De gode sider af klimaændringer

sg17a skrev:
Under varmebølgen i 2003 var dødstallet i frankrig alene 14,802. Det er betydeligt højere end kuldebølger. Så det med at der er flere der dør under kulde end varme, hvor kommer det fra?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave

N A Nielsen skrev:
Antallet af dødsfald topper i januar, som regel.

Magnus Hansen skrev:
Bullshit! Læs op her og kom tilbage: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

You now turn to global warming. Consider this factor: Research funding tends to be available if a case is made that there is "a problem". If one believes that this factor would tend to result in some exaggeration, one would believe it will operate in both the WG1 and WG2 type studies [IPCC]. Of course one could be mistaken and the factor does not result in exaggeration– but if one believed it does, then they will tend to suspect some level of exaggeration in both areas of study.
There is also another factor which is better defined by "absence". In contrast to applied research in more medical/industrial fields, climate science and some climate change related fields in environmental science share the feature that generally speaking the studies will not result in creating a marketable product other than research. That is: Where investigations into medical areas might result in a marketable pharmaceutical or treatment, or engineering research might result in marketable things sold to people in outside the field , investigations into climate will rarely result in anything marketable other than more research. (To give an example: a chemical engineer might develop a brighter paint pigment which is sold to a paint manufacturer who sells the paint to a home owner or builder. Someone in semi-conductors might create a better memory chip, a food scientist an ingredient that makes crispier crackers, a biochemist develops a new medicine and so on. Each can then sell this thing to someone else. )
For a while now– I've been thinking that the absence of this in climate science is a factor that could also result in the tendency to exaggerate. Or– possibly– more correctly, the absence of the ability for practitioners to translate their work into something marketable means that there isn't much of an incentive to drop ideas or methods that just aren't panning out that there might be in other fields. And there isn't really a path where a person so correctly sees the "crowd" is wrong percolates to the top because that person profits by being right. In other fields, the way that person profits is the actually make the better drug, pigment, gadget or so on. And beyond that: The avenues that are promising create money often in the pocket of the person who was right and that person is likely to funnel more money into what he thinks is right rather than what the "community" or "funding agency" thinks is right.
In contrast, the main "way" for the climate scientist to move forward in a climate fields is to gain the esteem of other climate scientists with marches hand in hand with getting grant proposals funded in an environment where proposals are sent out to other climate scientists to endorse or knock down. And the main way the field advances collectively is for funding agencies to see the field as important– and this will tend to make those working in the field to exaggerate the dangers (or importance of) climate change and also want to fit in with the "crowd".
So, it's really a situation where "self correcting" is going to be slow relative to what we see in other fields. (I do think we are seeing some 'correction' owing to "the pause". But it's generally going to be slow going!)

sg17a skrev:
Under varmebølgen i 2003 var dødstallet i frankrig alene 14,802. Det er betydeligt højere end kuldebølger. Så det med at der er flere der dør under kulde end varme, hvor kommer det fra?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave

N A Nielsen skrev:

Magnus Hansen skrev:
Bullshit! Læs op her og kom tilbage: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

Skeptical Science?

SS er en ensidig propagandaside, ....

Peter Mogensen skrev:

N A Nielsen skrev:

Magnus Hansen skrev:
Bullshit! Læs op her og kom tilbage: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

Skeptical Science?

SS er en ensidig propagandaside, ....

Det samme er der folk, der mener om Talkorigins.org

Jeg har svært ved at se den kvalitative forskel til din holdning.
For mig at se er forskellen blot det naturvidenskabelige emne.

N A Nielsen skrev:

Peter Mogensen skrev:

N A Nielsen skrev:

Magnus Hansen skrev:
Bullshit! Læs op her og kom tilbage: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

Skeptical Science?

SS er en ensidig propagandaside, ....

Det samme er der folk, der mener om Talkorigins.org

Jeg har svært ved at se den kvalitative forskel til din holdning.
For mig at se er forskellen blot det naturvidenskabelige emne.

Kan du uddybe det? Hvad vil du indvende mod min holdning til hvad?

Peter Mogensen skrev:

N A Nielsen skrev:

Peter Mogensen skrev:

N A Nielsen skrev:

Magnus Hansen skrev:
Bullshit! Læs op her og kom tilbage: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

Skeptical Science?

SS er en ensidig propagandaside, ....

Det samme er der folk, der mener om Talkorigins.org

Jeg har svært ved at se den kvalitative forskel til din holdning.
For mig at se er forskellen blot det naturvidenskabelige emne.

Kan du uddybe det? Hvad vil du indvende mod min holdning til hvad?

Jeg vil indvende lige præcis det jeg skrev mod din holdning til Skeptical Science.

En sjældent god historie.

I tørre tal har det betydet, at brødrene, siden de begyndte med kartoffeldyrkningen i stor skala i 1998, er gået fra en årsproduktion på 27 tons til en forventet rekordhøst på omkring 100 tons i år. Brødrene er selvfølgelig også blevet bedre til at optimere høsten ved for eksempel at vande, men de varmere og længere sommermåneder har været altafgørende.

Climate change increased the number of deaths
Oct 22, 2013
The increased temperatures caused by ongoing climate change in Stockholm, Sweden between 1980 and 2009 caused 300 more premature deaths than if the temperature increase did not take place. In Sweden as a whole, it would mean about 1,500 more premature deaths, according to a study from researchers at Umeå University published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Global opvarmning gør kloden mere og mere grøn

"Global opvarmning" gør kloden mere og mere grøn