Het Grote Klimaatverandering Topic #4 De ondergang van Heartland

quote:

Op maandag 29 juni 2015 16:37 schreef Devion het volgende:

[..]

Monolith zei: "Daarnaast noem ik ook o.a. het feit dat andere factoren ook zorgen voor korte termijn fluctuaties, maar ook dat negeer je."

Ik heb dit niet genegeerd, ik heb er geen uitspraak over gedaan, dat zeg ik in reactie op Monolith. En nu zijn jullie met zijn tweeën aan het zeiken op iets wat ik niet heb gezegd. Dus mijn punt is, zoek niet argumenten die ik niet heb gezegd.

[..]

Ik heb niks over bewijzen gezegd, ik heb gezegd dat hier een biased sfeertje hangt. En waarom? Er worden gelijk uitspraken uit context gehaald en ad hominems geplaatst.

Ik heb gezegd er geen/nauwelijks op warming is geweest sinds 2000, terwijl de CO² concentratie aanzienlijk is toegenomen. Zwoerd geeft aan vanwege de ENSO en laat volgens grafieken en trendlijn zien die de bovenstaade uitspraak bevestigen. En hier ga ik nu niet op reageren omdat dit meer tijd vereist.

quote:

Vaker hittegolf door warmer klimaat

Hittegolven zoals deze week zullen in de toekomst eens in de drie jaar in Nederland voorkomen. Dat concludeert een team van internationale wetenschappers (onder meer van het KNMI) dat in opdracht van het Rode Kruis onderzoek doet naar klimaatveranderingen.

In De Bilt kwamen hittegolven met temperaturen boven de 30 graden rond 1900 ongeveer eens in de dertig jaar voor. Nu schatten de onderzoekers die kans op ongeveer een keer in de drie jaar.

Klimaatverandering

De klimaatverandering verhoogt volgens het rapport de duur, intensiteit en frequentie van hittegolven.

In een groot deel van Europa is de kans op een hittegolf verdubbeld ten opzichte van honderd jaar geleden en in enkele grote steden is die kans zelfs vier keer zo groot geworden. Ook worden de temperatuurpieken steeds hoger, met name in Zuid-Europa.
Hittegolven leiden tot extra sterfte, vooral onder ouderen. Volgens het Rode Kruis is het makkelijk die groep te beschermen. De mensen moeten regelmatig drinken en niet in de volle zon gaan zitten.

quote:

Eerste helft van 2015 was warmste half jaar ooit gemeten

Alles wijst erop dat het jaar 2015 de boeken in gaat als het warmste jaar ooit gemeten. De eerste zes maanden lag de gemiddelde globale temperatuur 0,85 graden Celsius boven het gemiddelde van de 20ste eeuw. Het oude record (eerste helft 2010) lag 0,09 graden Celsius lager.

De National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) heeft gisteren de nieuwe cijfers van juni bekendgemaakt. Dit betekent automatisch dat ook de resultaten van het eerste half jaar duidelijk zijn.

Juni 2015 was de warmste juni-maand ooit gemeten. Het record van juni 2014 sneuvelde. In juni 2015 was de gemiddelde temperatuur 0,88 graden Celsius hoger dan het gemiddelde van de 20ste eeuw en 0,06 graden Celsius hoger dan in juni 2014. Vooral de gemiddelde temperatuur boven het land (+1,26 graden Celsius) torende de afgelopen maand hoog boven de andere juni’s uit.

De ijskap op de noordpool was in juni 7,7 procent kleiner dan het gemiddelde in de periode 1981 tot 2010, namelijk ruim 900.000 vierkante kilometer. In 2010 was de situatie erger, omdat het zee-ijs toen een oppervlak had van circa 750.000 vierkante kilometer. Het oppervlak van het Antarctisch zee-ijs was in juni 7,2 procent groter dan in de periode van 1981 tot 2010, namelijk 980.000 vierkante kilometer.

En Nederland en België? De Lage Landen kregen in juni te maken met relatief lage temperaturen. Dit is goed te zien op de kaart bovenaan dit artikel. Ook inwoners van Scandinavië en het Verenigd Koninkrijk hadden het in juni kouder dan normaal.

quote:

World Bank rejects energy industry notion that coal can cure poverty | Environment | The Guardian

The World Bank said coal was no cure for global poverty on Wednesday, rejecting a main industry argument for building new fossil fuel projects in developing countries.

In a rebuff to coal, oil and gas companies, Rachel Kyte, the World Bank climate change envoy, said continued use of coal was exacting a heavy cost on some of the world’s poorest countries, in local health impacts as well as climate change, which is imposing even graver consequences on the developing world.

Related: The truth behind Peabody's campaign to rebrand coal as a poverty cure

“In general globally we need to wean ourselves off coal,” Kyte told an event in Washington hosted by the New Republic and the Center for American Progress. “There is a huge social cost to coal and a huge social cost to fossil fuels … if you want to be able to breathe clean air.”

Coal, oil and gas companies have pushed back against efforts to fight climate change by arguing fossil fuels are a cure to “energy poverty”, which is holding back developing countries.

Peabody Energy, the world’s biggest privately held coal company, went so far as to claim that coal would have prevented the spread of the Ebola virus.

However, Kyte said that when it came to lifting countries out of poverty, coal was part of the problem – and not part of a broader solution.

“Do I think coal is the solution to poverty? There are more than 1 billion people today who have no access to energy,” Kyte said. Hooking them up to a coal-fired grid would not on its own wreck the planet, she went on.

But Kyte added: “If they all had access to coal-fired power tomorrow their respiratory illness rates would go up, etc, etc … We need to extend access to energy to the poor and we need to do it the cleanest way possible because the social costs of coal are uncounted and damaging, just as the global emissions count is damaging as well.”

The World Bank sees climate change as a driver of poverty, threatening decades of development.

The international lender has strongly backed efforts to reach a deal in Paris at the end of the year that would limit warming to a rise of 2C (3.6F).

However, even that deal would not do enough to avoid severe consequences for some of the world’s poorest countries, Kyte said.

“Two degrees is not benign,” she said. “It is where we put the line in the sand.”

Fossil fuel companies have pushed back against the notion that climate change is a driver of poverty, arguing instead that the low global prices for coal and oil are a benefit for poor countries.

Peabody launched a global public relations offensive around the notion of “energy poverty”, trying to rebrand the dirtiest of fossil fuels as a poverty cure. Spokesmen for Shell have called efforts to cut use of fossil fuels in developing countries “energy colonialism”.

The World Bank stopped funding new coal projects except in “rare circumstances” three years ago after the US, Britain and the Netherlands opposed its decision to finance a new coal-fired power plant in South Africa.

The US stopped investing in new coal-fired projects overseas in 2011, and called on lending institutions like the World Bank to do the same.

Kyte in her remarks on Wednesday left some room for the World Bank to fund future coal projects – but she made it clear it would only be in the most isolated circumstances. “We have no coal in our pipeline apart from one particularly extreme circumstance,” she said.

Bron: www.theguardian.com

quote:

G20 countries pay over $1,000 per citizen in fossil fuel subsidies, says IMF | Environment | The Guardian


World’s leading economies still paying trillions in subsidies despite pledges to phase them out, new figures show

Subsidies for fossil fuels amount to $1,000 (£640) a year for every citizen living in the G20 group of the world’s leading economies, despite the group’s pledge in 2009 to phase out support for coal, oil and gas.

New figures from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) show that the US, which hosted the G20 summit in 2009, gives $700bn a year in fossil fuel subsidies, equivalent to $2,180 for every American. President Barack Obama backed the phase out but has since overseen a steep rise in federal fossil fuel subsidies.

Australia hosted the most recent G20 summit, where prime minister Tony Abbott was forced to reaffirm the commitment to the phase out, but it still gives $1,260 per head in fossil fuel subsidies.

The UK, which is cutting renewable energy subsidies, permits $41bn a year in fossil fuel subsidies, which is $635 per person. In contrast, Mexico, India and Indonesia, where per capita subsidies average $250, have begun cutting fossil fuel support.

The vast fossil fuel subsidies estimated by the IMF for 2015 include payments, tax breaks and cut-price fuel. But the largest part is the costs left unpaid by polluters and picked up by governments, including the heavy impacts of local air pollution and the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change.

The [new] figures reveal the true extent to which individual countries are subsidising pollution from fossil fuels

The IMF, which published a global estimate – $5.3tn a year – of fossil fuel subsidies in May, calculates that ending fossil fuel subsidies would slash global carbon emissions by 20%, a huge step towards taming global warming.

Ending the subsidies would also prevent 1.6m premature deaths from outdoor air pollution, a 50% cut. The money freed by ending fossil fuel subsidies could be an economic “game-changer” for many countries, says the IMF, by driving economic growth and poverty reduction.

“The [new] figures reveal the true extent to which individual countries are subsidising pollution from fossil fuels,” said Lord Nicholas Stern, an eminent economist at the London School of Economics. “The failure to reflect the real costs of fossil fuels in prices and policies means that the lives and livelihoods of billions of people around the world are being threatened by climate change and local air pollution.”

“In particular, these figures reveal that the G20 countries are wasting trillions of dollars each year on subsidies for fossil fuel pollution,” Stern said. “It is time for the G20 to recognise that the extent of subsidies is far greater than has been previously understood, and to honour their commitment.”

Stern criticised the UK government’s recent attacks on renewable energy subsidies: “The government should remember that if it wants to cut the subsidies for low-carbon energy, it should cut the subsidies for fossil fuel pollution that are at the core of the problem for which clean technology is the sensible and attractive solution.”

In July, Stern estimated that tackling climate change would require investment of 2% of global GDP each year. The IMF work indicates that ending fossil fuel subsidies would benefit governments by the equivalent to 3.8% of global GDP a year.

Christiana Figueres, the UN’s climate change chief charged with delivering a deal to beat global warming at a crunch summit in December, said: “The IMF data reveal a simple and stunning truth: that fossil fuel subsidy reform alone would deliver far more funds than is required for the global energy transformation we need to keep the world below a 2C temperature rise [the level governments have promised to hold them to].”

In April, the president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, told the Guardian that it was crazy that governments were still driving the use of coal, oil and gas by providing subsidies. He said they should be scrapped immediately as poorer nations were feeling “the boot of climate change on their neck”.

Related: Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF

The new IMF data show that national fossil fuel subsidies are significant – about the same as defence spending – when compared to national GDP in the US (3.8%), Australia (2.0%) and UK (1.4%). In nations with severe air pollution problems, the subsidies are an even higher as a proportion of GDP, such as China (20%), India (12%) and Ukraine (60%).

The countries with the highest fossil fuel subsidies per person are the middle eastern oil states, with subsidies in Qatar amounting to $6,000 a year and those in Saudi Arabia $3,400. The UAE gives $3,000 a head, but announced on 22 July it was ending its $7bn-a-year petroleum subsidies.

Fossil fuel subsidy reforms are beginning in dozens of countries, including India where subsidies for diesel ended in October 2014.

“You could look at the glass as half empty or half full,” said Ian Parry, the IMF’s lead green taxes expert. “There are some encouraging signs, such as reforms in Mexico, India and Indonesia, and 40 countries now have some form of carbon pricing, albeit typically at a too low level. On the other hand, these schemes cover only 12% of global carbon emissions, so we are an awful long way from where we need to be. We are at base camp.”

Parry defended the inclusion of the costs of air pollution and climate change impacts in the IMF’s subsidy estimates: “We think that energy prices need to cover both the production and environmental costs. This is largely in countries’ own interest, as many of the environmental costs, like air pollution, are local.” Lord Stern said the IMF had actually underestimated the costs of global warming.

Fossil fuel subsidies can benefit some of the poorest in the world, but Parry said: “There are much more efficient ways to address those concerns. Most current benefits, from holding down energy prices, are poorly targeted, with much going to higher income groups.”
Bron: www.theguardian.com

quote:

James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks 'a fraud'
The former Nasa scientist criticizes the talks, intended to reach a new global deal on cutting carbon emissions beyond 2020, as ‘no action, just promises’

Mere mention of the Paris climate talks is enough to make James Hansen grumpy. The former Nasa scientist, considered the father of global awareness of climate change, is a soft-spoken, almost diffident Iowan. But when he talks about the gathering of nearly 200 nations, his demeanour changes.

“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

The talks, intended to reach a new global deal on cutting carbon emissions beyond 2020, have spent much time and energy on two major issues: whether the world should aim to contain the temperature rise to 1.5C or 2C above preindustrial levels, and how much funding should be doled out by wealthy countries to developing nations that risk being swamped by rising seas and bashed by escalating extreme weather events.

But, according to Hansen, the international jamboree is pointless unless greenhouse gas emissions are taxed across the board. He argues that only this will force down emissions quickly enough to avoid the worst ravages of climate change.

Hansen, 74, has just returned from Paris where he again called for a price to be placed on each tonne of carbon from major emitters (he’s suggested a “fee” – because “taxes scare people off” – of $15 a tonne that would rise $10 a year and bring in $600bn in the US alone). There aren’t many takers, even among “big green” as Hansen labels environment groups.

Hansen has been a nagging yet respected voice on climate change since he shot to prominence in the summer of 1988. The Nasa scientists, who had been analyzing changes in the Earth’s climate since the 1970s, told a congressional committee that something called the “greenhouse effect” where heat-trapped gases are released into the atmosphere was causing global warming with a 99% certainty.

A New York Times report of the 1988 testimony includes the radical suggestion that there should be a “sharp reduction in the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide”, a plea familiar to those who have watched politicians who have traipsed up to the lectern or interviewer’s microphone in Paris over the past two weeks.

After that, things started to get a little difficult for Hansen. He claims the White House altered subsequent testimony, given in 1989, and that Nasa appointed a media overseer who vetted what he said to the press. They held practice press conferences where any suggestion that fossil fuels be reduced was considered political and unscientific, and therefore should not be uttered.

“Scientists are trained to be objective,” Hansen says. “I don’t think we should be prevented for talking about the the implications of science.” He retired from Nasa in 2013. “That was a source of friction. I held on longer than I wanted, by a year or two. I was in my 70s, it was time for someone else to take over. Now I feel a lot better.”

From being possibly America’s most celebrated scientist, Hansen is now probably its most prominent climate activist. He’s been arrested several times in protests outside the White House over mining and the controversial Keystone pipeline extension.

He is also an adjunct professor at Columbia University. When he’s in New York, he lives near the campus, surrounded by books piled on groaning shelves. Hansen’s not slowing down – he’s involved in a climate lobbying group and still undertakes the sort of scientific endeavor which helps maintain his gravitas.

One particular paper, released in July, painted a particularly bleak future for just about anyone living near the coast. Hansen and 16 colleagues found that Earth’s huge ice sheets, such as those found in Greenland, are melting faster than expected, meaning that even the 2C warming limit is “highly dangerous”.

The sea level could soon be up to five meters higher than it is today by the latter part of this century, unless greenhouse gases aren’t radically slashed, the paper states. This would inundate many of the world’s cities, including London, New York, Miami and Shanghai.

“More than half of the world’s cities of the world are at risk,” Hansen says. “If you talk to glaciologists privately they will tell you they are very concerned we are locking in much more significant sea level rises than the ice sheet models are telling us.
“The economic cost of a business as usual approach to emissions is incalculable. It will become questionable whether global governance will break down. You’re talking about hundreds of million of climate refugees from places such as Pakistan and China. We just can’t let that happen. Civilization was set up and developed with a stable, constant coastline.”

The paper has yet to be fully peer reviewed and some of Hansen’s colleagues, including his protege at Nasa, Gavin Schmidt, have voiced their doubts whether sea level rise will be quite this bad, with the IPCC projecting up to a meter by 2100.

Brickbats are thrown in a bipartisan way. Hansen feels Obama, who has made climate change a legacy issue in his final year in office, has botched the opportunity to tackle the issue.

“We all foolishly had such high hopes for Obama, to articulate things, to be like Roosevelt and have fireside chats to explain to the public why we need to have a rising fee on carbon in order to move to clean energy,” he says. “But he’s not particularly good at that. He didn’t make it a priority and now it’s too late for him.”

Hansen is just as scathing of leading Republicans who have embraced climate science denialism to the chagrin of some party elders.

Leading presidential candidates Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Ben Carson have all derided evidence that the world is warming due to human activity while Ted Cruz, another contender, has taken time out from his campaign to to sit on an inquiry into climate science that has heard testimony from a rightwing radio host who has no scientific background.

“It’s all embarrassing really,” Hansen says. “After a while you realise as a scientist that politicians don’t act rationally.

“Many of the conservatives know climate change is not a hoax. But those running for president are hamstrung by the fact they think they can’t get the nomination if they say this is an issue. They wouldn’t get money from the fossil fuel industry.”

There is a positive note to end on, however. Global emissions have somewhat stalled and Hansen believes China, the world’s largest emitter, will now step up to provide the leadership lacking from the US. A submerged Fifth Avenue and deadly heatwaves aren’t an inevitability.

“I think we will get there because China is rational,” Hansen says. “Their leaders are mostly trained in engineering and such things, they don’t deny climate change and they have a huge incentive, which is air pollution. It’s so bad in their cities they need to move to clean energies. They realise it’s not a hoax. But they will need co-operation.”

quote:

Op woensdag 16 december 2015 16:18 schreef Geranium_Opa het volgende:

BBCTW: Piers Corbyn on religion of climate change (04Dec15)

quote:

Op woensdag 16 december 2015 16:36 schreef barthol het volgende:

[..]

Sommige fossielen snappen er nog steeds niets van.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 december 2015 16:18 schreef Geranium_Opa het volgende:

BBCTW: Piers Corbyn on religion of climate change (04Dec15)

quote:

Op woensdag 16 december 2015 16:18 schreef Geranium_Opa het volgende:

BBCTW: Piers Corbyn on religion of climate change (04Dec15)

quote:

Paris Climate Agreement Rests on Shaky Technological Foundations
The effort to limit global climate change relies on technologies that are unproven or even illusory.

The delegates to the Paris climate summit reached a historic agreement over the weekend. For the first time, it commits nations to specific reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases, calling for the limitation of global warming to “well below” 2 °C and pledging financial support for the developing nations that will suffer the worst effects of dramatic climate change. Spelled out in a 31-page document that will be published in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish, the agreement calls for the signatory countries to assess their progress toward emissions reduction goals every five years and adjust their efforts accordingly, while urging increased investment in research and development on clean energy technologies as well as an international fund of $100 billion to help the worst-affected countries adapt and survive. If the Paris agreement is implemented, the world would reach net-zero emissions before the end of this century.

Unfortunately, it also relies on emerging technologies that are barely proven, yet to be successfully commercialized, or downright illusory. Limiting the temperature rise to 2 °C or less is likely to require dramatic advances in three critical technologies: energy storage, advanced nuclear reactors, and carbon capture and storage. The first two are feasible given massive investment in both basic science and commercialization. The last is probably not.

Grid-scale energy storage is critical to moving from baseload power supplied by fossil-fuel plants to a grid powered by intermittent renewable sources such as wind and solar. The International Energy Agency has calculated that in order for the electricity sector to fully decarbonize, an additional 310 gigawatts of grid-connected energy storage will need to be deployed in the United States, Europe, China, and India. In 2014, according to GTM Research, the U.S. deployed less than 100 megawatts of grid energy storage. Total new deployments in the five major countries of the Asia-Pacific region—the fastest-growing electricity markets in the world—will reach only 37 gigawatts over the next 10 years, according to Navigant Research.

This year has seen major advances in the manufacture of high-capacity, low-cost lithium-ion batteries and progress toward new chemistries that offer even higher performance at lower costs (See “Aquion Founder Jay Whitacre on the ‘Miracle Technology’ in Batteries”). But effective energy storage at the grid scale remains far too expensive in the near term.

As a group of climate scientists headed by James Hansen, formerly of NASA, said in a statement released before the Paris talks, “There is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.” The International Energy Agency says that worldwide nuclear capacity must more than double by 2050 in order to achieve the 2 °C target. And in many ways, the prospects for commercializing advanced nuclear technology, such as compact fast reactors and molten-salt reactors, have never been brighter; 2015 saw a number of milestones for new reactor developers, including a White House summit in October at which President Obama pledged new support for nuclear R&D and a streamlined path to licensing for innovative reactor designs by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (see “White House Strikes a Blow for Advanced Nuclear Reactors,” “Experiments Start on a Meltdown-Proof Nuclear Reactor,” and “Advanced Reactor Gets Closer to Reality”). There are now nearly 50 companies in North America working on advanced nuclear reactor technologies, backed by more than $1.3 billion in private capital, according to Third Way, a research organization based in Washington, D.C.

But new nuclear plants remain more expensive than new natural-gas plants or even solar farms. And while major reactor-building programs are under way in China, India, and other energy-strapped countries, the heralded nuclear renaissance has been postponed in the U.S. by investors’ reluctance to fund new reactors in the face of high capital costs, poor returns, public fears, and the unsolved problem of waste disposal. Western European countries are abandoning nuclear power, not building new reactors.

Both of those technologies are sure bets, though, compared with carbon capture. According to the IEA’s road map for carbon capture and storage, we must remove and store more than two billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year from smokestacks by 2030 in order to avoid catastrophic warming, and seven billion metric tons by 2050. Barring a major technological advance that is not currently foreseeable, those targets are unreachable. According to the Global CCS Institute, there are 22 significant carbon capture and storage projects under way around the world, with the capacity to sequester a total of 40 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. Several major projects, including the $1.65 billion FutureGen project in the U.S. and a billion-pound ($1.5 billion) CCS project led by the U.K. government, have been scrapped. Simply put, the technology for separating carbon dioxide from power-plant emissions—not to mention the infrastructure to transport it and store it underground—is too expensive and too cumbersome for commercial deployment. While there is intriguing research going on, there is no prospect on the immediate horizon for making it economical.

Equally fanciful are visions of “afforestation”—planting large forests to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. The Australian climate scientist and author Tim Flannery has estimated that it would take a forest four times the size of the Australian continent to make even a small dent in atmospheric carbon. In its 2014 Emissions Gap Report, the U.N.’s Environmental Panel came to a similar conclusion: “Theoretically, carbon uptake or net negative emissions could be achieved by extensive reforestation and forest growth, or by schemes that combine bioenergy use with carbon capture and storage. But the feasibility of such large-scale schemes is still uncertain.”

That means any international climate scheme founded on these technologies is uncertain at best. It’s entirely reasonable to hope for rapid advances in energy storage and nuclear power over the next couple of decades. But if we rely on capturing carbon from power plants and removing it from the atmosphere to accomplish our climate goals, those hopes are likely to be dashed.

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 januari 2016 16:14 schreef -jos- het volgende:
Sun’s bizarre activity may trigger another ice age

http://www.irishtimes.com(...)er-ice-age-1.1460937

German Professor: NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On ‘Unbelievable’ Scale
climate data

A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented “global warming” by tampering with the raw temperature data records.

http://www.breitbart.com/(...)-unbelievable-scale/

quote:

In coal-powered China, electric car surge fuels fear of worsening smog

A series of studies by Tsinghua University, whose alumni includes the incumbent president, showed electric vehicles charged in China produce two to five times as much particulate matter and chemicals that contribute to smog versus petrol-engine cars. Hybrid vehicles fare little better.

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 januari 2016 16:34 schreef Perrin het volgende:
In ander nieuws:

[..]

Under the Dome (English subtitle, Part 1): Childhood without seeing white clouds and stars

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 januari 2016 16:32 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Wat een zwakzinnigensite is dat breitbart toch ook.

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 januari 2016 17:31 schreef -jos- het volgende:

[..]

Wat dan? En wat vind je dan van de pagina die ze linken? http://realclimatescience.com/alterations-to-climate-data/

Daar lijkt het me overduidelijk dat er dingen aangedikt zijn door de tijd.

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 januari 2016 17:31 schreef -jos- het volgende:

[..]

Wat dan? En wat vind je dan van de pagina die ze linken? http://realclimatescience.com/alterations-to-climate-data/

Daar lijkt het me overduidelijk dat er dingen aangedikt zijn door de tijd.