Derfor bliver man skeptisk!

Religion spiller en stor rolle i klimadebatten, blandt andet når vi kæmper for at redde truede dyrearter, der ikke har nytteværdi, lyder det i en ny bog af dansk teolog.

... we do better to think that the rules come first, as practical solutions to social problems, and that they are then absorbed within a religious framework that serves to give them extra force.

Kjeld Jul skrev:
Når man betænker,at klimamodellerne,uden at indbygge modelvariabler og forudsætninger,ikke har kunnet vise klimaets forandringer i den førindustrielle tid,i det forrige århundrede og ikke har forudsagt, at den globale temperatur ikke ville stige efter 1996,er det svært at tro på fremtidige forudsigelser.

SRJ skrev:


Grafen er fra woodfortrees

kulden-varmen skrev:
Som skeptiker vil jeg sige at alt under 30 år er vejr.

kulden-varmen skrev:
Og at den sydlige og nordlige halvkugle opvarmes og afkøles forskelligt, så man er nød til at have to grafer en for den sydlige halvkugle og en for den nordlige halvkugle.

kulden-varmen skrev:
Dertil kommer at jorden altid er under opvarmning eller afkøling. Hvis der ikke opstå en periode med afkøling så vil temperaturen stige 2'grader, som i stenaldren eller måske 4'grader som i en anden mellemistid. Denne stigning skyldes at vi nu som vores udgangspunkt har en en kølig periode.

SRJ skrev:
Ser vi på hele 30 års perioden 1982-2011 er der en stigning i alle datasæt. Det er vi vel enige om?

Hvad får temperaturen til at stige eller falde i disse perioder? Klimaet ændrer sig ikke uden en ændring i strålingspåvirkning (udover korttidsvariationer som omfordeler energi mellem atmosfære og ocean - jvf. artiklen af Valis ovenfor).

"Figuren er fra et indlæg på realclimate hvor Gavin Schmidt forklarer hvorfor korte trends er irrelevante. Læseværdigt:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/11/short-term-trends-another-proxy-fight/

Jeg forstår ikke helt hvad der er "skeptikernes" pointe med at råbe "ingen opvarmning siden X". Vi har at gøre med en tidsserie med et svagt stigende langtidssignal (AGW komponenten) hvorpå der er korttidsvariationer (bl. a ENSO) som har større amplitude end AGW-komponenten over korte tidsrum. Så selvfølgelig kan man finde perioder uden opvarmning, dvs. perioder hvor langtidssignalet ikke kan ses pga. korttidsvariationerne.
Når man bare leder efter et bestemt år at starte i for at finde en årrække uden opvarmning, så er man nemt et offer for "confirmation bias"."

N A Nielsen skrev:
Jeg undrer mig over, at du foregiver ikke at være offer for "confirmation bias" og samtidig henviser til et propaganda-indlæg på Realclimate.

Jeg synes du skulle prøve at henvise skeptikerne på Lucias blog, The Blackboard, til Gavins indlæg. Jeg er sikker på, at det vil gøre dybt indtryk på Lucia, Steve F, Carrick, Paul K og co

Jørgen Petersen skrev:
For det tredje så er det ekstremt bekosteligt at reducere den globale CO2-udledning.

Jeg forstår ikke helt hvad der er "skeptikernes" pointe med at råbe "ingen opvarmning siden X". Vi har at gøre med en tidsserie med et svagt stigende langtidssignal (AGW komponenten) hvorpå der er korttidsvariationer (bl. a ENSO) som har større amplitude end AGW-komponenten over korte tidsrum. Så selvfølgelig kan man finde perioder uden opvarmning, dvs. perioder hvor langtidssignalet ikke kan ses pga. korttidsvariationerne.
Når man bare leder efter et bestemt år at starte i for at finde en årrække uden opvarmning, så er man nemt et offer for "confirmation bias".

The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years. During this period, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations rose by nearly 9% to now constitute 0.039% of the atmosphere. Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years. Whether, when and how atmospheric warming will resume is unknown. The science is unclear. Some scientists point out that near-term natural cooling, linked to variations in solar output, is also a distinct possibility.

The "even larger climate shocks" you have mentioned would be worse if the world cooled than if it warmed. Climate changes naturally all the time, sometimes dramatically. The hypothesis that our emissions of CO2 have caused, or will cause, dangerous warming is not supported by the evidence.

The incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased. There is little evidence that dangerous weather-related events will occur more often in the future. The U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in its Special Report on Extreme Weather (2012) that there is "an absence of an attributable climate change signal" in trends in extreme weather losses to date. The funds currently dedicated to trying to stop extreme weather should therefore be diverted to strengthening our infrastructure so as to be able to withstand these inevitable, natural events, and to helping communities rebuild after natural catastrophes such as tropical storm Sandy.

There is no sound reason for the costly, restrictive public policy decisions proposed at the U.N. climate conference in Qatar. Rigorous analysis of unbiased observational data does not support the projections of future global warming predicted by computer models now proven to exaggerate warming and its effects.

The NOAA "State of the Climate in 2008" report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators' own criterion.

DET SIGER MIG (modsat Gintberg) at der nok ikke findes håb i nyhedsformidlingen hos DR længere

1. He says Hurricane Sandy cannot be attributed to climate change.
2. He suggests individually reducing our carbon footprint is pointless -- we need to "think globally and act globally," by encouraging the switch from coal to gas power in China and developing nations. He's a fan of "clean fracking."
3. He says climate skeptics deserve our respect, not our ridicule.

Most of your skepticism is still valid. When something extraordinary happens in weather, such as the accidental occurrence of Hurricane Sandy hitting New Jersey and New York City just at the peak of tides -- many people attribute the event to "climate change." That's not a scientific conclusion, and it is almost certainly wrong. Hurricanes are not increasing due to human causes (actually, they have been decreasing over the past 250 years). Tornadoes are not increasing due to human causes. (They too have been decreasing.) So please continue to be skeptical about most of the exaggerations you will continue to hear! Proper skepticism is at the heart of science, and attempts to suppress such skepticism represent the true anti-science movement.

The temperature of the Earth has been rising in a way that closely matches the rise in carbon dioxide. The history of solar activity does not match the data at all. Based on this, the human cause for this warming is strongly indicated

strong evidence for solar forcing beyond TSI now acknowledged by IPCC

We need to act, but no need to panic. I see no tipping points that are scientifically valid. Of course, we don't understand the atmosphere and biosphere well enough to be sure. Rather than speed of action, the key parameter is finding solutions that are profitable -- because those are the ones most likely to be applicable to the poorer nations.

Yesterday Piers Forster, Climate Change Professor at Leeds University, said: 'The fact that global surface temperatures haven't risen in the last 15 years, combined with good knowledge of the terms changing climate, make the high estimates unlikely.'

James Annan, of Frontier Research For Global Change, a prominent 'warmist', recently said high estimates for climate sensitivity now look 'increasingly untenable', with the true figure likely to be about half of the IPCC prediction in its last report in 2007.

And Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said: 'The models are running too hot. The flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two.'

Dr Darko Butina is retired scientist with 20 years of experience in experimental side of Carbon-based chemistry and 20 years in pattern recognition and datamining of experimental data. He was part of the team that designed the first effective drug for treatment of migraine for which the UK-based company received The Queens Award. Twenty years on and the drug molecule Sumatriptan has improved quality of life for millions of migraine sufferers worldwide. During his computational side of drug discovery, he developed clustering algorithm, dbclus that is now de facto standard for quantifying diversity in world of molecular structures and recently applied to the thermometer based archived data at the weather stations in UK, Canada and Australia. The forthcoming paper clearly shows what is so very wrong with use of invented and non-existing global temperatures and why it is impossible to declare one year either warmer or colder than any other year. He is also one of the co-authors of the paper which was awarded a prestigious Ebert Prize as best paper for 2002 by American Pharmaceutical Association. He is peer reviewer for several International Journals dealing with modeling of experimental data and member of the EU grants committee in Brussels.

Palle Miliam skrev:
Fakta om CO2 skrevet af Dr Darko Butina

(Bunker af nonsens)

...there is no doubt about the greenhouse effect, but even so this warming pause is remarkable because the climate scientists with all their models did not expect this."

A big role may be played by the oceans, which possibly are absorbing more heat, and so the additional heat is no longer being taken up by the atmosphere but instead is moving into the water. This can be measured. However if these surface water temperatures increased sharply until 15 years ago but now have stagnated, then it means that the ocean is absorbing more heat than it did before. You can suspect this, it's very plausible, but you cannot prove it because of methodology reasons, says Jochem Marotzke."

Prof. Jochem Marotzke of the warmist Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg provides an audio comment:

The problem is, although it is plausible, and it is in principle in agreement with model calculations, the problem is that we do not have enough good measurements from the past to say: 'Ah, back then the deep oceans absorbed less heat and today it is taking in more heat. These observations are simply missing."

There are in fact prognoses that this plateau could go on another five years, and if that indeed occurs, and meteorologist Jochem Marotzke also says the same, then there is something seriously wrong with the models, also when certain fluctuations cannot be precisely forecast."

Palle Miliam skrev:
@Kristoffer Haldrup

Hvis man blot har den mindste forstand på evidensbaseret videnskab, så må det skrige til himlen, hvor ringe GCM-modellerne er!!!

Men det er måske også uden for din fatteevne?!

Kristoffer Haldrup skrev:
Tjaeh, nu tjener jeg jo faktisk til det daglige brød ved at bedrive evidensbaseret videnskab, så jeg tror nu nok, at jeg har lidt forstand på det -- ellers ville diverse fonde mv. nok ikke give mig skillinger til at fortsætte med det

Kristoffer Haldrup skrev:

Palle Miliam skrev:
Fakta om CO2 skrevet af Dr Darko Butina

(Bunker af nonsens)

Den kommende artikel viser tydeligt at der er så meget galt med brug af de opfundne og ikke-eksisterende globale temperaturer, og hvorfor det er umuligt at erklære et år enten varmere eller koldere end noget andet år.

Palle Miliam skrev:
Nedenstående graf viser hvordan vi nu kan være næsten sikker på, at IPCC med 95% sikkerhed tager fejl, ifølge dem selv!

Peter Mogensen skrev:
Den skriver jo tydeligt at modellens data før 2005 er hindcast. Så vi kan jo se at der absolut ikke er noget eksotisk i at den virkelige temperatur falder uden for 95% konfidens intervallet. Faktisk er det sket mindst 4 gange (så vidt jeg lige kan tælle). Alligevel har modellen fulgt udviklingen pænt set over hele perioden.

kristofferszilas skrev:
Peter, det lader ikke til at bekymre dig, at modellerne afviger fuldstændigt fra satellitobservationerne af atmosfærens temperatur

Et nyt studie har fx foreslået at op mod 40% af opvarmningen kan tilskrives den naturlige Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (Tung & Zhou, 2012).

kristofferszilas skrev:
Lad mig omformulere spørgsmålet:
Mener du at det er fornuftigt at basere politiske beslutninger på computersimuleringer, der med vores nyeste viden tydeligvis overestimerer fremtidens opvarmning?

Mht. paleoklimatologi, er det studier som dette du hentyder til?

De skriver bl.a. følgende:
"Our compilation of 3820 empirical estimates of temperature over the past 120 Ma indicates that tropics have warmed as much as 7°C during both the mid-Cretaceous and Paleogene...Tropical rainforest did not collapse during past warmings; on the contrary, its diversity increased. The increase in temperature seems to be a major driver in promoting diversity."

kristofferszilas skrev:
Peter, det lader ikke til at bekymre dig, at modellerne afviger fuldstændigt fra satellitobservationerne af atmosfærens temperatur:



Problemet er jo bare at der bliver taget meget store politiske beslutninger på baggrund af disse computersimuleringer, men det giver da slet ingen mening at politikere ikke engang sætter spørgsmålstegn ved det faktum, at der er meget stor usikkerhed omkring modellernes projektioner for fremtiden.
Et nyt studie har fx foreslået at op mod 40% af opvarmningen kan tilskrives den naturlige Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (Tung & Zhou, 2012).

Modellerne har nu yderligere vist sig at benytte en alt for høj klimasensitivitet ifølge Otto et al. (2013).
De overestimerer desuden mængden af aerosoler i atmosfæren jævnfør Klimont et al. (2013).
Modellerne antager også en positiv feedback fra vanddamp, men præcis det modsatte er observeret af Solomon et al. (2010).
Alle disse mangler i computermodellerne medfører at temperaturprojektionerne står over for en signifikant nedjustering.

Derudover så tager modellerne på ingen måde højde for variationer fra solen som medfører ændringer i fx UV og kosmisk flux, på trods af at der er rigtig god evidens for at dette har stor betydning for klimaet (Ineson et al., 2011; Kitaba et al., 2013).

Den overdrevne tillid der lægges i disse computersimuleringer har intet videnskabeligt basis og det hovmod og bedrevidenhed som udvises er i hvert fald ingen selvkritisk forsker værdigt.