torsdag 15. november 2018

Fortløpende debunking av fornektertøv i media:


1. Did  NASA claim the planets temperature will plummet?



https://www.thebigwobble.org/2018/11/as-siberian-city-endures-temperatures.html?spref=fb&fbclid=IwAR3q3fXKTRDbLFRvdPUsKIzSQGwL9UgRYpoUo_ScUe0wEiR-5a33xannTWM

As a Siberian city endures temperatures of -50 C, (-58 deg F) NASA claim whole global temperature about to plummet in a matter of months

Debunk:

Whoever wrote this article obviously can't tell the difference between the temperature in the upper atmosphere and at ground level. Greenhouse gases cool the upper atmosphere by preventing energy from passing through it and escaping into space. That is, the same processes that cause warming at ground level, cause cooling in the upper atmosphere. What is happening in Siberia and in the upper atmosphere couldn't be less related.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coolingthermosphere.html

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/nope-earth-isnt-cooling/

2. Are radical Environmentalists To Blame For California’s Wildfires

https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/12/california-wildfires/?fbclid=IwAR23ZDgPJfh48lmLNvllCp11o507uucc6OYjdw8B_wWjCqGk2D28FLOADs4

No, radical Environmentalists Are NOT To Blame For California’s Wildfires:

"The president’s assertion that California’s forest management policies are to blame for catastrophic wildfire is dangerously wrong," California Professional Firefighters President Brian K. Rice said in a statement on Saturday.

"Wildfires are sparked and spread not only in forested areas but in populated areas and open fields fueled by parched vegetation, high winds, low humidity and geography," he continued in the statement. "Moreover, nearly 60 percent of California forests are under federal management, and another two-thirds under private control. It is the federal government that has chosen to divert resources away from forest management, not California.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-threatens-pull-federal-funding-california-wildfires-gross/story?id=59102371

 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/climate-change-make-wildfires-spread-factor/story?id=56937704

De fremste ekspertene, The US Forest Service, er tydelige på at klimaendringene forårsaker brannene:

The US Forest Service on climate change and wild fires:

Here in our National Forests and Grasslands, these shifts include:

More frequent wildfires that burn larger areas

More severe problems with insects, pests, and diseases threatening trees and crops

Snowpack decline in mountainous regions due to decreased snowfall and shorter winters

Plant and animal ranges shifting northward to accommodate warmer temperatures

Threatened watersheds due to more frequent water shortages, increased pest and fire severity, and shifts in ecosystem health

https://www.fs.fed.us/science-technology/climate-change

https://www.fs.fed.us/science-technology/climate-change/what-are-the-impacts

Den beste fagfellevurderte litteraturen finner det samme:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2014GL059576

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8537

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/42/11770

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5789/940

"There is very well documented scientific evidence that climate change has been increasing the length of the fire season, the size of the area burned each year and the number of wildfires.

Greenhouse gas emissions, via the greenhouse effect, are causing the global temperature to increase and the climate to change. This enhances the likelihood of wildfires.

Why?
Because warmer temperatures increase evaporation, which means the atmosphere draws more moisture from soils, making the land drier.

A warmer climate also leads to earlier snowmelt, which causes soils to be drier for longer. And dry soils become more susceptible to fire.

"The areas where wildfires are taking place are always areas that [have become] drier and hotter, and where spring has come earlier," said Funk.

Drier conditions and higher temperatures increase not only the likelihood of a wildfire to occur, but also the duration and the severity of the wildfire. Wildfires are typically either started accidentally by humans - such as a burning cigarette carelessly tossed out of a window - or by natural causes like lightning.

http://www.dw.com/en/how-climate-change-is-increasing-forest-fires-around-the-world/a-19465490

BONUS:

At total brentareal går ned motstrider ikke det faktum at global oppvarming forårsaker flere branner.

Organisasjonen som for øyeblikket er ansvarlig for å presentere amerikansk brannhistorikk-statistikk, er National Interagency Fire Center. Og deres ekvivalente tabell viser data tilbake til 1960, noe som stort sett stemmer når det overlapper de gamle folketallene til 1970. Men de går heller ikke lenger tilbake. Dessuten påpeker de:

"Prior to 1983, sources of these figures are not known, or cannot be confirmed, and were not derived from the current situation reporting process. As a result the figures above prior to 1983 shouldn't be compared to later data."

https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html

At total brentareal går ned har ingenting å gjøre med at global oppvarming IKKE skjer;

At total brentareal går ned, er hovedsakelig på grunn av menneskelige aktiviteter, Det handler om avskoging, økte avlinger og befolkningsøkning.

Det blir simpelthen mindre og mindre skog igjen som kan brenne.

"In our study, human impact was identified as the primary factor accounting for the declining trend in global fire activity, which reduced global burned area"

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JG002532/pdf

Grafen viser at mindre skog brenner, men det motbeviser altså ikke at flere branner forårsakes av global oppvarming/klimaendringer, sammen med andre faktorer.

Det er og verdt å nevne at i 1905 ble US Forest Service etablert, noe som betydde et mye mer avansert brannvesen. Og i 1936 kom Fire Management Today Forum med sine holdningskampanjer etc. Disse to tingene hadde selvsagt mye å si for at totalt brennareal og antall branner gikk ned. Men de siste 50 år har trenden snudd pga global oppvarming. All forskning viser dette.

Her er grafen som er relevant og som viser dette:

http://www.climatecentral.org/.../hotter-years-more-fires

Here's how to respond to those misleading posts claiming our recent fires are all about tree huggers preventing logging and a supposed fuel build up via past fire suppression.

It is more than discouraging when someone claims our wildfires are all about forests, dead trees, lack of logging, or unnatural fuel build up via past fire suppression. Such claims are a disservice to the families who have lost so much and hamper our efforts to solve the problem.

De aller fleste brannene fant sted UTENOM skogene. Most fires appeared outside the forests

Og

"For those few devastating fires that were near forests, all of those forests around the communities destroyed had the kind of suggested thinning and fuel treatments misinformed commentators claim didn't exist"

So all those denier arguments about logging and fuel is nonsense.


Så alle disse fornekterteoriene om logging og fuel, eller for å sitere artikkelen "radical environmental policies which prohibit the proper trimming of forests and brush have created a literal tinder box just waiting to ignite",

er altså bare tøys.

For de som måtte være interessert, her er fakta:

https://www.facebook.com/californiachaparral/photos/pb.114672246017.-2207520000.1542827645./10156935032936018/?type=3&theater


1. Most of California's most devastating fires were far from any forest (see map below).

2. For those few devastating fires that were near forests, all of those forests around the communities destroyed had the kind of suggested thinning and fuel treatments misinformed commentators claim didn't exist.

3. Much of the area around Paradise that burned in the Camp Fire had burned 10 years ago, had been salvage logged, and was composed of habitats other than forest (e.g. post fire shrublands). The wind-driven ember rain that destroyed the town came primarily from open grassland/post fire/mixed woodland environments northeast of the town. A large percentage of the trees within the devastated town did not burn. See the fire progression map here and match it with the current view on Google Earth:

https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/map/6250/4/90791


4. Climate change is drying the state. Dryer conditions lead to a more flammable landscape. We may see more of the kind of winds that powered the Camp Fire into Paradise. More fires will dramatically alter the kinds of habitats we are used to seeing. Non-native weed filled landscapes that dominate places like Riverside County will likely become more common. More on this issue here:
http://www.californiachaparral.com/threatstochaparral.html

It is more than discouraging when someone claims our wildfires are all about forests, dead trees, lack of logging, or unnatural fuel build up via past fire suppression. Such claims are a disservice to the families who have lost so much and hamper our efforts to solve the problem.

What is it about? Flammable homes and communities located on flammable terrain.

http://www.californiachaparral.com/threatstochaparral.html?fbclid=IwAR1oEm6nXsTspw8GLmqV0d4O_3GHOtallh-iuWkahfw3A6AS3Mox8X6Kjog

What is it about? Flammable homes and communities located on flammable terrain.

Please see our solutions in our letter to Governor Brown below.

Here is a well-researched article on the Woolsey Fire from the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/proj…/la-me-woolsey-fire-progression/

Here's how to protect your home from wildfire:
http://www.californiachaparral.com/bprotectingyourhome.html

Here's our information flyer on external sprinklers:
http://www.californiachaparral.com/…/INDEPENDENT_EXTERNAL_S…

Here's why Governor Brown and the California State Legislature failed us - they ignored the real problem:
http://www.californiachaparral.com/…/Gov_Brown_2017_Wildfir…

Here are the most devastating wildfires in California to November 17, 2018 (fire, structures burned, fatalities):

Fires 2017-2018
Camp/12,263/71 (as of 11/17/2018)*
Tubbs/ 5636/ 22
Redwood/ 546 / 9
Carr/ 1599/ 8
Atlas/ 783/ 6
Nuns/ 1355/ 3
Woolsey/500+/3 (as of 11/17/2018)
Thomas/ 1063/ 2
Ferguson/ 131/ 2
Mendocino/ 277/ 1

Previous devastating fires prior to 2017 where losses were also unrelated to forests and dead trees:
Tunnel (1991)/ 2900 /25
Cedar (2003)/ 2820/ 15
Harris (2007)/ 548/ 8
Old (2003)/ 1003/ 6
Witch Creek (2007)/ 1650/ 2
Butte (2015)/ 921/ 2
Jones (1999)/ 954/ 1
Paint (1990)/ 641/ 1

Significant forested area involved, but not seriously impacted by dead trees:
Valley (2015)/ 1955/ 4
*Camp Fire involved forest within the fire perimeter, but most of the area within/near the devastated town of Paradise was a mix of habitats.




3. Did a error in study of ocean heat really change our knowledge on the matter?


Debunk:

Just to make it clear, and this is from the article:

"The central conclusion of the study — that oceans are retaining ever more energy as more heat is being trapped within Earth’s climate system each year — is in line with other studies that have drawn similar conclusions. And it hasn’t changed much despite the errors."

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

"What the errors don't invalidate is the central finding of the paper—that the earth's oceans are absorbing heat—or its groundbreaking method of assessing the ocean's temperature by measuring the volume of carbon dioxide and oxygen gases it releases as it warms."

https://www.ecowatch.com/oceans-warming-study-scientists-2619722897.amp.html?fbclid=IwAR0qpgTEQnlfHIh27Iz5cntItKDcgC1paMarRG0AGh8E-nhqJTa5sPWf_X8

The man behind the criticism has blown the matter completely out of all the propositions

Nicholas Lewis

https://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/nic-lewis/

is described as an “independent scientist.” That alone should raise suspicions, since real scientists do not tend to work alone. It is also noteworthy that he is not described as a climate scientist. That is because he is not. He is a semiretired financier from England. He does have a degree in mathematics with a minor in physics. He has no real background in climate science. In short, he is just another amateur global warming denier often quoted by the global warming denier misinformation industry.

An error was spotted, acknowledged, and quickly corrected. That's how science works.

The work is interesting and very broadly consistent with estimates of heat uptake derived by other methods, but whether the authors' analysis and conclusions will be accepted by oceanographers and climate scientists using more direct measures of ocean heat content change (such as ocean temperature probes and sea level altimetry) remains to be seen.

There is still a strong convergence of evidence for AGW and warmer oceans:

Paul Durack, a research scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said promptly acknowledging the errors in the study “is the right approach in the interests of transparency.”

But he added in an email, “This study, although there are additional questions that are arising now, confirms the long known result that the oceans have been warming over the observed record, and the rate of warming has been increasing,” he said

"The revised uncertainties preclude drawing any strong conclusions with respect to climate sensitivity or carbon budgets based on the APO method alone, but they still lend support for the implications of the recent upwards revisions in OHC relative to IPCC AR5 based on hydrographic and Argo measurements."

We owe the authors thanks for both exemplary candor and their prompt corrigendum.

Their result remains an important one.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/11/resplandy-et-al-correction-and-response/?fbclid=IwAR2IJdK_v6aT_0jr7BFNNTA-YN6Dyhh30EcSz4eSKY73B_MeOK2eodor8Gs#more-22025

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/high-profile-ocean-warming-paper-get-correction?fbclid=IwAR3lVjMHrrUtUL_gozJAmIldX1x-890CIRwBcRRyK7vb-LV_E1p8b7r_ALs

This is how science is supposed to work. You publish an analysis, share how you did it, and other workers independently critique it and/or try to replicate the analysis. When errors are found, they're corrected (in this case with a revised paper). The principle change as a result of this error is an increase in the uncertainty rather than a large change in the calculated rate of heating. There are other studies of ocean heat content increases using different methods that arrive at similar conclusions (even with the larger uncertainty). The energy equivalents, even at the low range of the uncertainty, are over 70 million Hiroshimas *per year* added. At the high range, it's over 300 million Little Boys per year. That figure is getting higher each year as we keep strengthening the atmospheric greenhouse.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/3/e1601545

Washington Post:

Scientists behind a major study that claimed the Earth’s oceans are warming faster than previously thought now say their work contained inadvertent errors that made their conclusions seem more certain than they actually are.

Two weeks after the high-profile study was published in the journal Nature, its authors have submitted corrections to the publication. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography, home to several of the researchers involved, also noted the problems in the scientists' work and corrected a news release on its website, which previously had asserted that the study detailed how the Earth’s oceans “have absorbed 60 percent more heat than previously thought.”

“Unfortunately, we made mistakes here,” said Ralph Keeling, a climate scientist at Scripps, who was a co-author of the study. “I think the main lesson is that you work as fast as you can to fix mistakes when you find them.”

The central problem, according to Keeling, came in how the researchers dealt with the uncertainty in their measurements. As a result, the findings suffer from too much doubt to definitively support the paper’s conclusion about how much heat the oceans have absorbed over time.

The central conclusion of the study — that oceans are retaining ever more energy as more heat is being trapped within Earth’s climate system each year — is in line with other studies that have drawn similar conclusions. And it hasn’t changed much despite the errors. But Keeling said the authors' miscalculations mean there is a much larger margin of error in the findings, which means researchers can weigh in with less certainty than they thought.

“I accept responsibility for what happened because it’s my role to make sure that those kind of details got conveyed,” Keeling said. (He has published a more detailed explanation of what happened here.)

The study’s lead author was Laure Resplandy of Princeton University. Other researchers were with institutions in China, Paris, Germany and the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.

“Maintaining the accuracy of the scientific record is of primary importance to us as publishers and we recognize our responsibility to correct errors in papers that we have published,” Nature said in a statement to The Washington Post. “Issues relating to this paper have been brought to Nature’s attention and we are looking into them carefully. We take all concerns related to papers we have published very seriously and will issue an update once further information is available.”

The original study, which appeared Oct. 31, derived a new method for measuring how much heat is being absorbed by the oceans. Essentially, the authors measured the volume of gases, specifically oxygen and carbon dioxide, that have escaped the ocean in recent decades and headed into the atmosphere as it heats up. They found that the warming “is at the high end of previous estimates” and suggested that as a result, the rate of global warming itself could be more accelerated.

The results, wrote the authors, may suggest there is less time than previously thought to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The study drew considerable media attention, including from The Post.

However, not long after publication, an independent Britain-based researcher named Nicholas Lewis published a lengthy blog post saying he had found a “major problem” with the research.

“So far as I can see, their method vastly underestimates the uncertainty,” Lewis said in an interview Tuesday, “as well as biasing up significantly, nearly 30 percent, the central estimate.”

Lewis added that he tends “to read a large number of papers, and, having a mathematics as well as a physics background, I tend to look at them quite carefully, and see if they make sense. And where they don’t make sense — with this one, it’s fairly obvious it didn’t make sense — I look into them more deeply.”

Lewis has argued in past studies and commentaries that climate scientists are predicting too much warming because of their reliance on computer simulations, and that current data from the planet itself suggests global warming will be less severe than feared.

It isn’t clear whether the authors agree with all of Lewis’s criticisms, but Keeling said “we agree there were problems along the lines he identified.”

Paul Durack, a research scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said that promptly acknowledging the errors in the study “is the right approach in the interests of transparency.”

But he added in an email, “This study, although there are additional questions that are arising now, confirms the long known result that the oceans have been warming over the observed record, and the rate of warming has been increasing,” he said.

Gavin Schmidt, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, followed the growing debate over the study closely on Twitter and said that measurements about the uptake of heat in the oceans have been bedeviled with data problems for some time — and that debuting new research in this area is hard.

“Obviously you rely on your co-authors and the reviewers to catch most problems, but things still sometimes slip through,” Schmidt wrote in an email.

Schmidt and Keeling agreed that other studies also support a higher level of ocean heat content than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, saw in a landmark 2013 report.

Overall, Schmidt said, the episode can be seen as a positive one.

“The key is not whether mistakes are made, but how they are dealt with — and the response from Laure and Ralph here is exemplary. No panic, but a careful reexamination of their working — despite a somewhat hostile environment,” he wrote.

“So, plus one for some post-publication review, and plus one to the authors for reexamining the whole calculation in a constructive way. We will all end up wiser.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/14/scientists-acknowledge-key-errors-study-how-fast-oceans-are-warming/?fbclid=IwAR0IAdBGRDRFRi7orArkkY72j_SeaMKU_Lw7jTAh3nkHPgNIuw_oQSjIEoU&noredirect=on&utm_term=.0cd66b05c03b

4. Alarmists Will NOT Like This Part of the Recently Published U.S. Climate Science Special Report
Chapter 6 – Temperature Changes in the United States of the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s recently published Climate Science Special Report (2017) clearly shows and discusses, under the heading of “6.1.2 Temperature Extremes”, how temperature extremes for the contiguous United States have become more moderate over the last 118 years, with the coldest daily temperatures warming and the warmest daily temperatures cooling. In other words, temperature-extreme-related climate in the United States has improved
Observed changes in the coldest and warmest daily temperatures (°F) of the year in the contiguous United States. Maps (top) depict changes at stations; changes are the difference between the average for present-day (1986–2016) and the average for the first half of the last century (1901–1960). Time series (bottom) depict the area-weighted average for the contiguous United States. Estimates are derived from long-term stations with minimal missing data in the Global Historical Climatology Network–Daily dataset.16 (Figure source: NOAA/NCEI).
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018...
DEBUNK:
What “pause”?

The US is 2% of the planets surface. Its just not very relevant for GLOBAL warming.

I would recommend reading the entire section for a clearer picture.

Climate Science Special Report: Temperature Changes in the United States

The same report you are linking to said this about GLOBAL warming :

“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.”

Climate Science Special Report: Executive Summary

Here is the GLOBAL graph:

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)


5. 

CLIMATE SCIENTISTS SLAM RICK SANTORUM'S 'CONSPIRACY THEORY' THAT THEY'RE IN IT FOR THE MONEY
https://www.newsweek.com/rick-santorum-slammed-conspiracy-theory-climate-scientists-are-it-money-1230584?fbclid=IwAR1XMp94L8vfwOCj5ui7rlC3Hj4dPyX09G1Ux84iOxosUpwVDlFx9yRxHrA
When you have received $763,331 from oil and gas companies, I guess its mandatory to claim that "climate scientists are in it for the money".

LOL

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=E01&cycle=All&recipdetail=S&sortorder=N&mem=Y&page=2


6.The fuel tax increase in France was not a carbon tax. It was just another regular increase in fuel duty which has existed for decades. It was the last straw for many people because it was higher for diesel than petrol. The French governments have been encouraging people to buy diesel cars for years, so this was seen as a betrayal.

Since becoming President Macron has successfully united the country... against him. His policies have annoyed the young, the workers, the civil service, the small business owners, the retired, the left and the right.

He has pleased the wealthy by cutting the wealth tax.

Macron took the wrong approach. I agree that something should be done, but a carbon tax is a solution that does not address the root cause of the problem.

The root cause is consumerism. The demand for goods result in more industries that produce goods and hence more emissions. To address consumerism, our entire species needs a paradigm shift and different tactic.  

"The protests began on November 17 with motorists upset over the fuel tax increase, but have grown to encompass a range of complaints — the stagnant economy, social injustice and France’s tax system, one of the highest in Europe — and some now call for the government to resign."

 7. Lomborgs false dichotomy.

DEBUNK:

 "With respect to climate change mitigation, Lomborg presents the same false dichotomy in much of his output: there are limited resources, so we must choose between dealing with global warming or what Lomborg has decided are "more important problems". He considers AIDS and other diseases, starvation, malnutrition, and poverty to be more important problems than global warming, yet his framing of the issue treats global warming as a discrete issue, ignoring the fact that it will actually exacerbate the other problems he considers to be more important. Strangely, Lomborg spends most of his time and effort debunking these "unimportant" environmental concerns, writing tendentious books and setting up bullshit forums titled in such a way as to confuse the ignorant — he has done little to nothing to encourage greater spending on what he considers the really great problems. Here's the ultimate irony: if the exact opposite of what he wants occurs (Anthropogenic global warming is given paramount priority, say, like ozone depletion), he'll eventually be able to claim that everything was indeed going to be fine from the start and those Malthusians were just panicking all along! This logical sidestepping is probably worth academic study."


And yes, people DO care:
_________________________________________________________________ What Lomborg "forgets": Health benefits far outweigh the costs of meeting climate change goals Meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement could save about a million lives a year worldwide by 2050 through reductions in air pollution alone. The latest estimates from leading experts also indicate that the value of health gains from climate action would be approximately double the cost of mitigation policies at global level, and the benefit-to-cost ratio is even higher in countries such as China and India. https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/05-12-2018-health-benefits-far-outweigh-the-costs-of-meeting-climate-change-goals

https://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/17/bjorn-lomborg-dirty-little-mistakes/?fbclid=IwAR3SRvPxmX3AWj5-hwFN9vTLN-GwNO0Z_xe807_Miqb07_HPL41TEDe62Gg

8. Jordan Peterson:

Her er hva verdens ledende klimaforskere sier om JP:

Michael Mann is a famed and awarded climate scientist. He’s an American climatologist and geophysicist and currently director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. What does he say about Peterson’s quoted sources?

These are all climate change denial talking points, and the sources are climate change denial organizations such as the GWPF and Richard Lindzen.

“Lindzen long ago discredited himself as a messenger on climate,” Mann told me in an email. “He engages in bad faith tropes rather than legitimate scientific discourse. What makes Lindzen so dangerous as an agent of denial is that he appears to have impressive credentials but his claims about climate change are vacuous and ill-founded. The denial machine relishes the opportunity to launder its denialist rhetoric through the imprimatur of an MIT professor/National Academy member. Lindzen gives them that opportunity.”

Prager U, the producer of the video Peterson tweeted, is a conservative, free-market think tank with a long history of pushing false or misleading information about climate change. (The "U" is designed to make it sound like an academic organization. It is not.) The "expert" in this video is Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist who has made a career of downplaying and nay-saying the causes and dangers of global climate change. While the consensus that climate change is caused by the burning of fossil fuels is near-universal among climate scientists, Lindzen—standing nearly alone in the field—disagrees.





10. An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12000659

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

"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.

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

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

11 https://climatefeedback.org/sky-news-australia-airs-false-climate-information-in-misleading-video-by-rowan-dean/?fbclid=IwAR0yTQ2hnqFJaGnuaHTUFEtqfLpl8AJJ3dkVe_tuzqcO3sLJ511X76shcDw

12. The 90 Italian scientists petition nonsense debunked:

It reminds me of creationists petitions.

From what I can see, it was a simple petition and the reasoning included stuff that have already been debunked like that CO2 was not a pollutant. I can only find it on a couple of denier sites like No Trick Zone. 

There is one response in the comments of one that says this: 

"I went to the trouble to go through the list of those 80 "scientists" who signed the letter. I found four, I repeat four, of the signers who have training in climatology and I'm giving a pass to the two whose training is in meteorology. There were 6 nuclear physicists, 23 geologists, 9 physicists, with the rest scattered over the fields varying from architecture to astronomy." 

So, it's just another list of unqualified opinions and people who listen to it must go to ophthalmologist when they need to treat their prostrate cancer.

Every Italian scientific body supports the AGW theory. The petition is a fringe cult.

https://www.change.org/p/sergio-mattarella-il-riscaldamento-globale-%C3%A8-di-origine-antropica

13. The Peter Ridd nonsense debunked:

“Dr Ridd was not sacked because of his scientific views. Dr Ridd was never gagged or silenced about his scientific views, a matter which was admitted during the court hearing.”

James Cook University professor Peter Ridd's sacking ruled unlawful

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/16/james-cook-university-professor-peter-ridds-sacking-ruled-unlawful

Peter Ridd loses High Court case over climate scepticism censure (smh.com.au)

Great Barrier Reef expert panel says Peter Ridd misrepresenting science

Exclusive: Panel head Ian Chubb compares ‘roadshow of Dr Ridd’ to tobacco industry strategy defending smoking

Great Barrier Reef expert panel says Peter Ridd misrepresenting science

State government-funded managers urge cane farmers to question reef science

Exclusive: Speaking tour by controversial academic Peter Ridd is being supported by sugarcane managers paid for with Queensland government funds


https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/03/28/climate-science-deniers-new-hero-peter-ridd-institute-public-affairs

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-04-23/peter-ridd-reef-science-climate-change/11026540

https://www.afr.com/companies/professional-services/could-salvatore-vasta-be-australias-worst-judge-20190225-h1bp1k

He’s true Heartland. We’re trying to track any direct payment by them or other serious breach of contract with JCU. My meeting with the legal team is tomorrow. I’ll give them all the data so far Also trying to find any link between the Vasta family with mafia. Salvatore senior, Angelo who was a disgraced judge and disgraced son Sal jnr who ruled against the university. Sal’s brother is conservative politician appointed in the Tony Abbott era. On lots of parliamentary committees with IPA buddies. It’s incestuous. The appeal brief won’t allow new evidence about Ridd but aim to discredit the judge. 15 appeals overturned since 2015. He was ordered to take time off for counselling about continuing intimidatory tactics in court. That was a couple of months after Ridd’s trial. His grandfather had passed away only a few months prior as well. Gotta get the judge on political bias, history of inappropriate behaviour and rulings, personal issues and no precedent mentioned in his decision

Peter Ridd funded by IPA Rinehart - Murdoch. Ridd’s mentor and colleague was Bob Carter. Both were at my JCU uni during my tenure. Bad boys. Check him out with the law suit against the uni. It’s BS. Court case being paid by a Rinehart and crowd funding . This other guy Cohen is a corrupt mongrel.

Yes and influencing gov policy at the top. Sacked from JCU for academic misconduct. Nothing to do with science but the murdochrisy is all about “freedom of speech” to dissent scientific “opinions.” Ridd slandered his boss Terry Hughes who is a world leading reef biologist. Nothing to do with dissenting speech because the same uni awarded Ridd his professorship despite 20 years of denial. The uni’s appeal against Ridd’s $1.2 million compensation. The judge is Sal Vasta ... appointed to the bench by personal friend George Brandis. He is very close to being disbarred just like papa Angelo Vasta from Jph Bjelke Peterson.

 
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/21/gina-rinehart-company-revealed-as-45m-donor-to-climate-sceptic-thinktank

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Public_Affairs

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/how-gina-rinehart-bought-the-ipa,11749

_________________

Great Barrier Reef world heritage values damaged by climate change, government admits
Report to Unesco by the federal and Queensland governments says key features have deteriorated since reef was listed in 1981.

Great Barrier Reef world heritage values damaged by climate change, government admits

Real science tells us the Great Barrier Reefs are not in a good condition.

Scientists mobilise as bleaching resumes on Great Barrier Reef

During 2015–2016, record temperatures triggered a pan-tropical episode of coral bleaching, the third global-scale event since mass bleaching was first documented in the 1980s. Here we examine how and why the severity of recurrent major bleaching events has varied at multiple scales, using aerial and underwater surveys of Australian reefs combined with satellite-derived sea surface temperatures. The distinctive geographic footprints of recurrent bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef in 1998, 2002 and 2016 were determined by the spatial pattern of sea temperatures in each year. Water quality and fishing pressure had minimal effect on the unprecedented bleaching in 2016, suggesting that local protection of reefs affords little or no resistance to extreme heat. Similarly, past exposure to bleaching in 1998 and 2002 did not lessen the severity of bleaching in 2016. Consequently, immediate global action to curb future warming is essential to secure a future for coral reefs.
Scientists mobilise as bleaching resumes on Great Barrier Reef

Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals

Key points from the study:
  • 2015-2016 saw record temperatures that triggered a massive episode of coral bleaching across the tropics
  • Coral bleaching events should no longer be thought of as individual disturbances to reefs, but as recurring events that threaten the viability of coral reefs globally
  • The Great Barrier Reef has had three major bleaching episodes, in 1998, 2002 and 2016, with the latest being the most severe and with catastrophic levels of bleaching occurring in the northern third of the Reef (a region approximately 800 km or 500 miles in length)
  • The amount of bleaching on individual reefs in 2016 was tightly linked to local heat exposure
  • The cumulative, superimposed footprint of the three mass bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef has now encompassed virtually all of the Great Barrier Reef
  • Past exposure to bleaching in 1998 and 2002 did not lessen the severity of the bleaching in 2016
Evidence for ocean acidification in the Great Barrier Reef of Australia.


Ridd was not sacked because of his scientific views. Ridd was never gagged or silenced about his scientific views, a matter which was admitted during the court hearing. “Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom. Media reports have considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial or unpopular views,” Vasta said in his judgement.“Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an enterprise agreement.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/16/james-cook-university-professor-peter-ridds-sacking-ruled-unlawful

Ridd's roadshow is just like how tobacco industry defended smoking. Ridd is the rotten egg the polluter industries always looks for. Someone who is willing to become a marionette for blood money. And now the shameful Denial for profit Movement in Australia have their man. Their puppet. Speaking tour by Peter Ridd is being supported by sugarcane managers paid for with Queensland government funds.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/15/managers-funded-by-queensland-government-grant-urge-cane-farmers-to-question-reef-science

The judge who ruled for Ridd is as crocked as catholic priests.

https://www.afr.com/companies/professional-services/could-salvatore-vasta-be-australias-worst-judge-20190225-h1bp1k


Ridds claims that the barrier Reef is OK is parotting claims from tobacco industry claiming there was no link between smoking and lung cancer. Most comprehensive study on the Barrier Reef concludes its damaged by CC:

https://www.jcu.edu.au/news/releases/2017/march/scientists-mobilise-as-bleaching-resumes-on-great-barrier-reef

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v543/n7645/full/nature21707.html

Other studies find the same conclusion:

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17995

History will punish Ridd and his ilk hard. He sold his soul at the crossroad.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/28/great-barrier-reef-expert-panel-says-peter-ridd-misrepresenting-science

https://amp.couriermail.com.au/news/insight/this-was-about-fair-work-not-climate-change/news-story/236811ec34595b4ef20d0863424472a3?fbclid=IwAR0-xq85Zc03_QyPWwCHUKIRzoGiSbpIcbolpH5QyBz0zJNdWJm3NNmSwRU

_____________________________________________________

14. False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction

 [McIntyre and McKitrick have additionally been discredited in a recent peer-reviewed article by Rutherford et al (2004)]

False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction

"a persistent amateur who had no credentials in applied science before stepping into the global warming debate in 2003"

Denier Complaints About Climate Proxies Are Based On Ignorance Of The Science

A proxy, or proxyindicator, is a natural system that leaves a recoverable residue that varies in some measurable or observable way, such that the variation may correspond to a natural variation happening in the world at the time the proxy was being formed. For example, the ratio of Oxygen-16 and Oxygen-18, two stable isotopes of that element, in Oxygen incorporated in stable form (in biogenic tissues, for example) indicates the ratio of these isotopes in the ambient environment, which in turn, indicates the amount of each element available at the time, which in turn, indicates how much of each type of oxygen is trapped in glacial ice (which tends to have more Oxygen-16 because glaciers are ultimately made of vapor, which is isotopically light). Oxygen isotope ratios of materials recovered from deep sea cores indicate the march of glacial formation and melting over long periods of time.
The first of these two objections to Mann's work, and other work, relies on naiveté among potential readers about proxyindicators. As is the case with all scientific data, all proxies are suspect, and all proxies have the potential of varying in sensitivity over time. Scientists must always evaluate the quality of the data they use, and not accept it uncritically.

For example, say you wanted to estimate the flow of a major river over time. You could measure how much silt is deposited on the river's flood plain by taking Carbon-14 samples at numerous depths in the floodplain. A greater depth between samples separated by similar amounts of time might mean more flooding. But, as the flood plain matures and raises in elevation, the frequency of floods year to year may decrease, causing a decline in the rate of siltation, and thus, apparent water flow in relation to the actual water flow. Furthermore, at some point, the flood plain is essentially filled up, and flooding overbank happens elsewhere along the river, and no longer (or infrequently) at your sample site. This is a decline in the usefulness of the proxy to the point that you have to simply stop using it.

Another example. Say you want to use pollen counts form layers found in mud at the bottom of a lake, the layers having been recovered from cores sunk in the lake. Assume your lake is in a region that started out as grassland but slowly became more forested. Trees act as pollen filters. Pollen wafting across the landscape is caught in the trees. In the early part of the lake core data, pollen may be introduced from many kilometers away from wind blown plants (grasses, some trees) and from similar distances from plants that do not distribute pollen via wind, but in small quantities (such plants produce way less pollen than wind pollenated plants) via streams that enter the lake. Over time, however, trees will grow up first around the lake, then over a larger area of the landscape. Windblown pollen from grasses is less likely to get into the pond, and there may be less of that pollen because trees are replacing grassland. Meanwhile, the longer distance stream carried pollen may continue to represent the original catchment of pollen. But, if there are changes in rainfall patterns, that could change too. People looking at pollen in lake cores may use an independent measure, such as the amount of iron in the sediment, to indicate how much water comes in from longer distances via streams vs. how much comes in from groundwater and as direct rain. They will use studies of pollen taphonomy, which look at changes in "pollen rain" as forests develop, to calibrate the effects of trees on the wind blown grass pollen representation. At some point, near the top of the core, the tree pollen may be suddenly and dramatically reduced and the wind blown grass pollen may switch to mostly corn or wheat. This is farmers coming in and completely changing the environment. The core from that point on up may become useless. In sum, the entire core has to be analyzed as a dynamic, changing proxy where some of the changes are important information about the changing environment, while other changes are indicative of an increase or a decline in sensitivity of the proxy as an indicator of what is being studied.

Something similar is going on with the tree ring data Mann used. At around 1960 the ability of the tree ring data to represent regional temperature declines and the tree rings become useless. Prior to that time the data should be used. After that time the data should be discarded.

A proxy is not a pre-calibrated consistent source of information. It is a method that uses measurements of recovered material that allow the reconstruction of an ancient process. But that requires understanding the process well enough to develop a way of determining when the proxy is being helpful and when it is providing noise. A good amount of the research on ancient paleoclimate and paleoecology is about how the proxies work. With this research it is possible in many cases to evaluate the utility of a proxy at a given location, and furthermore, to assess which parts of the proxy can be used, which parts need to be further calibrated, and which parts need to be ignored because of a decline in their usefulness.

We see climate science deniers claiming, for example, that the tree ring proxy used by Mann needs to be used "all or nothing." This is nothing more than ignorance of how paleoclimatology works.

Complaints About The Hockey Stick Graph Are Not Valid

McIntyre's arguments (along with others) about the graph are middle-school level obfuscation of the point. The scientists who published the original Hockey Stick graph went through pains to be clear about what information was going into which part of the overall curve. Subsequent renditions of the same data, or similar sets of data with new information added, range across the board from highly complex constructs showing the different sources of the data, error ranges, etc. to those that simplify by drawing a simple curve of combined information. I wrote about this here, showing how this practice, of sometimes making a very complex thing simpler in a way that makes the point accurately, is done all the time.

The latest post on McIntyre's site, completely misrepresented what happened with the Hockey Stick curve. Nowhere in the quoted emails is there any suggestion or approval or any indication by Michael Mann of seamlessly merging proxyindicator data and instrumental data. The original documents clearly show that this is not what happened at any stage.
_______________________________________________________________________

15. A letter to the United Nations titled “There is no climate emergency” presents a short list of claims about climate change that contradict or misrepresent the evidence uncovered by geoscientists. In addition, the letter boasts that it has been signed by “500 scientists and professionals.” However, only 10 identified themselves as experts in climate science and the rest include professionals in unrelated or non-technical fields.
Six scientists analyzed the letter and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be 'very low'.
Dr. Victor Venema explained: “The text is a masterpiece: next to the political opinions expressed, every single sentence is either wrong, insignificant or irrelevant for the question whether climate change is a serious problem for humanity.”
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/?fbclid=IwAR1WdmGammY3eV4JKiK3HgY6RM_ZN1ObAYHJ5eloinBFa6VVVcsyrOax9kE

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/10/more-than-500-people-misunderstand-climate-change/

https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/l7n/500-har-underskrevet-pa-at-det-ikke-er-klimakrise-dette-sier-klimaforskere-om-oppropet
Now, where do we remember those petitions and surveys from?
And remember that other silly petition climate deniers loves to recycle?
Could it be the men behind that petion too, denied the link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer? And later the link between CFCs and the ozone layer?
Frederick Seitz
[…] “in the 1980s, Seitz decided to become a shill for any corporation willing to pay him enough. He, Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg co-founded the George C. Marshall Institute (a right-wing think tank named after a famous liberal Democrat) in 1984 to hype Ronald Reagan's Star Wars program. One of the initial goals of the organization was to attack the work done by Carl Sagan and his colleagues on nuclear winter. During this time, he was also employed by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and helped spread propaganda denying links between smoking and cancer. “
“In the early '90s, Seitz joined the board of another think tank, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), headed by another physicist-turned-shill, S. Fred Singer. Singer and Seitz's career paths were mirror images. The two co-authored a few works together, denying the dangers of ozone depletion and global warming. Through the Marshall Institute, Seitz helped Arthur Robinson spread the bogus Oregon Petition of 30,000+ "scientists" who "disagreed with the consensus on global warming." The NAS repudiated him.”
Frederick Seitz - RationalWiki
Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Would 31,000+ scientists signing a petition rejecting climate change as unscientific, be considered a consensus?
Isn’t it remarkably, everytime science is under attack, how its the same corporate polluters, the same individuals, who raises their ugly heads? Every single time?
The same people who have claim the science of global warming is "not settled",
denied the truth of studies linking smoking to lung cancer,
coal smoke to acid rain,
and CFCs to the ozone hole.
What a coincidence ay?
What do you do if all the world's experts disagree with you? A decades old technique perfected by the tobacco industry is to manufacture the appearance of a continued debate through fake experts. Climate change is a complicated, multi-disciplinary science and yet many of the leading voices who purport to know better than the experts have never published a single piece of climate research.
"As early as the 1950s, the groups shared scientists and publicists to downplay dangers of smoking and climate change".
Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public
____________________________________________________________________________________

16. Misbruket av

"DETECTION OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT IN THE OBSERVATIONS"

IPCC refererte kun til en studie fra 1983, 

"Previous reviews of the greenhouse problem (N R C 1983, MacCracken and Luther, 1985 Bolin et al 1986) have also addressed the detection issue They have concluded that the enhanced greenhouse effect has not yet been detected unequivocally in the observational record ".
og du tar ikke, merkelig nok,  med neste setning i teksten,

"However, they have also noted that the global mean
temperature change over the past 100 years is consistent
with the greenhouse hypothesis".

Hvorfor tar du ikke med denne setningen?
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
"The fact that we are unable to reliably detect the predicted signals
today does not mean that the greenhouse theory is wrong or that
it will not be a serious problem for mankind in the decades ahead "

side 245:

Tror du det har skjedd en utvikling de siste 36 år?

La oss sjekke den siste rapporten da vel, slik som er vanlig å gjøre:

“Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.


_____________________________________________________________________

17.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows

Why the discrepancy?

There are none. There are two things going on, we are both correct. But my argument is still valid; more C02 is bad for plants and humans.

“The effect stems mainly from ambitious tree planting programs in China and intensive agriculture in both countries.”

Thats because of human actions.

This is whats happening naturally:

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

Earth Stopped Getting Greener 20 Years Ago

Plant growth has declined drastically around the world due to dry air


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

The effect is limited by time. Plants
___________________________________________________

18. Roy Spencers wildfire denial debunked:

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2019/11/02/california-wildfire-denial/

________________________________________________________

19. Norske utslipp har ikke noe å si myten:

https://naturvernforbundet.no/klimasoksmal-mot-staten/myter-om-norsk-olje-og-gass-article39818-4209.html

______________________________________

20. The Michael Shellenberger pro nuclear anti wind and solar diatribe debunked:

Book review: Bad science and bad arguments abound in 'Apocalypse Never' by Michael Shellenberger » Yale Climate Connections

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/?fbclid=IwAR2xcaHwXr8VSzyAM1fKwYi1Fu9F5cHHNPOM3uy_suiFpQTI8fTCDqx3w6M#1323212012d6

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/09/04/why-renewables-cant-save-the-climate/

Debunks:

https://publicinterest.org.uk/debunking-shellenberger-and-nordhaus-again/

https://news.mongabay.com/2019/08/michael-shellenbergers-sloppy-forbes-diatribe-on-amazon-fires-commentary/

https://skepticalscience.com/latest-weak-attacks-evs-solar.html

https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/853/exposing-misinformation-michael-shellenberger-and-environmental-progress

https://theecologist.org/2018/sep/20/nuclear-power-lobbyist-michael-shellenberger-learns-love-bomb

https://qr.ae/Tee6Rw


_________________________________

21. The Ian Plimer drivel debunked:

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/ian-plimer-op-ed-in-the-australian-again-presents-long-list-of-false-claims-about-climate/?fbclid=IwAR3MrSB3D1pkn5yojJz57XuhHhFtIjeVRLFfratMtEeikVQnjMjozbfT0Kg

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/ian-plimer-op-ed-in-the-australian-again-presents-long-list-of-false-claims-about-climate/

_____________________________________________

22. The Ice cube nonsense debunked:

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/ice-cube-meme-misrepresents-physics-of-sea-level-rise-to-claim-melting-ice-has-no-effect/?fbclid=IwAR3K-9_OXBa5WU_-n4MLcsJy8RBfOS66mpa9ZM4jS5fav9hsr7chwujC-1o

__________________________________

23. The world is warming faster than the the whole world nonsense:

No, its not "the whole world", its the global average.




You think these headlines say "the whole world is warming 2x as fast as the whole world". But they don't say that.

"Everybody, it seems, is warming twice as fast as the average.
Is all this just fake news? No, it is all true. How is that possible?
It’s only possible because of the deceptive use of the word “average.” The average referred to is the average temperature of the entire planet. The story is not that any country is warming twice as fast as the average of every other country. Rather, it is that the country in the story is warming faster than the average temperature of the entire planet. But the entire planet is not just the land countries are on, it is the land and the oceans. And, as we all learned in school, the Earth’s surface is only 30% land and 70% ocean."
Det virker som om alle varmer dobbelt så raskt som gjennomsnittet.
Er alt dette falske nyheter? Nei, det stemmer. Hvordan er det mulig?Det er mulig på grunn av den villedende bruken av ordet "gjennomsnitt". 
Gjennomsnittet referert til er gjennomsnittstemperaturen på hele planeten. Historien er ikke at noe land varmer dobbelt så raskt som gjennomsnittet i alle andre land. Snarere er det at landet (Canada, Sverige etc) varmer raskere enn gjennomsnittstemperaturen på hele planeten. Men hele planeten er ikke bare den overflaten landene er på, det er landet og verdenshavene. Og som vi alle lærte på skolen, er jordoverflaten 30% land og 70% hav. "


______________________________________________

24. The world will end in 2050 nonsense was fake news created by an Australian think tank.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-end-human-civilisation-research-a8943531.html?fbclid=IwAR1s7Cro5DSzUhhS_BIZOLxPxcLAnFKWCJ2OgixJwjW6jtGiPwl8RSz1ocA

 https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/iflscience-story-on-speculative-report-provides-little-scientific-context-james-felton/

___________________________________________________________

25.


DEBUNK:

Oil be gone is not an climate change prediction. Thus FAIL.
Another Ice age?

The fact:
A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling.So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.


Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to What happened to the new Ice Age that the scientists predicted in the 1970s? Now they say we have a global warming. Which is true, and how do we know?

3. Because of global actions we see restoration of ecosystems damaged by acid rain worldwide and we are also about to recover the ozone layer as well.

“The acid rain problem in Europe and North America has largely abated because of stronger SO2 and NOx emission controls, such as the U.S. Clean Air Act of 1970, the Canada–United States Air Quality Agreement in 1991, and similar measures in Europe. In the United States the first phase of emission reductions took effect in 1995, and subsequent reductions followed”.

What Happened to Acid Rain?

4. Because of global actions we fixed the ozone layer.

After Decades Of Global Action, The Ozone Layer Is On The Road To Recovery

It's been 32 years since the world pledged to fix the ozone layer. And it worked

And probably to the shock of all climate deniers out there; It was done without the installment of a global socialist illuminati dictatorship out to turn the world into a huge wind park.

5. 2000s Ice caps will be gone in 10 years?

Really. Thats very blurry. If it the emotional Al Gore prediction you mean, it was only about some of the summer ice in some of the summer months. Mentioning a worst case scenario from a prediction with several scenarios, is NOT a failed prediction.

“his statement either intentionally or accidentally neglected to mention that this prediction, aggressive as it was, concerned only summer sea ice. “
Thus, the prediction never said what Gore claimed. Gore was inaccurate.
Gore made a misstake. Thats on him, not the science.

Did Al Gore Predict Earth's Ice Caps Would Melt by 2014?

Nobody predicted ALL ice gone. The ice up there is going super fast anyhow:

Latest, june 2019 :

"Arctic sea ice extent for April 2019 averaged 13.45 million square kilometers (5.19 million square miles). This was 1.24 million square kilometers (479,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average extent and 230,000 square kilometers (89,000 square miles) below the previous record low set in April 2016."

Rapid ice loss in early April leads to new record low

Eight trillion tonnes of Arctic ice lost since 1971

Eight trillion tonnes of Arctic ice lost since 1971


26. Enda et eksempel på hvordan den bedritne rasistiske neo-nazi propaganda-bloggen Resett lyver om vitenskap. La oss oppklare

Overskriften lyver. DE blander kortene.

Saken handler ikke om global oppvarming. Den handler om naturlige variasjoner i Barentshavet.

Dette kommer jo tydelig frem i saken fra Havforskningsinstituttet, i siste avsnitt, som Resett ikke gidder å nevne.

– Kjøligere hav er en naturlig variasjon

Havtemperaturene i Barentshavet varierer naturlig. Det vil si at temperaturene over tid går opp og ned.

– Det er velkjent at Barentshavet de siste 40 årene har blitt mye varmere. Men de siste årene har vi altså sett en nedgang, og det er en del av naturlige svingninger som alltid vil være til stede, sier Randi Ingvaldsen.

– Dette endrer ikke på at en gjennomgående global temperaturøkning hever temperaturkurven oppover, slik at både de høyeste og de laveste temperaturene generelt blir høyere enn tidligere.

https://www.hi.no/hi/nyheter/2020/januar/barentshavet-har-blitt-kjoligere-det-flytter-iskantsonen-lengre-sor?fbclid=IwAR3KT0osGW81y1OE_Qs9EzLonMD6Idzh1hG0tr65x65SNafTwBHEcyKyuEY

Det virker som om de vanligste misforståelsene om klima er å ikke se skillene:

vær kontra klima,

kortsiktige fenomener kontra langsiktige trender,

lokale målinger kontra globale gjennomsnitt.

Fokus på mindre unntak, og ignorerer det store bildet.

Lokale temperaturendringer kan variere markant fra det globale gjennomsnittet. En årsak til dette er at varmen beveger seg rundt med vind og havstrømmer, den varmer opp en region mens den kjøler en annen, men disse regionale effektene kan ikke forårsake en signifikant endring i den globale gjennomsnittstemperaturen.

En annen grunn er at lokal albedo, for eksempel endringer i snø eller vegetasjon, som påvirker hvordan en region reflekterer eller absorberer sollys, kan forårsake store lokale temperaturendringer som ikke speiles i det globale gjennomsnittet.

Naturlige havsykluser kan bare flytte varme rundt, som varmeveksling i havene eller fra hav til atmosfære. Men nå ser vi tilsetning av varme både i hav og atmosfære. Så tilsetningen av varme til energibudsjettet vi ser nå må komme fra et annet sted enn naturlige sykluser.

Hvis global oppvarming var forårsaket av intern variabilitet, ville vi forvente å se varmen blandes rundt klimasystemet uten nett oppbygging. I stedet observerer forskere at klimasystemet vårt akkumulerer varme.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-natural-cycles-only-play-small-role-in-rate-of-global-warming



Skip havner i trøbbel , ikke pga mere is, men pga mere is i bevegelse som følge av issmelting og at dette fører til at is bryter løs, et resultat av global oppvarming. (DEt er uansett ikke bevis imot global oppvarming at det er is i Arktis.)

"Climate-related changes in Arctic sea ice not only reduce its extent and thickness but also increase its mobility meaning that ice conditions are likely to become more variable and severe conditions such as these will occur more often."

As Arctic sea ice breaks up, it’s starting to move southward faster, creating new and unexpected hazards. More icebergs calving off Greenland add to the threat.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27032018/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-data-icebergs-ocean-shipping-oil-gas-drilling-grand-banks-canada

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/

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


27. Volcanos is melting the west antartics ice:

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/studies-do-not-support-blogs-claim-that-volcanic-activity-is-causing-melting-of-west-antarctic-glaciers/?fbclid=IwAR1fx66NwMyy2avJhKVittOD_UkVrVLC7xVDeaImxydG9N11cu7WoZAnVek


28.

Did UN Official Say Nations Would Vanish If Global Warming Not Reversed by 2000?

Ok, Lets debunk this one again.

One UN official is just one Un official. Its not the UN. This is a media xxxx up.

The claim that these scenarios will be reality if climate change “is not reversed by the year 2000” does not have its origin in any actual U.N report. 

Sea-level projections made in the late 1980s actually hold up fairly well to sea-level projections made more recently. 

The senior U.N. official speaking to the Associated Press was Noel Brown, who served as a regional director of the United Nations Environment Program and who was not a climate scientist. While admittedly alarmist, this senior U.N official’s statements appear to have been muddied further by the Associated Press’s somewhat imprecise reporting on the topic.

The Associated Press article created confusion in two ways. 

First, it suggested (at least to some media outlets) that the statement meant that nations would be under water in the year 2000. 

In fact, his statement said nations would be under water at some time in the more distant future, “if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” The scenarios in the papers cited by the AP described projections that went into the year 2100. 

..into the year 2100!!!!

Second, the article conflates statements made by Brown, which did not represent a consensus view at the time, with statements made in several governmental studies that were more representative of the consensus view.



This is is just another retard denier blog urban myth hot air hot banana bad media misrepresenting the science nonsense.

The actual 1990 IPCC report did get sea level rise projections correct.

In retrospect, the 1990 predictions of future sea level change seem rather bold, because the 1990 IPCC report also concludes that “the average rate of rise over the last 100 years has been 1.0-2.0 mm/yr” and that “there is no firm evidence of accelerations in sea level rise during this century”. Yet, the 1990 report’s projection of 2.0-7.3 mm/yr of average sea level rise from 1990-2030 (Figure 2), represents a prediction that sea level rise would accelerate almost immediately – and this acceleration actually happened! Indeed, three recent studies (Hay et al., 2015; Dangendorf et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2017) have confirmed sea level acceleration after about 1990.

Thus, the IPCC’s 1990 sea level projection did a remarkably good job for the first three decades of its prediction timetable, and the next 8 decades don’t seem so unreasonable as a result. What did the 1990 report do right? Here the 1990 IPCC report helps us again, by breaking down its projection into contributions from four factors: thermal expansion of the seawater due to warming, the melting of mountain glaciers, and changes in the mass of the great ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. The 1990 report makes predictions for the changes in sea level caused by these factors for a 45-year timeframe of 1985-2030, and I have plotted these predictions as a rate (in mm/yr) in Figure 4. Thermal expansion and deglaciation in mountainous areas were predicted to be the largest contributors. Greenland was predicted to contribute only slightly, and Antarctica was predicted to gain ice, resulting in a drop in sea level.


Den FN-funksjonæren som snakket med Associated Press var Noel Brown, regiondirektør for FNs miljøprogram, er ikke klimaforsker. Mens uttalelsen riktignok var alarmistisk,  ble det full forvirring pga en svært upresis gjengivelse i media.

Associated Press-artikkelen skapte forvirring på to måter.

Først antydet den at uttalelsen innebar at nasjoner ville være under vann i år 2000. Men, det han sa var at at nasjoner ville være under vann på et tidspunkt i den fjernere fremtid "hvis den globale oppvarmingstrenden ikke er snudd innen år 2000. ” Scenariene i avisene som ble sitert av Associated Press beskrev fremskrivninger som gjalt år for 2100!!

For det andre sammenblander artikkelen uttalelser fra Brown ( som ikke representerte konsensussyn på den tiden,) med uttalelser fra flere studier som var mer representative for konsensus.

Hele greien er altså feilsiteringer og misforståelser skapt av media. Hvis vi går DIREKTE til vitenskapen ser vi at prediksjoner er rimelige og nøyaktige, til og med konservative. Enkelte gjør også dette til en dommedagsprofeti, noe det aldri var.

2020. Realitetene ER her. Krisen er et faktum.

"Katastrofene har siden 2000 krevd 1,23 millioner menneskeliv og rammet 4,2 milliarder mennesker. FN beregner at det økonomiske tapet etter ødeleggelsene er på rundt 1 640 milliarder dollar."
Siden 2000 har katastrofehendelser kostet USA over 1000 milliarder dollar. Mens Kinas kostnader er på 482 milliarder dollar.


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nations-vanish-global-warming/

29. The atom bomb c14 nonsense.

Dette var overveiende et problem for trering / dendrochronology proxy. Imidlertid var det begrenset til treringer etter begynnelsen av kjernevåpenforsøk på overflaten; treeringdata er ikke nødvendig for temperaturrekonstruksjoner etter starten av overflatekjernevåpentesting fordi vi har overflatetemperaturdata, som er langt mer nøyaktig.

Forskjellige dateringsmetoder enn kulldatering brukes til temperaturproxy.

That was predominantly an issue for tree ring/dendrochronology proxies. However, it was limited to tree rings after the onset of surface nuclear weapon testing; tree ring data is not needed for temperature reconstructions after the onset of surface nuclear weapon testing because we have the surface temperature record, which is far more accurate.

Various dating methodologies other than carbon dating are used for temperature proxies.

On a related note, from 1945-2009 there were 2,402 surface and underground nuclear weapon tests. Of those, 527 were conducted above-ground. Of those, some 458 were conducted in the first 20 years of nuclear weapons testing.

Looking at those peak years of testing, the forcing from those 20 years of peak tests of the nuclear weapons on the Earth came to about one eight-millionth of a Watt per square meter (8 x 10-6 W m-2) of power.

For comparison, the 1.8 Watts per square meter (1.8 W m-2) of CO2 radiative forcing as of 2011 generates approximately twenty nine billion, trillion Joules of energy (29 x 1021 J) over the Earth's surface in a single year, or more than ten thousand times as much energy in a year than the entire combined nuclear weapons program of the world had generated in those 20 years.

"Bomb pulse dating should be considered a special form of carbon dating. As discussed above and in the Radiolab episode, Elements (section 'Carbon'),[4] in bomb pulse dating the slow absorption of atmospheric 14C by the biosphere, can be considered as a chronometer. Starting from the pulse around the years 1963 (see figure), atmospheric radiocarbon decreased with 4% a year. So in bomb pulse dating it is the amount of 14C in the atmosphere that is decreasing and not the amount of 14C in a dead organisms, as is the case in classical radiocarbon dating."
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_pulse

  • The carbon in the atmospheric CO2 contains information about its source, so that scientists can tell that fossil fuel emissions comprise the largest source of the increase since the pre-industrial era. The carbon from burning fossil fuels have a different isotope signal (radioactivity) than C02 coming from natural sources. Its like a fingerprint. It’s like DNA proof in a murder investigation.

_________________________________________

30. Debunking av tulleboken til Gregory Wrightstone:




31. The dustbowl and 1930 US heatwave nonsense debunked:



32. Tony Heller diverse tøv:


33. Dette innlegget om at vindkraftverk forårsaker en temperaturøkning og derved bidrar til global oppvarming, er en misforståelse av en artikkel som forskerne Lee Miller og David Keith ved Harvard University publiserte i 2018.   Forskerne gjorde en modellering av en situasjon der all energiproduksjon i hele USA ble omgjort til vindkraft.  Dette er i seg selv et helt umulig scenario.  Forskerne ville gjennom denne modelleringen poengtere betydningen av at energiproduksjon må skje i en miks av ulike former for fornybar produksjon og ikke bare gjennom en type produksjon.  

Vindkraftverk og vindturbiner kan i seg selv ikke gi en temperaturøkning i og med at de - som alle andre fornybare energikilder - ikke tilfører miljøet energi.  Snarere tvert i mot - de "tapper" energi ut av miljøet slik at det - teoretisk sett - vil skje en avkjøling.  Det som skjer er at vindturbiner kan dra varmluft fra øvre luftlag ned mot bakken om natten - og omvendt om dagen.  Dette kan forårsake en lokal oppvarming / avkjøling i umiddelbar nærhet av turbinen.  

Dette er ennå et eksempel på at en vitenskapelig modellering av en tenkt situasjon - som vil være umulig å gjennomføre i praksis,  lever sitt eget liv på diverse nettsteder der modelleringen tas ut av sin sammenheng og etableres som en slags "absolutt sannhet".  



34. Den gamle oljemannen, Steve Koonin, fra BP, sprer mye desinformasjon om klima.


https://twitter.com/climateofgavin/status/1383599697726562304?lang=en&fbclid=IwAR1Tf5uNBuKATLt7VzJjAtpfyiQiu6LBnyKJ6sxvhYVWAk7e6IUZKZ7FcR4


Steve koonins denier propaganda book.


Kooning worked for BP.





35.

The claim: Photos prove no sea level rise, climate change is a hoax

Just a few days before Earth Day 2021, a Facebook post claimed to show climate change is a hoax based on two photos taken a century apart.

The post reads, "99 years of sea level rise — Palm Beach Sydney," and includes images labeled as being from 1917 and 2016. They show the water level at a similar point both years.



36. Geir Hasnes  SPESSIAL

Det grønne skiftet er ugjennomførlig

https://www.universitetsavisa.no/det-gronne-skiftet-geir-hasnes/det-gronne-skiftet-er-ugjennomforlig/188222

Debunk:

Det grønne skiftet er mulig, og i gang (universitetsavisa.no)
Elektriske motorer har mye høyere energivirkningsgrad enn fossilmotorer.
2000 TWh fossil energi kan derfor ersattes av rundt 500 TWh elektrisk energi.
Elektrisk er langt mer effektivt enn fossilt drivstoff så vi trenger bare ca 1/6 -1/7. En el-bil bruker 90% av energien til å få hjulene til å gå rundt, en fossil-bil klarer 25%.



Geir Hasnes  - «Klimakrisen» savner basis i vitenskap


Debunk:


 Det trengs milliarder av vindturbiner.


Debunk:

"Verdens energiforbruk i 2050 vil ifølge vår modeller være 570 EJ eller 158 petawatttimer, altså 35 prosent lavere enn Hasnes referanse. Energieffektivisering og elektrifisering sørger for at verden når energitoppen rundt 2030, fordi vi evner å bruker energi smartere i framtida enn vi gjør i dag – en elektromotor har for eksempel en virkningsgrad (90 prosent) som er mye høyere enn en forbrenningsmotor (20-40 prosent)."

Hvordan skal vi skaffe all denne energien? Det finnes dessverre ikke en superløsning som vil hjelpe oss her, vi må ha summen av mange forskjellige tiltak. Og ja, det blir store tall, men fordi vi bruker litt av alt, blir de mye lavere en skremmeskuddet fra Hasnes.

Ikke alt kan elektrifiseres, et godt anslag er at i et avkarbonisert energisystem kommer 80 prosent av energien fra elektrisitet. I våre beregninger står sol og vind for en tredel hver av elektrisitetsproduksjonen i 2050, og vi trenger da 42 petawattimer med sol og tilsvarende med vind. Havvind – med turbiner på kanskje 15MW – vil stå for minst en tredel av vindproduksjonen, og totalt vil vi trenge omtrent 14 TW med vindturbiner, dvs omtrent 2 millioner store vindturbiner globalt, altså en hundredel av Hasnes’ tall. 42 petawattimer med sol vil kreve omtrent 23 TW med solpaneler, og totalt dekke et landområde globalt på størrelse med Storbritannia.

En enklere sammenligning er at installasjonstakten for sol og vind må være omtrent 10 ganger høyere enn det den er idag."



Posted by at

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar

Abonner på: Legg inn kommentarer (Atom)

Debunking the Caterpillar meme

  To sum up again, this time with the correct numbers: the ICE will still produce 160,000 * 150 = 24 tons of CO 2 the electric car will prod...