The year 2014 ranks as Earth's warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists.
|Roy Spencer: 2014 as the Mildest Year: Why You are Being Misled on Global Temperatures|
"In the three decades I've been in the climate research business, it's been clear that politics have been driving the global warming movement".
"I will admit the science has always supported the view that slowly increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels should cause some warming, but the view that this would is any way be a bad thing for humans or for Nature has been a politically (and even religiously) driven urban legend."
|Richard Tol: Radical greens|
"Polarization is not conducive to sound policy. In Europe, the alarmed have the upper hand, climate policy is hardly scrutinized, and special interest groups are gorging on subsidies and rents. Anyone who questions this is put on par with those who deny the Holocaust. The consensus police patrol the media to isolate, ridicule and smear anyone who dares to raise a question. The Royal Observatory and the London School of Economics employ people, Ken Rice and Bob Ward, whose day job it is, or so it seems, to attack others for their climate heresy."
|Proof: recent temperature trends are not abnormal|
The hypothesis I wish to test was whether there is any trends within the Central England Temperature series is inconsistent with natural variation.
Within this analysis one of 50 years ending in 2009 was sufficiently high to be considered as possibly showing abnormality. However when assessed statistically I found that the chance of this being abnormal climate variation was only 42.2%. Therefore the data does reject the null hypothesis which is that the dataset is due to natural variation.
However, if instead of "climate variation", we only consider "warming", there is a 65% probability that the single 50 year period ending in 2009 should be lower in a normal distribution. But, if the hypothesis of "current warming" is to be supported, it must not only be true in 2009 but also true in all later periods including the latest in 2014. Therefore the probability that the current 50 year trend (to 2014) is abnormal is only 27.8% which means that current warming is not supported from the CET dataset.
Given the correlation between CET and global temperatures, I can therefore conclude that it is unlikely that either current "global warming" or "climate change" is abnormal or departs significantly from what we expect of normal natural climatic variation."
|IPCC Scientist's dilemma|
"The more scientists try to explain the pause the more difficulties they find themselves getting into. The latest to make this mistake is Michael Mann who can now 'explain' the pause as being due to a natural cooling trend of the AMO/PDO since 2000, thereby masking underlying anthropogenic warming.
Mann is quite right that the PDO/AMO may likely be the cause of the hiatus, but by accepting this possibility he unfortunately drives a coach and horses through the AR5 attribution analysis described in chapter 10. This is because the probability analysis used there depends on natural variability being precisely zero since 1951."
"Invoking the AMO/PDO to explain the pause in global warming essenially means that Internal Variability can no longer be assumed to be zero. It must instead have a significant signal during the study period 1951-2010 used."
I relation til disse oscillationer er der denne udgivelse af Schlesinger og Ramankutty fra 1994:
An oscillation in the global climate system of period 65-70 years
(Man kan se den fulde tekst ude til højre under "FULL TEXT".)
Ligesom en El Niño kan påvirke de målte temperaturer og dermed den beregnede "globale temperatur" gevaldigt over 1-2 år, uden at den totale energi i systemet "Jorden" ændres nævneværdigt, findes der også variationer over længere tidsrum.
Redigeret d. 15-03-2015 12:27
|Professor Judith Curry har skrevet to meget interessante blogs på det seneste.|
Opsummering af hendes syn på klimadebatten:
Hearing: President's UN climate pledge
Svar på spørgsmål vdr. ovenstående:
Follow-up questions re my recent House testimony
|Apropos John Cook, så vil dem, der henviser til hans side, SkepticalScience, eller hans udgivelse om 97% konsensus, nok gerne være bekendt med flg.:|
Identity theft: the thief of Lubos_Motl turns out to be a well-known man
John Cook ...
|Ja John , det er jo ekstremt sigende om hvad folk er parate til at gøre for at fremme "sagen".|
John Cook, med "97% af alle videnskabsfolk siger"-postulatet , har simpelthen brugt skeptikeres navn til at udtale det ene eller det andet.
Panik før lukketid.
Er der intet disse mennesker ikke vil gøre for at vinde slaget?
Vindmøller er IN!! Vedvarende energi er IN!!!
Men vi må aldrig ofre ærlig og åben videnskab - heller ikke når det gælder klima.
Mere af samme skuffe - designet til at trække penge op af andre folks lommer.
Energipolitik med omtanke er vigtig for at bevare det danske velfærdssamfund.
Jævnfør Szilas' link ovenfor, kan vi nu slippe for at høre om global opvarmning i forbindelse med enhver vejrbegivenhed, der ikke lige sker hver dag i Tølløse?
- DR har haft en journalist i Alaska for at berette om permafrostens tilbagegang og de deraf følgende alvorlige konsekvenser. WUWT omtaler en nylig artikel om samme emne; jeg faldt over denne kommentar:
No and yes. Yes, for the reason stated by Duster. And no, because the release of carbon is a natural and necessary process. There's not enough information in this article. But one thing is absolutely certain – global warming is not a catastrophe and does not need more taxes to lower what's already at 0.8% and self-correcting. Make it two things – CO2 is good for Earth and the environment and has its own automatic process of eliminating emissions through ITS OWN pathways. The fanatic claims again both climate change and CO2 are merely schemes to raise taxes and double the return on investment of the wealthy elite who are heavily invested in "green" energy. One has to be very rich to afford the apparatus and equipment to produce solar and wind energy. Their gain is that after their initial investment, the cost of the energy decreases because the rest of us are paying two and three times for natural energy – coal, gas and fossil energy – the natural energy required to run their alternative energy sources is greater than the output. No change in this Earth or environment will be from people. We're just the ones paying the scam artists for their phony alternatives.
(' marlene December 1, 2015 at 12:07 pm')
"Vi gider ikke høre om klimaet!"
- her et eksempel på ét af de mere spøjse wakeup calls!:
"Vil du opgive din morgenkaffe til klimaforandringerne?"
|Kender du nogle gode blogs?||2||08-12-2009 10:06|