{"id":444,"date":"2007-05-04T11:32:05","date_gmt":"2007-05-04T16:32:05","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=444"},"modified":"2008-07-08T16:56:19","modified_gmt":"2008-07-08T21:56:19","slug":"this-week","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/archives\/2007\/05\/this-week\/","title":{"rendered":"This Week Bu Hafta<\/lang_tk>"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

There are a few minor items this week worthy of mention:<\/p>\n

1. The CO2<\/sub> rise. Who dunnit?<\/b><\/p>\n

Here at RealClimate, we have been (naively, apparently) operating under the assumption that climate change contrarians had long ago moved on from the untenable position<\/a> that humans are not even responsible for the observed increase in CO2 concentrations over the past two centuries. The dubious paper by Ernst Beck we commented on the other day<\/a> indicates that there is indeed still a rear guard attack being waged. As if to drive the point home further, pundit Alexander Cockburn<\/a>, known generally for his progressive views, has perplexingly disputed the existence of any link between CO2 emissions and rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in a screed<\/a> he penned this week for the online journal “Counterpunch” (also printed in The Nation). It’s hard to know where to start, since his piece is so over the top and gets just about everything so thoroughly wrong, it’s almost comical. So we’ll just hit the low points: (a) Cockburn claims that there is zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the world’s present warming trend<\/em>, despite the fact that not even such strident climate change contrarians as Pat Michaels<\/a> dispute that there is a measurable influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on global temperature. Plus there’s all the empirical evidence of course (see the new IPCC report). (b) Going further, Cockburn brazenly opines that ‘it is impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human burning of fossil fuels’<\/em> despite the fact that there is an isotopic smoking gun<\/a> for this connection. He then (c) fails to understand that water vapor is a feedback<\/em> not a forcing<\/em><\/a>, and citing ‘expert’ Dr. Martin Hertzberg, quite remarkably states that ‘It is the warming of the earth that is causing the increase of carbon dioxide and not the reverse.’<\/em> Never mind that isotopic evidence proves otherwise. Upon what evidence does he base this assertion? <\/p>\n

Since no anti-global warming op-ed these days is complete without it, Cockburn (d) resorts to the usual misrepresentation of lag\/lead relationships between CO2 and temperatures during glacial\/interglacial cycles as if they disprove the causal relationship between greenhouse gas concentrations and surface temperatures (see our most recent debunking of this favorite contrarian talking point here<\/a>). Oh dear.<\/p>\n

2. The other (Glenn) Beck–Even Worse!<\/b><\/p>\n

CNN gave their resident shock-jock Glenn Beck a forum for spreading more disinformation on global warming in an hour-long segment entitled Exposed: The Climate of Fear<\/a> (see also this discussion<\/a> by “Media Matters”). We could pick apart his (rather thin) arguments, which constitute the usual cocktail of long debunked<\/a> contrarian talking points. Suffice it to say, however, that the moment a rhetorician invokes Hitler, Nazi Germany, and Eugenics<\/a>, it is the moment they are no longer worthy of being listened to (cf Godwin’s Law<\/a> of usenet debates). We don’t seem to be alone in our opinion here. Beck’s performance earned him the dubious title of “worst person in the world”<\/a> from analyst Keith Olbermann. <\/p>\n

However, there was one amusing moment: Beck asked Christopher ‘Incorrect’ Horner what the key thing to google was that would show that Al Gore was wrong. Horner suggested the lag between CO2 and temperature in the ice cores. Of course, if you do Google that<\/a>, the first hit is the RealClimate debunking of the issue. Thanks! <\/p>\n

3. Nature’s new blog<\/b><\/p>\n

Nature<\/em> has started a new blog<\/a> called “Climate Feedback”, which says of itself ‘Climate Feedback is a blog hosted by Nature Reports: Climate Change to facilitate lively and informative discussion on the science and wider implications of global warming. The blog aims to be an informal forum for debate and commentary on climate science in our journals and others, in the news, and in the world at large.’<\/i><\/p>\n

We wish it well, remembering their welcome <\/a> for RealClimate, though early reviews based on the first few posts are decidedly mixed<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Ingilizce\u2019den \u00e7eviren Figen Mekik<\/a>\/<\/small><\/p>\n

Kaydedilmeye de\u011fer ufak tefek baz\u0131 konular\u0131m\u0131z var bu hafta.<\/p>\n

1. CO2<\/sub> y\u00fckselmesi. Faili kim?<\/b><\/p>\n

Biz de sitemizde saf\u00e7a zannediyorduk ki iklim de\u011fi\u015fimine kar\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kanlar en az\u0131ndan \u201cinsanlar\u0131n son ikiy\u00fcz y\u0131ld\u0131r g\u00f6r\u00fclen CO2<\/sub> art\u0131\u015f\u0131na hi\u00e7 bir katk\u0131s\u0131 yoktur\u201d gibi, savunulmas\u0131 g\u00fc\u00e7 tezleri<\/a> \u00e7oktan geride b\u0131rakt\u0131lar. Ernst Beck\u2019in bizim de daha \u00f6nce<\/a> \u00fcst\u00fcnde durdu\u011fumuz bilimsel de\u011feri \u015f\u00fcpheli makalesi, daha hala bu sa\u00e7ma bu fikirlerin savunuldu\u011funu g\u00f6steriyor. Dahas\u0131, \u00fcnl\u00fc alim Alexander Cockburn<\/a>, ki ilerici d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceleriyle tan\u0131n\u0131r, \u201cCounterpunch\u201d adl\u0131 site i\u00e7in uzun ve b\u0131kt\u0131ran bir ele\u015ftiri<\/a> yazm\u0131\u015f (The Nation\u2019da da yay\u0131nlanm\u0131\u015f) ve \u00e7ok \u015fa\u015f\u0131rt\u0131c\u0131 bir \u015fekilde demi\u015f ki CO2<\/sub> emisyonuyla, havak\u00fcrede g\u00f6r\u00fclen CO2<\/sub> art\u0131\u015f\u0131 aras\u0131nda hi\u00e7 bir ba\u011flant\u0131 yoktur. Lafa nas\u0131l ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131m\u0131z\u0131 kestirmek zor \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc yaz\u0131s\u0131 neredeyse komik olacak kadar sa\u00e7ma ve hemen hemen her konuda hatal\u0131. Onun i\u00e7in sadece bir iki noktaya de\u011finelim: (a) Cockburn diyor ki d\u00fcnyam\u0131z\u0131n ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u0131s\u0131nma e\u011filimine insanlar\u0131n \u00fcretti\u011fi CO2\u2019nin katk\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funu g\u00f6steren hi\u00e7 bir delil yok<\/em>. Bu \u00e7ok tuhaf bir g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc en amans\u0131z kar\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131k\u0131c\u0131lardan Pat Michaels<\/a> bile insanlar\u0131n \u00fcretti\u011fi sera gazlar\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fcnyan\u0131n \u0131s\u0131nmas\u0131na \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fclebilir bir katk\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funu kabul ediyor. Art\u0131, bir s\u00fcr\u00fc de deneysel veri var tabii (yeni Uluslaras\u0131 Iklim De\u011fi\u015fimi G\u00f6revg\u00fcc\u00fc\u2019n\u00fcn raporuna bak\u0131n). (b) Daha da ileri giderek, izotoplarla<\/a> kesin olarak ispat edilmesine ra\u011fmen, Cockburn hi\u00e7 utanmadan ileri s\u00fcr\u00fcyor ki \u201datmosferdeki CO2<\/sub> art\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n insanlar\u0131n fosil yak\u0131t kullanmas\u0131na ba\u011flanmas\u0131 imkans\u0131zd\u0131r\u201d<\/em>. Ayrica, (c) anlamamakta inat etti\u011fi bir ba\u015fka konu da su buhar\u0131 bir zorlama de\u011fil geribeslemedir.<\/a> Ve hatta \u201cuzman\u201d Dr. Martin Hertzberg\u2019e at\u0131f yaparak \u201dd\u00fcnyan\u0131n \u0131s\u0131nmas\u0131 CO2<\/sub>\u2019yi art\u0131r\u0131yor ve tersi do\u011fru de\u011fildir\u201d<\/em> fikrini \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fcyor. Izotop verilerinin tam tersini ispat ediyor olmas\u0131n\u0131 tamamen g\u00f6z ard\u0131 ederek, hem de. Kendi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerini hangi delillerle destekliyor acaba?<\/p>\n

Ve k\u00fcresel \u0131s\u0131nmaya inanmayan yorum yaz\u0131lar\u0131ndan hi\u00e7 eksik olmayan bir di\u011fer husus da (d) buzul ve buzul aras\u0131 d\u00f6nemlerde CO2<\/sub>-\u0131s\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki \u00f6nc\u00fc-gecikmeci ili\u015fkinin yanl\u0131\u015f ifade edilmesi; sanki CO2<\/sub> ve \u0131s\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki sebep-sonu\u00e7 ili\u015fkisi tamamen yanl\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015f gibi (bunu en son burada tart\u0131\u015ft\u0131k). Eyvah!<\/p>\n

2. Di\u011fer (Glenn) Beck \u2014Daha k\u00f6t\u00fcs\u00fc!<\/b><\/p>\n

CNN, sansasyonel havadiscisi Glenn Beck\u2019e bir saatlik, < a href=\u201dhttp:\/\/www.cnn.com\/CNN\/Programs\/beck.climateoffear\/\u201d>A\u00e7\u0131\u011fa \u00c7\u0131kt\u0131: Korku Iklimi adl\u0131 (Media Matters\u2019deki bu tart\u0131\u015fmaya<\/a> da bir g\u00f6z at\u0131n) bir program vererek k\u00fcresel \u0131s\u0131nma hakk\u0131nda yanl\u0131\u015f bilgiler<\/a> yaymas\u0131na olanak sa\u011flad\u0131. Beck\u2019in savundu\u011fu \u00e7ok zay\u0131f iddialar\u0131 tek tek ele alabiliriz, ama \u00e7o\u011fu zaten s\u0131kl\u0131kla herkesin \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fcp de rezil oldu\u011fu ayn\u0131 iddialar. Onun i\u00e7in \u015funu demekle yetinelim: herhangi bir retoretisyen Hitler, Nazi Almanyas\u0131 ve \u0131rk islah\u0131<\/a> gibi fikirleri ortaya att\u0131 m\u0131, dinlenebilirli\u011fini yitiriyor (mesela Godwin\u2019in kanunu<\/a> gibi). Bu fikrimizde de yanl\u0131z de\u011filiz galiba. Beck\u2019in program\u0131 ona, Keith Olbermann taraf\u0131ndan < a href=\u201dhttp:\/\/www.msnbc.msn.com\/id\/18438559\/\u201c>\u201cd\u00fcnyan\u0131n en k\u00f6t\u00fc insan\u0131\u201d nam\u0131n\u0131 kazand\u0131rd\u0131. <\/p>\n

Ancak bizi g\u00fcld\u00fcren bir an oldu. Beck, Christopher \u201cYanl\u0131\u015f\u201d Horner\u2019a sordu: Al Gore\u2019un hatal\u0131 oldu\u011funu g\u00f6stermek i\u00e7in neyi Google\u2019lamal\u0131y\u0131m? Horner da buzul karotlar\u0131ndaki CO2<\/sub> ve \u0131s\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki gecikeyi dedi. Tabii hakikaten bunu Google ederseniz<\/a>, ilk \u00e7\u0131kan RealClimate\u2019\u0131n bu konuyu p\u00fcsk\u00fcrtmesi oluyor. Te\u015fekk\u00fcrler!<\/p>\n

3. Nature dergisinin yeni blog\u2019u.<\/b><\/p>\n

Nature dergisi \u201cIklim Geribeslemesi\u201d<\/a> (Climate Feedback) adl\u0131 yeni bir blog ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015f. Tarifi \u015f\u00f6yle: Iklim Geribeslemesi Nature Reports: Climate Change\u2019un ev sahipli\u011fini yapaca\u011f\u0131 yeni bir blog. Amac\u0131, k\u00fcresel \u0131s\u0131nma ger\u00e7e\u011finin ve geni\u015f \u00e7apl\u0131 anlaml\u0131n\u0131n canl\u0131 ve bilimsel olarak tart\u0131\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131 kolayla\u015ft\u0131rmakt\u0131r. Blogumuz, resmi olmayan bir forumda, iklim bilimleri hakk\u0131nda dergilerimizde, haberlerde ve d\u00fcnyada yay\u0131nlanan bilgilerin tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayacakt\u0131r.<\/em><\/p>\n

Onlara ba\u015far\u0131lar diliyoruz, \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc onlar da bize dilemi\u015flerdi<\/a>, ama ilk yorumlar\u0131 biraz kar\u0131\u015f\u0131kt\u0131<\/a>.
\n<\/small><\/lang_tk><\/p>\n\n<\/div> ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There are a few minor items this week worthy of mention: 1. The CO2 rise. Who dunnit? Here at RealClimate, we have been (naively, apparently) operating under the assumption that climate change contrarians had long ago moved on from the untenable position that humans are not even responsible for the observed increase in CO2 concentrations […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1,3,26],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-444","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-climate-science","7":"category-greenhouse-gases","8":"category-rc-forum","9":"entry"},"aioseo_notices":[],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/444","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=444"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/444\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=444"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=444"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=444"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}