Dagens klima link

[seoto]

Det er tryggest å leke rundt i den samme sandkassa, for der er man kjent. Å reise seg og "gå ut i verden" for å lete etter sannheten er skremmende, og drepende for den sannheten man trodde på og klamret seg til, spesielt når man begynner å ane konturene av den virkelige sannheten. Alt man har trodd på blir snudd på hodet, og man forstår at naivitet hos folket er essensielt for de som har de mest ambisiøse globale mål. Klimasaken var et av transportmidlene til målet - og det lyktes! Hvem ble vel ikke skremt av bildene av en brennende klode?

Heldigvis ble flere og flere klar over løgnene, men det sitter langt dypere å gå til kilden for løgnene. Det er lettere å kritisere korrupte forskere (der det kan synes som om de fleste tilhører en felles gruppe) enn å gå til toppen. Alt skjer av en grunn. Med de kortsiktige målsetninger vi generelt ser i dag, er det vanskelig å forestille seg at noen kan tilegne sitt liv til å jobbe for et mål som kanskje ikke kan oppnås før lenge etter at en selv er død. Mye av det vi ser i dag startet opp i 1897 i Basel, og de første planleggerne er for lengst døde. Men deres arvtakere fortsetter jobben med å virkeliggjøre målet. Er det hat eller kjærlighet som står bak? Det er langt større muligheter for at det er det første enn det andre. Hvem er disse menneskene som ønsker så sterkt å redusere verdens befolkning? Vi må jo anta at Jørgen Randers er en av dem. Og er han ikke en av dem, har han i hvert fall vært en usedvanlig god tjener.

Vi er så hjernevasket til å tro hva vi blir fortalt, at jeg til og med har sett helt vanlige mennesker uttale at vi er altfor mange mennesker på Jorden! Da antar jeg at de vil stille opp som de første i dødskøen? Kanskje de heller burde stille spørsmålet: "Hvem er det for mange av?"

[Jostemikk]

Vi er så hjernevasket til å tro hva vi blir fortalt, at jeg til og med har sett helt vanlige mennesker uttale at vi er altfor mange mennesker på Jorden! Da antar jeg at de vil stille opp som de første i dødskøen? Kanskje de heller burde stille spørsmålet: "Hvem er det for mange av?"

Det er i hvertfall ikke spesielt mange av oss nordmenn. Jeg sitter ved siden av ei på 18 år nå, og jeg spurte henne om dette med overbefolkning var noe hun ble foret med skremsler om titt og ofte på skolen, samt hvordan hun føler problemstillingen er tatt opp av mediene. Joda, vi er så fryktelig mange at vi ødelegger planeten.

Som jeg innledet med, så kan ikke dette skyldes oss nordmenn. Her er en liten innsjø som ligger i Tomter, Østfold, samt Ytre Enebakk, Akershus. Denne innsjøen kjenner jeg som min egen bukselomme. Den er ca 1,7 km2. Vi tre som er i rommet her nå reiste oss opp, tegnet en kvadratmeter på gulvet, og fant ut at vi hadde god plass når vi sto oppreist. Vi er 5 millioner mennesker i Norge, og dermed kan vi plassere hele befolkningen på Mjær, som innsjøen heter. Fortrinnsvis etter at isen har lagt seg...

[attachimg=1]

Her har jeg tatt med mer av landet vårt:

[attachimg=2]

Her har jeg tatt med enda mer, og legg merke til at de gule markeringspunktene ikke forminskes i forhold til reelle størrelsesforhold på kartet. Mjær er liten i forhold til de gule punktene. Vi er så få vi nordmenn at det er helt fælt. Dessverre er Jørgen Randers en av de som er med i regnskapet.

[attachimg=4]

Og verdensbefolkningen? Kan vi ikke bare be dem til Østfold?

[attachimg=3]

[Gloføken]

Vi tre som er i rommet her nå reiste oss opp, tegnet en kvadratmeter på gulvet, og fant ut at vi hadde god plass når vi sto oppreist. Vi er 5 millioner mennesker i Norge, og dermed kan vi plassere hele befolkningen på Mjær, som innsjøen heter. Fortrinnsvis etter at isen har lagt seg...

Drikker dere alkohol?

[Spiren]

More people live inside this circle than outside of it



I find that fascinating.

That circle is also mostly water.

[Spiren]

A Preview of "Climate Models Fail"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxFStRC913I#t=28

[Jostemikk]

Judith Curry tar for seg naturlige påvirkere av havnivåforandringene, og har forsåvidt en grei gjennomgang av ny forskning, selv om det finnes en del å se nærmere på. Kaka kommer til slutt som den desserten den er, og jeg sliter når. Curry siterer fra Wikipedia:

The significance of the Fasullo et al. paper is that there is high-amplitude interannual variability in sea level rise, particularly since 2010 that is not adequately understood.  I spotted this also on the Wikipedia page re the 1998 El Nino:

The strong 1997–1998 El Niño caused regional and global sea-level variations, including a temporary global increase of perhaps 20 mm.

Her er det altså igjen. Havet slipper enorme mengder energi (varme) til troposfæren, og dette får havnivået til å eksplodere globalt? Nok en perpetuum mobile-effekt funnet av en klimaforsker. Jo mer varme havet slipper, jo mer utvider det seg grunnet økt varme...

[Jostemikk]

Vi tre som er i rommet her nå reiste oss opp, tegnet en kvadratmeter på gulvet, og fant ut at vi hadde god plass når vi sto oppreist. Vi er 5 millioner mennesker i Norge, og dermed kan vi plassere hele befolkningen på Mjær, som innsjøen heter. Fortrinnsvis etter at isen har lagt seg...

Drikker dere alkohol?

Neida, men takk for tipset...

[Spiren]

Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change
A forthcoming report points lowers estimates on global warming

Later this month, a long-awaited event that last happened in 2007 will recur. Like a returning comet, it will be taken to portend ominous happenings. I refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) "fifth assessment report," part of which will be published on Sept. 27

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html

[Spiren]

Andrew Montford: 'Consensus' On Climate Change Just PR Campaign

In recent months it has been stated repeatedly that 97 per cent of scientists agree global warming is real and man-made. These claims are based on a paper published by a team led by John Cook in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

Early last year, a security lapse at the Skeptical Science website led to an internal forum for its staff being exposed to public view, and among the contents were several discussions about what became the paper by Cook et al. In one such exchange, Cook explained the paper's purpose was to establish the existence of a consensus

http://www.thegwpf.org/andrew-montford-consensus-climate-change-pr-campaign/

[seoto]

Mail Online, 15.09.13:

Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong

• Leaked report reveals the world is warming at half the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007
  
• Scientists accept their computers 'may have exaggerated'

[...]

• They recognise the global warming 'pause' first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.
• They admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.
• The IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.
• A forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped, without mention.

[Jostemikk]

Mail Online, 15.09.13:

Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong

• Leaked report reveals the world is warming at half the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007
  
• Scientists accept their computers 'may have exaggerated'

[...]

• They recognise the global warming 'pause' first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.
• They admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.
• The IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.
• A forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped, without mention.

At en avis begynner å referere fra virkeligheten er ikke noe å takke for i en normal verden. Siden ikke noe er i nærheten av å være normalt, gir jeg dem en takk allikevel.

Tyske aviser har også begynt med slikt kritisk stoff, mens forholdene i Norge og Sverige er verre enn noen sinne. Det sitter en i sofaen her  nå som for få minutter siden kom med følgende utblåsning, referert under tvil da jeg selv er av den sarte, forsiktige typen, men det er jo viktig å slippe til tydelig oppriktige meninger fra allmuen.

Jeg vil foreslå ei kronerulling til en minnestein med byste av Gro Harlem Brundtland, der navnene på alle i Nobelkomiteen som ga 2007-prisen til IPCC og Al Gore, ledelsen i Forskningsrådet, redaksjonen i Forskning.NO!, redaktører og eiere av vårt MSM, samt alle i ledelsen i alle politiske partier med stortingsmandater nå i 2013, skal stå godt synlig, og i høvelig høyde for alle som føler for å kaste egg, tomater, å spytte, eller gjøre andre ting for å vise sin avsky. Steinen skal være lyst opp hele året av en evigbrennende bensinfakkel, som i tillegg til å lyse opp, skal varme en dampkjele til el-produksjon for drift av et like evigvarende stereoanlegg som spiller nidviser om svindlerne. Jeg foreslår Ellen Hambrosbank som vaktmester og renholdsperson på livstidskontrakt til laveste sosialsats, og Rasmus Benestad, Eystein Jansen, Helge Drange, Rasmus Hansson og Pål Prestrud som levende avfallsbøtter. De trenger dermed ikke lønn, da jeg føler meg rimelig sikker på at de vil få nok matrester og væske fra nidstenen hver kveld når Hambrosbank vasker etter dagens publikumsframmøte. Nordli og Hygen kan stå ansvarlige for, og samtidig leve av, å ta seg av stedets vann- og kloakk.

Selv ville jeg nøyd meg med at de nevnte fikk lovens strengeste straff, men som skrevet over sitatet, jeg er av den moderate typen.

[Jostemikk]

Mail Online, 15.09.13:

Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong

• Leaked report reveals the world is warming at half the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007
  
• Scientists accept their computers 'may have exaggerated'

[...]

• They recognise the global warming 'pause' first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.
• They admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.
• The IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.
• A forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped, without mention.

Jeg begynner i gal ende, og siterer Currys sluttreplikk, og deretter siterer jeg hele hennes utdrag av Roses skarpe kritikk av IPCC, samt hennes egne kommentarer.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/15/leaked-ipcc-report-discussed-in-the-msm/#more-12988

Currys konklusjon:

Personally, I think these leaks are a good thing.  An even better thing would be to make all formal drafts publicly available so that they can be discussed.  Pressure from the MSM has resulted in the pause being mentioned in this draft (but not the previous ones).  The best thing, IMO, would be to abandon the entire IPCC process, and have the AR5 be the final report.

Hele saken kopiert:

Leaked IPCC report discussed in the MSM
Posted on September 15, 2013
by Judith Curry

I'm not sure what the IPCC expected when they leaked their report to 'friendly' journalists, but I suspect that it was not this article by David Rose,

People have been asking me to comment on the leaked IPCC Final Draft Summary for Policy Makers. Apparently someone in the IPCC  made the Report available to 'friendly' journalists, as part of a strategy to brief them before the formal release of the Report.  I have declined to comment until very recently, since  I thought it was best to let the IPCC process play out.  Now it is clear that the leaked report has made it into the hands of journalists that were not on the IPCC's 'friends' list.  I have now seen a copy of the  SPM, and I provided comments to David Rose (and also to another journalist, not sure when that will air).

David Rose quotes me in his article (accurately).  I provide below the complete text of the email response I sent to David Rose:

—–

What interests me the most about the AR5 report is how the IPCC is changing its positions and statements relative to the previous AR4 report.  It is particularly interesting to see how the different drafts of the AR5 Summary for Policy Makers are changing.  I am very grateful that these drafts have been leaked, as these drafts provide important insights into the reasoning behind the IPCC conclusions and confidence levels.  The IPCC should of course change its conclusions and confidence levels in response to new scientific evidence and analyses.  Because of the rapid pace of publication of papers over the past year that challenge aspects of the AR4 conclusions, the slow ponderous assessment process of IPCC has been apparently having difficulty in responding to and assessing all this, as evidenced by the substantial changes in the drafts.

My main point is this.  If there are substantial changes in a conclusion in the AR5 relative to a confident conclusion in the AR4, then the confidence level should not increase and should probably drop, since the science clearly is not settled and is in a state of flux.  While there has been a reduction in either the magnitude of the change or in a confidence level in some of the supporting findings, these changes do not seem to have influenced the main conclusion on climate change attribution:

It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the increase in global average surface temperature from 1951-2010.

The 'extremely likely' represents an increase in confidence from the 'very likely' of the AR4.  An increase in confidence in the attribution statement, in view of the recent pause and the lower confidence level in some of the supporting findings, is incomprehensible to me.  Further, the projections of 21st century changes remain overconfident.  These inconsistencies seems to me to reflect a failure in meta-reasoning by the IPCC.  I hope that these inconsistencies are pointed out at the forthcoming meeting in Stockholm.

I have previously argued that the consensus seeking process used by the IPCC acts to create and amplify biases in the science.  I have recommended that the consensus seeking process be abandoned in favor of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against, discusses the uncertainties, and speculates on the known and unknown unknowns.  I think that such a process would better support scientific progress and be more useful for policy makers.

———-

Here is the main relevant text on the SPM from Rose's article:

What they say: 'The rate of warming since 1951 [has been] 0.12C per decade.'

What this means: In their last hugely influential report in 2007, the IPCC claimed the world was warming at 0.2C per decade. Here they admit there has been a massive cut in the speed of global warming – although it's buried in a section on the recent warming 'pause'. The true figure, it now turns out, is not only just over half what they thought – it's below their lowest previous estimate.

What they say: 'Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly  (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.'

What this means: As recently as October 2012, in an earlier draft of this report, the IPCC was adamant that the world is warmer than at any time for at least 1,300 years. Their new inclusion  of the 'Medieval Warm Period' – long before the Industrial Revolution and  its associated fossil fuel burning – is a concession that its earlier statement  is highly questionable.

What they say: 'Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 – 15 years.'

What this means: The 'models' are computer forecasts, which the IPCC admits failed to 'see... a reduction in the warming trend'. In fact, there has been no statistically significant warming at all for almost 17 years – as first reported by this newspaper last October, when the Met Office tried to deny this 'pause' existed.In its 2012 draft, the IPCC didn't mention it either. Now it not only accepts it is  real, it admits that its climate models  totally failed to predict it.

What they say: 'There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable climate variability, with possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing.'

What this means: The IPCC knows the pause is  real, but has no idea what is causing it. It could be natural climate variability, the sun, volcanoes – and crucially, that the computers have been allowed to give too much weight to the effect carbon dioxide emissions (greenhouse gases) have on temperature change.

What they say: 'Climate models now include more cloud and aerosol processes, but there remains low confidence in the representation and quantification of these processes in models.'

What this means: Its models don't accurately forecast the impact of fundamental aspects of the atmosphere – clouds, smoke and dust.

What they say: 'Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, in contrast  to the small increasing trend in observations... There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.'

What this means: The models said Antarctic ice would decrease. It's actually increased, and the IPCC doesn't know why.

What they say: 'ECS is likely in the range 1.5C to 4.5C... The lower limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2C in the [2007 report], reflecting the evidence from new studies.'

What this means: ECS – 'equilibrium climate sensitivity' – is an estimate of how much the world will warm every time carbon dioxide levels double. A high value means we're heading for disaster. Many recent studies say that previous IPCC claims, derived from the computer models, have been way too high. It looks as if they're starting to take notice, and so are scaling down their estimate for the first time.

Twitter warfare is breaking out, the main issue of contention is Rose's statement:

What this means: In their last hugely influential report in 2007, the IPCC claimed the world was warming at 0.2C per decade. Here they admit there has been a massive cut in the speed of global warming – although it's buried in a section on the recent warming 'pause'. The true figure, it now turns out, is not only just over half what they thought – it's below their lowest previous estimate.

There is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison issue here, relative to the period for which there has been or is projected to have a 0.2C per decade increase.

Another article on this topic is a post today by Bjorn Lomborg Global Warming Without Fear.

Personally, I think these leaks are a good thing.  An even better thing would be to make all formal drafts publicly available so that they can be discussed.  Pressure from the MSM has resulted in the pause being mentioned in this draft (but not the previous ones). The best thing, IMO, would be to abandon the entire IPCC process, and have the AR5 be the final report.

Judith Curry og David Rose setter begge fokus på den hengemyra konsensusmenneskene bak IPCC-prosessen frivillig har begitt seg ut på, og Currys konklusjon er at det ikke lenger finnes noen vei tilbake. FN og deres klimapanel IPCC har ikke lenger noen vitenskapelig legitimitet. Ingen nytte. I mange år har de nektet å lytte til kritikk, og deres higen etter å kjempe med alle våpen for The Cause endte opp med å bli våpenet som felte dem selv, ikke det som skulle stilne rettmessig kritikk av den politisk infiserte prosessen.

Min konklusjon er at det vi nå ser kun er ei lita gruppe politiske aktivister som gjør et siste desperat forsøk på å ilegge oss mennesker skylden for et ikkeeksisterende problem, og deres tåpelige måte å gjøre dette på er å øke den prosentvise sikkerheten for at vi har skylden for en akselererende oppvarming som stoppet for snart 18 år siden. I realiteten døde hele IPCC-prosessen da deres fjerde hovedrapport ble presentert i 2007, og minneordet var på mange måter Climategateskandalen som ble presentert for verden med skrekk og gru i 2009.

[attachimg=1]

[Jostemikk]

Bjørn Lomborg er en av de jeg mest ugjerne kommenterer, men hvis han har kontroll over de økonomiske tallene til EU, setter han her et nærmest enestående fokus på en galskap som vi enten må klare stoppe, hvis ikke møter vi alle undergangen.

The European Union will pay $250 billion for its current climate policies each and every year for 87 years. For almost $20 trillion, temperatures by the end of the century will be reduced by a negligible 0.05ºC.

Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/realism-in-the-latest-ipcc-climate-report-by-bj-rn-lomborg#0qvAw5DY72foFoVr.99

Så mye penger finnes ikke, og det er bare EUs galskap dette dreier seg om. Det vi må fokusere på er hvorfor EU ønsker å stjele så mye penger fra innbyggerne i Europa. Vi må lete etter hvem disse menneskene er. Vi må navnsette dem. Vi må avsløre dem. Første trinn på veien er å svare på hvorfor det florerer av tidligere mørkerøde kommunister og talsmenn for fullstendig totalitære ideologier i EU-ledelsen. Hvilke krefter sto bak dannelsen av EU utfra ønsket om full kontroll på all økonomi, all handel, og et klart uttrykt, ikke skjult, ønske om å danne en verdensregjering? Er det de samme kreftene som har finansiert WWF, Club of Rome, Jørgen Randers harselering over enkeltindivids rettigheter og verdi, og vært veiledere for Gro Harlem Brundtlands iver etter å fremme IPCC som sannhetsforvalter, hennes grunnlovsbrudd for å knytte Norge til EU, samt hennes egen Brundtlandrapport, den demokratiknusende Agenda 21?

Hvem ønsker å få kontroll over en slik eventyrlig sum penger, samtidig som de vil dra nytte av en kollaps av det samfunnet vi kjenner i dag?

[Jostemikk]

Det må være et politisk tegn i tiden etter valget i Australia kort tid tilbake at The Australian nå hiver seg på for å hjelpe til med skippertaket for å få foretatt en så uverdig nødslakt av IPCC som overhodet mulig.

We got it wrong on warming, says IPCC

THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007.

More importantly, according to reports in British and US media, the draft report appears to suggest global temperatures were less sensitive to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide than was previously thought. - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/we-got-it-wrong-on-warming-says-ipcc/story-e6frg8y6-1226719672318#sthash.YuFG7crZ.dpuf

Tyske aviser har utrolig nok ledet an, sannsynligvis grunnet kollapsen i el-produksjon i Tyskland, samt prisen på den kraften som finnes. Britiske aviser har fulgt opp, og nå ser vi sannelig en positiv utvikling også i Australia.

Hvor lenge klarer de politisk totalitære eierne av norsk presse, samt deres spesialutplukkede redaktører og journalister å stå imot presset før også de blir seg sitt ansvar bevisst og hjelper til med vomming og pelsing av IPCC-liket?

The Bonnier family is a wealthy Swedish family of Ashkenazi Jewish origin, active in the publishing business since the late-18th century. The family controls the Swedish company Bonnier AB, with an annual revenue in 2008 of US$ 4.13 billion (2008).

The earliest known member of the patriarchal line of the family was a cloth salesman Jacob Schye (born 1674) from the town of Soborten in Bohemia. His son, the jeweller Löbel Schie (1718–1790), fathered the jeweller and coin dealer Löbel Salomon Hirschel (born 1745). Hirschel's son, Gutkind Hirschel (1778–1862) moved from Germany to Copenhagen, Denmark in 1801 and changed his name to Gerhard Bonnier (the name Bonnier is a French variant of the German given name Gutkind). In Copenhagen, Gerhard Bonnier started a library, a bookstore, and a publishing company.

[Jostemikk]

Bonnier Division Forms New Partnership with Former Vice President Al Gore and his Climate Reality Project

Boulder, Colo., Sept 25 – Bonnier's Warren Miller Entertainment, producer of award-winning action films for 63 years, is announcing an unprecedented partnership with The Climate Reality Project, founded and chaired by former Vice President Al Gore. Flow State, the latest film installment from Warren Miller Entertainment, chronicles the travels of the world's premiere adventure skiers to areas impacted by climate change. As part of "I Am Pro Snow," a soon-to-launch Climate Reality Project campaign highlighting the impacts of climate change on winter sports, Vice President Gore will attend a showing of the film in November 2012.

This groundbreaking agreement will combine the reach of two major organizations, using compelling movie footage to promote awareness of the global climate crisis.

http://www.pubexec.com/article/bonnier-division-forms-new-partnership-former-vice-president-al-gore/1#