Global Cooling

- nu går jeg da ud fra, at Craig Loehles artikel i 'Energy and Environment' er 'reviewed', så den første af slagsen er altså kommet!

Indtil GISS data er åbne for offentligheden er disse samt alle resultater der på nogen måde anvender disse ikke brugbare til noget som helst.

Men nu ligger hans data der og Argosmålingerne er offentligt tilgængelige, så hvis han...

Jeg vil være væk fra debatten de næste 1 - 2 uger

Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems. S. Levitus


We provide estimates of the warming of the world ocean for 1955–2008 based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, correcting for instrumental biases of bathythermograph data, and correcting or excluding some Argo float data. The strong interdecadal variability of global ocean heat content reported previously by us is reduced in magnitude but the linear trend in ocean heat content remain similar to our earlier estimate.

Der er en hel masse varme vi ikke kan gøre rede for og det er en parodi at vi ikke kan

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

I al sin enkelhed konstaterer Jones at der ikke har været en signifikant opvarmning de sidste 15år.
Han vedkender sig at der ligefrem er tale om global afkøling siden 2002 om end denne ikke fortjener betegnelsen signifikant.

Så fik vi det på plads.....

The mean of all the 8 year trends is close to the long term trend (0.19ºC/decade), but the standard deviation is almost as large (0.17ºC/decade), implying that a trend would have to be either >0.5ºC/decade or much more negative (< -0.2ºC/decade) for it to obviously fall outside the distribution. Thus comparing short trends has very little power to distinguish between alternate expectations.

Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?

The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise. We can place this apparent lack of warming in the context of natural
climate fluctuations other than ENSO using twenty-first century simulations with the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000), which is typical of those used in the recent IPCC report (AR4; Solomon et al. 2007). Ensembles with different
modifications to the physical parameters of the model (within known uncertainties) (Collins et al. 2006) are performed for several of the IPCC SRES emissions scenarios (Solomon et al. 2007). Ten of these simulations have a steady long-term rate of warming between 0.15° and 0.25ºC decade–1, close to the expected rate of 0.2ºC decade–1. ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b).

Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model's internal climate variability.

The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

Jeg ved ikke hvor du har det vaas, suldder og vroevl fra.

Graferne viser, at temp. har vaeret stigende de sidste 10 aar (1999-2009). Tjek fx, NOAA, NASA/GISS eller Hadley. Du boer tage et kik i den seneste rapport sat i vaerk af University New South Wales, Australien, som kom paa gden her forud for COP15...

What these eminent scientists are predicting is significant: "We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5°C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009– 20) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ~6°C."

Hvorfor blive ved med at tærske i den globale temperatur, når det centrale er, at Jorden ikke er i en strålingsbalance og at der derfor opbygges varmen side 1975.

Christoffer er gået 'død' i sit gynækologiske studie på videnskab.dk.... så nu skal vi døjes med ham fremover ...eller ?