Derfor bliver man skeptisk II

PeterBP skrev:
"Det sammen med at temperaturen over de sidste 16 år ikke er steget, dette burde for selv den mest hærdet AGW-tilhænger sige et eller andet! "

Er der virkelig folk herinde pa klimadebat.dk (som jeg opfatter som et velinformeret forum) som tror på den gamle traver? Der skal man da være hensigtsmæssigt uvidende for at tro at den holder stik.

Har du iøvrigt nogen kommentar til mine argumenter omkring korttids ctr. langtidstendenser?

Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

Domingues et al (2008) and Levitus et al (2009) have recently estimated the multi-decadal upper ocean heat content using best-known corrections to systematic errors in the fall rate of expendable bathythermographs (Wijffels et al, 2008). For the upper 700m, the increase in heat content was 16 x 1022 J since 1961. This is consistent with the comparison by Roemmich and Gilson (2009) of Argo data with the global temperature time-series of Levitus et al (2005), finding a warming of the 0 - 2000 m ocean by 0.06°C since the (pre-XBT) early 1960's.

Har du adgang til hele artiklen?

Deep Heating

Global warming is popularly viewed only as an atmospheric process, when, as shown by marine temperature records covering the last several decades, most heat uptake occurs in the ocean. How did subsurface ocean temperatures vary during past warm and cold intervals? Rosenthal et al. (p. 617) present a temperature record of western equatorial Pacific subsurface and intermediate water masses over the past 10,000 years that shows that heat content varied in step with both northern and southern high-latitude oceans. The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.

PeterBP skrev:
For at kunne modbevise en påstand kræver det naturligvis at man har noget at modbevise MED.

Det har klimaændringsbenægterne jo ikke. Faktum er at det er langtidstendensen (lang tid forstået som 40 år) der tæller, og den fortsætter som hidtil - opefter i støt tempo.

Påstanden om at "det er ikek blevet varmere siden 1998" er så tyndslidt efterhånden at ingen med tilstrækkelig viden om klimaet og datanalyse, samt et ønske om sanddruelig formidling kan stå inde for påstanden.

Rekonstruktioner af overfladetemperaturer på kontinentalt plan viser med stor sikkerhed perioder på flere tiår under klimaanomalien i middelalderen (år 950 til 1250), som i nogle områder var lige så varme som i slutningen af det 20. århundrede.
Disse regionale varmeperioder optrådte ikke så sammenhængende på tværs af regioner som opvarmningen i slutningen af det 20. århundrede (stor sikkerhed). {5.5}

Som jeg læser dette står der at MWP ikke var en global varmeperiode. Det er utroligt, at man kan blive ved at hævde det modsatte igen og igen.

The findings support the view that...

Det er jo ikke det eneste studie som peger i den retning

Suk. Og hvad hgar 10.000 års optegnelser med en opvarmning forårsaget af udledninegr fra menneskelig industriaktivitet (dvs. relevant for en periode på ca 150 år) at gøre?

"Suk. Og hvad hgar 10.000 års optegnelser med en opvarmning forårsaget af udledninegr fra menneskelig industriaktivitet (dvs. relevant for en periode på ca 150 år) at gøre? "

Suk. Og hvad hgar 10.000 års optegnelser med en opvarmning forårsaget af udledninegr fra menneskelig industriaktivitet (dvs. relevant for en periode på ca 150 år) at gøre?

Dette rokker ikke ved den kendsgerning, at MWP ikke er en global varmeperiode.

Det er da heldigt, fordi ellers ville modellerne have et problem mere...

From news.com.au it seems bullying those who have an unpopular opinion about climate issues isn't limited to the Climategate actors[...]SCIENTIST Clive Spash has resigned from the CSIRO and called for a Senate inquiry into the science body following the censorship of his controversial report into emissions trading

kfl skrev:
Der er en tæt sammenhæng mellem den globale temperatur og vanstanden i verdenshavene. Man har ikke konstateret en markant højre vandstand i løbet af MWP.

Mange mener, at den menneskeskabte komponent er størst, men en gruppe forskere – flere end det almindeligvis antages – mener, at det fortsat er den naturlige komponent, som er den vigtigste.

Fra IPCC – godt sekunderet af forskellige nyhedsmedier – har vi derimod hørt en endeløs strøm af mulige klimatrusler, selv om der langt fra altid har været dækning for disse i rapportens videnskabelige afsnit. På mig virker det, som om IPCC har besluttet, at frygten for fremtiden for tiden er deres stærkeste våben i kampen om folkeopinionen.

Denne latente konflikt mellem forskning og politik synes i øjeblikket at tilspidses i IPCC. Det er i hvert fald det, man må konkludere efter læsning af Is the IPCC Government Approval Process Broken?, skrevet af Robert N. Stavins. Robert Stavins er bestemt ikke hvem som helst; han er Albert Pratt Professor of Business and Government ved Havard University og Co-Coordinating Lead Author (CLA) på kapitel 13, International Cooperation: Agreements and Instruments, under Working Group III (Mitigation) i IPCC's AR5. Den dom, han nu fælder over IPCC-systemet og tilblivelsen af SPM, kan vanskeligt beskrives som andet end hård; muligvis tilintetgørende. Men læs og døm selv.

I et demokrati bør vælgerne klart informeres om, hvorfor og på hvilket grundlag man politisk påtænker initiativer i denne målestok, så vælgeren personligt har mulighed for at tage stilling til fornuften i initiativet. Mange politikere og journalister har dermed pådraget sig et betydeligt ansvar for den nuværende situation, hvor vi baseret på en stemning af frygt og åbenlyst fejlagtige klimamodeller investerer store midler til forebyggelse af et ikke-eksisterende problem (opvarmning).

Jeg kan kun anbefale alle, specielt folk med begrænset kendskab til klimadebatten generelt, at læse Ole Humlum klumme som jeg finder ganske velskrevet!

Global Temperature Standstill Lengthens: No global warming for 17 years 10 months – Since Sept. 1996 (214 months)

(Temperature standstill for '50.2% of the entire 426-month satellite record')

Last year, British and Canadian researchers proposed an alternative temperature curve with higher values, in which they incorporated estimated temperatures from satellite data for regions with no weather stations. If the model data is corrected downwards, as suggested by the ETH researchers, and the measurement data is corrected upwards, as suggested by the British and Canadian researchers, then the model and actual observations are very similar.

Key facts about global temperature
*The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 214 months from September 1996 to June 2014. That is 50.2% of the entire 426-month satellite record.
*The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.
*The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
*The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.
*Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to 1.2 Cº per century.
*The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
*In 1990, the IPCC's mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction.
*The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.
*In 2013 the IPCC's new mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was for warming at a rate equivalent to only 1.7 Cº per century. Even that is exaggerated.
*Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.
*The IPCC's predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is more than twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.
*The IPCC's 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.
*Since 1 January 2001, the dawn of the new millennium, the warming trend on the mean of 5 datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 5 months.
*Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.

The long Pause may well come to an end by this winter. An el Niño event has begun. The usual suspects have said it will be a record-breaker, but, as yet, there is too little information to say how much temporary warming it will cause. The temperature spikes caused by the el Niños of 1998, 2007, and 2010 are clearly visible

If the model data is corrected downwards, as suggested by the ETH researchers, and the measurement data is corrected upwards, as suggested by the British and Canadian researchers, then the model and actual observations are very similar

Figure 5. Globally averaged temperature anomaly time series for the Lower Tropospheric Temperature (TLT). The plot shows the warming ot the troposphere over the last 3 decades which has been attributed to human-caused global warming. (Click on the figure to go to the time series browse tool.)

Der foregår fortsat mange spekulationer omkring vores nuværende manglende sammenhæng mellem klimamodeller og de observerede målinger. AGW-hypotesen halter mere og mere efter empirien og udsagnene fra IPCC ligeså. Ikke noget kønt syn efter min mening!

Temperature standstill for '50.2% of the entire 426-month satellite record'

Klimaerwärmung macht Pause

Die Klimaerwärmung geht weiter, aber sie macht eine Pause. Grund dafür sind unter anderem kurzfristig schwächere Sonneneinstrahlung und Phänomene wie La Niña.

Nogle har ikke og vil aldrig få tvivlens nådegave, men vil med "vidunderlig" ungdommelig overbevisning mene, at de har fundet sandheden, mens vi andre står måbende tilbage med spørgsmålet: Hvad skete der lige der? (IPCC kan dog måske med rette fortsat betragtes som en ungdommelig organisation, så de er hermed midlertidigt undskyldt!)

Politischer Druck auf Klimaforschung

Wie relevant die Klimaforschung für die Politik und Wirtschaft geworden ist, zeigt der jüngste Klimabericht von IPCC................ Die offensichtliche Aussage, dass der grösste Teil des Anstiegs der globalen CO2-Emissionen seit dem Jahr 2000 in Schwellenländern wie China stattgefunden hat, wurde samt entsprechender Abbildung gestrichen. Die Begründung: Das sei hinderlich für die politischen Klimaverhandlungen.