Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Diskusjon om generelle politiske temaer, som ikke passer inn under innenriks/utenriks.

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Erik 30 Mar 2014, 21:34

The American Physical Society (APS) has signalled a dramatic turnabout in its position on "climate change" by appointing three notorious climate skeptics to its panel on public affairs (POPA).

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond ... -Consensus
Erik
 
Innlegg: 301
Registrert: 02 Mai 2004, 15:38
Bosted: Bergen

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg monkey 22 Apr 2014, 23:46

monkey
 
Innlegg: 56
Registrert: 03 Nov 2011, 22:57

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg BHS 23 Apr 2014, 06:51

monkey skrev:http://www.dagsavisen.no/samfunn/gar-ut-av-skolen-som-klimaskeptikere/
:roll:

Man skal tidlig krøkes hvis man skal bli en god krok! Hva blir det neste, mon tro? Hva med et nytt fag fra 1. klasse (hvis ikke barnehagen) som navngis "Sosialdemokrati, Feminisme og Miljøisme"!? Dette er jo de facto vår tids guder hvis sannhet er uomtvistelig!
BHS
 
Innlegg: 582
Registrert: 09 Mar 2004, 07:59

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg monkey 16 Mai 2014, 20:32

Når Utsira blir elektrifisert blir nok alt bra...
monkey
 
Innlegg: 56
Registrert: 03 Nov 2011, 22:57

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 19 Mai 2014, 13:33

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... ence-2.php

Why Global Warming Alarmism Isn’t Science


Science is not a set of dogmas, and it is not a pronouncement by a committee. It is a method. Richard Feynman, perhaps the world’s most eminent physicist, put it this way:


In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with the experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.

The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory is based entirely on models, which are programmed by their creators to predict disaster. But we know for a fact that the models are wrong, because they disagree with reality. When the facts collide with a theory, the facts win.

At Watts Up With That?, Don Easterbrook applies the scientific method to the recently-produced National Climate Assessment (NCA). The NCA predicts all kinds of awful consequences from a hypothetical rise in temperature that is based exclusively on models, not on observation. Easterbrook finds that the NCA fails the test of reality. Here are a few examples.

......


Bilde
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7867
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Cuneax 02 Jun 2014, 08:13

Jeg så episode 12 av «Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey» på National Geographic Channel i går, og temaet for dette avsnittet var drivhuseffekten og global oppvarming. For en som verken kan noe om eller interesserer seg spesielt for klimasaken, virket argumentene til Neil deGrasse Tyson overbevisende nok.

Han henviste til planeten Venus, hvor de CO2-spyende vulkanene fikk drivhuseffekten til å løpe løpsk og koke bort havene. Deretter fortalte han at mengden CO2 i atmosfæren har økt voldsomt siden 1900 – samtidig som at forbruket av kull, olje og gass steg i været (bokstavelig talt). deGrasse Tyson viste videre til at det ikke kan være Jordas vulkaner som står for den angivelig økende drivhuseffekten (som han påpeker er god og livsnødvendig i en viss mengde), på grunn av isotopiske signaturer i karbonavtrykket. Han nevner i tillegg at solaktiviteten har vært stabil i den angitte perioden (og at oppvarmingen skjer mest om natten), at kaldere vær indikerer lokal og temporal variasjon – mens den langsiktige utviklingen indikerer temperaturøkning (analogien her er en hund i bånd, som beveger seg hit og dit, men som fremdeles følger eierens stabile kurs i lengden), at smelting av is og snø reduserer refleksjonen av sollys vekk fra planeten og enda noe mer jeg ikke husker i forbifarten. Som alternativ til CO2-produserende energi, fremhever deGrasse Tyson solenergi og vindenergi.

For meg virket dette OK, men jeg vet at mange i liberalistbevegelsen er skeptiske til forskningen, som kan være gjenstand for ønsketenkning, forfalskninger, feil og politisk påvirkning. Hvilke konkrete argumenter eksisterer mot det som kom frem i Cosmos? Jeg ønsker en oppsummering fra noen som kjenner feltet godt, og ikke henvisning til flere titalls lange forskningsartikler.

Selv om jeg som nevnt ikke er spesielt interessert i klimasaken, pleier jeg uansett å si at det er kapitalisme som kan løse en eventuell klimakrise – pga. eiendomsrett, fri vitenskap og teknologisk innovasjon.

This episode explores the nature of the greenhouse effect and the evidence demonstrating the existence of global warming from humanity's influence. Tyson begins by describing the long-term history of the planet Venus; based on readings from the Venera series of probes to the planet, the planet had once had an ocean and an atmosphere, but due to the release of carbon dioxide from volcanic eruptions, the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus caused the surface temperatures to increase and boiled away the oceans.

Tyson then notes the delicate nature of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can influence Earth's climate due to the greenhouse effect, and that levels of carbon dioxide have been increasing since the start of the 20th century. Evidence has shown this to be from mankind's consumption of oil, coal, and gas instead of from volcanic eruptions due to the isotopic signature of the carbon dioxide. The increase in carbon dioxide has led to an increase in temperatures, in turn leading to positive feedback loops of the melting polar ice caps and dethawing of the permafrost to increase carbon dioxide levels.

Tyson then notes that humans have discovered means of harvesting solar power, such as Augustin Mouchot's solar-driven motor in the 19th century, and Frank Shuman's solar-based steam generator in the 1910's. Tyson points out that in both cases, the economics and ease of using cheap coal and oil caused these inventions to be overlooked at the time. Today, solar and wind-power systems would be able to collect enough solar energy from the sun easily. Tyson then compares the motivation for switching to these cleaner forms of energy as the efforts of the Space race and emphasizing it is not too late for humanity to correct its course.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_ ... me_Odyssey)
Brukerens avatar
Cuneax
 
Innlegg: 67
Registrert: 05 Apr 2011, 11:19

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Amund Farberg 02 Jun 2014, 13:17

Cuneax skrev:Han (Neil deGrasse Tyson) henviste til planeten Venus, hvor de CO2-spyende vulkanene fikk drivhuseffekten til å løpe løpsk og koke bort havene.

Og det klarte Venus fint uten menneskelig innblanding!

Cuneax skrev:Deretter fortalte han at mengden CO2 i atmosfæren har økt voldsomt siden 1900 – samtidig som at forbruket av kull, olje og gass steg i været (bokstavelig talt).

Dette er uomtvistelig korrekt! Men mengden CO2 har gått opp og ned i tidligere tider også, uten katastrofale resultater (med ett unntak, men det skyldtes en megavulkan)

Cuneax skrev:deGrasse Tyson viste videre til at det ikke kan være Jordas vulkaner som står for den angivelig økende drivhuseffekten (som han påpeker er god og livsnødvendig i en viss mengde), på grunn av isotopiske signaturer i karbonavtrykket.

Dette er helt sikkert riktig!

Cuneax skrev:Han nevner i tillegg at solaktiviteten har vært stabil i den angitte perioden (og at oppvarmingen skjer mest om natten)

Om dette såes det derimot tvil. Solaktiviteten målt i forekomsten av solflekker har vært høyere siden 1950 enn i de hundre årene før 1950, og mye høyere enn i perioden 1800–1850 (Dalton-minimumet), da det var veldig kaldt på hele nordkloden. Se dessuten Maunder-minimumet (ca. 1600–1750), en periode nesten uten solflekker, som i stor grad sammenfalt med den såkalte lille istid.

Hva mener forresten med "den angitte perioden"? Det er vanlig blant de som tror på menneskeskapt global oppvarming/klimaendring å kun se på perioden fra ca. 1850–2000, men dette er uærlig cherry picking da det ikke tar hensyn til den lille istiden eller til at global temperatur har vært mer eller mindre flat siden 1998.

Cuneax skrev:kaldere vær indikerer lokal og temporal variasjon – mens den langsiktige utviklingen indikerer temperaturøkning (analogien her er en hund i bånd, som beveger seg hit og dit, men som fremdeles følger eierens stabile kurs i lengden)smelting av is og snø reduserer refleksjonen av sollys vekk fra planeten og enda noe mer jeg ikke husker i forbifarten.

Ja, snøsmelting senker Jordas albedo og fører til mer absorpsjon av solenergi. Men vi hører hele tiden om snørekorder, bl.a. har isdekket i Antarktis i år satt rekord i utstrekning ...

Cuneax skrev:Som alternativ til CO2-produserende energi, fremhever deGrasse Tyson solenergi og vindenergi. (...) such as Augustin Mouchot's solar-driven motor in the 19th century, and Frank Shuman's solar-based steam generator in the 1910's. Tyson points out that in both cases, the economics and ease of using cheap coal and oil caused these inventions to be overlooked at the time. Today, solar and wind-power systems would be able to collect enough solar energy from the sun easily.

Javel, men solenergi og vindenergi er massivt upålitelige teknologier. Dette høres nesten ut som en klisje, fordi det er blitt påpekt så ofte, men det er faktisk ikke alltid det blåser eller alltid solen skinner. Fantasien om sol– og vindenergi har to massive problemer: for det første kan disse umulig dekke over energibehovet en industriell sivilisasjon trenger, og for det andre kunne ikke teknologien blitt utviklet i første omgang uten et industrielt fundament bygd på fossilt brennstoff!

For øvrig humrer jeg i skjegget hver gang personer som tror på menneskeskapte klimaendringer og samtidig hevder seg å være pro-industri, gnåler om sol og vind uten å skjenke kjernekraft en unse oppmerksomhet.

Cuneax skrev:Selv om jeg som nevnt ikke er spesielt interessert i klimasaken, pleier jeg uansett å si at det er kapitalisme som kan løse en eventuell klimakrise – pga. eiendomsrett, fri vitenskap og teknologisk innovasjon.

Dette er killer-argumentet vårt, eller burde være det i alle fall. Fossilt brennstoff har løftet menneskeheten ut av de universelle fattigkår som alle levde under for 250 år siden. I dag lever alle mennesker på hele planeten, inkludert de aller fattigste, bedre enn på noe annet tidspunkt i historien, fordi vi har industri basert på fossile brennstoffer. Vi bor i komfortable hus med jevn temperatur innendørs hele året, både i tørre og varme eller våte og kalde områder. Tilogmed stammefolk i Afrika kan importere AC-anlegg. Vi har overvunnet klimaet! Siden 1900 har antallet klimarelaterte dødsfall sunket med 98%, for det meste takket være fossile brennstoffer. Tenk deg hvis motstandere av kull skulle fått gjennomslag for sine meninger i Manchester og Sheffield i 1776 (året James Watt driftssatte sine først dampmaskiner – jaggu var det mye bra som skjedde det året!). Da hadde vi rett og slett ikke hatt industrien som gjør slike ting mulige.

Tittelen på Cosmos-episoden: "The World Set Free" – gir ikke mening. Satt fri fra fossilt brennstoff? Absurd! Fossile brennstoffer har satt oss fri.
Amund Farberg
 
Innlegg: 341
Registrert: 03 Jan 2005, 23:34
Bosted: Gjøvik, Oppland

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 23 Jun 2014, 17:41

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/ ... ederated=1

Junk Science Week: The global warming hiatus? Climate models all wrongly predicted warming, so let’s call it a discrepancy

Ross McKitrick is a Professor of Environmental Economics at the University of Guelph.


While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) still uses the iconic word “unequivocal” to describe warming of the climate system over the past century, a new word has slipped into its lexicon: the “hiatus.” They have begun referring, with a bit of hesitant throat-clearing, to “the warming hiatus since 1998.”

Cracked-beakerBoth satellites and surface records show that sometime around 2000, temperature data ceased its upward path and leveled off. Over the past 100 years there is a statistically significant upward trend in the data amounting to about 0.7 oC per century. If one looks only at the past 15 years though, there is no trend.

It will by 2017 be impossible to reconcile climate models with reality
A leveling-off period is not, on its own, the least bit remarkable. What makes it remarkable is that it coincides with 20 years of rapidly rising atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. Since 1990, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen 13%, from 354 parts per million (ppm) to just under 400 ppm. According to the IPCC, estimated “radiative forcing” of greenhouse gases (the term it uses to describe the expected heating effect) increased by 43% after 2005. Climate models all predicted that this should have led to warming of the lower troposphere and surface. Instead, temperatures flatlined and even started declining. This is the important point about the pause in warming. Indeed, the word that ought to have entered the IPCC lexicon is not “hiatus” but “discrepancy.”

Related
Welcome to Junk Science Week XVI
The chart on this page reproduces an important diagram from Chapter 9 of the IPCC report. The gray line shows the surface temperature record (HadCRUT4 from the UK Met Office) from 1860 to the present. The black line shows the average of climate model runs covering the same interval. The black line in effect sums up mainstream views on how the climate works. Leading theories of major climatic mechanisms are programmed into models, which are then used to simulate the evolution of the climate. All models remain within a fairly narrow neighbourhood of the mean. This implies that the models share an overall central tendency and do not wander too far from it. In that sense the black line can be described as the mainstream thinking of contemporary climate science.

Bilde


The data prior to the year 2000 represent historical reconstructions. Modellers were able to “peek at the answer” since they could not only observe inputs to the climate system (such as historical greenhouse gas levels, volcanic activity, solar changes and so forth) but also the simulation targets, namely average temperatures, when tuning their models. The match over the historical interval is therefore not proof of model accuracy since the models were forced to line up with observations.

But as of around 2000, the models are run prospectively, and this is where they begin to fail. Prior to 2000, the gray and black lines continually touch and cross, diverging and converging as they track each other over time. Whenever they drift apart for a few years they quickly turn and close up again.

Advertisement

But the post-1999 gap is something new. It has not only run the longest of any previous gap but it is still widening. Even if the black line were to rise over the next few years, it is difficult to foresee it ever catching up to and re-crossing the gray line. In other words, it is difficult to see models and observations ever agreeing again.

The IPCC briefly discussed the seriousness of the model-observation discrepancy in Chapter 9 of the 2013 report. It reports that over the 1998-2012 interval 111 out of 114 climate model runs over-predicted warming, achieving thereby, as it were, a 97% consensus.

The IPCC informally proposes several candidate explanations for this discrepancy, including the possibility that models are simply too sensitive to greenhouse gases, but does not identify a solution to the problem.

The absence of warming over the past 15 to 20 years amidst rapidly rising greenhouse gas levels poses a fundamental challenge to mainstream climate modeling. In an interview last year with the newspaper Der Spiegel, the well-known German climatologist Hans von Storch said “If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models.” Climatologist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech recently observed “If the 20-year threshold is reached for the pause, this will lead inescapably to the conclusion that the climate model sensitivity to CO2 is too large.”

We will reach the 20 year mark with no trend in the satellite data at the end of 2015, and in the surface data at the end of 2017. With CO2 levels continuing to rise, it will at that point be impossible to reconcile climate models with reality and the mainstream consensus on how the climate system responds to greenhouse gases will begin breaking apart.

Defenders of the current paradigm need to come up with an explanation as to why there has been no warming over an interval with rapidly increasing greenhouse gas levels. Natural mechanisms that might be strong enough to override greenhouse warming are starting to be proposed in the scientific literature. The problem is that the “science is settled” crowd spent the last 20 years insisting that natural mechanisms are puny compared to greenhouse warming, which is why they were so sure that greenhouse gases are the driving force in climate.

There are important policy implications of this situation. Benefits and costs of climate policy are analyzed using so-called Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs), which build simplified representations of climate processes into dynamic economic models. The problem is that IAMs are calibrated to mimic climate models, not reality. To the extent climate models overstate the effects of CO2, so do IAMs, thereby yielding exaggerated estimates of the social cost of carbon emissions and overly stringent policy prescriptions.

Information will emerge over the next few years that has the potential to upend our understanding of the effect of CO2 emissions. At this point it seems unlikely that climate models in their current form will survive another five years. There is a high probability of new information emerging in the next two to four years that strongly affects calculations of the long term optimal policy stance on greenhouse gas.

There is no downside to awaiting this information. Though climate activists are always in a hurry, climate itself is a slow-moving issue. There is little benefit to acting now rather than, say, two years from now, but potentially major benefits, since what we learn over the next couple of years will make a major difference in understanding what the optimal course of action over the next century looks like. Waiting to get all these final, crucial facts could prevent countries from making very costly mistakes on how they manage fossil energy resources over the coming century.

Ross McKitrick is a Professor of Environmental Economics at the University of Guelph.
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7867
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg BHS 01 Okt 2014, 18:52

Ny isrekord rundt Sydpolen
I fjor var det rekordmye is i Antarktis. I år knuses rekorden.

Ved juletider i fjor var det så mye is rundt Antarktis at isforskere ble sittende fast i isen og måtte evakueres.
Skipet var ute på en fem ukers ekspedisjon og leder for ekspedisjonen, professor Chris Turney, skulle gjenta noen av de målingene som den daværende ekspedisjonslederen og australske geologen sir Douglas Mawson foretok i perioden 1911- 14, da isen ikke skal ha vært et problem.
Ekspedisjonen til professor Turney skulle følge i Mawsons fotspor, men ble altså sittende fast i isen - som egentlig skulle være borte på grunn av den globale oppvarmingen.
Som The Australien også så morsomt skrev; Dette viser hvor usikker vitenskapen rundt klimaendringene egentlig er. Professor Turney og hans kolleger må nå akseptere den forsmedelige fiaskoen. De kan i realiteten ikke gjøre noe annet.
Det var rekordmye is i fjor, men i år er det enda mer. Det har ikke vært så mye sjøis rundt Antarktis de siste 35 årene viser daglige målinger.
Dette står også i kontrast til meldinger tidligere i måneden, som ble omtalt på nettstedet Climate News Network. De skulle vise at smeltingen i Vest-Antarktis nå skjer tre ganger så raskt som for fem år siden.
Uansett, bildet fra Arctic Climate Research, University of Illinois (under) viser hvordan iskappen nå dekker havområdene rundt Antarktis.
Hadde iskappen dekket likt rundt hele Antarktis ville isen bundet sammen Antarktis med sydspissen av Chile og Argentina.

Hentet fra: http://www.hegnar.no/okonomi/politikk/a ... 519695.ece
BHS
 
Innlegg: 582
Registrert: 09 Mar 2004, 07:59

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Erik 28 Okt 2014, 09:46

Bilde
Erik
 
Innlegg: 301
Registrert: 02 Mai 2004, 15:38
Bosted: Bergen

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg nico 03 Des 2014, 14:01

Mark Steyn noterer at det er 5 år siden "Climategate"

http://www.steynonline.com/6692/climate ... e-years-on

Climategate Five Years On

Judith Curry's post on "The Legacy of Climategate" reminds me that it's five years since the East Anglia emails were revealed to the world. ("Climategate", by the way, is a coinage of my old colleague James Delingpole. I preferred Warmergate, which was perhaps too cute to catch on.) Dr Curry writes:

Indeed. My interminable lawsuit seems ever more like unfinished business from Climategate. For one thing, Mann himself insists - ever more fraudulently - that he was "exonerated" by the East Anglia investigations. He wasn't. I was amused in court last Tuesday to hear one of the judges correctly say that the defendants "take [the investigations] apart quite thoroughly in their reply brief". Nonetheless, the "fraudulent hockey stick" remains the defining image of the disturbing and unscientific behavior revealed by Climategate. Half a decade later, the world has moved on, and so has the climate, and Dr Mann is fighting for what's left of his relevance.

At any rate, here's what I had to say in my syndicated column five years ago. This piece is one of the "documents" Mann's lawyers requested in discovery. Dunno why. You can Google it in five seconds. As you'll see, I refer herein to "the fraud of Dr Mann's global-warming 'hockey stick' graph". He didn't sue that time:

My favorite moment in the Climategate/Climaquiddick scandal currently roiling the "climate change" racket was Stuart Varney's interview on Fox News with the actor Ed Begley Jr. — star of the 1980s medical drama St. Elsewhere but latterly better known, as is the fashion with members of the thespian community, as an "activist." He's currently in a competition with Bill Nye ("the Science Guy") to see who can have the lowest "carbon footprint." Pistols at dawn would seem the quickest way of resolving that one, but presumably you couldn't get a reality series out of it. Anyway, Ed was relaxed about the mountain of documents recently leaked from Britain's Climate Research Unit in which the world's leading climate-change warm-mongers e-mail each other back and forth on how to "hide the decline" and other interesting matters.

Nothing to worry about, folks. "We'll go down the path and see what happens in peer-reviewed studies," said Ed airily. "Those are the key words here, Stuart. 'Peer-reviewed studies.'"

Hang on. Could you say that again more slowly so I can write it down? Not to worry. Ed said it every 12 seconds, as if it were the magic charm that could make all the bad publicity go away. He wore an open-necked shirt, and, although I don't have a 76" inch HDTV, I wouldn't have been surprised to find a talismanic peer-reviewed amulet nestling in his chest hair for additional protection. "If these scientists have done something wrong, it will be found out and their peers will determine it," insisted Ed. "Don't get your information from me, folks, or any newscaster. Get it from people with Ph.D. after their names. 'Peer-reviewed studies is the key words. And if it comes out in peer-reviewed studies . . . "

Got it: Pier-reviewed studies. You stand on the pier and you notice the tide seems to be coming in a little higher than it used to and you wonder if it's something to do with incandescent light bulbs killing the polar bears? Is that how it works?

No, no, peer-reviewed studies. "Peer-reviewed studies. Go to Science magazine, folks. Go to Nature," babbled Ed. "Read peer-reviewed studies. That's all you need to do. Don't get it from you or me."

Look for the peer-reviewed label! And then just believe whatever it is they tell you!

The trouble with outsourcing your marbles to the peer-reviewed set is that, if you take away one single thing from the leaked documents, it's that the global warm-mongers have wholly corrupted the "peer-review" process. When it comes to promoting the impending ecopalypse, the Climate Research Unit is the nerve-center of the operation. The "science" of the CRU dominates the "science" behind the UN's IPCC, which dominates the "science" behind the Congressional cap-and-trade boondoggle, the upcoming Copenhagen shakindownen of the developed world, and the now routine phenomenon of leaders of advanced, prosperous societies talking like gibbering madmen escaped from the padded cell, whether it's President Obama promising to end the rise of the oceans or the Prince of Wales saying we only have 96 months left to save the planet.

But don't worry, it's all "peer-reviewed."

Here's what Phil Jones of the CRU and his colleague Michael Mann of Penn State mean by "peer review." When Climate Research published a paper dissenting from the Jones-Mann "consensus," Jones demanded that the journal "rid itself of this troublesome editor," and Mann advised that "we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers."

So much for Climate Research. When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the "consensus" reservation, Dr. Tom Wigley ("one of the world's foremost experts on climate change") suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to "get him ousted." When another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Dr. Jones assured Dr. Mann, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Which in essence is what they did. The more frantically they talked up "peer review" as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into what James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics of international science. The headline in the Wall Street Journal Europe is unimproveable: "How To Forge A Consensus." Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scientists: That's "peer review," climate-style.

The more their echo chamber shriveled, the more Mann and Jones insisted that they and only they represent the "peer-reviewed" "consensus." And gullible types like Ed Begley Jr. and Andrew Revkin of the New York Times fell for it hook, line, and tree-ring. The e-mails of "Andy" (as his CRU chums fondly know him) are especially pitiful. Confronted by serious questions from Stephen McIntyre, the dogged Ontario retiree whose Climate Audit website exposed the fraud of Dr. Mann's global-warming "hockey stick" graph), "Andy" writes to Dr. Mann to say not to worry, he's going to "cover" the story from a more oblique angle:

I'm going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.

peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge building happens, would you agree? And, amazingly, Dr. Mann does! "Re, your point at the end — you've taken the words out of my mouth."


And that's what Andrew Revkin did, week in, week out: He took the words out of Michael Mann's mouth and served them up to impressionable readers of the New York Times and opportunist politicians around the world champing at the bit to inaugurate a vast global regulatory body to confiscate trillions of dollars of your hard-earned wealth in the cause of "saving the planet" from an imaginary crisis concocted by a few dozen thuggish ideologues. If you fall for this after the revelations of the last week, you're as big a dupe as Begley or Revkin.

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" wondered Juvenal: Who watches the watchmen? But the beauty of the climate-change tree-ring circus is that you never need to ask "Who peer-reviews the peer-reviewers?" Mann peer-reviewed Jones, and Jones peer-reviewed Mann, and anyone who questioned their theories got exiled to the unwarmed wastes of Siberia. The "consensus" warm-mongers could have declared it only counts as "peer-reviewed" if it's published in Peer-Reviewed Studies published by Mann & Jones Publishing Inc (Peermate of the Month: Al Gore, reclining naked, draped in dead polar-bear fur, on a melting ice floe), and Ed Begley Jr. and "Andy" Revkin would still have wandered out glassy-eyed into the streets droning "Peer-reviewed studies. Cannot question. Peer-reviewed studies. The science is settled . . . "

Looking forward to Copenhagen, Herman Van Rumpoy, the new president of the European Union and an eager proponent of the ecopalypse, says 2009 is "the first year of global governance." Global government, huh? I wonder where you go to vote them out of office.

Hey, but don't worry, it'll all be "peer-reviewed."
You can't put an "I wish" over an "It is"

- Leonard Peikoff
nico
 
Innlegg: 528
Registrert: 20 Apr 2007, 00:14
Bosted: Oslo

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Ultima_Thule 21 Des 2014, 03:14

Aftenposten:
- Mer miljøskadelig å gå enn å kjøre til butikken

Sjefen i Ryanair, Michael O’Leary, skal ha sagt at man kan fjerne hele problemet med global oppvarming om man massakrerte alt kveg i verden. O’Leary er blitt latterliggjort etter uttalelsen, men ifølge Chris Goodall kan han ha et poeng:
- Mat er viktigere (for utslipp av drivhusgasser i Storbritannia, red. anm.) enn flytrafikk, men dette kommer aldri frem, sier Goodall.

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/--Mer-miljoskadelig-a-ga-enn-a-kjore-til-butikken-5591375.html


Det er en seiglivet myte at husdyr som kveg, medvirker til forørkning og katastrofal menneskeskapt global oppvarming - nå mest omtalt som klimaendringer av mangel på global oppvarming i snart 18 år:
Actually, Raising Beef Is Good for the Planet
Despite environmentalists’ worries, cattle don’t guzzle water or cause hunger—and can help fight climate change

People who advocate eating less beef often argue that producing it hurts the environment. Cattle, we are told, have an outsize ecological footprint: They guzzle water, trample plants and soils, and consume precious grains that should be nourishing hungry humans. Lately, critics have blamed bovine burps, flatulence and even breath for climate change.

As a longtime vegetarian and environmental lawyer, I once bought into these claims. But now, after more than a decade of living and working in the business—my husband, Bill, founded Niman Ranch but left the company in 2007, and we now have a grass-fed beef company—I’ve come to the opposite view. It isn’t just that the alarm over the environmental effects of beef are overstated. It’s that raising beef cattle, especially on grass, is an environmental gain for the planet.

Let’s start with climate change. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, all of U.S. agriculture accounts for just 8% of our greenhouse emissions, with by far the largest share owing to soil management—that is, crop farming. A Union of Concerned Scientists report concluded that about 2% of U.S. greenhouse gases can be linked to cattle and that good management would diminish it further. The primary concern is methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

But methane from cattle, now under vigorous study by agricultural colleges around the world, can be mitigated in several ways. Australian research shows that certain nutritional supplements can cut methane from cattle by half. Things as intuitive as good pasture management and as obscure as robust dung beetle populations have all been shown to reduce methane.

At the same time, cattle are key to the world’s most promising strategy to counter global warming: restoring carbon to the soil. One-tenth of all human-caused carbon emissions since 1850 have come from soil, according to ecologist Richard Houghton of the Woods Hole Research Center. This is due to tillage, which releases carbon and strips the earth of protective vegetation, and to farming practices that fail to return nutrients and organic matter to the earth. Plant-covered land that is never plowed is ideal for recapturing carbon through photosynthesis and for holding it in stable forms.

Most of the world’s beef cattle are raised on grass. Their pruning mouths stimulate vegetative growth as their trampling hoofs and digestive tracts foster seed germination and nutrient recycling. These beneficial disturbances, like those once caused by wild grazing herds, prevent the encroachment of woody shrubs and are necessary for the functioning of grassland ecosystems.

Research by the Soil Association in the U.K. shows that if cattle are raised primarily on grass and if good farming practices are followed, enough carbon could be sequestered to offset the methane emissions of all U.K. beef cattle and half its dairy herd. Similarly, in the U.S., the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that as much as 2% of all greenhouse gases (slightly less than what’s attributed to cattle) could be eliminated by sequestering carbon in the soils of grazing operations.

Grass is also one of the best ways to generate and safeguard soil and to protect water. Grass blades shield soil from erosive wind and water, while its roots form a mat that holds soil and water in place. Soil experts have found that erosion rates from conventionally tilled agricultural fields average one to two orders of magnitude greater than erosion under native vegetation, such as what’s typically found on well-managed grazing lands.

Nor are cattle voracious consumers of water. Some environmental critics of cattle assert that 2,500 gallons of water are required for every pound of beef. But this figure (or the even higher ones often cited by advocates of veganism) are based on the most water-intensive situations. Research at the University of California, Davis, shows that producing a typical pound of U.S. beef takes about 441 gallons of water per pound—only slightly more water than for a pound of rice—and beef is far more nutritious.

Eating beef also stands accused of aggravating world hunger. This is ironic since a billion of the world’s poorest people depend on livestock. Most of the world’s cattle live on land that cannot be used for crop cultivation, and in the U.S., 85% of the land grazed by cattle cannot be farmed, according to the U.S. Beef Board.

The bovine’s most striking attribute is that it can live on a simple diet of grass, which it forages for itself. And for protecting land, water, soil and climate, there is nothing better than dense grass. As we consider the long-term prospects for feeding the human race, cattle will rightly remain an essential element.

—Ms. Hahn Niman is the author of “Defending Beef: The Case for Sustainable Meat Production” (Chelsea Green), from which this is adapted.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/actually-raising-beef-is-good-for-the-planet-1419030738 (med hyperlenker)


Husdyr som kveg, kan heller tvert imot reversere forørkning og forhindre den påståtte menneskeskapte globale oppvarmimgen:

TEDx Talks - Allan Savory: How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change
[YouTube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI[/YouTube]

TEDx Talks - Reversing global warming with livestock?: Seth Itzkan at TEDxSomerville
[YouTube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOpoRdpvlh0[/YouTube]
Ultima_Thule
 
Innlegg: 168
Registrert: 16 Jan 2010, 09:15

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Erik 24 Des 2014, 10:10

Bilde
Erik
 
Innlegg: 301
Registrert: 02 Mai 2004, 15:38
Bosted: Bergen

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Evans 23 Jan 2015, 10:36

2014 var det varmeste året siden målingene startet i 1880. Trenden er klart stigende.
Evans
 
Innlegg: 142
Registrert: 05 Sep 2005, 10:19

Re: Nytt om drivhuseffekten

Innlegg Panther 23 Jan 2015, 12:08

Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

ForrigeNeste

Gå til Generell politikk

Hvem er i forumet

Brukere som leser i dette forumet: Ingen registrerte brukere og 2 gjester