Citat:
9. Concluding remarks
In this paper we have reviewed data on climate and temperatures in the past and ascertained that
there have been large (non-stationary) temperature fluctuations resulting from natural causes.
Subsequently, we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability of
the GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the time
series of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from the
GCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are
able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made
emissions of CO2.
Next, we have updated the statistical time series analysis of Dagsvik et al. (2020) based on
observed temperature series recorded during the last 200 years and further back in time. Despite
long trends and cycles in these temperature series, we have found that the hypothesis of stationarity
was not rejected, apart from a few cases. These results are therefore consistent with the results
obtained by Dagsvik et al. (2020). In other words, the results imply that the effect of man-made
CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern
of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of
knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to
emissions of CO2.
In this paper we have reviewed data on climate and temperatures in the past and ascertained that
there have been large (non-stationary) temperature fluctuations resulting from natural causes.
Subsequently, we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability of
the GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the time
series of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from the
GCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are
able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made
emissions of CO2.
Next, we have updated the statistical time series analysis of Dagsvik et al. (2020) based on
observed temperature series recorded during the last 200 years and further back in time. Despite
long trends and cycles in these temperature series, we have found that the hypothesis of stationarity
was not rejected, apart from a few cases. These results are therefore consistent with the results
obtained by Dagsvik et al. (2020). In other words, the results imply that the effect of man-made
CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern
of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of
knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to
emissions of CO2.
Sista meningen avdramatiserar ju mycket av det som flera skriver här. Men det är inte väldigt enkelt för oss flashbackfolk som sitter och är tuffa på internet är kasta ett snabbt öga på rapporten och förstå om den är välgjord eller inte. Hur många förstår formeln i appendix A?
Det som är lite intressant är väl ändå att det inte kommer fram något helt nytt eller spännande här, men ändå är det så laddat så man tycker att det är banbrytande att det här ligger på SSB.no.
