Data stabilitet

Ny grafik
Vi har forbedret DMI's operationelle hav og havismodel HYCOM-CICE med opdateret HYCOM kode, som blandt andet beskriver tidevandet bedre. Friktionen mellem hav og havis er desuden øget, og klimatologisk ferskvandsinput er blevet opdateret. Modellen har kørt uafbrudt siden september 1997. Derfor har vi den 13. oktober 2016 opdateret grafikken af havis-tykkelse og volumen med de nye og forbedrede data på Polarportal og ocean.dmi.dk.

Den forbedrede modelopsætning har ført til et mindre fald i den beregnede havistykkelse, specielt om vinteren. År til år variationen er også blevet mindre. Derimod er tendensen årene imellem stort set uændret, således at et år med stort havisvolumen i det gamle setup også har et stort havisvolumen i det nye, og tilsvarende for år med lav havisvolumen.

Mads Hvid Ribergaard - 13. Oktober 2016

Iflg. DMI's Havisareal på den nordlige halvkugle er udbredelsen af havis i Arktis styrtdykket det seneste døgn, som markeret med de blå pile

Den anden og største udvandringsperiode varede fra 1879 til 1893, og var på sit højeste i årene 1880-82 og 1887-88.

Bad harvests in 1866,1867,and1868 brought with them a state of dépression which lasted to 1870. A period of extremely rapid expansion set in and continued until 1878, when a recession of activity occurred. The period from 1879 to 1887 was, except for short intervals , a period of stagnation and severe agricultural depression. A gradual improvement was evident late in the decade and 1890 can reconsidered a prosperous year.

1890 Prosperity.
Increasing activity and expansion; commodity prices rise;slight increase in foreign trade.
Money tightens.
Excellent harvest,especially barley and oats; some decline in prices.

In 1883, the explosion of Krakatoa (Krakatau) created volcanic winter-like conditions. The four years following the explosion were unusually cold, and the winter of 1887-1888 included powerful blizzards.[3] Record snowfalls were recorded worldwide.

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s "Dust Bowl" that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath.

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

Man har ændret historiske data, der viser temperaturer mere end 60 år tidligere, og det har man i dette eksempel gjort siden 1999. Ændringerne af historiske data har stået på i årtier

Kosmos skrev:
- det må antages, at den forleden tiltådte 'Administration' i USA vil kigge disse ændringer kritisk efter i sømmene!?

John Niclasen skrev: UAH

Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.

Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be in the lower part of the model distribution, indicating that there is a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satelllite observations.

Bl.a. GISS/NASA og NOAA har manipuleret flere nationale og såkaldte globale datasæt længe og altid i alarmisternes favør

Now the Trump administrate is challenging the established perspective of Obama and the UNFCCC/IPCC. Red is the new blue. The good news is that red teaming on this issue is needed (something that would have been impossible under the Obama administration.) However, the risk is that the over enthusiasm of the Trump administration for overthrowing pretty much everything from the Obama administration and the UNFCCC/IPCC will bias the proceedings and diminish the legitimacy of the outcome in influencing the national dialogue on this topic. This means that the blue team needs to serve as a 'red team' on the red team.
There are some special challenges for the blue team — arrogance and appeals to authority won't work here. See above for characteristics of inferior red teams...

Efter år 2000 er der stor forskel på de to typer datasæt, og det er perioden med den såkaldte pause i den globale opvarmning

John Niclasen skrev:
GISTEMP følger nogenlunde satellit-baserede datasæt fra 1980-2000.

Nej, GISTemp følger fuldstændig satellitbaserede målinger frem til og med 2016...

Lars Buhrkall skrev:

John Niclasen skrev:
GISTEMP følger nogenlunde satellit-baserede datasæt fra 1980-2000.

Nej, GISTemp følger fuldstændig satellitbaserede målinger frem til og med 2016: https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998.

UAH står nu fuldstændig alene med deres opfattelse af temperaturudviklingen.

Søren R Nielsen skrev: Hvor mange hold er der ?

der er adskillige andre institutter og datasæt (f. eks. NOAH, NASA, HadCRUT, JMA, Berkerly)

som med andre metoder og uafhængigt af hinanden finder praktisk taget samme globale temperaturer som RSS

det er vel rettere RSS, der nu 'finder' data, der ligner de øvrige mere?

In general, it is difficult for us to follow the chain of diurnal corrections in the new RSS paper. Using a climate model to make the diurnal drift adjustments, but then adjusting those adjustments with empirical satellite data feels somewhat convoluted to us

I suspect the next chapter in this saga is that the remaining radiosonde datasets that still do not show substantial warming will be the next to be "adjusted" upward

Also, as mentioned at the outset, both RSS and UAH lower tropospheric trends are considerably below the average trends from the climate models.

And that is the most important point to be made