Global warming

Minister Erjavec po TV:

finančna kriza je tudi posledica našega odnosa do narave

Sinners repent!

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming
Tole si zasluži podroben in koherenten odgovor. Vsaka točka posebej. Najde kdo?

Warped bi verjetno rad kontraodgovore. Drugače pa, kot sem na hitro pogledal, so pač zbrane vse trditve zagovornikov segrevanja, kot jih že dolgo poznamo.

O.

Alien> "popolnoma pa ničesar ne razložijo."

o_O

Kako da ne?

V posebej toplem interglacialnem obdobju pred 120.000 leti je bila gladina morij 6 m višja od današnje, vendar človek takrat še ni bil v "industrijski dobi", zato so bili (tako, kot so dejansko tudi danes), vzroki za klimatske spremembe na globalni ravni drugje, v naravnih ciklih.

Vloga ljudi na globalne klimatske spremembe je torej že s tega vidika očitno močno pretirana.

Za zadnje postglacialne otoplitve smo torej celo pripravljeni sprejeti "polno odgovornost" in jo posebej obdavčiti , za vse druge podobne iz preteklosti pa ne, ali kako? Kdo bo odgovarjal za otoplitve in dvig morske gladine pred 120.000 leti?

http://www.rtvslo.si/modload.php?&c_mod...

Poglejte si tale intervju s Križaničem. Med drugim napoveduje kataklizmo in za 7C povečano temperaturo, če ne znižamo emisij CO2. Očitno pa je tudi, da živi na Zemlji kjer se povprečna temperatura še vedno dviga.

http://www.rtvslo.si/modload.php?&c_mod...

Poglejte si tale intervju s Križaničem. Med drugim napoveduje kataklizmo in za 7C povečano temperaturo, če ne znižamo emisij CO2. Očitno pa je tudi, da živi na Zemlji kjer se povprečna temperatura še vedno dviga.

Kaj a se ga za ta zavajanja ne da tožit ali kaj? Pa saj ne morem verjet, da si upa kaj takega rečt

V Dnevniku je bila pompozna novica, da se bo morje dvignilo za 3 metre. po "predvidevanjih".

mislim, da zgodovinsko gledano lahko pričakujemo dvig morja za nekje 6 metrov. Z nami ali brez nas.

Minister Erjavec po TV:

finančna kriza je tudi posledica našega odnosa do narave

Sinners repent!

in kaj je narobe rekel??

mene še vedno zanima kje se je minister tu zmotil?

Saj nima smisla demontirati članka - bistvo je, da se je klima spreminjala ves čas. Mirno lahko dopustimo warmerjem veselje, da se res greje - point je, da MI oziroma CO2 NISMO GLAVNI VZROK segrevanja!

Lokalno (na področju mest) smo že dokaj sami krivi za par več stopinj pozimi in poleti in klima v mestih je načeloma toplejša od tiste v okolici.

Na tale Warpedov post smo malo pozabili, ane: klik

Res bi rad prebral vsak kakšno "demontažo" vsaj kakšne točke

Daj enostavno izberi in skopiraj nekaj sem, pa naj se demantira. Celotnih dezinformacij na tisti strani se pa ne da nikomur ovreči, ker bi samo s tem pridelali še 100 strani teme.

Ampak to zgoraj samo potrjuje da se klima spreminja. To pa še ne pomeni, da je glavni dejavnik za spremembe prav človek.

@DarwiN,

1.) a si si prebral vsaj vsako liho ali vsako sodo stran te teme? Čist tko, kot osnovo za sodelovanje? Jaz osebno puščam še odprta vrata, da človek je vzrok ali vsaj vodilni razlog za gretje; other than that, so pa ideje, ki se prodajajo tu notri kar sound.

2.) DarwiN@ "Zanimivo.. Po vašem gre torej za največjo zaroto vseh časov, za katero v prvi vrsti stojijo znanstveniki brez motiva, da si pač malo popestrijo dogajanje."

Ne, ne zaradi popestritve. Zato, ker je to zlata jama. Ogromno denarja se obrne skozi to.

1.) a si si prebral vsaj vsako liho ali vsako sodo stran te teme? Čist tko, kot osnovo za sodelovanje? Jaz osebno puščam še odprta vrata, da človek je vzrok ali vsaj vodilni razlog za gretje; other than that, so pa ideje, ki se prodajajo tu notri kar sound.

Da, poznam površno argumente obeh strani in niti slučajno popolnoma ne zastopam ne ene in ne druge strani. Pravilno da si skeptičen, sem tudi sam.
Sem pa prepričan v eno stvar. In sicer, narediti vse kar je v naši moči da ustavnimo segrevanje je nujno in vsekakor zelo dobrodošlo, oz. natančneje, nujno je
razviti in na veliko sprejeti alternativne vire energije. Neodvisnost (tudi delna) od fosilnih goriv ima ogromno pozitivnih stranskih učinkov, pozabi segrevanje, Američani nehajo ubijat nedolžne ljudi, določene demokracije po svetu vsaj dobijo realno šanso, Evropa ni več hlapec Rusiji, peak oil?(morda), itd itd itd...
Bottom line, če ne ukrepamo smo v težkem qrcu, zato je edino racionalno stališče ukrepanje.

2.) DarwiN@ "Zanimivo.. Po vašem gre torej za največjo zaroto vseh časov, za katero v prvi vrsti stojijo znanstveniki brez motiva, da si pač malo popestrijo dogajanje."

Ne, ne zaradi popestritve. Zato, ker je to zlata jama. Ogromno denarja se obrne skozi to.

Wait a minute, na eni strani imaš biznis z nafto, na drugi strani pa biznis ki hoče nafto kenslat...Kateri je večji? A ne bi potem 90% tnanstvenikov kričalo "bring on the oil" in pa "global WHAT?" ?

Kaj ima šele država z obdavčenjem CO2 emisij in ''prekupčevanjem'' s kuponi med državami? Še več.

Še tole, to je nekdo nalimal drugam, pa je zelo lepo razloženo. klik

The IPCC Hockey Stick

The IPCC published the "Hockey Stick" graph from Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH 1998), in its Third Assessment Report, which shows little change in temperatures for hundreds of years then a sharp increase recently in the last hundred years. This temperature history was given bold prominence in the IPCC reports, distributed to all Canadian households and used to support major policy decisions involving the expenditure of billions of dollars. The IPCC argues that there was little natural climate change over the last 1000 years, so that the temperature change over the last 100 years is unusual and likely caused by human activities. A senior IPCC researcher said in an email "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." Christopher Monckton says "They did this by giving one technique, measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines, 390 times more weighting than other techniques but didn't disclose this. Tree-rings are wider in warmer years, but pine tree rings are also wider when there's more carbon dioxide in the air: it's plant food. This carbon dioxide fertilization distorts the calculations. They said they had included 24 data sets going back to 1400. Without saying so, they left out the set showing the medieval warm period, tucking it into a folder marked "Censored Data". They used a computer model to draw the graph from the data, but two Canadians [Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre] later found that the model almost always drew hockey-sticks even if they fed in random, electronic "red noise" because it used a faulty algorithm." The MBH 1998 report was never properly peer reviewed before the IPCC used it in their publications.
See here for comments from Christopher Monckton.

McKitrick and McIntyre say in their paper "the dataset used to make this construction contained collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects. These errors and defects substantially affect the temperature index. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 — is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components." See here for their paper.

The IPCC hockey stick is shown below, along with the corrected version. The error ranges are not shown here.

Mann hockey stick with corrected version
The dispute over the hockey stick caused the United States Congress to decide to investigate the matter. The US National Research Council (NRC) held public hearings and prepared a report in 2006 for the US House of Representatives Committee on Science. The NRC Report made no criticism of the McKitrick and McIntyre papers. The report concludes "strip-bark samples should be avoided in temperature reconstructions." These strip-bark Bristlecone/Foxtail samples are responsible for the sharp increase in the graph in the twentieth century, but the growth spurt is not related to temperatures. It also confirmed that Mann's algorithm, which used non-centered principal component analysis, mines for hockey stick shapes from random red noise data as previously shown by McKitrick and McIntyre, and notes that "uncertainties of the published reconstructions have been underestimated."

Meanwhile, the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce had independently commissioned a study from Edward Wegman who is chairman of the NAS Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics and a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society. The Wegman Report states "Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.” It also states "In general, we find the criticisms by [the McKitrick and McIntyre papers] to be valid and their arguments to be compelling. We were able to reproduce their results and offer both theoretical explanations (Appendix A) and simulations to verify that their observations were correct.” The study also studied the social network of the group of scientists who publish temperature reconstructions. The study found that they collaborate with each other and share proxy data and methodologies, so that the "independent" studies are not independent at all. See the Wegman Report here.

Both of these reports were public six months before the IPCC began the release of the Fourth Assessment Report; however, the 4AR makes no mention of the Wegman Report, gives only one citation of the NRC Report, and ignores the findings and recommendations of the reports.

David Holland wrote a comprehensive history and discussion of the hockey stick affair. See Holland's paper - "Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The 'Hockey Stick' Affair and its Implications" published by "Energy & Environment", October 2007 here.

David Holland says "it is scandalous that the WGI Chapter 6 authors ignored most of its [NRC Report] substantive findings. Despite the clear analysis in Wegman et al. showing the lack of independence between the various temperature reconstructions, the authors of AR4 WGI Chapter 6 persisted with their reliance on a “spaghetti” diagram of reconstructions in Figure 6.10(b) to continue to justify the claim that “Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.”

[edit] Aja, pa še kar se tiče števila "naraščajočih viharjev" - veselo branje

Cel članek, od kjer izvira Thomasova slikca:
Have Changes In Ocean Heat Falsified The Global Warming Hypothesis?

Prev, gremo lepo na drugo točko:
1.a/2: ‘One record year is not global warming’ — Luckily, there are plenty more years to consider

Objection: So 2005 was a record year. Records are set all the time. One really warm year is not global warming.

Answer: This is actually not an unreasonable point -- single years taken by themselves can not establish or refute a trend. So 2005 being the hottest globally averaged temperature on record is not convincing. Then how about:
* every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992;
* the ten hottest years on record occurred in the last 15;
* every year since 1976 has been warmer than 1976;
* the 20 hottest years on record occurred in the last 25;
* every year since 1956 has been warmer than 1956; and
* every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917.

The five-year mean global temperature in 1910 was .8 degrees Celsius lower than the five year mean in 2002. This, and all of the above, comes from the temperature analysis by NASA GISS.

Global Temperature Land-Ocean Index

There is an interesting quote from that page:
Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Niño this year. The prior record year, 1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line by the strongest El Niño of the past century.

So, yes it is true that one record year does not make a long term trend, but that is clearly not the whole story.

A.Smith - preberi članek. Že sam algoritem je napačen, tako da tudi ob RANDOM podatkih vrže ven hockey stick. Samo hoteli so se znebiti medieval warm periode in so zato dajali notri napačne podatke. S pravimi podatki pride tako, kot zgoraj, samo tudi to je narobe, ker je algoritem sproduciran, da VEDNO proizvede hockey-stick. Poglej v mojih linkih zgoraj.

Kaj več pa kasneje, sem v službi :)

Saj nima smisla demontirati članka - bistvo je, da se je klima spreminjala ves čas. Mirno lahko dopustimo warmerjem veselje, da se res greje - point je, da MI oziroma CO2 NISMO GLAVNI VZROK segrevanja!

vsekakor v nadaljevanju to dodatno podkrepiš z množico zelo obsežnih experimentov in dragih poiskusov, ki si jih vodil ti s tvojim laboratorijem ter kupico priznanih klimatologov iz celga sveta...

Klimatologi??? Meteorologi ne zmorejo zanesljive enotedenske napovedi, klimatologi pa bi radi naredili stoletno???
Ko mi bodo "znanstveniki klimatologi" 100% dokazali, zakaj je Zemlja doživela "global warming" ob koncu vsake ledene dobe, se bomo pa pogovarjali o "man-made global warming".
Sicer pa: preberi si celo temo in linke v njej, pa boš videl, kaj se res dogaja.

To je povsem pričakovano, po nonstop torpediranju po medijih, se je točno vedelo zakaj se pri vsem skupaj gre. En kup v nebo vpijočih bi rado prišlo do dobro plačanih služb in še kakšnih "slaščic" poleg.

Se gremo prijavit? Delovno mesto: Denaroses.

še malo vode na mlin GW zagovornikov - čeprav otoplitve na himalaji so še daleč od globalnega segrevanja :)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2...

Verjetno je že kdo prebral ta malo starejši članek, v katerem so ugotovili, da bi z uporabo 50 atomskih bomb na vsaki strani v regionalni vojni (pakistan in indija) povzročili drastične klimatske spremembe.

In končni sklep je: Nuklearno orožje, ki bi bilo uporabljeno je veliko bolj nevarno kot globalno segrevanje.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/...

Zato jaz globalno segrevanje ne jemljem preveč resno grožnjo, ampak atomski arzenal, ker zaradi padca temperature, radioaktivnosti, uničenja številnih površin (t.i. zero ground) in neprimernost površine več tisočletij povzroči več škode, kot globalno segrevanje, ki se ga da prilagoditi in bi preživelo veliko več ljudi.