Vis innlegg

Denne delen lar deg se alle innlegg laget av dette medlemmet. Merk at du bare kan se innlegg gjort i områder du har tilgang til.

Emner - PetterT

Sider: [1] 2
Generelt / Motiv for klimaengasjement
« på: 24.06.2017, 08:04:42 »
Jeg er fullstendig enig i denne forklaringen på hvorfor vi Klimarealister skal engasjere oss i klimasaken:

Why I Spend So Much Time and Effort on Climate Skepticism
Alan Carlin | June 22, 2017 (BSc physics, Phd economy, formerly EPA employee)

I am sometimes asked why I spend so much time on climate skepticism. Why not just ignore the climate issue and let the climate alarmists have their way at the expense of everyone else, particularly the less wealthy? The full answer can be found in my book, but the short answer is that there is too much at stake for the US and the world not to do everything possible to avoid the imposition of climate alarmist ideology.
It is now clearer than ever that the alarmists have no intention of reaching a symbolic compromise that while unjustified might be livable by the rest of society. Rather, their apparent intention is to keep pushing the US and other developed countries into a fossil fuel-less society in which all energy used will come from wind and solar or a few other “renewables” but not including either hydro or nuclear. This is just what the Democratic Party included in its Party platform last year. And if their candidate had won, this is exactly what the US would now be trying to do. She even endorsed Al Gore’s objectives just before the election, perhaps in hopes of added votes from “environmentalists.”
If this had happened, this is a recipe for a financial disaster and probably the end of the US as a global innovator and economic leader. The immediate reason is that their goal of a fully fossil fuel-less society cannot be achieved even if all resources available were spent on it. Rather, their goal would result in the enslavement of the US economy to this one never achievable and pointless end. Ever more technical and economic resources would be devoted to this end. And for what purpose? To lessen an alleged threat from catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) and stronger extreme weather phenomena that has never been shown to exist. The best available science shows that increased carbon dioxide has no significant effect on temperatures, and CAGW has not happened.
So climate alarmism is not just the biggest scam ever perpetrated on society, but one that would do immense real damages to all the objectives I have for our country, our economy, and the environment.
Under a Climate Alarmist Regime, Most New Efforts Would Be Devoted to This One Dubious Purpose
In the end, most new efforts would be devoted to this one dubious purpose. All fossil fueled power plants would have to be rebuilt at the expense of users. All motor vehicles would have to be replaced by their owners with electric vehicles. All housing and other buildings would have to use only electricity for fuel and be ever more air-tight and unhealthful. The population would be no better off and increasingly poorer. Government would become ever more powerful and the citizens ever worse off. In order to avoid using fossil fuels, the all encompassing electric grid would fail with increasingly regularity and more serious consequences. Electricity would become ever more expensive and unreliable.
Some may think I am exaggerating, but one only needs to look at what has happened in Great Britain, Germany, Ontario, and South Australia to see what would happen here. And it will happen unless people learn how much is at stake and take a strong stand against this special interest that wants to ruin the energy-using modern world as we now know it for no real purpose at all.

Aktører og hendelser / Faktisk om klima
« på: 23.03.2017, 22:07:36 »
Prof. Humlum har gitt ut en rapport om klima basert på observasjoner:


Among the key findings of the survey are:

While 2016 was one of the warmest years on record, global temperatures dropped back at the end of the year to levels prior to the strong 2015/16 El Niño. This fact suggests that much of the global 2015–16 temperature peak was caused by a one of the strongest El Niños on record.

Since 2003, the global temperature estimate based on surface station measurements has consistently drifted away from the satellite-based estimate in a warm direction, and is now about 0.1◦C higher.

Much of the heat given off during the 2015–16 El Niño appears to have been transported to the polar regions, especially to the Arctic, causing severe weather phenomena and unseasonably high air temperatures.

Data from tide gauges all over the world suggest an average global sea-level rise of 1–1.5 mm/year, while the satellite-derived record suggests a rise of more than 3 mm/yr. This noticeable difference between the two data sets still has no broadly accepted explanation.

Arctic and Antarctic sea-ice extents since 1979 have developed in opposite directions, decreasing and increasing, respectively. In the Arctic, a 5.3-year periodic variation is important, while for the Antarctic a cycle of about 4.5 years duration is important. Both these variations reached their minima simultaneously in 2016, which explains the recent minimum in global sea-ice extent.

Prof Humlum said: “There is little doubt that we are living in a warm period. However, there is also little doubt that current climate change is not abnormal and not outside the range of natural variations that might be expected.”

Biolog og naturverner, med en imponerende merittliste; Morten Jødal har gitt ut en ny bok:

Miljømytene - står vi ovenfor verdens undergang

Boken anbefales (har begynt å lese) og kan kjøpes her:

Boken knuser en rekke myter fra algeoppblomstring, skogdød, tareskog, mmm + selvfølgelig klimahysteriet.

Viktige klimatema / Klima som religion
« på: 11.02.2017, 15:10:41 »
Nå er det ikke tvil lenger.  Klima er en substituttreligion for ellers troløse fanatikere som leter etter noe å tro på.

Klima er blitt religion
Innrømmet av tidligere leder for FNs Klimapanel IPCC inderen dr. Pachauri i sitt avskjedsbrev (han måtte forlate IPCC pga kvinnetrakassering): «…my religion and dharma», ref. 

Flere som innrømmer at klima er religion:
Former Obama EPA Chief concedes: ‘Climate change has become a religion’ (Gina McCharty)
Artikkelen inneholder mange eksempler på at klima er religion for mange.

Mot religion nytter ikke realistiske argumenter.

Skråblikk / Havnivå som temperaturproxy
« på: 07.02.2017, 14:39:43 »
En svært så aktiv nettmobber på dette forum som stadig trakasserer med begrep som "klimakuk" og "kullkuk" har så vidt jeg har registrert uttrykt noe om at havstigning kan brukes som temperaturproxy.
Ideen er så latterlig at jeg har lagt dette innlegget under skråblikk.  ;D
Det ser nå ut som om seriøs forskning har avvist en slik ide temmelig grundig, noe Notrickzone (som også blir mobbet av samme ufordragelige debattant) har publisert:

35 Scientific Papers: Global Sea Levels Were 1 – 2 Meters Higher Than Now For Most Of The Last 7,000 Years
By Kenneth Richard on 6. February 2017
CO2 Concentration Changes Do Not Drive Sea Levels
And casting even more doubt on the assertion that variations in CO2 drive sea level rise is the fact that there is robust paleoclimate evidence to suggest that today’s mean sea levels as well as today’s sea level rise rates are both relatively low (from a historical standpoint) and also well within the range of natural variability.  Nothing unusual is happening to sea levels today.  For even though we have evidence that modern CO2 concentrations (~405 ppm) are historically high relative to the last 10,000 years, we also possess a growing body of evidence that modern sea levels are still about 1 to 2 meters lower than they have been for most of the last 7,000 years.

The fundamental problem for the CO2-rise-causes-sea-level-rise paradigm, then, is that rising CO2 concentrations have not been correlated with rising sea levels for nearly all of the last 12,000 years.  In fact, the opposite has been observed during the last 2,000 years, or during the Late Holocene: CO2 levels have risen (gradually, then rapidly) while sea levels have fallen overall, with recent changes so modest (inches per century) that they do not override the overall trend).   In the 8,000 years before that, sea levels rose rapidly while CO2 concentrations remained flat.  Simply put, the supposed anthropogenic “signal” in sea level rise trends has largely gone undetected — a point that has been affirmed by more and more scientists.


JC in transition
by Judith Curry
"Effective January 1, I have resigned my tenured faculty position at Georgia Tech."

Noen sitater:
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry in 2017: 'My fall from the ivory tower that started in 2005 is now complete'
'The deeper reasons [for resignation] have to do with my growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists.'

'A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc. How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists).'

'At this point, the private sector seems like a more ‘honest’ place for a scientist working in a politicized field than universities or government labs — at least when you are your own boss.'

Aktører og hendelser / Klimakonspirasjon
« på: 27.12.2016, 13:39:33 »

Uten frykt for å bli kalt konspirasjonskuk eller det som verre er av invektivmester Emeritus vil jeg gjøre oppmerksom på at folk og organisasjoner som har ideologisk, prestisjemessig og økonomisk interesse av å hype AGW eller klimaødeleggelse ("climate disruption", som det er blitt til) samarbeider.
Og det er jo ikke så rart. 

Helt sentral er CAN:
The Climate Action Network (CAN) is a worldwide network of over 1100 Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in more than 120 countries, working to promote government and individual action to limit human-induced climate change to ecologically sustainable levels.

En kritisk avløring av konspirasjonen finnes her:
The Command & Control Center of Climate Alarmism
Guest essay by Leo Goldstein
 The existence of a foreign command & control center within climate alarmism has long been ignored, despite palpable evidence. The obvious deterrent to recognizing it was ridicule, as the Left label anybody making such claims as a believer in a “conspiracy theory.” It is time to stop listening to fools and scoundrels. Yes, climate alarmism has a single command and control center, comprising leaders of the WWF (*), other huge environmentalist groups, and United Nations politicians. 

CAN og NGO-nettverket disponerer milliarder USD av skattebetalernes penger (WWF alene ca 1 mrd USD), som politiker-dotter har bevilget, slik at de kan drive propaganda for å bryte ned industri og redusere levestandard spesielt i den vestlige demokratiske verden, uten at folk er klar over det.

Før eller siden vil denne konspirasjonen bli avslørt og sprekke.

Andre emner enn klima / Forståelig kvantemekanikk
« på: 20.12.2016, 13:29:53 »
Jeg tror den kloke (!) emeritus prof. Claes Johnson har greid å gjøre kvantemekanikken forståelig, se:

New Quantum Mechanics 21: Micro as Macro

Noen synspunkter på det på dette forum?

Energi og miljø / Klok energi- og miljø-politikk
« på: 16.11.2016, 21:44:27 »
Tony Heller (aka Steve Goddard) gir her en kort beskrivelse av hva en fornuftig energi- og miljø-politikk kan innebære:

A Sane Energy/Environmental Policy
Posted on November 14, 2016 by tonyheller
President Obama said “my plan will necessarily make electricity prices skyrocket”
These are the words of a madman, a societal saboteur. No one in their right mind would think or say anything like that. Sane energy policy requires low cost, abundant, reliable energy. It also requires that we stop wasting our reserves of hydrocarbon based fuels.

Les mer her:

Media og politikk / Klimaet i 2017-valgkampen
« på: 12.09.2016, 21:02:44 »
Nytt viktig tema tas opp hos

Klimaet i 2017-valgkampen, del 1: Høyre

Geir Aaslid
Hva vil partiene mene i neste valgkamp om klimakrisen og hvordan bruker de nærstående floskler som bærekraft, grønt skifte og det fornybare lavutslippssamfunnet i sitt valgprogram? Vi skal i tiden som kommer følge partiene og de nye programmene som de går til valg på, men vi forholder oss utelukkende til den delen som er klimarelatert. Først ut er Høyre som slapp første utkast av sitt program onsdag 7. september. Vi har uthevet med understrekning det mest relevante eller mest bedrøvelige, våre kommentarer er i kursiv. Det er ingen dissens på de punktene vi har kommentert.

Dette temaet vil det bli interessant å følge med på.

Viktige klimatema / DET ER SOLEN!
« på: 21.08.2016, 20:57:07 »
Forskere fra østerrike har påvist at solen har hatt større innflytelse enn hva FNs klimapanel forutsetter i sine modeller:

Austrian Solar Charts Expose “Small Sensation” …Fractures CO2 Warming Theory - See more at:

Dette stemmer også med hva bl. a. dr. W. Soon og mange fler har funnet ut:
100+ Papers – Sun Drives Climate

Prof. em. Michael Hart har kommet med en ny bok:
Hubris: The Troubling Science, Economics, and Politics of Climate Change
omtalt her

Han er ikke nådig når det gjelder "forskere" med en politisk agenda og gir følgende råd:
Again, it will take a determined effort by people of faith and conscience to convince our political leaders that they have been gulled by a political movement exploiting fear of climate change to push a utopian, humanist agenda that most people would find abhorrent. As it now stands, politicians are throwing money that they do not have at a problem that does not exist in order to finance solutions that make no difference. The time has come to call a halt to this nonsense and focus on real issues that pose real dangers. In a world beset by war, terrorism, and continuing third-world poverty, there are far more important things on which political leaders need to focus.

Generelt / Slakt av AGW/CO2-dogmet
« på: 07.08.2016, 21:04:19 »
Atmosfærefysiker Dr. Murry Salby med ny slakt av AGW/CO2-dogmet omtalt her:
Physicist Murry Salby Compares CO2 “Pseudo-Science” To The Medical Quackery Of Blood-Letting! - See more at:

Dr. Salby: "The premise of the IPCC that increased atmospheric CO2 results from fossil fuels emissions is impossible.”

Interessant artikkel hos Judith Curry:

Asymmetry and the power of the 3%

"The minority rule will show us how it all it takes is a small number of intolerant virtuous people with skin in the game, in the form of courage, for society to function properly." – Nassim Taleb

"Function properly"??? or improperly???

Et lite dominant (militant?) mindretall kan overstyre "det tause (passive/ignorante) flertall" (som ikke skjønner hva som foregår).

Eks.: Ekstreme miljø-/klima-aktivister får større dekningstid i media enn oss klimarealister.  Publikum får dermed inntrykk av at "vi må redde verden".
Et annet eks.:  Militante islamister terroriserer moderate islamister inn i en islamsk stat.
Andre eks. i historien:  Kommunister, nazister mmfl.

Viktige klimatema / Klimaeffekt
« på: 07.02.2016, 20:34:13 »
Regjeringen har gitt ut en rapport om klimaeffekt av diverse tiltak regjeringen har satt igang:
Klimatiltak mot 2030 - klimaeffekt på kort sikt og helseeffekter
Jeg kunne ikke dy meg og sendte følgende spørsmål:

Rapporten "Klimatiltak mot 2030 - klimaeffekt på kort sikt og helseeffekter" angir klimaeffekt som antall tonn av plantenæringen CO2 som man lar være å slippe ut. Men hva er KLIMA-effekten når klima defineres som værsystem over store områder og lang tid? Hvor mange grader C vil global temperatur bli påvirket? Det er det som er det viktige her. Vennligst svar.

I rapporten som det refereres til har vi beregnet klimaeffekt på kort sikt og helseeffekter av lavutslippstiltak. I rapporten «Klimatiltak og utslippsbaner mot 2030» (M-386/2015) har vi beregnet klimaeffekt på lang sikt av de samme tiltakene. Beregningsmetodikken som er lagt til grunn er GWP100,global. Dette er den samme som ligger til grunn for våre internasjonale utslippsforpliktelser og rapporteringskrav.
Med hilsen
Espen Larsen
seniorrådgiver, kommunikasjonsenheten
Telefon: 03400 / 73 58 05 00
Mobil: 926 57 954
www.miljø - www.miljø
Svaret var omtrent "- God dag mann. - Økseskaft, svarte mannen", så jeg sendte nytt spørsmål:
Takk for svar, men hva er effekten på klimaet, definert i de fleste leksika som gjennomsnitt vær i et større område med like forhold i en tidsramme på ca. 30 år?
Hvor mange grader vil global temperatur endres?
Hvordan vil været endre seg som følge av reduserte utslipp av plantenæringen CO2?
Det er det som er klimaeffekt!
Hva er den reelle klimaeffekt?
Håper på svar.

og fikk til svar:
Hei Petter
Har videreformidlet dette til fagseksjonen.
Med hilsen
Espen Larsen

Det blir spennende å se om fagseksjonen svarer og i tilfelle hva, så følg med...........
mvh PetterT

Sider: [1] 2