede det gik godt. Nu fremstår den for stadigt flere som det den er en dyr og skadelige klods om benet på vores samfund. Vi venter kun på at de skyldige begynder på erkendelsen.

Judith Curry: Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 yr ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002

Diverse — Drokles on July 1, 2013 at 8:34 pm

Atmosfærefysikeren Judith Curry gjorde sig ganske berømt/berygtet i klimadebatten da hun et par uger efter orkanen Katrina, fremlagde en rapport, der knyttede tropiske orkaner sammen med global opvarmning - på den ufede måde. Skeptikere beskyldte hende grundløst for at slå plat på katastrofen og nogle også for at tage helt fejl. Offentliggørelsen af Currys rapport var dog annonceret mere end et halvt år i forvejen og timingen dermed tilfældig. Men hun tog fejl alligevel for Katrina kom til at markere et mere end usædvanligt stille årti for tropiske orkaner der ramte USA, noget man skal tilbage til 1860′erne for at finde tilsvarende.

I mellemtiden blev hun en stor helt for klimabevægelsen, der elskede at have en så kompetent kvindelig fysiker, der kunne kæde George Bush og CO2 sammen med ekstremt vejr og klimaforandringer og druknede negre på hustage. For skeptikerne var hun endnu en kogle i røven. Men som årene gik blev hun mere og mere i tvivl om sine kollegaers saglighed når de nægtede at debattere logiske indvendinger fra skeptikere eller forholde sig til computermodellerne stigende frakobling fra den virkelige verdens målinger.

Og så kom Climategate, den store offentliggørelse af centrale klimaeksperters interne mail korrespondance lige op til klimatopmødet i 2009 i København (der hvor aktivister fik forfrysninger en røven mens de advarede om global opvarmning husker i nok). Det var en afsløring af at de centrale klimaeksperter indenfor FN systemet aftalte og konspirerede med hinanden i den grad som skeptikerne altid havde beskyldt dem for at gøre. Currys analyse dengang af det nærmest forbryderiske sammenhold var at der nok var gået tribalisme i klimakliken, at man positionerede sig ganske mere ærekært omkring nedgravede påstande i et bittert opgør med fjendtlige grupperinger og således tabte overblikket og formålet med at være tro mod fakta uanset hvor de førte en hen. Det var mildt sagt.

Hvorfor skulle jeg udlevere mine rå data til dig når du blot vil finde fejl i mit arbejde” svarede en klimaforsker f.eks. på en kollegas forespørgsel og senere bad kliken hinanden om at slette store mængder emails inden skeptikerne kom igennem med krav om at få aktindsigt under FoIA (Freedom of Information Act). “Hvis de finder ud af at der er et FoIA…” startede en anden en mail advarende.

Og der blev koordineret peer review processer og aftalt belønning og straf af forskellige redaktører, der føjede klikens krav til, hvis artikler der skulle offentliggøres i de videnskabelige tidsskrifter. Men mest interessant blev der også krydset klinger internt, udtrykt tvivl og dårlig samvittighed.

Michael Mann havde gjort lynkarriere ved at fremstille en graf, der med et slag gjorde op med gængs konsensus. Det viste sig således at konsensus kunne ændres, men kun, hvis man forstærkede narrativet, den fortælling man mente verden havde brug for at forstå, da en videnskabelig disciplins komplekser og nuancer blot ville forvirre verdens ledere og almindelige vælgere. Manns ekstraordinære graf beskrev de seneste 1000 års temperaturudvikling, som en stabil affære indtil den industrielle revolution og især opsvinget efter 1950′erne satte ind og fik temperaturen til at stige eksplosivt. Den lignede en ishockey stav og fik derfor det tilnavn og Mann og hans email venner kaldte sig gladeligt for The Hockey Team - indtil skeptikerne brugte det imod dem og The Team kom til at lyde som den indspiste klike af akademiske bøller der reelt var tale om.

Manns graf var svindel fra ende til anden. Men den lignede klimapanelets ønskedrøm om i et enkelt ikonisk billede der sagde mere end tusinde ord og havnede på forsiden af klimapanelets rapport inden den var blevet peer reviewed. Men flere af teamets medlemmer udtrykte deres utilfredshed med Mann og hans metoder internt. Og flere udtrykte tvivl om teorien. “Fakta er at vi ikke kan forklare den manglende opvarmning og det er til grin” skriver en mens en anden spørger, hvad man skal sige til skeptikerne påpegning af de dengang 10-12 år uden opvarmning og får svaret “...vent til der er gået 17 år uden opvarmning, så vil jeg begynde at bekymre mig!

17 år er gået og nu bekymrer man sig, hvilket er sigende. Med en skråsikker overbevisning om at ens teori om Jordens undergang ikke ser ud til at holde vand burde man jo hellere ånde lettet op. Men det handlede jo aldrig om altruistiske bekymringer. Og det var også hvad der gik op for Judith Curry, der indledte flere møder og debatter med skeptikere og blev stadig mere kritisk overfor det anti-videnskabelige klimapanel, der forsker ved håndsoprækning og belønner underbygningen af konsensus med penge og prestige. For at tage debatten og acceptere spørgsmål blev Curry udråbt til forræder og udlagt for et had af kliken, man ellers skal ned i internettets rendestene for at finde tilsvarende.

Men truth will out og spørgsmålene er væltet frem igen som flere store medier er begyndt at bringe de for mange overraskende nyheder om klimaets manglende nyhedsværdi og kuede forskere tager i stigende grad til genmæle og genoptager forsvaret af gamle teser. Curry gør status om hvorledes debatten er skiftet fra en skråsikkerhed over at vi er på vej til at drukne i kogende vand over mod tvivl og nu også bekymring over andre mere uhyggelige perspektiver.

Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 yr ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002 (note: I am receiving inquiries about this from journalists). This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the ‘climate shift’ circa 2001/2002 posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 yr ‘pause’.

Så det er derfor tid til mavelandinger. The Economist, der er en af de helt store tilhængere af klimaforandringer spekulerer nu i et “Cooling Consensus”

GLOBAL warming has slowed. The rate of warming of over the past 15 years has been lower than that of the preceding 20 years. There is no serious doubt that our planet continues to heat, but it has heated less than most climate scientists had predicted. Nate Cohn of the New Republic reports: “Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections”.

Temperaturstigningen er ikke blot langsommere, den er gået helt i stå og tegner ifølge gængs statistik til at være for nedadgående - men læg ikke mere i det end at det står i skærende kontrast til de skråsikre jublende dommedagsvarsler vi ellers får tudet ørerne fulde af. Her er så Economists erkendelse af at de, om end ikke har taget fejl, så i det mindste nok ikke har haft særlig meget ret. Men hvorledes skal man “breake” det til sine læsere, som vel dårligt har kunnet sove om natten, plaget, som de er, af mareridt om døde isbjørne, der skyller ind i stuerne.

Mr Cohn does his best to affirm that the urgent necessity of acting to retard warming has not abated, as does Brad Plumer of the Washington Post, as does this newspaper. But there’s no way around the fact that this reprieve for the planet is bad news for proponents of policies, such as carbon taxes and emissions treaties, meant to slow warming by moderating the release of greenhouse gases. The reality is that the already meagre prospects of these policies, in America at least, will be devastated if temperatures do fall outside the lower bound of the projections that environmentalists have used to create a panicked sense of emergency. Whether or not dramatic climate-policy interventions remain advisable, they will become harder, if not impossible, to sell to the public, which will feel, not unreasonably, that the scientific and media establishment has cried wolf.

Der er ikke skreget ‘Ulven kommer!’ for Economist er stadig sikker på den overordnede teori, men det er omvendt heller ikke uden grund at man kan anklage dem for at have skreget ‘Ulven kommer!’. “Now we could sit here and argue arbout who forgot to pick up who untill the cows come home but let us instead compromise on saying that we both were wrong!“, som Homer Simpson udtrykte det, de han havde glemt at hente sin søn fra fodbold, som han ellers havde lovet.

Virkeligheden har også ramt The New Republic (Shattered Glass, i husker nok) der indleder deres artikel om afblæsning af klimaalarmen således

Even as scientists asserted an incontrovertible consensus on climate change, a funny thing has happened over the last 15 years: Global warming has slowed down. Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections.

At den globale opvarmning er blevet langsommere er newspeak for at den er stoppet (hvor længe det varer og  i hvilken retning den fortsætter ved ingen).

Gerald Meehl, a Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, has seen hiatus periods before. They “occur pretty commonly in the observed records,” and there are climate models showing “a hiatus as long as 15 years.” As a result, Isaac Held, a Senior Research Scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, says “no one has ever expected warming to be continuous, increasing like a straight line.” Those much-cited computer models are composed of numerous simulations that individually account for naturally occurring variability. But, Meehl says, “the averages cancel it out.”

Hvis der er et konsensus om en teori burde en model være nok, nemlig den, der mest detaljeret afspejler konsensus teori. Men fordi der ikke er konsensus om andet blandt modelbyggerne end at temperaturen går op fremkommer mange modstridende modeller der arbejder på vidt forskellige præmisser og som dækker sig ind under hinanden, fordi chancen med de mange modeller er at der nok skal være en eller anden model, der afspejler noget der ligner virkeligheden. Og ifølge Storch er det endda “extremely rarely” at modellerne afspejler en pause og ifølge Curry, rekonstruerer de også ganske dårligt tidligere pauser som 1940 til 1975 trods de mange efterjusteringer. Og, som Judith spørger, hvis nu ‘pausen’ varer mere end de 15 år, hvad fortæller det så om modellerne? Hvad manden referer er med andre ord ikke videnskab, men derimod en salgsteknik, at når der siges så meget så skal man nok få noget til at passe noget af tiden.

“The recent wave of news and magazine articles about scientists struggling to explain the warming slowdown could prolong or deepen the public’s skepticism.

But the “consensus” never extended to the intricacies of the climate system, just the core belief that additional greenhouse gas emissions would warm the planet.

Det er troen i en nøddeskal. Den stigende diskrepans mellem postulaterne og virkeligheden er som en trussel mod tilhængerskaren bekymrende fordi det ikke er afdækningen af virkeligheden, men beskyttelsen af fortællingen der er i centrum. I stedet for at juble over at jorden ikke går under gyser de ved tanken om at folk begynder at betvivle deres kompetencer. Og så trækker man i land ved en opsigtsvækkende udvanding af konsensus til det mest banale, der også omfatter denne skrivende tyksak. Og det følgende udsagn er blot forkert

Over the twentieth century, the atmosphere warmed by two degrees Celsius. That’s no small amount and there “has to be a source, if you believe in basic thermodynamics.”

Siden midten af 1800 tallet er den globale temperatur steget med 0,8 C ifølge professor Phil Jones. Og det er sket i tre “ryk” fra 1860 til 1880, fra 1910 til 1940 og sidst fra 1970erne til slutningen af 90′erne og alle tre med en stigning lige omkring 0,16 C/tiår. Men måske skal man blot konkludere som New York Times Paul Krugman

-In the case of climate change, for example, uncertainty about the impact of greenhouse gases on global temperatures actually strengthens the case for action, to head off the risk of catastrophe.

Jo mindre vi ved jo mere skråsikkert skal vi handle. Ærgerligt vi satte alle de tåbeligheder i søen, dengang der ingen tvivl var. Judith Curry gjorde klogt i ikke at svigte sin dømmekraft.

Debatten er snart ovre

Diverse — Drokles on March 18, 2013 at 10:46 am

Engelske Daily Mail er et af de få større nyhedsmedier med et kritisk blik på klimaet. De har de seneste par år generet det etablerede billede af klimahysteriet ved at offentliggøre grafer, baseret på det engelske meteorologiske instituts  (MET) tal, der tydeligt viser at der ikke har været nogen global opvarmning siden slut halvfemserne. I weekenden gjorde de så status over de seneste 17 års manglende opvarmning og hæftede sig bl.a. ved den snigende omend modvillige erkendelse blandt ortodokse klimaforskere.

The Mail on Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed.

The graph on this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. These moves have already added £100 a year to household energy bills.

article-2294560-18b8846f000005dc-184_634x427

The graph shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated. Yet those forecasts have had a ruinous impact on the bills we pay, from heating to car fuel to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon emissions.

The eco-debate was, in effect, hijacked by false data. The forecasts have also forced jobs abroad as manufacturers relocate to places with no emissions targets.

A version of the graph appears in a leaked draft of the IPCC’s landmark Fifth Assessment Report due out later this year. It comes as leading climate scientists begin to admit that their worst fears about global warming will not be realised.

Academics are revising their views after acknowledging the miscalculation. Last night Myles Allen, Oxford University’s Professor of Geosystem Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century.

But he now says: ‘The odds have come down,’ – adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower.
Prof Allen says higher estimates are now ‘looking iffy’.

The graph confirms there has been no statistically significant increase in the world’s average temperature since January 1997 – as this newspaper first disclosed last year.

Enden er nær for klimahysteriet. For at parafrasere Dr David Whitehouse så er der ikke en eneste gymnasie elev, der har oplevet global opvarmning - og alligevel har de ikke hørt andet. For sådan har den kollektive opfattelse været. Vi har alle sammen gennemlevet en - skal vi sige interessant? - sekulær vækkelse, hvor simple vejrfænomener udlægges som tegn, om ikke fra guderne, så på vores selvforskyldte undergang. Paul Driesen uddyber et par af de mere prosaiske aspekter i Master Resource

Over the past three years, the Tides Foundation and Tides Center alone poured $335 million into environmentalist climate campaigns, and $1 billion into green lobbies at large, notes Undue Influence author Ron Arnold.

Major U.S. donors gave $199 million to Canadian environmental groups just for anti-oil sands and Keystone pipeline battles during the last twelve years, analysts Vivian Krause and Brian Seasholes estimate; the Tides Foundation poured $10 million into these battles during 2009-2012.

All told, U.S. foundations alone have “invested” over $797 million in environmentalist climate campaigns since 2000! And over $19.3 billion in “environmental” efforts since 1995, Arnold calculates! Add to that the tens of billions that environmental activist groups, universities and other organizations have received from individual donors, corporations and government agencies to promote “manmade climate disaster” theories – and pretty soon you’re talking real money.

Moreover, that’s just U.S. cash. It doesn’t include EU, UN and other climate cataclysm contributions. Nor does it include U.S. or global spending on wind, solar, biofuel and other “renewable” energy schemes. That this money has caused widespread pernicious and corrupting effects should surprise no one.

Politicized science, markets and ethics. The corrupting cash has feathered careers, supported entire departments, companies and industries, and sullied our political, economic and ethical systems. It has taken countless billions out of productive sectors of our economy, and given it to politically connected, politically correct institutions that promote climate alarmism and renewable energy (and which use some of this crony capitalist taxpayer and consumer cash to help reelect their political sponsors).

Toe the line – pocket the cash, bask in the limelight. Question the dogma – get vilified, harassed and even dismissed from university or state climatologist positions for threatening the grants pipeline.

The system has replaced honest, robust, evidence-based, peer-reviewed science with pseudo-science based on activism, computer models, doctored data, “pal reviews,” press releases and other chicanery that resulted in Climategate, IPCC exposés, and growing outrage. Practitioners of these dark sciences almost never debate climate disaster deniers or skeptics; climate millionaire Al Gore won’t even take questions that he has not pre-approved; and colleges have become centers for “socially responsible investing” campaigns based on climate chaos, “sustainable development,” and anti-hydrocarbon ideologies.

Rupert Darwall skriver i Telegraph

Environmentalism has taken the Marxist concept of the alienation of the working class and applied it to the rich man’s alienation from nature. “By losing sight of our relationship with Nature… ,” the Prince of Wales wrote in 2009, “we have engendered a profoundly dangerous alienation.” In one respect, environmentalism is even more radical than Marxism. Whereas Marxism aimed to change the relations of the working class to the means of production, environmentalism is about changing the means of production themselves. Ironically, Marxism was a flop in the West, whereas environmentalism has triumphed.

One reason Britain has gone so far down the green path is that politicians have not been honest about its economic implications. During the passage of the Climate Change Act in 2008, which commits Britain to cutting net carbon emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050, the energy minister Phil Woolas rejected his own department’s estimate that the costs could exceed the benefits by £95?billion. The House of Commons never debated the costs and the Bill was passed, with only five MPs voting against.

An even more egregious example is provided by Ed Miliband, when he was climate change secretary. The Tory MP Peter Lilley had written to Mr Miliband to say that, based on his department’s own impact statement, the Climate Change Act would cost households an average of between £16,000 and £20,000. The future Labour leader replied that the statement showed that the benefits to British society of successful action on climate change would be far higher than the cost. Mr Miliband should have known this was untrue; if he didn’t, he had no business certifying that he’d read the impact statement, which he’d signed just six weeks earlier. The statement only estimated the benefits of slightly cooler temperatures for the world as a whole, not for the UK.

Peter C Glover skriver i Energy Tribune

Take California. Already bankrupt the state’s rush to green energy has prioritized wind and solar projects. But reports now make it clear that green energy’s unreliability is likely to see the lights go out in California by as early as later this year. Worse still new research suggests scientists generally have over-estimated the generation of power by wind farms. And yet another “devastating blow for the wind industry” is presaged in an upcoming report. According to a finding made by Scottish-government-funded researchers – Scotland is another key front-runner in the wind development stakes – thousands of existing UK wind turbines create more greenhouse gas emissions than they save.  Then there’s the increasing unacceptability – to environmentalists! – of the impact of giant wind farm footprints.

And just for good measure Germany, yet another global front-runner in the green energy stakes, has been warned the country’s transition to more wind and solar renewable energy will cost the nation, already reeling from the high cost of green energy subsidies, a cool 1 trillion euros ($1.34 trillion). With a record 600,000 Germans now threatened by fuel poverty it is not surprising that German politicians are taking the political problems created by greater green energy-dependency more seriously.

The green energy agenda is fast rising to the top of the political agenda – but, as we have seen, hardly for the reasons eco-warriors and BBC and NYT editors might like. It can only continue its inexorable rise because of two influential factors. First, facts and real science data are simply swamping the alarmist core messages. Second, as the most comprehensive study conducted recently reveals, futuristic climate issues rank nowhere in the average voters list of concerns.

In February, green policies were singularly responsible for bringing down the Bulgarian Government. It was a watershed political moment.  Even the BBC and the NYT reported it. Not that either managed to identify the link between the government’s green subsidies policy and rocketing electricity prices that brought violent protests to the streets for the first time. Too much like real journalism.

Hver gang Mail skriver om virkeligheden giver det dønninger og udhuler den illusion af enighed og ubetvivlelighed, der så længe har holdt debatten og de kritiske spørgsmål i ave. Der vil komme et tidspunkt, hvor en journalist  i lyset af den manglende opvarmning drister sig til at spørge klimaministeren, hvad han egentlig laver. Det er en gigantisk ‘komisk Ali’, der venter de, der tør at være først.

Der kommer en tid efter denne, en tid, hvor regnskabet skal gøres op og ansvaret placeres. Nej, ingen tale om Nürnberg processer, som venstrefløjen har haft travlt med at true alle de kættere der nu for stadigt flere viser sig at have haft ret hele tiden. Men vi må spørge os selv om, hvorledes vi kunne tage så meget fejl mens fakta skreg os ind hovedet hvorledes vi kunne dyrke en religiøs besættelse efter så skødesløst at have forkastet Gud (ja, jeg er meget glad for det Chesterton citat).

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

Diverse — Drokles on January 29, 2013 at 7:08 pm

Erkendelsen af at den globale temperatur ikke er steget de seneste 15 års tid spreder sig for tiden. Det største tyskspogede nyhedsmagasin Der Spiegel havde i ugens løb en større artikel om ‘pausen’ i opvarmingen. Spiegels artikel giver mulighed for den etablerede videnskab at komme med sine bud på, hvorfor temperaturen er stoppet med at stige, men den slår fast at det nu er gængs viden. Man kalder det forsigtigt en pause for at holde liv i drømmen om katastrofen, der kan stoppe kapitalismen. Morfar er ikke død, han sover bare. Her er et uddrag fra Global Warming Policy Foundations oversættelse af Spiegels artikel, Klimawandel: Forscher rätseln über Stillstand bei Erderwärmung.

Flowers are blooming earlier, sea level is rising – no doubt the climate is changing. The last year, as reported by NASA, was the ninth warmest since measurements began 132 years ago. The past decade was the warmest in this period.

But it has become common knowledge for some time that the climate has recently developed differently than predicted. The warming has stalled for 15 years; the upward trend in the average global temperature has not continued since 1998 (sic). “The standstill has led to the suggestion that global warming has stopped,” NASA admit.

The British Met Office has recently forecast that the warming standstill could continue until the end of 2017 – despite the rapid increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Then global warming would have stalled for 20 years. How many years – goes a now common question – has the temperature standstill to last until climate scientists start to reconsider their forecasts of future warming?

IPCC meeting

Scientists previously thought 14 years without further warming could be brought into line with their forecasts – but not “15 years or more,” as NASA scientists stated four years ago in the journal “Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society”. In an email to colleagues a renowned scientist wrote on 7 May 2009, at a time when the warming standstill had already lasted for eleven years: “the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.”

Now, 15 years without warming has happened. The warming standstill of the global surface temperature shows that the uncertainties of climate predictions are surprisingly large. The interested public anxiously awaits whether the IPCC’s new Assessment Report, which is due in September, will address the warming pause – the discussions are ongoing in Australia’s Hobart. The researchers are discussing several cogent reasons that might have slowed the upward trend of temperatures.

Den store diskussion om årsagerne til den manglende opvarmning afslører først og fremmest at diskussionen ikke er død, som det ellers var blevet så populært at hævde. Det er væsentligt for klimapanelets rapporter gjorde to ord uhyre populære blandt deres tilhængere i medier, det politiske univers, forskere, virksomheder og organisationer, nemlig unequivocal og unprecedented, ubetvivleligt og uden fortilfælde. Begge dele er altså forkert og de der har troet og sagt sådan har taget fejl, ikke deres kritikere. Autoriteten er udhulet. Nu engagerer de sig så modvilligt i den svære balancegang at placere skylden for den manglende opvarmning på den natur de hvædede at vide mere end rigeligt om uden også at tillæge den æren for den opvarmning som har været i gang siden lille istid. for jo mere Naturen kan have hæmmet varmen jo mere tiltror man den også selv at stå bag.

Tilbagetoget sker på flere fronter blandt eksperterne. Et norsk forskerhold har med statens velsignelse (den der betaler orkestret bestemmer jo også musikken) cumputersimuleret sig frem til at klimaets undergang sker væsentligt mere behersket end FN’s klimapanel ellers har simuleret sig frem til. Express skriver

GLOBAL warming is likely to be less extreme than claimed, researchers said yesterday. The most likely temperature rise will be 1.9C (3.4F) compared with the 3.5C predicted by the Intergovern­mental Panel on Climate Change.

The Norwegian study says earlier predictions were based on rapid warming in the Nineties. But Oslo University’s department of geosciences included data since 2000 when temperature rises “levelled off nearly completely”.

Professor Terje Berntsen said: “The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the ­Nineties. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity. We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming.” He insisted, though, that his study did not justify “complacency” about human-induced global warming.

Den store konklusion er igen at diskussionen er vidt åben, at forskerne ikke er sikre i deres sag, ensige enige. Imens i England vejrer den næste generation af politikere da også morgenluft. London’s borgmester Boris Johnson kaster menigmands godtkøbsbetragtninger i spil i Telegraph og positionernerer sig til fremtidens opgør med de, der er mest syltet ind i fortidens dogmatik

…I am sitting here staring through the window at the flowerpot and the bashed-up barbecue, and I am starting to think this series of winters is not a coincidence. The snow on the flowerpot, since I have been staring, has got about an inch thicker. The barbecue is all but invisible. By my calculations, this is now the fifth year in a row that we have had an unusual amount of snow; and by unusual I mean snow of a kind that I don’t remember from my childhood: snow that comes one day, and then sticks around for a couple of days, followed by more.

I remember snow that used to come and settle for just long enough for a single decent snowball fight before turning to slush; I don’t remember winters like this. Two days ago I was cycling through Trafalgar Square and saw icicles on the traffic lights; and though I am sure plenty of readers will say I am just unobservant, I don’t think I have seen that before. I am all for theories about climate change, and would not for a moment dispute the wisdom or good intentions of the vast majority of scientists.

But I am also an empiricist; and I observe that something appears to be up with our winter weather, and to call it “warming” is obviously to strain the language. I see from the BBC website that there are scientists who say that “global warming” is indeed the cause of the cold and snowy winters we seem to be having.

(…)

I am speaking only as a layman who observes that there is plenty of snow in our winters these days, and who wonders whether it might be time for government to start taking seriously the possibility — however remote — that Corbyn is right. If he is, that will have big implications for agriculture, tourism, transport, aviation policy and the economy as a whole. Of course it still seems a bit nuts to talk of the encroachment of a mini ice age.

But it doesn’t seem as nuts as it did five years ago. I look at the snowy waste outside, and I have an open mind.

Og nu er det altså også legitimt at sætte ord på sit åbne sind.

“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.

Wake up, Doctor Jones

Diverse — Drokles on October 24, 2012 at 9:00 pm

Forrige uge bød på endnu et slag i klimadebatten og endnu et nederlag til det man kunne kalde FN-sporet, nemlig ideen om at klimaet bliver ulideligt varmt på grund at noget vi her i Vesten foretager os. I 2009 skrev klimaforskeren Phil Jones i en intern e-mail til sine kollegaer

“Bottom line - the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried. We’re really counting this from about 2004/5 and not 1998. 1998 was warm due to the El Nino.”

Phil Jones var manden der udarbejdede PN’s klimapanels temperaturkurver, den øverste autoritet på klodens tilstand. At Jones vælger 2004/5 at regne ud fra for at udskyde det truende (han vil bekymre sig, hvis der ikke er en “klimakrise”!) nederlag til CO2 postulatet er underordnet den pointe at 15 år er en trend, altså en tidsperiode der er lang nok til at den definerer en virkelighed. Med andre er 15 år uden opvarmning nok til at begrave tesen om en CO2 genereret global opvarmning ude af kontrol. Og det er bekymrende når man nu lige gik og håbede…

Det citat blev lystigt citeret på ‘klimaskeptiske’ blogs sidste år da den engelske avis Daily Mail oplyste at der ikke havde været nogen opvarmning af atmosfæren i de seneste 15 år. Yderligere legede de med tanken om en nært forestående lille istid eller i det mindste et mindre fald i den globale temperatur i det kommende årtier

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

Om det falder så trist ud afhænger selvfølgelig af om forudsigelserne for Solens opførsel holder og om teorien overhovedet har noget på sig. Erfaringerne med skråsikre prognoser er jo ikke for gode. I forrige uge gentog Daily Mail så kunststykket og oplyste at vi nu er på 16′ende år uden opvarmning. “Global warming stopped 16 years ago” skrev Mail stolt “…and here is the chart to prove it”.

MoS2 Template Master

Mail skrev overivrigt at det var konklusionen på en rapport offentliggjort af MET, det engelske meteorologiske institut. Det var det ikke helt, for den slags kedelige nyheder om at verden alligevel ikke går under betler MET ikke til medierne af frygt for at det kan give folk et forkert opfattelse af virkeligheden. Grafen havde Mail selv lavet, men på baggrund af data diskret offentliggjort af MET. Og så var fanden løs. Og fanden skrev i vrede i Guardian “Why the Mail on Sunday was wrong to claim global warming has stopped

The British newspaper the Mail on Sunday and its writer David Rose are notorious for publishing misleading (at best) climate-related articles, as we have discussed previously here, for example.  They have recently struck again, claiming that according to a “quietly released” Met Office report, global warming stopped 16 years ago (a myth which Skeptical Science debunks here and here).  This assertion is entirely fabricated, as the Met Office explained by publishing David Rose’s inquiry and the Met Office’s responses.

Og citerede MET’s benægtelse af at de overhovedet kunne finde på at offentliggøre en rapport der kunne sætte klimahysteriet i forlegenhed for at fortsætte

Rose’s factually challenged article was predictably reproduced uncritically by the usual climate denial blogs and referenced by Fox News, perhaps in an attempt to distract from this year’s record-breaking Arctic sea ice minimum.  However, virtually every point made in the article was factually incorrect, as Rose would have known if he were a Skeptical Science reader, because we recently pre-bunked his piece.

Denne skeptiske blog hoppede dog ikke med på Mail-vognen, men det var kun fordi jeg har været stærkt beruset hele efterårsferien. Guardians vrede blev affærdiget af atmosfærefysikeren Judith Curry. “Nothing in the Met Office’s statement or in Nuticelli’s argument effectively refutes Rose’s argument” konstaterede hun tørt og kom med en besk opfordring til hysterikerne: “Raise the level of your game“! På sin blog gennemgik hun argumenterne fra de stridende parter og konkluderede bl.a

Given that we are in the cool phase of the PDO and a strong El Nino is unlikely for the next decade, the plateau may continue for at least another decade. Latif has made this argument, whereas most other ‘establishment’ scientists seem either puzzled by the pause or don’t expect it to continue beyond the expected 15-17 year period.

And if the PDO and solar factors are sufficient in strength to counter the anthropogenic warming, then we need to ask the question as to how much of the warming in the 1980?s and 1990?s were ‘juiced’ by the warm PDO and transition from cool to warm AMO, plus a solar max.

With the IPCC focus on anthropogenic forcing, these other issues have received insufficient scrutiny.

Således videnskabeligt opmuntret fulgte Daily Mail forleden op med endnu en artikel, der måske vil holde debatten i live lidt endnu. Phil Jones kan altså godt være bekymret nu hans 15 års pause viser at “klimatruslen” ser ud til at være ubegrundet. Og deraf også den vrede reaktion på at simple fakta entrerer debatten og fortrænger anekdotiske fortællinger om isbjørne, ishav, gletsjere og vand i kælderen (det samme som man ser i indvandrerdebatten) Det er en debat ikke kan vinde for i kampen om det globale klima er det den globale temperatur, der er vinderargumentet. Uden stigninghar CO2 ingen større betydning og uden stigning forandrer klimaet sig ikke. Efter i ti år at have erklæret debatten for ovre ser de nederlaget tegne sig i horisonten.

Lidt klimavanvid

Diverse, Klima, miljø — Drokles on April 20, 2012 at 11:34 am

W A Beatty beskriver klimabevægelsen som en religion i American Thinker

It is no coincidence that man-made global warming, or climate change, or whatever it’s called this week, got very popular as an issue just as the Soviet Union fell. It is the top-down centralized government’s last best hope of controlling the masses. And like other forms of socialist totalitarian worldviews, it is a religion as well.

Man-made global warming is an earth-worshiping religion. The essential feature of any religion is that its pronouncements are to be accepted on faith, as opposed to hard evidence. And as with most religions, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance, and deceit.

Global warmists have an unshakable faith that man-made carbon emissions will produce a hotter climate, causing natural disasters. Their insistence that we can be absolutely certain that this will come to pass is based not on science, but on faith.

All the trappings of religion are here:

- Original sin: Mankind is responsible for the prophesied disasters, especially those of us who live in suburbs and drive our SUVs to strip malls and chain restaurants.

- The need for atonement and repentance: We must impose a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, which will raise the cost of everything and stunt economic growth.

- Rituals: We must observe Earth Day, and we must recycle.

- Indulgences: Private jet-fliers like Al Gore and sitcom heiress Laurie David can buy carbon offsets to compensate for their carbon-emitting sins.

- Prophecy and faith in things unseen: Advocates say we must act now before it is too late.

Og den franske filosof Pascal Bruckner tilføjer at den økologiske religion er en hedens religion uden en trancendent gud. Al vores teknologi udgør en trussel mod vores liv og helbred, fra traffikken henover mobiltelefoni til det vi spiser og er således beboet af onde onder.

News Busters har i anledning af Earth Day samlet en top 25 over underholdende udsagn om klimaet og skriver i deres indledning

This Sunday marks the 42nd anniversary of Earth Day and for 25 of those years the MRC has documented the liberal media’s role in advancing the left’s green agenda. From fretting about overpopulation to scaring viewers about global warming, for over 25 years the media have championed the capitalism-killing agenda of the modern environmentalist movement.

So sacrosanct the liberal media believes its mission to be, that they haven’t even bothered to hide their bias. CNN’s environmental editor Barbara Pyle, as quoted in the July 1990 issue of American Spectator, actually bragged: “I do have an axe to grind…I want to be the little subversive person in television.” Time magazine’s science editor Charles Alexander, at a September 16, 1989 global warming conference, confessed: “I would freely admit on this issue we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”

That advocacy has been on full display as reporters and anchors have gone overboard in scaring their audience about the perils of our effect on the Earth, from overpopulation to global warming. In its January 2, 1989 “Planet of the Year” Time magazine’s editors warned: “Unless the growth in the world population is slowed, it will be impossible to make serious progression on any environmental issue.” Two years later, in an ad for its “Lost Tribes, Lost Knowledge” issue that appeared in the April 27, 1992 Sports Illustrated, Time magazine again warned: “Nature has a cure for everything, except the spread of Western civilization.”

Og et par eksempler

25. Billions of Lives At Risk

“Will Billions Die from Global Warming?”
— ABC’s on-screen graphic from the January 31, 2007 Good Morning America.

24. Who Needs Tanks, When You’ve Got the EPA?

“And yet, Congresswoman Schneider, in 1989, fiscal 1989 as we say in America, the Environmental Protection Agency got $5.1 billion dollars and the Defense Department got $290 billion dollars. What’s that tell us about our priorities?”
— ABC anchor Peter Jennings on the September 12, 1989 Capital to Capital special “The Environment: Crisis In the Global Village.”

21. Someone Get the Statue of Liberty a Life Preserver Before She Floats Away!

Tom Brokaw: “About 10 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by ice, most of that in the polar regions. But if enough of that ice melts, the seas will rise dramatically and the results will be calamitous….If this worst-case scenario should occur, in the coming centuries New York could be abandoned, its famous landmarks lost to the sea.”
Dr. James Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies: “Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, Miami — they would all be under water.”
— From Brokaw’s two-hour Discovery Channel special, Global Warming: What You Need to Know, excerpt shown on the July 15, 2006 NBC Nightly News.

14. Earth Would Be Okay It Weren’t for Us Pesky Humans

“Ultimately, no problem may be more threatening to the Earth’s environment than the proliferation of the human species.”
— Anastasia Toufexis, “Overpopulation: Too Many Mouths,” article in Time’s special “Planet of the Year” edition, January 2, 1989.

Det er svært at forestille sig, men deres nr. 1 er faktisk velfortjent. Jeg vil supplere med et par eksempler fra den seneste tid uden rangorden. For eksempel skrev den tidligere brandmand fra Tennessee i Forbes at ha ikke kunne forstå at der i dagens verden endnu var skeptikere der gik og løj med alle interesse som indsats. Nogen burde stå til regnskab

Let’s take a page from those Tennessee firemen we heard about a few times last year – the ones who stood idly by as houses burned to the ground because their owners had refused to pay a measly $75 fee.

We can apply this same logic to climate change.

We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies.  Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay.  Let’s let their houses burn.  Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands.  Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices.

They broke the climate.  Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?

Og vi venter så i spændning på at vi får vores klimaafgifter tilbage om godt ti år når vi sidder og ser tilbage på et kvart århundrede uden varme, men tværtimod med et lille fald i temperaturen. Indtil der går så lang tid skal vi høre lignende udfald i ABC News

One of the world’s most widely respected climatologists, James Hansen, director of NASA-GISS, which focuses on the study of earth’s climate for the space agency, testified to Congress in 2008 that the CEOs of fossil fuel companies (who, according to various professional reporting have been promoting this and other misleading messages about global warming in conjunction with ideological groups trying to prevent government regulation) “knew what they were doing” and, as stated in his written testimony to Congress in 2008, were guilty of “high crimes against humanity and nature.”

Hansen tells ABC News — in a phone call from the U.K. where he’s been traveling — that he used that highly charged phrase, crime against humanity, “not only for dramatic effect, but also because it is accurate, given the enormous scale of the consequences to humanity” if manmade global warming is not somehow stopped and reversed.

“It wasn’t only aimed at the fossil fuel CEOs,” Hansen added on the phone. “This also applies to politicians who pretend the global warming is not manmade.”

(…)

Hansen is not the first to have carefully decided to call the climate disinformation campaign “a crime against humanity.”

Journalist Ross Gelbspan, whose professional accomplishments include directing a Pulitzer-winning investigation at the Boston Globe before he turned his attention to global warming in  the 1990s, entitled a chapter in “Boiling Point,” his second book on the climate crisis, “Criminals Against Humanity.”

The “criminals” he was referring to were fossil fuel and other executives who he reported to be intentionally promoting confusion and disinformation campaigns about solid findings of climate scientists around the world.

Fra Quark Soup

“By adopting a ‘one-child’ policy since 1979, Chinese demographers estimate that about 300 million births have been avoided, equivalent to the present population of the United States. Even at the relatively low level of Chinese per capita carbon dioxode emissions, the effect of this population policy can be measured as an avoidance of about 1.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide being emitted annually to the global atmosphere. This represents a nominal reduction of about 5 per cent in global carbon emissions, a much greater reduction than has been achieved by all the measures of the Kyoto Protocol.”

– Mike Hulme, Why We Disagree About Climate Change, Chapter 8

Og så skal Manu Sareen på banen for ifølge feminister i EU er klimaforandringerne kvindeundertrykkende, som Daily Mail rapporterer

A bizarre row has broken out among EU politicians over whether climate change is a feminist issue.

Members of the European Parliament will vote today on a report by a French Green party MEP who claims global warming ‘is not gender neutral’.

Women, claims Nicole Kiil-Nielsen, ‘consume more sustainably than men and show greater willingness to act to preserve the environment’ as they tend to organise household consumption and childcare.

She said that discrimination against women could be made worse in the developing world if climate policies do not take gender discrimination into account.

She was yesterday subjected to a withering attack from Marina Yannakoudakis, a Tory MEP for London, who called her motion ‘bonkers, baseless and bad for women’.

The report – Women and Climate Change – calls for a 40 per cent female quota on all EU delegations in climate negotiations and on the committees that allocate climate aid from member states. Funding is set to reach £62billion a year by 2020.

God weekend.

Next Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress