| Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half14-11-2013 00:02 |
mernild★☆☆☆☆
(114) |
Måske er dette link om temperaturerne de sidste 15 år af interesse?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/ |
| 14-11-2013 14:39 |
Birger Wedendahl★★☆☆☆
(301) |
Her nogle aktuelle kommentarer fra professor Eigil Kaas om klimaet i Arktis hentet på videnskab.dk.


»Arktis er kun et ganske lille område med et lille areal og vil ikke kunne influere væsentligt på klimamodellerne. Arktis varmer op, men det er ikke vildt mere end det globale gennemsnit. Sidste års massive afsmeltning af Indlandsisen hang nok sammen med en vejrfluktuation, og den kan vare en måned eller mere. Med hensyn til Indlandsisen har man ikke haft så gode modeller til at eftergøre afsmeltningen af iskappen, men det går nok hurtigere, end de fleste havde forventet. Det, der bekymrer mig mest, er, at havisen smelter hurtigere, end de store modeller har forudsagt.«"
Eller som jeg husker det formuleret af en geolog med speciale i det globale klima:
Vejret i Arktis er ikke klimaet i Arktis og Arktis klima er ikke det "Globale Klima"
Iøvrigt er global gennemsnitstemperatur en elendig proxy for klimaændringer . |
| 18-11-2013 19:21 |
SRJ★★★☆☆
(462) |
mernild skrev:
Måske er dette link om temperaturerne de sidste 15 år af interesse?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/
Artiklens diskuteres heftigt i blogland. Herunder er et link til post af Nick Stokes hvor han korrigerer for den samme bias (manglende data fra pol-områderne) med en langt simplere metode, og når frem til at den lineære trend er ca. dobbelt så stor når man korrigerer.
http://moyhu.blogspot.dk/2013/11/coverage-hadcrut-4-and-trends.html
Den originale artikel er her:
http://moyhu.blogspot.dk/2013/11/coverage-hadcrut-4-and-trends.html
Og den ene forfatter har skrevet et par indlæg på Skeptical Science om deres arbejde:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-since-1997-more-than-twice-as-fast.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/the_other_bias.html
PS. Ja jeg ved godt at begge forfattere har været aktive på Skeptical Science i længere tid. Så det behøver man ikke lave indlæg om.
------------------------------------------------------
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. |
| 20-11-2013 20:13 |
N A Nielsen★★★☆☆
(991) |
SRJ skrev:
mernild skrev:
Måske er dette link om temperaturerne de sidste 15 år af interesse?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/
Artiklens diskuteres heftigt i blogland. Herunder er et link til post af Nick Stokes hvor han korrigerer for den samme bias (manglende data fra pol-områderne) med en langt simplere metode, og når frem til at den lineære trend er ca. dobbelt så stor når man korrigerer.
http://moyhu.blogspot.dk/2013/11/coverage-hadcrut-4-and-trends.html
Den originale artikel er her:
http://moyhu.blogspot.dk/2013/11/coverage-hadcrut-4-and-trends.html
Og den ene forfatter har skrevet et par indlæg på Skeptical Science om deres arbejde:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-since-1997-more-than-twice-as-fast.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/the_other_bias.html
PS. Ja jeg ved godt at begge forfattere har været aktive på Skeptical Science i længere tid. Så det behøver man ikke lave indlæg om.
OK, men de har ikke bare været aktive på Skeptical Science, de er "team members" og aktive i det hemmelige, konspirationsfikserede SKS forum, hvor medforfatter Way indrømmede, at Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, ofte har ret: "The fact of the matter is that a lot of the points he [McIntyre] brings up are valid"
Selv hvis forfatterne har ret (og det er vist meget tvivlsomt), gør deres korrektion meget lidt forskel på trenden. Check Lucias Blackboard.
Se også kommentarerne til nedenstående post fra McIntyre. Ups, der var lige en eklatant fejl i den Bart Verheggens graf, som McIntyre kommenterer, og som skulle vise, at IPCC-modellerne er konsistente med temperaturobservationerne.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/18/cotwan-and-way-2013/#comment-449873
Redigeret d. 20-11-2013 20:55 |
| 21-11-2013 16:59 |
N A Nielsen★★★☆☆
(991) |
SRL, en kommentator fra Climate Audit har fundet et par interessante kommentarer som en af forfatterne til den omtalte artikel, Kevin Cowtan, kom med i det hemmelige SKS forum. Nogen har en dagsorden....:
The secret SkS forum gives some interesting background for this paper and other biases.
Cowtan on finding an error in a Rahmstorf-Tamino paper that claimed there is no slow-down
Well, I could write a response to ERL, showing why the solar contribution is overestimated. And thus show that warming has in fact slowed in the last decade. ... But it is an extremely disheartening prospect, doing a load of work to point out an error by someone whom I greatly respect, and who has contributed more to the debunking of climate denial than I will ever acheive.
In the end he seems to consider contacting Tamino (in 2011, "Better that I do it than a denier") but never follows up, on that thread at least.
On finding a cooling bias in HadCRUT:
0.1C! Wow! (Haven't even looked at the paper yet)
...
OK, I clearly need to work on the paper but hold it till the HADCRUT4 data is available, and assess if they've picked up all of the bias. I'm excited! I'll try and post some intermediate results and an outline of the paper in the next month for comments, and see where things go from there.
In fact he works on this for years, trying several strategies and analyses, writing draft papers etc. to show that HadCRUT3 and later 4 with their lower warming trends are outliers.
The level of enthusiasm seems to strongly correlate with how the finding fits the alarmist narrative.
On time periods and trend significance:
A while back I tried calculating the period over which you'd expect to see 95% significance in the warming trend for the major indices, and it's not far off 11 years. Which is inconvenient. But if the underlying forcings have changed (e.g. solar and aerosols), then the calculation becomes meaningless.
On the other hand, his account on how he debunked Judith Curry in private communication with a sceptic:
Here's the text I gave:
...
Anyone who draw a conclusion based on a temperature trend on only a decade (indeed less than about 15 years for the BEST data), is incompetent or dishonest.
The unexpectedness of >= 11-year pauses is an inconvenient result only spoken in the secret forum. When communicating climate to a skeptic, even the thought is incompetent or dishonest.
In climate communication, global warming is a disaster. In non-public communication, the pause is a disaster.
It's looking like when 2012 begins, we are again going to be in the sitation where HADCRUT shows 11 years of negative trend. Worse, if the La Nina holds on, it could reach 12 years in 2013. Worst of all, it may turn out to be a statisitcally signficant deviation from the 1975-2000 trend.
It's somewhat unsettling. Years of relentless work to push the warming trend up, one small step at a time, with subtle and esoteric corrections. But refusal to notify a friendly team member about a correction that would give support to the pause.
Things could look different if these people worked to genuinely correct the scientific record instead of pushing a narrative.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/18/cotwan-and-way-2013 |
| 21-11-2013 20:03 |
N A Nielsen★★★☆☆
(991) |
Denne er også interessant:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/20/behind-the-sks-curtain/#comment-450627 |