Den nyeste forskning viser....
| 02-08-2013 22:37 | |
| Peter Mogensen★★★★☆ (1397) |
kristofferszilas skrev: Først ... man kan more sig lidt over at du citerer Fox News - af alle. Så kan det vist ikke blive mere troværdigt og objektivt, hva' Kristoffer? Men dernæst ... indholdet og din objektivitet til det. Ud over at Fox News genopgylper den gamle Himalaya 2035 traver som IPCC har udsendt en errata på, så er du vel forhåbentlig godt klar over at IPCC udfærdiger mange publikaitoner og kun et par stykker af dem er om ren naturvidenskabelig klimatologi og nært tilknyttede emner? De folk der arbejder med den videnskabelige basis (WGI) har sådanset meget lidt at gøre med de folk som der der refereres til har inkluderet noget Greenpeace tekst som redegjorde for forslag til politiske løsninger og hvor langt man kunne nå med vedvarende enerig i WGIII. Så at folk i WGIII finder det relevant at inddrage noget forfattet af Greenpeace har egentlig ingen betydning for den naturvidenskab dem i WGI beretter om. IPCC er ikke kun sat til at berette om naturvidenskaben. De er også sat til at komme med forslag til politiske løsninger og hvordan det foregår kan klimatologerne jo altså ikke rigtig stå på mål for, vel? |
| 03-08-2013 02:46 | |
| Kristoffer Haldrup★★★☆☆ (824) |
Eyvind Dk skrev:Kristoffer Haldrup skrev:Eyvind Dk skrev:Kristoffer Haldrup skrev: Næeh, det tror jeg såmænd ikke....men jeg aner oprigtigt ikke hvilken "løgn" som det er, du snakker om? |
| 03-08-2013 02:55 | |
| Kristoffer Haldrup★★★☆☆ (824) |
Eyvind Dk skrev:delphi skrev:Jeg vælger at tro at det er ungdommeligt spradebasseri krydret med en religiøs overbevisning Delphi og EyvindDK, jeres sprogbrug taler sit eget tydelige sprog om, hvilket niveau som I tilsyneladende ønsker, at debatten her skal have. -Derudover bedriver jeg i øvrigt hverken klimaforskning eller arbejder på KU... |
| 03-08-2013 10:29 | |
Eyvind Dk ★★☆☆☆(288) |
Kristoffer Haldrup skrev: Du har ingen ret til at tale om "niveau", du har sat det laveste niveau med dine forbandede - og afslørede - løgne!!! It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.(Richard Feynman) |
| 03-08-2013 11:38 | |
| Kristoffer Haldrup★★★☆☆ (824) |
Eyvind Dk skrev:Kristoffer Haldrup skrev: Dit synspunkt ville stå stærkere hvis du kunne fortælle hvad det er for "løgne" du fabler om... |
| 03-08-2013 12:17 | |
| Eyvind Dk★★☆☆☆ (288) |
Kristoffer Haldrup skrev:Eyvind Dk skrev:Kristoffer Haldrup skrev: Jeg skal aldeles ikke føre en seriøs debat med dig din opblæste nar! Du ka' søge (i tråden "KLIMARELIGION") på "TiHi", hvilket var dit arrogante og infantile svar, da jeg gjorde dig opmærksom på "DIN FORBANDEDE LØGN" Du fik chancen, men da du bare skruede op for dit arrogante, selvglade og infantile pis, ja, så holder jeg mig ikke tilbage for at give dig "full monty"!!! It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.(Richard Feynman) |
| 03-08-2013 12:30 | |
| Kristoffer Haldrup★★★☆☆ (824) |
Eyvind Dk skrev:Kristoffer Haldrup skrev:Eyvind Dk skrev:Kristoffer Haldrup skrev: Jeg fatter stadig ikke hvad du snakker om, men du skal da ikke holde dig tilbage fra at larme videre for min skyld Edit: Bare til info, så har jeg slet ikke skruet op for noget endnu... Redigeret d. 03-08-2013 12:40 |
| 03-08-2013 12:39 | |
| Eyvind Dk★★☆☆☆ (288) |
Kristoffer Haldrup skrev: Du fik opskriften på, hvordan du kan søge dig frem til svaret, men desværre skyggede dit opblæste ego og din manglende rygrad endnu en gang for dit udsyn! It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.(Richard Feynman) Redigeret d. 03-08-2013 12:40 |
| 03-08-2013 12:44 | |
| Kristoffer Haldrup★★★☆☆ (824) |
Eyvind Dk skrev:Kristoffer Haldrup skrev: Det er stærkt underholdende, at du ikke vil (kan?) skrive hvad denne mytiske "løgn" er |
| 03-08-2013 12:46 | |
| Eyvind Dk★★☆☆☆ (288) |
Kristoffer Haldrup skrev:Eyvind Dk skrev:Kristoffer Haldrup skrev: Jamen for fanden - din tungnemme tumpe - så søg sgu' da på ordet "TiHi" som jeg beskrev ovenfor for. Er du også dyslektisk? Ka' du ikke læse????????? It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.(Richard Feynman) |
| 03-08-2013 16:06 | |
| kfl★★★★★ (2167) |
Hej Eyvind Dk Med udgangspunkt i dit sidste indlæg, vil jeg forslå, at du stopper med at deltage i debatten. Det tjerne intet formål med de mange skældsord og injurier. |
| 03-08-2013 16:22 | |
| Kristoffer Haldrup★★★☆☆ (824) |
Eyvind Dk skrev:Kristoffer Haldrup skrev:Eyvind Dk skrev:Kristoffer Haldrup skrev: Som tidligere skrevet, så står jeg aldeles ved mine udsagn i den anden tråd om, at du tilsyneladende har visse udfordringer i forhold til at forstå de involverede energiregnskaber og deres dynamik. -Hvis det er det, som du tager anstød af, kan jeg desværre ikke hjælpe dig. Det er nu engang den forståelse af din indsigt i emnet som jeg har fået på baggrund af dine indlæg her på stedet. |
| 03-08-2013 16:26 | |
| Kristoffer Haldrup★★★☆☆ (824) |
kfl skrev: Jeg ved ikke...selvfølgelig afsporer det de enkelte debat-tråde lidt, men underholdningsværdien af EyvindDK's harmdirrende indlæg er ret høj, synes jeg. Og det er jo altid en fornøjelse at se ens modpart i en debat udstille sig selv på den måde Men, bevares, det er da ikke noget som pynter her på stedet, og kan måske skræmme folk fra at deltage i debatten. |
| 03-08-2013 16:37 | |
| Eyvind Dk★★☆☆☆ (288) |
kfl skrev: Du fatter åbenlyst ikke en brik af hvad det er der foregår! Kristoffer Haldrup er en ufattelig selvglad og nedladende debattør, og overgås kun af CHB. Jeg har set ham/dem utallige gange komme med ærekrænkende ytringer over for - jeg tror næsten - ALLE skeptikere i dette forum. Han gjorde det også overfor mig en gang for mange, så jeg gav ham muligheden for at trække sin forbandede løgn tilbage. Dette fik ham dog bare til at skrue op for sin arrogante, nedladende og ærekrænkende svar. OG RIGTIGT, så synes jeg ærlig talt, at han havde overskredet min tærskel for anstændig debatform og siden har jeg givet ham "full monty". Og det vil jeg blive ved med indtil han opfører sig ordentlig! I hvert fald overfor mig!!! Lidt irriterende at det er nødvendigt at forklare dig dette! Jeg tvivler på andre her i forummet er i tvivl om hvad der foregår. Venligst sæt dig ind i HELE debatten, før du begynder at lege skolemester overfor andre!!! Det tjerne intet formål med de mange skældsord og injurier. Det tjener akkurat det formål at fortælle sådan en underlødig spradebasse, hvor David købte øllet! Du mener måske, at det skal være frit tilladeligt, at komme med ærekrænkende løgne og påstande om debattører her? Hvis det er mere end dit sarte gemyt kan klare, undskylder jeg, og opfordrer dig til ikke at læse mine indlæg. |
| 03-08-2013 16:42 | |
| Peter Mogensen★★★★☆ (1397) |
Eyvind Dk skrev: Damn... henvist til 3. pladsen. Jeg må oppe mig. |
| 03-08-2013 16:44 | |
| Eyvind Dk★★☆☆☆ (288) |
Peter Mogensen skrev:Eyvind Dk skrev: Tænk sig! At være stolt over at være arrogant nedladende! SUK! It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.(Richard Feynman) |
| 03-08-2013 16:50 | |
| Peter Mogensen★★★★☆ (1397) |
Tænk sig ... at være helt uden sans for ironi. ... trist. |
| 03-08-2013 16:55 | |
| Eyvind Dk★★☆☆☆ (288) |
Peter Mogensen skrev: Tænk sig! Ikke at mestre hverken ironi eller sarkasme! SUK! It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.(Richard Feynman) |
| 05-08-2013 19:08 | |
| kristofferszilas★★★☆☆ (852) |
Durate et al. 2013. Is Ocean Acidification an Open-Ocean Syndrome? Understanding Anthropogenic Impacts on Seawater pH. Estuaries and Coasts 36, 221-236. Abstract Ocean acidification due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is a dominant driver of long-term changes in pH in the open ocean, raising concern for the future of calcifying organisms, many of which are present in coastal habitats. However, changes in pH in coastal ecosystems result from a multitude of drivers, including impacts from watershed pro-cesses, nutrient inputs, and changes in ecosystem structure and metabolism. Interaction between ocean acidification due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the dynamic regional to local drivers of coastal ecosystems have resulted in complex regulation of pH in coastal waters. Changes in the watershed can, for example, lead to changes in alkalinity and CO2 fluxes that, together with metabolic processes and oceanic dynamics, yield high-magnitude decadal changes of up to 0.5 units in coastal pH.  |
| 06-08-2013 00:01 | |
| kristofferszilas★★★☆☆ (852) |
Van de Berg et al. 2013. "Importance of precipitation seasonality for the interpretation of Eemian ice core isotope records from Greenland". Climate of the Past 9, 1586-1600: Abstract. The previous interglacial (Eemian, 130–114 kyr BP) had a mean sea level highstand 4 to 7 m above the current level, and, according to climate proxies, a 2 to 6 K warmer Arctic summer climate. Greenland ice cores extending back into the Eemian show a reduced depletion in delta18O of about 3‰ for this period, which suggests a significant warming of several degrees over the Greenland ice sheet. Man fristes jo dermed til at påpege at IPCC's dommedagsprognose allerede har fundet sted i Eem-perioden og at både mennesket og resten af klodens biosfære klarede sig ganske udmærket. |
| 08-08-2013 16:39 | |
| kristofferszilas★★★☆☆ (852) |
Petaev et al. 2013. Large Pt anomaly in the Greenland ice core points to a cataclysm at the onset of Younger Dryas. PNAS 110, 12917-12920. Abstract: One explanation of the abrupt cooling episode known as the Younger Dryas (YD) is a cosmic impact or airburst at the YD boundary (YDB ) that triggered cooling and resulted in other calamities, including the disappearance of the Clovis culture and the extinction of many large mammal species. We tested the YDB impact hypothesis by analyzing ice samples from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) ice core across the Bølling-Allerød/YD boundary for major and trace elements. We found a large Pt anomaly at the YDB, not accompanied by a prominent Ir anomaly, with the Pt/Ir ratios at the Pt peak exceeding those in known terrestrial and extraterrestrial materials. Whereas the highly fractionated Pt/Ir ratio rules out mantle or chondritic sources of the Pt anomaly, it does not allow positive identification of the source. Circumstantial evidence such as very high, superchondritic Pt/Al ratios associated with the Pt anomaly and its timing, different from other major events recorded on the GISP2 ice core such as well-understood sulfate spikes caused by volcanic activity and the ammonium and nitrate spike due to the biomass destruction, hints for an extraterrestrial source of Pt. Such a source could have been a highly differentiated object like an Ir-poor iron meteorite that is unlikely to result in an airburst or trigger wide wildfires proposed by the YDB impact hypothesis. |
| 09-08-2013 10:27 | |
| kristofferszilas★★★☆☆ (852) |
Grise et al. 2013. The ozone hole indirect effect: Cloud-radiative anomalies accompanying the poleward shift of the eddy-driven jet in the Southern Hemisphere. Geophysical Research Letters (in press). Abstract [1] This study quantifies the response of the clouds and the radiative budget of the Southern Hemisphere (SH) to the poleward shift in the tropospheric circulation induced by the development of the Antarctic ozone hole. Single forcing climate model integrations, in which only stratospheric ozone depletion is specified, indicate that (1) high-level and midlevel clouds closely follow the poleward shift in the SH midlatitude jet and that (2) low-level clouds decrease across most of the Southern Ocean. Similar cloud anomalies are found in satellite observations during periods when the jet is anomalously poleward. The hemispheric annual mean radiation response to the cloud anomalies is calculated to be approximately +0.25 W/m^2, arising largely from the reduction of the total cloud fraction at SH midlatitudes during austral summer. While these dynamically induced cloud and radiation anomalies are considerable and are supported by observational evidence, quantitative uncertainties remain from model biases in mean-state cloud-radiative processes. AGU Release No. 13-39: "In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported a direct cooling effect from the thinning ozone layer—specifically, a reduction of about 0.05 watts per square meter's worth of energy reaching the ground. However, Grise and his colleagues estimated the indirect effect of the shifting cloud coverage to be an increase of approximately 0.2 watts per square meter. Their result not only suggests that warming rather than cooling would be taking place, but also that there's a larger influence overall." |
| 10-08-2013 09:12 | |
| kristofferszilas★★★☆☆ (852) |
Jones et al. 2013. On the additivity of radiative forcing between land use change and greenhouse gases. Geophysical Research Letters (in press). Abstract [1] In scientific and policy contexts, radiative forcing—an external change in Earth's mean radiative balance—has been suggested as a metric for evaluating the strength of climate perturbations resulting from different climate change drivers such as greenhouse gases and surface physical effects of land use change. However, the utility of this approach has been questioned given the spatially concentrated and sometimes nonradiative nature of land use climate disturbances. Here we show that when negative forcing from agricultural expansion is approximately balanced by a radiatively equivalent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, significant changes in temperature, precipitation, and the timing of climate change result. These idealized experiments demonstrate the nonadditivity of radiative forcing from land use change and greenhouse gases and point to the need for new climate change metrics or the development of climate policies and assessment protocols that do not rely on single dimensional metrics. |
| 10-08-2013 09:18 | |
| kristofferszilas★★★☆☆ (852) |
Li et al. 2013. Urbanization impact on temperature change in China with emphasis on land cover change and human activity. Journal of Climate (in press). Abstract The impact of urbanization on temperature trends in China was investigated with emphasis on two aspects of urbanization, land cover change and human activity. A new station classification scheme was developed to incorporate these two aspects by utilizing land cover and energy consumption data. Observation temperature data of 274 stations and National Centers for Environmental Prediction/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP/NCAR) reanalysis temperature from 1979 to 2010 were used in conducting the observation minus reanalysis (OMR) method to detect urban influence. Results indicated that nearly half of the stations in the study area have been converted from non-urban to urban stations as a result of land cover change associated with urban expansion. We determined that both land cover change and human activity play important roles in temperature change and contribute to the observed warming, particularly in urbanized stations, where the highest amount of warming was detected. Urbanized stations showed higher OMR temperature trends than those of unchanged stations. In addition, a statistically significant positive relationship was detected between human activity and temperature trends, which suggests that the observed warming is closely related to the intensity and spatial extent of human activity. In fact, the urbanization effect is strongly affected by specific characteristics of urbanization in local and regional scales such as land cover change, human activity, and other related factors. |
| 13-08-2013 22:12 | |
| kristofferszilas★★★☆☆ (852) |
Climate change policy: What do the models tell us? Scathing MIT paper blasts obamas climate models "These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models' descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading." |
| 14-08-2013 11:44 | |
| Kristoffer Haldrup★★★☆☆ (824) |
Dette er ikke ligefrem ny forskning, men jeg finder det alligevel relevant for især enkelte kirsebærplukkende og ukritiske, men flittige, bidragsydere til denne tråd..."One original thought is worth a thousand mindless quotings." Redigeret d. 14-08-2013 11:45 |
| 14-08-2013 21:53 | |
| kristofferszilas★★★☆☆ (852) |
Skeie et al. 2013. A lower and more constrained estimate of climate sensitivity using updated observations and detailed radiative forcing time series. Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., 4, 785-852: The posterior mean of the ECS is 1.8 °C with 90% C.I. ranging from 0.9 to 3.2 °C which is tighter than most previously published estimates. |
| 15-08-2013 21:04 | |
| kristofferszilas★★★☆☆ (852) |
Cecile et al 2013. A likelihood perspective on tree-ring standardization: eliminating modern sample bias. Climate of the Past 9, 4499-4551. Abstract: It has recently been suggested that non-random sampling and differences in mortality between trees of different growth rates is responsible for a widespread, systematic bias in dendrochronological reconstructions of tree growth known as modern sample bias. This poses a serious challenge for climate reconstruction and the detection of long-term changes in growth. Explicit use of growth models based on regional curve standardization allow us to investigate the effects on growth due to age (the regional curve), year (the standardized chronology or forcing) and a new effect, the productivity of each tree. Including a term for the productivity of each tree accounts for the underlying cause of modern sample bias, allowing for more reliable reconstruction of low-frequency variability in tree growth. This class of models describes a new standardization technique, fixed effects standardization, that contains both classical regional curve standardization and flat detrending. Signal-free standardization accounts for unbalanced experimental design and fits the same growth model as classical least-squares or maximum likelihood regression techniques. As a result, we can use powerful and transparent tools such as R2 and Akaike's Information Criteria to assess the quality of tree ring standardization, allowing for objective decisions between competing techniques. Analyzing 1200 randomly selected published chronologies, we find that regional curve standardization is improved by adding an effect for individual tree productivity in 99% of cases, reflecting widespread differing-contemporaneous-growth rate bias. Furthermore, modern sample bias produced a significant negative bias in estimated tree growth by time in 70.5% of chronologies and a significant positive bias in 29.5% of chronologies. This effect is largely concentrated in the last 300 yr of growth data, posing serious questions about the homogeneity of modern and ancient chronologies using traditional standardization techniques. |
| 16-08-2013 15:11 | |
| SRJ★★★☆☆ (462) |
kristofferszilas skrev: Vi har tidligere diskuteret dette resultat fra den norske forskningsgruppe, se mine kommentarer her (2 stk) og her. Artiklen er pt. under bedømmelse, og der er også en åben diskussion på tidsskriftets hjemmeside. Jeg forventer der kommer nogen kommentarer vedr. det let absurde i at deres estimat ændres så meget med 10 års ekstra data. ------------------------------------------------------ For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. |
| 19-08-2013 13:25 | |
| Kjeld Jul★★★★★ (3888) |
Havvandsstigninger En forskergruppe omkring Bert Wouters fra Bristol Glaciology Centre,har undersøgt sammenhængen mellem afsmeltningen af polkapperne og havvandsstigningerne. Wouters et al. har fastslået,at der for nuværende er uklart,hvorvidt måleresultaterne er påvirket af langfristede trends eller,hvor stor en andel der skyldes naturlige variationer. Man er enige om,at satellitmålingerne ikke har varet længe nok,til at man kan udtale sig om havvandsstigningerne i år 2100. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n8/full/ngeo1874.html |
| 19-08-2013 13:51 | |
| Kristoffer Haldrup★★★☆☆ (824) |
Kjeld Jul skrev: Jeg tror, at du skal læse den artikel een gang til. Der er tydeligvis en del ting i den artikel, der i øvrigt er glimrende, som du ikke har forstået. |
| 19-08-2013 14:56 | |
| Kristoffer Haldrup★★★☆☆ (824) |
Kristoffer Haldrup skrev:Kjeld Jul skrev: Nu med et par af de mere interessante grafer fra den omtalte artikel... Tilknyttet billede:  |
| 19-08-2013 17:20 | |
| Kjeld Jul★★★★★ (3888) |
@ Haldrup Det jeg fremhæver,er essensen af studiet bl.a. flg.: However,at present there is no scientific consensus---- og about 20 years observations are required for Greenland---- Redigeret d. 19-08-2013 17:22 |
| 19-08-2013 17:25 | |
| Kosmos★★★★★ (5371) |
En forskergruppe omkring Bert Wouters fra Bristol Glaciology Centre,har undersøgt sammenhængen mellem afsmeltningen af polkapperne og havvandsstigningerne - (endnu) mere ny forskning vedr. afsmeltning af indlandsis: At the Earth's surface, heat fluxes from the interior1 are generally insignificant compared with those from the Sun and atmosphere2, except in areas permanently blanketed by ice. Modelling studies show that geothermal heat flux influences the internal thermal structure of ice sheets and the distribution of basal melt water3, and it should be taken into account in planning deep ice drilling campaigns and climate reconstructions4. Here we use a coupled ice–lithosphere model driven by climate and show that the oldest and thickest part of the Greenland Ice Sheet is strongly influenced by heat flow from the deep Earth. We find that the geothermal heat flux in central Greenland increases from west to east due to thinning of the lithosphere, which is only about 25– 66% as thick as is typical for terrains of early Proterozoic age5. Complex interactions between geothermal heat flow and glaciation-induced thermal perturbations in the upper crust over glacial cycles lead to strong regional variations in basal ice conditions, with areas of rapid basal melting adjoining areas of extremely cold basal ice. Our findings demonstrate the role that the structure of the solid Earth plays in the dynamics of surface processes.(min fremhævning). |
| 19-08-2013 22:29 | |
| Kristoffer Haldrup★★★☆☆ (824) |
Kjeld Jul skrev: Læs nu for pokker artiklen, i stedet for at blive ved med at udtale dig om ting du tydeligvis har misforstået i forhold til både kontekst og faktuel information. https://www.dropbox.com/s/5syaaoj9yo4qwbn/Wouters_IceSheetMassBalance_NatureGeo2013.pdf |
| 19-08-2013 22:33 | |
| Kristoffer Haldrup★★★☆☆ (824) |
Kosmos skrev:En forskergruppe omkring Bert Wouters fra Bristol Glaciology Centre,har undersøgt sammenhængen mellem afsmeltningen af polkapperne og havvandsstigningerne Det er ikke ligefrem nyt, at geotermisk varme har en betydelig indflydelse på de allernederste lag af Grøndlans indlandsis. Men det er da velkomment med et studie, som kvantificerer dette yderligere. Det vil sikkert være nyttigt for de folk som forsøger at lave flydnings-modeller for isen deroppe |
| 20-08-2013 13:54 | |
| Kjeld Jul★★★★★ (3888) |
@ Haldrup Du behøver såmænd ikke at bruge et vulgært sprogbrug for at gøre indtryk på mig- det burde du da vide. Her er endnu engang,hvad jeg læser ud af studiet og konkluderer på: However,at present there is no scientific consensus on whether these reported accelelerations result from variablity inherent to the ice-sheet-climate system,or reflect long-term changes and thus permit extrapolation to the future. videre, We find that the record length of spaceborn gravity observations is too short at present to meaningfully separate long-term accelerations from short-term ice sheet variability. videre, Therefore,climate variability adds uncertainly to extrapolations of future mass loss and sea-level rise. |
| 20-08-2013 14:07 | |
| Kristoffer Haldrup★★★☆☆ (824) |
Kjeld Jul skrev: Hvis du finder at "for pokker" hører til i kategorien af "vulgært sprog", så er det vist snarere dit problem end mit. -Med hensyn til den diskuterede artikel, så virker det først nu til, at det er gået op for dig, at artiklen omhandler ikke massetabet, men ACCELERATIONEN i massetabet for de store iskapper. Som det fint beskrives i artiklen, så er der ingen problemer med at fremskrive massetabet (Figur 2/3a), men fordi accelerationen af samme ikke kendes med god nøjagtighed pga. naturlige variationer og korte tidsserier, leder det til en usikkerhed på ca. 7 cm i vandstandsstigning i år 2050 (Figur2/3b). De nævner endvidere at HVIS de for nuværende målte trends holder, så er der udsigt til +50 cm EKSTRA vandstandsstigning i 2100 i forhold til hvad man ellers regner med, men at dette er noget usikkert netop fordi accelerationen ikke kendes med god nøjagtighed. -Det er den EKSTRA vandstandsstigning pga accelererende massetab som diskuteres her, ikke OM der kommer en vandsstandsstigning. Redigeret d. 20-08-2013 14:13 |
| 20-08-2013 14:28 | |
| N A Nielsen★★★☆☆ (991) |
SRJ skrev:kristofferszilas skrev: Det er nu ikke så mærkeligt, synes jeg, at gennemsnittet kan falde meget med 10 års ekstra data. En mere snævert fastlagt sandsynlighedsfordeling på værdien af ligevægtssensitiviteten (tighter C.I. som forfatterne skriver), der gør de meget høje værdier usandsynlige vil sænke gennemsnittet meget. Et vel mere relevant mål for den centrale tendens er medianen (lige sandsynligt at den sande værdi er over og under) og her falder det centrale estimat for ECS kun fra 1,72C til 1,65C når forfatterne inkluderer de sidste 10 års data. Gennemsnittet kommer bare tættere på medianen, når de nyeste tal tages med. Er det lettere absurd? |
| 20-08-2013 15:30 | |
| N A Nielsen★★★☆☆ (991) |
SRJ, de nyeste studier viser jo også en pt noget større netto-forcing (mindre aerosol offset end hidtil antaget), og det sænker også estimatet for ECS. |
Deltag aktivt i debatten Den nyeste forskning viser....:
Lignende indhold
| Debatter | Svar | Seneste indlæg |
| Svensmark overdriver betydningen af egen forskning... | 15 | 22-10-2020 07:38 |
| Henrik Svensmarks forskning | 87 | 07-12-2019 05:26 |
| Er fri forskning truet? | 79 | 03-07-2013 18:02 |
| Artikler |
| Hvad skal der gøres for at fremme forskning i vedvarende energi og energibesparende teknologi? |
| Nyheder | Dato |
| Ny forskning: Skovene kan tilpasse sig | 15-11-2010 08:21 |
| Meget lidt forskning i klimatilpasning | 31-03-2009 08:52 |