MYTH #18 THE OCEANS ARE OK

New study independently confirms the world's oceans are warming

What they found: The amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted by human activities before putting the goals of limiting warming to under 2℃, or 3.6℉, out of reach is about 25% less than what was previously calculated.

“Imagine if the ocean was only 30 feet deep,” said Resplandy in a press release. “Our data shows that it would have warmed by 6.5℃, or 11.7℉, every decade since 1991. In comparison, the estimate of the last IPCC assessment report would correspond to a warming of only 4℃, or 7.2℉, every decade.”

https://www.axios.com/worlds-oceans-warming-60-percent-faster-than-thought-8660aeb2-ce59-40e7-be9a-ee7f36da4c5d.html?fbclid=IwAR3umcmLIdGP5LaPUK4i_SVCgRpAHYuMmrHJXMLT3l5OlNitF53UDD9WwzU

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8

"Scientists say the accumulation of heat in the oceans is the strongest evidence of how fast Earth is warming due to heat-trapping gases released by the burning of fossil fuels.Oceans have enormous capacity to hold heat. So ocean temperatures, unlike temperatures on land, are slow to fluctuate from natural forces, such as El Niño/La Niña patterns or volcanic eruptions. Think night and day, said Trenberth. As night falls on land, so do air temperatures. But in the oceans, temperatures vary little."

https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/causes/overview?fbclid=IwAR0eOCDfRJoN1dWbFYCMOBz-3bvwu1MQ8ZVSiJ7lkFPNYaZ9JZwSOSR1evk

Rising temperatures can be charted back to the late 1950s, and the last five years were the five hottest on record

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2019/jan/16/our-oceans-broke-heat-records-in-2018-and-the-consequences-are-catastrophic?fbclid=IwAR0e6wHiNRQIE82RFjeq8qB3sDMNPhXuj3o2ffj9y6xGyXSbhDDcsBm_D-0

Tilbake til den store rapporten som var peer reviewed av the National Academy of Sciences.

Climate Science Special Report

Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I.

This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the first of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

The world’s oceans have absorbed about 93% of the excess heat caused by greenhouse gas warming since the mid-20th century, making them warmer and altering global and regional climate feedbacks. Ocean heat content has increased at all depths since the 1960s and surface waters have warmed by about 1.3° ± 0.1°F (0.7° ± 0.08°C) per century globally since 1900 to 2016.(Very high confidence)

In 2017, the oceans were by far the hottest ever recorded 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-018-8011-z

Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean

– how can a forcing driven by longwave absorption and emission impact the ocean below since the infrared radiation does not penetrate more than a few micrometers into the ocean? Resolution of this conundrum is to be found in the recognition that the skin layer temperature gradient not only exists as a result of the ocean-atmosphere temperature difference, but also helps to control the ocean-atmosphere heat flux. (The ‘skin layer‘ is the very thin – up to 1 mm – layer at the top of ocean that is in direct contact with the atmosphere). Reducing the size of the temperature gradient through the skin layer reduces the flux. Thus, if the absorption of the infrared emission from atmospheric greenhouse gases reduces the gradient through the skin layer, the flow of heat from the ocean beneath will be reduced, leaving more of the heat introduced into the bulk of the upper oceanic layer by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature. Experimental evidence for this mechanism can be seen in at-sea measurements of the ocean skin and bulk temperatures.

Verdenshavene har tatt opp like mye varme de siste 18 åra som de 130 åra før. Vil bedre framtidas klimamodeller.Forskerne bak studien sier til AP at de ikke er de store tallene som bekymrer dem mest, men hvor fort tallene øker.– Dette betyr at mengden energi som fanges i jordas totale klimasystem akselererer, sier hovedforfatter Peter Geckler, klimaforsker ved Lawrence Livermoore. Bjørn Hallvard Samset sier dette også forklarer hvorfor temperaturen på jordoverflata ikke har steget så mye de siste 15–20 åra, til tross for at drivhuseffekten har økt.– Dette er en veldig grei bekreftelse på det vi egentlig har visst lenge – mye energi går i havet. Nå kan vi putte dette tilbake i klimamodellene. Det vil hjelpe oss å lage bedre beregninger for framtidas klima”. CO2 -nivået i havet øker mer enn i atmosfæren og forsterker drivhuseffekten, viser forskning fra UiB.

NOAA: Global Ocean Heat and Salt Content

Scientists have long known that more than 90 percent of the heat energy from man-made global warming goes into the world’s oceans instead of the ground. And they’ve seen ocean heat content rise in recent years. But the new study, using ocean-observing data that goes back to the British research ship Challenger in the 1870s and including high-tech modern underwater monitors and computer models, tracked how much man-made heat has been buried in the oceans in the past 150 years. The world’s oceans absorbed approximately 150 zettajoules of energy from 1865 to 1997, and then absorbed about another 150 in the next 18 years, according to a study published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change. 

“Til nå har klimaforskere trodd at opptaket av menneskeskapte CO2-utslipp blir jevnt fordelt mellom atmosfære, hav og vegetasjon. Nye og omfattende målinger fra Nord-Atlanteren viser at dette ikke er tilfelle.– CO2 -konsentrasjonen i havoverflaten øker raskere enn i atmosfæren", sier Truls Johannessen ved Geofysisk institutt, UiB.”

Ser du på varmeinnholdet i havet, øker dette i betydelig grad, se figur 1 og 2 her: Dette er en viktig faktor for at globalt havnivå stiger.

As Earth warms, much of the extra heat is stored in the planet’s ocean – but monitoring the magnitude of that heat content is a difficult task. A surprising feature of the tides could help, however. Scientists at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, are developing a new way to use satellite observations of magnetic fields to measure heat stored in the ocean.

Researchers for the first time have identified the detection of sea level “fingerprints”: detectable patterns of sea level variability around the world resulting from changes in Earth’s ice. The new research will aid in sea level projections. As ice sheets and glaciers undergo climate-related melting, certain regions are hit harder, and Greenland and Antarctica contribute differently to the process. For instance, sea level rise in California and Florida generated by the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is up to 52 percent greater than its average effect on the rest of the world.

Observed and simulated full-depth ocean heat-content changes for 1970–2005 (Lijing Cheng et al 2016)
Greenhouse-gas emissions have created a planetary energy imbalance that is primarily manifested by increasing ocean heat content (OHC).

Not only does the climate model-based study, Meehl (2011), show heat is buried into deeper ocean layers when global surface temperatures stall, but it also presents plausible mechanisms in ocean circulation that transport heat down to the deep ocean. The general pattern of sea surface temperature during these hiatus periods is very reminiscent of a La Niña-like climate state. Meehl (2011) is also climate modeling-based study, which finds that decade-long periods of little or no warming are relatively common in the model simulations. This helps to explain why global warming is not a steadily rising, or monotonic trend, consistent with the temperature observations to date.

 

Figure 1 - Ocean heat content (0-700 mtrs) for the period 1955 to 2008. Adapted from Levitus (2009). Two periods of ocean warming hiatus highlighted in blue. Both periods exceed 10 years in length. This see-sawing of upper ocean heat is simply part of the natural variability inherent in the climate, which occurs even during periods where the ocean is experiencing long-term warming. During these "hiatus" periods the surface layers of the ocean undergo little or no warming, but the ocean below undergoes substantial warming. 

Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus’
Between about 1998 and 2012, a time that coincided with political negotiations for preventing climate change, the surface of Earth seemed hardly to warm. This phenomenon, often termed the ‘global warming hiatus’, caused doubt in the public mind about how well anthropogenic climate change and natural variability are understood. Here we show that apparently contradictory conclusions stem from different definitions of ‘hiatus’ and from different datasets. A combination of changes in forcing, uptake of heat by the oceans, natural variability and incomplete observational coverage reconciles models and data. Combined with stronger recent warming trends in newer datasets, we are now more confident than ever that human influence is dominant in long-term warming.

Sea level fluctuations during El Niño (rising) and La Niña (falling) are the result of large exchanges of water between land and ocean in the form of rain and snow. This averages out to zero over time. It does not affect long-term sea level rise, which comes from melting icesheets, glaciers, and thermal expansion.

Varmere hav holder mindre oksygen. Og havene varmes raskt; 90% av global oppvarming foregår i havene. Det er lite oksygen i dypet allerede, og jo varmere det blir, jo høyere opp flytter de ulike oksygennivåene seg. D.v.s. at fisk og dyr som tilpasser seg et spesielt oksygennivå (som de aller fleste av dem gjør) også flytter seg oppover, og fortrenger det som alt var der (videre oppover). https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/dette-bildet-bekymrer-forskerne-havene-er-fulle-av-dode-soner/69389820

Scientists predicted in the 1980s that a key fingerprint of anthropogenic climate change would be found in the ocean. If they were correct that increases in greenhouse gases were changing how much heat was coming into the system, then the component with the biggest heat capacity, the oceans, is where most of that heat would end up.

The evidence suggests that ocean heat uptake has accelerated over the last couple of decades, and is likely higher than was reported in IPCC in 2013. The Resplandy et al estimates are consistent with the newer data.

Going back to where we started, what does this allow to conclude about recent climate change? First, the size of the uptake implies that there indeed must be a significant energy imbalance for the planet. This in turn means there must be a larger radiative forcing driving this (for instance, due to the rise in greenhouse gases or an increase in solar activity – other evidence allows us to distinguish between these). But most importantly, this was a predicted effect, made in the earliest (and most basic) simulations as a consequence of a non-negligible climate sensitivity and greenhouse gas increases. In all the hubbub surrounding the latest paper, one would do well to remember that.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/11/the-long-story-of-constraining-ocean-heat-content/?fbclid=IwAR0_B8V7JWKBaYNOytsd0nhzrWqWQZ84QupRFImr86YRL1NAviM04NpJKP0#.W_ZUv3tbRgA.facebook

HVA MED HAVNIVÅET?

Satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.Over the past century, the burning of fossil fuels and other human related activity and natural activities has released enormous amounts of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. These emissions have caused the Earth's surface temperature to rise, and the oceans absorb about 80 percent of this additional heat.The rise in sea levels is linked to three primary factors, all induced by this ongoing global climate change.

• Thermal Expansion: When water heats up, it expands. About half of the past century's rise in sea level is attributable to warmer oceans simply occupying more space.
• Melting Glaciers and Polar Ice Caps: Large ice formations, like glaciers and the polar ice caps, naturally melt back a bit each summer. In the winter, snows, primarily from evaporated seawater, are generally sufficient to balance out the melting. Recently, though, persistently higher temperatures caused by global warming have led to greater than average summer melting as well as diminished snowfall due to later winters and earlier springs. This imbalance results in a significant net gain in the ratio of runoff to ocean evaporation, causing sea levels to rise.
• Ice Loss from Greenland and West Antarctica: As with the glaciers and ice caps, increased heat is causing the massive ice sheets that cover Greenland and Antarctica to melt at an accelerated pace. Scientists also believe melt water from above and seawater from below is seeping beneath Greenland's and West Antarctica's ice sheets, effectively lubricating ice streams and causing them to move more quickly into the sea. Higher sea temperatures are causing the massive ice shelves that extend out from Antarctica to melt from below, weaken, and break off.
  
  Apart from the above there is evidence that this has happened before in the Earths cycle but this was kept in check due to no human interference making things far worse. 

Sea levels stabilized around 4,000 years ago. From Shakun 2015:

New study finds sea level rise accelerating 

The rate of global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data. The new research suggests he world’s oceans will be on average at least 60cm higher by the end of the century.

Satellite observations show sea levels rising, and climate change is accelerating it.

Sea level rise is happening now, and the rate at which it is rising is increasing every year, according to a study released Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Researchers, led by University of Colorado-Boulder professor of aerospace engineering sciences Steve Nerem, used satellite data dating to 1993 to observe the levels of the world's oceans.Using satellite data rather than tide-gauge data that is normally used to measure sea levels allows for more precise estimates of global sea level, since it provides measurements of the open ocean.

- Brandon Miller, CNN, Feb 12, 2017

https://youtu.be/CW0D9XTgiGs 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/13/melting-ice-sheets-are-hastening-sea-level-rise-satellite-data-confirms?CMP=share_btn_fb

http://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/12/world/sea-level-rise-accelerating/index.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/02/06/1717312115

NOAA: Sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2016, global sea level was 3.2 inches (82 mm) above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present).



 
There was a huge climate report out just now from the USA:

The report was peer reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences.You know, the academy founded by Abraham Lincoln.They have 200 Nobel Prize winners among their members.

Global mean sea level (GMSL) has risen by about 7–8 inches (about 16–21 cm) since 1900, with about 3 of those inches (about 7 cm) occurring since 1993 (very high confidence). Human-caused climate change has made a substantial contribution to GMSL rise since 1900 (high confidence).

Slangen et al 2016, Human activities are the dominant contribution to SLR since 1970. Anthropogenic forcing dominates global mean sea-level rise since 1970 "the anthropogenic forcing (primarily a balance between a positive sea-level contribution from GHGs and a partially offsetting component from anthropogenic aerosols) explains only 15 ± 55% of the observations before 1950, but increases to become the dominant contribution to sea-level rise after 1970 (69 ± 31%), reaching 72 ± 39% in 2000 (37 ± 38% over the period 1900–2005)"

Takeaways:
1. Although natural variations in radiative forcing affect decadal trends, they have little effect over the twentieth century as a whole
2. In 1900, sea level was not in equilibrium with the twentieth-century climate, and there is a continuing, but diminishing, contribution to sea-level change from this historic variability
3. The anthropogenic contribution increases during the twentieth century, and becomes the dominant contribution by the end of the century. Our twentieth-century number of 37 ± 38% confirms the anthropogenic lower limit of 45%
4. Our results clearly show that the anthropogenic influence is not just present in some of the individual contributors to sea-level change, but actually dominates total sea-level change after 1970
Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming could be dangerous.

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/   



NASA følger havnivået her


The rise in sea levels seen over the past century is unmatched by any period in the past 6,000 years, according to a lengthy analysis of historical sea level trends.Anthropogenic forcing dominates global mean sea-level rise since 1970.

The reconstruction of 35,000 years of sea level fluctuations finds that there is no evidence that levels changed by more than 20cm in a relatively steady period that lasted between 6,000 years ago and about 150 years ago. This makes the past century extremely unusual in the historical record, with about a 20cm rise in global sea levels since the start of the 20th century. Scientists have identified rising temperatures, which have caused polar ice to melt and thermal expansion of the sea, as a primary cause of the sea level increase.

A two-decade-long collection of about 1,000 ancient sediment samples off Britain, north America, Greenland and the Seychelles formed the basis of the research, led by the Australian National University and published in PNAS.

Det er ingen "pause" i oppvarming som uttrykkes i form av havnivåstigningen. Havnivået stiger fordi varmere vann utvider seg og trenger mer plass, og fordi vannet fra is som smelter (på Grønland og Antarktis) er med på å øke volumet. Havet tar til seg mesteparten av den ekstra varmen som den økte drivhuseffekten skaper.

Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting ice sheets and glaciers and the expansion of sea water as it warms. The first graph tracks the change in sea level since 1993 as observed by satellites.

The most respected reconstruction of global sea level during that time based on the global network of tide gauges is from Church & White:


A plot of the PSMSL tide-gauge station data aggregated into a GMSL data set by Church & White [1]. There are significant changepoints at around 1934 and 2000, with the slope of the most recent segment being 4.1 mm/yr. (This is fairly consistent with Yi et al. 2015 [2], which finds that since 2010 global mean sea level "has been rising at a rate of 4.4 ± 0.5mm/yr for more than 3 years, due to an increase in the rate of both land ice loss and steric change.") Since there's a temporal increase in the rate of SLR for each segment, SLR is accelerating in this data set.

1. Church JA and White NJ: Sea-level rise from the late 19th to the early 21st century. Surveys in Geophysics 32(4–5):585–602, 2011. dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10712-011-9119-1

2. Yi S, Sun W, Heki K, Qian A: An increase in the rate of global mean sea level rise since 2010. Geophysical Research Letters 42(10):3998–4006, 2015. dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063902

Huge Arctic report ups estimates of sea-level rise

The Arctic is warming more than twice as fast as the rest of the planet, suggests a huge assessment of the region. The warming is hastening the melting of Arctic ice and boosting sea-level rise.

http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/global-sea-level-rise-by-century

Sea level rise isn’t just happening, it’s getting faster. Se rapporten her.

For ordens skyld; havnivået kan variere regionalt/lokalt"

Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to local factors: subsidence, upstream flood control, erosion, regional ocean currents, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers."

IPPC:

FAQ 13.1 | Why Does Local Sea Level Change Differ from the Global Average? Shifting surface winds, the expansion of warming ocean water, and the addition of melting ice can alter ocean currents which, in turn, lead to changes in sea level that vary from place to place. Past and present variations in the distribution of land ice affect the shape and gravitational field of the Earth, which also cause regional fluctuations in sea level. Additional variations in sea level are caused by the influence of more localized processes such as sediment compaction and tectonics.

Bonus: Maldivene

In terms of the Maldives and sea level rise, it is nevertheless a bit special, and about how much dry land there is; no direct consequence of the sea level. Since the islands consist largely of coral, what goes too far up the sea will weather and erode away if the sea is sinking / the land rises, and when the sea rises / the land is sinking, the corals will grow and "fill up". So in the long run, such islands will be "just above sea level". The problem is if the water rises "too fast" and "we" at the same time have built cities and roads and airports and so on.

https://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-locations/republic-of-maldives.html


There is nothing in this study which is new nor in conflict with AGW theory or sea level rise.

http://sci-hub.tw/10.1002/wcc.557?fbclid=IwAR3xgUFL1Hvf_TjwxH-kYMj8DIg3tpnmqwpAJp-GLmoHaEKmaI0cHTo27ZA

Its all old news. Science have good understanding about atoll islands. Its science in progress.

Small atoll islands may grow, not sink, as sea levels rise:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27639-small-atoll-islands-may-grow-not-sink-as-sea-levels-rise/

Atoll islands are more dynamic then we realized....it seems. They don't disprove sea rise, but it does broaden our thinking about how sea rise.

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html?fbclid=IwAR1HmhtCaMZQYLMwy_dWU-nFteELhHwj2kmpa2xUG65D_lW_xxSuHhPRmsQ

Havet blir surere.

Verdenshavene blir surere. De siste 200 årene har gjennomsnittlig surhet i havoverflaten økt med 26 prosent på verdensbasis, og Arktis er spesielt utsatt for forsuring. Norske havområder er spesielt utsatt for havforsuring, særlig lengst i nord.  

 

Årsaken er blant annet at kaldt vann kan ta opp mer CO2 enn varmere vann, og at tilførsler av ferskvann fra elver og issmelting svekker havets evne til å nøytralisere forsuringen. Pågående klimaendringer i form av økt nedbør, økt avrenning med elver og økt issmelting, vil i tillegg kunne forsterke sårbarheten og ytterligere redusere havets motstandskraft mot forsuring.

Mer CO2 i norske havområder enn før. Overvåking av pH og oppløst CO2 i norske havområder viser at innholdet av CO2 øker. Dette skyldes at de menneskeskapte utslippene av CO2 har økt, og at det er mer CO2 i atmosfæren enn tidligere. Det antas at havet hittil har tatt opp 50 prosent av alle menneskeskapte CO2-utslipp. På grunn av forsuringen er havets evne til å ta opp CO2 redusert, så i dag regner en at havet tar opp 25 prosent av de menneskeskapte utslippene. 

Tilbake til den store rapporten som var peer reviewed av the National Academy of Sciences.
Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I 

The world’s oceans are currently absorbing more than a quarter of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere annually from human activities, making them more acidic (very high confidence)  

Vi får oksygenet vårt fra havet.  

 

MYTE #19 HENRYS LOV/TERMODYNAMIKKENS ANDRE LOV MOTBEVISER DRIVHUSEFFEKTEN

Henrys lov har hele tiden vært med i beregningene. De som bruker det argumentet viser at de misoppfatter problemstillingen. Dessuten viser målingene både økte konsentrasjoner i atmosfæren og i havene (som blir surere). Henrys lov motbeviser ikke at økt C02 nivå i atmosfæren forårsaker oppvarming av planeten. Henrys lov (se Henryloven) sier at løseligheten av en gass i en væske er proporsjonal med partialtrykket til gassen. Økt mengde CO2 i atmosfæren fører dermed til økt opptak i havet. Løseligheten avtar imidlertid med økende temperatur, så hvis havet blir varmere, vil det derfor gå CO2 fra havet og til lufta. Disse to prosessene virker altså hver sin vei. Målinger viser at det er den første prosessen som dominerer nå, og at havets innhold av CO2 øker, noe som bidrar til havforsuring. 

Termodynamikkens andre lov er blitt beskrevet på mange måter, Rudolf Clausius sa det greiest: 
"Varme kan generelt ikke strømme spontant fra et materiale ved lavere temperatur til et materiale ved høyere temperatur."
Så hvis du setter noe varmt ved siden av noe kaldt, blir det ikke varmere, og det kalde blir ikke kaldere. Det er så tydelig at det ikke nødvendigvis trenger en forsker å si det, vi vet dette fra våre daglige liv. Hvis du setter en isterning i drikken din, koker den ikke!
Skeptikerne forteller oss at fordi luften, inkludert drivhusgassene, er kjøligere enn jordens overflate, kan den ikke varme jorden. Hvis det gjorde det, sier de, det betyr at varme må flyte fra kald til varmt, tilsynelatende brudd på termodynamikkens andre lov.
Så har klimaforskere gjort en grunnleggende feil? Selvfølgelig ikke!
Jordens atmosfære er mindre i stand til å absorbere kortbølgestråling fra solen enn termisk stråling som kommer fra overflaten. Effekten av denne ulempen er at termisk stråling som rømmer ut til rommet kommer for det meste fra den kalde øvre atmosfæren, mens overflaten opprettholdes ved en vesentlig varmere temperatur. Dette kalles "atmosfærisk drivhuseffekt", og uten denne ville jordens overflate være mye kaldere.
Skeptikere ignorerer det faktum at jorden blir oppvarmet av solen, noe som utgjør hele forskjellen. 
Varme fra solen varmer opp jorden, som varmen fra kroppen holder deg varm. Jorden mister varmen til verdensrommet, og kroppen din mister varmen til miljøet. Drivhusgasser reduserer hastigheten på varmetapet fra jordens overflate, som et teppe senker hastigheten når kroppen din mister varme. Resultatet er det samme i begge tilfeller, overflaten av jorden eller kroppen din blir varmere.
Video:Temperaturen flyter selvsagt fra varm til kald, men hvis kaldere gjenstander varmes opp, selv om de holder seg under temperaturen på de varmere tingene, er det en tilbakekoblingssløyfe, fordi med lavere temperaturforskjeller blir energistrømmen redusert, slik at den allerede varmere gjenstanden varmes opp enda mer.

The second law of thermodynamics has been stated in many ways. For us, Rudolf Clausius said it best: 
"Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature."
So if you put something hot next to something cold, the hot thing won't get hotter, and the cold thing won't get colder. That's so obvious that it hardly needs a scientist to say it, we know this from our daily lives. If you put an ice-cube into your drink, the drink doesn't boil!
The skeptic tells us that, because the air, including the greenhouse gasses, is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it cannot warm the Earth. If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold to hot, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake? Of course not! 
The atmosphere of the Earth is less able to absorb shortwave radiation from the Sun than thermal radiation coming from the surface. The effect of this disparity is that thermal radiation escaping to space comes mostly from the cold upper atmosphere, while the surface is maintained at a substantially warmer temperature. This is called the "atmospheric greenhouse effect", and without it the Earth's surface would be much colder.
The skeptic is ignoring the fact that the Earth is being warmed by the sun, which makes all the difference.
Heat from the sun warms the Earth, as heat from your body keeps you warm. The Earth loses heat to space, and your body loses heat to the environment. Greenhouse gases slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface of the Earth, like a blanket that slows down the rate at which your body loses heat. The result is the same in both cases, the surface of the Earth, or of your body, gets warmer.
Video: OF COURSE temperature flows from warm to cold, but if those colder things warm up, even if they stay below temperature of the warmer things, there is a feedback, because with lower temperature DIFFERENCES, the flow of energy gets reduced, so the already warmer things warm up even more.

BONUS:
Et papir som muligens har holdt liv i denne myten er dette:
Irrelevant analogies Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009) claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect by comparing it to a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with planetary atmosphere but equilibrated to the atmospheric system. Their conclusion was based on a misguided comparison between glass houses and the atmospheric greenhouse effect. A comment by Halpern et al. (2010) showed that their methods, logic, and conclusions were in error, e.g. by their attempt to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only part of the process. Like Miskolczi (2010), they ignored most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth's surface and atmosphere. Another similarity was publishing in a journal that did not specialise on atmopheric or planetary physics: International Journal of Modern Physics B, Condensed Matter Physics; Statistical Physics; Applied Physics. As with Miskolczi, the paper is an example of an erroneous analysis: category B.
Her debunkes det.

18. KLIMAFORNEKTING I EN KONSPIRASJONSKULTUR

Som vi skal se senere, er det en stor og pengesterk industri der ute som prøver å snu alt på hodet og attpåtil få støtte i befolkningen for dette. Det er et eldgammelt triks; å beskylde motstanderen for å bedrive med det en driver med selv, for å kamuflere sin egen agenda. Det er derfor klimatåkeleggerne beskylder klimaforskere for å være de korrupte.

Vi skal se på hvem som sitter på pengemidlene senere i dette dokumentet. Her er en smakebit; 

1.Hva Exxon måtte ut med etter Exxon Valdez-ulykken? “As of December 15, 2009, Exxon paid all owed $507.5 million punitive damages, including lawsuit costs, plus interest, which were further distributed to thousands of plaintiffs.“

2.Oppgjøret til BP etter Deepwater Horizon-katastrofen i Mexicogulfen i 2010?: In September 2014, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that BP was primarily responsible for the oil spill because of its gross negligence and reckless conduct. In July 2015, BP agreed to pay $18.7 billion in fines, the largest corporate settlement in U.S. history.

3. David H. Koch og Charles G. Koch, de to brødrene som fortsatt er med i Koch Industries, er tilknyttet Koch family foundations og er kjent for deres finansielle støtte til konservative og libertarianske politiske grupper i USA. Du finner alltid Koch-brødrene på listene over verdens rikeste mennesker. Siden 1980-tallet har Koch foundations gitt mer enn USD 100 millioner til organisasjoner og tenketanker som Heritage Foundation og Cato Institute, samt i den seneste tid Americans for Prosperity. Årlig omsetning for Koch Industries har blitt estimert til å være hundre milliarder USD. [...] the Koch brothers have played an active role in opposing climate change legislation. Climate change skeptic Willie Soon received $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Organizations that the Koch brothers help fund, such as Americans for Prosperity, The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the Manhattan Institute, have been active in questioning global warming. Americans for Prosperity and the Koch brothers influenced more than 400 members of Congress to sign a pledge to vot against climate change legislation that does not include offsetting tax cuts.

Alt handler om å få fokuset vekk fra at Co2 er skadelig for miljø og klima. DET er faktisk det eneste det handler om. Som en viktig del av denne planen, her er den konspiratoriske og paranoide alternative virkeligheten som disse mektige interessene og klimatåkeleggerne prøver å selge oss: 

• at internasjonale klimaforskere - ca de siste 100 år - sammen har pønsket ut en plan for å lure verden til å tro at mennesker bidrar til klimaforandringer. Alle verdens land sine myndigheter har betalt disse forskerne enorme summer for å komme frem til dette slik at disse myndighetene kan pålegge sine borgere all slags avgifter og legge restriksjoner og hindringer i veien for fossil-brensel-industrien. (På samme måte som de har gjort med den snille tobakksindustrien). En hemmelig grønn industri står så klar til å bli søkkrike ved å gjøre verden om til en eneste stor vindmøllepark, men først må altså olje og kullindustrien “ryddes” av veien. Det er selvsagt de venstreskrudde kommunistene i Fns Klimapanel som styrer alt dette gjennom sin headmaster Al Gore og som forlenges gjennom Illuminati-avtalen (Paris-avtalen). Alt har blitt holdt skjult, inntil nå, ved hjelp av PK-mediene (det politiske kartellet), som naturligvis er styrt av de samme myndighetene. Men,  denne planen er nå endelig  avslørt av en modig rekke av nettroll, bloggere, milliardærer, kreasjonister og fossil-brensel-industrien.

Og tenkte du at scenariet beskrevet ovenfor høres “for drøyt” ut? Dessverre, nei. Mange slenger om seg med hoax hele tiden. Seawapa.org, som er en av de verste sprederne av klimaløgner på nett, pusher dette knallhardt; menneskeskapt global oppvarming er en total verdensomspennende konspira.  

På hjemmesiden deres sier de det rett ut: 


Det er gjort en rekke gode studier på konspiratorisk tenking om klima:

An overwhelming percentage of climate scientists agree that human activity is causing the global climate to change in ways that will have deleterious consequences both for the environment and for humankind. While scientists have alerted both the public and policy makers to the dangers of continuing or increasing the current rate of carbon emission, policy proposals intended to curb carbon emission and thereby mitigate climate change have been resisted by a notable segment of the public. Some of this resistance comes from those not wanting to incur costs or change energy sources (i.e., the carbon-based energy industry). Others oppose policies intended to address climate change for ideological reasons (i.e., they are opposed to the collectivist nature of the solutions usually proposed). But perhaps the most alarming and visible are those who oppose solutions to climate change because they believe, or at least claim to believe, that anthropogenic climate change is not really happening and that climate scientists are lying and their data is fake.

Resistance, in this latter case, sometimes referred to as climate “skepticism” or “denialism,” varies from region to region in strength but worldwide has been a prominent part of a political force strong enough to preclude both domestic and global policy makers from making binding efforts to avert the further effects of anthropogenic climate change. For example, a 2013 poll in the United States showed that almost 40% believed that climate change was a hoax.

Among American Conservatives, but not Liberals, trust in science has been declining since the 1970's. Climate science has become particularly polarized, with Conservatives being more likely than Liberals to reject the notion that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the globe. Conversely, opposition to genetically-modified (GM) foods and vaccinations is often ascribed to the political Left although reliable data are lacking. There are also growing indications that rejection of science is suffused by conspiracist ideation, that is the general tendency to endorse conspiracy theories including the specific beliefs that inconvenient scientific findings constitute a “hoax.”

What drives conspiracy theorizing in the United States? Conspiracy theories can undermine the legitimacy and efficacy of government policy, and sometimes lead to violence. Unfortunately prior studies on the topic have been anecdotal and impressionistic. For purchase on this problem, we attempt the first systematic data collection of conspiracy theories at the mass and elite levels by examining published letters to the editor of the New York Times from 1897 to 2010 and a validating sample from the Chicago Tribune. We argue that perceived power asymmetries, indicated by international and domestic conflicts, influence when and why conspiracy theories resonate in the U.S. On this reasoning, conspiracy theories conform to a strategic logic that helps vulnerable groups manage threats. Further, we find that both sides of the domestic partisan divide partake in conspiracy theorizing equally, though in an alternating pattern, and foreign conspiracy theories crowd out domestic conspiracy theories during heightened foreign threat.

Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire

We advance a new account of why people endorse conspiracy theories, arguing that individuals use the social–cognitive tool of projection when making social judgements about others. In two studies, we found that individuals were more likely to endorse conspiracy theories if they thought they would be willing, personally, to participate in the alleged conspiracies.
Study 1 established an association between conspiracy beliefs and personal willingness to conspire, which fully mediated a relationship between Machiavellianism and conspiracy beliefs. In Study 2, participants primed with their own morality were less inclined than controls to endorse conspiracy theories – a finding fully mediated by personal willingness to conspire. These results suggest that some people think ‘they conspired’ because they think ‘I would conspire’.

Climate change is an issue on which there is a robust scientific position but much public debate and disagreement. People’s opinions about climate change depend on many factors, but ideology tends to be the most important. One important factor that can explain climate change attitudes is underlying conspiracy thinking (Lewandowsky, Gignac, et al., 2013). This suggests that climate denialism is not due to a fair examination of the available scientific evidence, but rather an ideological critique that appears largely immune to evidence and reason (Uscinski & Parent, 2014). Conspiracy-tinged rhetoric, which has become commonplace in climate change discourse, can have far-reaching negative consequences in the effort to mitigate the effects of global climate change (Douglas & Sutton, 2015). Given the severity of global climate change, we call on social scientists to further investigate the causes and consequences of climate change conspiracy theorizing.

When people’s worldview and identity are threatened by a scientific fact or its implications (e.g., the regulatory implications of climate change), they frequently resort to “identity-protective cognition” (e.g., Cook, 2016; Garrett, 2017; Kahan et al., 2007b; Whitson & Galinsky, 2008). Identity-protective cognition restores the person’s worldview against an attack and can manifest itself in a variety of ways, for example, by altering subjective risk perception (Kahan et al., 2007b). In the case of climate change, however, identity-protective cognition faces a particularly strong challenge in light of the overwhelming scientific consensus that people’s activities are causing our climate to change (for a review of the consensus evidence, see Cook et al., 2016). Given the overwhelming scientific evidence, the only available avenue for circumventing the consensus was by reinterpreting its existence. Instead of accepting that this consensus emerged as the result of researchers converging independently on the same evidence-based view, an alternative explanation for its existence was put forward: a presumed conspiracy among climate scientists, who are colluding in the “manufacture” of evidence for some nefarious purpose. Conspiracy theories are one of only a few rhetorical devices that can counter the evidence demonstrating the existence of global climate change, since there is currently little scientific basis on which to dissent. In this way, conspiracy theories can act as a disruptive political mechanism: They can alter the grounds on which a debate is occurring. 

Climate change is an issue on which there is a robust scientific position but much public debate and disagreement. People’s opinions about climate change depend on many factors, but ideology tends to be the most important. One important factor that can explain climate change attitudes is underlying conspiracy thinking (Lewandowsky, Gignac, et al., 2013). This suggests that climate denialism is not due to a fair examination of the available scientific evidence, but rather an ideological critique that appears largely immune to evidence and reason (Uscinski & Parent, 2014). Conspiracy-tinged rhetoric, which has become commonplace in climate change discourse, can have far-reaching negative consequences in the effort to mitigate the effects of global climate change (Douglas & Sutton, 2015).

________________

På Oljekrisa.no, står klimafornektings-artiklene side om side med mørke konspirasjonsteorier om 11 september. Tenk litt på akkurat det. Ta all den tiden du trenger. Ikke tenk så mye på stavefeilene.

Hvorfor disse tingene -som tilsynelatende ikke har noe med hverandre å gjøre - presenteres side om side, kommer vi inn på straks.

Have you ever noticed that when you present people with facts that are contrary to their deepest held beliefs they always change their minds? Me neither. In fact, people seem to double down on their beliefs in the teeth of overwhelming evidence against them. The reason is related to the worldview perceived to be under threat by the conflicting data.

Creationists, for example, dispute the evidence for evolution in fossils and DNA because they are concerned about secular forces encroaching on religious faith. Anti-vaxxers distrust big pharma and think that money corrupts medicine, which leads them to believe that vaccines cause autism despite the inconvenient truth that the one and only study claiming such a link was retracted and its lead author accused of fraud. The 9/11 truthers focus on minutiae like the melting point of steel in the World Trade Center buildings that caused their collapse because they think the government lies and conducts “false flag” operations to create a New World Order. Climate deniers study tree rings, ice cores and the PPM of greenhouse gases because they are passionate about freedom, especially that of markets and industries to operate unencumbered by restrictive government regulations. Obama birthers desperately dissected the president’s long-form birth certificate in search of fraud because they believe that the nation’s first African- American president is a socialist bent on destroying the country.

Det er ganske skremmende, når jeg sjekker kildene bak klimafornektingen her hjemme, ender jeg alltid raskt opp på nettsteder som, i tillegg til klimafornekting, også fremmer ting som antivaxxing, fremmedhat/frykt, og konspira om 9/11. Noen sprer endatil klimafornektelse side om side med Holocaustfornektelse. Mange klimafornektere er paranoide og helt vrangforestillet av stigmatisert kunnskap: pseudovitenskap, spekulativ populærvitenskap, nyåndelige forestillinger og – ikke minst – konspirasjonsteorier. Bare tanken på at myndighetene "holder ting skjult for oss", og pålegger oss "unødvendige" avgifter og restriksjoner pga “den innbilte klimakrisen”, er uutholdelig. At myndighetene i USA også “holder tilbake sannheten” om hva som “egentlig” skjedde 11 september 2001, blir derfor to sider av samme sak for en paranoid konspiratoriker. Klimafornekting og 9/11 konspira er to grener på det samme store konspiratreet. I mine mange diskusjoner med konspiranoide klimafornektere er det tydelig at klima egentlig er “litt kjedelig” og at klimafornektingen gjerne brukes som “brekkstang” for å fremme disse andre, mørkere, konspirasjonsteoriene. Bruk gjerne denne hendige guiden til å finne ut hvem din konspira-venn ligner mest på. Sjekk og oppsummering i Del 4.

På YouTube finner vi, ikke overraskende,  klimafornekter-videoer side om side med 911-truther-videoer. 

Akkurat som på hjemmesiden til Oljekrisa.no:

 

Fra fritanke.no:
"Ideen om at amerikanske myndigheter selv stod bak terrorhandlingene 11. september 2001 for å kunne starte en krig i Midtøsten, eller opprette et strengere kontrollregime på hjemmebane, ser ut til å ha blitt lansert få dager etter hendelsene på nettstedet Serendipity, et høyreorientert nettsted med brodd mot alt som heter storkapital og bankvesen som siden 1996 har vært tilholdssted for alt fra klimaskepsis og holocaustbenektelse til hva som «egentlig» skjedde under bombingen av det føderale kontorbygget i Oklahoma City".“Et sted å begynne kan være det fenomenet den amerikanske forfatteren Chip Berlet har omtalt som «right woos left."

Ifølge Berlet begynte amerikansk ytre høyre et frieri til venstresiden og antikrigsbevegelsen mot slutten av 1980-tallet der målet var å få innpass med utgangspunkt i at begge var kritiske til intervensjoner i utlandet, amerikansk støtte til Israel og begrensninger på individuell frihet. Mens ytre høyres ståsted ved første øyekast hadde flere likheter med tradisjonelle venstreståsteder, var utgangspunktet selvsagt et annet ettersom det sprang ut av et ønske om å bevare et USA styrt av hvite kristne og ofte også av antisemittiske forestillinger om mektige banker som trakk i trådene og presset USA inn i kriger som langt fra var i landets egen interesse. Mange spekulerte også i om jøder stod bak den «dekadente» populærkulturen. Til tross for dette klarte enkelte grupperinger, særlig rundt nynazisten og holocaustbenekteren Willis Carto og nyfascisten Lyndon LaRouche, å få innpass i deler av den amerikanske venstresiden i tiden rundt den første krigen mot Irak i 1990-91 “[...] de samme menneskene som mener det er sannsynlig at myndighetene skjuler sannheten om terrorhandlingene 11. september, også har en større tendens til å vurdere det som sannsynlig at myndighetene skjuler informasjon om kontakt med utenomjordiske og at vaksinering av barn kan føre til autisme. Det er ikke usannsynlig at dette også kan være en del av forklaringen på at enkelte representanter for norsk venstreside de senere årene har blitt talspersoner for konspirasjonsteorier som stammer direkte fra amerikansk ytre høyre, for eksempel tidligere SV-leder Berit Ås som både har hevdet at USA selv stod bak terrorhandlingene 11. september 2001 og at vi blir utsatt fra kjemikaliesprøyting fra fly – en påstand som først ser ut til å ha blitt lansert på nettstedet The Patriot Page i 2000. På samme måte som det finnes en «paranoid tråd i amerikansk politikk» har vi en tilsvarende tradisjon i enkelte kretser for et irrasjonelt hat mot USA som ikke er det samme som å kritisere de mange problematiske sidene ved supermaktens utenrikspolitikk. Det er grunn til å tro at dette hatet har fungert som en slik grunnantagelse for enkelte og dermed disponert dem for å tro nær sagt hva som helst om dette landet, inkludert konspirasjonsteorier.” 

Oljekrisa.no pusher bekmørk 911-truthisme side om side med klimafornekting:


Når ikke Oljekrisa.no er travelt opptatt med å spre klimaløgner, er det altså 911-truthisme som står på agendaen. Nederst i artikkelen linker de like så godt til den beryktede truther-siden ae911truth.org