Aarde warmt op of kleine ijstijd?!

Alle wetenschappelijke topics tref je hier aan.
Super QFF-er
Super QFF-er
Berichten: 1297
Lid geworden op: zo 28 aug 2011, 19:54

di 12 jun 2012, 18:18

Dat het noordelijk halfrond ijsvrij was, was natuurlijk te danken aan Saturnus die boven de Noordpool hing.Saturnus in glow mode gaf heerlijke temperaturen daaro in het noorden het was the golden age aka garden of Eden
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: Dromen, Het Dolle Eland
Super QFF-er
Super QFF-er
Berichten: 1499
Lid geworden op: di 10 mei 2011, 15:32

wo 13 jun 2012, 00:11

Koude Noach..
QFF Gold Member
QFF Gold Member
Berichten: 200
Lid geworden op: di 21 dec 2010, 17:24

wo 13 jun 2012, 00:34

Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse

een deel uit het artikel:
In Approaching a state-shift in Earth’s biosphere, a paper just published in Nature, the authors, whose expertise spans a multitude of disciplines, suggest our planet’s ecosystems are careenng towards an imminent, irreversible collapse.

Earth’s accelerating loss of biodiversity, its climate’s increasingly extreme fluctuations, its ecosystems’ growing connectedness, and its radically changing total energy budget are precursors to reaching a planetary state threshold or tipping point.

Once that happens, which the authors predict could be reached this century, the planet’s ecosystems, as we know them, could irreversibly collapse in the proverbial blink of an eye.

“The last tipping point in Earth’s history occurred about 12,000 years ago when the planet went from being in the age of glaciers, which previously lasted 100,000 years, to being in its current interglacial state. Once that tipping point was reached, the most extreme biological changes leading to our current state occurred within only 1,000 years. That’s like going from a baby to an adult state in less than a year,” explains Simon Fraser University Professor Arne Mooers, one of this paper’s authors. “Importantly, the planet is changing even faster now.”

He stresses, “The odds are very high that the next global state change will be extremely disruptive to our civilizations. Remember, we went from being hunter-gatherers to being moon-walkers during one of the most stable and benign periods in all of Earth’s history.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/study-predict ... y-collapse

Zit er een mass-extinction event aan te komen? Het ziet er niet best uit in ieder geval.
Berichten: 5033
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 06:38

wo 13 jun 2012, 02:36

[quote=""dodeca" post=56577"]Dat het noordelijk halfrond ijsvrij was, was natuurlijk te danken aan Saturnus die boven de Noordpool hing.Saturnus in glow mode gaf heerlijke temperaturen daaro in het noorden het was the golden age aka garden of Eden[/quote]

verdorie ja, dat zou ook meteen verklaren waarom alle mysteries gebasseerd op de jaarindeling gebasseerd vanaf noordelijk halfrond... :whistle:
Senior QFF-er
Senior QFF-er
Berichten: 84
Lid geworden op: vr 04 feb 2011, 22:24

vr 22 jun 2012, 22:54

Ik ben geenszins overtuigd dat de mens niét meewerkt aan de klimaatverandering

Ik kijk hoe objectief mensen naar zulke zaken kijken en mij lijken klimaatwetenschappers over het algemeen een stuk objectiever dan de klimaatsceptici.

Leesvoer voor de klimaatveranderingontkenners:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argumen ... percentage

De top 10 behandelde onderwerpen/tegenargumenten voor iedereen die de link links laat liggen:
1 Climate's changed before
2 It's the sun
3 It's not bad
4 There is no consensus
5 It's cooling
6 Models are unreliable
7 Temp record is unreliable
8 Animals and plants can adapt
9 It hasn't warmed since 1998
10 Antarctica is gaining ice

Groot argument daarbij is dat de onderzoeken wereldwijd, ik tientallen landen, door duizenden wetenschappers wordt gedaan. Mensen die beweren dat de boel omgekocht/belazerd wordt realiseren zich volgens mij niet hoe onwaarschijnlijk die bewering is.
Berichten: 16000
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 21:27

vr 22 jun 2012, 23:24

In die andere links in je topic staat dat klimaatsceptici vaak met loze beweringen en halve waarheden komen. Dat de klimaatscepsis goed wetenschappelijk is gefundeerd, in sommige gevallen zelfs nog op de rapporten van het VN-klimaatpanel (IPCC), wordt door Monckton op superieure wijze aangetoond. In dit geval voor de link die je hier boven hebt geplaatst

“Cooking the books” Monckton replies to Cook
When Christopher Monckton debated at the National Press Club in Canberra last July, he showed exactly why the fans of a man-made catastrophe are so frightened of free speech and open debates. With no slides or other images, in a single hour, he still changed the opinions of fully 9% of the audience , including influential journalists who had expected nothing of the kind. The Roy Morgan polling organization tracked the moment-by-moment opinions of a representative sample of 350 people throughout the debate, and Gary Morgan, the CEO, announcing the result, said that in his long experience of polling he had never seen a swing like it in opinion on any subject in so short a time.

John Cook of un-SkepticalScience tried to rescue something from the event for the “cause”, but here Monckton shows how the claims that Monckton was “confused”, “lying” and “misrepresenting evidence” all come to naught, and if John Cook only had the manners (or curiosity) to ask Christopher first, he would have found that out before airing his poor research and logical errors in public. Monckton quotes peer reviewed references ad lib, and does calculations off the top of his head. Cook makes out that he is baffled by Monckton’s sources, which is odd because Monckton quotes the IPCC, Garnaut and other “consensus” documents, which we might have thought Cook would know well.

As usual, the point of the alarmist rebuttals is not to understand the science, or to find common ground to build a better understanding, it’s to put the words, “myth”, “lies”, “bizarre”, ‘trick” and ‘distort” into the same paragraph as the words “sceptic” and “Monckton” even if there is nothing to substantiate those terms. In other words, it’s just policy-driven PR dressed up as science.

What most disturbs me is that Cook underlies his entire reasoning with the logical fallacy that “consensus” is science, and that only the Chosen Ones are allowed to form an opinion. The attitude “Thou shalt not question our experts” belongs in a religion not in science, and shows that Cook is not even slightly skeptical – what skeptic starts with the position “the experts are always right?”. Hailing consensus ought be anathema to any scientist in the quest for understanding.

The University of Queensland employs Cook now, so what does that “center of higher education” make of his low standards of reasoning or evidence and his anti-science values? It supports him, evidently. (The Quest for Knowledge being trumped by the Quest for Grants and Peer-Group Approval). The vice-chancellor has failed to answer a question from Christopher Monckton about why the university provides cover for Cook’s crude propaganda.

Cook claims the lesson for him is that “verbal debates are a mistake”. Which is true when you can’t reason and don’t have the evidence. Like any sore loser he tries to blame the loss on something else — claiming Monckton lies, yet here we can see that if Cook had stood up in the National Press Club, and made these claims with Monckton present, Monckton would have had no trouble refuting them, and quite possibly even more of the audience would have been converted. Open debate is the only way the truth gets tested.

Cook himself has been asked to post up Monckton’s rebuttal of his mistaken accusations on his website, but apparently lacks the intellectual honesty to do so. It is our pleasure to do for him what he should have done for himself in the interest of fairness and balance and the search for the truth.

Chaotic climate
Cook: “Monckton launched his Gish Gallop by arguing that climate cannot be predicted in the long-term because it’s too chaotic because, [Monckton says],

‘the climate is chaotic…it is not predictable in the long-term…they [the IPCC] say that the climate is a coupled, non-linear, chaotic object, and that therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.’

… It’s really quite self-evident that Monckton’s statement here is incorrect.”

Reply: Paragraph of the IPCC’s 2001 report says:
“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

My quotation from the IPCC, given from memory, was in substance accurate. Here and throughout, I shall ignore Mr. Cook’s numerous, disfiguring, ad-hominem comments.
Cook: “Monckton proceeds to demonstrate his confusion about the causal relationship between science and consensus: [he says: ‘the idea that you decide any scientific question by mere consensus [is incorrect].’ … He suggests that somehow climate science is done by first creating a consensus when in reality the consensus exists because the scientific evidence supporting the anthropogenic global warming theory is so strong.”

Reply: A consensus can be bought (as Jo Nova pointed out). Fashions in opinions come and go. Dr. Denniss had said he was satisfied with the science because there was a consensus. He had appealed repeatedly to consensus. Yet in the Aristotelian canon the argumentum ad populum, or headcount fallacy, is rightly regarded as unacceptable because the consensus view – and whatever “science” the consensus opinion is founded upon – may or may not be correct, and the mere fact that there is a consensus tells us nothing about the correctness of the consensus opinion or of the rationale behind that opinion.

Adding carbon dioxide to an atmosphere will cause warming, but we need not (and should not) plead “consensus” in aid of that notion: for it is a result long proven by experiment, and has no need of “consensus” to sanctify it. However, the real scientific debate is about how much warming extra CO2 in the air will cause. There is no “consensus” on that; and, even if there were, science is not done by consensus.
Mediaeval warm period
Cook: “Every single peer-reviewed millennial temperature reconstruction agrees that current temperatures are hotter than during the peak of the [Mediaeval Warm Period]. …
Reply: At www.co2science.org, Dr. Craig Idso maintains a database of papers by more than 1000 scientists from more than 400 institutions in more than 40 countries providing evidence that the medieval warm period was real, was global, and was generally warmer than the present, sometimes by as much as 3-4 C°. Many of these papers provide millennial reconstructions.

Cook: “The climate scientists involved in creating those first millennial proxy temperature reconstructions are not under criminal investigation.”

Reply: The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Mr. Cuccinelli, issued a press statement on May 28, 2010, repeating an earlier statement that –

“The revelations of Climategate indicate that some climate data may have been deliberately manipulated to arrive at pre-set conclusions. The use of manipulated data to apply for taxpayer-funded research grants in Virginia is potentially fraud. … This is a fraud investigation.”

Fraud, in the Commonwealth of Virginia as in most jurisdictions, is a criminal offence. The Attorney-General’s investigation is being conducted in terms of the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act 2000.

Is there a human fingerprint?

Cook: “The scientific literature at the time [of the 1995 Second Assessment Report of the IPCC] clearly demonstrated a number of ‘fingerprints’ of human-caused global warming.”

Reply: The scientists’ final draft of the 1995 Report said plainly, on five separate occasions, that no evidence of an anthropogenic influence on global climate was detectable, and that it was not known when such an influence would become evident.

However, a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rewrote the draft at the IPCC’s request, deleting all five statements, replacing them with a single statement to the effect that a human influence on global climate was now discernible, and making some 200 consequential amendments.

These changes were considered by a political contact group, but they were not referred back to the vast majority of the authors whose texts Dr. Santer had tampered with, and whose five-times-stated principal conclusion he had single-handedly and unjustifiably negated.

We now have the evidence of Prof. “Phil” Jones of the University of East Anglia, in one of the recently-released Climategate emails, that the warming of the past century falls well within the natural variability of the climate – consistent with the conclusion that Dr. Santer had negated.
The IPCC’s fraudulent statistical technique
Cook: “Monckton proceeds to make another bizarre claim about the IPCC reports which we’ve never heard before: that they use a ‘fraudulent statistical technique’ to inflate global warming’ … As long as the claim sounds like it could be true, the audience likely cannot determine the difference between a fact and a lie.”

Reply: Mr. Cook is here accusing me of lying. Yet my email address is well enough known and Mr. Cook could have asked me for my evidence for the fraudulent statistical technique before he decided to call me a liar. He did not do so. Like the hapless Professor Abraham, he did not bother to check the facts with me before making his malevolent and, as I shall now show, baseless accusation.

The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, 2007, carries in three places a graph in which the Hadley Center’s global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset from 1850-2005 is displayed with four arbitrarily-chosen trend-lines overlaid upon it. At each place where the altered graph is displayed, the incorrect conclusion is drawn that because trend-lines starting closer to the present have a steeper slope than those starting farther back, the rate of warming is accelerating and that we are to blame.

I wrote both to Railroad Engineer Pachauri (in 2009) and to a lead author of the 2007 report (in 2011), and visited both of them in person, to report this defective graph. They both refused to have it corrected, though neither was able to argue that the technique was appropriate. I have now had the data anonymized and reviewed by a statistician, who has confirmed that the technique is unacceptable. In the circumstances, the refusal of the two senior IPCC figures to correct the error constitutes fraud and, when the statistician has been shown the context of the data that he saw in an anonymized form, the police authorities in the relevant nations will be notified and prosecution sought.
Climate sensitivity
Cook: “Where Monckton gets this claim that the Australian government’s central climate sensitivity estimate to doubled CO2 is 5.1 C° is a complete mystery.
Reply: The “mystery” could and should have been cleared up by Mr. Cook simply asking me. The estimate is that of Professor Ross Garnaut, the Australian Government’s economic adviser on climate questions. It is on that figure that his economic analysis – accepted by the Australian Government – centres.
Cook: “Monckton also repeats a myth … that most climate sensitivity estimates are based on models, and those few which are based on observations arrive at lower estimates. The only study which matches Monckton’s description is the immensely-flawed Lindzen and Choi (2009).”
Reply: I am not sure what qualifications Mr. Cook has to find Professor Lindzen’s work “immensely flawed”. However, among the numerous papers that find climate sensitivity low are Douglass et al. (2004, 2007) and Coleman & Thorne (2005), who reported the absence of the projected fingerprint of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas warming in the tropical mid-troposphere; Douglass & Christy (2009), who found the overall feedback gain in the climate system to be somewhat net-negative; Wentz et al. (2007), who found that the rate of evaporation from the Earth’s surface with warming rose thrice as fast as the models predicted, implying climate-sensitivity is overstated threefold in the models; Shaviv (2005, 2011), who found that if the cosmic-ray influence on climate were factored into palaeoclimate reconstructions the climate sensitivities cohered at 1-1.7 C° per CO2 doubling, one-half to one-third of the IPCC’s central estimate; Paltridge et al. (2009), who found that additional water vapor at altitude (caused by warming) tends to subside to lower altitudes, allowing radiation to escape to space much as before and greatly reducing the water vapor feedback implicit in a naïve application of the Clausius-Clapeyron relation; Spencer and Braswell (2010, 2011), who found the cloud feedback as strongly negative as the IPCC finds it positive, explicitly confirming Lindzen & Choi’s estimated climate sensitivity; Loehle & Scafetta (2011), who followed Tsonis et al. (2006) in finding that much of the warming of the period 1976-2001 was caused not by us but by the natural cycles in the climate system, notably the great ocean oscillations; etc., etc.

Cook: “Monckton at various times has claimed that climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 is anywhere between 0.2 and 1.6 C°.”
Reply: I have indeed done climate sensitivity estimates by a variety of methods, and those methods tend to cohere at a low sensitivity. The IPCC at various times has claimed that a central estimate of climate sensitivity is 3.8 C° (1995); 3.5 C° (2001); and 3.26 C° (2007); and its range of estimates of 21st-century warming in the 2007 report is 1.1-6.4 C°. Ranges of estimates are usual where it is not possible to derive an exact value.
Carbon pricing economics
Cook: “Monckton employs the common ‘skeptic’ trick of focusing on the costs of carbon pricing while completely ignoring the benefits.”
Reply: On the contrary: my analysis, presented in detail at the Los Alamos Santa Fe climate conference in 2011, explicitly calculates the costs of taxing, trading, regulating, reducing, or replacing CO2 and sets against the costs the cost of not preventing the quantum of “global warming” that will be reduced this century as a result of the “investment”. Yet again, if Mr. Cook had bothered to check I could have sent him my slides and the underlying paper.
Cook: “Economic studies consistently predict that the benefits [of carbon dioxide control] will outweigh the costs several times over.”
Reply: No, they don’t. True, the Stern and Garnaut reports – neither of them peer-reviewed – came to this conclusion by questionable methods, including the use of an absurdly low inter-temporal discount rate. However, if one were permitted to use the word “consensus”, one would have to point out that the overwhelming majority of economic studies on the subject (which are summarized in my paper) find the cost of climate action greatly exceeds the cost of inaction. Indeed, two review papers – Lomborg (2007) and Tol (2009) – found near-unanimity on this point in the peer-reviewed literature. Cook is here forced back on to the argument from consensus, citing only an opinion survey of “economists with climate expertise”. However, he does not say how many were interviewed, how they were selected, what weightings and other methods were used: and, in any event, the study was not peer-reviewed. Science is not, repeat not, repeat not done by opinion surveys or any form of head-count.
En zo gaat ze het hele lijstje af:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/cookin ... s-to-cook/
Super QFF-er
Super QFF-er
Berichten: 477
Lid geworden op: di 01 nov 2011, 18:18

zo 24 jun 2012, 01:55

Ik moet er altijd aan denken niet te vergeten dat er ook een hele hoop atoomproeven zijn gedaan en dan wel de bommen te verstaan. Vraag ik me af hoe erg de milieugevolgen daarvan zijn en dan vergeleken met auto-uitlaatgassen. Boem in 1 keer! De regeringen die die testen hebben gedaan, betalen die wel hun voetafdruk in dit gehele plaatje? Als dat Uberhaupt te betalen valt, onherstelbare schade, of schade voor een toekomstige generatie om op te ruimen? Schande.
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: combi
Berichten: 16000
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 21:27

ma 25 jun 2012, 15:45

De ozonlaag


De wat? De ozonlaag. Een laag waar we met name eind jaren negentig heel veel van hoorden. Je kon de krant niet openslaan of iemand op tv had het wel over de ozonlaag. Het was ozonlaag voor en ozonlaag na. Nu hoor je nooit meer iets over die ozonlaag.

Voor de jongere lezers en andere onwetenden zal ik hier eerst op een treffende manier beschrijven wat de ozonlaag is, alvorens verder te gaan met het stukje. De ozonlaag is de natuurlijke zonnebrandcrème van planeet aarde. De parasol boven het bolletje waar wij met z’n allen zo gezellig op leven. De parasol die het bolletje een beetje beschermt tegen een al te grote invloed van die grote, enge vuurbol een eindje verderop in het Melkwegstelsel.

Met die ozonloog ging het eind jaren negentig helemaal niet goed. Er zou een gat inzitten, zo vertelde iedereen je. We gingen met z’n allen kapot aan de huidkanker omdat we teveel haarlak in ons haar spoten, daar kwam het kort door de bocht geformuleerd op neer.

En nu, nu is het alleen maar klimaatverandering wat de klok slaat. Prima, ik gun de klimaatverandering ook haar fifteen minutes of fame, maar wat is er gebeurd met het gat in de ozonlaag? Bestaat het nog of is iemand zo verstandig geweest het te plakken met ducttape?

PS. Zure regen?


Het Dolle Eland
Berichten: 2601
Lid geworden op: zo 24 okt 2010, 17:26

vr 29 jun 2012, 18:32

De noordelijke delen van Scandinavië hebben een opmerkelijk koude nacht achter de rug. In het Zweedse Pajala, gelegen ter hoogte van de Finse grens, werd het -2,2 en in Naimakka -3,5º. In Fins Lapland meldde Muonio -1,0º. Ook de middagtemperaturen zijn de laatste dagen opvallend laag. In het Noorse Kirkenes werd het donderdagmiddag maar 4,4º. Plaatselijk is er in het oosten van de provincie Finnmark zelfs sneeuw gevallen. In enkele plaatsen was het donderdagochtend zowaar enige tijd wit.
Ondertussen intense (zeg maar moordende!) hitte in de oostelijke provincies van Spanje. In de provincie Valencia meldde Bicorp 42,3º, Molina de Segura in Murcia zinderde naar 42,5º.
In Frankrijk werd het gisteren in Clermont-Ferrand 35,5 en in Carpentras 35,6º; in Italië kwam Capri uit op 38,0º. Ook in Midden-Europa is het zeer warm met het Duitse Geilenkirchen op 32,5 en het Zwitserse Sion (kanton Wallis) 33,0º.
Zware donderbuien waren actief in onder meer Frankrijk. Metz rapporteerde een windstoot van 115 km/uur, in Rouvroy-Merles zowaar een orkaanvlaag van 134 km/uur. Verder tot lokaal meer dan 30 mm in een uur tijd in Duitsland en eerder op de dag hagelstenen met een doorsnee van 7 centimeter in Engeland.

In de Amerikaanse Midwest en op de Plains kent de hitte geen grenzen. Woensdag sneuvelden van Wyoming tot Kansas 16 ‘all-time’ warmterecords en verder werden 47 junirecords gebroken of geëvenaard. Spraakmakend was het hitterecord in Dodge City, Kansas. In een reeks vanaf 1874, één van de langste series in de VS, werd nimmer de grens van 110º Fahrenheit (43,3º Celsius) overschreden. Woensdag werd het echter 111º Fahrenheit overeenkomend met 43,9º Celsius.


Die foto met sneeuw is gemaakt in de Noorse provincie Finnmark (héél noorderlijk). Maar dit is een feit vanuit Wiki...:

"...De zomertemperaturen zijn vergelijkbaar met de zuidelijke delen van Noorwegen. Het klimaat is zeer droog, gemiddeld valt er per jaar slechts 400 mm regen..."
“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” ~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~
Berichten: 16000
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 21:27

za 30 jun 2012, 05:39

Al die klote bezuinigingen ook straks is er geen geld meer voor 'groen' dat co2 verhaal werkt niet goed meer je vriest je huis nog net niet uit in juli. Weet je ik ga iets nieuws roepen want zonder poen geen groen. ff denken ik noem het methaan en gelijk een solgan erbij "alleen met minder methaan [strike]gaan we er niet aan[/strike]! kunnen we toekomst aan". :silly:

'Opwarming aarde onderschat'
29 juni 2012 23:15
http://www.nu.nl/algemeen/2847868/opwar ... schat.html

UTRECHT - Koolstofdioxide (CO2) wordt vooral gezien als boosdoener wanneer het gaat over de opwarming van de aarde, maar ook voor methaan moeten we oppassen.

De huidige modellen die de opwarming van de aarde voorspellen, houden geen rekening met de rol die methaan speelt in dit proces. Daardoor wordt de toekomstige opwarming van de aarde onderschat.

Dat schrijven onderzoekers van de Universiteit Utrecht in het wetenschappelijke tijdschrift PLoS ONE.

Hoe meer de temperatuur op aarde stijgt, hoe minder methaan wordt opgenomen door methaan etende bacteriën in de moerassen waar zij leven. Hierdoor zal uit de uitgestrekte veengebieden rond de noordpool meer methaan terechtkomen in de atmosfeer.

Methaan is vele malen schadelijker dan koolstofdioxide.
Super QFF-er
Super QFF-er
Berichten: 4292
Lid geworden op: vr 12 nov 2010, 22:26

za 30 jun 2012, 05:41

Waarmee min of meer al wordt toegegeven dat het een natuurlijk proces is waar wij mensjes weinig tot geen invloed op hebben.
We gaan allemaal hardstikke deaud. Kapodtstuk.

Gaap. Next.
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: Nexion
Super QFF-er
Super QFF-er
Berichten: 3016
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 16:10

za 30 jun 2012, 05:53


Co2 komt vrij uit de grond en zelfs uit stenen als de temperatuur op loopt. Inderdaad, NATUURlijk.

Berichten: 5033
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 06:38

za 30 jun 2012, 17:31

Al 4.5 miljard jaar verschilt de tempratuur op Dah Aarde radicaal :woohoo:
Super QFF-er
Super QFF-er
Berichten: 731
Lid geworden op: zo 14 nov 2010, 21:17

za 30 jun 2012, 17:37

nosce te ipsum
Plaats reactie

Terug naar “Wetenschap”