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.
Stan W. says:
With respect to UAH, even Dr. Spencer says his data is not perfect.
From Dr. Spencer on January 3, 2012:
“I’m making very good progress on the Version 6 of the global temperature dataset, and it looks like the new diurnal drift correction method is working for AMSU. Next is to apply the new AMSU-based corrections to the older (pre-August 1998) MSU data.”
As far as the latest La Ninas are concerned, if the rate of global warming were even close to what the models predict or project, then a strong La Nina after 15 years should not make that much difference. And furthermore, the 1998 mark should have been beaten by now on the two satellite data sets, but 1998 still holds the record on both sets.
RSS: 1 {1998, 0.549},
2 {2010, 0.475},
UAH: 1. 1998 0.419
2. 2010 0.394
Stan W. says:
April 20, 2013 at 3:35 pm
no, he did not make that point — it only negates over certain time intervals, but not others
Fair enough. I showed earlier that they negate at the start. Now I will show that they also negate at the end. At the end, there was a strong El Nino in 2010, but La Ninas before and after. So if we take the period from December 1996 to May, 2008, a period of 11 years and 6 months, the slope is again virtually 0. Of course I cannot negate El Ninos and La Ninas and still have at least 15 years as per NOAA’s criteria for casting significant doubt on their models. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/to:2008.4/trend
Stan W. says:
April 20, 2013 at 3:51 pm
there are multiple, nonexclusive reasons why such a “hiatus” could exist
That may well be true, but it is unfortunate for certain people that we were not told about these reasons before the hiatus reached 16 years. At this point, they either have to move the goal posts or admit CAGW is false.
It has not been a colder winter everywhere. Here in Japan, it has been unusually warmer. It doesn’t mean a thing but, nonetheless, now you guys know.
@werner — people like Ben Santer have been talking about climate noise for a long time, but this surface hiatus has made some people think harder about natural variability. that’s a good thing — an advancement of the science — and in no way a disproof of AGW.
(i don’t know what the “C” in “CAGW” is supposed to mean — it’s not a scientific term, but one of values.)
@werner: you are **always** going to be able to slice up time series to find intervals where the short-term trend is flat, or up, or down, or anything. so i don’t see the point of it — it doesn’t tell you anything about climate change, but about weather and natural internal oscillations in the climate system. ENSOs and the PDO and AMO and such will sometimes increase the underlying GHG trend, sometimes,decrease it, sometimes flatten it, and it will depend on if you choose X yrs and Y months or N yrs and M months.
so what is the point?
werner: “As far as the latest La Ninas are concerned, if the rate of global warming were even close to what the models predict or project, then a strong La Nina after 15 years should not make that much difference.”
not true at all, and i notice you didn’t offer any proof of this.
strong ENSOs can cause a fluctuation of 0.2-0.3 C in a year. that’s enough to swamp a current GHG trend of about 0.2 C/decade.
for UAH LT the 15yr trend was negative in 1994-5. but warming didn’t end then, and it isn’t ending now.
there is significant noise in 15 yrs.
Hi, R. Eschhaus,
Well, I am COMPLETELY violating the etiquette of posting (keep to the topic), but, oh, well. “Grammar N-z-i’s” [thanks for the heads up, Mod.!] is the perfect description for anyone who would be pedantic about writing in German. Given the (what appears to me, anyway) super-complexity of Deutsche grammar, their criticizing those who come reasonably close to the mark is like saying, “Oh, yes, Horowitz played that Rachmaninoff piece beautifully, but he played pp where it should have been p and he played mf where it should have been mp.” Well, Grammar N’s like lots of rules, just like all good little socialists.
Re: free markets, I won’t debate that topic here, for I can see that you and I simply disagree about the benefits (to me it would be the costs) of (and the extent of) government regulation and such a debate is MUCH better done in conversation (debate by written correspondence is fraught with endless frustration — oh, that reminds me, to be pedantic about myself, the word should have been “flailing” (as in flailing about for an answer), oops). I’ll just say that I’m with Milton Friedman all the way. Re: “drugs,” they ARE regulated in the U.S.; the law makes their sale or possession illegal. This creates a black market which may or may not be the best of bad alternatives for some noxious substances. Again, not the place to debate that topic, either!
A thought about being pedantic about oneself v. others. Yes, it is loving one’s neighbor, usually, to refrain from criticism, but, always remember, we are to “love your neighbor as yourself.” [Lev. 19:18] One can’t love one’s neighbor and not love oneself. Perfectionism (not meaning the striving for excellence which is good) is a disease! I know, I have a touch of it!
Perhaps, you are right about the British being more witty because it is a part of their culture, but that sort of begs the question… how did it become such a big part of their culture? 🙂 —– I just deleted (yes, really!) several sentences — I started to attempt a debate in writing! It’s easy to get hooked into that!
You and Dirk ought to get together once a week (in reality) and have friendly discussions. He might be able to persuade you of a few things (heh, heh [;)] or vice versa, you would be quite justified in saying).
Take care, wherever you are, and be kind to yourself. Auf wiedersehen and gute (?) nacht.
Janice
Stan W. says:
April 20, 2013 at 8:25 pm
and in no way a disproof of AGW.
(i don’t know what the “C” in “CAGW” is supposed to mean — it’s not a scientific term, but one of values.)
Few people are denying a small amount of AGW. It is the C or “catastrophic” warming that divides most people. And it is due to the supposed catastrophic warming that some governments want to spend billions to avoid it.
Stan W. says:
April 20, 2013 at 8:29 pm
@werner: you are **always** going to be able to slice up time series to find intervals where the short-term trend is flat, or up, or down, or anything. ….so what is the point?
The point is that I can show a flat trend for 16 years on three data sets. NOAA says the following:
”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.”
To verify this for yourself, see page 23 at:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
Stan W. says:
April 20, 2013 at 8:35 pm
that’s enough to swamp a current GHG trend of about 0.2 C/decade.
for UAH LT the 15yr trend was negative in 1994-5. but warming didn’t end then, and it isn’t ending now.
The current trend for UAH since 1979 is 0.14/decade and this is not catastrophic. How can you be sure warming is not ending now? There is every indication that climate is following a 60 year sine wave and that we are just over the peak. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2005/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/to:2004/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2004/trend
and:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg
@richardscourtney re your post at 3.37pm. I’m going to try and reply in a polite and pleasant way, just to see if it is actually possible to have a discussion with you that doesn’t involve calling others “trolls” and claiming that they are “lying”.
For starters, I don’t know how you can claim that I lied. I really didn’t make any statements. I simply suggested that changing one number for another was mathematically possible. I accept that my post was somewhat mocking your style, but given that you spend a significant fraction of your posts accusing others of being “trolls”, “lying”, “making false claims”, amongst many other unpleasant accusations, I assumed that you could take a little ribbing.
I have read what StanW was suggesting and it has to be mathematically possible because all he is suggesting is that one removes the values associated with El Ninos and La Ninas and replace them with another set of numbers that represent what one might expect if these El Ninos and La Ninas didn’t happen. As far as I’m aware, this has actually been done (Foster & Rahmstorf). This has to be mathematically possible. To claim otherwise is extremely odd. It might not be physically justified and one could argue about whether or not it is appropriate, but it is mathematically possible.
Obnoxious troll posting as Stan W.:
At April 20, 2013 at 3:43 pm I wrote to you saying
At April 20, 2013 at 3:51 pm you reply with a trolling response which is typical of your posts in this thread.
1. Your post provides a falsehood
2. Your post iterates a previously refuted point
3. Your post misrepresents what was said and addresses a ‘straw man’.
This is the totality of the egregious post which is one of your series of similarly egregious trolling posts.
1. DELIBERATE FALSEHOOD
I did not dispute the physics of GHGs. In fact, I addressed that and explained why it is irrelevant in my post to you at April 20, 2013 at 12:04 pm where my explanation began saying
Your implication that I said or implied otherwise is a blatant falsehood intended to mislead onlookers. In short, it is classic trolling.
2. ITERATION OF A PREVIOUSLY REFUTED POINT
The assertion that I ignore natural variation is ignoring my series of posts which said to you exactly the opposite. Indeed, my first response to YOU (at April 19, 2013 at 3:53 pm) stated the dominance of natural variation. Importantly, my post to YOU (at April 20, 2013 at 12:04 pm) explained – with references and links – why natural variation is so dominant that any possible AGW would be too small for it to be discernible.
Your assertion that I ignore natural variability is an iteration of your assertion which I have repeatedly refuted. The iteration is clearly intended to mislead onlookers. In short, it is classic trolling.
3. USE OF THE ‘STRAW MAN’ LOGICAL FALLACY
This is the most egregious example of your disgraceful trolling in the post I am answering. It is clearly intended to mislead onlookers.
I wrote
Your reply talks about
NOTE:
I stated “the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models”.
Your reply talks about “AGW” and discusses a list of issues other than emulations of climate models.
And my statement is correct according to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The explanation for this is in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html
It says there
In other words, it was expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.
This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.
So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 7 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” (i.e. linear trend) over those two decades then global temperature now needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.
Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).
I add that the disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models. If we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that all projections of global warming are complete bunkum.
Richard
Obnoxious troll posting as To the left of centre:
I am replying to your post at April 20, 2013 at 10:25 pm .
You lied.
In my post at April 20, 2013 at 3:17 pm I quoted your lie and refuted it .
At April 20, 2013 at 3:23 pm you added another lie and I objected to that at April 20, 2013 at 3:37 pm.
Your post I am answering adds more lies and claims you are being polite!
It says
That is NOT what your partner in trolling suggested.
What he suggested is in his post at April 19, 2013 at 4:53 pm.
I quoted it verbatim in my post at April 20, 2013 at 2:05 am and I there explained
Lies are not polite. And your lies have the clear and unambiguous purposes of disrupting the thread, flaming, and misleading onlookers; i.e. they are extreme trolling.
Richard
@richardscourtney Oh well, I tried. It is clearly not possible to have pleasant scientific discussion with you (or, at least, it seems that I can’t). I did not lie about anything. I made a comment that suggested something.
I find it rather ironic that you say “Lies are not polite” while calling me an “obnoxious troll”. My comments are not “extreme trolling”. They are simply comments on a blog. Your responses, however, are – in my opinion – very extreme and if anyone is acting to disrupt and mislead, it is not me. Feel free to respond to this, but don’t expect me to engage further. The only thing that I can learn from you is how not to engage in a decent and honest scientific discussion, and I think I have now learned all that I need to know about that.
@To the left of centre: The poster called ‘richardscourtney’ has been warned about his behaviour by the moderators before; it’s probably best to just ignore him when he gets like that (can’t be good for his health anyway).
Obnoxious troll posting as To the left of centre:
At April 21, 2013 at 12:32 am you say
Well, one can only hope that is true, but I will believe it when I see it.
Your posts in this thread have only contained blatant falsehoods, so I see no reason to believe anything you say. And trolls tend to keep coming back.
Richard
wbrozek says:
April 20, 2013 at 9:41 pm
Stan W. says:
April 20, 2013 at 8:29 pm
@werner: you are **always** going to be able to slice up time series to find intervals where the short-term trend is flat, or up, or down, or anything. ….so what is the point?
The point is that I can show a flat trend for 16 years on three data sets. NOAA says the following:
”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.”
As has been pointed out to you and others here that statement refers to simulations which exclude ENSO and only apply to such conditions. Your continued denial of the basis for the NOAA statement does you no credit.
Phil.:
Stan W., To the left of centre, Icarus62, and now you.
What is it about this thread which is attracting known and egregious trolls? Could the attraction be fear induced by the subject of this thread; i.e. how reality is refuting the beliefs of your cult?
At April 21, 2013 at 4:11 am concerning the NOAA falsification criterion, you write to Werner Brozek
At April 20, 2013 at 3:05 pm – n.b. before he mentioned the NOAA falsification criterion – he explained that your point is irrelevant because the trend is unaffected by the net effect of ENSO over the period.
Werner Brozek then wrote to the member of your tag team posting as Stan W.
Your misrepresentation of the statements of Werner Brozek is consistent with your history of egregious posts.
Richard
Phil. says:
April 21, 2013 at 4:11 am
As has been pointed out to you and others here that statement refers to simulations which exclude ENSO and only apply to such conditions. Your continued denial of the basis for the NOAA statement does you no credit.
On two separate posts on this thread, I have shown that both at the start and end of the 16 year period, the ENSO affects cancel out. However whether or not you accept my arguments as valid is a different question. But while I am writing about this, we are rapidly approaching Santer’s 17 years. Does he also mention ENSO or does he assume anything other than CO2 is just noise?
werner: “On two separate posts on this thread, I have shown that both at the start and end of the 16 year period, the ENSO affects cancel out.”
maybe they do or maybe they don’t, but if so that’s exactly my point — you have to slice and dice the time interval to get a cancellation. other short time intervals will give other trends, which makes short term trends meaningless.
and your result relies on using RSS data, which differs significantly from UAH data and from surface datasets.
@richardcourtney — i agree with others above — your rudeness and unpleasantness is out of bounds. i won’t engage with such a person.
Stan W, and his apologists: here ya go: http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p182/Brocke1964/hwtglobalwarming.jpg
The fact is that the warming has indeed stopped, which is baffling, and frightening to Warmist “scientists”. No surprise. Their entire raison d’etre is vanishing, along with their visions of future climadollars. They are back-pedaling and grasping at straws furiously, as are you. It’s amusing to watch, actually.
werner — “The current trend for UAH since 1979 is 0.14/decade and this is not catastrophic. How can you be sure warming is not ending now?”
again, “catastropic” is not a scientific term, it’s a word about values. until you define it it’s hard to know what it means in this contect.
by my thinking such a warming rate could well be “catastropic” for some if it continues for a century or two.
of course one cannot be sure about anything in the future, but CO2 and CH4 will not stop being greenhouse gases, so physics says their warming must continue and it must get larger as their abundance increases. the manmade aerosol effects could well suppress some of this warming. at times internal cycles will work to suppress this warming, or augment this warming.
you are making unscientific choices about time intervals, and ignoring other effects that contribute to surface temperature over short time intervals.
you’re also completely ignoring ocean warming.
Stan W.:
At April 21, 2013 at 7:09 am you say to me
No! YOUR rudeness and unpleasantness are out of bounds.
And I have responded to them by using evidence, references and logical argument to wipe the floor with you. After all, that is the appropriate thing to do with dirty rags that have no other use.
I can only hope that you will do as you say and run away with your tail between your legs.
But I suspect that – like all bad pennies – you will be back.
Please note that in this post I have tried – but probably failed – to display the degree of my contempt.
Richard