Ingen opvarmning i 16 år ?

Mit formål med dette indlæg er at slå fast, at alt peger på en voksende temperature og at den globale opvarmning ikke er stoppet.

For mig er udviklingen i den globale temperatur færdigdebateret

But the point stands, that the IPCC's sensitivity estimate cannot readily be reconciled with forcing estimates and observational data. All the recent literature that approaches the question from this angle comes up with similar answers, including the papers I mentioned above. By failing to meet this problem head-on, the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle. I expect them to brazen it out, on the grounds that they are the experts and are quite capable of squaring the circle before breakfast if need be. But in doing so, they risk being seen as not so much summarising scientific progress, but obstructing it.

Du må så udarbejde en fremstilling med argumenterne for og imod eksistensen af LIA og MWP med de nødvendige videnskabelig referencer

kfl skrev:
Det har være hævdet flere gange , at der ikke er sket en opvarmning over de sidste 16.

Kosmos skrev:

Du må så udarbejde en fremstilling med argumenterne for og imod eksistensen af LIA og MWP med de nødvendige videnskabelig referencer

- bevar mig vel! Men du kan da begynde at tygge MWP-referencerne igennem (igen?), hvis du ellers har lyst!

kfl skrev:
Du må komme frem en temperaturrekonstruktion for hele jordkloden, der viser en forøget temperatur i MWP og en reduceret temperatur i LIA . Når der ligger en sådan, kan vi fortsætte diskussionen.

James Annan kan nu se det.

Så må vi være temmelig tæt på vejs ende for klimaalarmismen.

But the point stands, that the IPCC's sensitivity estimate cannot readily be reconciled with forcing estimates and observational data. All the recent literature that approaches the question from this angle comes up with similar answers, including the papers I mentioned above. By failing to meet this problem head-on, the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle. I expect them to brazen it out, on the grounds that they are the experts and are quite capable of squaring the circle before breakfast if need be. But in doing so, they risk being seen as not so much summarising scientific progress, but obstructing it.

Han er godt nok noget sen til festen den gode klimaforsker James Annan, men dog ikke så sen som mange alarmister - også her på siden.

The equilibrium climate response to anthropogenic forcing has long been one of the dominant, and therefore most intensively studied uncertainties, in predicting future climate change. As a result, many probabilistic estimates of the climate sensitivity (S) have been presented. In recent years, most of them have assigned significant probability to extremely high sensitivity, such as P(S > 6C) > 5%.

In this paper, we investigate some of the assumptions underlying these estimates. We show that the popular choice of a uniform prior has unacceptable properties and cannot be reasonably considered to generate meaningful and usable results. When instead reasonable assumptions are made, much greater confidence in a moderate value for S is easily justified, with an upper 95% probability limit for S easily shown to lie close to 4C, and certainly well below 6C. These results also impact strongly on projected economic losses due to climate change.

kristofferszilas skrev:
Er det ikke en mere rimelig forklaring at modellerne ganske enkelt burger en for høj klimasensitivitet i stedet for de nyeste og noget lavere estimater?