Som bekendt afholdes den årlige klimakonference i Oslo 30-31. august. Her følger en nærmere beskrivelse af de mange spændende indlæg, som deltagerne kan se frem til. Hvis I ikke har meldt jer til endnu, så kan det stadigvæk nås, der er frist d. 25. juli.
Abstracts/Sammendrag
Geir Hasnes – A substitute for Science: Recognizing climate rhetoric
The public debate on climate is not based upon science, but on rhetoric. The public is in general inexperienced with the recognition of rhetoric, and journalists, activists and politicians are using rhetoric for what it is worth. Huge money and prestigious positions and/or salaries await those who exploit the rhetoric as long as the public willingly accepts it as a premise for political debate and action. Even scientists are not free of the influence of rhetoric, as they are often naive when it comes to the motivation for using it.
Everything in the public debate rests on, not science but tacit assumptions. These assumptions again rest on the tactical and strategic use of terms. The terminology, and the assumptions it leads to, is crucial to the understanding of a) why the debate is as it is, and b) how to change it into a serious debate based upon real science.
Norway is known worldwide as the country with the largest percentage of ‘climate deniers’, that is, people who do not believe the current torrent of official climate news. The speech aims to explain why.
Torbjörn Ripstrand – Vad IPCC, EU Copernicus och SMHI inte vill berätta för oss. En systemanalys!
Abstract ikke tilgjengelig
Forrest Frantz – The Greening of Scandinavia – Is CO2 a pollutant?
The plan to end Climate Lysenkoism in North America (set the stage for the rest of the world).
Political changes, ii) Earth’s Beautiful Future, iii) Killing Climate Lysenkoism – dead forever
Psyops of climate-change science. Due to rising CO2: i) Is Earth getting hotter? NOAA records uncover the cleverly disguised lie. II) Is Earth getting browner? NASA photographic audits over time.
Rögnvaldur Hannesson – Net zero 2050?
The IPCC argues that all emissions of greenhouse gases must have ceased by 2050 if the global temperature rise since the mid-1800s is to be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Many governments seem to have endorsed this goal. We have heard similar statements before. Fifteen years ago the target was to limit the concentration of CO2 to 450 parts per million in order to avoid a temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius. The International Energy Agency (IEA) calculated the emission trajectory the world would need to follow in order to reach that goal. In subsequent years the world emissions have not been anywhere near that trajectory.
There is little reason to believe that the goal of Net Zero 2050 will be any easier to reach. The IEA has also calculated what emission trajectory would be necessary to reach that goal. So far, the world emissions have been well above that trajectory and will probably remain so for the foreseeable future.
Why? There is only a limited number of countries that take this climate goal seriously, and those that do so no longer emit a large share of global emissions. The EU, which has a very ambitious climate policy, has in recent years been responsible for 7 percent of global emissions of CO2 from energy use. Emissions of CO2 and its concentration in the atmosphere continue to increase. This increase comes from so-called developing countries, and they have other priorities than the EU and other rich countries with ambitious climate goals. The developing countries primarily desire economic growth, and this will not happen without increased use of cheap and reliable energy. That energy will have to come from fossil fuels, as has been the case in the past. Since the Kyoto Protocol was put together in 1997, total energy-related CO2 emissions per year have increased by 50 percent, all of which and more comes from developing countries while rich countries have reduced their emissions.
The EU countries and the UK are driving themselves into a very difficult corner with their transition to so-called green energy (solar and wind). This is a very costly type of energy, because a back-up of fossil energy is needed when there is no wind or sunshine and the demand of electricity is high. Not surprisingly, Germany and the UK and a few other “green” countries have the highest electricity prices in the developed world (OECD countries). Because of its decommissioning of nuclear power, Germany has seen very limited gains from its strive to develop wind and solar energy; the decline in coal consumption and CO2 emissions has been moderate.
On paper, Norway has a very ambitious climate policy. Recently the Norwegian parliament increased the level of ambition to 70 percent reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases from the 1990 level by 2030. Yet very limited has been achieved so far, and Norway’s reduction in emissions have to large extent been achieved by purchasing climate quotas from other countries. Some Norwegian measures such as replacing gas turbines on the oil and gas platforms with electricity from land are totally meaningless; the gas saved will be exported to Europe and burnt there; the climate gains are zero while the costs are formidable. Yet this is often profitable for the oil companies, because they have to pay a CO2 fee for their use of gas. This CO2 fee is meaningless, based as it is on an imaginary cost of CO2 emissions which no one is in a position to quantify in a remotely fact-based way.
Ole Østlid – Den norske klimajournalistikken – kunnskapsløshet og aktivisme?
Nettsiden verstat.no har gjennom fem år hatt et kritisk blikk på mediedekningen rundt værstatistikk og klima. Erfaringene er nedslående. Mediedekningen preges ofte av kunnskapsløshet og aktivisme, gjennom utelatelser og viklinger som kan gi et feilaktig inntrykk. Blir Norge mer ekstremt, og er utviklingen like dramatisk som det gis inntrykk av?
John Clauser: The cloud thermostat is the dominant climate controlling mechanism that stabilizes the Earth´s climate; The IPPC catastrophe narrative is a myth
Abstract not available
Stein Bergsmark – Domstolenes inntog i klimadebatten
Det har de siste 10 årene blitt stadig vanligere med rettssaker der aktivister og NGOer går til sak mot myndigheter eller selskaper som driver med olje- og gassutvinning. Greenpeace er involvert i en lang rekke slike klimasøksmål over hele verden. Organisasjonen samarbeider ofte med andre organisasjoner og enkeltpersoner hvor de forsøker å holde regjeringer og oljeselskaper ansvarlige for det de hevder er ødeleggelser av miljø og klima.
Tre av sakene til Greenpeace er spesielt interessante. KlimaSeniorinnen versus Switzerland, der en gruppe eldre kvinner vant fram i den Europeiske menneskerettsdomstolen. Greenpeace vant også fram i Milieudefensie et al versus Royal Dutch Shell, hvor retten beordret Shell til å redusere sine karbonutslipp med 45 % innen 2030. Og nå pågår saken ‘Natur og Ungdom og Foreningen Greenpeace Norden’, der Greenpeace vil hindre idriftsettelse av tre olje- og gassfelter i Nordsjøen. Den siste saken har allerede vært oppe i tre rettsinstanser og er sist i Høyesterett sendt tilbake til lagmannsretten.
Greenpeace får ofte medhold i retten av tre grunner. For det første har dommerne ingen kompetanse når det gjelder de mange problemene med klimavitenskapen. For det andre fører Greenpeace flere sakkyndige vitner som ensidig, med overdrivelser og til og med feilaktig, legger vekt på alle slags dramatiske problemer som vil oppstå når utslippene øker. For det tredje, og dette er utrolig, unnlater stat og oljeselskaper å forsvare seg gjennom å føre egne sakkyndige vitner som kan tilbakevis og avsløre saksøkernes fagfolk.
Et eksempel i den norske saken gjelder det lille oljefeltet Tyrving med utslipp på 12 Mt CO2 over sin levetid. Utslippene vil resultere i en årlig økt temperatur over feltets levetid på 0.0000002 grader C, og en sakkyndig person har beregnet at dette vil gi 2706 dødsfall fram til år 2100, no more, no less. Dette går rett hjem hos retten.
Øystein Sjølie – Hva må en fornuftig politikk for å begrense klimagassutslipp ta hensyn til?
Abstract ikke tilgjengelig
Ole Humlum – State of the climate with focus on precipitation and the Arctic
In this lecture, Humlum will use actual (measured) meteorological and climatological data to assess the present state of earth’s climate, with some emphasis on polar regions. Global air temperatures in 2023/24 are often reported to be the highest on record– how significant is that? Global temperature records do confirm that observed average global air temperature rise is about +0.15°C per decade – is that serious? Since 2004, the global oceans above 1900 m depth on average have warmed about 0.037°C, and the oceans are not boiling. Are recent variations between El Niño and La Niña episodes unusual? Is rising sea level a threat? Are changes in sea ice extent in the Arctic and Antarctic alarming? Are there significant trends in tropical storm and hurricane activity? Are there alarming trends in global precipitation?
Ingemar Nordin – How to avoid talking about an inconvenient truth
It is very annoying to see the big difference between the public debate (PD) and the scientific debate (SD). The PD is a discourse taking place in newspapers, public television and radio, and in the political domain in parliaments. The SD is taking place in scientific journals, reports and sometimes in scientific conferences. Although the media often claim that they have a task to inform us about climate and to enlighten people about what is taking place in the real world they utterly fail to do just that. The ignorance in PD about the mechanisms and history of climate is widespread. We, the readers, listeners and viewers, are never informed about what is taking place in the SD (including IPCC WG1). Not a word about different views and theories that are discussed. Not a word about uncertainties and the complex system that is studied. All these topics are simply avoided.
In this talk I will give a few examples of the usual methods that are used in PD to avoid giving the general public a truthful picture of the SD. They include biased interpretations, a selection of questions, avoidance of facts, a focus on political and dramatic events and sometimes outright lies.
Søren Hansen – The collapse of the green energy transition
The crisis of factual knowledge regarding the climate extends very much to the green transition as well. Politicians and the media seem to believe that all it takes is enough solar and wind power. However, attempts to realise these thoughts are now rapidly facing insurmountable trouble: failed supply, collapsing economy and a string of bankruptcies of the corporations involved.
Ferdinand Engelbeen: Increase in atmospheric CO2 – primarily caused by human activity
There is a lot of confusion between the different definitions used for the removal of some “disturbance” in a proces, depending of where the definition is based on: individual molecules, mass or models. By looking at the data and the processes involved, one may have a clear idea which “model” fits the data best and that points to humans as the main cause of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere.
Hermann Harde: Atmospheric CO2 – What physics dictates
All climate experts agree that the basis for calculating changes of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is the balance equation or Conservation Law, which sums up all in- and outfluxes of the atmosphere. However, differences exist in the interpretation, how strongly fluxes from anthropogenic sources can affect this balance and how far natural emissions must be considered. One central claim is, as long as the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than human emissions (Airborne Fraction AF < 1), there is zero net contribution from natural sources and sinks to the increase in the atmosphere.
In this contribution we will show how far such suppositions are substantiated or must be made responsible for significant misinterpretations. Based on the Conservation Law, own calculations will be present, which reproduce all details of the measured atmospheric CO2 concentration over the Mauna Loa Era, including the seasonal cycles. They allow to deduce an upper limit of 35% for the anthropogenic contribution to the observed increase of CO2 over the Mauna Loa Era, and a more likely value of 14% or even less. The importance of only one unitary time scale for the removal of anthropogenic and natural CO2 emissions from the atmosphere, characterized by an effective absorption time, is discussed.
Program oppdatert 25.06.2025
Danish