Den stora tråden om global uppvärmning/växthuseffekten

Försiktighetsprincipen??
Jag låt oss satsa några tusen miljarder euro på en obevisad teori. Smart.
Det vore bättre om man gjorde en riktig sammanställning av forskningen, utan politik. Det verkar dock tyvärr helt omöjligt.

Det är ett romantiskt missförtånd att tro att naturen är "god" om vi människor inte "syndar".
Naturen är ibland mycket "ond"!

En plattityd.

In the late 1990’s a series of articles seemed to provide additional credibility to the ‘solar theory’. In 1996 Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis‐Christensen presented observations which apparently lent support to the solar theory. At a conference in Birmingham they showed that some solar related data (this time the intensity of galactic cosmic rays) correlated strongly with some terrestrial data (total cloud cover). The agreement was striking for the years 1984‐90, which was the period for which data were available. However, as every scientist knows, an agreement only extending over a short time span, here seven years, can be misleading. So, to test a possible causal relationship, the authors in their later publications, two articles published in 1997 and 1998 respectively, added some more recent data, which
they claimed demonstrated that the close agreement extended beyond the seven years.

However, close inspection of their work revealed two fatal flaws:

1) Most of the added data were totally irrelevant in the context of the article, but created the false impression that the close agreement with the solar curve did extend beyond the original seven years (see my paper for details). Actually, the authors’ procedure is like adding bananas to a statistic on apples and then claiming the statistic to be on apples alone.
2) However, the authors had also added relevant data. These were all displayed in the 1997‐article, but some of them were removed again in the 1998‐article. Strangely enough, the removed data were precisely those data which indicated a beginning disagreement with the solar theory, a disagreement that would become dramatic when more observational data became available in the following years (See my 2003‐article for details).

Svensmark has never tried to defend himself properly, i.e., by a peer reviewed reply article, against these serious charges. Friis‐Christensen once tried to defend himself against the criticism of the 1991‐Science article. However, the apparent rebuttal in his reply‐article was only achieved by introducing two simple arithmetic errors, which were well hidden in the article and quite difficult to spot. The two arithmetic errors artificially created an agreement of the new observational data with the values of the 1991‐article. Applying correct arithmetic the support of the solar theory totally vanishes (See my 2003‐article for details).

So, it must be recognized that not all research institutions have accepted proper responsibility to maintain the trust which the general public traditionally places in them. In the modern world, many scientific results are extremely difficult to verify independently. They may be produced by a group of several researchers working for months or even years with vast amounts of data, which have to be calibrated employing especially tailored computer programs.

Often it is practically impossible for an outsider to verify the conclusions. That applies also to the referees, who have to decide on the publication of the work. So, trust is in the short run often all we have to judge the authenticity of claimed new developments. Trust in fellow scientists and trust in research institutions. And, at the Copenhagen conference on global climate the decision makers of the world, must be able to trust the scientific basis which is presented to them. They must be able to rely on it when building a strategy to fend off catastrophic climate developments. So, the scientific community should be careful not to squander this trust.

A few weeks ago, in Swedish Public Television, two of the world’s leading climatologists were asked about Svensmark and his solar theory. Now, scientific dispute has a long tradition for expressing disagreement in polite and neutral terms. Only in rare cases blunt words surface, as when Jon Egill Kristjánsson, professor at The University of Oslo concluded : “It should not be taken seriously – to put it plain and simple.” And Mike Lockwood of The Royal Society of London, who to begin with – years ago ‐ supported the theory, said “.. the change in the magnetic field since 1985 – it’s moved in the wrong direction”, which means that according to Svensmark’s ideas we should have experienced a global cooling since then. And he added: “I would love it to be right! I would absolutely love it to be right! Unfortunately, wanting something doesn’t change the scientific reality. One can’t use spin or rhetoric or anything to change the scientific reality.”

Så, är detta ännu ett exempel på hur skeptikersidan inte har något annat än ovetenskaplig desinformation att sprida?

Tror du inte på att det kommer en ny istid?
Dessa nedisningsperioder har ju återkommit med stor regelbundenhet i årmillioner!

Peter Laut, professor i fysik vid Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, har i ett intressant brev utvecklat sina åsikter angående teorierna om betydelsen av solens aktivitet för jordens klimat. Han har många tänkvärda saker att säga angående Svensmarks forskning, den vetenskapliga processen och på vilket sätt debatten har förts av den skeptiska sidan.




http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/PETERLAUT-ANALYSIS-CLIMATE-CHANGE-CPN.pdf

Så, är detta ännu ett exempel på hur skeptikersidan inte har något annat än ovetenskaplig desinformation att sprida?

Lauts 2003-artikel hittas här.

Den som däremot försöker använda Lauts skrifter för att motsäga en koppling mellan solaktivitet och klimat har ju ingen grund för detta. Hans slutsats är ju att det finns oklarheter i korrelationerna och statistikhanteringen i några av de mest citerade arbetena inom området.

Det är knappast pengarna som är det viktiga här, tramsputte. Hur kan man ens tänka i sådana banor?

Vad är det egentligen man diskuterar här inne? Det viktigaste är att vi förändrar vårt sätt att leva, inte att vi först kommer på EXAKT vad det är som är problemet och sedan applicerar EXAKT rätt lösning på det. Om du hade varit mer bevandrar inom vetenskapen så hade du vetat om att sådant aldrig existerar.

When it comes to defining the climate's sensitivity to forcings like rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, "we don't know much more than we did in 1975," says climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, who first defined the term climate sensitivity in the 1970s. "What we know is if you add watts per square meter to the system it's going to warm up."

Greenhouse gases add those watts by acting as a blanket, trapping the sun's heat; they have warmed Earth by roughly 0.75 degree Celsius over the last century. Scientists can measure how much energy greenhouse gases now add (roughly three watts per square meter), but what eludes precise definition is how much other factors—the response of clouds to warming, the cooling role of aerosols, the heat and gas absorbed by oceans, human transformation of the landscape, even the natural variability of solar strength—diminish or strengthen that effect. "We may have to wait 20 or 30 years before the data set in the 21st century is good enough to pin down sensitivity," says climate modeler Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

Despite all these variables, scientists from Svante Arrhenius to those on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have noted that doubling preindustrial concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 parts per million (ppm) would likely result in a world with average temperatures roughly 3 degrees C warmer.

Men är "vi vet inte tillräckligt" ett rimligt argument för att sitta på händerna och göra ingenting?