This blog uses the best up-to-date peer-reviewed climate science, quality sources, logic and critical thinking to explain man-made climate change and to debunk fake news, propaganda, myths and conspiracy theories.
Bloggen bruker den beste oppdaterte fagfellevurderte klimavitenskapen, kildekritikk og kritisk tenking til å forklare de menneskeskapte klimaendringene og til å svare på falske nyheter, propaganda, myter, konspirasjonsteorier og alternative virkelighetsoppfatninger om klima.
"We analysed 74 225 200 deaths in various periods between 1985 and 2012. In total, 7·71% (95% empirical CI 7·43–7·91) of mortality was attributable to non-optimum temperature in the selected countries within the study period, with substantial differences between countries, ranging from 3·37% (3·06 to 3·63) in Thailand to 11·00% (9·29 to 12·47) in China. The temperature percentile of minimum mortality varied from roughly the 60th percentile in tropical areas to about the 80–90th percentile in temperate regions. More temperature-attributable deaths were caused by cold (7·29%, 7·02–7·49) than by heat (0·42%, 0·39–0·44). Extreme cold and hot temperatures were responsible for 0·86% (0·84–0·87) of total mortality."
"The Office for National Statistics said that fluctuations in "excess" deaths are not correlated with cold winters, but with cold homes."
So is this just a case of bad weather? The graph gives away the first
clue that it's not that simple. The countries with the highest 'seasonal
variations' in deaths are Portugal and Spain, which hardly have the
coldest climates on the list. Meanwhile northern European countries -
Finland, Germany and the Netherlands - have comparatively few excess
deaths.
The explanation for this is put down to differing levels of thermal
efficiency. Warmer countries tended to have poorer standards of home
insulation. Even looking at more recent figures for 2011, the case is similar: Scandinavian countries have high efficiency, Portugal and Spain less so.
Deadly heat waves becoming more common due to climate change
Deadly heat waves are going to be a much bigger problem in the coming decades, becoming more frequent and occurring over a much greater portion of the planet because of climate change, according to a study published last summer in Nature Climate Change.
Extreme heat waves, such as the one torching the eastern United States, are frequently cited as one of the most direct effects of man-made climate change.
The study says, by the year 2100, three out of four people on Earth could be subject to at least 20 days per year of heat and humidity associated with deadly heat waves, if greenhouse emissions continue to rise at their current rates.
Up to 54 deaths linked to southern Quebec heat wave
Cold homes caused 9,000 deaths last winter, study suggests
An estimated 9,000 people died last winter in England and Wales as a result of living in a cold home, a university study has suggested. It found a fifth of the 43,900 excess winter deaths in 2014-2015 were caused by low indoor temperatures, BBC Panorama has learned.Cold homes increase the risk of respiratory infections, heart attacks and strokes, the researchers said.
Dr Allen said the figure was a shocking indictment on the current levels of fuel poverty.The
charity Age UK estimates that fuel poverty, where people cannot afford
to heat their home, costs the NHS around £1.3bn every year.
In 2000, the government agreed a legally-binding objective to eradicate fuel poverty by 2016.
But the target has been missed and official figures show there are still five million people living in cold homes.
The
government used to define a household as fuel poor if they spent more
than 10% of their income on heating their home, but the government
changed how it measured fuel poverty in England in 2013.
The
criterion for fuel poverty in England is now based on whether heating a
home to a decent standard would leave the household below the poverty
line.
People with less money are more vulnerable as they may not be able to
afford to heat their home or may live somewhere that’s harder to keep
warm because it’s not well insulated. Caravans or mobile homes are
particularly risky.
I expect some climate change deniers will leap on this result and suggest we shouldn’t worry about extreme heat since the cold is a bigger killer. But this argument doesn’t hold.
On the other hand, it seems very likely that a warmer world will
reduce the number of deaths due to cold. I’ve sensed some resistance to
this prediction among some researchers, perhaps because they are
reluctant to admit any potential benefit of climate change because of
the ammunition it gives to the deniers.
Of course, the reduction in winter deaths could be wiped out by an
increase in heat-related deaths. In every country studied in the Lancet
paper, there was an increased risk of death during hot weather. Plus we
should also consider the predicted increases in vector, food and water
borne diseases, and the potentially catastrophic increase in global
conflicts.
Premature deaths from both the heat and the cold are big problems that deserve our attention.
A study published last year in the journal WIRES Climate Change, however, lays out how the warming Arctic and melting ice appear to be linked to cold weather being driven farther south.
«Studies in temperate areas have shown that climate change is projected to bring some benefits, such as fewer deaths from cold exposure. Overall it is expected that these benefits will be outweighed by the negative health effects of rising temperatures worldwide, especially in developing countries».
Det blir som å si at røyking ikke er farlig fordi flere dør av andre årsaker. Denne artikkelen sammenblander epler og appelsiner.
Dødsfallene pga oppvarming er relatert til klimaet, mens dødsfallene relatert til kulde er for det meste IKKE det. Et annet poeng er at global oppvarming forander værmønsterer og sender kaldt vær innover områder som ikke er vant til dette. Mange dødsfall pga kulde skyldes dermed global oppvarming.
Europa:
Landene med de høyeste 'sesongvariasjonene' i dødsfall er Portugal og Spania, som neppe har det kaldeste klimaet i Europa. Samtidig har nord -europeiske land - Skandinavia, Finland, Tyskland og Nederland - relativt få dødsfall. Fordi vi er rike og har gode isolerte hjem, dør ikke folk i kulden her.
Folk dør pga kalde hjem og "brenselfattigdom". Personer med mindre penger er mer sårbare, ettersom de kanskje ikke har råd til å varme opp hjemmet sitt eller er tvunget til å bo et sted der det er vanskeligere å holde varmen fordi det ikke er godt isolert. Campingvogner eller bobiler er spesielt risikofylte.
IPCC:
«Studies in temperate areas have shown that climate change is projected to bring some benefits, such as fewer deaths from cold exposure. Overall it is expected that these benefits will be outweighed by the negative health effects of rising temperatures worldwide, especially in developing countries».
Natural cycles can only move heat around, like from the oceans to the atmosphere. But now we see adding of heat both in oceans and the atmosphere. So the adding of heat to the energy budget we see now must come from somewhere else than natural cycles.
Natural oscillations like PDO simply move heat around from oceans to air and vice-versa. They don't have the ability to either create or retain heat, therefore they're not capable of causing a long-term warming trend, just short-term temperature variations. Basically they're an example of internal variability, not an external radiative forcing. If PDO were responsible for warming the surface, the oceans would be cooling, which is not the case.
These results are expected. The long term warming trend is a result of an energy imbalance caused primarily by an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In contrast, the PDO is an internal process and does not increase or decrease the total energy in the climate system. https://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-advanced.htm
No credible study has suggested that ocean oscillations can account for the long-term trends. The key observation here is the increase in ocean heat content over the last half century (the figure below shows three estimates of the changes since 1955). This absolutely means that more energy has been coming into the system than leaving. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/04/judy-currys-attribution-non-argument/#comment-677575
Now this presents a real problem for claims that ocean variability is the main driver. To see why, note that ocean dynamics changes only move energy around – to warm somewhere, they have to cool somewhere else. So posit an initial dynamic change of ocean circulation that warms the surface (and cools below or in other regions). To bring more energy into the system, that surface warming would have to cause the top-of-the-atmosphere radiation balance to change positively, but that would add to warming, amplifying the initial perturbation and leading to a runaway instability. There are really good reasons to think this is unphysical.
Remember too that ocean heat content increases were a predicted consequence of GHG-driven warming well before the ocean data was clear enough to demonstrate it.
Arctic sea-ice decline weakens the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation
Klimarealistene og amatørfornekternes siste PR-stunt er gamle forslitte
forlengst debunkede fossil brensel-sponsete frontgruppe / tankesmie ekkokammer-blog propaganda-løgner
resirkulert enda en gang. Gjesp. I dag er det Olga 69 som er tema.
Poenget med dette er at alle artikler i klimaområdet ikke nødvendigvis handler om klimaendringer, og hvorvidt de er menneskeskapte eller ikke. Da er det jo ikke naturlig å telle med dem. Svært liten andel av forskning innen fysikk bekrefter tyngdekraften. Dette betyr ikke at tyngdekraften står svakt blant fysikere.
The point of this is that all articles in the climate area are not necessarily about climate change, and whether or not its man-made. Then it is not natural to count them in in a survey on how many papers supports the AGW theory.
Also, very few papers in physics research confirms gravity. This does not mean that gravity theory is weak among physicists.
Just because a paper on natural science does not mention or “confirm” the planet is a globe, this does not mean very few natural scientists thinks the planet is a globe.
Det såkalte 97% konsensus er bare tull skriver Einar R. Bordewich i en artikkel i Avisa Nordland. Javel. Har han funnet noe nytt som er blitt oversett tidligere?
Nei!
Hele artikkelen stinker lang vei og refererer til den konspiratoriske fornekterbloggen Popular Technology (bla a. kjent for å sverte Skeptikal Science) og den velkjente fornekterbloggen WUWT, som er selve edderkoppen i klimafornekter ekkokammer nettverket. Argumentene i artikkelen er forslitte resirkulerte løgner som har vært i omløp i åresvis.
Det handler ikke om å informere, bare om å så tvil og lage støy. I dette tilfellet er det og en del av den eviggående svertekampanjen mot nettstedet Skeptikal Science, som i mange år har vært en hovedfiende for de oljeindustri-sponsede tankesmiene og frontgruppene som utgjør de "proffe" klimafornektere (Climatedepot/CFACT, WUWT), som forer amatørfornekterne med artikler som disse skal spre videre i sosiale medier. Og det er jo påfallende at det er Cooks studie som igjen blir angrepet, selv om en rekke nyere studier bekrefter denne, ja til og med kommer frem til et enda høyere konsensus. Kommentarfeltet under artikkelen er selvsagt et ekkokammer av Klimakreasjonister..ehh...realister.
Det skrives:
"Hva er det så de faktisk finner? Jo at 66,4% av forskerrapportene ikke
tar stilling til om klimaendringene er menneskeskapt eller ikke.
(Antropogen Global Warming- AGW). Kun 32,6% av rapportene mener at AGW
er en faktor - men faktoren kvantifiseres ikke, mens 0,7 % avviser AGW
og 0,3% er usikker om den globale oppvarmingen er menneskeskapt i følge
Cook et al."
Jeg har sett litt nærmere på tallene i artikkelen (32.6 % og 66.4%) og visste jeg hadde sett resonnementet før. Jeg måtte bare komme på navnet....Richard Tol!!
(Følger du linken til den bedritne fornekter-konspira bloggen Popular Technology (sic), dukker han jaggu opp i artikkelen.)
Tol, som tidligere har bidratt i Klimapanelet, og som nå jobber for fossil brensel klimafornekter tankesmien Global Warming Policy Foundation, skrev et papir som kritiserte Cook. Artikkelforfatteren resirkulerer bare Tols allerede avviste kritikk, (Tol 2014), som inneholder hele 24 til dels grove feil.
I motsetning til hva
Richard postulerte, var det ikke et stort skifte fra AGW-godkjenning
eller "tok ingen stilling til / nøytral" til avvisning av AGW.
Her er en forenklet illustrasjon for å vise hva Richards blunder resulterte i. Også den kvalitetssikrede bloggen HotWobber avkler beskyldningene og dette latterlige regnestykket her.
Med
andre ord, hvor det var et skifte av kategori for et abstrakt, skiftet
det bare litt i kategoriseringen (hovedsakelig fra eksplisitt til
implisitt påtegning, eller implisitt til nøytral eller omvendt) -
og om noe hadde forskerne en tendens til å lene til den konservative siden hvis det var en marginal beslutning. Det var knapt noen abstrakter som ble omklassifisert fra "nøytal" til avvisning, og ingen fra godkjenning til avvisning.Diagrammene viser at ut av 595 omklassifiserte abstrakter, ville bare fem
papirer ha gått fra "nøytral" til "avvisning av AGW" og bare ett
papir fra godkjent til å avvise.
Reply to ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: A re-analysis
Her er gjennomgangen av alle 24 feil i angrepet på 97% konsensus.
Det ironiske er at Tol selv kom fram til tallet 91%, og han er jo egentlig enig i at det er et sterkt konsensus. Han sier:
"There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change
overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by
humans.” and “It will take decades or longer to reduce carbon
dioxide emissions to zero—the only way to stabilize its atmospheric
concentration.”.
"That [97% consensus] survey has of course been substantially discredited ... 35 percent of the abstracts were misclassified, and they were classified to the pro-global warming side. Professor Richard Tol ... has disassociated himself from that and said it's not reliable."
Verdict: False on all counts.
All of Neil's claims here refer to comments economist Richard Tol has made about our paper on his personal blog. He submitted those comments to the journal that published our paper, Environmental Research Letters, whose editor promptly rejected his submission. The editor noted that in addition to being "written in a rather opinionated style" and reading "more like a blog post than a scientific comment," most importantly,
"I do not see that the submission has identified any clear errors in the Cook et al. paper that would call its conclusions into question."
The claim that we "misclassified" 35 percent of abstracts is simply based on Tol's preference that our survey be less precise and make more sweeping generalizations. Our team read and categorized every abstract based on what they said about the causes of global warming, whereas Tol believes that every paper discussing the impacts of climate change should be placed in the 'no opinion' category. We classified these abstracts correctly based on the categories established in our study. Let's just take one quick example, from (Soulé 1992):
"Humans are engaged in an uncontrolled experiment in planetary heating. Each decade, the concentration of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing by about 4%. All signs point toward unprecedented rates of warming and climate change."
We categorized that as an explicit endorsement of human-caused global warming. Tol would call it "no opinion". You be the judge as to who's misclassified it.
Additionally, when we compared our abstract ratings to the authors' self-ratings based on their full papers, contrary to Neil's claim, we found that we had classified them more in the 'no opinion' category and less in the pro-human caused global warming categories than the authors themselves.
Histogram of Abstract Rating (expressed in percentages) minus Self-Rating. 1–3 = endorsed human-caused global warming, 4 = no expressed position, 5–7 = rejected human-caused global warming. Green bars are where self-ratings have a higher level of endorsement of human-caused global warming than the abstract rating. Red bars are where self-ratings have a lower level of endorsement of human-caused global warming than the abstract rating.
Regarding Neil's claim that Tol has disassociated himself from our study: Tol has never been associated with the analysis of our study. He was one of 29,083 authors of studies that we examined, and one of 1,200 authors who participated in the self-rating phase. So the statement that he has disassociated himself is meaningless. His opinions about how his own papers should be categorized are included in the 97 percent consensus in self-rated papers.
Those author self-ratings are a key component of our study and conclusions. In both the abstract ratings and author self-ratings, we found the same 97 percent consensus result. Tol has only criticized the abstract ratings survey; even if you disregard those results, the 97 percent self-ratings consensus remains.
This is why our results remain widely accepted. Neil's assertion that they have been "widely discredited" is simply a repetition of baseless claims made on climate contrarian blogs. If Neil relies on contrarian blogs for his climate information, that may explain why he is woefully misinformed on the subject.
________________
For gøy, tenkte jeg å teste påstanden om at bare 0.3% av forskerne har
en oppfatning at mer enn 50% av den globale oppfatningen er
menneskeskapt, noe som påstås i https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9.
Dataene til Coock et all er på nettet, og en rask gjennomgang av dem
med noen linjer i R gir......... trommehvirvel!..... 98%! Hvordan disse
klimaskeptikerne teller, er et studium i seg selv. (Rasmus Benestad)
Værmelderen Anthony Watts er ikke spesielt god i matte. Han øker faktisk konsensus til 99.6%. Den kvalitetssikrete bloggen HotWhopper forklarer:
Anthony Watts has kindly pointed out that the scientific consensus on climate change is changing. He wrote the very strange headline: "‘The 97% climate consensus’starts to crumble with 485 new papers in 2017 that question it". Apparently some drongo (who does this every year IIRC) has only managed to dig up 485 "papers" that he claims " in some way questioned the supposed consensus regarding the perils of human CO2 emissions or the efficacy of climate models to predict the future."
I expect that, as in past collections, many of findings of those 485 don't dispute climate change, and many probably support the fact that human activity is causing global warming, but I haven't bothered checking (because that's not the point of this little article). What struck me was that 485 was a pretty small number given the vast number of peer-reviewed publications on climate change these days.
If you go to Google Scholar and search for the term "climate change" and select "2017-2017", you'll find there were "About 115,000 results". Now 485 is 0.4% of 115,000, so even if all those 485 papers disputed the greenhouse effect (which they don't), it would still mean that one could argue that 97% has become 99.6% :D
Now that even beats the 98.4% of WUWT-ers who deny straightforward science. Who'd have thought!
VIDERE:
Det pussige med kronikken er at den linker til fornekterbloggen WUWT og til en studie fra 2013 som tilsynelatende skal støtte artikkelforfatterens argument.
Dette er en studie der American Meteorological Society sine medlemmer uttaler seg om de tror at klimaendringene er menneskeskapte eller ikke. Ifølge den fossil brensel sponsete Heartland Institute lobbyisten og værmelderen Anthony Watts, er det kun 52% av disse som tror på AGW.
Men denne studien viser at over 90% av AMS-medlemmer, som faktisk driver med klimarelatert forskning, mener oppvarmingen skyldes mennesker (en oppdatert versjon av studien fra 2016 viser enda større oppslutning).
We also found that about 8 out of 10 meteorologists and atmospheric scientists who publish on climate (79%) or other topics (78%) were convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Lastly, we found that the group least likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming was AMS members who do not publish research in the peer-reviewed scientific literature; only six out of 10 AMS members in this group (62%) were convinced."
"First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.
In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except “Support Kyoto” are against regulation – the “Regulation Activists” mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents – more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions." https://www.denialism.com/2013/02/15/denialism-from-forbes-courtesy-of-heartland-hack-james-taylor/
Dette får altså Watts til å bli bare 52%. Forstå det den som kan. Tallene i studeier ER faktisk i samsvar med hva den fagfellevurderte literaturen mener om AGW. Husk at konsensus er ikke en meningsmåling, men et tall på hvor mye av den fagfellevurderte literaturen som faktisk støtter teorien om AGW.
Bloggen HotWopper debunker Watts uærlighet veldig brutalt. Her er de korrekte tallene:
New survey shows more AMS members accept global warming
There was a report of a survey of American Meteorological Society (AMS) members published
a couple of years ago, which deniers touted quite a bit. It showed that
the least well-informed about climate science were also the least
likely to accept that humans are causing global warming. Just released
are the initial results of another survey
of AMS members by some of the same researchers. It's not exactly a
repeat, but the questions are not dissimilar. They are close enough for a
comparison I believe. There's been a shift toward understanding climate
science among AMS members since the first survey was conducted.
The first thing I noticed was that participation in the survey more than
doubled this time around. There was a very good response rate from AMS
members with 4,092 responding to this years' survey compared to 1,854 in
2014:
The actual questions and responses for the 2016 survey are shown below.
The big improvement is that the question is timebound, not open to many
and varied interpretations, which was one of the concerns with the
previous survey:
There are more nuanced and detailed questions in the survey, which you can download here.
This includes questions about mitigation, and questions on the shift in
thinking of AMS members over the past couple of years. Eighty seven per
cent (87%) of the 17% who had changed their thinking said they were now
more convinced that human-caused climate change is happening. Thirteen per cent were less convinced.
The next time some denier quotes the old AMS survey results at you, you
can now point them to this latest one showing that a not insignificant
number of AMS members have learnt something more about climate change in
the past couple of years.
Stenhouse, Neil, Edward Maibach, Sara Cobb, Ray Ban, Andrea Bleistein,
Paul Croft, Eugene Bierly, Keith Seitter, Gary Rasmussen, and Anthony
Leiserowitz. "Meteorologists' views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 95, no. 7 (2014): 1029-1040. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1 (open access)
Maibach, E., Perkins, D., Francis, Z., Myers, T., Englbom, A., et al. (2016) A 2016 National Survey of American Meteorological Society Member Views on Climate Change: Initial Findings. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA: Center for Climate Change Communication. (pdf here)
The America Meteorological Society er 100% bak teorien om de menneskeskapte klimaendringene og senest i oktober 2018 skrev de dette brevet til President Trump:
"There is an overwhelming body of scientific evidence that shows that the warming global climate we have been experiencing in recent decades is primarily caused by human activity and that current long-term warming trends cannot be expected to reverse if no action is taken. These conclusions come from multiple independent lines of evidence. As is standard for the scientific process, each of these lines of evidence has undergone rigorous testing and has overcome all credible challenges. They reinforce one another and there are no contradictory lines of evidence that withstand scientific scrutiny. As a result, the basic scientific conclusions about climate change are extremely robust."
Vi trenger ikke engang Cook for å finne et konsensus over
97%. En rekke nyere studier bekrefter en konsensus på over 99%. Nå er
også de fleste oljeselskapenes egne forskere og eksperter enige om AGW! The
consensus among publishing scientists is demonstrably not 97%. Instead,
five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015 combine
to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.
During
2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on
global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the
consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on
unanimity.[...] The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing
evidence against AGW.
The consensus did not arise from a vote or a gathering. It speaks to the evidence. Scientists come to a consensus after a convergence of evidence leaves no significant doubt about a result. It happens a lot in science. There is a consensus that the speed of light is the universe's speed limit. Scientists didn't vote on that or gather to agree and find evidence to support that agreement. They came to consensus after the research from multiple independent lines of evidence converged.The same process has taken place in climate science. Scientists didn't vote on the validity of AGW or come together and agree before the evidence came in. They came to consensus based upon multiple independent lines of evidence converged to support AGW.
Konsensusen oppsto ikke ved en avstemming eller i en forsamling. Det er en direkte konsekvens av bevisene. Forskere kommer til enighet etter at en konvergens av bevis ikke gir noen vesentlig tvil om et resultat. Det skjer ofte i vitenskapen. Det er enighet om at lysets hastighet er universets fartsgrense. Forskere stemte ikke på det eller samlet seg for å bli enige og finne bevis for å støtte denne avtalen. De kom til konsensus etter at forskningen fra flere uavhengige beviser ble samlet. Den samme prosessen har skjedd i klimavitenskap. Forskere stemte ikke for AGWs gyldighet eller kom sammen og var enige før bevisene kom inn. De kom til konsensus basert på flere uavhengige bevislinjer som konvergeres for å støtte AGW.
Det finnes ikke en eneste vitenskapelig
institutt, akademi eller organisasjon internasjonalt som ikke støtter
teorien om at mennesker bidrar nå mest til klimaendringer. Nærmere 200 av
klodens nasjoner har erklært at de vil bidra til å bekjempe
oppvarmingen. USA står faktisk helt alene utenfor.
"As
scientists and engineers, BP recognizes the urgency of the climate
challenge - and we intend to be part of the solution. We are calling for
a price on carbon, increasing gas in our upstream portfolio, investing
in renewables and low carbon innovation, and pursuing energy efficiency."
STATOIL:
At
Statoil we believe that you can put a price on carbon. In fact we have
to because it is one of the most effective ways to combat climate
change. The impact of climate change is becoming more severe and
noticeable: ice caps are melting, water is becoming scarce in some
places, many fish and animal species face extinction, and heat waves are
becoming the norm.
SHELL We recognise the significance of
climate change, along with the role energy plays in helping people
achieve and maintain a good quality of life. A key role for society –
and for Shell – is to find ways to provide much more energy with less
carbon dioxide. Our lives depend on energy wherever we live. But in
order to prosper while tackling climate change, society needs to provide
much more energy for a growing global population while finding ways to
emit much less CO2.
SINOPEC, from China
Climate
change is a major global issue for all humankind. As a responsible
energy and petrochemical company, Sinopec regards it as its due
responsibility to fight against climate change. We make efforts to shift
the pattern of growth, optimize energy structure, develop and utilize
low-carbon energy resources and promote energy saving and consumption
reduction. We are speeding up study on commercial test of CO2
recovering, in order to reduce GHG emissions and better prepare to
combat climate change.
EXXON-MOBIL:
Our position on climate change:
We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.
PETROBAS (Brazil)
Several studies indicate that increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated to the energy and transport sectors is a consequence of the surging consumption of energy, especially coming from fossil fuels. Therefore, we are committed to understand the impact our activity has on climatic conditions and to deploying measures to mitigate them. https://rogerfjellstadolsen.blogspot.no/2017/07/hva-er-de-strste-oljeselskapenes.html
BONUS: Hvorfor konsensus har økt fra 97% og opp til over 99%:
For hva med den fagfellevurderte klimavitenskapen som går imot konsensus? Blir disse studiene hørt? Ja. Forskerne ser også på disse, men det viser seg at de ikke holder mål. Her er 38 studier fra de siste 10 årene.
They” changed the term “global warming” to “climate change” because the planet is not warming is an oft-repeated talking point of those, such as President Trump, who cast doubt on the reality of rising temperatures.This claim is demonstrably incorrect, never mind that it’s unclear who “they” are.
There have long been claims that some unspecificed "they" has "changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'".
In reality, the two terms mean different things, have both been used
for decades, and the only individual to have specifically advocated
changing the name in this fashion is a global warming 'skeptic'.
Lets see some examples to how the"climate change" term have been in use over the last 100 years: 1896:
”As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches 1."
“Well isn’t this convenient. If Gore doesn’t invest in green energy companies, you call him a hypocrite who isn’t willing to put his money were his mouth is. If he does, you accuse him of having a conflict of interest. Either way, you get to avoid actually considering what he’s saying.”
I don’t give a crap what politicians and the media think or say. Both of them are repeatedly wrong about the science (on both “sides” of the topic). So I don’t care what Al Gore said or thinks, I don’t care what erroneous claims CNN has made, etc. I care about the science, and the scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that climate change is happening and it is our fault. Can people spin that for personal gain? Sure, but that doesn’t make the science any less true.
Using politicians and the media to attack science is a guilt by association fallacy, because what they think, say, and do is completely, 100% irrelevant to whether or not the science is correct. I care about what peer-reviewed studies have found, not what politicians and news anchors say.
AL GORE HAR SAGT AT....
La meg bare stoppe deg hardt og brutalt. For å være helt ærlig, så driter jeg i hva politikere og media tenker eller sier om klima. Disse har ofte feil om vitenskapen (på begge sider av emnet). Så jeg bryr meg ikke om hva Al Gore sier eller mener, jeg bryr meg ikke om hvilke feilaktige påstander CNN har kommet med, eller VG, eller en annen avis. Jeg går direkte til vitenskapen, og den er veldig tydelig på at klimaendringer skjer, og det er vår feil. Kan enkelte folk spinne dette for personlig gevinst? Javisst, men det gjør ikke vitenskapen noe mindre sant. At noen tjener penger på å selge globuser betyr ikke at Jorden er flat.
Bruk av politikere og media til å angripe vitenskap er en - guilt by association - fordi det de tror sier og gjør er 100% irrelevant for om vitenskapen er riktig eller ikke.
Jeg bryr meg om hva fagfellevurderte studier har funnet ut, ikke hva politikere, journalister og nyhetsankere sier.
RATIONAL WIKI HITS THE NAIL ON ITS HEAD:
Gore's Law states, as coined by Terence of blog "Long Ago And Not True Anyway" in March 2008:
”As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches 1."
Immediately after making the post, commenters proceeded to nitpick at Gore — thus proving his point. Why Gore's Law is relevant
The problem with attacking Al Gore is that he has absolutely fuck all to do with the science of climate change, no matter his carbon footprint, PMRC involvement, Manbearpig, etc. You really can't find a better instance of poisoning the well. He could live in a mud hut and walk everywhere and they'd call him a hypocrite because the aglets on his shoelaces were made of plastic, a petroleum product.
This one can be used to impugn the motives of anyone in the world, in an effort to prove they are driven by greed and don't care about anyone else's problems:
Bombo: "Just think if Michael Jordan had used all his talents and wealth to feed third world children, rather than to play a sport."
Of course, you can say this about anyone, famous or not:
Bombo: "If your doctor really cared about people's health, he'd sell everything he owned and become a charitable frontier doctor in Africa."
Common examples and the reasons they are fallacious include:
Al Gore stands to profit from climate change mitigation. Conflict of interest! This old saw. If money drove the science, then the Koch brothers would make it rain all over the science world, and this debate would have ended a long time ago. Also, if you see Al Gore making money as a bad thing, this is an appeal to motive and an argument from adverse consequences.
There are X number of errors made in Al Gore's film.
Fallacy fallacy. Just because a sub-set of his arguments could be proven wrong doesn't mean that anthropogenic global warming isn't happening. Gore is a politician with zero academic expertise in climatology; all he did was put the scientific consensus into Hollywood format.
Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol (to ban ozone-depleting pollutants), George H W Bush introduced cap-and-trade (to deal with the acid rain problem).
And what about George W Bush?
Well Dubbya of course ran against the single politician--Al Gore--who is most closely associated with the cause of climate action in modern U.S. history.
So I suppose it isn't too surprising that we heard lines like this spoken on the campaign trail:
“As we promote electricity and renewable energy, we will work to make our air cleaner. With the help of Congress, environmental groups and industry, we will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time. And we will provide market-based incentives, such as emissions trading, to help industry achieve the required reductions.”
What might be surprising for you to learn, however, is that it wasn't Al Gore--but George W Bush--who made that statement in the run-up to the election. It was Bush who had committed to combat climate change through the regulation of carbon emissions.
50 YEARS OF US SCIENCE AND GOVERNMENTS AND PRESIDENTS COMES TO THE SAME CONCLUSION ON AGW:
PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON’S 1965 “Restoring the Quality of our Environment report”.
Fifty years ago: The White House knew all about climate change
On November 5, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s White House released “Restoring the Quality of our Environment”, a report that described the impacts of climate change, and foretold dramatic Antarctic ice sheet loss, sea level rise, and ocean acidification.
That 1965 White House report stated:
“Carbon dioxide is being added to the earth’s atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas at the rate of 6 billion tons a year. By the year 2000 there will be about 25 percent more CO2 in our atmosphere than present. This will modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in climate, not controllable through local or even national efforts, could occur.”
On the 50th anniversary of the White House report, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are indeed at 399 ppm: 25 percent over 1965 levels, exactly as predicted 50 years ago.
Based on extensive evidence … it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,”
For the warming over the last century,
“there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”
Det var ikke Al Gore som started Environmental Protection Agency i 1970. Det var Nixon. Det var ikke Al Gore som signerte Montreal-protokollen om redusering av ozonlag-skadende gasser på 80-tallet. Det var Reagan. Det var ikke Al Gore som introduserte cap and trade avtalen om sur-nedbør problemet.Det var George Bush senior.
Sitatet:
“As we promote electricity and renewable energy, we will work to make our air cleaner. With the help of Congress, environmental groups and industry, we will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time. And we will provide market-based incentives, such as emissions trading, to help industry achieve the required reductions.”
Kom ikke fra Al Gore. Det kom fra George Bush junior.
Sitatet:
"Based on extensive evidence … it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,”
Kom ikke fra Al Gore. Det kom fra Trumps 2018 National Climate Assessment. ️
Her er Ronald Reagans 1989 EPA REPORT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Så vær så snill nå. Prøv å les litt klimavitenskap, ikke bare namedrop Al Gore, som dere er politisk uenig med, og tro at det "det hele startet" med ham.
WHY DO WE NEVER SEE AMATEUR DENIERS LINKING TO GORES "QUOTE" ABOUT THE POLAR ICE? HINT; HE NEVER SAID IT.
HVORFOR AMATØRFORNEKTERE ALDRI KLARER Å REFERERE TIL UTSAGNET OM AT POLISEN SKULLE VÆRE BORTE I 2014:
Gore snakket om SOMMER-isen. Ordet SOMMER er alltid utelatt når amatør-fornektere resirkulerer denne irrelavante løgnhistorien. Amatørfornektere har bare hjemmelagde barnslige memes med falske sitater på.
Gores predictions about artic ice was about SUMMER ice. In the artic. The word SUMMER is always left out when denier bloggs recycle this lie story. And it was only about "some of the summer months". The NASA report was about Antartica ice. (Misrepresented by deniers). Thus the meme in question is also comparing a quote on north pole ice to Antartica. Another lie.
Here is the 100% accurate quote:
"..Some of the models suggests to Dr Maslowski's that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice free within the next 5 to 7 years".
Thats just very very different from the denier meme.
The Navy researcher that leads this "new study" team that the former vice president alludes to is Wieslaw Maslowski at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California. The team's research was funded by the Department of Energy (DOE), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Maslowski also did not say "by 2013" in his original research in 2007 or when it was republished in 2009. This grandstanding about sea ice and Gore, for whatever reason, is a huge and egregious deception. The actual prediction from Maslowski's 2009 publication is, "Autumn could become near ice free between 2011 and 2016."
One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years."
So in reality, Gore tried to echo one of Maslowski's prediction predictions. Maslowski's prediction, originally made in 2006, was that Arctic sea ice would decline to <1,000,000 square kilometers extent (with no ice at the North Pole) by the end of the September melt by 2016, +/- 3 years. So 2013-2019...and still valid today.
GORE IS NOT A SCIENTIST.
When scientists do make their predictions, its based upon reports from many researchers all around the world. Not one group of researchers or individuals. Using politicians and the media to attack science is a guilt by association fallacy, because what they think, say, and do is completely, 100% irrelevant to whether or not the science is correct.
Go directly to the scientists and to the peer reviewed science.
Using Gores "failed" predictions about polar ice is a major red herring used by deniers to look away from the fact that artic ice is at a record low: From NOAA's December 12, 2017 Arctic Report Card:
Sea ice loss "is beyond the range of natural variability, implying a human component to the drastic decrease observed in the records."
"This time series shows the Arctic sea ice extent in millions of square kilometers over the past roughly 1,500 years. Scientists use climate proxies like sediment/ice cores, tree rings, and fossilized shells of ocean creatures to extend the sea ice extent records back in time. These records show that while there have been several periods over the past 1,450 years when sea ice extents expanded and contracted, the decrease during the modern era is unrivaled. And just as importantly, it is beyond the range of natural variability, implying a human component to the drastic decrease observed in the records.
"The minimum sea ice extent, which occurs each summer, is influenced by the atmospheric circulation, air temperature, and variations in the amount of warm water that flows into the Arctic. Since 1900, waters that enter the Arctic Ocean through the Fram Strait have increased by 2 degrees Celsius (4 degrees Fahrenheit). Meanwhile, proxy records show that the current warming trend in surface air temperatures has not been observed in the Arctic over at least the last 2,000 years."
Gore picked the worst scenario and didnt even refer to it accurate.
PS.
Oil giant Shell made a similar film on AGW in 1991, 15 years BEFORE Gore. He was only recycling AGW science that even oil companies today agrees on.
Just like Exxon, Shell oil knew about the danger of c02 emissions.
A trove of documents shows the oil company’s scientists urged its leaders to heed the warnings. That could now play into lawsuits over global warming
Co2 has a special feature naturally. It absorbs heat radiation very efficiently. It has to do with the actual vibration and rotational properties of the molecule. We can easily measure their properties in laboratories, and derive them from quantum physics. Nature gave C02 that ability, not Al Gore.
BONUS:
HOW ACCURATE WAS HIS MOVIE?
Pretty accurate. “A+” student material given knowledge at the time. “A” in retrospect.
Hurricanes: 90%
Prediction: could fuel worse and more Atlantic hurricanes - no specific timeframe
Result: Worse yes, not more so far. Asia has seen both increased severity and frequency of typhoons.
Ocean circulation: 80%
Prediction: Could shut down Gulf Stream conveyor belt bringing warm water to northern Europe - no specific timeframe
Result: slowing, but not stopped. Circulation model has been refined and is understand to be more complex. Less likelihood of a significant icing for Europe.
Conflict: 100%
Prediction: Climate change would exacerbate drought contributing to regional conflict - no specific timeframe
Result: Syrian conflict caused in part by climate change exacerbated drought
Arctic ice: 100%
Prediction: The Arctic could see its first sea ice–free summers in the next 50 to 70 years
Result: Massive ice loss in summer in Arctic. High probability of 100% summer ice loss by 2052
Antarctic ice: 80%
Prediction: Warming waters will be melting the Antarctic ice sheet (ice on both land and floating on ocean) - no specific timeframe
Result: Mixed in short term. Major ice sheets have broken off Antarctica. Majority of studies show reduced Antarctic ice. One major study shows increased ice with predictions of loss by team. Serious cause for concern due to ocean-side ice dams holding back land glaciers.
Sea level rise: 100%
Prediction: Melting ice and expanding seawater are raising global sea levels
Result: Melting ice and expanding seawater are raising global sea levels and it’s accelerating
Extreme temperatures: 100%
Prediction: Warming temperatures will cause more frequent and more deadly heat waves
Result: Warming temperatures will cause more frequent and more deadly heat waves in multiple parts of the world
Looks like an A student to me in retrospect, and while An Inconvenient Truth did lay out significantly bad scenarios, Gore didn’t attach timeframes to them.
Proviso: Gore made some more specific statements about possible timeframes for Arctic ice free summers years after the movie, but not in the movie itself.
Most of the stuff that ‘skeptics’ attribute to Gore is not an accurate attribution. Always check the sources.
DEBUNKING "THE MOVIE WAS BANNED IN ENGLAND AND HAD 9 ERRORS MYTH":
UK High Court judge rejected a call to restrict the showing of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) in British schools.
The judge, Justice Burton found that “Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate”(which accords with our original assessment). There has been a lot of comment and controversy over this decision because of the judges commentary on 9 alleged “errors” (note the quotation marks!) in the movie’s description of the science. The judge referred to these as ‘errors’ in quotations precisely to emphasize that, while these were points that could be contested, it was not clear that they were actually errors.
There are a number of points to be brought out here. First of all, “An Inconvenient Truth” was a movie and people expecting the same depth from a movie as from a scientific paper are setting an impossible standard. Secondly, the judge’s characterisation of the 9 points is substantially flawed. He appears to have put words in Gore’s mouth that would indeed have been wrong had they been said (but they weren’t). Finally, the judge was really ruling on how “Guidance Notes” for teachers should be provided to allow for more in depth discussion of these points in the classroom.
Ice-sheet driven sea level rise Gore correctly asserted that melting of Greenland or the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea levels 20ft (6 meters). In the movie, no timescale for that was specified, but lest you think that the 20 ft number is simply plucked out of thin air, you should note that this is about how much higher sea level was around 125,000 years ago during the last inter-glacial period. Then, global temperatures were only a degree or two warmer than today – and given that this is close to the minimum temperature rise we can expect in the future, that 20 ft is particularly relevant. The rate at which this is likely to happen is however highly uncertain as we have discussedpreviously.
Pacific island nations needing to evacuate Much of Tuvalu is only a few feet above sea level, and any sea level rise is going to impact them strongly. The impacts are felt in seemingly disconnected ways – increasing brine in groundwater, increasing damage and coastal erosion from tides and storm surges, but they are no less real for that. The government of Tuvalu has asked New Zealand to be ready to evacuate islanders if needed, and while currently only 75 people per year can potentially be resettled, this could change if the situation worsened. In the movie there is only one line that referred to this: “That’s why the citizens of these pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand”, which is out of context in the passage it’s in, but could be said to only be a little ahead of it’s time.
Climate impacts on the ocean conveyor The movie references the Younger Dryas event that occurred 11,000 years ago when, it is thought, a large discharge of fresh water into the North Atlantic disrupted the currents, causing significant regional cooling. That exact scenario can’t happen again, but similar processes are likely to occur. The primary unresolved scientific issue regards how quickly the circulation is likely to change as we move forward. The model simulations in the latest IPCC report show a slowdown in the circulation – by about 30% by 2100 – but there is much we don’t understand about modeling that circulation and future inputs of freshwater from the ice sheets, so few are willing to completely rule out the possibility of a more substantial change in the future. Further discussion on what this really means and doesn’t mean is available here and here.
CO2 and Temperature connections in the ice core record Gore stated that the greenhouse gas levels and temperature changes over ice age signals had a complex relationship but that they ‘fit’. Again, both of these statements are true. The complexity though is actually quite fascinating and warrants being further discussed by those interested in how the carbon cycle will react in the future. We’ve discussed the lead/lag issue previously. A full understanding of why CO2 changes in precisely the pattern that it does during ice ages is elusive, but among the most plausible explanations is that increased received solar radiation in the southern hemisphere due to changes in Earth’s orbital geometry warms the southern ocean, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, which then leads to further warming through an enhanced greenhouse effect. Gore’s terse explanation of course does not mention such complexities, but the crux of his point–that the observed long-term relationship between CO2 and temperature in Antarctica supports our understanding of the warming impact of increased CO2 concentrations–is correct. Moreover, our knowledge of why CO2 is changing now (fossil fuel burning) is solid. We also know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the carbon cycle feedback is positive (increasing temperatures lead to increasing CO2 and CH4), implying that future changes in CO2 will be larger than we might anticipate.
Kilimanjaro Gore is on even more solid ground with Kilimanjaro. In the movie, the retreat of Kilimanjaro is not claimed to be purely due to global warming , but it is a legitimate example of the sort of thing one expects in a warmer world, and is consistent with what almost all other tropical mountain glaciers are doing. There is indeed some ongoing discussion in the literature as to whether or not the retreat of ice on Kilimanjaro is related to the direct effects (warming atmospheric temperatures) or indirect effects (altered patterns of humidity, cloud cover, and precipitation influencing Kilimanjaro’s ice mass) of climate change, and that argument isn’t yet over. But these arguments would be of more relevance if (a) we were not witnessing the imminent demise of an ice field that we know has existed for at least the past 12,000 years and (b) most of the other glaciers weren’t disappearing as well.
Drying up of Lake Chad It is undisputed that Lake Chad has indeed shrunk rapidly in recent decades. While irrigation and upstream water use are probably contributing factors, the dominant cause is the reduction of rainfall across the entire Sahel from the 1950s to the 1980s and with rainfall today still substantially below the high point 50 years ago. There is substantial evidence that at least a portion of this drying out is human-caused. A few recent papers (Held et al, PNAS; Chung and Ramanathan and Biasutti and Giannini) have addressed causes ranging from Indian Ocean changes in sea surface temperature to the increase in atmospheric aerosols in the Northern hemisphere. Gore uses this example to illustrate that there are droughts in some regions even while other areas are flooding. Unfortunately this is exactly what the models suggest will happen.
Hurricane Katrina and global warming Katrina is used in the film as a legitimate illustration of the destructive power of hurricanes, our inability to cope with natural disaster, and the kind of thing that could well get worse in a warmer world. Nowhere does Gore state that Katrina was caused by global warming. We discussed this attribution issue back in 2005, and what we said then still holds. Individual hurricanes cannot be attributed to global warming, but the statistics of hurricanes, in particular the maximum intensities attained by storms, may indeed be.
Impact of sea ice retreat on Polar bears As we presaged in August, summer Arctic sea ice shattered all records this year for the minimum extent. This was partially related to wind patterns favorable to ice export in the spring, but the long term trends are almost certainly related to the ongoing and dramatic warming in the Arctic. Polar bears do indeed depend on the sea ice to hunt for seals in the spring and summer, and so a disappearance of this ice is likely to impact them severely. The specific anecdote referred to in the movie came from observations of anomalous drownings of bears in 2004 and so was accurate. However, studying the regional populations of polar bears is not easy and assessing their prospects is tough. In the best observed populations such as in western Hudson Bay (Stirling and Parkinson, 2006), female polar bear weight is going down as the sea ice retreats over the last 25 years, and the FWS is considering an endangered species listing. However, it should be stated that in most of the discussions about polar bears, they are used as a representative species. Arctic ecosystems are changing on many different levels, but it is unsurprising that charismatic mega-fauna get more press than bivalves. In the end, it may be the smaller and less photogenic elements that have the biggest impact.
Impact of ocean warming on coral reefs Corals are under stress from a multitude of factors; overfishing, deliberate destruction, water pollution, sea level rise, ocean acidification and, finally, warming oceans. The comment in the movie that rising temperatures and other factors cause coral bleaching is undoubtedly true. Bleaching episodes happen when the coral is under stress, and many examples have been linked to anomalously warm ocean temperatures (Australia in 1998 and 2002, all over the Indian Ocean in recent years). Corals are a sobering example of how climate change exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in eco-systems, potentially playing the role of the straw that breaks the camel’s back in many instances.
Overall, our verdict is that the 9 points are not “errors” at all (with possibly one unwise choice of tense on the island evacuation point). But behind each of these issues lies some fascinating, and in some cases worrying, scientific findings and we can only applaud the prospect that more classroom discussions of these subjects may occur because of this court case.
While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science.
Lambert goes on to look closely at the nine contended points. His conclusion:
Overall, there are a couple of points where I wish Gore would have talked about timescales and probabilities (sea level rise and thermohaline circulation), and a couple of examples that could have been better chosen (Kilimanjaro and Lake Chad). Burton was mistaken on the other points where he felt that Gore went past the consensus. I don’t think that there is any harm in the Guidance Notes on Burton’s nine points, but the usual suspects will, of course, ignore the fact that the judge found that Gore was “broadly accurate” and try to make it look as if there are serious problems with AIT and climate science.
Out of this — a judge rejects the suit, but finds nine points in the film he thinks differ slightly from the consensus, and it turns out he’s wrong about several and the others were at best matters of interpretation, omission, or insufficient context — the mainstream media pulled, in the words of an AP headline I saw earlier this evening, “Judge Says Gore Movie Not Scientific” (it has since been changed).
