Bemærkelsesværdige citater.....

Et eksempel af hvad man kan læse i dagspressen som opsummering af de sidste måneders diverse klima '-gates' begivenheder

Professor Beddington said that particular caution was needed when communicating predictions about climate change made with the help of computer models

After more than 20 years of concerted international effort, our understanding of the impact of human activity on the climate has improved dramatically. The results are sobering: unchecked, greenhouse gas emissions are leading to higher temperatures and sea levels, greater stresses on water supplies, and changes in ecosystems. They are also a leading factor in the retreat of most of the world's glaciers.

But to judge from the hue and cry emanating from the IPCC's recent withdrawal of its published estimate that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035, one would think that an entire body of knowledge, produced by thousands of scientists, was now in disarray......

Any misstep in the IPCC process is therefore of concern, and must be remedied. But it does not challenge the basis of climate change science, or evidence of global warming that is already visible across the globe.

More scientific research, subject to careful peer review, remains as important as ever...the fundamental trends are clear. Glaciers are in retreat around the globe. In part, this is due to black soot from burning coal and diesel, and the inefficient use of biomass, which darkens the glaciers and makes them soak up more sunlight. In part, it is due to the global rise in temperatures driven largely by the greenhouse gases pumped into the air by human activity, particularly burning fossil fuels.

This assessment is not based on a handful of studies, but on multiple independent lines of evidence that are supported by the collective work of thousands of scientists from institutions worldwide. It relies not on the esoteric, but on the basic laws of physics. And it is a conclusion reached not only by the IPCC but by leading scientific bodies in over a dozen major countries, including India, China and the US

It's not warming the same everywhere but it is really quite challenging to find places that haven't warmed in the past 50 years...

January, according to satellite (data), was the hottest January we've ever seen...

Last November was the hottest November we've ever seen, November-January as a whole is the hottest November-January the world has seen

[he said of the satellite data record since 1979].

Climate change is no longer an impending catastrophe to be averted, but an existing condition to be managed.

..the world at large seems to be coming to terms with the reality of a warming planet

Countries around the world haven't been able to agree on the policy changes necessary to stop warming in its tracks. And energy experts warn that most of our alternative energy solutions won't create enough power to get the world to its goal of zero carbon emissions in 40 years. In fact, even if we did get our emissions down, it wouldn't be enough – the climate has already changed. The last time global temperatures were below average was February 10, 1993.

In many ways, the science [of geoengineering] once seen as a last resort is starting to look like the only option.

På et globalt plan vil El Niño kunne mærkes ved at forhøje den globale gennemsnitstemperatur.

Vær opmærksom på at temperaturen januar 2010 med den nuværende svage El Niño er på samme niveau som temperaturerne i 1997/1998 med dengang ekstremt kraftige El Niño.

The monsoon is one of the most powerful atmospheric circulation systems on the planet, and it happens to form right over a heavily polluted region. As a result, the monsoon provides a pathway for transporting pollutants up to the stratosphere....

This is a vivid example of pollutants altering our atmosphere in subtle and far-reaching ways.

Alle graferne i bogen er gentegnede. Der er altså unøjagtigheder eller endda overdrivelser i forhold til originalerne. Det var et redaktionelt valg.

Over the years, the IPCC has changed from a scientific institution that tries to be policy relevant to a political institution that pretends to be scientific. I regret that. There are already more than enough climate activists, while there are too few solid and neutral bodies that make down-to-earth and well-founded statements about climate change and climate policy.

Working Groups 2 and 3 of the AR4 violated all IPCC procedures. The conclusions are partly scientifically unfounded, and even partly copied from the environmental movement. The AR4 was substantially changed after the final review, also in parts that had already been accepted by the referees. Valid comments were ignored.

As a result, AR4 contains crude errors, only some of which are public knowledge. These errors can be found in the chapters, the technical summaries, the summaries for policy makers, and the synthesis report. The errors are not random.

Working Group 2 systematically portrays climate change as a bigger problem than is scientifically acceptable. Working Group 3 systematically portrays climate policy as easier and cheaper than can be responsibly concluded based on academic research.

Doubting basic results of climate science based on the recent claims against the IPCC is particularly ironic since none of the real or supposed errors being discussed are even in the Working Group 1 report, where the climate science basis is laid out.

Working Group 1 (WG1), which deals with the physical climate science basis, as assessed by the climatologists, including several of the Realclimate authors.

Working Group 2 (WG2), which deals with impacts of climate change on society and ecosystems, as assessed by social scientists, ecologists, etc.

Working Group 3 (WG3) , which deals with mitigation options for limiting global warming, as assessed by energy experts, economists, etc.

(AR4 = IPCC's 2007 rapport)

Professor Tol: As the IPCC became more policy relevant over the years, it attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. Activists were few and from both sides in AR2. Some of the discussion in AR3 was very politicised, but in the end balance won. In AR4, however, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.

Professor Tol: Climate change is a problem that should be solved. We cannot let the planet get warmer and warmer. There should be a carbon tax, which should be modest at present but rise steadily and predictably over time.

GLAR skrev:
Et spørgsmål stilet til klimaministeriet ender op hos GEUS med følgende ordlyd:

Hvad er den ideelle gennemsnitstemperatur i en Mellemistid der efterhånden er 11.715 år gammel ?

Nu drejer alle klimasystemets faktorer mod en negativ fase. Afkølingen vil toppe om 15 år. Politikerne har satses på en global opvarmning, men har satset på den forkerte hest.

NordØst Passagen vil kun kunne passeres med isbryder, og den formodede udnyttelse af Arktis vil støde på problemer.

" "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." – George Orwell, 1984

The idea of a medieval warm period was formulated for the first time in 1965 by the English climatologist Hubert H. Lamb [1]. Lamb, who founded the UK Climate Research Unit (CRU) in 1971, saw the peak of the warming period from 1000 to 1300, i.e. in the High Middle Ages. He estimated that temperatures then were 1-2 ° C above the normal period of 1931-1960. In the high North, it was even up to 4 degrees warmer. The regular voyages of the Vikings between Iceland and Greenland were rarely hindered by ice, and many burial places of the Vikings in Greenland still lie in the permafrost.

Glaciers were smaller than today

I remember when the Americans sent up a satellite to measure ozone and it started saying that a hole was developing over the South Pole. But the damn fool scientists were so mad on the models that they said the satellite must have a fault. We tend to now get carried away by our giant computer models. But they're not complete models. They're based more or less entirely on geophysics. They don't take into account the climate of the oceans to any great extent, or the responses of the living stuff on the planet. So I don't see how they can accurately predict the climate. It's not the computational power that we lack today, but the ability to take what we know and convert it into a form the computers will understand. I think we've got too high an opinion of ourselves. We're not that bright an animal. We stumble along very nicely and it's amazing what we do sometimes, but we tend to be too hubristic to notice the limitations. If you make a model, after a while you get suckered into it. You begin to forget that it's a model and think of it as the real world. You really start to believe it.

Writing in the British newspaper The Independent in January 2006, Lovelock argues that, as a result of global warming, "billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable" by the end of the 21st century. He has been quoted in The Guardian that 80% of humans will perish by 2100 AD, and this climate change will last 100,000 years.

He further predicts, the average temperature in temperate regions will increase by as much as 8°C and by up to 5°C in the tropics, leaving much of the world's land uninhabitable and unsuitable for farming, with northerly migrations and new cities created in the Arctic. He predicts much of Europe will become uninhabitable having turned to desert and Britain will become Europe's "life-raft" due to its stable temperature caused by being surrounded by the ocean. He suggests that "we have to keep in mind the awesome pace of change and realise how little time is left to act, and then each community and nation must find the best use of the resources they have to sustain civilisation for as long as they can".

"Det vigtigste er signalet om, at vi vil det her [støtte industrien i at udvinde al fossil brændstof fra Nordsøen]. For hvis industrien bliver lagt for had, så bliver det vanskeligt at tiltrække investeringer. Vi vil den her industri i høj grad ... Der er store indtjeningsmuligheder for Danmark, og det tror jeg godt, folk forstår. Det er godt for den danske økonomi, og godt at vi ikke bliver nødt til at importere fra lande, som ikke deler vores værdier ... Jeg forstår godt, hvis der er lidt forvirring, fordi der er så massiv fokus på, at vi skal omstille os. Jeg vil godt tage med mig hjem, at vi skal blive bedre til at forklare, at vi befinder os i en langvarig overgangsfase, hvor vi naturligvis skal fortsætte med at udnytte vores olie og gas."

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2010 was 0.69°C above the 20th century average.....This is the warmest such value on record since 1880.

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–May 2010 was the warmest on record.

Noget er der jo ved at ske rundt omkring - også her på klimadebat, som f.eks @bennohansen, der med et savner noget modspil fra de, han modigt stadigvæk kalder for "klimabenægtere"

Hvem gider mere???

A few months ago, I put out feelers on three sceptic websites asking for sceptical scientists at British universities to contact me anonymously. I could count the positive replies on one hand with a few missing fingers.

Meanwhile, alarm among many scientists over the risks of climate change appears as strong as ever - if not stronger.

Meanwhile, alarm among many scientists over the risks of climate change appears as strong as ever - if not stronger

The British Royal Society recently released a statement that "Any public perception that the science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect," thus contradicting its own former president, and true believer, Lord May. And if the science isn't settled, there can hardly ever have been "consensus" on the issue.

A forthcoming paper by Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia, from which the Climategate emails emerged, admits that the actual group involved in the "consensus" that "human activities are having a significant influence on the climate" was in fact "only a few dozen," rather than the thousands invoked by the IPCC.

Last week, economist Richard Tol, one of the IPCC's own lead authors, suggested that the whole IPCC process should be suspended until the selection of authors has been fixed. This week, the ­IPCC's head, Rajendra Pachauri, who has previously accused skeptics of flat Earthism and "voodoo science," suddenly had a Damascene conversion as to the validity of dissent. "I am not deaf," he wrote, "to those who do not agree with the scientific consensus on man-made climate change. Nor, indeed, to those who do not agree with the findings — or, in some cases, the existence — of the IPCC."

Det var så lidt opsamling af noget af alt det, der er sket/sker, og som jo selvfølgelig ikke omtales i de danske medier, jeg har set, og der er meget mere, men...

FN's klimapanel var ensidigt negativ og dramatiserede konsekvenserne af klimaforandringerne op til klimatopmødet i København i december 2009. Det fastslår stor undersøgelse, iværksat af den hollandske regering

Kosmos skrev:
- spændende, hvor megen omtale dét her:

FN's klimapanel var ensidigt negativ og dramatiserede konsekvenserne af klimaforandringerne op til klimatopmødet i København i december 2009. Det fastslår stor undersøgelse, iværksat af den hollandske regering

får?

»IPCC-rapporten har på afgørende vis dokumenteret, at disse konsekvenser allerede er synlige mange steder på kloden, og at de vil blive yderligere alvorlige ved fortsatte temperaturstigninger,« hedder det i rapporten, der dermed tilbageviser anklager fra klimaskeptikere og flere medier i tiden efter klimatopmødet i København om manipulation og manglende troværdighed i klimapanelet.

Utroligt som selvsamme hollandske undersøgelse kan vinkles forskelligt. Her Jørgen Steen Nielsen i Information...

Kan man få et link til den Hollandske rapport - Berlingeren fremhæver helt andre vinkler end JSN på hovedkonklusionerne:...

Det var Hans Henrik (resten af navnet husker jeg ikke - var det noget med Ågård)

jo, Lars Henrik Aagaard, var det

"greenhouse-driven change, given the uncertainties, is -- at best -- a tertiary wild card."

For dem som samler på koldt vejr historier og behøver det skåret ud i pap, citat her:

"Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw 30 billion dollars at one question and how could bright, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of connections, links, predictions, projections and scenarios? (What's amazing is what they haven't found: empirical evidence.)"

In summary, the total amount of post-industrial fossil fuel burned to date (and expressed as kilograms of carbon) represents less than 1% of the global bio-available carbon pools.

More importantly, scientists know virtually nothing about the dynamic carbon exchange fluxes that occur on all the relevant time and lengths scales to say anything definitive about how atmospheric CO2 arises and is exchanged in interaction with the planet's ecological systems. We are barely at the point of being able to ask intelligent questions.

As with most areas of science and medicine, however, despite our gargantuan ignorance we are unfortunately able to sound knowledgeable and able to write impressive grant proposals and governmental reports. It's a dangerous place to be for society when you have a demonstrated bad habit of serving powerful economic interests. Common sense and independent thinking are going to have to prevail if we do not want to continue with this circus.