Skrevet av Emne: Klimakonsensus i villrede: IPCC-kritisk forskningsoversikt 2000-2007  (Lest 8885 ganger)

Utlogget Telehiv

  • Seniormedlem
  • ****
  • Innlegg: 1785
Vi står for tiden overfor et bekymringsfullt vitenskapelig paradoks: Det brukes stadig større summer på alle slags former for «klimaforskning» mens det blir stadig vanskeligere å identifisere faktisk status for jordens klimatilstand. Noe av årsaken bør finnes her:
 
1. IPCCs varslede «globale oppvarming» siden etableringen i 1988 har hatt sin storhetstid parallellt med en varmere global trend fra 1976. Denne trenden synes imidlertid nå å være i ferd med å snu til en like forventet naturlig kjøligere syklus. Hos bl.a. solforskere, havforskere og andre syklusanalytikere er dette høyst forventet.

2. De som i stor grad kontrollerer måledataene som kan vise dette trendskiftet tydeligst (IPCC-miljøet med underliggende dataleverandører; NOAA, GISS, CRU, osv.) fører imidlertid en stadig mer åpenbar kamp for å tåkelegge data som kan bidra til å sterkt undergrave deres grunnleggende påstander om en vedvarende global oppvarming basert på AGW/CO2-hypotesen.

3. Likevel, etter flere år med udiskutabel temperaturutflating og etter hvert avkjøling og breer som ikke smelter likevel, ser vi nå de underligste faglige krumspring for å forklare hvorfor verden ikke utvikler seg slik modellene har foreskrevet:
a. «Global oppvarming» er forlengst endret til det uspesifiserte «klimaendringer»
b. Alarmismen er deretter taktisk utvidet til at disse «klimaendringene» truer det meste, dvs. at de ikke bare innebærer «varmere», men også «våtere» og «villere» forhold, inkludert at det biologiske artsmangfoldet er under en voldsom trussel av disse «endringene»
c. At man likevel nærmer seg en faglig endestasjon indikeres av at det kjøres stadig flere og hyppigere – og dessverre ufrivillig komiske - bortforklaringer av den nye kalde trenden med at dette ikke er «klima» på samme måte som «global oppvarming» og skyldes derfor egentlig oppvarming det også, og som siden den for tiden ikke viser seg så tydelig kan den f.eks. være midlertidig skjult/magasinert i havene, osv., som så gir uventede regionale/lokale utslag.
d. Og som alltid når modellene til IPCC-miljøet slår feil: dette er aldri en feil med betydning for AGW/CO2-hypotesens gyldighet, men alltid bare en enkel justeringsfaktor som uten betydning for den vitenskapelige konsensus kan korrigeres for i nye oppdaterte modeller, osv.
e. Fra en skråsikker konsensus-retorikk fra IPCC ser vi altså en ryggende, pinlig uvitenskapelig og politisk fundert maktprosess for å redde stumpene av en hypotese som har vist seg å være alarmistisk overdrevet og uten vitenskapelig grunnlag

Som grunnlag for denne vedvarende øyenlukking overfor keiserens nakne kropp har IPCC m/sine støttemiljøer hele tiden hatt som vitenskapelig credo at «the science is settled» og at det knapt finnes fagfellevurdert forskning som er i stand til å imøtegå ACW/CO2-hypotesen på et faglig grunnlag

Javel?

I denne artikkelen vil jeg bare kort summere en rekke fagartikler fra en rekke fagområder der det har foreligget fagfellevurdert (men av IPPC oversett og undertrykt) forskning som har vist at man har vært på ville vitenskapelige veier på en rekke områder (bl.a. oppumpede sensitivitetsfaktorer for utvalgte klimagasser og nedgradering av alternative klimadrivende faktorer som sol, osv.) for å kunne klare å trykke oppvarmingsalarmismen inn i en samlet vitenskapelig pakke. Til støtte for arbeidet har jeg hatt stor glede av det omfattende oversiktsarbeidet som Madhav Khandekar gjorde i 2007 med tittelen Questioning the Global Warming Science: An Annotated bibliography of recent peer-reviewed papers (2007)

Hvorfor har heller ikke jeg gått lenger opp i tid enn til 2007 i min oppsummering her? Etter 2007 finnes jo en økende strøm av IPCC-kritisk forskning?! Jo, nettopp for å vise at IPCC aldri har hatt rett i at det tidligere ikke har foreligget forskning som kunne rokke ved deres konsensus-påstand.

La oss derfor ta en runde i dette, og  vise hvor IPCC til de grader - og lenge etter at de burde visst bedre - fremdeles fortsetter å feilinformere verden med sine påstander om manglende faglige innsigelser til deres egne påstander.

Khandekars arbeid tar utgangspunkt i sju hovedområder som er blitt brukt som argument for påstandene om «global oppvarming» (GW), i praksis hele tiden hevdet av IPCC som menneskeskapt global oppvarming (AGW). Problemet for IPCC å forsvare nå i ettertid - når det blir stadig klarere at IPCC burde utvist bedre vitenskapelig skjønn og at deres alarmtrender igjen og igjen viser seg å ikke holde vann – er at det hele tiden har foreligget viktig forskning som har imøtegått IPCCs påstander på disse sentrale områdene:

1.   Temperaturrekonstruksjoner ved bruk av proxydata (hockeykølla)
2.   Betydningen av solvariabilitet for jordens klima
3.   Havnivåstigning, oppvarming/kjøling av havoverflaten, osv.
4.   Arktiske og Antarktiske temperaturer: Fra holocene til idag
5.   Betydningen av storskala sirkulasjonsmønstre
6.   Ytre (i betydningen “extraneous”) påvirkningsfaktorer på middeltemperaturtrender (typisk: urbanisering, jordoverflateendringer)
7.   Usikkerheter i klimamodellsimuleringer
8.   Diverse andre AGW/CO2-kritiske studier


1. Temperaturrekonstruksjoner ved bruk av proxydata (hockeykølla)

a. “Corrections to Mann et al (1998) proxy data base and northern hemisphere average temperature series” S McIntyre & R McKitrick Energy & Environment Vol. 14 (2003) p. 751-777
b. “Reconstructing past climate from noisy data” H von Storch et al Science Vol. 306 (2004) p. 679-682
c. “Hockey sticks, principal components and spurious significance” S McIntyre & R McKitrick Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32 (2005) L03710
d. “Highly variable northern hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data” A Moberg et al Nature Vol. 433 (2005) p. 613-617
e. Wegman Edward, Scott D W and Said Yasmin H 2006: Ad Hoc Committee Report to Chairman of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce and to the Chairman of the House subcommittee
on Oversight & Investigations on the Hockey-stick global climate reconstructions. US House of Representatives, Washington USA. Available for download from ITTP://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006 Wegman Report.pdf
f. “Reconstruction of temperature in the central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a delta18O stalagmite record” A Mangini, C Spotl & P Verdes Earth & Planetary Science Letters, 235(2005)p. 741-751

Khandekar kommenterte disse arbeidene slik i 2007:

The above studies demonstrate conclusively that the highly publicized Hockey-stick graph was based on several erroneous calculations and assumptions. The graph is now abandoned in favor of a more recent reconstruction of the earth’s temperature by Moberg et al (2005) as shown below [Figure 1(b)]. An investigation on the Hockey-stick graph was conducted by the US House Committee on Energy & Commerce which appointed a panel of three well-known mathematicians to look into the mathematical aspects of the Hockey-stick graph. Their findings are available in the Wegman Report which has severely criticized the methodology used by Mann et al. in their reconstruction of earth’s mean temperature for the past six centuries.
A US National Research Council Panel, chaired by Prof. G North (Texas A & M University USA) confirmed in a public meeting in Washington (EOS Vol. 87, No. 27, 4 July 2006) that “the late twentieth century was the warmest in at least the last 400 years and likely in the last millennium”. The NRC Panel further added that the evidence from further past is murky and therefore not conclusive. In summary the well publicized Hockey-stick representation of the earth’s mean temperature is now discarded. The question of whether the MWP was indeed warmer than the present remains open, however the paper listed under (f) presents isotopic analysis of stalagmites from Spannagel Cave in the Central Alps and concludes that during the MWP from about 800 and 1300 AD, temperature maxima was about 1.7C higher than during the LIA and this temperature maxima is similar to the present value.
It is now generally accepted that the MWP was at least as warm as the present mean temperature of the earth. What is of interest here is that the earth’s mean temperature changed significantly from the MWP to LIA and back to the warm period in the first half of the twentieth century during which the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has remained essentially unchanged. The earth’s temperature history of the last 600 years appears to be driven more by natural variability than by anthropogenic GHG variations. The next section provides more evidence of natural variability of the earth’sclimate through changes in solar irradiance. Moberg et.al. (2005)


2. Betydningen av solvariabilitet for jordens klima

a. “Solar variability and the earth’s climate: introduction and overview” George Reid Space Science Reviews 94 (2000) p.1-11
b. “Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays” N D Marsh & H Svensmark Physical Review Letters 85 (2000) p. 5004-5007
c. “Global temperature forced by solar irradiation and greenhouse gases?” Wibjorn Karlen Ambio, Vol. 30 (2001)p. 349-350
d. “The sun’s role in climate variations” D Rind Science Vol. 296 (2002) p. 673-677
e. “Solar influence on the spatial structure of the NAO during the winter 1900-1999” Kunihiko Kodera Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30 (2003) 1175 doi:10.1029/2002GL016584
f. “Can slow variations in solar luminosity provide missing link between the sun and the climate?” Peter Fokul EOS, Vol. 84, No. 22 (2003)p.205&208
g. “Celestial driver of phanerozoic climate?” N Shaviv & J Veizer Geological Society of America 13 (2003) p.4-10
h. “Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record for the past 130 years” Willie W-H Soon Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 32 (2005) L16712
i. “solar forcing of the polar atmosphere” P A Mayewski et al Annals of Glaciology Vol. 41 (2005) p. 147-154
j. “The influence of the 11-yr solar cycle on the interannualcentennial climate variability” Hengyi Weng J of Atmosphere and solar-terrestrial physics Vol. 67 (2005) p. 793-805
k. “Living with a variable sun” Judith Lean Physics Today (2005) Vol 58, No. 6 p. 32-37 American Inst. Of Physics USA
l. “Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming” N Scafetta & B J West Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 33 (2006) L05708
m. “Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed northern hemisphere temperature record” N Scafetta & B J West Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 33 (2006) L17718
n. “Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds” R G Harrison & D B Stephenson Proceedings of the Royal Society A (UK): 10.1098/rspa.2005.1628 (2006)

Khandekar 2007:

The above list includes papers which cover several areas of solar/climate link. The papers by Reid (a) and by Rind (d) provide a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the LIA as well as through geological times and the complexity in establishing the solar/climate link. The study (j) by Weng re-confirms the solar variability impact on earth’s climate by analyzing monthly sunspot numbers in conjunction with global and regional SSTs using a wavelet transform analysis technique. This powerful mathematical technique of wavelet transform is once again used by Willie Soon in study (h) to demonstrate a strong link between Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) and Arctic-wide surface temperature over a long period from 1875-2000.
In study (e) the NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation), an important large-scale atmospheric oscillation, is shown to be strongly modulated by high & low solar activity as identified through sunspot cycles. Study (i) analyzes high-resolution calibrated proxies for atmospheric circulation from several Antarctic ice cores which reveal decadal-scale association with solar variability over the last 600 years. The study further demonstrates that changes in solar irradiance can significantly impact the earth’s polar atmosphere, thus reinforcing the findings of other studies on solar variability and its linkage to the Arctic and Antarctic climate.
Two other recent studies [(l) & (m)] construct a phenomenological model to include solar forcing and demonstrate its linkage to the earth’s temperature change over last 400 years. In (c) Prof. W Karlen (a well-known paleo-climate expert) argues that the present interglacial has been cooler by about 2C than the previous ones during the last 400,000 thousand years when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 100 ppmv less than at present. If the earth’s climate is sensitive to CO2 concentration only, then the present interglacial should be warmer than what it is and thus it can be concluded that the earth’s climate during previous interglacials has responded more to solar variability than to CO2 changes. Extending this argument, Prof. Karlen concludes in study (c) that the present warming is more due to solar variability than due to CO2 concentrations. The studies by Peter Fokul (f) and Judith Lean (k) present additional evidence of recent changes in solar irradiance and make a case for solar impact on the earth’s climate via more complex mechanism through changes in ultraviolet radiation, plasmas and fields. In study (g), authors Shaviv & Veizer document using a “sea-shell thermometer” how the earth’s temperature over last 500 million years is decoupled with atmospheric CO2 levels while showing strong correlation with variations in the cosmic ray flux. Two more recent studies (b & n) document how galactic cosmic rays can influence the earth’s low cloud cover and how this in turn would impact the mean temperature.
Many more studies on solar/climate link have appeared in recent peer reviewed literature. When all these studies are carefully scrutinized, a new and irrefutable solar/climate link emerges. The physical mechanism for this link still remains complex and not well understood, however there is now mounting evidence that the present climate change may be driven more by solar variability than by anthropogenic GHG. An experiment at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) to study the impact of high-energy particles on a prototype reaction chamber to recreate the earth’s atmosphere is planned for 2008. This experiment may shed more light on the linkage between cosmic ray flux and changes in the earth’s cloud cover.


3. Havnivåstigning, oppvarming/kjøling av havoverflaten, osv.

a. “New perspectives for the future of the Maldives” N-A Morner M Tooley & G Possnert Global and Planetary Change 40 (2004) p. 177-182
b. “Estimates of the regional distribution of sea-level rise over the 1950-2000 period” J A Church et al J of Climate 17 (2004) p. 2609-2625
c. “Low sea-level rise projections from mountain glaciers and icecaps under global warming” Sarah Raper & Roger Braithwaite Nature V. 439 (2006) p. 311-313
d. “Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea-level records” S Jevrejeva et al J of Geophysical Research V.111(2006) C09012
e. “On the decadal rates of sea level changes during the twentieth century” S J Holgate Geophysical Research Letters 34 (2007) doi:10.1029/2006GL028492

Khandekar 2007 om disse arbeidene:

These and many other papers bring out a number of uncertainties re: SLR in the past and future. Prof. Morner and coworkers demonstrate [study(a)] that in the region of Maldives a general fall in SLR occurred some 30 years ago possibly due to increased evaporation in the central Indian Ocean and
intensification of the NE Monsoon. Further, there does not appear to be any evidence of increasing SLR in the near future. Authors Church and coworkers [study (b)] analyze patterns of regional SLR over the period 1950-2000 and conclude that it is not possible to detect a significant SLR over this period anywhere. These authors obtain global-averaged SLR rise of 1.8 mm +/- 0.3 mm per year over the 1950-2000 period. In study (c) Raper & Braithwaite obtain future projection of SLR from mountain glacier and icecaps (outside of Greenland & Antarctic Ice Sheets) as only about 5.1 cm by 2100, half of previous projections.
The recent study (d) obtains global SLR trend of 2.4 mm per year for the period 1993-2000 and further document that over last 100 years the rate of 2.5 mm per year occurred from 1920-1945 and this trend is likely to be as large as the recent trend. This study further documents a nonlinear trend in various ocean regions and a 2 to 14 year variability in sea-level records which appears to be increasing in recent years. The latest study (e) [published January 2007] makes a careful analysis of nine long and continuous records of sea-level changes from 1904 through 2003 and obtains sea-level change of ~2.03 +/-.35 mm/yr from 1904-1953 while for the latter period 1954-2003, sea-level change is found to be lower ~1.45 +/-.34 mm/yr. The study further documents high decadal variability in sea-level changes with the highest decadal rate (~5.3 mm/yr) for the 1980s and the lowest rate (~1.74 mm/yr) for the ten-year period around 1964.
The warming and cooling of ocean surface as revealed by world-wide SST distribution has become an important topic of research in recent years. The warming of the world oceans by about 0.50C from the surface to a depth of ~750 m is now identified as the potential heat storage in the earth’s atmosphere-ocean system which could lead to future warming of the earth’stemperature. Several recent studies have documented warming as well as cooling of the upper ocean.


Khandekar trekker fram flere arbeider:

a. “The sustained North American warming of 1997 and 1998” A Kumar et al J of Climate 14 (2001)p.345-353
b. “Recent cooling of the upper ocean” J Lyman J Willis & G Johnson Geophysical Research Letters 33 (2006) L18604
c. “Anomaly of heat content in the northern Atlantic in the last 7 years: Is the ocean warming or cooling?” V Ivchenko N Wells & D Aleynik Geophysical Research Letters 33 (2006) L22606
d. “How much is the ocean really warming?” V Gouretski & K P Koltermann Geophysical Research Letters 34 (2007) L01610

These studies demonstrate the short-term variability of ocean surface warming & cooling and its significant impact on the earth’s temperature structure. The paper by Kumar et al (a) shows how the sustained North American land warming was primarily due to the intense El Nino event of 1997/98 which produced and maintained high SST values over the Pacific basin as well as over other ocean basins through the middle of 1998. The North American warming contributed significantly to make 1998 the warmest year of the twentieth century according to the IPCC.
In studies (b) and (c) recent cooling of the upper oceans and in particular of the southern North Atlantic is documented. A net loss of 3.2x1022 J of heat from the upper ocean between 2003 and 2005 is documented in study (b) and this loss is found to be comparable to the previous rapid cooling of 6x1022 J in the 0-750m layer from 1980 to 1983. In study (d) data from the Argo profiling buoys are analyzed for the North Atlantic and it is found that the southern North Atlantic has cooled in the last seven years. The latest study (d) [published January 2007] takes a closer look at the global hydrographic data as provided by bathythermographs (XBT) and finds a warming bias when the XBT data are compared against bottle and CTD (current, temperature, density) data. This warming bias is estimated to be between 0.2 to 0.40C on average giving an ocean warming artifact by a factor of 0.62. When taken together, the various studies discussed above suggest considerable variability: ocean surface warming & cooling in recent years. Additionally recent cooling of ocean surface, which is not simulated by climate models, warrants further analysis on ocean heat storage and its long-term variability.
The IPCC 2007 Documents now estimate the total SLR over next one hundred years to be about 29cm +/- 15cm, this estimate being considerably smaller than some of the earlier estimates. The decadal variability of SLR as evidenced in the latest study suggests that future increase in sea level may be subject to considerable uncertainty.


4. Arktiske og Antarktiske temperaturer: Fra Holocene til idag

a. “First survey of Antarctic sub-ice shelf sediment reveals mid-Holocene ice shelf retreat” C J Pudsey & J Evans Geology 29 (2001) p.787-790
b. “Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response” P Doran et al Nature online 13 January 2002 (DOI:10.1038/nature 710)
c. “Variability and trends of air temperature and pressure in the maritime Arctic, 1875-2000” I V Polyakov et al Journal of Climate 16 (2003) p. 2067-2077
d. “Holocene climate variability” P A Mayewski et al Quaternary Research 62 (2004) p. 243-255
e. Global warming & the Greenland ice sheets” P Chylek J E Box & G Lesins Climatic Change (2004) 63 p. 201-221
f. “A multi-proxy lacustrine record of Holocene climate change on northeast Baffin Island, Arctic Canada” Quaternary Research (2006) 65 p. 431-442
g. “Greenland warming of 1920-1930 and 1990-2005” P Chylek M K Dubey & G Lesins Geophysical Research Letters 33 (2006) L11707
h. “Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century” B M Winter et al J of Geophysical Research 111 (2006) D11105
i. “Ice shelf history from petrographic and foraminiferal evidence, Northeast Antarctic Peninsula” C J Pudsey et al Quaternary Science Reviews 25 (2006) p. 2357-2379

Khandekar 2007:

The papers listed above and several others in recent literature now clearly document how the temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic regions have changed dramatically during the early to mid-Holocene as well as in the recent historical past. The paper by Mayeski et al (d) identifies Rapid Climate Change (RCC) throughout the Holocene involving cool polar regions and wet (or dry) tropical regions. Studies (a) and (i) document that the Larsen A & B Ice Shelves in the northeastern Antarctic Peninsula were probably altogether absent about two thousand years ago when the Antarctic temperatures in that region were likely as warm or perhaps warmer than the present-day temperatures.
The study (i) further concludes that the CO2 concentration was about 100 ppm lower than the present so the warming of the Antarctic during the mid-Holocene was due to reasons other than anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. In study (b) Doran et al document a cooling trend in the Antarctica using recent temperature data. Study (c) presents a long series of temperature and pressure data (1875-2000) over the Arctic basin and document strong multi-decadal variability on a time scale of 50-80 years. These multi-decadal oscillations are identified as LFO (Low Frequency Oscillations) which strongly influence the Arctic (as well as the Antarctic) basin climate. Study (f) analyzes multiproxy lacustrine records in northeast Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic to show a pronounced Holocene temperature maximum, about 5C warmer than the present. In studies (e) and (g), it is shown that a rapid warming over all of coastal Greenland occurred in the 1920s when the average annual temperature rose between 2 and 4C in less than ten years.
Further, it is shown that Greenland warmed at a faster rate during 1920-1930 than during the recent ten years 1995-2005. Finally study (h) extends Greenland temperature records back to the year 1784, using old records from the Danish Meteorological Institute. A careful analysis of the data shows that the 1930s and the 1940s were the warmest decades with 1941 as the warmest year. The study also documents that the 1810s were the coldest years in Greenland with the possible influence of volcanic eruptions including that of Mt Tambora in 1815. These and many other recent studies now demonstrate the existence of RCC over the Arctic and the Antarctic during the entire Holocene. As the lead author Mayewski of study (d) and also of study (h) in section 4 concludes:“Bipolar expansion of high latitude atmospheric circulation systems and subsequent redistribution of low latitude atmospheric circulation begs a
symmetrical forcing such as solar variability”. The present warming of the Arctic basin thus appears to be part of this natural variability and not a consequence of the GHG increase.


5. Betydningen av storskala sirkulasjonsmønstre

Her snakker vi selvsagt om storskala sirkulasjonsmønstre som:
•   El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO),
•   Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO),
•   North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO),
•   Arctic & Antarctic Oscillation (AO & AAO), og
•   Pacific North American flow pattern (PNA).

a. “A study of NAO variability and its possible non-linear influences on European surface temperatures” D Pozo-Vazquez et al Climate Dynamics, Vol. 17 (2001) p. 701-715
b. “Impacts of low frequency variability modes on Canadian winter temperature” B Bonsal, A Shabbar & K Higuchi Int’l journal of Climatology, Vol. 21 (2001) p. 95-108
c. “Are stronger North-Atlantic southwesterlies the forcing to the late-winter warming in Europe?” J Ottermann et al Int’l J of Climatology, Vol. 22 (2002) p. 743-750
d. “Variability of extreme temperature events in south-central Europe during the twentieth century and its relationship with large-scale circulation” P Domonkos et al Int’l J of Climatology, Vol. 23 (2003) p. 987-1010
e. “January Northern Hemisphere circumpolar vortex variability and its relationship with hemispheric temperature and regional teleconnection” R Rohli, K Wrona & M McHugh Int’l J of Climatology, Vol. 25 (2005) p. 1421-1436

Khandekar:

The studies referenced above demonstrate the significant impact of largescale circulation patterns on regional and hemispheric temperature trends. Studies (a) and (d) show that a positive value of the NAO index can produce winter season warming in Europe, while study (b) shows how an El Nino event together with positive values of the PDO index can provide strong positive winter temperature anomalies over most of Canada. In study (c), it is suggested that stronger southwesterlies in the North Atlantic may be producing early spring-like conditions in parts of Europe. In study (e) the circumpolar vortex and its linkage to AO variability as well as to the PNA pattern is discussed. It is hypothesized that the GW signal in surface temperature would cause a size reduction in the Northern Hemisphere circumpolar vortex as the cold pool of air over the poles would shrink. The study analyzes January data over a period from 1951-2001 and shows no change in the circumpolar vortex, thus suggesting no GW signal in the circumpolar vortex variability. Several other studies now suggest a definite role of large-scale circulation patterns and their inter-annual or decadal variability on temperature trends over Europe and North America.
These circulation changes are not directly affected by observed GW at this point in time. Some of the recent studies (listed in earlier sections) suggest a definite impact of solar variability on large-scale circulation patterns like NAO. Thus it can be argued here that the large-scale circulation changes are driven primarily by natural climatevariability and there is no evidence of GHG-induced forcing on these circulation patterns at this point in time. Most climate models do not fully simulate the natural variability of these large-scale circulation patterns. Consequently, future projections of climate change based on present climate models have little reliability.


6. Ytre (i betydningen “extraneous”) påvirkningsfaktorer på middeltemperaturtrender (typisk: urbanisering, jordoverflateendringer)

a. “The influence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system: relevance to climate-change policy beyond the radiative effect of greenhouse gases” R A Pielke sr et al Phil. Trans. R soc. London UK (2002)360 p.1705-1719
b. “Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate” E. Kalnay & M Cai, Nature, Vol. 423, 29 May 2003, p. 528-531
c. “The urban heat island in winter at Barrow, Alaska” K Hinkel et al International J of Climatology, Vol. 23, 2003, p. 1889-1905
d. “Impacts of anthropogenic heat on regional climate patterns” A Block, K Keuler & E Schaller Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 31, L12211, 2004
e. “A test of correction for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data” R McKitrick & P Michaels, Climate Research, Vol. 26, 2004, p. 159-173
f. “Evidence for a significant urbanization effect on climate in China” L Zhou et al Proc. National Academy of Science(USA) V. 101 (2004) p.9540-9544
g. “Evidence for influence of anthropogenic surface processes on lower tropospheric and surface temperature trends” A T J De Laat & A N Maurellis, International J of Climatology, 26, 2006, p. 897-913
h. “Urban heat island effect analysis for San Juan, Puerto Rico” A Velazquez-Lozada, J E Gonzalez & A Winter, Atmospheric Environment, 40, 2006, p. 1731-1741

In the above, the paper (a) by Pielke sr et al is considered a landmark paper in the present GW debate, as this paper brings out an important aspect of land-use change and its dominating impact which could overwhelm the GHG forcing of the climate system in future. Study (b) uses the NCAR
(National Centre for Atmospheric Research, USA) re-analysis of upper-air data and an extrapolation to the surface to obtain the urbanization impact on mean temperature trend to be about 0.280C over 100 years and about 0.180C over the recent 30 years. Study (c) obtains the urban-rural temperature
difference of over 20C during the winter months at Barrow, Alaska, while study (d) shows how anthropogenic heat release from highly industrialized and populated areas can produce a permanent warming from 0.15 to 0.50C with additional heat flux between 2 to 20 Wm-2 over affected areas. In study (e), the impact of economic activity (e.g, per capita income, growth rate, coal use etc) on mean temperature trend (1979-2000) measured at over 200 locations in 93 countries was estimated using a linear regression analysis. The study documented a definite warm bias in the temperature trend as a result of non-climatic impact of local (and regional) economic activity. Study (f) uses an integrated modeling approach to delineate urban influence on the mean temperature and obtains urbanization impact over China to be more than the estimated 0.270C in the USA during the twentieth century.
In study (g), the influence of anthropogenic surface processes on mean temperature trends were estimated using GHG emission world-wide database as proxy for industrial activity. The mean temperature trends at highly industrial regions and locations were found to be higher than elsewhere, thus confirming the impact of non-GHG anthropogenic processes on surface temperature changes.
Finally the study (h) documents a strong urban heat island effect at San Juan, Capital city of Puerto Rico. The urban heat island effect is estimated to be increasing at a rate of about 0.060C per year over last forty years and it is estimated that the urban-rural temperature difference could increase to about 80C by the year 2050 at the present urbanization growth rate in and around San Juan. These and several other recent studies confirm that urbanization and land use change impact on the earth’s climate system is much larger than what the IPCC and its supporting scientists have assessed so far. The upcoming IPCC Document on Climate Change to be published in early 2007 recognizes urban influences but discounts its impact on mean temperature trend as small and insignificant. The papers listed above clearly demonstrate significant non-GHG impact which must be removed from the mean temperature trend so as to determine the mean temperature rise due to human-added CO2 only.
Removing the urban influence may reduce the mean temperature rise to just about 0.100C per decade over recent 25 to 30 years which is not of major concern. A careful assessment of the mean temperature trend in recent 25 to 30 years is needed to confirm if the recent increase in earth’s mean temperature is primarily due to human-added GHG or is a combination of a number of other parameters that are being debated in peer-reviewed literature at present.


7. Usikkerheter i klimamodellsimuleringer

Der er uendelig med kritiske artikler på dette nå, men i 2007 var det også solide grunner til å ha stor tvil om modellenes verdi på noe som helst vis:

a. “Potential role of solar variability as an agent for climate change” C Bertrand & J Van Ypersele Climatic Change V 43 (1999) p.387-411
b. “Simulated impacts of historical land-cover changes on global climate in northern winter” T N Chase et al Climate Dynamics V 16 (2000) p. 93-10
c. “Monsoon prediction-why yet another failure?” S Gadgil M Rajeevan & R Nanjundiah Current Science(India) V 88 (2005) P.1389-1400
d. “Detection and attribution of twentieth-century northern & southern African rainfall change” M Hoerling et al J of Climate V 19 (2006) p. 3989-4008
e. “ENSO evolution and teleconnections in IPCC’s twentiethcentury climate simulations: realistic representation?” R Joseph & S Nigam J of Climate V 19 (2006) p.4360-4377
f. “Precipitation characteristics in eighteen coupled climate models” Aiguo Dai J of Climate V 19 (2006) p.4605
g. “Is the thermohaline circulation changing?” M Latif et al J of Climate V 19 (2006) p.4631-4637

These and many other recent papers bring out several uncertainties in climate model simulations. In study (a) a two-dimensional model is used to assess the potential impact of solar variability on the earth’s surface temperature from 1700 to 1992. It is shown that although total solar irradiance reconstruction is insufficient to reproduce observed warming of the 20th century, the model response suggests that the Gleissberg cycle (~88yr) solar forcing should not be neglected in explaining the century-scale time variations. In study (b) the authors examined ten years of modeled equilibrium January climate differences between simulations which were forced at the surface by spatially realistic depiction of current land surface and an estimate of natural potential vegetation in equilibrium with currentclimate. The simulations suggest that anthropogenic land cover changes can produce teleconnection patterns affecting global temperature and precipitation distributions.
In study (c) the authors examine prediction of the Indian monsoon for 2004 made by empirical as well as by dynamical models and conclude that the skill in forecasting the Indian summer monsoon variability has not improved in the last fifty years or so when some of the empirical models were introduced. The skill of dynamical models was found to be even worse. In comparing observed monsoon rainfall totals with simulated values from 20 state-of-the-art GCM, the authors found that none of the dynamical models were able to “simulate correctly the interannual variation of the summer monsoon rainfall over the Indian region” The authors lament the fact that after so many years of climate model development, the models are still not able to simulate one of the largest and regionally the most important atmospheric phenomena, the tropical monsoon and further question the validity of many GCM for simulating the impact of anthropogenic GHG forcing on future projections of the earth’s climate.
In study (d) the impact of Atlantic and global SST patterns on African rainfall changes for the twentieth century is investigated using five coupled GCM as part of the IPCC fourth (2007) assessment project and it is found that the Sahel region drought from 1950-2000 period was not influenced by the GHG forcing, indicating that the Sahel drought conditions were likely of natural origin. The same study further concludes that natural variability will continue to be the primary driver of Sahel region’s low frequency rainfall variations during the next century.
In another similar model inter-comparison study (f), precipitation characteristics of eighteen coupled climate models were examined by analyzing monthly and 3-hourly precipitation output and it is found that most models produce too much convective and too little stratiform precipitation over most of the low latitude regions. The same study further concludes that considerable improvements in precipitation simulations are still desirable for the latest generation of the world’s coupled climate models.
Two other studies listed above relate to simulation of two important largescale features of the earth-atmosphere system, namely the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Thermohaline Circulation (THC) in the North Atlantic. In study (e), the authors examined ENSO simulations by a suite of coupled models as part of IPCC Fourth (AR4) assessment project and conclude that climate models are still unable to simulate many features of ENSO variability, its circulation and hydroclimatic teleconnections. Further the climate system models are not quite ready for making projections of regional-to-continental scale hydroclimatic variability and change.
The final study (g) in this section examines the THC in the North Atlantic which is responsible for large amounts of heat and freshwater transport by the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic current. Analyses of ocean observations and model simulations suggest that the changes in the THC during the twentieth century are likely to be the result of natural multidecadal climate variability and are driven by low-frequency variations of the NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation).
The study further concludes that there is no evidence of sustained weakening of the Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) as reported in several recent studies.

In summary the present suite of climate models cannot as yet provide reliable projection of the earth’s climate over the next fifty to one hundred years. In a recent paper “Will our ride into the greenhouse future be a smooth one?” GSA Today (2007), Prof. Wallace Broecker, recipient of the 2006 Craaford Prize (Sweden) succinctly summarizes the present state of the earth’s climate and climate models as follows:


“My lifetime study of Earth’s climate system has humbled me. I am convinced that we have greatly underestimated the complexity of this system. Global climate change predictions are mostly mental masturbation in the final analysis"


8. Diverse andre AGW/CO2-kritiske studier

Her listes en del studier som angår påstander rundt bl.a. det som allerede da ble populært å kalle «ekstremvær», økonomiske tap knyttet til dette, osv.

a. “Reconciling observations of global temperature change” Richard Lindzen & Constantine Giannitsis Geophysical Research Letters V 29 (2002) No 12 10.1029/2001GL014074
b. “Compilation and discussion of trends in severe storms in the United States: Popular perception vs climate reality” Robert Balling Jr & Randall Cerveny Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p.
103-112 c. “On destructive Canadian Prairie windstorms and severe winters: A climatological assessment in the context of global warming” Keith Hage Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 207-228
d. “Shifting economic impacts from weather extremes in the Unites States: a result of societal changes, not global warming” Stanley Changnon Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 273-290
e. “The global warming debate: A review of the present state of science” M L Khandekar T S Murty & P Chittibabu Pure & Applied Geophysics V 162 (2005) p. 1557-1586
f. “Extreme weather trends vs dangerous climate change: A need for a critical reassessment” M L Khandekar Energy & Environment V 16 (2005) p.327-331
g. “The interaction of climate change and the carbon dioxide cycle” A Rorsch R S Courtney & D Thoenes Energy & Environment V 16 (2005) p. 217-238
h. “Can we detect trends in extreme tropical cyclones?” Christopher Landsea et al Science V 313 (2006)p.452-454
i. “Trends in western North Pacific tropical cyclone intensity” MC Wu K-H Yeung & W-L Chang EOS Transactions AGU V 87 (2006) No 48 28 November 2006
j. “On global forces of nature driving the earth’s climate: Are humans involved?” L F Khilyuk & G V Chilinger Environmental Geology V 50 (2006) p. 899-910

Khandekar kommenterer disse arbeidene slik:

Three of the studies (b, c & f) listed above discuss the GW impacts in terms of extreme weather (EW) events and their trends in recent years. Recent media reports and popular scientific articles often discuss about increasing trends in EW events and its linkage to rising temperature of the earth’s
surface in response to increasing GHG in the atmosphere. The three studies listed above carefully analyze available data on EW events in the USA, Canada and elsewhere and discount any possible link between EW & GW.
Study (b) documents the mismatch between popular perception as created by media reports and climate reality which does not show EW as increasing in the USA. Study (c) makes a painstaking analysis of large amount of data extracted from Canadian Prairie farm news letters and other sources over a long period 1880-1984. Based on a detailed analysis of these data, the author (Emeritus Prof. Keith Hage, University of Alberta) documents a temporal frequency peak in severe windstorms and associated tornadoes during the Dust Bowl years of 1920s and 1930s. The windstorm frequency shows a steady decline since 1940 through 1980s. A steep rise in tornado frequency since 1970 is attributed to increasing awareness and reporting of tornado activity in recent years and NOT due to change in tornado climatology.
In study (f) the EW events over Canada and elsewhere are carefully analyzed and it is shown that EW events like heat waves, winter blizzards, rainstorms, droughts etc are not increasing anywhere in Canada, USA or elsewhere where sufficient data are available for adequate analysis; some of the EW events like winter blizzards are definitely on the decline on the Canadian Prairies in the last 40 years. In study (d) the author (Stanley Changnon, a respected US climatologist) documents that increasing economic impacts of EW events in the USA is a result of societal change and NOT global warming.
In study (a) the authors Lindzen & Giannitsis analyze the discrepancy between global mean temperature trends obtained by satellite microwave data and surface temperature measurements. The authors argue that the warming of the troposphere in recent 25 years is likely associated with tropospheric jump and atmospheric regime change occurring around 1976/77. The authors further argue that the troposphere/surface temperature discrepancy can be reconciled if the earth’s climate sensitivity (earth’s mean temperature rise due to doubling of carbon dioxide) is assumed small, just
about 1C or so.
The paper (e) is a review paper in which the authors (Khandekar et al) conclude that the recent warming of the earth’s surface is primarily due to urbanization, land-use change etc and not due to increasing GHG in the atmosphere. The authors further document the possible role of
solar variability on the mean temperature increase and discuss the SLR in and around the Maldive Islands as a regional change not associated with any global change in SLR.
In study (g) the authors develop a mathematical model for atmospheric carbon cycle and argue that the relatively large rise of carbon dioxide in the twentieth century was caused by the increase in the mean temperature that preceded it. The rise in the carbon dioxide was possibly due to disorption (release of CO2) from the oceans with an observed time lag of half a century or about. The authors further argue that a rigorous mathematical analysis cannot be made to prove that the recent rise in the atmospheric CO2 can be attributed solely to anthropogenic emission. Other processes such as microbiological activity cannot be discounted as possible source for the recent rise of CO2 .
The next two studies (h) & (i) deal with the issue of strengthening of tropical cyclones/hurricanes due to GW and in particular due to warming of the oceans. The lead author (Chris Landsea, a leading hurricane expert) in study (h) suggests that the Dvorak technique developed to estimate hurricane strength was not available in the early 1970s or before when some of the hurricanes & tropical cyclones [e.g. Bay of Bengal cyclone 1970; hurricane Camille (USA) 1969] may have been stronger than estimated then.
The recent paper from EOS [study (i)] suggests that the western North Pacific tropical cyclone climatology does not reveal increasing strength for typhoon records from 1965 till 2004. These two studies (h) & (i) demonstrate the uncertainty in establishing a definitive link between GW and hurricane strength.
The last study (j) is a comprehensive review of the global forces driving the earth’s climate over geological times going back to two billion years and argues that the present warming of the last 150 years is a short warming episode in the earth’s geologic history. The authors further argue that the earth’s temperature history of last 1000 years suggest that we are in a cooling geologic epoch and further the human activity (anthropogenic GHG emission) may be responsible for only 0.010C of approximately 0.560C warming of the twentieth century.



Konklusjoner

Vi har sett på 69 peer-reviewede papers valgt ut av en langt større gruppe arbeider som kom ut i forskjellige internasjonale vitenskapelige journaler de første 6 årene etter 2000. De fleste reiser stor tvil om forskningen rundt global oppvarming.

Khandekar kunne allerede summere dette slik i 2007 (med mine uthevinger i rødt):

1. The recent warming of the earth’s surface (~0.40C ) is significantly influenced by human activity on ground like urbanization, land-use change etc. The warming due solely to human-added CO2 appears to be a smaller part of the total recent warming.

2. Solar variability and changes in large-scale atmospheric flow patterns in recent years have also contributed to some of the recent warming of the earth’s surface.

3. The Arctic Basin temperature changes of the last 125 years appear to be intimately linked to the Total Soar Irradiance (TSI) while showing a weak correlation with atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

4. The earth’s climate experienced Rapid Climate Change during the  entire Holocene period and in particular during the last 5000 years or so. Ice core and other proxy data document mid-Holocene warming of the Arctic as well as of the Antarctic. This Holocene warming appears to be strongly linked to solar variability and not to the greenhouse gas forcing.

5. There does not appear any discernible link between Global Warming and recent increase in extreme weather events world-wide. The apparent increase in extreme weather events is more a perception than reality, this perception being created due to increased media attention and publicity of extreme weather events.

6. North Atlantic hurricanes appear to have strengthened in recent years; however typhoons and tropical cyclones in other ocean basins do not show consistent increase in strength in recent years.

7. The SLR (Sea Level Rise) of the twentieth century is influenced significantly by inter-decadal variability. The most recent study (published January 2007) shows that the sea-level change in the last fifty years were smaller than those in the early part of the twentieth century. There is no evidence of accelerated sea-level change in recent years.

8. Present state-of-the-art coupled climate models still cannot simulate many important features of major climate events like ENSO and tropical and/or Asian Monsoon at this time. The climate models do not simulate many features of convective or large-scale precipitation characteristics.

9. The Thermohaline Circulation (THC) in the North Atlantic has exhibited considerable variability in the twentieth century; however this variability appears to be part of natural multi-decadal climate variability and does not appear to be linked to Global Warming.

Og til slutt, den endelige spiker i kista:

10. Future projections of earth’s climate using present climate models do not have sufficient reliability for climate policy decisions.
« Siste redigering: april 09, 2012, 15:18:28 pm av Telehiv »
Vitenskapen kan av og til risikere å bli innhentet av sannheten

Utlogget Jostemikk

  • Administrator
  • Fingrene mine er klistra til klimatastaturet
  • *****
  • Innlegg: 7136
  • Ondskapens grobunn er dårskap og troskyldighet
Sv: Klimakonsensus i villrede: IPCC-kritisk forskningsoversikt 2000-2007
« Svar #1 på: februar 17, 2012, 12:45:22 pm »
Fantastisk, Tele! Og for en samling med vitenskaplige publikasjoner innenfor tidsrammen som helt soleklart holdt alle tidsfrister for å bli seriøst vurdert i AR4! :D
Ja heldigvis flere der ser galskapen; men stadig alt for få.
Dertil kommer desværre de der ikke vil se, hva de ser.

Spiren

Utlogget Telehiv

  • Seniormedlem
  • ****
  • Innlegg: 1785
Sv: Klimakonsensus i villrede: IPCC-kritisk forskningsoversikt 2000-2007
« Svar #2 på: februar 17, 2012, 12:48:19 pm »
Takk, Joste!

Du tar poenget: Hvor er den vitenskapelige unnskyldningen for ikke å ha fått dette med i AR4 - hvis man hadde ønsket det?  8)
Vitenskapen kan av og til risikere å bli innhentet av sannheten

Utlogget seoto

  • Administrator
  • Superhelt!
  • *****
  • Innlegg: 3673
  • Sannhet behandles i dag lik porno - i det skjulte.
Sv: Klimakonsensus i villrede: IPCC-kritisk forskningsoversikt 2000-2007
« Svar #3 på: februar 17, 2012, 13:26:13 pm »
Takk for en viktig artikkel, Tele!
Og takk for alt det arbeidet du nedlegger for å få fram sannheten.
Jeg vet ikke hvor mange som leser vår hovedside, men innledningen av artikkelen er i hvert fall lagt ut der med link hit.
Noen ganger er løgnen for stor til at man kan få øye på den.
Og når man ikke kan se at det er en løgn, velger man naturlig å tro på den.

ebye

  • Gjest
Sv: Klimakonsensus i villrede: IPCC-kritisk forskningsoversikt 2000-2007
« Svar #4 på: februar 17, 2012, 13:29:45 pm »
Takk for en glitrende oversikt og oppsummering Tele - over den forsvunne vitenskapen. Leif Juster kunne nok ha laget mye moro og kaos her også, a la "Mot normalt".

Leading author fra 2007: Eystein Jansen har muligens gjort seg noen tanker om "utelatelsene". Ubekreftede meldinger sier at papere ble utelatt hvis de var i strid med gjeldende paradigme. Det kan se ut som et meget effektivt filter.  8)

Og takk til seoto, som holder forsiden varm.

Utlogget Telehiv

  • Seniormedlem
  • ****
  • Innlegg: 1785
Sv: Klimakonsensus i villrede: IPCC-kritisk forskningsoversikt 2000-2007
« Svar #5 på: februar 17, 2012, 13:37:11 pm »
Takk for varmende ord fra både soto og ebye,

- det hjelper godt når nakkemusklene heller skriker etter alt annet enn punching av uglesett forskning  8)

Hvorfor legge ut slikt? Jo, det har hele tiden vært brukt mot IPCC-kritiske røster at de ikke har faglig grunnlag for sin skepsis til "the settled science".
Jeg håper mitt lille bidrag her hjelper på to ting:

1. Imøtegå argumentet om at det ikke finnes seriøs IPCC-kritisk forskning som i langt større grad burde vært hensyntatt i IPCC-rapportene 
2. Bidra til at forumet her får bygd opp en bredest mulig dokumentasjon på hva som faktisk finnes av ulik kritisk forskning, selv om kyniske AGW-maktsentra gjør sitt beste for å dekke over det og uvitende medier ikke ser det

 
Vitenskapen kan av og til risikere å bli innhentet av sannheten

ebye

  • Gjest
Sv: Klimakonsensus i villrede: IPCC-kritisk forskningsoversikt 2000-2007
« Svar #6 på: februar 17, 2012, 16:47:51 pm »
På denne måten får vi et bibliotek for fordypning og formidling.  :) Og når oppbyggingen og oppdragelsen er dynamisk og kommunikativ, da blir dette en "en sareptas krukke" eller et ubemannet "Oraklet i Delphi."

De som er innom Klimarealistene vil se at det er mange likhetstrekk, arkivering av ny viktig forskningsformidling og presentasjon av medlemmenes bidrag til klimadebatten - både det trykte og det refuserte. Men der mangler de den løpende diskusjonen. Derved ser jeg at de to fora utfyller hverandre noe nær optimalt.  ;)

Det er heller ingen tvil om at vi syns. Ved Google-søk kommer ofte treff på Klimaforskning høyt oppe. Trikset her er som tidligere skrevet: bruke artikkelens tittel som trådnavn, referere aktuell tittel i innlegget, eller inkludere viktige nøkkelord. Personnavn er som et fluepapir.  8)

Utlogget Telehiv

  • Seniormedlem
  • ****
  • Innlegg: 1785
Sv: Klimakonsensus i villrede: IPCC-kritisk forskningsoversikt 2000-2007
« Svar #7 på: februar 17, 2012, 23:48:34 pm »
ebye,
skulle ønsket at Klimarealistene var litt mer dagsaktuelle, litt mer en del av den daglige debatten. Det er ikke så veldig aktuelt å gå inn der daglig når det så sjelden kommer nytt stoff. Selv om de har mange gode folk i sin "pionerstab".
All ære til "vår" redaksjon her på klimaforskning.com, som virkelig ofrer (fri)tid og krefter på å holde forumet levende. Så får det være opp til oss andre å prøve å holde såpass nivå på våre innlegg at vi respekteres over tid - selv av dem som ikke er enige med oss.
Vitenskapen kan av og til risikere å bli innhentet av sannheten

Utlogget seoto

  • Administrator
  • Superhelt!
  • *****
  • Innlegg: 3673
  • Sannhet behandles i dag lik porno - i det skjulte.
Sv: Klimakonsensus i villrede: IPCC-kritisk forskningsoversikt 2000-2007
« Svar #8 på: februar 18, 2012, 00:05:59 am »
Takk for dine hyggelig ord, Tele :)
Men det er vel egentlig vi som skal takke deg for alt det arbeidet og all den tiden du legger ned på dine gode, opplysende og tankevekkende artikler.
Noen ganger er løgnen for stor til at man kan få øye på den.
Og når man ikke kan se at det er en løgn, velger man naturlig å tro på den.

Utlogget Amatør1

  • Administrator
  • Superhelt!
  • *****
  • Innlegg: 3848
  • If you've seen one tree, you've seen Yamal
Sv: Klimakonsensus i villrede: IPCC-kritisk forskningsoversikt 2000-2007
« Svar #9 på: februar 18, 2012, 01:07:13 am »
Veldig hyggelig, Tele! Som seoto vil jeg peke på at dine artikler er alltid grundige og tankevekkende, og etter min mening et essensielt bidrag til forumet. Takk skal du ha!

Du peker på et viktig poeng: I klimadebatten går det virkelig fort for seg noen ganger. Det er viktig å være aktuell, så vi trenger absolutt alle synspunkter og vinklinger.
It is easier to lie to someone than to convince them, that they have been lied to

Utlogget jarlgeir

  • Seniormedlem
  • ****
  • Innlegg: 549
Sv: Klimakonsensus i villrede: IPCC-kritisk forskningsoversikt 2000-2007
« Svar #10 på: februar 18, 2012, 16:22:10 pm »
Takk til Telehiv for "robust" arbeid.

Når det gjelder hvorfor alt dette er holdt utenfor IPCCs rapporter, så kan det være nyttig å se på de mange vitenskapsmennene som har deltatt i IPCCs arbeid, men hvor deres vitenskapelige standpunkt ikke har "passet" for IPCC. Det virker som om sekretriatet og/eller ledelsen i IPCC starter med en konklusjon, de enkelte forfatterne får så beskjed om at deres rapporter må stemme med konklusjonen.

Relativt ofte lider disse vitenskapsmennene med avvikende standpunkter under den illusjonen om det IPCC er en vitenskapelig organisasjon som skal fortelle oss sannheten om klimaet. I slike tilfeller har IPCC et rikt utvalg av torturmetoder: man sørger for å skrive om konklusjonen slik at papirarbeidet stemmer, og avvikerne blir frekt og freidig tatt til inntekt for den omskrevne konklusjonen. De som ikke aksepterer slikt kan enkelt og greit fjernet fra IPCC via byråkratiske triks.

Eksempel: Global Oppvarming og Malaria - Paul Reiters erfaringer med IPCC
Her endte det opp med at Dr Reiter - verdens ledende malariaforsker - ble skviset ut av IPCC, som istedet tryllet frem en samarbeidsvillig "forsker" med spesiale innen "the effectiveness of motor cycle crash helmets". Kvaliteten på arbeidet var det så som så med, men hvor mange politikere leser slike detaljer? Ingen, selvsagt. Det er så mye enklere å stole på sine rådgivere, som av en eller annen grunn har bakgrunn som grønn lobbyist.

Dr Reiter konkluderer:
"In my opinion, the IPCC has done a disservice to society by relying on "experts" who have little or no knowledge of the subject, and allowing them to make authoritative pronouncements that are not based on sound science."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/5592863/the-inconvenient-truth-about-malaria.thtml
http://climateaudit.org/2005/08/30/mosquitos-malaria-and-the-ipcc-consensus/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/opinion/11iht-edreiter.4171294.html

Paul Reiter: "Pseudoscience will damage your health and your wealth just as surely as malaria."

Hvor vanlig er det at vitenskapsmenn trakasseres og hives ut av IPCC-prosessen fordi ikke vil "samarbeide"?
Neppe noen som vet dette,men her er en liste med 6 vitenskapsmenn (inklusive vår egen Segalstad) som er behandlet på lignende måte som Dr Reiter:
http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ar4resign

Hva er så konklusjonen når det gjelder Kimapanelets vitenskapelige redelighet? Vanskelig å uttale seg om alt selvsagt, men det er liten tvil om at store deler av IPCC opererer som eldre tiders omreisende sjarlataner: Medisinen som foreskrives er en dose slangeolje som selvsagt kurerer alt, litt astrologi og en solid dose dommedagsprofetier med evig pine og helvetesild.


PS: Det er en faktafeil i linken til Climate Audit, Dr Reiter tar feil når han hevder at vikingenes bosetninger på Island ble utslettet i løpet av den lille istid.
It's the sun, stupid!

Utlogget Bebben

  • Superhelt!
  • *****
  • Innlegg: 2229
  • Spørsmål foran og spørsmål bak: Nullius in verba
Sv: Klimakonsensus i villrede: IPCC-kritisk forskningsoversikt 2000-2007
« Svar #11 på: februar 18, 2012, 22:46:01 pm »
Bra jobbet, Tele.

For å flisespikke litt er det ikke slik at alle disse er holdt utenfor IPCC på den måten at de ikke er nevnt. For McIntyre og McKitrick sin kritikk av hockeykøllen kom The Team som kjent opp med dobbelt-studien Wahl og Amman og Amman og Wahl, som var designet for å "bekrefte" hockeykøllen. Et sentralt punkt i Climategate er jo også e-postutvekslingen mellom Briffa og Wahl, som tillot sistnevnte å smugle inn en setning i AR4 til fordel for sin egen studie til tross for at han verken var bidragsyter eller reviewer.

Historien om Amman og Wahl og omvendt og Klimapanelets merkelige krumspring for å få dem med i AR4 er jo ellers grundig beskrevet i Bishop Hills "Caspar and the Jesus Paper".

Wahl og Amman ventet også leeeenge med å publisere sin SI (supplemental information) til sine artikler - men når den endelig kom, viste det seg at de hadde en statistisk signifikanstest for pre-1400 på r2=0,18 (mot McIntyre og McKitricks 0,20, hvis jeg ikke husker feil). Hvilket bekreftet Wegmans sarkastiske utsagn om WA/AW: "If anything, they replicated McIntyre and McKitrick".

Videre er McKitrick og Michaels studie der de finner statistisk signifikant sammenheng mellom sosioøkonomisk utvikling og temperatur - les: urbane varmeøyer - også nevnt i AR4, men "avvist" på bakgrunn av fullstendig fabrikerte - altså ikke-eksisterende - argumenter! Og det etter at de ikke engang var nevnt i andre utkast, slik at eventuelle fagfeller kunne ha reagert på hva som ble sagt. (Jeg skrev et grundig innlegg om dette på AD i sin tid, vet ikke om jeg har en kopi her et sted.) De to nederlenderne De Laat & A N Maurellis kom for øvrig - helt uavhengig - fram til samme resultat som McKitrick og Michaels. I farten husker jeg ikke om de er nevnt i AR4.

McKitrick og Michaels er omtalt i Climategate 1.0: "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what peer reviewed litterature is!"

Nå har jeg (vi) nok bare skrapt litt i overflaten av IPCCs "uhildede" (ho-ho) gjennomgang av den vitenskapelige litteraturen, men jeg må si at det jeg har oppdaget i løpet av de siste to-tre årene nok er "verre enn jeg trodde".

Klimapanelet er et propagandaorgan for et bestemt syn, eller tro om man vil. Alle solemerker peker i retning av at det er styrt av et relativt fåtallig oligarki med klimakeiser Kevin Trenberth i en sentral posisjon. Og nei, dette er ingen konspirasjonsteori i den forstand, og selv om jeg har lite kunnskaper om organisasjoner og deres interne maktforhold og psykologi osv., tviler jeg på at jeg bommer totalt og fullstendig..

Så lenge Klimapanelet eksisterer og er organisert slik det er, kan ingen objektiv klimadebatt og ingen sunn klimapolitikk finne sted. Derfor må Kartago Klimapanelet ødelegges.
Baby, it’s getting hot outside! Send for Greenpeace!

Utlogget Telehiv

  • Seniormedlem
  • ****
  • Innlegg: 1785
Sv: Klimakonsensus i villrede: IPCC-kritisk forskningsoversikt 2000-2007
« Svar #12 på: februar 19, 2012, 00:36:44 am »
Bebben,
takk for suveren drøfting av diverse aktørers roller i panelfanteriet. Viktig å få en del av dette spillet rekapitulert slik at vi ikke glemmer at vi har med rene kjeltringer å gjøre. Ideologisk forblindet eller ikke så er det de driver med selvsagt vitenskapelig helt uakseptabelt.
 
Ja, noen av de faglig tunge og IPCC-kritiske arbeidene jeg viser til for perioden 2000-2007 (inkludert Mcintyre & McKitrick sin kritikk av hockeykøllen) ble registrert av IPCC, men de ble også behendig holdt utenfor argumentasjonen.

Så i etisk forstand er det nesten verre at de ble registrert og så holdt utenfor, enn om IPCC rett og slett ikke hadde registrert at det var viktig faglig kritikk ute og gikk. Det var nettopp det IPCC registrerte - og deretter gjorde sine grep.
Vitenskapen kan av og til risikere å bli innhentet av sannheten

Utlogget Bebben

  • Superhelt!
  • *****
  • Innlegg: 2229
  • Spørsmål foran og spørsmål bak: Nullius in verba
Sv: Klimakonsensus i villrede: IPCC-kritisk forskningsoversikt 2000-2007
« Svar #13 på: februar 19, 2012, 01:14:02 am »
Goodie Tele, som du ser her har jeg et synspunkt som jeg ikke har tenkt så mye over og ikke kan huske å ha sett noen gode analyser av: nemlig organisasjonsteori anvendt på Klimapanelet. Noen som vet om noe slikt er gjort? I enda større organisasjoner, som hele samfunn, er det som kjent noe som heter "oligarkiets jernlov"....

Mitt poeng er at Klimapanelet i utgangspunktet er en svak organisasjon.
At den er svak vil for eksempel si at den har uformelle, altså udokumenterte, prosedyrer for valg av forfattere. Det har også vist seg at de har dårlige eller ikke-eksisterende prosedyrer for å forholde seg til påpekte feil, jamfør hockeykøller og Himalaya, Amazonas og en rekke andre ting.

Når det er sagt, er det ikke sikkert at så mye ville ha vært annerledes med en bedre organisasjon. Et av hovedproblemene er at de snur opp-ned på nettopp det prinsippet de setter i høysetet: fagfellevurdering? I vanlig fagfellevurdering har fagfellene svært mye å si, og kritikk fra dem kan hindre publisering. Men i Klimapanelets bakvendtland har fagfellene ingenting de skulle ha sagt, og kritikk kan rett og slett ignoreres eller imøtegås med intetsigende argumenter.

Det siste er at "expert reviewers" ikke skal ha tilgang til å lese hverandres innvendinger før etter at rapporten er publisert. Noe som er en parodi...

Hvor lenge klarer klimaindustrien å holde denne plimsolleren flytende tro.....


Baby, it’s getting hot outside! Send for Greenpeace!

Utlogget jarlgeir

  • Seniormedlem
  • ****
  • Innlegg: 549
Sv: Klimakonsensus i villrede: IPCC-kritisk forskningsoversikt 2000-2007
« Svar #14 på: februar 19, 2012, 01:33:51 am »
Bebben,

Svaret på ditt spørsmål i siste linje er:

Til havisen fryser til i helvete!

På et litt mer seriøst plan:
Hele FN-systemet er grunnleggende korrupt, og selv ikke innføring av habilitetsregler vil hjelpe synlig, siden det er folk som Pachauri og Trenbert som bestemmer hvordan de skal tolkes og når de skal misbrukes.
IPCC kan ikke reddes, Norge må trekke seg og man må starte på nytt uten FN. Dette har man tid tilsiden oppvarmingen har stanset.
It's the sun, stupid!