Uh oh, somebody in Germany in a position to influence others in the Green movement has started thinking for himself, shrugging off suggestions from a climate scientist that “its all in his head”.
Pierre Gosselin reports about a story by lefty journalist Harald Martenstein of Die Zeit:
“I was ready to open my home to the Schröders as soon as they would no longer be able to take the 60°C heat in the shade. But instead it got colder and colder. At Uckermark in the wintertime it was -20°C for weeks.”
Martenstein also noticed that Britain had endured its coldest winter in 30 years, Florida got covered by icicles, and the cold seemed to be spreading everywhere. So he pleaded that people should emit more CO2 – so that he could stay warm.
His plea, however, prompted an invitation from a “scientist at a very nice climate institute“:
He showed me tables and graphs that clearly depicted it was getting warmer. He believed that I was just a victim of my own subjective imagination. Memory can fool you. One thinks that during childhood it was warm from May to September, but in reality its was warm only 3 days, and it is those 3 days that one remembers intensively. The tables from climate scientists, on the other hand, do not lie.”
Martenstein then recounts the past winter and how it seemed to him as being the longest and hardest he could remember, but telling himself that it was probably just his warped subjectivity acting up again. He writes:
But suddenly I read in the paper that a number of climate scientists had changed their minds. Now they were saying it is not going to get warmer, but colder, at least in Europe. Whatever happened to the tables I now ask myself.”
This kind of science would never fly in biology or physics, Martenstein writes. ”But with climate science it seems they are allowed to get away with everything.”
Read it all here:
Mother Of German Green Weeklies, Die Zeit, Shocks Readers…Now Casts Doubt On Global Warming!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am having a hard time reconciling statements by NOAA and Santer and need some help here in light of discussions on this post. To recap, NOAA says:
“ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero
and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
So for discussion sake, let us ignore for the moment whether or not this condition has been met. However I do believe we all agree that if certain conditions are met for 15 years, we can be 95% certain the models are wrong. Is that correct?
Santer says:
“Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.“
So if the conditions are met that would cause NOAA to say there is a 95% chance the models are faulty, Santer would say that 15 years of no change do not mean anything at all since if it is under 17 years, no conclusions can be drawn. Is this correct? If so, is there a total contradiction between Santer and NOAA? And if Santer gives only a lower bound and not an upper bound as Stan W. says, then what was the purpose of Santer’s statement? Even 50 years of no warming would be consistent with Santer’s statement, or am I wrong?
Phil. says:
April 24, 2013 at 10:06 am
jc says:
April 23, 2013 at 8:54 pm
I can’t see why you would translate this as having a “threatening tone”. There can be no “threat” to anyone who is honest and of sincere intent, no matter what their opinions, manner of articulating them, or personal life and financial circumstances are.
And yet you appear to want to gather evidence to be used in some sort of future court proceedings:
this is concerned to identify – not personally at this stage, that can come later – those who are culpable in the deaths of many thousands of humans
It’s unclear to me how pointing out scientific errors by another poster could lead to such a proceeding, or how one’s financial interests would be relevant, I have not falsified anything and supported my statements with scientific papers.
Also your implication that posting science that supports the concept of global warming leads to “culpability in the deaths of many thousands of humans”. If the IPCC projections come to pass would you propose a similar tribunal for those who oppose the adoption of a reduction in the use of fossil fuels? What if the weather shift this winter in the UK is the result of melting sea ice due to CO2 then who would you suggest are culpable in the excess deaths there?
If financial disclosure was required for posting on this site I’m sure many might reconsider posting here, your insinuation that those who post a contrary position on here are being dishonest and are motivated by financial interests is offensive, just as it is when it’s suggested that Anthony is in the pay of Big Oil!
———————————————————————————————————————–
I have only recently started to separate out those who are of sincere intent, and honesty in claims and responses, from those who are not. There is the question of degree to consider, and responsiveness to being challenged when transgressing which shows to what extent this is an ingrained characteristic and a deliberate strategy, rather than to some extent a lapse.
Also there are the factors of intellectual capacity and mental health, both of which may come into consideration as mitigation.
Consequently, I have been exercising care, expressed as a rigorous identification of faults in claims and the manner in which they are presented, and seeking to isolate and therefore test patterns of responses that can illustrate distinctions between (dis)honesty, (lack of) intellectual capacity, (in)sanity. Knowledge of financial advantage can be established as concrete fact and so exists outside this process of evaluation.
The mechanisms and techniques demonstrated whilst undertaking the above have to a significant degree a – tiresome – predictability. These are easy to identify and are readily understood by anyone of average capacity, since of course they are derived from or mirror what occurs in interactions over a broad spectrum, and here they are highlighted by the abnormal level of commitment to adherence. You demonstrate that here.
Firstly I must acknowledge a mistake, which you have in a sense seized on. To do so in this manner is completely predictable for those of a certain type – you amongst them as is self-evidently established – and shows the abuse of human interaction that is the defining character of those such as you.
My point that there should be no implication of “threat”, although more than adequately elaborated on in the very paragraph you quote, you choose to make seem as if general, and you implicitly do this because you “smell” what you think is room to manouver based on my generosity in the first sentence in saying that you personally should in effect have no reason to interpret anything as a “threat”, on the assumption that you are not culpable in the manner being dealt with. Such abuse of necessary human confidence and trust is the very definition and heart of the entire AGW process and is relentlessly deployed by the active proponents of it such as you. This process, by establishing facts as to the manner of dealings and motivations, will undoubtably be translated as a threat to those implicated. If that’s you, it’s you.
Although, in plain text, this was a mistake, I was fully aware of this at the time of writing, and saw no damage in extending this possibility to you, and, as expected, it was not wasted in that your response is illustrative in the breach.
As I have said, techniques employed are tiresomely predictable, such as your reference to legitimate rebuttal, financial status – snuck in amongst these mock protestations of integrity – and compliance with standards of honesty and scientific protocols, when you are fully aware that where these are evident, there is no incorporation of the protagonist into this process of accountability and judgement. Despite as yet having an undetermined level of intellectual function, you do have sufficient to comprehend this. This deployment is both degraded and degrading.
Your attempted equivalence between those who seek to have inadequacies in AGW as a basis for public policy acknowledged, and those who promote it is repellant. Repulsive.
Your statement as to the innocuous “posting of science that supports the concept of global warming” being all that is done by the implied well-intentioned and pure in execution is false – and YOU know very well that it is a lie. It is grotesque. Your twisting is sickening.
If the IPCC speculations come to pass in 50 or 100 years, then humanity will adjust. As has always been the case. In a world dominated by human values and capacities rather than by the antithesis and repudiation of these represented by YOU, there will be no deaths.
To even contemplate you to enable me to write these words is making me feel physically sick.
The temperature extremes in the UK or anywhere else, whatever their cause and to whatever degree they vary over time, are mitigated by the availability and use of energy. And the cost.
Those who have perverted this are responsible. Whether by mindless support which might – might – exonerate them in a formal sense but condemns them morally, or the more active and dishonest, self-advancing, only nominally human. One way or the other, YOU are responsible.
Your blythe dismissal as an abstraction of the slaughter of thousands because of policy that you have actively pursued reveals you and defines you as a thing beyond the pale. How many peoples parents, grandparents, friends and neighbors have you been part of killing? Just in the UK? Do you live there – that is, YOU alive THEM dead – and pass people in the street who loved ones have been “disposed of” in this way? You wouldn’t give them a moments thought.
Your further rubbish in the last paragraph, returning to the standard techniques of pretending to address an issue that has been raised when it hasn’t, and in this case was specified as such is contemptible.
So lets hear it.
How and by how much and for how long have you been filling your pockets by rifling the corpses of the dead.
Werner Brozek says:
April 24, 2013 at 11:49 am
I am having a hard time reconciling statements by NOAA and Santer and need some help here in light of discussions on this post. To recap, NOAA says:
“ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero
and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
So for discussion sake, let us ignore for the moment whether or not this condition has been met. However I do believe we all agree that if certain conditions are met for 15 years, we can be 95% certain the models are wrong. Is that correct?
Those models, since they don’t include ENSO, can’t describe the actual temperature history. In order to make use of the model findings the actual data needs to have the effects of ENSO accurately removed. If that is done and shows a 15 year hiatus then either the models or the removal methods are questionable. So far this doesn’t seem to be the case.
Santer says:
“Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.“
So if the conditions are met that would cause NOAA to say there is a 95% chance the models are faulty, Santer would say that 15 years of no change do not mean anything at all since if it is under 17 years, no conclusions can be drawn. Is this correct? If so, is there a total contradiction between Santer and NOAA? And if Santer gives only a lower bound and not an upper bound as Stan W. says, then what was the purpose of Santer’s statement? Even 50 years of no warming would be consistent with Santer’s statement, or am I wrong?
There’s no indication that the NOAA condition has been breached, so I don’t see a contradiction. I don’t know the context of the Santer remark, he may be factoring in ENSO for example.
@ur momisugly Stan W.
YOU! COWARD!
Show your real face!
You have been lurking around here and have left your droppings.
Lets hear how much a human life is worth to you.
jc says:
April 24, 2013 at 1:07 pm
So lets hear it.
How and by how much and for how long have you been filling your pockets by rifling the corpses of the dead.
Mods
Comments of this nature should be subject to moderation!
Werner Brozek:
I am responding to your post at April 24, 2013 at 11:49 am.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/19/the-unraveling-of-global-warming-is-accelerating/#comment-1286237
It asks several questions. And they all seem to focus on what you perceive as a disagreement between the statements of NOAA and Santer. I see no disagreement because – as I understand it – they relate to different issues.
Firstly, you say
That is not my understanding of what the quoted NOAA satatement says.
It refers to “ENSO-adjusted warming”. However, this is not pertinent when considering the most recent 16 years because ENSO effects cancel over the period; i.e. ENSO adjusts for itself over that period.
Then it says of the indications of the models,
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability.”
That can only mean the models indicate periods of 10 or less years duration when the indicated temperature change is close to zero and may be negative. Also, the sentence says these periods of “near-zero” trends result from “the model’s internal climate variability”; i.e. model variability.
The next sentence has been subject of dispute. I accept what it says but Shore and Perlw1tz have tried to spin its meaning. I will state both views.
The sentence is in two parts and the first part is the subject of the dispute. In total it says,
“The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
The first part says,
“The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more,”
I understand this to mean that “zero trends” for periods of 15 or more years do not occur in the model simulations; i.e. the simulations “rule out” “zero trends” for periods of 15 or more years. And this is because the “the model’s internal climate variability” is not sufficient to generate “zero trends” for 15 or more years although – as the previous sentence says – the “the model’s internal climate variability” often generates “zero trends” for 10 or less years.
Importantly, when the sentence says “(at the 95% level) zero trends” it defines “zero trends” as being trends which are not discernibly different from zero at 95% confidence.
THIS IS THE POINT OF DISAGREEMENT.
I fail to understand how the sentence can reasonably be understood as meaning other than I have said. Any other understanding leaves “zero trends” undefined. Clearly, it cannot mean 0.000deg.C per decade when the previous sentence describes ““Near-zero and even negative trends”.
BUT
Shore and Perlw1tz argue that “(at the 95% level) zero trends” means 5% of model simulations provide “zero trends”. Of course, they may be right but – if so – then the NOAA statement is meaningless because “zero trends” is not defined.
The final clause of the sentence says,
“suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
According to me, this says a “discrepancy” between the model simulations and “the expected present-day warming rate” would occur if for 15 or more years reality exhibited a “(at the 95% level) zero trend”.
In other words, the model behaviour would be observed to disagree with real climate behaviour if the real climate exhibited a trend not discernibly different from zero at 95% confidence for a period of 15 or more years.
This has happened because “(at the 95% level) zero trend” has existed for the most recent 16 years.
The alternative Shore & Perlw1tz interpretation says the models do not disagree with reality because the model simulations provide a 5% chance of such a “zero trend” for such a time.
In my opinion, the Shore & Perlw1tz interpretation is a nonsensical excuse which pretends reality has not shown the model simulations to be a false indication of reality.
However, you say
That is an additional interpretation and I do not understand it.
If the nature of “the model’s internal climate variability” means their simulations “rule out” 15 year long zero trends then the model says such periods don’t happen. So, a 15 year long zero trend happening in reality provides a “discrepancy” which shows the model simulations do not emulate real climate behaviour: i.e. the model simulations are wrong and there is no way to know how wrong.
If you accept the Shore and Perlw1tz interpretation then the “discrepancy” means nothing because 5% of model simulations show the discrepancy.
But you say the discrepancy provides a 95% probability that the model simulations are wrong. Huh?
Your post continues saying
I understand this to be saying that it is not possible to discern an anthropogenic effect on global temperature by considering periods of less than 17 years.
This is a completely different matter from the statement of NOAA.
1.
Santer is talking about observing an anthropogenic effect in global temperature records.
2,
NOAA is talking about the ability of climate models to emulate global temperature.
You conclude your post asking
I think not.
Either,
As I say,
The NOAA statement says the models have been falsified by there being more than 15 years of ‘stasis’
OR as Shore and Perlw1tz say
The NOAA statement says nothing (which poses the question as to why NOAA published it).
The Santer statement says that a period of at least 17 years is needed to see an anthropogenic effect. It is a political statement because “at least 17 years” could be any length of time longer than 17 years. It is not a scientific statement because it is not falsifiable.
However, if the Santer statement is claimed to be a scientific statement then any period longer than 17 years would indicate an anthropogenic effect. So, a 17-year period of no discernible global warming would indicate no anthropogenic global warming.
In my opinion, Santer made a political statement so it should be answered with a political response: i.e. it should be insisted that he said 17 years of no global warming means no anthropogenic global warming because any anthropogenic effect would have been observed.
Santer made his petard and he should be hoisted on it.
Richard
@ur momisugly Paul.
You’re here. You’ve had time.
Ignoring as evasion?
How many will die before you respond?
@ur momisugly Paul
Squirming to hide under a process I now see.
There is nowhere to hide.
Show yourself for what you are.
Kinda tired of jc, and all the others in this mudslinging fest between anonymous cowards. Comments closed.