Klimadebattens fordrejninger og forfalskninger

Nej...men jeg leder med lys og lygte efter artiklen

Her

De første målinger, forskerne brugte, kom fra indlandsis. Isen indeholder luftbobler og kan fortælle om temperaturen det år, da sneen faldt. Ved at bore i iskernen og undersøge den lag for lag kan man så opklare temperaturen i hvert eneste årslag tusinder år tilbage

Er det mig der er helt galt på den eller er der peer-reviewed artikler der direkte modsiger at vikingetiden på arktis skulle være så meget køligere end der ligges op til her?

Nu kan vi så spore den 2.000 år tilbage i tiden, og det bekræfter klimamodellerne, og passer med den idé vi har om, hvad opvarmningen skyldes

Iøvrigt er de to herrer begge ansat ved Niels Bohr Institutet - så de må vel kunne få nogle interessante meningsudvekslinger over eftermiddagskaffen! smiley

...solens udstråling steg fra 1364,7 watt/m2 til til 1966,0 indtil år 1998

With changes in this additional brightness component superimposed on the 11-year cycle variations, a reduction of 0.24 percent is estimated for the Maunder Minimum, relative to the mean of the contemporary 11-year irradiance cycle (Lean et al., 1992a).

Herudover er der de påvirkninger vi gør ved den måde vi kultiverer naturen omkring os. Vi fælder skove for at dyrke græs til kvæg eller korn og andre planteprodukter medfølgende en god mængde kunstgødning og pesticider. Det gør at vandfordampning fra arealerne bliver anderledes og dermed temperaturforholdene, som så påvirker skydannelsen i det større omgivende område.

Et fejlagtigt CO2-budskab er til enorm fare for alle de andre tiltag mennesker kan gøre der prioriteres ned af idéen om CO2. Det gælder ikke bare Bangladesh men alt andet (Malaria, AIds ..... ) kort sagt alt der grundet begrænsede rescourcer får mindre opmærksomhed på grund af CO2-molekylet.

CO2 er IKKE bare "på den sikre side"? Eller?

helios skrev:
Glar, du har ret. Kurven stopper på det mest belejlige sted - nogle få hundrede år længere tilbage ville have vist en højere temperatur end i dag.
Det kan bl.a. ses på følgende kurve, der går tilbage til sidste Istid:
http://www.akraft.dk/GWi1200aar.jpg

Men jeg må sige, at Franks links til Bangladeh er meget interessant og noget overraskende, set i lyset af det Nobelprisbelønnede klimapanels tidligere udmelding!

"Also keep in mind the implausibly small size of the current portion of the Yamal archive. It would be one thing if they had only sampled 10 trees and this is what they got. But they selected 10 trees out of a larger population. Because the selection yields such different results from a nearby population sample, there is a compelling prima facie argument that they've made biased picks. This is rebuttable. I would welcome hearing the argument on the other side. I've notified one dendro of the issue and requested him to assist in the interpretation of the new data (but am not very hopeful that he will speak up.)"

kulden-varmen skrev:
Det er ikke rigtigt. Kurven er rendyrket fup og svindel.

1- Steve suspects tree rings aren't telling a valid story with that giant uptick at the right side of the graph, implicating the 20th century as the "hottest period in 2000″ years, which alarmists latch onto as proof of AGW.

2- Steve attempts to replicate Mann's tree ring work in the paper MPH98, but is stymied by lack of data archiving. He sends dozens of letters over the years trying to get access to data but access is denied.

3- A Mann co-author (Briffa) used one of the tree ring data series (Yamal Russia) in a paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, which has a strict data archiving policy. Steve fought and won access to that data just last week.

4- Having the Yamal data in complete form, Steve replicates it, and discovers that one of Mann's co-authors, Briffa, had cherry picked 10 trees data sets out of a much larger set of trees sampled in Yamal.

5- When all of the tree ring data from Yamal is plotted the famous hockey stick disappears. Not only does it disappear, but goes negative. The conclusion is inescapable. The tree ring data was hand picked to get the desired result.

Frank Lansner skrev:
...
Skandalerne står i kø. IPCC med så store midler og "the leading scientist" i ryggen? Global warming står svagere og svagere i takt med at data kommer frem.

Alle disse ting burde jo stå med FEDE typer på forsiderne i hele verden.
Det kommer de også til.

"urban heat island effects are corrected for in the surface records"
Contrary to Gavin's assertion, there is no evidence that CRU or NOAA correct their records for urban heat island effects. They make a very slight allowance in their "uncertainty" for UHI relying ultimately on an estimate made in Jones et al 1990, a study which made untrue (and impossible) claims about quality control steps.

The only network where a plausible adjustment is made is the GISS US network (representing less than 2% of the world's surface, as NASA GISS reminds us.) While GISS US results are plausible, outside the US, the GISS adjustment is a pig's breakfast and no sane person can claim that they live up to the warranty. What makes this frustrating is that the US temperature history (GISS version) had 1934 as a record year - a result that was at variance with the other indices and other parts of the world. Is this because this is the only network/country combination with an effective UHI adjustment or because of a unique "regional" climate history in the US?

...it does appear that McIntyre [Climate Audit] did not directly instigate any of the ludicrous extrapolations of his supposed findings highlighted above, though he clearly set the ball rolling. No doubt he has written to the National Review and the Telegraph and Anthony Watts [Watts Up] to clarify their mistakes and we're confident that the corrections will appear any day now....

Steve McIntyre keeps insisting that he should be treated like a professional. But how professional is it to continue to slander scientists with vague insinuations and spin made-up tales of perfidy out of the whole cloth instead of submitting his work for peer-review? He continues to take absolutely no responsibility for the ridiculous fantasies and exaggerations that his supporters broadcast [Frank L. = den danske selvbestaltet representant], apparently being happy to bask in their acclaim rather than correct any of the misrepresentations he has engendered. If he wants to make a change, he has a clear choice; to continue to play Don Quixote for the peanut gallery or to produce something constructive that is actually worthy of publication.

Peer-review is nothing sinister and not part of some global conspiracy, but instead it is the process by which people are forced to match their rhetoric to their actual results. You can't generally get away with imprecise suggestions that something might matter for the bigger picture without actually showing that it does.

So go on Steve, surprise us.

Palle Miliam skrev:

Utroligt, at dette bedrag ingen ende tager. Jeg vil i hvert fald aldrig stole på videnskabsfolk, der ej stiller deres data til rådighed for kritisk gennemlæsning.
I sidste ende, om det er sandt eller falsk, så bør disse henvisninger aldrig bruges, da det må betragtes som uvidenskabeligt arbejde.

Mvh
Den Bekymrede

kfl skrev:

Via climaaudit/Frank Lansner / Kosmos/Helios/Svensmark/Lomborg foregår der et bevidst manipulation med offentligheden via alle former for spin. Man læser dele af en videnskabelig undersøgelse og videgiver dem fordrejet og seletive. Det er bl.a. derfor at man kun skal videre data til klimaforskere og ikke til spin doktorer.

Hvor kan skeptikerne ikke komme op med noget med kød på ?

Whether the McIntyre version is any more robust a representation of regional tree growth in Yamal than my original, remains to be
established.