Messages

["New paper finds sunshine has controlled maximum temperatures and temperature ranges in China since 1962"]

Vi kan jo bare legge på en feilmargin på +- 0,3 så er vi i mål!

Hehe, ja hadde IPCC i sin relativt korte historie klart å holde sine sviktende påstander innenfor 0.3, ville de jo framstått som nærmest "presise"...
NÃ¥ har de allerede halvert CO2-estimatet sitt, og fremdeles er modellene utenfor observasjonsvinduet...

"New paper finds sunshine has controlled maximum temperatures and temperature ranges in China since 1962"
Enda en rapport viser nå at IPCCs avvisning av solens betydning for klimaet ifht. deres eget CO2-argument, er uten troverdighet.

For nå har dette nye paperet publisert i går i Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres funnet at:

"daily [diurnal] temperature range in China decreased from 1962 to 2011, and that this decrease was due to a decrease in maximum temperatures related to a decrease of sunshine durations over this period".

Se det! Vi andre sitter og teller stadig nye spikre i IPCCs faglige kiste.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2014/10/new-paper-finds-sunshine-has-controlled.html

["Using seasonal variations to estimate earth's response to radiative forcing"]

Svenske med sesongstudier senker CO2-sensitiviteten ytterligere:

"Using seasonal variations to estimate earth's response to radiative forcing"

Ikke før har det blitt levert studier som senker CO2-sensitiviteten til 0,43 som er langt under IPCCs estimater (se foran i tråden her) så kommer en svenske og finner at den er "less than 0.3C". For ordens skyld, paperet er "currently under open review".

Som sagt, trådens tittel er "Det stegvise sammenbruddet i IPCCs klimamodeller"....

For vi ser en klar trend nå: Det kommer stadig flere papers som senker klimasensitiviteten mot 0 når vi snakker om "radiative forcing"-påstandene i AGW/CO2-hypotesen (der jeg i årevis har ment den hører hjemme).

Det beste er vel likevel at stadig flere forskere nå ikke lenger synes å kunne stoppes av IPCC-klanens tidligere nesten altomfattende sensur i peer review-oppsettet (tør de ikke lenger?!) for de store fagtidsskriftene mht. opposisjon mot IPCCs AGW/CO2-overdrivelser.

Det gir håp om at mer reell vitenskap kan få økende gjennomslag i klimaforskningen etter hvert!

Link: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2014/10/new-paper-finds-very-low-climate.html

[Manns ulike former for "Nobelpris" i fri dressur....]

Manns ulike former for "Nobelpris" i fri dressur....

Manns FAGLIGE bidrag til Hammer Forumet har dere allerede fått sett og vurdert. Det er vel ikke nødvendig å påpeke tristheten rundt dette for vitenskapens generelle anseelse.
 
Men på andre siden; haussebestrebelsene av Manns storhet blir stadig morsommere og morsommere når vi ser på Hammer Forums omgang med brosjyrer; først presenterte man Mann som Nobelprisvinner per se (trolig etter Manns egne henvisninger, dersom man ser på hva han selv har skrevet om dette på baksiden av sin egen bok!!), og så måtte man komme tilbake med en modifisert versjon. Osv. Osv.

Les den elleville følgjetongen her: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2014/10/ucla-michael-mann-wins-nobel-prize-again.html

[Gavin Schmidt and the EPA Denial Decision]

Når vi først tar for oss disse tvilsomme figurene, må jo Manns hyppig brukte partner også trekkes fram i lyset ifm. med en sak som må få de faste klimajuksemakerne til å fryse nedover ryggen: Steve McIntyres metodiske opprulling av hva denne gjengen egentlig har drevet med, og fremdeles driver med:

Gavin Schmidt and the EPA Denial Decision

Dette er kanskje ikke det letteste stoffet å henge med på, men de som leser dette litt grundig, vil sitte tilbake med ganske oppsperrede øyne på klimaforskningens vegne, er jeg redd (et hovedpoeng her er jo at Manns notorisk sammensvorne Schmidt ble satt til å delta i "hvitvaskingen" av nettopp Mann - en grovere hildet kobling er vanskelig å finne i vitenskapens historie):

http://climateaudit.org/2014/10/18/gavin-schmidt-and-the-epa-denial-decision/#more-20138

[Og så kom Michael Mann-referatet!]

Og så kom Michael Mann-referatet!

Vi har i trådstarten allerede gått gjennom Ekwurzels beklagelige feilinformasjon til Hammer-forumet.

I dag skal dere få anledning til å se på Michael Manns bidrag:

â?¢ Started presentation claiming the evidence for AGW is "straightforward and not controversial."
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": Her ser det ut til at han mistet munn og mæle, og kommenter ikke

â?¢ Said CO2 levels have not been as high as today for "several million years"
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": "Debunked"

â?¢ Said there are multiple lines of evidence for AGW
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": "using the repeatedly debunked image from SkS"

â?¢ Claimed IPCC report is "conservative" and that climate scientists are "conservative" in their projections of climate change
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": Målløs igjen?

â?¢ Said natural variation cannot explain recent climate change
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": [debunked]

â?¢ Said climate change we are allegedly experiencing now is "dangerous" and we will soon be inhabiting a "different planet"
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": Målløs igjen?

â?¢ Said with "business as usual" there will be 4-5C warming by 2100, and 8-10C warming in the Arctic
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": [debunked]

â?¢ Said use of polar bears as the "poster child" for AGW was a "mistake" because it gave the "false impression that climate change is a distant thing" despite it allegedly happening "everywhere"
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": Målløs?

â?¢ Said he doesn't have to convince the people in the audience from Southern California that climate change is real: "just look at the historic drought"
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": [debunked]

â?¢ Claimed flooding from Florida king tides "used to happen only once a year," but allegedly due to AGW, "will happen once a month."
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": (controlled by gravitation from the Moon and Sun and have occurred for millennia)

â?¢ Said due to climate change, the surge from Sandy was 13 feet instead of 12 feet and that this caused flooding of an extra 25 miles inland
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": [debunked]

â?¢ Claimed sea level rise of 3-6 feet by 2100
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": [debunked]

â?¢ Discussed his Scientific American article on 2036 doomsday scenario
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick":[debunked]

â?¢ Said "California drought was made worse" by climate change, and is "the worst ever seen"
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": [debunked]

â?¢ Said Senator Inhofe, Heartland Institute, Republicans in general, and "climate deniers" are all allegedly funded by the Koch brothers.
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": Målløs igjen?

â?¢ Said Inhofe was scheduled to give a speech at a Heartland meeting, but had to cancel because he was ill from swimming in a lake with an algal bloom due to "unprecedented heat in Oklahoma"
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": (implying that was man-made)

â?¢ Showed his thoroughly debunked hockey stick [containing 'Mike's trick to hide the decline'] and called it an "icon" of the IPCC that is now part of a "veritable hockey league" of other "hockey sticks" since "every study says recent temperatures are unprecedented."
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": [debunked]

â?¢ Said you don't even need his hockey stick to know that AGW is real because of the greenhouse effect described [incorrectly] by Arrhenius in 1896.
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": described [incorrectly] by Arrhenius in 1896

â?¢ Says the Republicans get their climate science from a journal...(long pause)..."The Wall Street Journal"
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": Målløs igjen?

â?¢ Said Republicans are "the party of anti-science"
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": Målløs igjen?

â?¢ Said the only debate Congress should be having is "how to deal with this problem, and not pretend the problem doesn't exist"
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": Målløs igjen?

â?¢ Showed the picture of his daughter at an aquarium with a polar bear diving for a fish behind her, as Anthony has already commented upon. Using this picture as a prop, said AGW is a problem of "intergenerational ethics" and that he didn't want his daughter to one day have to tell her kids that "polar bears used to exist, but we damaged their home."
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": 'Nuff said already?

â?¢ With that tear-jerker of an ending, Mann finished his presentation.

Additional notes on Mann's responses to written questions from the audience
(which were first carefully  filtered by the moderator):

â?¢ Said "scientists are the most conservative people on the planet" and that "science has self-correcting machinery." Said that if a scientist commits fraud or makes a mistake, "you'll be found out" by other scientists, and that one "gets ahead in science by proving other people wrong"
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": [conveniently failing to mention that Mann himself is potentially the most "caught out" scientist in history, by McIntyre & McKitrick, Wegman and the NAS, Richard Mueller, John Christy, and many others].

â?¢ Said that "for thousands of scientists to conspire and the oceans and atmosphere to play along" would be necessary for AGW to be a "hoax"

â?¢ Said climate skeptics "are not real skeptics," they are just "denialists"

â?¢ Said the IPCC claims "are as certain as science can be about anything"

â?¢ Said "in many ways, China and India are ahead of us on fighting climate change"

â?¢ Said there's no reason why renewables can't replace fossil fuels

â?¢ Said Koch brothers are funding ALEC and the "campaign of denial"

â?¢ Said North Carolina is trying to "outlaw Teslas"

â?¢ Said CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere is "centuries" and that even if man-made emissions completely stopped now, warming would continue for "centuries" Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": [debunked]

â?¢ Said CO2 emissions must be reduced 5-10% per year starting now, that he said that many years ago, "but I'm really serious this time!"
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": [accompanied by Cheshire smile]

â?¢ Said Exxon is planning for a carbon tax of $60/ton, meanwhile "funding the disinformation campaign"

â?¢ In answer to audience question, "Can capitalism be defeated to stop the destruction of the natural world?" [which received applause from the UCLA aging-hippie-commie audience], Mann said it was the other speaker's turn to answer.

â?¢ Said there are 5 times more fossil fuels available than necessary to warm the planet by 2C, which if all were burned, would allegedly warm the planet 10-14C

â?¢ Said "we are already seeing dangerous climate change"


Noen sluttkommentarer:
- Following the presentations and questions, the fake-Nobelist went to the lobby for book signings [the back cover of which says he shared the Nobel Peace Prize], guarded by 3 heavily-armed UCLA police officers nearby [I've attended many other events in this same theater and never seen any UCLA police officers at any other events].

- Perhaps 20-25 attendees bought Mann's book for signing . 

- I asked if I could stand in the line to ask Dr. Mann a question without having to buy his book first, and was told no.

- On the way to the theater parking lot, I noticed the bicycle rack was empty, and the anti-capitalism and anti-fossil fuel attendees driving off in their fossil-fueled vehicles.

Ja, da har jeg gjort som jeg lovet - videreført Manns tanker til den vitenskapshungrige allmue!!

Link: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2014/10/michael-manns-ucla-schtick.html

[Det Store Klimamøtet i København har gitt en saftig giv for flyselskapene!]

Det Store Klimamøtet i København har gitt en saftig giv for flyselskapene!

Siden vi har først har sunket ned til Københavnkonferansenivå, her er opplegget denne gangen:

1) Det er ennå tid å bygge opp skremsler i media (jfr. DN i dag):
IPCCs nye rapport om klodens tilstand legges fram først søndag 2. november. I ventetiden er det nå full dansesal i sensasjonspressen.

2) Forskning?! Nei, her blir det håndsopprekking igjen - men jetflyene får kjørt seg:
Allerede i dag begynner 600 klimaforskere og regjeringsrepresentanter fra 125 land arbeidet med å godkjenne teksten i rapporten.

3) Hovedbudskapet:
"Det er en meget klar sammenheng mellom menneskelig aktivitet og klimaendringer", opplyser åndelig leder Rajendra Pachauri.

4) Og alt blir selvsagt gradvis verre:
"Hvis vi ikke skjærer ned på utslippene av drivhusgasser, vil virkningene gradvis bli verre, og vi kan nå et punkt der det blir svært vanskelig å tilpasse oss", sier han.

5) Forskning #2?! Neida, alle husker vel påfunnet med 2-gradersmålet - det vil helt sikkert leve videre det!:
"Vi kan handle. Vi vet hvordan, men hvis vi ikke gjør det fort nok, stiger prisen vesentlig, og det kan bli vanskelig å nå målet om å begrense den globale oppvarmingen til to grader", fortsetter Pachauri.

6) Ny forskning er det imidlertid ikke (da måtte man vel nesten tatt med at alt av AGW/CO2-alarmisme har slått feil?):
Den nye rapporten er et sammendrag av klimapanelets femte statusrapport siden 1990.

7) For atomkraft (så kom katta ut av sekken?!):
Rapporten viser at hvis man vil nå målet om å begrense temperaturstigningen til to grader i 2100, så må nivået på CO2-utslipp ned på null ved utgangen av dette århundret. Ifølge Pachauri er utfordringene så store at vindmøller, solceller og energieffektivisering ikke er tilstrekkelig: "Vi må stanse avskoging helt og i stedet plante mer skog. Atomkraft og oppsamling og lagring av CO2 er også en mulighet", sier Pachauri. (©NTB)

Yiihaaaa!

http://forskning.no/2014/10/stort-klimamote-i-kobenhavn

["Slik vil København se ut hvert år fra 2100"]

Det er Dagens Næringsliv som i dag topper listen for ukritisk gjengivelse av nye og - som alltid - fullstendig udokumenterte skremsler om havstigning og global oppvarming.
Her er ikke fakta og motbeviste påstander interessante, her stiller man opp for "the cause" så det holder med oppslaget:

"Slik vil København se ut hvert år fra 2100"

De villige og nyttige idiotene denne gangen er den danske Naturstyrelsen med bidrag fra forskerkonsortiet CRES, som kan melde at global oppvarming (nettopp; den man ikke har målt på 18+ år....) vil "føre til at en vannstand i København på 1,7 meter over normalstanden, som i dag skjer hvert 500. år, vil komme til å skje flere ganger i året".

Joda, de burde jo hente inn Eystein Jansen også her, for han har vel nå gått på kurs om gravitasjon ifm. slike forhold, etter hans noe misvisende "analyse" av tilsvarende oversvømmelser for Bergen?

Men motivet og agendaen er åpenbar: rapporten kom akkurat i tide til å bli hovedoppslag for havrenakkene på København-konferansen, slik at de har noe å henge alarmismen sin på. Og et nytt miljø å honorere for å ha oppdaget dette dramatiske forhold - jeg er sikker på at de overleverte rapporten med fantelua utstrakt foran seg. Alt annet er som kjent falsifisert nå.

http://www.dn.no/nyheter/utenriks/2014/10/27/0836/slik-vil-kbenhavn-se-ut-hvert-r-fra-2100

Her er enda en ny fagfellevurdert artikkel (i Nature GeoScience) som plukker ned IPCCs overdrevne klimasensitivitet:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/abs/ngeo1375.html

Omtalt bl.a. her: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2014/10/ocean-data-shows-ipcc-exaggerates.html

[Sentrale klimaløgner framsatt i "UCLA Hammer Forum on Climate Change" sist uke: Nekter bl.a. for stoppen i global oppvarming]

Jeg har stort sett prøvd å overse de ulike framstøtene fra Michael Mann, i trygg forvissning om at hans notorisk kvasivitenskapelige misbruk av klimadata (jfr. den famøse hockeykølla som ble muliggjort ved å bl.a. fjerne varm middelalder og varm mellomkrigstid) alltid plukkes ned av klare hoder som Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Judith Curry, osv.

Her kan man stort sett enkelt arrestere ham for banale vitenskapelige feil. Verre blir det når han og hans kumpaner skifter taktikk og starter en kampanje med en strøm av ulike former for avvisninger av forhold som kan true det AGW/CO2-politiske verdensbilde. En konkret avsløring av tvilsom/feil faktabruk ved en slik strategi betyr at man må begynne en omfattende listing og gjennomgang av alle forhold som er satt sammen for å bygge tendensiøse argumenter.

Men noen ganger blir misbruket av vitenskapelig posisjon sÃ¥ Ã¥penbar at det gÃ¥r an Ã¥ rake ut de verste grovhetene: For bare fÃ¥ dager stilte Mann og alarmismeaktivisten Brenda Ekwurzel fra propagandamaskineriet Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) i det sÃ¥kalte Hammer-forumet (uten opposisjon; dette er et rent AGW/CO2-propagandaforetak, og lyd- og bildeopptak var forbudt under seansen), og leverte en grov salve av fornektelser rundt den sÃ¥kalte "pausen" i akkompagnement med nykomponerte skremselsbilder.   

Sentrale klimaløgner framsatt i "UCLA Hammer Forum on Climate Change" sist uke: Nekter bl.a. for stoppen i global oppvarming
Første punkt var en 15 minutt presentasjon fra hver. Tross lyd- og bildeopptaksforbudet klarte noen å notere uansett, og noen som gjorde det var klimabloggen The Hockey Schtick, og som denne informasjonen i stor grad er hentet fra.

I dette startinnlegget skal vi se på Ekwurzels løgner først, og evt. komme tilbake med Manns tilsvarende i et oppfølgingsinnlegg dersom The Hockey Schtick holder sitt løfte om å publisere også om dette.

Det ble for øvrig heller ikke tillatt å komme med spørsmål fra salen, man måtte i så fall levere inn skriftlige spørsmål som de bolde alarmister kunne velge fra. Det eneste "skeptiske" spørsmålet fra denne forsamlingen på ca. "150 mostly elderly academics & a few UCLA students" kom nettopp fra "Hockey Schtick" og ble stilt til Ekwurzel via moderatoren:

Q: Why does satellite data show that global warming has stopped or "paused" for more than 18 years, despite climate models predicting continued warming from increased CO2?

Svaret:
The UCS chief of climate science education, Dr. Ekwurzel, answered the question by denying that there was any "pause" of global warming, falsely claiming that the reason satellite data shows no warming for the last 18 years is that "things were forgotten when the early satellite data was collected," and that after these "forgotten" things were corrected, the satellite data allegedly shows no pause in warming. She claimed that these "forgotten things" included not distinguishing temperatures collected at night vs. daytime, degradation of the sensors on the satellites, and degradation of satellite orbits.

For informerte mennesker er jo dette en ren saus av feilaktige bortforklaringspåstander (og verst av alt: mest sannsynlig helt mot bedre vitende), med en fellesnevner: Fornekte og tåkelegge at AGW/CO2-hypotesen er bredt falsifisert i nesten 2 tiår gjennom observasjoner.

Kommentaren fra "Hockey Schtick" bør derfor ikke overraske noen:

This is blatantly false information. The fact is both the RSS and UAH satellite datasets have corrected for all of these not-forgotten things, and after all of these corrections, still show a clear "pause" of zero warming for 18+ years. The satellites are equipped with laboratory-calibrated platinum resistance thermometers, which have demonstrated stability to thousandths of a degree over many years, and which are used to continuously calibrate the satellite instruments once every 8 seconds, and thus provide far more accurate and complete temperature data than surface thermometer data.
In addition, there are over 50 papers published in the climate literature acknowledging the "pause" or "hiatus" of global warming and attempting to explain it, but apparently Dr. Ekwurzel hasn't gotten around to reading any of those. As Dr. Judith Curry notes, "pause denial is getting more and more difficult with time."

Pga. opptaksforbudet var det selvsagt vanskelig å notere alle "additional litany of misrepresentations" i Dr. Ekwurzels presentasjon, men her er noen:

� Ekwurzel sa bl.a. at ho skjønte menneskeskapt global oppvarming (AGW) var et faktum da ho "went on an Arctic expedition and saw an area of open water."
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": "....which she photographed from a helicopter. The ice-free area was only about 1000 feet in diameter, based upon the size of the ship shown in her Picture. This proves nothing, and is certainly not unprecedented or unusual in the Arctic."

â?¢ Ekwurzel hevdet videre at der er "strong evidence" for at "heat waves, drought, extreme precipitation, and floods have increased from AGW".
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": "In fact, there is no such evidence, and much opposing evidence."

Flere påstander som taler for seg selv mht. useriøs faktafordreining trass forskning som viser det motsatte, og/eller helt avkrefter påstandene:

â?¢ PÃ¥stand: "the California drought is unprecedented and caused by AGW."
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": "In fact, California mega-droughts were far worse in the past."

â?¢ PÃ¥stand: "recent California fires were caused by AGW."
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": "The data instead shows a decrease in wildfires."

� Påstand: AGW forårsaker "higher tree mortality."
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": "The data instead shows significant global greening from CO2 and warming."

â?¢ PÃ¥stand: "California citizens voted to approve California's cap and trade Law".
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": "In fact, California bill AB 32 was passed by the legislature and never voted on by California citizens."

â?¢ PÃ¥stand: "CO2 lifetime in atmosphere is 800 years".
(Sterkt ironisk) Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": "This is slightly higher than the 14 year lifetime proven by the bomb tests."

â?¢ PÃ¥stand: "CO2 levels with business as usual will double before 2100".
Kommentar fra "Hockey Schtick": "At current business as usual rate of increase of ~2 ppm per year, doubling of CO2 would require 200 years. Although the CO2 level data is very slightly exponential, extrapolation of the slight exponential component still places doubling well beyond 2100".

Så langt Ekwurzel, vi satser på at vi får se Manns bidrag snart også. Det sies også at "The presentations were recorded on video by the UCLA Hammer Museum, and hopefully will be posted on the internet soon.". Man tok vel ingen sjanser på at usensurerte versjoner skulle lekke ut?

Linker:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2014/10/ucs-climate-scientist-tells-litany-of.html

http://hammer.ucla.edu/programs-events/2014/10/tackling-climate-change-nationally-and-globally/

Steinar,

det var en tankevekkende måte å sette ting i perspektiv på; holde dagens CO2-villfarelser opp mot historiske fakta om de virkelig (og naturlig skapte) store klimabevegelsene bare i historisk tid mens vi menneskene har trasket rundt her i Norden.
Da blir dagens stadig mer falsifiserte CO2-pÃ¥funn og tilhørende pinlige forsøk pÃ¥ Ã¥ produsere en tidels varmegrad i en tvilsom modell en underlig greie 

For meg virker det som det utøves større redaksjonell romslighet og tenkeevne i avisa Nordland enn i den samlede Oslopressen?!

[A Comparison Of The Efficacy Of Greenhouse Gas Forcing And Solar Forcing]

Det er mange gode klimaforskere her til lands (de som ikke har innordnet seg "settled science") som er opptatt av å finne ut mer av forholdet mellom drivhusgasser og solpådriv.

Bob Irvine legger opp en interessant diskusjon rundt dette temaet her: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/11/a-comparison-of-the-efficacy-of-greenhouse-gas-forcing-and-solar-forcing/

Litt intro:


A Comparison Of The Efficacy Of Greenhouse Gas Forcing And Solar Forcing

Guest essay by Bob Irvine

A common refrain from the â??settled scienceâ? community is that there is no known low sensitivity model that can produce either the total temperature rise or the general temperature profile of the last century.
This, however, is only the case if we assume that the efficacy of a GHG forcing is substantially the same as or slightly higher than the efficacy of a similar solar forcing. The lack of a successful low sensitivity model, then, should not come as too much of a surprise, as this is the position taken by all the IPCC reports, including the AR5.
There is, however, a strong physical case to be made for GHG efficacy being a lot lower than solar efficacy. The following paper published by the Wessex Institute of Technology outlines this case.


Abstract
The efficacy (E) of a forcing is a measure of its capacity to generate a temperature response in the earthâ??s system. Most Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) climate models assume that the efficacy of a solar forcing is close to the efficacy of a similar sized greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. This paper examines the possibility that a change in short wave solar forcing may more readily contribute to ocean heat content (OHC) than a similar change in long wave GHG forcing. If this hypothesis is shown to be correct, then it follows that equilibrium restoration times at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) are likely to be considerably faster, on average, for a change in GHG forcing than for a similar change in solar forcing. A crude forcings model has been developed that matches almost perfectly (R2 = 0.89) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) temperature series from 1880 to 2010. This model is compared to and performs much better over this period than the United Kingdom Met Officeâ??s (HadGEM2) contribution to the CMIP5 (R2 = 0.16). It is concluded, by implication that the efficacy of a GHG forcing is likely to be considerably lower than the efficacy of a similar sized solar forcing. Keywords: efficacy, forcing, greenhouse gas, solar, sensitivity, climate, model.

Resten av debatten finner dere altså her:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/11/a-comparison-of-the-efficacy-of-greenhouse-gas-forcing-and-solar-forcing/


 

[IPSOs alarmistiske kampanje i 2013]

Det er viktig å ikke miste fokus på hvilke uryddige og fordekte klimaalarmistiske organer med tendensiøs faktaformidling som strategi som opererer bak verdensopinionens rygg uten at media gjør jobben sin og spør hva i alle dager det er som foregår.

IPSOs alarmistiske kampanje i 2013
Vi kan her særlig ta for oss aktivistorganisasjonen International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO). I fjor på disse tider dukket nemlig IPSOs pressemelding opp (IPSO-"rapporten") - under skinn av å være selvstendig ifht presentasjonen av AR5 - men slett ikke så tilfeldig som man forsvarte seg med:
http://www.stateoftheocean.org/research.cfm

Timing: IPCC hadde akkurat gått på den kanskje tyngste faglige smellen siden starten, og måtte forklare hvordan de kunne prestere å øke sin "vitenskapelige sikkerhet" for menneskelig påvirkning på klimaet samtidig som de måtte innrømme at deres CO2-estimater har blitt avslørt som betydelig overdrevne og feilaktige!

Avslørende omtale allerede i 2011
I 2011 fant lobbyorganet IPSO det betimelig å lansere en reinspikka skremselsrapport:
Fullversjon: http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1906_IPSO-LONG.pdf
Her en kortere rapportversjon: http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1806_IPSOshort.pdf

Den internasjonalt kjente Donna Laframboise observerte rystet at "Det er de samme aktivistfolkene som egentlig stÃ¥r bak begge deler (les: IPSO og IPCCs indre krets), med den forskjell at i IPSO opptrer WWF, Greenpeace og ulike andre aktivistgrupper enda mer tydelig og i enda større konflikt med seriøse krav til dokumentasjon og vitenskapelige prinsipper."  

Ny propagandapakke i 2013
I 2013 kom altså en videreføring av 2011-skremslene, her kan dere også lese hele rapporten:
http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/IPSO-Papers-Combined-15.1.14.pdf

Her hjemme slukte f.eks. Dagens Næringsliv agnet og meldte (åpenbart uten den ringeste kildekritikk):

"Verdens hav brytes nÃ¥ ned i en raskere og mer omfattende takt enn noen tidligere har trodd. Og den store skurken er verdens CO2-utslipp, som fører til varmere og surere hav. Det er forskernes konklusjon i den siste rapporten fra International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO)." 

http://www.dn.no/nyheter/utenriks/2013/10/07/dodelig-miks-dreper-verdenshavene

Vi får hjelpe DN med litt kildekritikk:
Denne vedvarende bløffen - tatt i betraktning av at IPCC nylig hadde mer eller mindre rygget ut av alle sine tidligere alarmismer rundt dette - er såpass grov at vi må ta en nærmere titt på hva dette IPSO er, og hvem som står bak, ref. den tilsvarende IPSO-skremselskampanjen i 2011, da det også var en del oppstyr rundt IPCC-arbeidet og en rekke av deres alarmismepåstander ble falsifiserte og underkjente av en rekke forskere.

Og vi finner ikke uventet en nær allianse med "the usual suspects" (WWF, Greenpeace og tilhørende naturvernaktivister).
Koblingen mellom IPCC og IPSO er så uetisk at man sjokkeres fremdeles, trass i herding gjennom både Himalayagate, Boliviagate, Climategate #1 og #2, ad libitum...

Bestilt redningsaksjon for IPCC-prosessen
Og i 2013 dukker altså en IPSO-"rapport" igjen beleilig opp og gjenoppvekker IPCCs gamle skremsler, etter at IPCC har rygget baklengs ut av sine egne.
Da IPSO fant å ville gripe inn med sin rapport, hadde brede fagmiljø plukket IPCCs sviktende modellprojeksjonene i AR5 i stykker, og avviket mot observasjoner hadde bare økt siden AR4. Bak avsløringene av disse fallerte skremslene, der atmosfæren nekter å gjøre som IPCC sier og verdenshavene neppe forstår at de er invaderte av overskuddsvarmen i Trenberths hode, dukker imidlertid nå noen gamle aktivisttravere opp med sitt gamle "havet-går-til-helvete pga. CO2"-budskap.

Sentrale bakspillere og ukritiske medier: The Fishy, Wishy-Washy IPSO Report
Her kan dere se fra hvilken storebror DN hentet sin inspirasjon fra (og som vanlig når ressurssvake norske medier driver avskrift fra utenlandske medier; noen dager før Norge lanserer sin "egen tenking"....):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24369244

Her om det faktiske bakspillet, med Donna Laframboises ord:

The list of the 26 contributors to the IPSO panel of expert scientists is on page 10 of the report of the three day conference. The previous posts here seem to have attracted a lot of interest, so I thought Iâ??d have a yet deeper look at this panel for those following the story.

Letâ??s get the easy bit over with. Of the 26 contributors, we can immediately exclude half of them as non-experts:

Kelly Rigg is Executive Director of the Global Campaign for Climate Action.
Charlotte Smith is a Senior Accounts Director at Communications INC.
Mirella Von Lindenfels is Director of the The International Programme on the State of the Ocean, but alslo works at Communications INC, alongside Charlotte Smith.
Matt Gianni is a Policy Advisor at Deep Sea Conservation Coalition
Barry Gardiner is a British Member of Parliament, and Vice President GLOBE UK Global Legislators Organisation
Aurelie Spadone is a Marine Programme Officer at the International Union for Conservation of Nature
James Oliver is a Project Officer at the International Union for Conservation of Nature
Kristina M Gjerde is High Seas Policy Advisor at the International Union for Conservation of Nature
Patricio Bernal is Project Coordinator at the International Union for Conservation of Nature
Dan Laffoley is a Senior Advisor at the International Union for Conservation of Nature
Conn Nugent is the Executive Director of the JM Kaplan Fund
Josh Reichert is Managing Director of the Pew Environment Group
Karen Sack is Director of international ocean conservation at the Pew Environment Group

http://www.climate-resistance.org/2011/06/the-fishy-wishy-washy-ipso-report.html

Remember, IPSO are selling this as "A high-level international workshop convened by IPSO met at the University of Oxford earlier this year. It was the first inter-disciplinary international meeting of marine scientists of its kind and was designed to consider the cumulative impact of multiple stressors on the ocean, including warming, acidification, and overfishing."

I have excluded most of the above names on the basis that they are palpably not marine scientists. There are a few who may once have been such experts, but are not involved in research, but in issue-advocacy for a coalition of ENGOs â?? the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

There are 13 names remaining.

Jelle Bijma http://www.awi.de/People/show?jbijma seems to have a sufficiently solid scientific background, even if his research interests â?? Ocean Warming and Acidification; Proxy Development and Innovation; The Earth System on Long Time Scales â?? are ones we see too much confidence about in the broader debate.
Score: 13-1

Phil Tranthan also seems like a reasonable bet. http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_bas/contact/staff/profile/PhilTrathan/
Score: 13-2

Itâ??s not clear what Prof. Tom Hutchinson does, or specialises in. But he works at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), a division of the UK Governmentâ??s  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/about-us/our-purpose.aspx

Our work directly supports delivery of the aquatic-related aspects of Defraâ??s key priorities and strategic objectives. As an executive agency, we play a vital role in securing healthy marine and freshwater environments for everyoneâ??s well-being, health and prosperity. This is achieved by providing evidence-based scientific advice, managing related data and information, conducting scientific research, and facilitating collaborative action through wide-ranging international relationships.
Score: 13-3

Which brings us to Ove Hoeghk-Guldberg, a professor and director of the Global Change Institute, University of Queensland.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/04/22/ka-ching-more-greenpeace-money/

Unfortunately for Prof. Hoeghk-Guldberg, heâ??s let his reputation get spoiled by his ownblurring of science and activism during Anthony Watts tour of Australia:
The Tuesday night meeting in Brisbane on the WUWT Australian tour had a bit of unexpected fireworks courtesy of Aussie reef scientist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg. The meeting started off with some protestors outside holding placards with the tired old messages claiming â??funding by big oilâ?â?¦etc. Professor Ove actually incited this on his blog, saying that â??The Climate Shifts crew and other scientists will be there en masse to record and debunk the lies that will be told.â?

Score: 14-3

Then thereâ??s Alex Rogers, the organiser of the IPSO thingâ?¦ whatever it is. Is he a scientist, or an activist? As Alex Cull pointed out in the comments on the previous post, sadly, Dr Rogerâ??s also blurs the lines between science and activism:
IPSOâ??s scientific director is Alex Rogers, Professor of Conservation Biology at Oxford University. According to his web page at Oxford Universityâ??s Dept of Zoology, he has also worked for Greenpeace and WWF, and in addition, currently holds a position with GLOBE International.   http://www.zoo.ox.ac.uk/staff/academics/rogers_ad.htm

It would be harder to come to this conclusion had the event he has organised had been the thing it was advertised as being. But when you make claims such as â??run by Scientists for the worldâ??, you start to look somewhat messianic.

Score: 15-3

Chris Yesson, a Postdoctoral Research Assistant at the Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London looks like a fairly sensible chap. Shame he go involved in this nonsense.
Score: 15-4

Kirsty Kemp is a colleague of Chris Yesson.
Score: 15-5

Derek Tittensor is a research scientists at the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and the Computational Ecology and Environmental Science group at Microsoft Research. Fair enough, though I have my doubts about the UNEP and its WCMC.
Score: 15-6

Philip Chris Reid is a senior research fellow at the Sir Alasdair Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science, University of Plymouth. This press release from December â??09 says,
A new report looking at the relationship between the worldâ??s oceans and global warming is set to fire a stark warning shot across the bows ahead of the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen. [...] The study, led by Professor Chris Reid, from the Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science (SAHFOS), the University of Plymouth and the Marine Biological Association (MBA), has found that both rising sea temperatures and a reducing ability of the oceans to absorb the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) may be leading to an acceleration of climate change. Drawing upon the research of over 100 of the leading oceanographers and scientists around the world, the work is co-authored by more than thirty experts from organizations in ten countries, such as the British Antarctic Survey and the Alfred Wegener Institute, Germany. The 150-page report has taken 18 months to produce and was initially commissioned by the WWF. It is unprecedented in its scale and scope, and examines evidence of changes in ocean temperature and ecosystems, rising acidification and methane levels, and massive shrinkage of the polar ice caps.

Sorry, Chris. By the standards set by environmentalists, you canâ??t claim to be engaged in scientific research free from some agenda.
Score: 16-6

Daniel Pauly is Professor of Fisheries at the University of British Columbia. According to his CV he was a Board Member of the World Wildlife Fund for Nature, Canada, 2004 to 2006.
Sorry, Daniel.
Score: 17-6

Tony Pitcher is a colleague of Daniel Paulyâ??s at the University of British Columbia. http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/person/pitcher
Score: 17-7

William Cheung is a Lecturer in Marine Ecosystem Services at the University of East Anglia. According to his profile page at the UEA website, he has â??been a member of the IUCN Groupers and Wrasses Species Specialist Group since 2005″.
Sorry, Dr Cheung, but imagine if you had worked for a network of oil industry research organisationsâ?¦ Do you think youâ??d be regarded as a source of impartial comment on climate change?
Score: 18-7

Charles Sheppard is a professor at the University of Warwick. According to his profile page,
I hold a half-time position of Professor in the Department. The remainder of my time I work for a range of UN , governmental and aid agencies in tropical marine and coastal development issues.
Letâ??s give him the benefit of the doubt.

FINAL SCORE: 18-8.

But wait a minute. Havenâ??t all the members of this panel â?? never mind the 8 who donâ??t seem so confused about the difference between activism and science â?? merely been invited to this event simply because they have emphasised things like â??sustainabilityâ?? and â??ocean acidificationâ??, and â??climate changeâ??? And isnâ??t that why they have been invited? Isnâ??t the point of IPSO simply to ask researchers of a similar mind to take part, and then present their â??findingsâ?? as the result of a scientific enquiry?

I could do the same thing tomorrow. I could email my academic friends â?? the ones I know to be broadly sceptical of climate change politics, if not the science â?? and invite them to my house for coffee. â??Are you really worried about the end of the Worldâ??, I could ask. â??Not reallyâ??, they would say. I could write up their non-concern in an expensive brochure. I could then pitch it to the world as convincing evidence that â??things are not as bad as previously thoughtâ??. And the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, the Times, the Telegraph, and the Daily Mail would report the findings, verbatim, without questioning it, wouldnâ??t they? Just as they have done here:

TILLEGG:
HER KOMMER EN OMTALE AV FORRIGE GANG INTERNASJONALE MEDIA HENGTE SEG PÃ? IPSOs ALARMISME, DVS FÃ?R IPCC NÃ? HAR KASTET OMTRENT ALLE DISSE TIDLIGERE KORTENE - SÃ?RGELIG DA AT AVISER SOM DN BITER PÃ? ETTERPÃ?:


The Independent:
Oceans on brink of catastrophe
Marine life facing mass extinction â??within one human generationâ?? / State of seas â??much worse than we thoughtâ??, says global panel of scientists

The Telegraph
Worldâ??s oceans move into â??extinction phaseâ??

The next generation may lose the opportunity to swim over coral reefs or eat certain species of fish, scientists have warned, as the worldâ??s oceans move into a â??phase of extinctionâ?? due to human impacts such as over-fishing and climate change.

ABC/AP:
Panel: Problems With Oceans Multiplying, Worsening
The health of the worldâ??s oceans is declining much faster than originally thought â?? under siege from pollution, overfishing and other man-made problems all at once â?? scientists say in a new report.

The Guardian:
â??Shockingâ?? state of seas threatens mass extinction, say marine experts
Overfishing and pollution putting fish, sharks and whales in extreme danger â?? with extinction â??inevitableâ??, study finds.

The BBC:
Worldâ??s oceans in â??shockingâ?? decline
The oceans are in a worse state than previously suspected, according to an expert panel of scientists.

The Daily Mail:
Worldâ??s oceans in â??shockingâ?? state say scientists as they warn of marine extinction
The worldâ??s oceans are facing an extinction crisis as the result of a range of human impacts from over-fishing to climate change, scientists warned today.

SÃ¥ Donna summerer oppgitt:

And itâ??s the same everywhere. A little club of eco-warriors â??many, if not most, of whom are not scientists â??  is presented, across newspapers in every single country, as a panel of experts. The headlines have found their way into hundreds of thousands of twitter feeds.

Why didnâ??t journalists think to ask: what is IPSO; who are its members; and why should we regard their say as the final word

[SKREMSLENE OM OVERFLÃ?MMING AV LAVTLIGGENDE Ã?YER ER SOLID FALSIFISERT]

Vi ser igjen og igjen at varmistene/alarmistene plukker fram de løgnaktige og falsifiserte oversvømmelsesskremslene hver gang det er konferanser på gang der man håper å få vedtatt nye meningsløse pålegg mot imaginære forhold. For ordens skyld:

SKREMSLENE OM OVERFLÃ?MMING AV LAVTLIGGENDE Ã?YER ER SOLID FALSIFISERT
Som en logisk konsekvens av påstandene om at klodens samlede ismasser ville smelte i økende tempo og renne ut i havene kom skremslene om at lavtliggende øystater ville overflømmes av stigende hav. Problemet er bare at samlet global ismasse slett ikke minker (siden Vårherre har nektet CO2 å fungere etter klimamodellene bl.a. i Antarktis) og havnivået utvikler seg i normalt tempo (saklige/uavhengige forskere ligger på den gode, gamle 17 cm/hundre år) og følgelig foreligger det heller ikke seriøse målinger som påviser overflømming av disse lavtliggende øyene.

Alarmistene har selvsagt prøvd å slå mynt på alt som kan holde liv i disse skremslene, men holdt opp mot seriøse målinger faller alt til jorden.
De helt ferskeste studiene de siste par årene bare bekrefter det vi har fått demonstrert i studier i over 10 år (jeg gir noen eksempler nedenfor på slike tidligere studier). Faktum er at oversvømmingspåstandene er ren propaganda som i stedet burde få ikke bare de mest "tjenestevillige" forskerne, men også media og andre som har skremt opp og villedet de som bor der, til å stå skolerett for aktiv villedning av offentligheten og dens beslutningstakere.

Rankey (2011) ble gjengitt i wordpress.com bl.a. med dette:

"In a study that integrated field observations, differential global positioning system data, historical aerial photographs and ultra-high resolution remote sensing images that examined the nature, spatial patterns and rates-of-change of the shorelines of 17 islands on the Maiana and Aranuka atolls of Kiribatiâ??s Gilbert Island chain, Rankey (2011) obtained a wealth of data that come to bear on this important question. And the conclusions he derives from that information are vastly different from the data-sparse contentions of the worldâ??s climate alarmists.

Rankey found, for example, that short-term (four-year) rates of shoreline changes can indeed be dramatic, with significant intrusion of seawater over sloping shores. However, much longer (forty-year) rates of change are much smaller; and not all of his analyses depict shrinking dry-land surfaces, as some of the studied islands have actually been accruing above-water area. And so it is that he forthrightly and correctly states that "the atoll islands are not washing away."

Støttes av Webb and Kench (2010):   

"Similar island surface responses have been found by Webb and Kench (2010), who studied 27 other atoll islands in the central Pacific, using historical aerial photography and satellite images over periods ranging from 19 to 61 years, during which time interval they say that instrumental records indicated a rate of sea-level rise of 2.0 mm per year in the central Pacific. Yet in spite of this sea level rise, they too found "no evidence of large-scale reduction in island area," noting that the islands "have predominantly been persistent or expanded in area on atoll rims for the past 20 to 60 years," adding that 43% of the islands "increased in area by more than 3% with the largest increases of 30% on Betio (Tarawa atoll) and 28.3% on Funamanu (Funafuti atoll)."

Og hva fant Connell (2003)?

"Years earlier, Connell (2003) had also found no evidence for the oft-repeated island doomsday claims, demonstrating the great importance of real-world data â?? as opposed to climate model simulations â?? when it comes to considering the current and future status of the Earthâ??s many islands. And so it is that Rankey concludes his analysis by counselling that "solutions must consider the natural complexity of these [island] systems, rather than advocate overly simplistic notions of the causes of, and the solutions to, coastal change."

Men det er vel fåfengt å håpe på at det klimamodellbaserte oversvømmelses-tøvet vil slutte, selv om empirisk forskning falsifiserer dette igjen og igjen?

Referanser:

- Rankey, E.C. 2011. Nature and stability of atoll island shorelines: Gilbert Island chain, Kiribaati, Equatorial Pacific. Sedimentology 58: 1831-1859.
Abstract: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2011.01241.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

Rankey har forøvrig publisert mye, og kan ikke avfeies med de vanlige "amatørpåstandene" fra klimamakta:
http://www.geo.ku.edu/~geology/cgi-bin/profile_public/viewprofile.shtml?id=17

- Connell, J. 2003. Losing ground? Tuvalu, the greenhouse effect and the garbage can. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 44: 89-107.

- Webb, A.P. and Kench, P.S. 2010. The dynamic response of reef islands to sea-level rise: Evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the Central Pacific. Global and Planetary Change 72: 234-246.

- Islands Rimming Pacific Atolls: Their Response to Sea Level Rise:

http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2013/jan/29jan2013a2.html

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/are-pacific-atolls-sinking-under-the-wavesnew-study-says-not/

Kommentarartikkel fra annet nettsted: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V16/N4/EDIT.php

Her er en annen studie fra 2010 som heller ikke finner noen lineær trend om økende havstigning:
http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v42/n3/p223-233

Og slik kunne jeg fortsette.

Spørsmålet er derfor: Hvor er det IPCC-alarmistene mener de har forskningsgrunnlag for sine påstander om "synkende øyer"!?

["New paper finds West Antarctic glacier likely melting from geothermal heat below"]

Helt ferske nyheter: I dag er det sluppet en ny studie i Earth and Planetary Science Letters som vil bore enda et solid hull i den allerede synkende CO2-skuta i Antarktis:

"New paper finds West Antarctic glacier likely melting from geothermal heat below"

Som det kommenteres på WUWT:

"A paper published today in Earth and Planetary Science Letters finds evidence that one of the largest glaciers in West Antarctica, the Thwaites Glacier, is primarily melting from below due to geothermal heat flux from volcanoes located along the West Antarctic Volcanic Rift System, i.e. not due to man-made CO2."

Her er link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/12/new-paper-finds-west-antarctic-glacier-likely-melting-from-geothermal-heat-below/