Klimasvindlen udstillet!

Hvad der ikke går i sig selv er, at den globale opvarmning sker i et langsommere tempo end forventet uanset hvilke data, man får sat sammen.

Klimasensitivititen er lav:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015EA000154/epdf

El Nino-året 2016 var i begge satellitdatasættene UAH og RSS ikke-sigifikante 0,02C højere end det tilsvarende store El Nino-år 1998. Det peger på en meget beskeden opvarmning i perioden på 18 år.

Ja, de mennesker der bliver sat til at tage stilling til sagen, vil givetvis ikke lade den få konsekvenser for nogen af de implicerede. De er jo på det rigtige hold og har de rigtige meninger og de rigtige resultater, så hvad betyder det?

We obtain constrained estimates of CO2 and climate sensitivity before and during the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum carbon release and global warming event 55.8 Ma ago) and of the PETM carbon input amount and nature. Sensitivity increased from 3.3–5.6 to 3.7–6.5 K (Kelvin) into the PETM. When taken together with Last Glacial Maximum and modern estimates, this result indicates climate sensitivity increase with global warming.

Er status ikke bare, at vi stadig ikke er såå meget klogere på, om (ligevægts)følsomheden er omkring 1,5 eller 4,5 grader?

Og at for så vidt, der overhovedet eksisterede en statistisk skelnelig reduktion i stigningen fra 2001-14 (et for mig lidt mærkværdigt udvalgt interval), som Fyfe et al. plæderede for, så ser den ud til ikke at have været robust overfor at forlænge denne tidsserie med blot ganske få år (2015/16) - nærmest uanset datasæt?

The observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few simulations provide Warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty (Fig. 1a).

Overestimated global Warming over the past 20 years

Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval)1. This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5).

The warming slowdown as a statistically robust phenomenon has also been questioned. Recent studies have assessed whether or not trends during the slowdown are statistically different from trends over some earlier period. These investigations have led to statements such as "further evidence against the notion of a recent warming hiatus"4 or "claims of a hiatus in global Warming lack sound scientific basis"9. While these analyses are statistically sound, they benchmark the recent slowdown against a baseline period that includes times with a lower rate of increase in greenhouse forcing1, as we discuss below

trends i f.eks UAH v5.6 samt NOAA selv er nærmest identiske - omkring 0,16K fra 1997 og frem

Bugge det springende punkt i Bates-sagen er, at de her datasæt har politisk betydning. At procedurer for dokumentation og arkivering af data er i orden må være det mindste, man kan forlange her. Jeg er sikker på, at du ikke havde taget sagen så let, hvis artiklen havde haft den modsatte konklusion. Ja, det er din politiske bias, der spiller dig et puds her. Det sker jo for alle :-) Og ja, også for dem, som skal undersøge, om sagen skal have konsekvenser for de implicerede.

Du skulle læse, hvad Fyfe et al skrev. De kiggede på 15 og 20 års intervaller 1993-2012 og 1998-2012. Ikke 2001-14. Resultatet var i begge tilfælde det samme:

The observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few simulations provide Warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty (Fig. 1a).

Det fremgik i øvrigt også af titlen på artiklen at intervallet ikke kunne være 2001-14:

Overestimated global Warming over the past 20 years

Using this more physically interpretable 1972–2001 baseline, we find that the surface warming from 2001 to 2014 is significantly smaller than the baseline warming rate.

Jeg mener, at observationerne peger på, at sensitiviteten sandsynligvis ligger tæt på de 1,5 grader.

... det er desværre heller ikke overraskende, at Judith Curry gladeligt ofrer flere af de ret få tilbageværende rester af sin troværdighed på at vedblive med at forsøge at insinuere et eller andet med fusk ...

Judith Curry: Say 10 or 12 years ago, I was working on a few narrow problems that were related to climate change, but I wasn't looking at the whole picture. And since I wasn't looking at the whole picture I thought it made sense to accept the consensus conclusions from other scientists who were looking at the whole picture, namely the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC. I bought into their meme 'don't listen to what one scientist says, listen to what this group of hundreds of scientists have concluded after years of deliberation'.

I changed my mind in 2009 after the climategate emails, if you are familiar with this, it was the unauthorised release of emails from the University of East Anglia, included email exchanges by a number of the authors of the IPCC reports.

Sharon Carleton: No less than eight top-level, independent committees investigated and published reports on this so called 'climategate' affair. The reports found there was no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct and the scientists were completely exonerated.

Judith Curry: From what? Basically what I saw from those emails, and I read pretty much all of them, was that I really did not like the sausage-making that went into this consensus. It was a lot of skulduggery and bullying going on, and trying to hide uncertainties and thwart people from getting papers published and trying to keep data out of the hands of people who wanted to question it. I realised that there was a lot of circular reasoning, a lot of uncertainties, a lot of tuning, just a lot of things that made me not have any confidence at all in what they had done. So I started speaking out. This basically turned me into an outcast amongst the establishment climate scientists.