Derfor er der ingen grund til at være skeptisk I

meningsløse afbrænding af olie, kul og gas

Det var i 2008.
Har ikke hørt om denne sag, men det er vel også kun dem, der gerne vil hænge dem ud, som de ikke er enige med, som finder sagen vældigt interessant 8 år efter.

Mikael Obelitz skrev:
Morten, jeg kender ikke den omtalte sag, så jeg ved ikke, hvad NA mener.
Har ikke tid til at undersøge det lige nu og vil egentligt heller vide, hvad der sker med klimaet, end se på tåbelige kampe mellem forskellige religioner.
Mvh og god påske.

Hvis du ser på de enkelte personer, der diskuteres, så er der påstande om fusk på begge fløje pga kampen om at få ret

Jørgen Petersen skrev:
At den globale kornproduktion har været stødt stigende igennem mange år skyldes i høj grad, at denne jord stille og roligt er blevet mere og mere frugtbar. At denne klode stille og roligt er blevet mere og mere frodig og tilsvarende mere frugtbar har i høj grad noget med temperatur og nedbør at gøre.

Hvis man vil vide mere om den globale kornproduktion, så skal man bare Google: Global Kornproduktion - og herefter vælge billeder. Så kommer der nogle meget interessante grafer frem.

Hansen anymore seems interested in promoting alarmism at all costs. There's been a whiff of this throughout his entire career, but this latest paper is just too much to take seriously.

N A Nielsen skrev:
James Hansen, som flere gange er blevet anholdt for sin politiske klimaktivisme må denne gang se selv vennerne sige fra.

http://davidappell.blogspot.dk/2016/03/hyping-hansens-paper.html?m=1

Mikael Obelitz er selvfølgelig parat til at tro på hvad som helst i den retning. Jo værre, jo bedre...

David Appel, som bestemt ikke er skeptiker:

Hansen anymore seems interested in promoting alarmism at all costs. There's been a whiff of this throughout his entire career, but this latest paper is just too much to take seriously.

Kornpriserne er historisk høje, så EU-Kommissionen vil midlertidigt standse den støtte, der gives for ikke at opdyrke markerne. Skeptikere frygter for naturen.
Torsdag d. 13. september 2007, kl. 17.54

Apart from the effect of rainfall patterns, our study also agreed with other studies observing a gradual greening trend for the past two decades, even where there was no change or even a small decrease in rainfall.

This has been ascribed mainly to the increasing number of trees and shrubs growing on semi-arid grasslands. These plants are more efficient water users than other plants such as grasses. With the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel emissions, they are able to absorb more carbon from the atmosphere without using more water.

Abstract

[1] Satellite observations reveal a greening of the globe over recent decades. The role in this greening of the "CO2 fertilization" effect—the enhancement of photosynthesis due to rising CO2 levels—is yet to be established. The direct CO2 effect on vegetation should be most clearly expressed in warm, arid environments where water is the dominant limit to vegetation growth. Using gas exchange theory, we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) led to a 5 to 10% increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments. Satellite observations, analyzed to remove the effect of variations in precipitation, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%. Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilization effect is now a significant land surface process.

Jørgen Petersen skrev:
@ Mikael Obelitz

Du kan ikke snakke dig fra at den opvarmning, som vi har haft i de sidste 50, 100 eller 200 år har været en stor fordel for os. Lidt mere af samme slags vil tilsvarende
også være en fordel.

Du kan heller ikke snakke dig fra, at havvandsstigninger på ca. 3 millimeter pr. år ikke udgør noget alvorligt problem. I mange år har den jo ligget ret stabilt på dette niveau. Og hvorfor skulle den lige pludselig begynde at stige voldsomt? Det er der jo absolut ingen grund til at tro, hvis vi tager de begrænsede stigninger, som der har været i havvandstemperaturen, i betragtning?

Mikael Obelitz skrev:
"Jeg nøjes med at tage bestik af de hårde data"

climate change threatening Philippines food security

Videre omkring Filippinerne, der vil blive hårdt ramt på fødevareproduktionen. Derfor forskes der lige nu meget i, hvordan de værste skader undgås.

Denne artikel giver et godt indblik i de fremtidige reduktioner i udbyttet.

We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe. We also spatially aggregate model output and observations over the contiguous USA using data from 70 stations, and we perform comparison at several temporal scales, including a climatic (30-year) scale. Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor.

.... local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the correlation at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is worse than at the local scale.

...models produce precipitation approximately twice as often as that observed and make rainfall far too lightly.....The differences in the character of model precipitation are systemic and have a number of important implications for modeling the coupled Earth system .......little skill in precipitation [is] calculated at individual grid points, and thus applications involving downscaling of grid point precipitation to yet even finer‐scale resolution has little foundation and relevance to the real Earth system.

Radiation calculations in global numerical weather prediction (NWP) and climate models are usually performed in 3-hourly time intervals in order to reduce the computational cost. This treatment can lead to an incorrect Global Horizontal Irradiance (GHI) at the Earth's surface, which could be one of the error sources in modelled convection and precipitation. ...... An important application of the scheme is in global climate models....It is found that these errors are very large, exceeding 800 W m-2 at many non-radiation time steps due to ignoring the effects of clouds....

To conclude, modeled atmospheric circulation and SST trends over the past century are significantly different from the observed ones. These mismatches are responsible for a large part of the misrepresentation of precipitation trends in climate models. The causes of the large trends in atmospheric circulation and summer SST are not known.

EPA: Heat waves, which are projected to increase under climate change, could directly threaten livestock. A number of states have each reported losses of more than 5,000 animals from just one heat wave. [1] Heat stress affects animals both directly and indirectly. Over time, heat stress can increase vulnerability to disease, reduce fertility, and reduce milk production.

Drought may threaten pasture and feed supplies. Drought reduces the amount of quality forage available to grazing livestock. Some areas could experience longer, more intense droughts, resulting from higher summer temperatures and reduced precipitation. For animals that rely on grain, changes in crop production due to drought could also become a problem.

Climate change may increase the prevalence of parasites and diseases that affect livestock.The earlier onset of spring and warmer winters could allow some parasites and pathogens to survive more easily. In areas with increased rainfall, moisture-reliant pathogens could thrive.

Increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) may increase the productivity of pastures, but may also decrease their quality. Increases in atmospheric CO2 can increase the productivity of plants on which livestock feed. However, studies indicate that the quality of some of the forage found in pasturelands decreases with higher CO2. As a result, cattle would need to eat more to get the same nutritional benefits