The intro reads: Plagued by reports of sloppy work, falsifications and exaggerations, climate research is facing a crisis of confidence. How reliable are the predictions about global warming and its consequences? And would it really be the end of the world if temperatures rose by more than the much-quoted limit of two degrees Celsius?
This series features Steve McIntyre prominently, and well worth the read. See the series links below:
- Part 1: A Superstorm for Global Warming Research
- Part 2: Politically Charged Science
- Part 3: A Climate Rebel Takes on the Establishment
- Part 4: The Smoking Gun of Climatology
- Part 5: The Reality of Rising Sea Levels
- Part 6: The Myth of the Monster Storm
- Part 7: Climate Change’s Winners and Losers
- Part 8: The Invention of the Two-Degree Target
James Delingpole quips in the Telegraph:When the Germans give up on AGW you really do know it’s all over…
Agree with Mike Post (02:03:09) :
During Part 7 it starts to become typically irrational and disappointing:
“…says Marotzke…And in only 20 years, snow could become a thing of the past in Germany. All of this can no longer be averted.”
The author proudly accepts this. Dear oh dear.
In a sad regurgitation of a decade-old alarmist statement by Doctor David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia… within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”. You can read this nonsense here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
That was from March 2000. Nearly 10 years ago to the day.
If this article demonstrates one thing, it is that advocacy journalism still exists. I fear just as much from reading an article that has the hallmarks of a critical evaluation, but still manages to smuggle astrology into it, than a piece that is flagrantly apocalyptic.
The article? Not all good, but as some commenters have alluded to, the language and context is more courteous of those that disagree and editorially supportive of those sceptical viewpoints.
Mike Haseler (07:11:44) :
pyromancer76 : John Wright 20:39:16 (4/2)
I am in favor of Joe Bastardi’s view to halt any policies on our climate and simply watch the developments for the next 30 years that will include a period where a negative Pacific and negative Atlantic Oscillation put their stamp on the temperature data and allows us more time to study and observe.
There is absolutely no need for any drastic measures at this moment in time, except for those who promoted this scam for political and financial gains.
“R. de Haan (06:54:18) :
“James Delingpole quips in the Telegraph:When the Germans give up on AGW you really do know it’s all over…”
I don’t intend to spoil the party but….!
1. How many Germans read these publications?”
http://www.answers.com/topic/der-spiegel
“Der Spiegel (German pronunciation: [deːɐ ˈʃpiːɡəl], “The Mirror”) is a German weekly magazine, published in Hamburg. It is one of Europe’s largest publications of its kind with a weekly circulation of more than one million”
“Reply: Ok this little wandering into Godwin territory stops now. No discussion of Naz*s, the Hol*caust, or Eug*nics. ~ ctm”
Just as the goose steppers return north? Where will they go now? http://jschumacher.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/10/geese_police3.jpg
“R. de Haan (06:54:18) :
[…]
1. How many Germans read these publications?
”
Really really many, if you mean how many read the Spiegel.
1 Million pieces printed weekly. Lots more people like me will be propelled to their website, lots of other print publications will report what the Spiegel has printed. The national TV news will probably comment on it. For Germany, it’s massive.
“Mike Haseler (04:47:03) :
[…]
The attitude of “science knows best” could only have come from the US and UK – and I doubt you’d ever catch a German ignoring simple engineering principles like trying to “average out the errors” from using the wrong instrumentation for the wrong job.”
Try Rahmstorf for a start. In the run-up to COP15 he published an alarmist sea-level rise extrapolation that was frowned upon even in AGW circles. We have people with an agenda too!
“Climate probe finds problems, but not with warming”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/the_first_of_the_numerous.html
“I’m Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what’s happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature’s resources increases.”
The BBC.
Fat chance we are going to stop the madness as the opposition play’s the game with no respect to any rules at all.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21566
Nobody is listening!
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/04/nobodys-listening.html
The five “open questions” are terribly disappointing. Apparently, the writers take for granted that any temperature increase is anthropogenic. That word appears only once, in paragraph two, in the entire series. Everywhere else, they leave the impression that “temperature increase” is the issue.
Unfortunately, this is the classic error that almost all journalists make. You hardly ever hear a discussion of “global warming” that makes that distinction.
Very disappointing.
The suspicious theory of AGW achieved its undeserved scientific following because its adherents, consciously or not, liked where it took us. It was a useful tool for the public policy objectives of environmentalists, conservationists, socialists and even, on occasion, political conservatives worried about the depletion of fossil fuel sources or simply promoting nuclear (remember Margret Thatcher’s role in all this?).
The Spiegel article is consistent in many aspects with a “new story” designed to preserve the policy objectives of the “old story” in the wake of the old story’s having come unraveled. The new story is that while the old story was false in its many particulars and therefore false in its promoted “certainty”, it might be true in some unknown regards and this results in “uncertainty” rather in “refutation”.
Now we get to the bottom line in all this: “We should do all the things we would have done had the old story been certain, as an insurance policy against uncertainty.”
Its adherents will find the “new story” a poor policy tool compared with the “old story”. The new story lacks the stampeding qualities of the old story and one cannot drive the human herd off an economic cliff without a stampede.
For those of you who are interested in Joe Bastardi’s opinions, here is his blog:
http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather
Enneagram (06:58:19) :
“McIntyre asserts that he believes in Climate Change”
That is pitiful.
———————–
Only an idiot would not.
But since it is capitalized, is that man-induced climate change? That’s another beast altogether. Their terminology lends itself well to propaganda.
“Despite the controversy, most climatologists agree that in the end the general view of climate change will not have changed significantly. Almost all share the basic conviction that we are headed for warmer times.”
“There are various pieces of indirect evidence that support the theory of global warming. Glaciers are receding, sea levels are rising and sea ice in the Arctic regions is disappearing. “
“Other central predictions of climatologists, such as that involving a noticeable rise in sea levels, would also have to be reevaluated. How high sea levels will go in the future is already a matter of debate.”
“On the other hand, hardly any glaciologists doubt that sea levels will be significantly higher along coastlines by the end of the century.”
“Another effect that is not as easy to calculate is the melting of mountain glaciers and inland ice in Greenland and Antarctica. Most of the melting today is happening in mountain glaciers, from the Andes to the Himalayas.”
“Glaciologists speculate that parts of the Western Antarctic and, to a greater extent, Greenland, are melting more quickly than initially assumed.”
“Despite the enormous uncertainties, there is agreement on at least one issue: Global warming can no longer be stopped.”
“Even if humanity were to stop burning coal, oil and natural gas immediately, there would still be a moderate temperature increase in the next two to three decades. This is because the planetary weather system reacts with a certain delay to the greenhouse gases that have already been emitted into the atmosphere.”
“But no, he adds, he happens to be someone who has acquired inside knowledge about a looming disaster, knowledge that he cannot keep to himself. “If I’m a passenger on a ship and I see, through my binoculars, that we’re headed for an iceberg,” says Schellnhuber, “I have to warn the captain immediately.”
” it isn’t about stopping a luxury ocean liner, but about the massive effort that is required to end the age of oil and coal as quickly as possible.”
It’s an improvement for Der Spiegel, but still takes one thing for granted; That it’s all man’s fault.
How is little bear Knute doin’ in Germany? What feedback on warming does he express at the zoo?
This was a great read…thanks for the heads up. I think it is very unfair and completely inaccurate to characterize the artice as saying “The Germans have given up on AGW.” This is not at all what the article is saying. In fact, if you look at one of the last few paragraphs in the article series it says:
(regarding AGW): “But exactly how far away is that iceberg? How much time is left to steer the ship onto an alternate course? And how great is the risk of collision? These are key questions. In reality, it isn’t about stopping a luxury ocean liner, but about the massive effort that is required to end the age of oil and coal as quickly as possible…”
This was a direct quote from the author of the article. Doesn’t sound to me like giving up on anything, but actually (and this is truly the tone of the article) that there is time to make changes but we need to stop the hyperbole from scientists and political gamemanship. The article does not deny or give up on AGW, though I understand James Delingpole’s WISHES that the article said that…
@Gary Young Hladik (20:10:58) :
“How reliable are the predictions about global warming and its consequences?”
They’re not predictions, they’re projections. Does that answer the question?
– – – – – – –
You’re mincing words. How can a projection not be a prediction, when the dictionary says otherwise?
pro·jec·tion (prə-jěk’shən)
n.
4. A prediction or an estimate of something in the future, based on present data or trends.
[source 1=”www.dictionary.com” language=”:”][/source]
In the case of something as complex and poorly understood as climate:
projection = extrapolation = speculation
Ron (01:43:01) :
“I believe that climate modelling, which takes full account of natural and anthropogenic warming, is worth pursuing.”
Therein lies the problem. The current generation of climate models do not account for very real and likely quite important climate processes such as water vapor, clouds, particulates and ocean circulation. They are are accounted for in the models by the use of fudge factors to fit the models to past temperature data (as divined by CRU), which while allowing for model convergence, do not represent reality.
Beyond the lack of reality in the models we have politicians and bureaucrats who think that these models and linear trends in cyclical processes are reality. They mistake the chaotic failure of the models with tipping points in the real climate system rather than a failure of the modelers to accurately simulate reality.
Much of this is due to activists within the climate field who have oversold their product, but a large part of the blame also is lies with the failure of honest scientists to explain the uncertainties and limitations of models.
My own experience with models in groundwater is that the simpler ones are more reliable and that even those cannot project very far forward temporally or spatially.
I cringe when colleagues present models, even limited simple ones, in support of public policy. Think about the models that were used to set quotas for the North Atlantic cod fishery.
“Enneagram (06:58:19) :
“McIntyre asserts that he believes in Climate Change”
That is pitiful.”
It’s not, as climate change is and has been an everlasting reality.
Don’t walk into the verbal trap of the alarmists.
German cancellor Mrs. Merkel said few years ago the “surprising” statement:
“Climate change is a fact.” In her eyes an alarming one. Well …
I thought this was a step in the right direction from Der Spiegel. Here’s hoping it will be the first of many articles with a sceptical slant on CAGW.
So two degrees C is the limit? Why?
How much warmer was it than today when the Vikings thrived in their Greenland settlement?
How much colder was it than today during the little ice age the followed fairly closely after that time?
How much colder was it than today say 50,000 years ago when ice mountains were still building during the last period of glaciation?
How much warmer was it than today between 10,000 and 7,000 years ago when interglacial period ice melt raised sea levels between 120 and 150 meters before stabilizing at today’s levels thus allowing the start of urbanic culture?
A major issue with AGW climate models is that not a one can replicate the range of changes in temperature up and down that we have experienced over time. They all seem to assume that as CO2 goes up so does temperature and there is no natural system to stop the temperature increase. All the while levels of CO2 were up when it was cold and down when it was warm.
Yes, climate changes between two stable sets of warm temps during an interglacial period and very cold temps during periods of glaciation. Since glacial periods last about 100,000 years and interglacial periods last 15,000 to 20,000 years, it looks like the cold period is the more stable.
OT, but Lord Monckton is on the Mark Gillar show, and taking questions:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/markgillar
“toyotawhizguy (09:27:45) :
[…]
You’re mincing words. How can a projection not be a prediction, when the dictionary says otherwise?”
In statistics, a prediction is verifiable; a projection is not. AGWers themselves make sure to make this distinction.
very good. But wish it had explained a bit more some back ground earth science, like sea levels have been generally rising for 13,000 years, with some fits and stops, and the rises average 6″ / century for the last few thousand years. That tropical glaciers have been receding for thousands of years and that was slowed down by little ice age and the current pattern likely mimics the norm.
Arctic roos.org simply cannot afford to put up their graphs anymore because they are showing a continuous normal ice status
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
so they simply take them off…… what a farce its happens EVERYTIME ice goes up too much for their liking because records have been kept here and elsewhere:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/15/arctic-ice-extent-discrepancy-nsidc-versus-cryosphere-today/
This is the real status now
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
but they dont have the “average” so you cannot compare neither will Jaxa show that. NSIDC will only compare against 2007!
@pyromancer76 (05:53:15) :
Who mentioned two (2) years? I didn’t and nor did Von Storch. He talks about “several years”, but that suggests to me that he just thinks we have time on our side. and are no longer in a frantic hurry to curb emissions (they seem now to have noticed that the planet is not warming quite as fast as “previously thought”).
By the way, I am sure that the Chiefio would be “delighted” to take it all on his shoulders and knock it all off in a couple of days as you suggest. – and unpaid by the look of it or at knockdown price.
On the other hand, in my experience, the main problem is that once governments have forked out the cash, especially a lot of it, they are very reluctant to pay for it all over again even if the work has been botched, especially as admitting so reflects badly upon their judgement, hence they are likely pretend that all’s fine and dandy (they’re very good at that y’know).
But whichever way you look at it, the work has to be redone somehow, perhaps starting from differently framed questions.