Bemærkelsesværdige citater.....

MortenRiber skrev:
at, uanset hvor meget manipulation, følelsesmæssigt bedrag mv. en udsættes for, så skal vi altid huske at tænke selv. Selvom en måske endda vil føle sig udenfor, så lad dem ikke få en til at blive endnu en medløber, for netop nu er det at en må tænke selv.

As is normal for this time of year, ice extent increased rapidly through most of October. However, this year, the increase was particularly fast, which contributed to above-average air temperatures near the surface. A look back at the entire melt season from March through October reveals that the Arctic sea ice is showing some unusual changes in growth and melt cycles.

In the past five years, the Arctic has shown a pattern of strong low-level atmospheric warming over the Arctic Ocean in autumn because of heat loss from the ocean back to the atmosphere. Climate models project that this atmospheric warming, known as Arctic amplification, will become more prominent in coming decades and extend into the winter season. As larger expanses of open water are left at the end of each melt season, the ocean will continue to hand off heat to the atmosphere.

As mentioned...unusually high air temperatures go hand-in-hand with the rapid increase in ice extent seen through most of the month of October. It is important to reiterate this fast rate of growth is not unexpected under current conditions.

....if we look at the total extent of ice lost between the March maximum and the September minimum, 2008 set a new record for total ice loss over an entire melt season.

Arctic sea ice and climate are behaving in ways not seen before in the satellite record—both in the rate and extent of ice loss during the spring and summer, and in the record ice growth rates and increased Arctic air heating during the fall and winter.

Average ice extent in December..(2008)..was well below average and very close to that measured in 2007. Heading into 2009, the Arctic sea ice cover is again young and thin; given this set-up, a continuation of well-below-average sea ice extent in 2009 is a near certainty.

gorm skrev:
¤ "Either we change - or the climate changes !".

¤ "Stenalderen ophørte da heller ikke pga. mangel på sten !".

[- og undskyld, hvis I kender dem allerede -]

"Conclusion:
Although humans are the cause of the increase of CO2 (and CH4), the effect of this on temperature is limited and to a certain extent even beneficial.
There are other reasons to limit our use of fossil fuels, but global warming is not one of them... "

"This is nothing like anything we've seen since 1950," Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. "Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn't have one."

Vi er - i det mindste i USA - knap kommet over den tærskel, hvor folk i almindelighed tror på, at klimaforandringerne er et alvorligt og menneskeskabt problem. Mange mener ikke, det er et problem. Og blandt mennesker, der erkender problemet, er der ofte en forestilling om, at det er lettere at løse, end det i virkeligheden er. At få vedtaget Kyoto-aftalen var virkelig svært, men den udgør bare et lillebitte skridt. At nå 10, 20, 30 pct. vedvarende energi i energisystemet er svært - at nå op på 100 pct. er en gigantisk udfordring.

Normalt er jeg et meget optimistisk menneske, men her er jeg ikke optimist. Denne udfordring er virkelig hård. Menneskeheden har klaret at løse lokale forureningsproblemer, men dette er globalt. Jeg er 78 og holder måske 20 år endnu, hvis jeg er meget heldig. Det er ikke længe nok til, at jeg kan få at se, hvordan dette udvikler sig. Det er de unge, der vil komme til at leve med det resten af deres liv.

Jeg håber fortsat, at vi får en god aftale på Københavns-mødet i december, men realistisk tror jeg, at chancerne for, at politikerne reagerer passende på en udfordring af det omfang, som forskerne nu meget klart har beskrevet, er meget, meget spinkel.

...den store forskel på Kyoto-aftalen fra 1997 og en ny Københavns-aftale er, at verden i Kyoto stadig havde tid at løbe på og tid til at formulere skrappere mål....Den luksus har vi ikke længere. Vi er nødt til at gennemføre markante CO2-reduktioner globalt inden for de nærmeste 5-10 år. Vi kan ikke vente på, at der i fremtiden kommer skrappere strategier.

...i-landene må forpligte sig til allerede i 2020 at reducere deres CO2-udledninger med 40-50 pct. I 2030 bør målet være 60-70 pct. reduktion eller mere

We can no longer allow politicians and business to twist and ignore science...The scientists can connect the dots and define the implications of different policy choices and we should make clear those implications

One power plant with a lifetime of several decades will destroy the efforts of millions of citizens to reduce their emissions..If the government permits the building of new infrastructure which locks us into a future of high CO2 emissions, there is a moral obligation to try to stop them

As an undergraduate, I did maths and physics. That doesn't make me a scientist. So I try to read and understand and talk to scientists. I'm staggered by how many people who are lawyers, or politicians....Taxi drivers. People behind bars. People cutting hair. They all seem to be knowledgeable and expert on the science.

In public policy we have to understand a little bit about nuclear physics, and biochemistry, and genetics. So what do you do if you want to understand about genetics? You talk to a geneticist. You don't turn to taxi drivers or politicians. Both respectable professions, but you don't go to them for the science of climate change, you go to scientists. And what do you hear? That this is basically simple physics. It's not as if it's something strange or mysterious that people can't explain to you. It's not something outside the experimental. The greenhouse effect is something you can observe experimentally - and most people have observed the greenhouse effect themselves, in greenhouses. Yes?

The funny thing about this is that just this January Had/Cru changed there endpoint algorithm because it gave the appearance of being too cold. And yet, the previous Jan when the same algorithm gave the appearance of being too warm nobody noticed. The fact is that Climate Scientist are very quick to correct any data that does not subscribe to the theory, or at the very least look to see if the data is faulty, but blissful unaware of any faulty data that coincides with the theory. Fortunately there are a few jesters out there keeping you on your toes. The molehill is faulty Russian data that would have most likely been corrected for the year end summary, the mountain is the inability to scrutinize the data without regards to any theory.

"What has pushed the debate between climate change scientists and climate sceptics to now being between climate change scientists and climate alarmists?"

"I must say that the report (the WWF released today) describes a 'worst case scenario,' but it is not as bad as the future we are currently headed for"

Many people think the greenhouse effect is a late 20th-century invention. Yet the physical basis for anthropogenic global warming was established six months before Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Unlike Darwin, Tyndall's findings didn't cause a revolution in thinking. It was a long, slow process before people recognised the implications.

Moreover, says Hulme, no one is even quite sure what sort of knowledge it is that the IPCC, as a "boundary organisation" – part science, part politics - actually produces. Nor how the world at large interprets that hybrid knowledge. Even more fundamentally, he says, it is far from clear that the IPCC has actually allowed us to do "better science"

Very few people understand that carbon emissions are making the oceans acidic

rick_uk skrev:
Carl Gustaf Lundin, head of the IUCN's Global Marine Programme (15/5-09) om "det andet CO2 problem"

Very few people understand that carbon emissions are making the oceans acidic

Interview med IPS

"..indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. "

Hvor mange - selv blandt jer der er enige i AGW tanken - vurderer så at der rent faktisk er 90% sandsynlighed for dette?

Det er altså 90% sikkert at vi vil se opvarmning i snit mellem 3,5 og 7,4 grader på 91 år

"The current exercise is not to renegotiate the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) but to see how we can enhance it" to tackle climate change more effectively....There were many suggestions from industrialised countries that diverged from the UNFCCC, "giving the impression that we are negotiating a new treaty. Any country which wants to do that should use the procedure laid down in the convention. This is very important for us because UNFCCC is the only agreed legal text to address global climate change"

Talking about the 1997 Kyoto Protocol by which all industrialised countries except the US are legally bound to reduce their GHG emissions by five percent during 2008-12, compared to 1990: "Most developed countries are nowhere near meeting their target....That is why they are trying to muddy the waters....The latest is Japan saying the baseline should be shifted from 1990 to the current date. All these are efforts to get away from the legal document and to gloss over the fact that they are not meeting their legal targets... And when that happens, what is our confidence in the commitments you make for a period 10 years from now? Then you can very well turn around and say the original target was unrealistic."

What was the status of the commitments made by industrialised countries for the 2008-12 period? "This is the issue being repeatedly brushed under the carpet, the one that the western media ignores,"

Saran, who will be in Bonn next week to lead the Indian delegation, emphasised that these points of view were not of India alone, but of all developing countries, which negotiate climate treaties jointly under the umbrella called G77 plus China. The Group of 77 (G77) countries actually has over 130 countries as members.

..vi forventer at det forløber fredeligt.

The authors of the latest US climate change report would make Pravda editors and reporters blush with envy on how they can misconstrue and mis-report truths for a propaganda angle.

You really can't do anything about global warming...What we need to do to stop global warming is to stop burning fossil fuels. Literally stop, you can't turn on a light switch anymore, you can't drive a car anymore, you can't fly a plane anymore, you can't heat your home anymore. All of those things cause global warming, and nobody is going to make that sacrifice...The little things are all good things to do, but they don't stop global warming.

Literally stop, you can't turn on a light switch anymore, you can't drive a car anymore, you can't fly a plane anymore, you can't heat your home anymore...

Bogstaveligste stop, du ikke kan tænde for en lyskontakt længere, kan du ikke køre bil længere, kan du ikke flyve et fly mere, du ikke kan varme dit hjem længere ...

Mere seriøst: Er vi efterhånden ikke havnet i en opadgående spiral af tiltagende useriøse dommedagsprofetier??

kulden-varmen skrev:
Mere seriøst: Er vi efterhånden ikke havnet i en opadgående spiral af tiltagende useriøse dommedagsprofetier??

Skal vi ikke bare glemme det hele og trække dynen op over hovedet?

Mere seriøst: Er vi efterhånden ikke havnet i en opadgående spiral af tiltagende useriøse dommedagsprofetier??

"It's a tough sell. And probably you have to find ways to exaggerate the threat. "

"But I get no impression that Protestants and Catholics are sermonizing on the importance of preserving the bounty of the earth, the richness of the species, or preserving the planet as we would like to know it. And I think that if someone could mobilize the church to be interested..."

" I sometimes wish that we could have, over the next five or ten years, a lot of horrid things happening — you know, like tornadoes in the Midwest and so forth — that would get people very concerned about climate change. But I don't think that's going to happen."