Model falsifiability and climate slow modes

ChristopherEssexa Anastasios A.Tsonisb

Det vakte stor oppmerksomhet da det i 2015 ble kjent av Volkswagen helt bevisst hadde jukset med utslippet fra mange av sine dieselbiler.
https://www.tv2.no/a/10279063/

The Lisbeth Dahllöf and Mia Romare study debunked:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/news/a27039/tesla-battery-emissions-study-fake-news/

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/06/22/swedish-ev-battery-study-sucks/

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Has-Tesla-Solved-The-Worlds-Battery-Recycling-Problem.html

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions

Hvem står bak drittpakkene:

https://electrek.co/2017/06/27/koch-brothers-electric-cars-fossil-fuels/

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/01/06/big-oil-tries-to-kill-the-electric-car-again/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/koch-electric-vehicles_n_56c4d63ce4b0b40245c8cbf6

https://electrek.co/2018/10/26/kochs-electric-vehicle-federal-tax-credit/

_________________________________________________________

The methane 51 % nonsense.

Neither Goodland or Anhang

were climate scientists and the paper was never peer reviewed.

"The World Watch paper was further critiqued when experts in the field did review it. As previously noted the World Watch report was published without peer review. Here's the peer reviewed analysis of World Watch by experts in the field, Livestock and greenhouse gas emissions: The importance of getting the numbers right.

Here again the math for World Watch is again pointed out as being specious in numerous ways. World Watch's authors did issue a retort to this peer review, but in their retort they again failed to accept that they way over counted contributing factors and didn't account at all for mitigating ones like carbon sequestration.

So, in short, World Watch's 51% figure is completely fabricated by a vegan advocate to further a vegan agenda. Even simple commonsense details how absurd the whole premise is when you consider China accounts for 23% of global GHG's while Brazil accounts for only 3.96% of GHG's (and these stats from the World Resources Institute do account for land use change that is deforestation rates). Brazil (214 mill head) has well over twice the number of head of cattle as China (100 mill head). Most of China's emissions are from thermal energy and industry NOT animal agriculture"

The study counts animal resperation w/o accounting for the photosynthesis of the plants that animals eat. The GHGs that animals breathe out comes from plants that pull CO2 from the atmosphere. It's bad accounting.
https://qr.ae/TWtX2j

The paper in question:

http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf

The debunks:

Abstract:

Estimates of global greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions attributable to livestock range from 8 to 51%.

"This variability creates confusion among policy makers and the public as it suggests that there is a lack of consensus among scientists with regard to the contribution of livestock to global GHG emissions. In reality, estimates of international scientific organizations such as the International Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) are in close agreement, with variation mainly arising on how GHG emissions are allocated to land use and land use change.

Other estimates involve major deviations from international protocols, such as estimated global warming potential of CH4 or including respired CO2 in GHG emissions. These approaches also fail to differentiate short-term CO2 arising from oxidation of plant C by ruminants from CO2 released from fixed fossil C through combustion. These deviances from internationally accepted protocols create confusion and direct attention from anthropomorphic practices which have the most important contribution to global GHG emissions.

Global estimates of livestock GHG emissions are most reliable when they are generated by internationally recognized scientific panels with expertise across a range of disciplines, and with no preconceived bias to particular outcomes."

http://www.vancouverhumanesociety.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/Livestock-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions.-The-importance-of-getting-the-numbers-right.pdf

"According to the EPA, burning fossil fuels for industry, electricity, and transportation comprises the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture is nine percent of emissions and livestock roughly four percent of that."

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/

"So how did the NASA team find evidence of rising methane emissions from oil and gas exploration? The reduction in the world's area burned between 2006 and 2014 resulted in a reduction in methane emissions well above that predicted by scientists. Thus, fire-related methane pollution has dropped twice as much as previously thought, according to the study published in Nature Communications.

Combining isotopic evidence from ground surface measurements with the newly calculated fire emissions, the NASA team showed that about 17 teragrams per year of the increase is due to fossil fuels, another 12 is from wetlands or rice farming, while fires are decreasing by about 4 teragrams per year. The three numbers combine to 25 teragrams a year -- the same as the observed increase."

https://unfccc.int/news/nasa-confirms-methane-spike-is-tied-to-oil-and-gas

Watch to see how much different factors, both natural and industrial, contribute to global warming, based on findings from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/144/video-how-global-warming-stacks-up/

__________________________________________________________

The NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

Any paper making claims such as:

"During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C. "

and,

"The low clouds control mainly the global temperature."

Is total junk.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

_______________________________

Den finske studien er ikke fagfellevurdert og har forlengst blitt avkledd.

En (1) studie, en ny hypotese, er ikke bevis for noe ennå. Nye hypoteser må kunne gjenskapes av andre gjennom nye eksperimenter, og dermed bekrefte dem, eller avvise dem. Eller forbedre dem. Deretter kan de til slutt løftes opp til en teori. Det er først når det er mange, ofte hundrevis av studier som støtter hverandre og forbedrer hverandre, at vi kan snakke om ny kunnskap.

Hvis studien ikke klarer å bli filtrert gjennom Den Vitenskapelige metode, forblir den alene, en hypotese avvist av bedre vitenskap.

Du kan ikke overse de 99,99% andre studiene som finner en annen konklusjon. Studiene som gjennom 150 år har lagt grunnlaget for klimavitenskapen, for drivhuseffekten.

Klimavitenskapen er nesten 200 år gammel vitenskap og er basert på grunnleggende fysikk. Det er titusenvis av studier og millioner av data filtrert gjennom den vitenskapelige metoden i nesten to århundrer. Drivhuseffekten har vært forstått i over 100 år.

Fysikken vi bruker for å forstå jordens klimasystem er den samme fysikken som forklarer hvordan ovner, kjøleskap, fly og mer fungerer. Og de fleste har ikke egentlig noe problem med fysikken til ikke-lineær væskedynamikk og stråleoverføring som har blitt godt forstått i flere tiår, til og med århundrer.

Det er veldig usannsynlig at noe revolusjonerende nytt ved dette eller drivhuseffekten kommer på bordet i vår tid. Spesielt ikke noe så sprøtt som dette papiret antyder. Hvis noe i denne "studien" bare var bittelitt sant, ville det snu alt vi vet om den fysiske verden opp ned.

Det ville være en verdenssensasjon i den vitenskapelige verden, ikke kun i ekkokammeret av fornekterblogger.

https://qr.ae/TWraCy

________________

An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula

The scientists behind the paper are rebutting climate deniers misrepresenting their study:

“Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.”

"It is unfortunate that my research, "An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula," recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.

Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study "throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming," completely misrepresent our conclusions.”

Syracuse University scientist seeks to set the record straight on climate research
___________________________________________________

What about that NASA “Greening Earth” study deniers love to link to?

That study included a stark GW warning deniers always “forget” to mention;

That NASA study also made it very clear that the "fertilization effect diminishes over time."

“The gas (C02), which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.”

“Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

A greening earth also adds to the land albedo effect thus amplifies GW.

As the land warms up, trees and forests migrate north. White snow that reflects sunlight back to space is covered with dark green leaves or dark brown tree trunks and branches, which absorb sunlight and convert it to heat, with the same effect of amplifying global warming.

Although the greening might sound like good news as it means more carbon uptake and biomass production, it represents a major disruption to the delicate balance in cold ecosystems,” said Keenan. “Temperatures will warm sufficiently so that new species of trees could move in and compete with vegetation that had previously dominated the landscape. This change in vegetation would also affect insects and animals that relied on native vegetation for food.”

Latest august 2019:

Earth Stopped Getting Greener 20 Years Ago

The world is gradually becoming less green, scientists have found. Plant growth is declining all over the planet, and new research links the phenomenon to decreasing moisture in the air—a consequence of climate change.

The study published yesterday in Science Advances points to satellite observations that revealed expanding vegetation worldwide during much of the 1980s and 1990s. But then, about 20 years ago, the trend stopped.

Since then, more than half of the world’s vegetated landscapes have been experiencing a “browning” trend, or decrease in plant growth, according to the authors.

Climate records suggest the declines are associated with a metric known as vapor pressure deficit—that’s the difference between the amount of moisture the air actually holds versus the maximum amount of moisture it could be holding. A high deficit is sometimes referred to as an atmospheric drought.

- Chelsea Harvey, E&E News/Scientific American, Aug 15, 2019

Earth Stopped Getting Greener 20 Years Ago

______________________________________

Its not even a denier paper.

The art and science of climate model tuning

http://www.lmd.jussieu.fr/~hourdin/PUBLIS/Tuning2016.pdf

It is kicking in open doors and is making some odd claims, but there is nothing new there.

"The Science article though does make some claims that I don’t think are correct. I assume these are statements that are paraphrases from scientists that the writer talked to, but they would have been better as quotes, as opposed to generalisations. For instance, the article claims that

“… climate modelers [will now] openly discuss and document tuning in ways that they had long avoided, fearing criticism by climate skeptics.
…
The taboo reflected fears that climate contrarians would use the practice of tuning to seed doubt about models— and, by extension, the reality of human driven warming. “The community became defensive,” [Bjorn] Stevens says. “It was afraid of talking about things that they thought could be unfairly used against them.”

This is, I think, demonstrably untrue, since tuning has been discussed widely in papers including here on RealClimate. Perhaps it does reflect some people’s opinion, but it is not true generally."

Its explained here:

Tuning in to climate models

________________________________________________

Bergsmarks tullestudie debunked :

https://energiogklima.no/kommentar/hvorfor-fysiker-benestad-mener-at-fysiker-bergsmark-tar-feil/

____________________________________________________

The claim that a new study proves human caused climate change doesn’t exist has spread all over the web last week. Hundreds of information sites and blogs including Russia Today, Sputnik News, Fox News, Sky News Australia, Infowars, Natural News, Wattsupwiththat... covered this story without any fact-checking.

In reality, there is no new published study. The claim comes from a six-page document uploaded to arXiv, a website traditionally used by scientists to make manuscripts available before publication. This means that this article has not been peer-reviewed, so there is no guarantee to its credibility.

Read the scientists’ review: https://climatefeedback.org/…/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript…/

Dr. Victor Venema:

“This text may look like a scientific article to a lay-person, but I would not accept it as a bachelor thesis. It does not cite its data sources, it does not discuss the uncertainties in the data, nor does it discuss that other cloud data sets find the opposite trend. It does not explain sufficiently how computations were made to make the study reproducible and understandable. It does not discuss the conflict between its claimed low climate sensitivity and climatic changes in the (deep) past. It cites six references: one to the IPCC report and one scientific article, both of which they apparently did not read or understand; two of their own unpublished manuscripts and two of their own articles in questionable or predatory journals.

Still even if we would grant this work to show that climate models do not give the right estimates of climate sensitivity, it would still not show that the Earth has a low climate sensitivity. There are several independent lines of evidence which give us estimates of the climate sensitivity, only one of which is climate models. A summary of this evidence can be found in the figure below from the last IPCC, which the authors cite.”

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

__________________________________________________

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full

Debunk:

I wonder why it only deals with air temperatures when I thought it was already established that the ocean is absorbing most of the energy.

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/guest-post-do-propagation-of-error-calculations-invalidate-climate-model-projections/

https://loop.frontiersin.org/publications/54978700

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/frankly-not/

https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/patrick-frank

the list of suspected predatory journals:

https://beallslist.weebly.com/

_________________________________________________________

Mototaka Nakamura is a scientist, but operating far outside his level of expertise.

He contributed to this press release in 2012 which predicted global cooling starting in 2015 (global heat records then set in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, with 2019 tracking to be the 2nd-warmest year on record):

https://web.archive.org/.../social_affairs/AJ201306300011

However, those claims never made it through peer-review into his published work (which was confined to the Greenland Sea, so the reviewers would have laughed at any extrapolation to global effects):

https://journals.ametsoc.org/.../10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00435.1

Recently he published a Kindle book in Japanese apparently slamming AGW:

https://notrickszone.com/.../mit-doctorate-climate.../

If the reputed translations are accurate, he's an incompetent money-grubbing hoaxter.

___________________________________________________

https://www.geoforskning.no/nyheter/klima-og-co2/1308-et-lite-co2-eksperiment

https://principia-scientific.org/chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant-cause-global-warming/

Debunks:

First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface

"the critical link between c02 concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect [...] and further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.”

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

Det er vel fornekter Ole Humlum som driver den siden. Dette er informasjon som kun er ute etter å så tvil. Det linkes faktisk til den største fornekterbloggen WUWT og andre tvilsomme blogger. En av kildene går utrolig nok til et Word-dokument. DEt holder ikke.Dette er propaganda , ikke vitenskap. Kildene er pill råtne og minner om hvordan tobakksindustrien prøvde å så tvil om koblingen mellom røyking og kreft. Eier du ikke kritisk sans? Er du så lettlurt som dette?

"Det er derfor ingen tvil om at CO2 er en drivhusgass som vil varme kloden. Spørsmålet er da: hvor mye?"

Svaret på det har vi:

CO2 står for cirka 60 prosent av den menneskeskapte forsterkningen av drivhuseffekten frem til i dag.

https://snl.no/drivhuseffekten

https://www.ipcc.ch/.../2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter2-1.pdf

Denne Mark Insides er industriell kjemiker. Hvis man ser på hva han har publisert, så er det på polymerkjemi.

Global oppvarming er IKKE polymerkjemi. Global oppvarming er fysikk.

Hvis det Mark Insides hadde vært riktig, så ville han ha hatt sjansen til å bli fantastisk verdensberømt som den som greide å tilbakevis hva tusener av andre forskere har kommet til. Men han har ikke greid å få noe som helst innen klima publisert i et eneste tidsskrift som omfattes av Google Scholar. Ingen fagfellevurderte tidsskrifter har tatt inn noe av det han mener å ha kommet fram til.

Han snakker om hvor mye energi som skal til for å varme opp alt vannet i verdenshavene med 1 grad. Det er fullstendig irrelevant. Vannet i verdenshavene ligger i skikt. På bunnen er det 4 grader, siden vann har høyest tetthet ved 4 grader. Det er bare den aller øverste delen det er mulig å varme opp.

Problemene med oppvarming av havene rammer først og fremst de aller øverste vannlagene, for eksempel ved bleking av koraller. Disse trenger stort sett lys, og vokser dermed mest i de aller øverste lagene av vann.

Han skriver at "That is, if we wanted to heat the entire ocean by 1˚C, and wanted to do it by heating the air above it, we’d have to heat the air to about 4,000˚C hotter than the water." Det er jo selvsagt rent tøv. Vi snakker om effekter som skjer over mange tiår. Det er nok at lufttemperaturen varmes opp litt over 1 grad for at de øvre lagene i vannet etterhvert skal varmes opp en grad.

Det man har mest fokus på er IKKE oppvarming av vann, men oppvarming av lufta. Det "glemmer" denne fyren å nevne.

Dette er vås.

________________________________________________________________________

Misbruket av Ljungqvist-studien:

DEt gamle trikset med å misrepresentere vitenskap og til og med KLIPPE bort data som ikke passer inn.

Merkelig at du påstar noe annet enn Ljungqvist selv da.

La oss sjekke studien du refererer til.

han skriver:

“Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. AD 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.”

A NEW RECONSTRUCTION OF TEMPERATURE VARIABILITY IN THE EXTRA‐TROPICAL NORTHERN HEMISPHERE DURING THE LAST TWO MILLENNIA

Videre skriver Ljungqvist:

"Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”

Med andre ord, hans rekonstruksjon er helt i tråd med andres, selv hockeykøllen.

Slik ser hans rekonstruksjon ut, oppdatert:

Jeg har lagt inn en sirkel slik at selv du kan se dagens nivå:

-------------------------------------------------------
The 285 "papers on cooling" nodickzone nonsense debunked:

https://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/

they include papers like this one, which is about weather in the eastern USA.iN THE 1830'S..LOL

A COMPARISON OF THE CLIMATE OF THE EASTERN UNITED STATES

DURING THE 1830’s WITH THE CURRENT NORMALS

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GLOBAL COOLING PREDICTIONS.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.395.3637&rep=rep1&type=pdf

here is another sample:

Lake effect snowfalls contribute a significant proportion

of the total winter snowfall in areas to the lee of the

Great Lakes.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GLOBAL COOLING PREDICTIONS.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%281970%29051%3C0403%3ALESTTL%3E2.0.CO%3B2

---------------------------------------------------------------

The Berry/harde nonsense:

http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648%2Fj.ijaos.20190301.13&fbclid=IwAR3-9VNaCZZ7JyimPKwRsZcEqSGha2YWFemh7RlvB9Ha74JqbD8ifTa8wGk

Debunks:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818117301364?via%3Dihub

http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648%2Fj.ijaos.20190301.13&fbclid=IwAR2jXBTbEFYTGZWqXv6lc3G-qCk8Ei4qrgcQcIYxJJ4wPualutXsID4gNnQ

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/10/the-harde-they-fall/

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.09.015

http://theoval.cmp.uea.ac.uk/publications/pdf/ef2011a.pdf

__________________________________________________________________

Viser denne studien

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8

grove feil i IPCC beregningsmodeller som har vært kjent i 30 år eller mer.

Nei.

Jeg spurte en klimaforsker ang din påstand.

Her er Bjørn Samset.

Hei Roger. Nei, absolutt ikke. Dette handler om hvordan vi sammenligner klimaeffekten over tid av gasser eller aerosoler med ulik levetid i atmosfæren. På Global Waming Potentials altså, som er forenklede metrikker og gjerne brukes i økonomiske modeller, mens CMIP-modellene og de fleste andre faktiske klimamodeller får inn alt dette helt naturlig. Så nei, ingen grove feil i projeksjonene. Men se den pågående debatten i landbruksnorge om metan for en mye mer relevant konsekvens av denne diskusjonen.

Og merk: Artikkelen sier heller ikke at den gode, gamle GWP-beregningen er feil. Den viser bare at i tilfeller hvor utslippene går ned i stedet for opp gir det en mer nøyaktig projeksjon å bruke en liten korreksjon til beregningene. Verktøy bør kun brukes der de faktisk passer, og GWP har økende utslipp som forutsetning. Her er mer om GWP vs GWP:

https://cicero.oslo.no/no/posts/nyheter/ei-ku-fra-eller-til?fbclid=IwAR3Y09uTZ7zPwZcPiwmj16p4OT35AeeEdn-ecLEcphrYF59an3gVWWuGt2c

_________________________________________________________________________________

Lindzen 2020

https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00471-z

dette papiret er en eneste stor stråmann...

Lindzen begynner med en veldig fin beskrivelse av hvor komplekst klimasystemet er. Men så hevder han følgende, som er bare tull:

"The ‘consensus’ assessment of this system is today the following:
In this complex multifactor system, the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables—
especially the temperature difference between the equator and the poles) is
described by just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is controlled
by the 1–2% perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable (any
single variable) among many variables of comparable importance. We go further and
designate CO2 as the sole control. Although we are not sure of the budget for this
variable, we know precisely what policies to implement in order to control it."

"Consensus" er langt mer komplekst enn dette. Det er bare det at vi etter vurdering av alle faktorene har kommet til at CO2-endring er den dominerende faktoren akkurat nå, og at global temperatur er et kjekt tall å bruke fordi det blir for rotete å snakke om alt sammen alltid. Lindzen angriper et formidlingsgrep, snarere enn den faktiske forskningen.

Og så snakker han mye om skyer og mulige feedbacks. Disse er definitivt usikkerheter, men de er godt målt og later ikke til å ha endret seg stort i det siste. Og han mangler en fysisk teori som skal kunne forklare både hvorfor disse tilbakekoblingene skulle kunne beskrive det vi ser, samtidig som økningen i drivhusgassene ikke er forklaringen.

...og så ignorerer han fullstendig den enorme energiøkningen i havet, f.eks. For en fysiker er den mye viktigere enn temperaturøkningen ved overflaten...

Kort fortalt: Dette er et paper som klager over forenklet diskusjon, men som ikke kommer med noe substantiselt annet enn "tenk om det var noe annet", og som ikke forholder seg til den faktiske litteraturen og forskningen som forståelsen vår bygger på.

______________________________________________________________________

The following study is a REGIONAL study and NOT a GLOBAL study. Don't let some (and we know who they are) misinform others about it.

Portions of the Mediterranean were warmer during the Roman Warm period than they have been since. However, that doesn't say anything about global temperatures today, which we know to be the warmest in the past 6,500 years.

"This record comparison consistently shows the Roman as the warmest period of the last 2 kyr, about 2 °C warmer than average values for the late centuries for the Sicily and Western Mediterranean regions."

Margaritelli et al 2020 - Persistent warm Mediterranean surface waters during the Roman period

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67281-2

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67281-2/figures/2

The last 2,000 years, from the PAGES 2K studies:

Bildet kan inneholde: tekst som sier '0.4 0.3 0.2 Instrumental target CPS PCR BHM 0.2 0.3 40/60 -0.6 -0.8 30/70 Sne 20/80 200 400 600 800 10/90 1000 YearCE 1200 1400 1600 1800 0/100 2000'

The past 6,500/10,000 years, also from Kaufman

Bildet kan inneholde: tekst som sier 'Global-mean temperature composites 1 SCC DCC GAM CPS PAI Close ERA- 20C 2kmdian 12k methods, 5 95th percentiles All 12k methods, every 5th percentile values since2ka 12000 1500 10000 8000 1000 Age(r) 4000 6000 Age (yr BP) 2000'

_____________________________________________________________________________

The Isle of Man Sea Bird population smear nonsense pushed by the "so very worried for sea birds" climate denier fossil fuel think tank GWPF:

https://www.thegwpf.com/isle-of-man-seabird-populations-plummet-as-wind-farms-overwhelm-the-irish-sea/?fbclid=IwAR3x6JExCzdw6r5b-ZyVWuy1HQvTr2l1g6VpHFT3pLT_rKxeWYXYDdS84Zw

The decline has nothing to do with wind turbines:

1. For the bird species mentioned which are in decline, the decline started long before anyone thought of offshore wind power, and it is only the continuation of a downward trend. An essential part of the explanation is major problems with RATS which have more or less exterminated large parts of the nesting seabirds on the most important colony on Calf of Man.

"Rats have destroyed a colony of tens of thousands of ground-nesting birds on a tiny island in the Irish Sea. Now wildlife experts are trying to rid the Calf of Man of the rodents"

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-isle-of-man-37864097

2. "The fortunes of our seabirds can be directly linked with threats of the climate and nature crises"

https://www.oceanographicmagazine.com/news/british-seabirds-decline/

On the Isle of Man, there are some seabird species that have made great progress in the same period, not mentioned by the biased cherry picking author (who obviously has an agenda).

"Nine new species have been added to the Red list because of declines in their breeding populations, while thirty-one species have remained Red listed. Five species have moved from the Red to the Amber list because their populations have more than doubled in the last 25 years."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279566287_The_population_status_of_birds_in_the_United_Kingdom_Channel_Islands_and_Isle_of_Man_An_analysis_of_conservation_concern_2002-2007

Wind power reduces threats to birds because they reduce the negative effects of climate change and pollution. If we replaced all the coal and oil power plants in the world with wind farms, bird deaths from human power generation would be cut by more than 90%; probably a lot more than 90%.

"if you are hearing that wind farms are bad for birds, you're not hearing it from the best-informed bird conservationists. You're more likely hearing it from poorly-informed but well-intentioned amateur wildlife lovers, or even more likely, from fossil fuel interests intent on hampering the renewable energy sector. Wrapping opposition to renewable energy inside a superficially persuasive trojan horse of "wind turbines kill birds" is a devious and effective greenwashing ploy."

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4709

På Isle of Man er det andre sjøfuglarter som har hatt en kraftig fremgang i samme periode, og det koster forfatteren (som åpenbart har en agenda) glatt under teppet. For de andre artene som er nevnt der har tilbakegangen startet lenge før noen tenkte på offshore vindkraft, og det er kun fortsettelsen av en nedadgående trend. En vesentlig del av forklaringen er store problemer med ROTTER som har mer eller mindre utryddet store deler av de hekkende sjøfuglene på den viktigste kolonien på Calf of Man. Man gjør ikke saken en tjeneste ved å produsere denne typen useriøse koblinger som lett kan plukkes fra hverandre og tilbakevises som spekulative og useriøse.

Som teksten peker på, så er det vanskelig å gjøre anslag på mengde fugler som tas av havvind-turbiner. Dermed kan en ikke hevde det, fordi en kun antar at vindturbiner til havs tar fugleliv. Selv om de nok gjør det, så er spørsmålet om de gjør de i noen signifikant grad, altså ut over de bærekraftige rammer.

Global oppvarming, Metan | Ny studie sår tvil om menneskeskapt oppvarming i Arktis (nettavisen.no)

"Lobkovsky sier at dette foreløpig er en hypotese, og at det gjenstår arbeid før den kan bekreftes eller forkastes."

En (1) studie, en ny hypotese, er ikke bevis for noe. Nye hypoteser må kunne gjenskapes av andre gjennom nye eksperimenter, som eventuelt bekrefter dem. Eller forbedrer dem. Eller avviser dem. Den må gjennom Den Vitenskapelige Metodes nådeløse filterering og fagfellevurdering først.

Studier som ikke tåler å bli filtrert gjennom Den vitenskapelige metode, forblir alene, en hypotese avvist av bedre vitenskap. Du kan ikke overse de 99,99% andre studiene som finner en annen konklusjon. Som klarte å bli gjenskapt av andre.

Det er først når det er mange, ofte hundrevis av studier som støtter hverandre og forbedrer hverandre, at vi kan snakke om ny kunnskap. Det er nettopp slike studier som er grunnlaget for det IPCC samler inn. Dette er kunnskap som har tålt tidens tann. Som har blitt testet og retestet tusenvis av ganger med samme resultat.

Det sier seg selv at det ikke vil komme mange "store revolusjonerende oppdagelser" i realfag og fysikkvitenskaper. Klimavitenskapen er en en fysikkvitenskap som er filtrert gjennom den Vitenskapelige Metode i nærmere 200 år.

Den grunnleggende fysikken bak drivhuseffekten er svært godt forstått. Nye oppdagelser og forbedringer vil selvsagt komme der det ennå er ubesvarte spørsmål, som f.eks aerosolers rolle i klimasystemet.

13 norske forskningsmiljø og kompetansesentre er veldig tydelig:

Vitenskapen er i dag fullstendig klar på de følgende tre punktene:

1. Klimaendringene vi opplever i dag, er raske og i all hovedsak forårsaket av menneskeskapte utslipp, primært av drivhusgassen CO2 fra forbrenning av olje, kull og gass.

https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/debatt/i/6z4O0L/tre-uomtvistelige-fakta-om-klimaendringer?fbclid=IwAR13Zb3hW7dow4_BxzcJIqGYltuY2Ya-_0S1hrSA8Xascs8N5XpySaUA7FE

Lyspunkt: sans i samling.

Lyspunkt: sans i samling.

Innhold

fredag 30. november 2018

Fornekterstudier i samling: DEBUNKED

Model falsifiability and climate slow modes