Miljø, global oppvarming og veien videre

[sammyboy]

Flere eposter satt i sammenheng, Jones igjen i sentrum:

 

 

Climategate grows to include other research institutions

 

In 2007, I published a peer-reviewed paper [1] alleging that some important research relied upon by the IPCC (for the treatment of urbanization effects) was fraudulent. The emails show that Tom Wigley — one of the most oft-cited climatologists and an extreme warming advocate — thought my paper was valid [2]. They also show that Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, tried to convince the journal editor not to publish my paper.

[sammyboy]

Bare et lite tillegg om skyer som eg glemte i min forrige post.

 

Satelittmålinger viser at globalt skydekke endret seg hele 4% i perioden 1980-2000.

Noen studier viser også at endringen i skydekke følger den 11 årige solsyklusen.

Endret 2. desember 2009 av sammyboy

[Baltazar94]

Shocking newly uncovered UN strategy documents reveal how elitists are recruiting members of academia from all over the globe in an effort to hide the “end-run” around national sovereignty that their agenda represents, emphasizing how the climategate crooks who were recently caught manipulating scientific data in order to “hide the decline” in global warming are working with the United Nations in the pursuit of a world government justified by the global warming fraud that they are helping to perpetrate.

 

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/bombshell-un-d...overeignty.html

[Den Polse]

Veldig spent på hvem som kommer til å gjøre dette independent reviewet av Phil Jones.

[sammyboy]

Ocean Acidification not a problem??

 

Oh snap! CO2 causes some ocean critters to build more shells

 

But in a study published in the Dec. 1 issue of Geology, a team led by former WHOI postdoctoral researcher Justin B. Ries found that seven of the 18 shelled species they observed actually built more shell when exposed to varying levels of increased acidification. This may be because the total amount of dissolved inorganic carbon available to them is actually increased when the ocean becomes more acidic, even though the concentration of carbonate ions is decreased

 

The researchers caution, however, that the findings—and acidification’s overall impact—may be more complex than it appears. For example, Cohen says that available food and nutrients such as nitrates, phosphates and iron may help dictate how some organisms respond to carbon dioxide

Endret 2. desember 2009 av sammyboy

[Gjest Slettet+127836]

7 av 18 bygger mer skall ved varierende grad økt forsuring. Det var en fin måte å si at 11 av 18 ikke gjør det.

 

“It’s hard to predict the overall net effect on benthic marine ecosystems, he says. “In the short term, I would guess that the net effect will be negative. In the long term, ecosystems could re-stabilize at a new steady state.

 

“The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”

 

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&t...3809&ct=162

[sammyboy]

Står det noe om hvor mange som bygger mindre?

Det sier at dette er kompleks og det vet for lite, alikevel vil de ha ned nivået av Co2 i atmosfæren.

Dette slår meg som et politisk budskap ikke et vitenskapelig.

 

 

Her er ClimateGate i full detalj over 43 sider, sett fra en skeptikers synspunkt.

 

ClimateGate: Caught Green-Handed

 

han er ikke snau her om våre fire datasett for Global temp...

 

The two terrestrial datasets are Professor Jones’ dataset from the Climate Research Unit, in collaboration with the Hadley Center for Forecasting at the UK Meteorological Office; and Professor James Hansen’s dataset at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in collaboration with NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, which produces its own dataset that is, however, functionally near-identical with that of NASA. The two satellite datasets are those of Remote Sensing Systems, Inc., and of the University of Alabama at Huntsville.

 

Given that there are four datasets, it might at first be thought that systematic scientific corruption in the compilation of just one dataset would have very little significance – and that is the line that is being hawked around by the embarrassed environmental journalists who are acting not as independent journalists but rather as willing apologists for the Team at the moment.

 

However, the whistleblower’s data file reveals that there is very close collusion indeed between key figures in the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and in both NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. Members of all of these entities in the scientific establishment are also members of the Team. They co-ordinate their results, and they co-ordinate how they present their results, and they co-ordinate how, between them, they control or seek to control – to a remarkable extent – the entire process of the UN’s climate panel, as well as the process of publication of learned papers in scientific journals, and even the appointment of reviewers and editors.

 

Professor Jones at the Climate Research Unit in the UK, Gavin Schmidt at NASA, and Tom Karl at NOAA are now known via their email correspondence to be closely and poisonously in league with one another, and with the paleoclimate community, such as Mann, Bradley, and Hughes, the three authors of the paper seized upon by the UN for its 2001 report claiming – contrary to the overwhelming evidence in the peer-reviewed literature, and in history, and in archaeology – that there was no medieval warm period and that, accordingly, the 20th century was the warmest in at least the past ten centuries.

 

There is no link between those who produce the two satellite-based datasets and those who produce the surface datasets. Indeed, John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, who run one of the two satellite datasets, are among the most vocal dissenters from what we are told is the scientific “consensus” attributing most of the “global warming” of the past half-century to humankind

 

However, there is one innocent but inevitable connection between the two terrestrial and the two satellite datasets: the latter are to a very large extent dependent upon the former. Satellites hundreds of miles above the Earth’s surface cannot take its temperature directly. Instead, by one of those ingenious feats of detection combined with engineering that are the glory of science, the microwave sounding units originally mounted on the satellites for an entirely different purpose have been redeployed to reconstruct the temperature at various altitudes in the atmosphere – notably that of the lower troposphere immediately above the Earth’s surface – by measuring very small changes in the behavior of certain oxygen molecules.

 

Since the satellites do not have thermometers on board, and would be in the wrong place for taking the Earth’s near-surface temperature even if they had them, their atmospheric measurements have to be processed and reconstructed so as to become a temperature record. That requires the measurements to be calibrated. And what are they calibrated against? The instrumental surface-temperature record, of course. Therefore, if the surface temperature record has been accidentally or artificially enhanced in order to show greater warming than what has in truth occurred, the satellite temperature records that were originally calibrated against it would tend to show the same inaccurate overstatement of “global warming”.

Endret 2. desember 2009 av sammyboy

[Gjest Slettet+127836]

Det står ihvertfall at selvom krabber kan få økt skalldannelse så vil maten de lever av ha mindre skalldannelse og være mindre beskyttet noe som kan føre til en rask vekst av krabber før de ikke finner maten de lever av lenger.. Det var ett eksempel jeg fant nå i farta..

 

Videre var det ikke min hensikt å si at 11/18 hadde negativ utvikling , i motsetning til wattaupwiththat som tar 7/18 som ett tegn på at økt CO2 i havet er bra når forskerene sier at andre faktorer som jern og føde vil påvirke i muligens like stor grad og at langtidseffektene kan være helt anderledes og må forskes mer på.

 

Østers og andre økonomisk viktige arter(skjell) kunne og få en negativ virkning stod det i sammendraget..

 

Det er ikke ett mindre politisk budskap som blir sendt ut av din kilde i saken forresten, selv om det er forsøkt kamuflert.

Endret 2. desember 2009 av Slettet+127836

[sammyboy]

hihi..

[sammyboy]

Se filmen hos Youtube

[sammyboy]

Her er en grei oversikt over de vanligste årsaker til sykdom og død i verden. Klimaforandinger er kommet inn på listen.

 

 

[robertaas]

Der har man jo listen med alt man kan kutte i for å bruke pengene på "miljøtiltak".

 

"Miljøtiltak" betyr bare mere skatt i den vestlige verden. Disse pengene skal man så sende til verdens diktatorer og korrupte statsledere i uland. Effekten blir antagelig den samme som de siste 30 årene med uhjelp har hatt: mere korrupsjon og mindre demokrati i de landene som får mest "hjelp". Og så kan sosialistene i den vestlige verden igjen gratulere hverandre med innsatsen.

[sammyboy]

Se filmen hos Youtube

[sammyboy]

Terence Corcoran: skeptics score a win against alarmists

 

At the Munk Debate in Toronto Tuesday night, the email scandal was barely mentioned and so had little direct impact on the results. Before the debate, the 1,100 people in the audience cast ballots, with 61% supporting the resolution that "climate change is mankind's defining crisis and demands a commensurate response." At the end of the debate, support had fallen to 53%.

 

Had the email exchange among leading scientists been explored, the outcome might have been even more significant decline in support for extreme climate action. Support might have collapsed completely had there been a way to have a fact checker interrupt the debate to review the various clashes over science and the statistics.

 

On the activist side were two leading climate activists, Canadian Green Party Leader Elizabeth May and British author and columnist George Monbiot. The miracle is that these two grandstanding professional agitators held on to as much of the audience as they did after two hours of cheap theatrical tricks, ad hominem attacks, dubious science claims and frequent dips into Stephen Lewis's tear-filled pool of emotive personal anecdotes of poverty and disease. They rarely got the science or the economics right.

 

Trying to bring rational argument to all this were Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool it: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide To Global Warming, and Lord Nigel Lawson, Margaret Thatcher's former finance minister and also the author of An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming. They stuck to their core arguments and, for the most part, successfully defended their positions against exaggerated claims and counter arguments that were questionable or just plain wrong.

[freke]

Vel, det er ingen tvil om at CO2 er en drivhusgass som du sikkert vet. En økning i CO2 vil dermed - hvis alt annet er uendret - dermed føre til en økning i temperaturen

 

Dette vil ikke skje. Og det er heller aldri blitt testet, eller bevist noen slik sammenheng.

Det er en påstand du overhodet ikke har dekning for, og står vel i grunn i stil til dine heller uvitende påstander om annen vitenskap. Slå deg til ro med at din religiøse fanatisme ikke er forenelig med rasjonell tanke. Gjør en ny avskrift av bibelen, men bruk tre farger i stedet for to denne gangen.

[Den Polse]

Aftenposten - "Climategate vil få enorm betydning"

 

Synes dette er bra nyheter. Ikke fordi Saudi Arabia sitt syn på AGW er noe nytt, men ved at de bruker climategate som argument så har saken tatt en mer politisk vending og vi får håpe at det vil få følger.

 

Synes videre Dagbladet fortjener en stjerne for å enda ikke ha nevnt saken til tross for at de fleste media har hatt flere artikler allerede og saken har begynt å få konsekvenser. Istedet så har de artikler om hvordan Norge må ta imot 600000 klimaflykninger og "Se pol isen smelte i perioden juni til desember". OMFG, hvem ville trodd at pol is smelter endel i sensommer/høst perioden? Nytt lavmål for en avis det har gått jevnt og trutt nedover med i lang tid. Hvordan greier de å spa frem så mye søppel og gammel info om klima samtidig som de totalt overser en så viktig sak? Synes dette perspektivet er greit å ta med seg videre slik at man kan være mer kritisk til DBs fremstilling av saker da det er tydelig at journalistisk integritet er noe de også har valgt å totalt overse.

[Den Polse]

Må bare kommentere på denne litt eldre artikkelen på tu.no sett i lys av siste ukers hendelser.

 

Forresten, Brekkes svar

 

Synes de to artiklene er flotte sammen. Presterud sitter å kaller andre synsere og useriøse samtidig som han selv valser over på andres fagfelt på en utrolig hyklersk og arrogant måte og påstår ting uten grunnlag.

 

Synes det er på tide å samle sammen et solid antall mennesker, fakler og høygafler og jage disse svovelpredikantene som livnærer seg på å spre frykt og presse sin tro på andre fra landet. Her snakker jeg i hovedsak om Cicer og Bjerknes instituttet.

[sammyboy]

Her er R. Lindzen for kort tid tilbake der han sier at klimavitenskapen er korrupt til beinet. (Nb 6 deler)

 

Se filmen hos Youtube

[sammyboy]

Why the Maldives aren't sinking

Nils-Axel Mörner

Thursday, 3rd December 2009

[TurboSurfing]

Synes dette er bra nyheter. Ikke fordi Saudi Arabia sitt syn på AGW er noe nytt, men ved at de bruker climategate som argument så har saken tatt en mer politisk vending og vi får håpe at det vil få følger.

Der tok du problemet på kornet gitt

 

Klimaskeptikerne driver ikke forskning, de driver politikk.

 

Her er R. Lindzen for kort tid tilbake der han sier at klimavitenskapen er korrupt til beinet. (Nb 6 deler)

Richard S. Lindzen er medlem av "The Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council" ved Annapolis Center, en tenketank i Maryland som blant annet har blitt finansiert av ExxonMobil. Han er også en kjent venn av tobakksindustrien og forteller gjerne om hvor lite bevis det er for at røyking fører til lungekreft.