Global opvarmning, CO2, Solpletter og Kosmisk stråling

kristofferszilas skrev:
Ingen siger at solpletter i sig selv ændrer klimaet, men der kan sagtens tænkes at være markante ændringer i fx. UV-fluxet, som så igen modulere atmosfæren som så påvirker oceancirkulation etc. etc.

kfl skrev:
Bemærkning
Hvis det forholdt sig således, at de fundne globale temperaturstigninger kun skyldes en naturlig variation, er det for mig mærkværdigt, at Klimaskeptikerne benytter sig af svig og bedrag i deres argumentation og de ikke kan fremvise statistiske materiale. Det ville kun være et spørgsmål om at sidde og vente – på samme måde som en lystfisker - indtil temperaturkurven knækker og vi går mod koldere tider. Sikken en fryd det vil være for Klimaskeptikeren og en skam for det videnskabelige samfund!

Frank Lansner skrev:

Det er som altid ganske misforstået at indsætte af matematik langt før man har forstået hvilke mekanismer (og data) der spiller ind og er valide.

En klimaskeptiker taler ud

"I was never a skeptic [...] I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic."
- Richard Muller, 2011

...og at der ikke er nogen sammenhæng til CO2

Hvis du ser på ovenstående graf og Mullers udsagn gælder den modsatte påstand

Equatorial Pacific Ocean temperature time series data contain segments showing both a phase-locked annual signal and a phase-locked signal of period two years or three years, both locked to the annual solar cycle. Three such segments are observed between 1990 and 2014. It is asserted that these are caused by a solar forcing at a frequency of 1.0 cycle/yr. These periodic features are also found in global climate data (following paper)...

At du så igen og igen viser en graf med RRS temperaturmålinger og hævder, at det beviser, at der ikke er sket nogen temperaturstignin er en anden sag

Abstract
Understanding the cooling effect of recent volcanoes is of particular interest in the context of the post-2000 slowing of the rate of global warming. Satellite observations of aerosol optical depth above 15 km have demonstrated that small-magnitude volcanic eruptions substantially perturb incoming solar radiation. Here we use lidar, Aerosol Robotic Network, and balloon-borne observations to provide evidence that currently available satellite databases neglect substantial amounts of volcanic aerosol between the tropopause and 15 km at middle to high latitudes and therefore underestimate total radiative forcing resulting from the recent eruptions. Incorporating these estimates into a simple climate model, we determine the global volcanic aerosol forcing since 2000 to be −0.19 ± 0.09 Wm−2. This translates into an estimated global cooling of 0.05 to 0.12°C. We conclude that recent volcanic events are responsible for more post-2000 cooling than is implied by satellite databases that neglect volcanic aerosol effects below 15 km.

Her er Abstract fra omtalt artikel

Once again, we see little change in the number of small volcanoes. After 2000, it goes above the average, and then it goes about the same amount below the average.

Conclusions? Well, the papers may be correct in their claim that the effect of eruptions on the clarity of the atmosphere may have been underestimated.

But they are absolutely not correct in the claim that this underestimation reveals the cause of the recent 18+ year plateau in temperatures as being eruptions. There is almost no post-2000 change in either the number of eruptions, the strength of eruptions, or the number of small eruptions...

Tidligere var det jo forskelle imellem satellit målte temperaturer og temperaturer på overfladen, der afstedkom en sådan diskussion, men det er nu helt afklaret...

An updated list of at least 29 32 36 38 39 41 51 52 excuses for the 18-26 year statistically significant 'pause' in global warming, including recent scientific papers, media quotes, blogs, and related debunkings:

1) Low solar activity

2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

3) Chinese coal use [debunked]

4) Montreal Protocol

5) What 'pause'? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]

7) Stratospheric Water Vapor

8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]

9) Stadium Waves

10) 'Coincidence!'

51) If our models could time-travel back in time, "we could have forecast 'the pause' – if we had the tools of the future back then" [NCAR press release]

[Time-traveling, back-to-the-future models debunked] [debunked] ["pause" due to natural variability]

52) 'Unusual climate anomaly' of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend [PLOS one Paper macia et al. discussed in European Commission news release here.]


———————————————————————



Additional related comments from climate scientists about the "pause"

1) My University screwed up the press release & didn't let me stop them from claiming my paper shows the "hiatus will last another decade or two." [Dessler]2) "This [the 'pause'] is not an existential threat to the mainstream theory of climate." [Andrew Dessler]

3) "In a few years, as we get to understand this [the 'pause'] more, skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick and about the surface station record) to their next reason not to believe climate science." [Andrew Dessler]