Derfor bliver man skeptisk II

Grund dafür sind unter anderem kurzfristig schwächere Sonneneinstrahlung und Phänomene wie La Niña

Det globale opvarmning er ikke stoppet.

Hvis man nu kunne viser, at jorden var en energibalance,ja så ville situationen være helt anderledes.

Kun ved data og argument fiskeri kan man nå frem til dine synspunkter og mit indtryk af dig er, at du i den grad er hoppet på spin fra de neoconservative kredse i USA/Europa.

Jeg ville ønske, at der var nogel virkelige dygtige klimaskeptikere, der kunne deres kram, men der er svære at finde.

Er det noget,at sige til,at vi som lægfolk bliver skeptiske når videnskabsfolk med en bred viden indenfor for mange videnskabelige genre,herunder også klimatologer og forskere,som er tilknyttet IPCC,udtrykker deres tvivl til de fremtidige forudsagte katastrofale klimaforandringer...

Du hast recht,aber jetzt wirst Du auch als Neokonservativ eingestuft

I 2005 iværksatte FN og EU et kvotesystem, som skulle nedbringe udslippet af CO2. Idéen var, at gøre retten til at udlede CO2 til en handelsvare, hvor prisen blev fastsat af markedet.

I praksis betyder det, at når en virksomhed køber en CO2-kvote på markedet, køber den retten til at udlede en vis mængde CO2.

Men ifølge dokumentaren "Varm luft for milliarder", der netop er sendt på DR, er der aldrig blevet udledt så meget CO2 som nu. Eksperter og Europol vurderer samtidig, at statskasserne rundt om i Europa har mistet op mod 70 milliarder kroner til hackere og momssvindlere fra hele verden. Flere mener, at det internationale CO2-kvotesystem reelt er brudt sammen.

Dokumentaren "Varm luft for milliarder" er lavet af den anerkendte dokumentarinstruktør Tom Heinemann, som har brugt to et halvt år på det.

»Det er Rigsrevisionens vurdering, at Miljøministeriets og Klima-, Energi- og Bygningsministeriets administration af kvoteregisteret i perioden januar 2005-december 2009 har været utilfredsstillende...

Det var gennem en periode på 4 1/2 år muligt via falske identiteter at handle med CO2-kvoter fra det danske kvoteregister, fordi Miljøstyrelsen og Energistyrelsen – i modstrid med EU-reglerne – ikke krævede dokumentation for kontohavernes identitetsoplysninger«.

Alternativet ville være værre!

...så er jeg i hvert fald stået af!

Vor ven Jesper Theilgaard var d.d. i morgenradioen, hvor han blev interviewet vedr. IPCCs seneste udmelding...

Dermed er retorikken blevet kraftigt skærpet, siger DR's klimaekspert Jesper Theilgaard til P1 Morgen.
Før det første er der stadig stor usikkerhed om hvor galt det går med temperaturen, fortæller Jesper Theilgaard og samtidig kalder han de skærpede toner for et tveægget sværd:
- Man er måske ved at brænde nogle broer bag sig, så det kan være svært at komme tilbage, hvis det ikke går så galt, siger han.
Det kan være svært for FN's klimapanel fortsat at opretholde en høj troværdighed, hvis kommende beregninger viser sig at det ikke går helt så galt alligevel.
- Jeg synes man spiller et højt spil, siger han og vurderer, at IPCC har skærpet retorikken for at varme op til årets kommende FN topmøder om klimaet

"Amberley: the major adjustment is to minimum temperatures in 1980. There is very little available documentation for Amberley before the 1990s (possibly, as an RAAF base, earlier documentation may be contained in classified material) and this adjustment was identified through neighbour comparisons. The level of confidence in this adjustment is very high because of the size of the inhomogeneity and the large number of other stations in the region (high network density), which can be used as a reference. The most likely cause is a site move within the RAAF base."

Så vidt jeg kan læser er der tale om spin fra klimaskpetikernes side , idet korrektionerne er velbegrundede

Referring to the 17 year 'pause,' the IPCC allows for two possibilities: that the sensitivity of the climate to increasing greenhouse gases is less than models project and that the heat added by increasing CO2 is 'hiding' in the deep ocean. Both possibilities contradict alarming claims.

Kosmos skrev:

Så vidt jeg kan læser er der tale om spin fra klimaskpetikernes side , idet korrektionerne er velbegrundede

- aha... og hvorpå baserer du så prædikatet 'velbegrundede'?? ;)

The logical demand on any inference or projection of a data set is that it must first be consistent with the original data, and Karoly as an expert might well ask, as does Marohasy, what confidence do we have in homogenised data which fails this test?

Our confidence will increase if and when BOM publishes or supplies its homogenisation algorithms, a step which would be quite consistent with existing requirements of the better peer-reviewed journals.

Greg Buchanan, Niagara Park, NSW

...

I suggest BOM release all its data and adjustment methodologies to the amateurs out here in denier land so that they may review it for themselves.

Palle Miliam skrev:
Har Jesper Theilgaard virkelig taget ved lære af denne debat / Hans von Storch eller blot blevet mere nuanceret med tiden, efter vores angreb på manglende balance i klimaudmeldingerne fra mediernes side.

The climate-research establishment has finally admitted openly what skeptic scientists have been saying for nearly a decade: Global warming has stopped since shortly before this century began.

First the climate-research establishment denied that a pause existed, noting that if there was a pause, it would invalidate their theories. Now they say there is a pause (or "hiatus"), but that it doesn't after all invalidate their theories.

When the climate scientist and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote an article in 2006 saying that there had been no global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures, there was an outcry. A year later, when David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point, the environmentalist and journalist Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was "wrong, completely wrong," and was "deliberately, or otherwise, misleading the public."

[quote]If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built. A report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) written in 2008 made this clear: "The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more."

Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years—depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That's according to a new statisticalcalculation by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.

It has been roughly two decades since there was a trend in temperature significantly different from zero. The burst of warming that preceded the millennium lasted about 20 years and was preceded by 30 years of slight cooling after 1940.

Last month two scientists wrote in Science that they had instead found the explanation in natural fluctuations in currents in the Atlantic Ocean. For the last 30 years of the 20th century, Xianyao Chen and Ka-Kit Tung suggested, these currents had been boosting the warming by bringing heat to the surface, then for the past 15 years the currents had been counteracting it by taking heat down deep.

Enig med dig i alle punkter fraset det fjerde...

Hvis det var således, at at der ikke skete denne opsamling , men derimod et netto tab, ja så ville man kunne skyde teorien om AGW ned

3. The global average radiative forcing change since 1750 is presented in the 2013 IPCC WG1 Figure SPM.5 as 2.29 [1.13 -3.33] Watts per meter squared.

4. The global average radiative imbalance is given in the 2013 IPCC report as 0.59 Watts per meter squared for 1971-2010 while for 1993-2010 it is 0.71 Watts per meter squared.


5. Thus, assuming that a large fraction of the global average radiative forcing change since 1750 is still occurring, the global average radiative feedbacks are significantly less than the global average forcings; i.e. a negative feedback.

6. Such a negative feedback is expected (since the surface temperature, and thus the loss of long wave radiation to space would increase).

7. However, the water vapor and cloud radiative feedback must also be part of the feedback. This water vapor feedback is a key claim in terms of amplifying warming due to the addition of CO2 and other human inputs of greenhouse gases. The IPCC claims that the net cloud radiative feedback is also positive.

8. The IPCC failed to report on the global average radiative feedbacks of water vapor and clouds in terms in Watts per meter squared, and how they fit into the magnitude of the diagnosed global average radiative imbalance...

7. punkt i min argumentation, nemlig at Jordens energibalance ikke er ændret dvs. der en netto opsamling af energi som følge af drivhusgasserne.

What I did was to show that if Chen and Tung is right, and half the warming in the last part of the last century was natural, then the "rapid" warming of those three decades, was still too slow for the predictions made by the models, will if it resumes give us a not very alarming future. And if it does not resume for some time, as Chen and Tung speculate that it might not, then the future is even less alarming.

And no, again, I did not use the phrase "smoking gun". I used several other arguments, all of which Mr "Sachs" fails to address at all, so presumably he agrees that there has been a "pause", that it was denied for many years by the climate establishment, that there was general agreement among them that a pause of more than 15 years would invalidate their models, and so on.

As Judith Curry summarised it recently:

The main issue of interest is to what extent can ocean heat sequestration explain the hiatus since 1998. The only data set that appears to provide support for ocean sequestration is the ocean reanalysis, with the Palmer and Domingues 0-700 m OHC climatology providing support for continued warming in the upper ocean.

All in all, I don't see a very convincing case for deep ocean sequestration of heat. And even if the heat from surface heating of the ocean did make it into the deep ocean, presumably the only way for this to happen involves mixing (rather than adiabatic processes), so it is very difficult to imagine how this heat could reappear at the surface in light of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Palle Miliam skrev:
@Kjeld Jul
Glimrende samling af udtalelser fra diverse forskere!
Det er lige netop denne skepsis som DR totalt mangler at give udtryk for i deres indslag.

kfl skrev:
Hej Morten

Jeg mener ikke at man kan skrive som du skriver om JT.

Du burde vise respect for en velkvalificeret meteorolog også selv om du har andre synspunkter end han har.

I protest om det du skriver om JT, mener jeg, at JT bør tildeles en hæderspris.