Klimaforskning - hjemmeside
Startet av Amatør1, september 27, 2013, 20:50:32 PM
Sitat fra: Telehiv på september 28, 2013, 10:35:12 AMOg dermed altså denne konklusjonen, som nevnt innledningsvis:When the cell door slams on the first bad scientist, the rest will scuttle for cover. Only then will the climate scare – mankind's strangest and costliest intellectual aberration – be truly over.
Sitat fra: Jostemikk på september 28, 2013, 13:16:23 PMNull konsensus, slik det skal være. Dette betyr langt mer enn det som har med temperaturpåvirkning å gjøre. Det betyr i klartekst at de er like usikre på absolutt alt som har med utvikling i været å gjøre, og således også fremtidig klima. Deres likely og more than likely har null verdi.
SitatClimate change: a belief system at workOf the English national newspapers, only two appear to have thought yesterday's IPCC media event important enough to have put it on their front pages: the low circulation Independent and the loss-making Guardian. That, perhaps more than anything else, tells you how far the issue has slid down the table of priorities.Another reflection of how times have changed is that, of the two papers carrying front page stories, the Guardian does not offer news but instead prints an opinion piece from George Monbiot. He is thus allowed to lament that, "a thousand blogs and columns insist the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's new report is a rabid concoction of scare stories whose purpose is to destroy the global economy".And in that single sentence, without going any further, Monbiot vividly demonstrates the nature of the beast we are dealing with. This is not science, but a belief system, and a politically motivated one at that.The point is – and no amount of wriggling will change it – is that we have not yet seen the IPCC report. All we have is a summary for policymakers covering Working Group I (of three).Perhaps this needs repeating: there is no IPCC report. We have only a summary of one of three parts – 36 pages of unsupported assertions made up from "a series of overarching highlighted conclusions" taken from the Working Group I report.[...]Sadly, though, too many of the commentators fall into the trap of taking the summary at its own valuation. A disciplined response to the IPPC's attempt at media manipulation would be to treat it with disdain, and to wait until the actual report is produced.We can, nevertheless point out that an organisation which feels the need to indulge in media manipulation should be treated with caution. That cannot be repeated often enough.After all, if you or I told the media we had a detailed report, with earth-shaking findings, they would expect the evidence. If we simply gave them the findings on the Friday and promised the evidence the following Monday, how do you think the media would treat us? And why should the IPCC be treated any differently?
Sitat fra: hetda på september 28, 2013, 17:10:54 PMEr der noen som har sett noen glede blant dem som er bekymret for den globale oppvarmingen nå når temperaturkurven ikke viser stigning?Var det ikke målingen av temperaturer som fikk forskere til å rope varsko??
Sitat fra: torewiik på september 28, 2013, 18:12:27 PMEt morsomt begrep som har dukket i AR5 er "ekstremt sannsynlig" nærmere definert som 95%. Dette er vel en nyvinning innenfor fagområdet statistikk. Det betyr vel også at en sannsynlighet på under 5% er "ekstremt usannsynlig". Dersom det er 4% sannsynlig at vingen skal falle av en Dreamliner på vei over til USA, hadde jeg ikke tatt sjansen på å reise, men hvis Boeing hadde uttrykt det samme som ekstremt usannsynlig hadde jeg blitt med. Begrepet passer bra for journalister, de liker ikke tall.
Sitat fra: translator på september 28, 2013, 18:44:02 PMDet er vel omtrent like vitenskapelig fundert som når Statens Vegvesen skilter våre veier med "Elgfare", "Stor elgfare", "Svært stor elgfare" og "Ekstremt stor elgfare". Det gjelder å ta vare på nyansene
Sitat fra: Amatør1 på september 28, 2013, 19:04:05 PMSitat fra: hetda på september 28, 2013, 17:10:54 PMEr der noen som har sett noen glede blant dem som er bekymret for den globale oppvarmingen nå når temperaturkurven ikke viser stigning?Var det ikke målingen av temperaturer som fikk forskere til å rope varsko??Du vet, "klimakrisens" rolle er å være stråmann for de autoritæres politiske ambisjoner. Dermed er det dårlige nyheter når stråmannen blir avslørt som stråmann. Derfor ser du ingen glede.
Sitat"Keith Farnish has it right: time has practically run out, and the 'system' is the problem. Governments are under the thumb of fossil fuel special interests - they will not look after our and the planet's well-being until we force them to do so, and that is going to require enormous effort. --Professor James Hansen, Columbia University
Sitat"The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization," writes Farnish, adding that "people will die in huge numbers when civilization collapses".
SitatClimate Etc. 95% (?)Yesterday, a reporter asked me how the IPCC came up with the 95% number. Here is the exchange that I had with him:Reporter: I'm hoping you can answer a question about the upcoming IPCC report. When the report states that scientists are "95 percent certain" that human activities are largely to cause for global warming, what does that mean? How is 95 percent calculated? What is the basis for it? And if the certainty rate has risen from 90 n 2007 to 95 percent now, does that mean that the likelihood of something is greater? Or that scientists are just more certain? And is there a difference?JC: The 95% is basically expert judgment, it is a negotiated figure among the authors. The increase from 90-95% means that they are more certain. How they can justify this is beyond me.Reporter: You mean they sit around and say, "How certain are you?" "Oh, I feel about 95 percent certain. Michael over there at Penn State feels a little more certain. And Judy at Georgia Tech feels a little less. So, yeah, overall I'd say we're about 95 percent certain." Please tell me it's more rigorous than that.JC: Well I wasn't in the room, but last report they said 90%, and perhaps they felt it was appropriate or politic that they show progress and up it to 95%.Reporter: So it really is as subjective as that?JC: As far as I know, this is what goes on. All this has never been documented.JC conclusion: Well, I have no idea what goes on in the sausage factory. 95% – take it with a grain of salt (or a stiff whiskey). That's their story, and they're sticking to it. Uncertain T. Monster is not happy.
SitatSep 28, 2013 at 10:18 AM nigel bryan cookThe IPCC report uses the old propaganda trick of passing off percentage probabilities that represent consensus as being science. "95% certain" is meaningless for objective science. If 95% of scientists believe a theory that has been falsified by the last 15 years of data, that doesn't prove they are 95% right, it just proves 95% corruption.