(Climate) Science is NOT 'settled' (yet)!

Underskriverne på dette åben brev omfatter bl.a. Niels Axel Morner..

Du maa blot erkende, at videnskabet har meldt klart ud ...

The historical record of seasonal and annual Greenland surface air temperatures after merging data from three stations with long instrumental records. The thick lines represent decadally filtered data, where grey lines indicate filtering based on incomplete data. The thin, horizontal grey lines represent the 20th century average temperatures. Data coverage for each of the three stations is indicated by the horizontal bars at the bottom, for which black bars indicate complete observations and grey bars indicate incomplete observation years. (Taken from Vinther et al. 2006)

While the time period for this descrepancy with the GISS model is relatively short, the question should be asked as to the number of years required to reject this model as having global warming predictive skill, if this large difference between the observations and the GISS model persists

ja, nu kan jeg faktisk ikke bruge en håndfuld stærkt politiserende og utvivlsomt nøje filtrede/orkestrerede erklæringer fra det omhandlede 'skab' til særligt meget;

Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev:
Hvad angår "science is not settled", så foreslår jeg dig endnu engang at kaste et blik på denne undersøgelse af Doran og Zimmermann:

Der er nemlig rigtigt CBH, las os stemme om hvad der er sandt!!

Det mest skræmmende er næsten at det overhovedet er muligt at finde 10.257 såkaldte Earth Scientists at spørge!! Mon man tør gætte på de ikke ligefrem er lavtlønnede og at de overvejende betales af skatteyderne i vestlige lande?

Skal det ikke også med at det er en web-baseret undersøgelse, hvilket altid vil skævvride undersøgelsen, simpelthen fordi der vil være en kraftig tendens til at folk der er enig i hovedpræmisserne for undersøgelsen vil svare langt oftere end folk der er uenig eller blot uinteresseret.

Prøv eksempelvis at lave en meningsundersøgelse sendt til Politike-abonnenter, hvor spørgsmålet kunne være "Er du enig i at VKOs integrationspolitk er fejlslagen?" Hvilken type svar tror du man overvejende får?

Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev:
Emnet her var, hvorvidt "the science is settled" - og hertil er svaret krystalklart JA i modsætning til, hvad Hans Henrik forsøger at give indtryk af.

Hvorfor f.... er dette vrøvl relevant for noget som helst?

Tværtimod: Det vil få folk, der har en markant holdning til sagen, til at svare langt oftere - enten den så svarer ja eller nej til spørgsmålet. Og der var ingen "hovedpræmis" - folk skulle bare svare JA eller NEJ til et simpelt spørgsmål.

Hvad har Politiken med dette her at gøre? Man sendte ikke ud til et særligt udvalgt klientel af enige forskere

Og det viser sig som sagt, at der kun er ganske få med forstand på sagen derude, der ikke kommer frem til, at CO2 har stor betydning. "The science is settled" - meget enkelt.

Ikke pga. håndsoprækning......

Om den så har "slået sig ned" på det rigtige sted, er en helt anden sag, som jeg slet ikke udtaler mig om.

Så længe de mest basale støttepunkter FOR CO2-hypotesen hviler på urealistiske mirakler og antagelser om at "mange andre ved noget", så er der ikke basis for at tro på CO2 bevægelsens tro.

Fig. 1.
Anomaly time series of monthly mean 〈W o〉, the spatial average of total atmospheric moisture over near-global (50°N–50°S) oceans (A) and an estimate of the stratospheric aerosol optical depth (SAOD) (21) (

.

Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content over oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988. Results from current climate models indicate that water vapor increases of this magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone. In a formal detection and attribution analysis using the pooled results from 22 different climate models, the simulated "fingerprint" pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor is identifiable with high statistical confidence in the SSM/I data. Experiments in which forcing factors are varied individually suggest that this fingerprint "match" is primarily due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases and not to solar forcing or recovery from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Our findings provide preliminary evidence of an emerging anthropogenic signal in the moisture content of earth's atmosphere.

"Current observational tools cannot account for roughly half of the heat that is believed to have built up on Earth in recent years, according to a "Perspectives" article in this week's issue of Science"

"satellite sensors, ocean floats, and other instruments are inadequate to track this "missing" heat, which may be building up in the deep oceans or elsewhere in the climate system."

"However, I do not see how such large amounts of heat could have transited to depths below 700m since 2005 without being detected."

Data for specific vand indhold i atmosfæren er ballon data fra NOAA ESRL...

@Boe
"Tak for nu!"

Hvis dette er rigtigt (?) hvor store bølger over global warming bevægelsen vil dette lille "ups" medføre??

By this correction the global average GISS surface temperature estimate
was reduced by 0.01 C compared to the previous published value, and the
warm spot over Finland and adjoining regions disappeared.

The Italian Senate stands for climate realism. A motion passed on last Wednesday commits the Italian government to promote a sound discussion on climate policies with the European Union and the United Nations, with particular regard to the major changes that have occurred after the economic recession, the Climategate scandal, and the failure to reach a global deal in Copenhagen. In fact, the Senate asks both that the current commitments under the EU climate and energy package are re-negotiated, and that an independent investigation is started on the IPCC process.

The Italian Senate stands for climate realism...

What drove a growing number of people, and not just in the center-right coalition, to become dubious about the EU road to climate serfdom is the acknowledgment that the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and the other political tools aimed at cutting emissions would produce negligible environmental benefits, if any. However, they would have a significant cost for the Italian economy, and – even more concerning – they entail a major restructuring of the EU structure, with the creation of an ad hoc bureaucracy that has a vested interest in keeping the alarms on, instead of promoting a fair assessment of costs and benefits of the proposed policies