Archive for 20 maj, 2008

There will be no more warming for the foreseeable future.

20 maj, 2008
Som ett komplement till mitt föregånde inlägg The Spatial Pattern and Mechanisms of Heat-Content Change in the North Atlantic kommer här ytterligare en intressant studie där man matade in verkliga data från havsströmmar och cirkulation i dessa klimatmodeller. And lo and behold! – Resultatet blev ett helt annat än vad vi fått oss itutat de senaste åren!
 
”Climate scientist Noel Keenlyside, leading a team from Germany’s Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, for the first time entered verifiable data on ocean circulation cycles into one of the U. N.’s climate supercomputers, and the machine spit out a projection that there will be no more warming for the foreseeable future.

Of course, Mr. Keenlyside– long a defender of the man-made global warming theory — was quick to add that after 2015 (or perhaps 2020), warming would resume with a vengeance.

Climate alarmists the world over were quick to add that they had known all along there would be periods when the Earth’s climate would cool even as the overall trend was toward dangerous climate change.

Sorry, but that is just so much backfill.

There may have been the odd global-warming scientist in the past decade who allowed that warming would pause periodically in its otherwise relentless upward march, but he or she was a rarity.

If anything, the opposite is true: Almost no climate scientist who backed the alarmism ever expected warming would take anything like a 10 or 15-year hiatus.”

”It is drummed into us, ad nauseum, that the IPCC represents 2,500 scientists who together embrace a ”consensus” that man-made global warming is a ”scientific fact;” and as recently as last year, they didn’t see this cooling coming. So the alarmists can’t weasel out of this by claiming they knew all along such anomalies would occur.

This is not something any alarmist predicted, and it showed up in none of the UN’s computer projections until Mr. Keenlyside et al. were finally able to enter detailed data into their climate model on past ocean current behaviour.”

Intressant eller hur. Nu är det ”plötsligt annat ljud I skällan” när dessa klimatmodeller matas med nya parametrar och data och de kommer ut med helt andra förutsägelser än vad vi nu hört i 8-10 år.

Som Al Gore, IPCC et consortes brukar säga med hög och bestämd röst ”Debatten är över” och ”Det finns inget att diskutera” samt ”Det är omoraliskt att ens tänka tanken”.

HELT PLÖTSLIGT SÅ HAR dessa s.k. vetenskapsmän kommit på att de egentligen menade något helt annat än vad de offentligt sagt i 5-10 år. Där man dessutom har gjort allt för att tysta och trycka ner ALLA kritiker.    Jomen, hum… vi menade faktiskt att de kunde bli uppehåll i temperaturökningen även om vi INTE sa det ELLER skrev det någonstans utan tvärtom istadigt hävdade motsatsen.

Så går det när det råder påtvingad ”consensus”. Alla sjunger med i halleluja kören och trycker ner kritiker så länge det gynnar ens egna positioner och anslag. Om civilkurage, fakta och vetenskap ”körde över” dem så skulle de inte ens veta vad dessa begrepp står för.

Detta är den största politiska och vetenskapliga skandalen ALLA kategorier i modern tid som jag har skrivit många gånger! Men nu börjar marken rämna för dessa charlataner.

Och fallet kommer att bli mycket långt och mycket hårt. Och det är välförtjänt!

Se även mina inlägg:
The church of green – You have to repent or be forever dammed!The Hockey Stick scam that heightened global warming hysteriaAssessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time seriesIPCC Review Editors – ”No Working Papers”, ”No Correspondence” are kept!The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!The Unscientific way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!IPCC Review Editors comments reveald!Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?IPCC and its bias!Peer Review – What it actually means

Och
Wikipedia (Wicked Pedia) bias – At Wikipedia, one man engineers the debate on global warming, and shapes it to his views!Wikipedia (Wicked Pedia) bias – Or How Global Warming Hysterics Systematically alters everything critically of Global Warming!, Why Does Al Gore Hate The Press -2?Why Does Al Gore Hate The Press?Det råder ”consensus” om Global Warming – IGEN! Eller hur kritiken mot Global Warming censureras,  Miljöhysterins tyranni – nu skall vi fängslas om vi inte tror på Global Warming!,  Miljöhysterin ett hot mot vår frihet, demokratin, ekonomin och vårt välstånd -2,  Miljöhysterin ett hot mot vår frihet, demokratin, ekonomin och vårt välståndOmoraliskt att tänka självständigt!,  Al Gores Science Fiction and His Climate of Fear,  Climate of Fear – I am an intellectual blasphemer,  Climate of Fear – 5!,  Climate of Fear – 4!,  Al Gore and his climate of fear!Climate of Fear – 3!Climate of Fear – 2!Climate of Fear!

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=f6fa4aca-61b4-4824-adb4-78eb8fa9081a

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>

(more…)

The Spatial Pattern and Mechanisms of Heat-Content Change in the North Atlantic

20 maj, 2008

Här kommer ytterligare en intressant studie ” The Spatial Pattern and Mechanisms of Heat-Content Change in the North Atlantic” av M. Susan Lozier,1* Susan Leadbetter,2 Richard G. Williams,2* Vassil Roussenov,2 Mark S. C. Reed,1 Nathan J. Moore1 som publicerades i Science Express i januari i år.

Det som är det intressanta är deras konstaterande:

”However, although most climate models show a slight strengthening of the NAO index with anthropogenic forcing, the climate models also underestimate the strength of the recent decadal trend in the NAO, raising doubts as to the viability of the connection between the NAO and anthropogenic forcing in climate models”

Dvs. ytterligare ett bevis på vilken lösan sand dessa klimatmodeller är byggda. I det här fallet så klarar de inte av att simulera ”the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)” och dess verkningar på klimat (och vädret). Ej heller kan de simulera det motsvarende fenomenet i Stilla Havet ”The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)”.

För att inte tala om El Niño and La Niña som dessa modeller HELLER INTE KLARAR AV.

Både NAO och PDO har en mycket stor påverkan på klimatet i hela jorden. Då bägge  kan vara mycket långvariga till skillnad mot El Niño and La Niña som är mera ”kortvariga ” (6-18 månader).

Man mäter fasen och amplituden av NAO och PDO genom ett index Man pratar dessutom om ett positivt och negativt NAO index vilket har helt olika effekter på vädret.

ALLA dessa viktiga och stora klimatpåverkande fenomen klara dessa avgudade modeller INTE AV att förutse. OCH DET ÄR SAMMA MODELLER SOM MAN VILL FÅ OSS ATT TRO KAN FÖRUTSÄGA TEMPERATUREN OM 100 år PÅ EN TIONDELSGRAD NÄR!

Det är alltså resultatet av dess av modeller som IPCC, Al Gore et consortes avgudar och som hela Global Warming Hysterin bygger på.  Och där man vill ”offra” större delen av värt ekonomiska välståd på dess altare för att blidka CO2 guden.

Abstract finns här:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5864/800

The Spatial Pattern and Mechanisms of Heat-Content Change in the North Atlantic

M. Susan Lozier,1* Susan Leadbetter,2 Richard G. Williams,2* Vassil Roussenov,2 Mark S. C. Reed,1 Nathan J. Moore1 .

The total heat gained by the North Atlantic Ocean over the past 50 years is equivalent to a basinwide increase in the flux of heat across the ocean surface of 0.4 ± 0.05 watts per square meter. We show, however, that this basin has not warmed uniformly: Although the tropics and subtropics have warmed, the subpolar ocean has cooled. These regional differences require local surface heat flux changes (±4 watts per square meter) much larger than the basinwide average. Model investigations show that these regional differences can be explained by large-scale, decadal variability in wind and buoyancy forcing as measured by the North Atlantic Oscillation index. Whether the overall heat gain is due to anthropogenic warming is difficult to confirm because strong natural variability in this ocean basin is potentially masking such input at the present time.

1 Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
2 Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Liverpool University, Liverpool L69 3GP, UK.

Present address: Department of Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA.

Conclusion

”Lastly, the positive trend in the winter NAO index in the 1990s has been attributed to anthropogenic forcing (Hurrell 1995), implying that the NAO could be the route by which anthropogenic warming is imprinted on the ocean. However, although most climate models show a slight strengthening of the NAO index with anthropogenic forcing, the climate models also underestimate the strength of the recent decadal trend in the NAO, raising doubts as to the viability of the connection between the NAO and anthropogenic forcing in climate models (Gillett et al., 2003; Stephenson et al. 2006). Hence, although the change in ocean heat content over the North Atlantic can be connected to the decadal trend in the NAO, it is premature to conclusively attribute these regional patterns of heat gain to greenhouse warming. Continued long-term monitoring of North Atlantic temperatures is needed to answer the question of whether the basin-average warming is reflecting anthropogenic forcing and/or natural variability.

Se även mina inlägg:

Honest Statement Of Current Capability In Climate ForecastsTropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate ModelsBasic Greenhouse Equations ”Totally Wrong” – ytterligare ett anförande från konferensen i New YorkHey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me This, The Sloppy Science of Global Warming!ROBUSTNESS AND UNCERTAINTIES OF CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONSHas the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?Climate change confirmed but global warming is cancelledWhy multiple climate model agreement is not that exciting!Open letter to IPCC to renounce its current policy!Average Day By Day Variations Of The Global And Hemispheric Average Lower Tropospheric TemperaturesScientists Reveal Presence Of Ocean Current ‘Stripes’Cold in the tropical troposphere but it should be warming if Global Warming ”theories” are correct!Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time seriesMera om Klimat modellernas falsariumKlimatmodellernas falsarium,  Klimatmodellernas skojeri – Fel på 100 – 300%!

  

                          Positivt NAO Index

                             Negativt NAO Index

                                      NAO Index

Här är en mycket intressant graf över Met Offices försök att förutsäga NAO  och som vi ser så är felmarginalen emellanåt ganska stor med en standard error på ±1.0

                              PDO Index

                 Varm Fas                                      Kall Fas

 

                                   El Nino och La Nina

 

Grafer finns här:

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/NAO/

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/teledoc/nao_ts.shtml

http://www.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/nino_normal.html

 

Statistical prediction of the winter NAO (Met Office, UK):

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/seasonal/regional/nao/index.html

 

Artikeln finns här:

http://climatesci.org/2008/05/19/the-spatial-pattern-and-mechanisms-of-heat-content-change-in-the-north-atlantic-by-lozier-et-al/

 

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6 rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

 

The church of green – You have to repent or be forever dammed!

20 maj, 2008

Här kommer en intressant artikel i dagens Los Angels Times av Jonah Goldberg där han tar upp Global Warming Hysterikernas ”religiösa syn” på omvärlden. En mycket träffande beskrivning av denna blandning av fanatism, krav på total lydnad och likgiltighet för vanliga människor.

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg20-2008may20,0,5614504,print.column

From the Los Angeles Times

The church of green. A kind of irrational nature worship separates environmentalism from the more fair-minded approach of conservationism.

Jonah Goldberg

May 20, 2008

I admit it: I’m no environmentalist. But I like to think I’m something of a conservationist.

No doubt for millions of Americans this is a distinction without a difference, as the two words are usually used interchangeably. But they’re different things, and the country would be better off if we sharpened the distinctions between both word and concept.

At its core, environmentalism is a kind of nature worship. It’s a holistic ideology, shot through with religious sentiment. ”If you look carefully,” author Michael Crichton famously observed, ”you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.”

Environmentalism’s most renewable resources are fear, guilt and moral bullying. Its worldview casts man as a sinful creature who, through the pursuit of forbidden knowledge, abandoned our Edenic past. John Muir, who laid the philosophical foundations of modern environmentalism, described humans as ”selfish, conceited creatures.” Salvation comes from shedding our sins, rejecting our addictions (to oil, consumerism, etc.) and demonstrating through deeds an all-encompassing love of Mother Earth. Quoth Al Gore: ”The climate crisis is not a political issue; it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity.”

I heard Gore on NPR the other day. He was asked what he made of evangelical pastor Joseph Hagee’s absurd comment that Hurricane Katrina was God’s wrath for New Orleans‘ sexual depravity. Naturally, Gore chuckled at such backwardness. But then the Nobel laureate went on to blame Katrina on man’s energy sinfulness. It struck me that the two men were not so different. If only canoodling residents of the Big Easy had adhered to ”The Greenpeace Guide to Environmentally Friendly Sex.”

Environmentalists are keen to insist that their movement is a secular one. But using the word ”secular” no more makes you secular than using the word ”Christian” automatically means you behave like a Christian. Pioneering green lawyer Joseph Sax, for example, describes environmentalists as ”secular prophets, preaching a message of secular salvation.” Gore too has often been dubbed a ”prophet.” It’s no surprise that a green-themed California hotel provides Gore’s ”An Inconvenient Truth” right next to the Bible and a Buddhist tome.

Whether it’s adopted the trappings of religion or not, my biggest beef with environmentalism is how comfortably irrational it is. It touts ritual over reality, symbolism over substance, while claiming to be so much more rational and scientific than those silly sky-God worshipers and deranged oil addicts.

It often seems that displaying faith in the green cause is more important than advancing the green cause. The U.S. government just put polar bears on the threatened species list because climate change is shrinking the Arctic ice where they live. Never mind that polar bears are in fact thriving — their numbers have quadrupled in the last 50 years. Never mind that full implementation of the Kyoto protocols on greenhouse gases would save exactly one polar bear, according to Danish social scientist Bjorn Lomborg, author of the 2007 book ”Cool It!”

Yet about 300 to 500 polar bears could be saved every year, starting right now, Lomborg says, if there were a ban on hunting them in Canada. What’s cheaper, trillions to trim carbon emissions or paying off the Canadians to stop killing polar bears?

Plastic grocery bags are being banned all over the place, even though they require less energy to make or recycle than paper ones. The whole country is being forced to subscribe to a modern version of transubstantiation, whereby corn is miraculously transformed into sinless energy even as it does worse damage than oil.

Conservation, which shares roots and meaning with conservatism, stands athwart this mass hysteria. Yes, conservationism can have a religious element to it as well, but that element stems from the biblical injunction to be a good steward of the Earth, rather than a worshiper of it. But stewardship involves economics, not mysticism.

Economics is the study of choosing between competing goods. Environmentalists view economics as the enemy because cost-benefit analysis is thoroughly unromantic. Lomborg is a heretic because he treats natural-world challenges like economic ones, seeking to spend money where it will maximize good, not just good feelings among environmentalists.

Many self-described environmentalists are in fact conservationists. But the environmental movement wins battles by blurring this distinction, arguing that all lovers of nature must follow their lead. At the same time, many people open to conservationist arguments, like hunters, are turned off by even reasonable efforts because they do not want to give aid and comfort to ”wackos.”

In the broadest sense, the environmental movement has won. Americans are ”green” in that they are willing to spend a lot to keep their country ecologically healthy, which it is. But now it’s time to save the environment from the environmentalists.

Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>

‘We Get It’ Green Movement

20 maj, 2008

En blandning av kristna, medborgarrättsrörelser och vetenskapsmän har lanserat en kampanj ”We get it” för att protestera mot Global Warming Hysterikerna. Detta eftersom de gigantiska summor som kommer att förslösas på dessa nonsensåtgärder, tillsammans med hela systemet med handeln med utsläpps rätter (som är ett gigantiskt skojeri), kommer att leda till att de fattiga kommer att bli ännu fattigare.

Och att dessa Global Warming Hysteriker couldn’t care less över de ekonomiska konsekvenserna för vanligt folk av deras åtgärder.

Så sant som det är sagt!

Se även mina inlägg:

Why the carbon trading scheme is impossible and unjustGreen tax revolt: Britons ‘will not foot bill to save planet’A Big Nyet: Russia Doesn’t Want any Binding Caps on Carbon!Global warming proposals would gut N.C. economyCarbon plan ‘to cost business $22bn’”Emissions Trading – a Weapon of Mass Taxation”,  Giant Global Warming Tax Hikes Headed Your WayDon’t bother with emissions trading law, the Chambers of Commerce tells MPsEurope finds that cutting carbon emissions is far easier said than done.  Geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter!A Carbon fantasy that will bankrupt us!,  EU:s CO2 policy – The hot air of hypocrisy!,  Self-Interest: Inconvenient Truth of Climate Change!,  The Price Tag – Kostnaderna för Global Warming för VANLIGT FOLK -2!,  The Price Tag – Kostnaderna för Global Warming för VANLIGT FOLK!,  $ 2,9 Biljoner i sänkt BNP för en sänkning av CO2 på 25 ppm!,  De ekonomiska realiteterna av Global Warming Hysterin,

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200805/CUL20080516a.html

 Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6 rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

(more…)

Don’t Freak Out! Climate sense instead of nonsense.

20 maj, 2008

Här kommer en intressant intervju med Björn Lomborg i National Review.

Citat:

”Lomborg: To some, a cap-and-trade system might sound like a neat approach where the market sorts everything out. But in fact, in some ways it is worse than a tax. With a tax, the costs are obvious. With a cap-and-trade system, the costs are hidden and shifted around. For that reason, many politicians tend to like it. But that is dangerous.

It’s misleading not to recognize that the costs of cap-and-trade – financially and in terms of jobs, household consumption, and growth – will be significant. Some big businesses in privileged positions could make a fortune from exploiting this rather rigged market – but their gain is no reason to support the system.

Lopez: Is there anything worthwhile about Kyoto?

Lomborg: Kyoto burned a lot of political capital to create a response to climate change that costs a fortune but achieves very little.

The climate models show that the Kyoto protocol would have postponed the effects of global warming by seven days by the end of the century. Even if the U.S. and Australia had signed on and everyone stuck to Kyoto for this entire century, we would postpone the effects of global warming by only five years – at a cost of $180 billion each year.”

Se även mina tidigare inlägg: Russia will not sell it’s emission rightsWhy the carbon trading scheme is impossible and unjustGreen tax revolt: Britons ‘will not foot bill to save planet’A Big Nyet: Russia Doesn’t Want any Binding Caps on Carbon!Global warming proposals would gut N.C. economyCarbon plan ‘to cost business $22bn’”Emissions Trading – a Weapon of Mass Taxation”,  Giant Global Warming Tax Hikes Headed Your WayDon’t bother with emissions trading law, the Chambers of Commerce tells MPsEurope finds that cutting carbon emissions is far easier said than done.  Geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter!A Carbon fantasy that will bankrupt us!,  EU:s CO2 policy – The hot air of hypocrisy!,  Self-Interest: Inconvenient Truth of Climate Change!,  The Price Tag – Kostnaderna för Global Warming för VANLIGT FOLK -2!,  The Price Tag – Kostnaderna för Global Warming för VANLIGT FOLK!,  $ 2,9 Biljoner i sänkt BNP för en sänkning av CO2 på 25 ppm!,  De ekonomiska realiteterna av Global Warming Hysterin,

Intervjun finns här:

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MWE1NmYxZTFmMDQxZjE1Mjk5MDgxYTZiYTZmYjg1YTY=

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6 rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

(more…)


%d bloggare gillar detta: