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!
@Bruce — your graph is a classic cherry pick, depending on end point effects, and unscientific.
also, since it doesn’t go past 2008 it is misleading, especially for sea level rise and ice melt.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/19/the-unraveling-of-global-warming-is-accelerating/#comment-1281728
Obnoxious troll posting as Stan W.:
At April 21, 2013 at 7:21 am in classic ‘Big Lie’ technique, you again repeat refuted nonsense when you write
My post at April 20, 2013 at 12:04 pm caste some of the pearls I have spread before you.
I then explained that although CO2 and CH4 will not stop being greenhouse gases physics says that does NOT mean there would be discernible global warming if their atmospheric CO2 concentration were to increase.
I provided references and links to papers which provide direct empirical evidence of what the physics actually says.
Please do as you promised and not “engage” on this thread. You are wasting space on the thread.
Richard
Stan W, the FACT that global warming has stopped is undeniable: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg
Warmist “scientists” are struggling to explain why (and failing miserably), while you are still stuck in the d*n+@l phase.
When Reality comes up against Belief, eventually Belief fails. But there’s an even bigger reality here, and that is that, try as they might, Warmists have NEVER been able to show a link between modern warming and man’s C02 emissions. The reason, which is becoming increasingly clear, is that there never was one.
@Bruce — again, why didn’t your graph include data since 2008?
thre are several reasons why surface temperatures may be flat for a decade or even two — manmade aerosols, natural variability like ENSOs, PDO, AMO, NAO, etc, satellites underestimating warming.
the conclusion that it falsifies CO2 warming is simply unscientific and incorrect.
Stan W- are your CAGW goggles that thick that you can’t see that the graph I just posted goes thru 2012? Once again, you keep dancing around the FACT that warming has indeed stopped for some 16 years. You can paste on any “explainations” you like afterwards. It, by itself doesn’t falsify your “C02 warming”, nor does it need to. You are simply spinning your wheels, digging yourself in deeper. Typical troll, in other words.
Friends:
At April 21, 2013 at 8:39 am the troll posting as Stan W. says:
Clearly, the troll has secret information available to nobody else. He/she/they needs to read my post at April 21, 2013 at 12:02 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/19/the-unraveling-of-global-warming-is-accelerating/#comment-1282099
then inform the IPCC of why they are wrong. The IPCC needs the information for the AR5.
Richard
@Bruce — your earlier graph stops at 2008. why offer it as evidence when it excludes almost 5 years of data?
it is not “dancing” to recognize that climate is determined by several factors, not just CO2. it is unscientific *not* to do so.
Bruce Cobb:
I offer some friendly advice.
The troll ignores each and every piece of information, changes tack when shown to be wrong, and returns to restate the refuted assertion later in the thread. Check the thread and you will see the troll has done this several times.
The troll claimed to Werner Brozek that
he has repeatedly ignored my pointing out that such warming would be too small to be discernible but says to you
It is not possible to debate with such wriggling: it is like trying to nail jello to the wall.
After half a dozen of the troll’s posts I got angry with its behaviour.
So, I suggest that it is best to walk away and leave the troll to its mental masturbation.
Richard
Stan W. says:
April 21, 2013 at 7:07 am
and your result relies on using RSS data, which differs significantly from UAH data and from surface data sets
It is true that it differs from UAH, but Hadcrut3 and Hadsst2 both have around 16 years of no warming as well. I am sure I can get the ENSO parts to cancel, but then I would have a shorter interval, but what is the point when you will respond as follows:
other short time intervals will give other trends, which makes short term trends meaningless
That reminds me of the time we were challenged to prove there was no warming for 15 years. I did that and was accused of cherry picking a start time before the 1998 El Nino. Some one else used a shorter time and was accused of using less than 15 years!
Stan W. says:
April 21, 2013 at 7:21 am
you’re also completely ignoring ocean warming
The surface has not warmed since March, 1997. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend
So are you suggesting the deeper ocean warmed without warming the surface? Perhaps it happened, but who really cares if the deep ocean went from 3.0 C to 3.2 C? It is not as if this heat will somehow warm air that is at 15 C. Heat flows from a higher temperature to a lower one so it will be a long time before the deep ocean gets to 15 C.
Why, oh, why do you people insist on engaging the trolls?
@werner — really, posting SST for “ocean warming?” tsk tsk
it would matter a great deal if, as you wrote, “the deep ocean went from 3.0 C to 3.2 C,” because it would indicate an energy imbalance — more energy into the Earth system than leaving it. That’s *is* global warming, and if the ocean is warming, the surface will too over the long-term. (90% of the extra energy goes into the oceans).
besides, 0.2 C in the deep ocean is a HUGE amount of heat. do the math.
@werner – HadCRUT3 is known to underestimate arctic warming. it has been supersceeded by a better series, HadCRUT4. but feel free to use less than the best science if it’s the only way you can maintain your position.
@werner — as i noted before but you ignored, there have been previous 15yr intervals where the short-term trend was zero, and even one of about 30 yrs where it was zero (1945-1975), held down probably by manmade aerosols and some n.v. from the AMO. and there will be more such intervals in the future, since the increase in CO2 forcing over a decade is right now only about one-fourth of a watt per meter-squared. (use your favorite value of climate sensitivity to convert that to a temperature.)
@TomR,Worc,MA — it is rude to call anyone who thinks differently from you a name. either engage in the science or leave alone those who are.
Stan W. says:
April 21, 2013 at 6:02 pm
besides, 0.2 C in the deep ocean is a HUGE amount of heat. do the math
I did the math and it is huge. IF all that heat went into the atmosphere, it would warm by 0.2 x 1100 = 220 C. But the point I was making is that this is not going to happen, at least for thousands of years until the ocean warms up to 15 C. So why should we worry if the oceans are for all intents and purposes and infinite heat sink which prevents the atmosphere from over heating?
@werner — you’re really asking who cares if we alter the oceans for thousands of years? have you ever heard the term “thermal inertia?”
the oceans absorb about 90% of the energy imbalance, not 100%. in addition, heat moves around and can come out of the ocean, like the big 1997-98 el nino, from which atmospheric temperatures have never recovered.
Stan W. says:
April 21, 2013 at 6:05 pm
@werner – HadCRUT3 is known to underestimate arctic warming. it has been supersceeded by a better series, HadCRUT4. but feel free to use less than the best science if it’s the only way you can maintain your position.
The statistics for Hadcrut4 are: the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 4 months. (goes to February)
And as far as statistically significant warming is concerned, for Hadcrut4: 0.093 +/- 0.108 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995.
So Hadcrut4, while giving a shorter time than Hadcrut3, still is not a ringing endorsement of the IPCC models.
Also see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/31/the-mail-on-sunday-takes-on-the-ccc/
Stan W. says:
April 21, 2013 at 6:10 pm
@werner — as i noted before but you ignored, there have been previous 15yr intervals where the short-term trend was zero, and even one of about 30 yrs where it was zero (1945-1975), held down probably by manmade aerosols….
“Aerosols” seem to be the latest culprit to blame if temperatures do not rise as predicted. I suppose it could be true, however it could just as likely be the fact that CO2 is just not the driver many people thought it was. Until we know for sure, we should not spend billions on carbon capture, etc.
Stan W. says:
April 21, 2013 at 8:36 pm
@werner — you’re really asking who cares if we alter the oceans for thousands of years? have you ever heard the term “thermal inertia?”
Not quite. I said: “this is not going to happen, at least for thousands of years“
In other words, it will be thousands of years before the heated deep ocean could become a problem. However we do not have exact data here and I used 0.2 for discussion sake. Perhaps that was a mistake since Dr. Spencer says this:
“Because of the immense heat capacity of the deep ocean, the magnitude of deep warming in Scenario 3 might only be thousandths of a degree. Whether we can measure such tiny levels of warming on the time scales of decades or longer is very questionable, and the new study co-authored by Trenberth is not entirely based upon observations, anyway.”
See:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/more-on-trenberths-missing-heat/
Egregious and oboxious troll posting as Stan W.:
At April 21, 2013 at 6:12 pm you write
DO THAT.
Stan W., clear off and leave discussion to those who can, want to, and do discuss the science.
Those who discuss the science do NOT do as you do, They address the science: they
(a) Cite reference and quote it
(d) Know it
(c) Understand it
(e) Consider information put to them.
(f) Don’t pretend they know the unknowable
(g) Don’t pretend the science which refutes their arguments has not been put to them
(h) Don’t pretend distortions of the science are truth
(i) Don’t ‘cut & paste’ nonsense from warmunist web sites
(j) Don’t use mutually exclusive arguments as and when it suites.
Your egregious attack on science is an affront to the human race. Do as you suggest: leave the thread to those who want to discuss the science.
Richard
You gotta hand it to Stan the Troll. He’s polite at least. And amazingly persistent. So how about a big round of applause for his performance? Or, at least a big bronx cheer.
richardscourtney says:
April 21, 2013 at 5:39 am
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?
Indeed,I had noticed that you had returned after a brief hiatus. I don’t know why you keep coming back with your ad hominem attacks and labeling everyone who doesn’t share your views as ‘trolls”.
Could the attraction be fear induced by the subject of this thread; i.e. how reality is refuting the beliefs of your cult?
Reality is not on your side, which appears to be the reason for your vituperation. In a couple of years time when the Arctic sea ice disappears in the fall it will be interesting to see how you spin that.
At April 21, 2013 at 4:11 am concerning the NOAA falsification criterion, you write to Werner Brozek
“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.”
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.
He asserted it without any supporting data and neglected to mention the most recent La Niñas, a proper analysis of the data which accounts for ENSO shows that there is an statistically significant underlying positive slope. Werner’s cancelling out of Niño and Niña is a myth!
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
Werner Brozek then wrote to the member of your tag team posting as Stan W.
Since I have no ‘tag team’, this is more of your ad hominem nonsense.
OK, I will play your game. Of course the biggest El Nino is from 1998 and people are excited when a trend is started right before this El Nino. But what people do not seem to realize is that there are deep La Ninas on either side of that El Nino and they cancel each other out. Check out the following and note that the slope is essentially 0, both for 16 years and 4 months which includes the 1998 El Nino and for 13 years and 2 months that does not include this El Nino.
But both periods include the recent La Niñas, a fact that isn’t mentioned in Werner’s handwaving!
Your misrepresentation of the statements of Werner Brozek is consistent with your history of egregious posts.
My accurate representation of Werner’s statements is consistent with my history of correcting such mis-statements. Your posts attacking anyone who doesn’t agree with you is consistent with your posting history. Both Werner and you have used the NOAA quotation without including the caveat that it applies to model results which don’t include ENSO, and then mislead by applying it to data which does include ENSO, when you do that I will continue to call you on it.
@werner — the CO2 forcing is among the best known pieces of climate change. simple analyses like foster & rahmstorf show it is still there, as basic physics says it must be.
again, aerosols are not the only possible reason why the surface is flat for a decade — and by the way, there is absolutely nothing in the science that says that can’t happen. surface temperature simply does not increase monotonically with CO2 level.
other possible reasons include natural variability, especially ENSOs and longer ocean cycles, a slightly cooler sun lately, a possible low-bias of the satellite data (not at all impossible given how much RSS and UAH diverge recently, and the checkered history of UAH data), an uptick in ocean warming (observed).
the big macroindicators show the Earth is still in energy imbalance: sea level rise, sea ice melt, glacier melt. (recent data shows that sea level rise may even be accelerating now.)