torsdag 8 april 2021
tisdag 17 november 2020
onsdag 30 september 2020
Left behind in 15 years...
Livslängden på vindkraftverk är ca 15 år i genomsnitt, därefter lönar det sig inte längre att underhålla och reparera. På många håll i världen låter man dom stå kvar och förfalla eftersom ägarna "försvinner". I Sverige är markägaren ansvarig och vindkraftsbolagen tar i bästa fall bort tornet och lämnar dom armerade betongfundamenten kvar under ett tunt lager med jord, det är allt myndigheterna kräver. Med tusentals jättelika vindkraftverk som snart är slutkörda kan vi konstatera att våra politiker är ansvariga för den största miljöförstöringen i mänsklighetens historia. När man samtidigt inte byggt ut kärnkraften så har man dessutom bäddat för en katastrof i vår energiförsörjning...
lördag 28 december 2019
Klimatfrågan enligt Lars Bern...
Klimatkonferensen i Madrid slutade som ett stort misslyckande. Trots ett par dygns förlängning lyckades man inte komma fram till någonting av vikt och dom stora frågorna får vänta till nästa års möte i Skottland. Det kan finnas många förklaringar till misslyckandet, man skyllde givetvis främst på att Trump är på väg att lämna Paris-överenskommelsen och snart är det bara EU som driver frågan framåt. Övriga länder ligger lågt eller ställer krav på dom rikare länderna.
Under julhelgen publicerade Lars Bern en mycket läsvärd och tänkvärd krönika på sin hemsida där han går igenom bakgrunden till dagens klimathot. Klicka här för länken.
tisdag 3 december 2019
COP 25 CHILE in Madrid...
Nu har årets klimatkonferens startat, den är arrangerad av Chile men hålls i Madrid pga oroligheterna i Santiago. Det händer mycket i klimatfrågan nu och överdrifterna står som spön i backen. Jag klipper in en utmärkt krönika som Judith Curry har skrivit och som ska publiceras på Spanska om någon dag;
Madrid
Posted on December 2, 2019
by Judith Curry
The UN Climate Conference (COP25) is beginning today in Madrid. I’ve been invited to write an op-ed for a newspaper in Madrid, which I assume will be published sometime this week (in Spanish). Below is the text of my op-ed.
JC op-ed
The UN Climate Change Conference this week in Madrid provides an important opportunity to reflect on state of the public debate surrounding climate change.
Most of the world’s governments are prioritizing energy security, affordability and industrial competitiveness over commitments made for the Paris climate agreement. Even if these countries were on track to meet their commitments, a majority of the national pledges are totally insufficient to meet the Paris targets. At the same time, we are hearing increasingly shrill rhetoric from Extinction Rebellion and other activists about the ‘existential threat’ of the ‘climate crisis’, ‘runaway climate chaos’, etc.
There is a growing realization that Paris climate agreement is inadequate for making a meaningful dent in slowing down the anticipated warming. And the real societal consequences of climate change and extreme weather events remain largely unaddressed.
How have we arrived at this point? For the past three decades, the climate policy ‘cart’ has been way out in front of the scientific ‘horse’. The 1992 Climate Change treaty was signed by 190 countries before the balance of scientific evidence suggested even a discernible observed human influence on global climate. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol was implemented before we had any confidence that most of the recent warming was caused by humans. There has been tremendous political pressure on the scientists to present findings that would support these treaties, which has resulted in a drive to manufacture a scientific consensus on the dangers of manmade climate change.
Fossil fuel emissions as the climate ‘control knob’ is a simple and seductive idea. However this is a misleading oversimplification, since climate can shift naturally in unexpected ways. Apart from uncertainties in future emissions, we are still facing a factor of 3 or more uncertainty in the sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We have no idea how natural climate variability (solar, volcanoes, ocean circulations) will play out in the 21st century, and whether or not natural variability will dominate over manmade warming.
We still don’t have a realistic assessment of how a warmer climate will impact us and whether it is ‘dangerous.’ We don’t have a good understanding of how warming will influence extreme weather events. Land use and exploitation by humans is a far bigger issue than climate change for species extinction and ecosystem health. Local sea level rise has many causes, and is dominated by sinking from land use in many of the most vulnerable locations.
We have been told that the science of climate change is ‘settled’. However, in climate science there has been a tension between the drive towards a scientific ‘consensus’ to support policy making, versus exploratory research that pushes forward the knowledge frontier. Climate science is characterized by a rapidly evolving knowledge base and disagreement among experts. Predictions of 21st century climate change are characterized by deep uncertainty.
Nevertheless, activist scientists and the media seize upon each extreme weather event as having the fingerprints of manmade climate change — ignoring the analyses of more sober scientists showing periods of even more extreme weather in the first half of the 20th century, when fossil fuel emissions were much smaller.
Alarming press releases are issued about each new climate model prediction of future catastrophes from famine, mass migrations, catastrophic fires, etc. Yet, these press releases don’t mention that these predicted catastrophes are associated with highly implausible assumptions about how much we might actually emit over the course of the 21st century. Further, issues such as famine, mass migrations and wildfires are caused primarily by government policies and ineptitude, lack of wealth and land use policies. Climate change matters, but it’s outweighed by other factors in terms of influencing human well being.
We have been told that climate change is an ‘existential crisis.’ However, based upon our current assessment of the science, the climate threat is not an existential one, even in its most alarming hypothetical incarnations. However, the perception of manmade climate change as a near-term apocalypse and has narrowed the policy options that we’re willing to consider.
We have not only oversimplified the problem of climate change, but we have also oversimplified its ‘solution’. Even if you accept the climate model projections and that warming is dangerous, there is disagreement among experts regarding whether a rapid acceleration away from fossil fuels is the appropriate policy response. In any event, rapidly reducing emissions from fossil fuels and ameliorating the adverse impacts of extreme weather events in the near term increasingly looks like magical thinking.
Climate change – both manmade and natural – is a chronic problem that will require centuries of management.
The extreme rhetoric of the Extinction Rebellion and other activists is making political agreement on climate change policies more difficult. Exaggerating the dangers beyond credibility makes it difficult to take climate change seriously. The monomaniacal focus on elimination of fossil fuel emissions distracts our attention from the primary causes of many of our problems and effective solutions.
Common sense strategies to reduce vulnerability to extreme weather events, improve environmental quality, develop better energy technologies, improve agricultural and land use practices, and better manage water resources can pave the way for a more prosperous and secure future. Each of these solutions is ‘no regrets’ – supporting climate change mitigation while improving human well being. These strategies avoid the political gridlock surrounding the current policies and avoid costly policies that will have minimal near-term impacts on the climate. And finally, these strategies don’t require agreement about the risks of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions.
We don’t know how the climate of the 21st century will evolve, and we will undoubtedly be surprised. Given this uncertainty, precise emissions targets and deadlines are scientifically meaningless. We can avoid much of the political gridlock by implementing common sense, no-regrets strategies that improve energy technologies, lift people out of poverty and make them more resilient to extreme weather events.
Madrid
Posted on December 2, 2019
by Judith Curry
The UN Climate Conference (COP25) is beginning today in Madrid. I’ve been invited to write an op-ed for a newspaper in Madrid, which I assume will be published sometime this week (in Spanish). Below is the text of my op-ed.
JC op-ed
The UN Climate Change Conference this week in Madrid provides an important opportunity to reflect on state of the public debate surrounding climate change.
Most of the world’s governments are prioritizing energy security, affordability and industrial competitiveness over commitments made for the Paris climate agreement. Even if these countries were on track to meet their commitments, a majority of the national pledges are totally insufficient to meet the Paris targets. At the same time, we are hearing increasingly shrill rhetoric from Extinction Rebellion and other activists about the ‘existential threat’ of the ‘climate crisis’, ‘runaway climate chaos’, etc.
There is a growing realization that Paris climate agreement is inadequate for making a meaningful dent in slowing down the anticipated warming. And the real societal consequences of climate change and extreme weather events remain largely unaddressed.
How have we arrived at this point? For the past three decades, the climate policy ‘cart’ has been way out in front of the scientific ‘horse’. The 1992 Climate Change treaty was signed by 190 countries before the balance of scientific evidence suggested even a discernible observed human influence on global climate. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol was implemented before we had any confidence that most of the recent warming was caused by humans. There has been tremendous political pressure on the scientists to present findings that would support these treaties, which has resulted in a drive to manufacture a scientific consensus on the dangers of manmade climate change.
Fossil fuel emissions as the climate ‘control knob’ is a simple and seductive idea. However this is a misleading oversimplification, since climate can shift naturally in unexpected ways. Apart from uncertainties in future emissions, we are still facing a factor of 3 or more uncertainty in the sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We have no idea how natural climate variability (solar, volcanoes, ocean circulations) will play out in the 21st century, and whether or not natural variability will dominate over manmade warming.
We still don’t have a realistic assessment of how a warmer climate will impact us and whether it is ‘dangerous.’ We don’t have a good understanding of how warming will influence extreme weather events. Land use and exploitation by humans is a far bigger issue than climate change for species extinction and ecosystem health. Local sea level rise has many causes, and is dominated by sinking from land use in many of the most vulnerable locations.
We have been told that the science of climate change is ‘settled’. However, in climate science there has been a tension between the drive towards a scientific ‘consensus’ to support policy making, versus exploratory research that pushes forward the knowledge frontier. Climate science is characterized by a rapidly evolving knowledge base and disagreement among experts. Predictions of 21st century climate change are characterized by deep uncertainty.
Nevertheless, activist scientists and the media seize upon each extreme weather event as having the fingerprints of manmade climate change — ignoring the analyses of more sober scientists showing periods of even more extreme weather in the first half of the 20th century, when fossil fuel emissions were much smaller.
Alarming press releases are issued about each new climate model prediction of future catastrophes from famine, mass migrations, catastrophic fires, etc. Yet, these press releases don’t mention that these predicted catastrophes are associated with highly implausible assumptions about how much we might actually emit over the course of the 21st century. Further, issues such as famine, mass migrations and wildfires are caused primarily by government policies and ineptitude, lack of wealth and land use policies. Climate change matters, but it’s outweighed by other factors in terms of influencing human well being.
We have been told that climate change is an ‘existential crisis.’ However, based upon our current assessment of the science, the climate threat is not an existential one, even in its most alarming hypothetical incarnations. However, the perception of manmade climate change as a near-term apocalypse and has narrowed the policy options that we’re willing to consider.
We have not only oversimplified the problem of climate change, but we have also oversimplified its ‘solution’. Even if you accept the climate model projections and that warming is dangerous, there is disagreement among experts regarding whether a rapid acceleration away from fossil fuels is the appropriate policy response. In any event, rapidly reducing emissions from fossil fuels and ameliorating the adverse impacts of extreme weather events in the near term increasingly looks like magical thinking.
Climate change – both manmade and natural – is a chronic problem that will require centuries of management.
The extreme rhetoric of the Extinction Rebellion and other activists is making political agreement on climate change policies more difficult. Exaggerating the dangers beyond credibility makes it difficult to take climate change seriously. The monomaniacal focus on elimination of fossil fuel emissions distracts our attention from the primary causes of many of our problems and effective solutions.
Common sense strategies to reduce vulnerability to extreme weather events, improve environmental quality, develop better energy technologies, improve agricultural and land use practices, and better manage water resources can pave the way for a more prosperous and secure future. Each of these solutions is ‘no regrets’ – supporting climate change mitigation while improving human well being. These strategies avoid the political gridlock surrounding the current policies and avoid costly policies that will have minimal near-term impacts on the climate. And finally, these strategies don’t require agreement about the risks of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions.
We don’t know how the climate of the 21st century will evolve, and we will undoubtedly be surprised. Given this uncertainty, precise emissions targets and deadlines are scientifically meaningless. We can avoid much of the political gridlock by implementing common sense, no-regrets strategies that improve energy technologies, lift people out of poverty and make them more resilient to extreme weather events.
fredag 27 september 2019
Vad säger alla, vad vill man..?
"Vi har en kris-situation och politikerna måste göra något innan det är för sent", det är kanske det gemensamma budskapet. Exakt vad vi har för kris och vad politikerna kan göra kan ingen svara på, men många har svar som är för naiva för att återge. Ärligast var väl den unge man som svarade att han var med för att det var roligt. Övriga har faktiskt ingen aning, inte ett enda vettigt svar...
Vilka ligger bakom..?
Nyhetsmedia har idag rapporterat från dagens demonstrationer och försöker analysera lite om bakgrunden. En för mig okänd dam som jobbade med opinionsbildning intervjuades hos Aftonbladet och sa att det är fullständigt osannolikt att Greta har skrivit något själv och att allt är alldeles för välorganiserat och opersonligt för att komma från en 16-åring. Den intervjun avbröts snabbt. Dom organisationer man kopplar ihop med Greta säger samtliga att dom är bara inspirerade av Greta och har ingenting med hennes aktiviteter att göra. Men uppenbart finns det enorma resurser bakom alla dessa välorganiserade demonstrationer och det börjar även media nu begripa...
Lyssna på vetenskapen?
Greta et al tycker att dom löst problemet med sin egna okunnighet genom att säga att vi ska lyssna på "vetenskapen". Jag skulle vilja veta vilken vetenskap? Rockström som trots allt är mer påläst än Greta brukar säga "vi forskare" trots att han aldrig varit någon klimatforskare i något avseende. Är det honom vi ska lyssna till? Den enda svenska forskare som haft en hypotes om hur vi skulle kunna värma jorden med koldioxid var Svante Arrhenius för drygt hundra år sedan. Han var orolig för en ny istid och hade läst vad en Fransk forskare trodde om koldioxid och växthuseffekten. Han forskade om lite av varje och var också med om att starta Statens Rasbiologiska Institut.
Frågan dammades sedan av på 70-talet när man på nytt talade om en annalkande istid. I Sverige fick vi inte längre bygga hus med dom stora fönster som blivit populärt på 60-talet, man började tala om husens k-värde så att dom inte skulle bli för dyra att värma upp i ett kallare klimat. Samtidigt uppstod "oljekrisen" och vi fick bidrag för att ställa om till elektrisk direktuppvärmning, innan man upptäckte att oljekrisen var en bluff för att kunna höja oljepriset. Senare på 80-talet när Greenpeace fått upp farten på miljöfrågorna bildades IPCC som skulle samla in kunskap om klimatförändringar. Bakom detta fanns västvärldens mest inflytelserika finansfamiljer som Jacob Nordangård nu skrivit en bok om. Där hittar vi också Gretas finansiärer. Vilket för oss tillbaka till vetenskapen och frågan vem eller vad vi ska lyssna på.
Jag har läst otroligt mycket i frågan under mer än tio år och ännu inte hittat något svar på vilken klimatpåverkan koldioxid har. Det verkar inte ens finnas någon seriös forskning på det området, men dom mest meriterade forskarna anser att människans utsläpp har obetydlig påverkan på temperatur och klimat, däremot rätt stor påverkan på växtligheten. Skogar och grödor växer bättre och öknarna minskar i storlek. Det finns andra forskare som inte tycker det är så bra, men detta har inget med klimat att göra.
Det finns åtskilliga forskare som studerar effekterna av klimatförändringar och det är också vad som uppmuntras och publiceras av IPCC. Man gör också datamodeller där man lägger in olika parametrar och får fram olika scenarier som vissa tror är prognoser, men än så länge finns det inga modeller som lyckats motsvara verkligheten. Den enda som lär stämma hyggligt kommer från Ryssland, bygger på naturliga klimatförändringar och den visar man givetvis inte upp hos oss.
Så den stora frågan som Greta et al nu måste hjälpa oss med är att tala om vilken vetenskap vi ska lyssna på och helst också varför...
torsdag 26 september 2019
söndag 8 september 2019
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)