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.
9 – sixteen PM comment.
[Yes, all of your comments are displayed. Mod]
A boob tube.
You’re the one who doesn’t get it. It was irony.
I agree with what Roger Knights says: @ur momisugly
April 19, 2013 at 9:40 pm.
I also pushed the thumbs up.
Reich.Eschhaus says:
April 19, 2013 at 5:51 pm
“You are definitely wrong! (so am I). But what I like to know is what this national self delusion is that you think you have recognized. What is it about? How did it came to be? That is the interesting part! Is it only about global warming? Or is it a more general mind set? Be explicit and extensive. I like to know.”
Ask yourself one question, whose national identity needed to be destroyed after WW II, and you get the answer to why the Germans pay 3 times as much as the Brits for their public media apparatus.
@DirkH
“Ask yourself one question, whose national identity needed to be destroyed after WW II, and you get the answer to why the Germans pay 3 times as much as the Brits for their public media apparatus.”
What are you alluding to?
you pay too much or Germans are not NAZI enough?
Enlighten me!
Stan W.:
I write to ask you a question because I would not want to hurt the afflicted if tempted to reply to a future post.
At April 19, 2013 at 3:53 pm I wrote
April 19, 2013 at 4:44 pm
So, my question is:
Does your reply indicate
You are dyslexic
or
You cannot read
or
You are an idiot
or
You are a warmunist so you tell lies?
Richard
Godwin.
Stan W.:
At April 19, 2013 at 4:53 pm you ask me
I answer:
IT CANNOT BE DONE AND WOULD PROVIDE NONSENSE.
Stan W., I will explain this in language simple enough for a 10-year old in hope it will be simple enough for a warmunist.
Stan W., there are methods called ‘mathematics’ and ‘statistics’.
They have rules which have to be followed.
(This is like football. You get a mess if you break the rules).
What you have suggested breaks lots of rules of mathematics and statistics.
Firstly, you cannot take the “30 year average for months” and from that “get the trend for the last 16 yrs”. (Now, this next bit will be a little hard for you, Stan W., but I will really, really try to keep it simple enough for a warmunist.)
1.
You need at least 30 years to get a “30 year average”.
2.
16 years is only a little more than half of 30 years.
3.
So, there is no “30 years average” for the months of “the last 16 years”.
So, StanW.,
we already cannot do what your “exercise”: it is mathematically impossible.
But it gets worse.
4.
El Ninos and La Ninas are natural effects which are not understood.
5.
Because El Ninos and La Ninas are not understood there is no valid way to “take out” their effects: any way you try will be a reflection of your prejudices concerning how they behave.
6.
But El Ninos and La Ninas are natural effects which are part of global climate.
7.
So, if it were possible to “take out” their effects from the data then the altered data would be a distorted indication of reality.
Stan W., do you now understand that you have suggested impossible nonsense which – if it were possible – would provide a distorted indication of reality.
There are various data sets of global temperature time series.
Depending on which data set is considered there has been no discernible trend (i.e. warming or cooling at 95% confidence) in global temperature for more than the most recent 16 years or the most recent 23 years.
Richard
@Reich.Eschhaus:
“So whose being disingenuous?”
You are!
When have you ever been close to the Berlin Wall?”
Whenever Im in Potsdamer Platz (theres a set concrete prefab elements there and a line marked along the ground where the wall ran). No I dont hang around with the tourists at the “East Side Gallery” but I have been at Meurpark although to use the flohmarkt rather than look at bits of wall. It just so happens my Berlin location has mostly been East of Marzhan. But speaking of second hand goods and the wall a sense of what it was like can be had by visiting the used department store at Friedrichshain, Frankfurter Tor is frighteningly redolent of Communism.
So in essence, the answer to your dumbass rhetorical question is quite frequently. But what kind of fool makes an assumption like yours about someone you know nothing about. How often have you worked in Berlin?
But it IS a rhetorical question only an idiot would pose: what do millions of tourists learn about the DDR by looking at remains of the wall? Conversely we dont need to visit the geographical locus of every hostorical event to know the history.
You’re an idiot “Reich” guy. Oh, and you dont know the difference between “disingenuous” (what I said ) and ingenuous (what you thought).
@Wamron
OK, you’re right, it was an idiotic rhetorical question. So I deserved that. Shouldn’t have posed it, mea culpa.
However, diverting attention in a discussion to someone’s handle, as started by RockyRoad and continued by you, I do not call “ingenuous” in any case. FYI, my user name has nothing to do with the 3rd reich.
In the absence of a dedicated thread to discuss the merits of the rating buttons I’ll echo the negative comments of several earlier posters. I encourage Anthony to add a separate thread to discuss the merits / demerits of this change. WUWT is clearly his blog and I respect his right to run it as he sees fit. However, the popularity of the site has a great deal to do with the open nature of the discussion and quality of the arguments. I don’t believe rating posts contributes to either. Ratings are purely about popularity and consensus – the antithesis of what WUWT is about.
I think the likely long term result will be to discourage posting of unpopular views and encourage a greater level of self-censorship. I think this would be unfortunate, in part because I have learned a great deal from watching the experts here dismantle inaccurate and poorly constructed arguments.
You know you hear the ridiculous statement by networks saying “The most trusted anchor blah blah…etc.
Well now we have a very objective measure: the order in which news folks reject the global warming meme. Martenstein, being a green socialist, should be listed as the most trusted in the world. Others, like the economist are high on the list. Perhaps we should measure the same metric in scientific journals and institutions. How long will they hold out. Should we have a contest?
@ur momisugly Wamron says:
April 19, 2013 at 7:27 pm
“They all support the CAGW status quo.” [Govts, politicians]
———————————————————————————————————————–
True. But that is what I find the most interesting thing. And the most pertinent thing for how this will unfold.
They all support the banks too. They support loosely or tightly integrated systems existing within and extending beyond their own countries, with some variation but general consensus (!) that these are satisfactory in substance if not in detail.
The main characteristics of these is that they are remote from the understanding, oversight, and integration with the DAILY lives of all who are either not structurally associated with them or take a specific keen interest.
Thus, even a devotee of CAGW, unless inserted structurally, has little or no real contact or even understanding of how and why decisions are made, or what causes “positions” on “the science” to be modified or repackaged, for example as “extreme weather”. Almost everyone is remote from all this.
The point of all this, to cut to the chase, is that there is an observable dimunition of confidence in the general population with these “parallel universes”, where it is becoming more and more apparent that the interests of these structures exist largely independently of the interests of the population. This is very clearly happening in politics and politicians now as they fail – whilst continuing on the whole to maintain structures they are reliant on and benefit from, and allowing them to prosper, at least in relative terms.
So whilst current structures and occupants may appear immutable, this I would suggest will be in itself the reason for dramatic changes in the not to distant future. What and how things happen in any one area is open to question. But when an issue and associated structures such as CAGW cannot be separated from these things it will find itself turned on its head if any significant change occurs.
I think, that AGW will be a major catalyst for this. It is the essence of simplicity. There can be nowhere to hide, and no plausible arcane “technical” explanations offered to obscure the truth if this fails. And every person in the world has confidence in their ability to comprehend “the weather”. If its “getting colder”, no amount of manipulation will have an impact. To realize they have been deceived, at huge cost, about such a simple thing, will galvanize people. So I don’t think current structures are an impediment, in fact I think they are cutting their own throats.
And I will say “public support” for this on a “personal” level is vastly overstated – intentionally of course – and that for most -who are not generally even the majority now, this is a matter of social conformity which if undermined, will evaporate.
There are times when there is seismic change. This is one of them.
@richardcourtney: my exercise can be done (obviously), and has been done (Foster and Rahmstorf ERL 2011); i was just trying to illustrate it for you in a simpler way.
when one accounts for the influences of ENSOs, the underlying increase due to GHGs is still clearly there. co2 didn’t suddenly stop being a greenhouse gas.
@theo — there are times when natural variablity (esp ocean cycles) adds to greenhouse warming (~1975-2000), and times when it acts against it (~2000-present).
Stan W.:
I am offering some advice concerning your post at April 20, 2013 at 11:17 am.
Learn the first rule of holes.
Your post I am answering says
Nobody has and nobody can obtain a “30 year average” for “16 years of data”.
I tried to to tell you that is impossible in the simplest way I could in my post at April 20, 2013 at 2:05 am. You have not understood my explanation (obviously).
Nobody “can account for the effects of ENSO” except as a reflection of their prejudice. I explained this to you but -0 alas – it seems that was also beyond your comprehension.
Let me assure you that CO2 certainly is a greenhouse gas and it cannot stop being one.
You will have to take my word for that because, clearly, I have no hope of explaining radiative physics to you when you are incapable of understanding that a 30-year average cannot be obtained from 16 years of data.
But so what?
At present atmospheric CO2 concentration there is no possibility of an increase to CO2 concentration having a discernible effect on global temperature. I will explain this for the benefit of onlookers because your series of posts in this thread demonstrate there is no possibility of explaining reality to you.
The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be too small to discern. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity obtained by Idso, by Lindzen&Choi, etc..
In other words, the man-made global warming from man’s emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) would be much smaller than natural fluctuations in global temperature so it would be physically impossible to detect the man-made global warming.
Of course, human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. For example, cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.
Similarly, the global warming from man’s GHG emissions would be too small to be detected. Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1 deg.C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected. If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
I hold this view because I am an empiricist so I accept whatever is indicated by data obtained from observation of the real world.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satelite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Climate sensitivity is less than 1.0 deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration and, therefore, any effect on global temperature of increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has observable effects.
Richard
@richardcourtney — you have clearly not understood the algorithm.
it is this; for months when an el nino or la nina is underway, substitute for the observed surface temperature the average temperature of the previous 360 months.
or choose your own baseline — a year, a decade, whatever. some number that represents the typical temperature outside of an enso.
recalculate the trend for the last 16 yrs. you will find that the presence of ENSOs influences it heavily.
or just go read foster & rahmstorf, who did this in a more sophisticated way with multiple regression.
Stan W.:
Your post at April 20, 2013 at 1:35 pm shows you did not head my advice to stop digging.
You say
You did not state, cite and/or explain any algorithm.
Clearly, I did not understand what was in your mind and you had not mentioned.
However, had you mentioned it then I may have failed to understand it because the delusions of warmunists usually perplex me.
You then go on to provide an imperfect description of a methodology use by Foster & Rahmstorf which you do not cite, reference or quote.
I assume you were thinking of the rubbish paper titled ‘Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011’ which can be read here
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article#erl439749bib6
It is good that I know more about this stuff than you, Sam W., or I and others would not have any clue about which paper you were displaying your ignorance.
I have already explained to you why any removal of ENSO from a temperature time series is erroneous in principle. But the method you seem to be promoting is complete twaddle. It was considered in detail on WUWT. Anybody wanting to see that consideration can find it at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/28/mythbusting-rahmstorf-and-foster/
I repeat my friendly advice, Sam W,. Learn the first rule of holes.
Richard
Stan W – Please explain the justification for The Algorithm.
El Nino is natural variability. Excluding natural variability is “fiddling the figures”. To have a reason to do that you need to understand El Nino: cause and effects (perfectly understand each and every El Nino cause and effect). How else do you justify the changes?
But…
No-one has that knowledge without also having divinity.
So Foster & Rahmstorf have created sophisticated choreography for angels on a pinhead. No more and no less.
Well, not until they have 30 years without an El Nino for a baseline (if they know why they have those 30 years, of course).
Unless you can explain The Algorithm and all El Ninos?
@richardcourtney:
it is certainly not erroreous to ask how the influence of ENSOs might be removed from a temperature time series.
i have merely suggested one way to do it, that is not that sophisticated. there are other ways (ie Foster & Rahmstorf)
it’s curious you keep avoiding the calculation.
@M Courtney: climate is influenced by both natural and manmade factors.
how to separate them?
i have proposed one very simple way. there are better ways.
it is not “fiddling the figures” to ask about the separate influence of n.v. and how it can be accounted for in a world where the greenhouse effect is increasing but still (so far) at about the same decadal rate that n.v. can induce.
M Courtney:
re your post at April 20, 2013 at 2:13 pm.
Indeed so. I had already explained those matters – but in less detail – to Stan W. in my above post at April 20, 2013 at 2:05 am.
But, like all trolls, Stan W. is not interested in exploring information: his purpose is to lislead the uninformed (of whom he is clearly one).
@richardcourtney —
1) is it possible to change numbers in a temperature time series?
2) if yes, substitute the surface temperature for ENSO months with a number more characteristic of nonENSO surface temperature
3) recalculate trend.
Tune in next time, boys and girls, for the next round, when, once again, it is… COURTNEY v. W aaaaaaaaaaand DIRK v. REICH (not the third).
Advice to Stan W.: Much of the above debate seems to be due to a communication problem (as it stands, as far as I can tell, I am far more in agreement with what Courtney is saying). Try slowing down (or get someone to help you with your English useage) a bit and, perhaps, with clearer language, you can have a debate instead of a quarrel. Courtney’s frustration is completely understandable.
How does that old saw go? (something like) “I KNOW YOU THINK YOU UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU THINK I MEANT, HOWEVER, I DO NOT THINK YOU REALIZE THAT WHAT I MEANT IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK I SAID.” (???)
@Janice
“REICH (not the third)”
Made me smile! 🙂
Stan W.:
There could be no more clear example of trolling than your offensive and untrue post at April 20, 2013 at 2:18 pm.
It says:
I DID NOT AVOID THE CALCULATION.
My post addressed to you at post at April 20, 2013 at 2:05 am explained why the “exercise” which you set me and you now call a “calculation” is A MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.
You have now had three explanations – two of them from me – as to why removing ENSO is mistaken in principle and not possible to conduct correctly in practice.
You raised the work of Foster & Rahmstorf but did not cite it or reference it. I linked to it and also to a complete rebuttal of it.
I understand that reality is refuting your cherished belief in the AGW-scare.
And I recognise that this is hurting you so you are having a tantrum.
But your behaviour is not acceptable.
You have ignored and misrepresented every response to your nonsense.
Stop it. Grow up. You are making a fool of yourself.
Richard
On second thought… after reading what was posted above my 1435 post,
@ur momisugly Stan W. — go sober up. Then come back and try to have a debate. All you are managing to prove is that you are either: 1) drunk; 2) having a psychotic break; or 3) a contemptible clown.
At first, I wondered if you did not speak English well. I have seen many fine comments on this site, however, that are completely rational and manage to communicate accurately enough to be understood, even though it is clear that English is not the writer’s first language. You appear to have no excuse (much less a justification such as dyslexia) for your botched communication.