Citat:
Hur vore det om du kunde hänvisa till en referentgranskad, publicerad artikel istället för blogginlägg? Du vet ju mycket väl att klimatet handlar om långvarig utveckling. Klimatmodellerna har, tvärt emot vad "din" bloggare vill få oss att tro fungerat mycket bra. Självklart blir de bättre och bättre ju mer data som finns att tillgå. Kräver du att Hansens modell från 1988 skulle varit på pricken exakt, annars kan man förkasta hela klimatvetenskapen? I så fall kan du väl visa en bättre modell från den tiden. När du har gjort det så kan du visa en modell från ditt gäng som är bättre än de som IPCC anammat.
Ursprungligen postat av Taalmannen
Till dess du framför det jag begärt på de senaste sidorna betraktar jag dig som ett troll, eller åtminstone oseriös. Ger dig en chans till att svara, sedan kan vi möjligen gå vidare...
Ett mycket bra inlägg om skillnaden i GCM och verkligheten finns att läsa här:
The Skeptics Case, Who Are You Going To Believe – The Government Climate Scientists or The Data?
För dig som inte ids läsa och begrunda eller vill veta lite mer innan detta stora och svåra steg tas, ger jag ett litet smakprov:
"We’ve checked all the main predictions of the climate models against the best data:
The climate models get them all wrong. The missing hotspot and outgoing radiation data both, independently, prove that the amplification in the climate models is not present. Without the amplification, the climate model temperature predictions would be cut by at least two thirds, which would explain why they overestimated the recent air and ocean temperature increases.
Therefore:
1 The climate models are fundamentally flawed. Their assumed threefold amplification by feedbacks does not in fact exist.
2 The climate models overestimate temperature rises due to CO2 by at least a factor of three.
The skeptical view is compatible with the data."
Ett mycket bra inlägg om skillnaden i GCM och verkligheten finns att läsa här:
The Skeptics Case, Who Are You Going To Believe – The Government Climate Scientists or The Data?
För dig som inte ids läsa och begrunda eller vill veta lite mer innan detta stora och svåra steg tas, ger jag ett litet smakprov:
"We’ve checked all the main predictions of the climate models against the best data:
The climate models get them all wrong. The missing hotspot and outgoing radiation data both, independently, prove that the amplification in the climate models is not present. Without the amplification, the climate model temperature predictions would be cut by at least two thirds, which would explain why they overestimated the recent air and ocean temperature increases.
Therefore:
1 The climate models are fundamentally flawed. Their assumed threefold amplification by feedbacks does not in fact exist.
2 The climate models overestimate temperature rises due to CO2 by at least a factor of three.
The skeptical view is compatible with the data."
De modeller som används nu har mycket god träffsäkerhet när man jämför med verkligt utfall, se http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
Och om CO2:s klimatkänslighet så har jag festligt nog en referentgranskad artikel som publicerats i veteskapliga tidskrifter (t ex "Climate Change" som hade impact factor 3,016 år 2010) http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/probrevised.pdf
Citat:
The equilibrium climate response to anthropogenic forcing has long been
one of the dominant, and therefore most intensively studied uncertainties, in
predicting future climate change. As a result, many probabilistic estimates
of the climate sensitivity (S) have been presented. In recent years, most of
them have assigned significant probability to extremely high sensitivity, such
as P(S > 6C) > 5%.
In this paper, we investigate some of the assumptions underlying these
estimates. We show that the popular choice of a uniform prior has unacceptable properties and cannot be reasonably considered to generate meaningful
and usable results. When instead reasonable assumptions are made, much
greater confidence in a moderate value for S is easily justified, with an upper
95% probability limit for S easily shown to lie close to 4 ºC, and certainly
well below 6 ºC. These results also impact strongly on projected economic
losses due to climate change.
one of the dominant, and therefore most intensively studied uncertainties, in
predicting future climate change. As a result, many probabilistic estimates
of the climate sensitivity (S) have been presented. In recent years, most of
them have assigned significant probability to extremely high sensitivity, such
as P(S > 6C) > 5%.
In this paper, we investigate some of the assumptions underlying these
estimates. We show that the popular choice of a uniform prior has unacceptable properties and cannot be reasonably considered to generate meaningful
and usable results. When instead reasonable assumptions are made, much
greater confidence in a moderate value for S is easily justified, with an upper
95% probability limit for S easily shown to lie close to 4 ºC, and certainly
well below 6 ºC. These results also impact strongly on projected economic
losses due to climate change.
