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.
Phil. says:
April 22, 2013 at 7:06 am
He asserted it without any supporting data and neglected to mention the most recent La Niñas,
I assume you do not agree the following graph addresses this concern?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.75/plot/rss/from:1996.75/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.75/to:2008.4/trend
OK. Fair enough. That is a judgement call. However your concern about negating El Ninos and La Ninas is something that did not seem to be a concern in 1998. Please correct me if I am wrong as I did not follow climate in 1998, but did not Al Gore and Michael Mann play up the 1998 super El Nino of the century for all they could? Or did they say it is not fair to count 1998?
Stan W. says:
April 22, 2013 at 8:47 am
@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.
However basic physics also says that the effect is logarithmic and some have suggested that the effect of carbon dioxide is almost saturated now. If anyone thinks that man can influence climate, perhaps they should pick on things that are not over the hill in terms of affecting climate.
Werner Brozek says:
April 22, 2013 at 9:33 am
Phil. says:
April 22, 2013 at 7:06 am
He asserted it without any supporting data and neglected to mention the most recent La Niñas,
I assume you do not agree the following graph addresses this concern?
OK. Fair enough. That is a judgement call.
No it doesn’t address the recent occurrence of La Ninas.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif
The Foster & Rahmstorf paper does address them and shows significant underlying temperature increase.
However your concern about negating El Ninos and La Ninas is something that did not seem to be a concern in 1998. Please correct me if I am wrong as I did not follow climate in 1998, but did not Al Gore and Michael Mann play up the 1998 super El Nino of the century for all they could? Or did they say it is not fair to count 1998?
It was referred to as an El Nino event at the time, however it’s your analysis that I’m addressing.
wbrozek says:
April 22, 2013 at 9:41 am
Stan W. says:
April 22, 2013 at 8:47 am
@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.
However basic physics also says that the effect is logarithmic and some have suggested that the effect of carbon dioxide is almost saturated now.
In which case the same basic physics says we should expect a transition to a square root dependence, i.e. stronger than logarithmic.
If anyone thinks that man can influence climate, perhaps they should pick on things that are not over the hill in terms of affecting climate.
Perhaps you should understand the physics better before you make such pronouncements?
Phil.:
Trolls (e.g. you) act to deliberately disrupt threads by posting falsehoods and by flaming other posters with false accusations (e.g. of accusing them of saying all who oppose them are trolls).
There are countless examples that you are posting falsehoods and making untrue defamations when (at April 22, 2013 at 7:06 am) you write of me
I do NOT say everybody who disagrees with me is a troll. I say people who troll are trolls.
For example, for a decade Ferdinand Engelbeen and I have been conducting a raging disagreement about the cause(s) of atmospheric CO2 rise: the most recent round is on a current thread of WUWT. But I tell anybody that Ferdinand is extremely knowledgeable on the subject and I commend his web site as the best ‘starting point’ for information on the subject. But I strongly refute his arguments, and he is certainly NOT a troll.
And either you don’t know what an ad hom. is or you are trolling when you say I use ad homs.. Pointing out that somebody has lied is not an ad hom. when they did lie and when the lie is pertinent to the debate. Similarly, it is not an ad hom. to state that a person is egregious and obnoxious when that person’s egregious and obnoxious behaviour has tainted the debate.
You have a long history of trolling. And your comment which I am replying is pure trolling.
I don’t like trolls. Indeed, I disdain them. That is why I ‘call them out’.
Richard
Phil. says:
April 22, 2013 at 10:33 am
The Foster & Rahmstorf paper does address them and shows significant underlying temperature increase.
It does not look like Bob Tisdale agrees. See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/02/tisdale-takes-on-taminos-foster-rahmstorf-2011/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/14/tisdale-on-foster-and-rahmstorf-take-2/
In which case the same basic physics says we should expect a transition to a square root dependence, i.e. stronger than logarithmic.
This makes no logical sense at all. It is as if we say the force of gravity varies inversely as the square of the distance and to then say if we get far enough away from Earth, the relationship changes. I can certainly appreciate that the relationship is not logarithmic for under 100 ppm or so, but to say it gets stronger than logarithmic above a certain point seems odd. On the other hand, how much stronger are we talking about? For example, if we assume the Earth would warm up by 1.0 C if CO2 went from 400 to 800 ppm using the log relationship, how much would the temperature go up if we used the square root dependence?
@werner — the 1998 el nino was 15 years ago — that’s a long time.
so some people have come to a better understanding of natural variability since then. that’s hardly a crime — science advances with new knowledge.
a better question is, why have temperatures not *fallen* since the 1998 el nino?
yes, i know you want to believe CO2 isn’t a culprit, but the hard scientific truth is there are many explanations for a flat decade on the surface, and not understanding CO2 is very far down the list.
@werner — why do you continue to show graphs of RSS data but not UAH data? is it because one supports your thesis and the other does not?
werner: “However basic physics also says that the effect is logarithmic and some have suggested that the effect of carbon dioxide is almost saturated now.”
the effect is logarithmic, but CO2 emissions and levels are increasing exponentially.
CO2 is not near saturation (even on Venus). saturation is a myth, a mistake by Angstrom that some people still still find useful. both theory and experiment support this.
@Phil — stay strong. name-calling, insinuations and bullying are how some people try to suppress points of view other than their own.
@werner — the logarithmic dependence only holds in a certain range. i don’t know if it eventually becomes a square root (i’d like to know more about where that’s shown), but i’ve seen forcing equations, like in Hansen 1988, that go like ln(aC+bC^2+cC^3) where a,b and c are constants and C=CO2 level. The deviation can be 10% or more for C ~1000 ppm.
Egregious and obnoxious troll posting as Stan W.:
Ignoring information and changing arguments at a whim is how egregious and obnoxious trolls deliberately destroy rational debate.
People who enjoy debate (e.g. me) like to clash with ideas different from their own: that is how we learn. But egregious and obnoxious trolls try to prevent anybody learning and, instead, they promote their agenda by use of whatever is convenient at the moment.
For example, one egregious and obnoxious troll (i.e. you) recently posted this
Actually, CO2 in the lower atmosphere is so near to saturation that its major absorbtion band (15 micron) is saturated across its width and CO2 achieves absorbtion by band broadening.
But claiming “saturation is a myth (even on Venus). saturation is a myth” is useful to egregious and obnoxious trolls when promoting their agenda.
Richard
@Phil – also, my recommendation is for you to completely ignore richard. that seems to bother him more than anything.
Dear Richard Courtney, Werner Brozek, and Bruce Cobb, you are truth tellers par excellence!
You are SUPER-cool.
What a valiant attempt you made to rescue the brainwashed. Your side CLEARLY won the debate. The other side didn’t make even one point.
Certainly, v. a v. the three clowns above, your pearls of knowledge and wisdom were cast “before swine.” HOWEVER, in case some of their more noble, open-minded, brothers or sisters were standing in the shadows, listening carefully, IT WAS WORTH THE EFFORT, for them. You may have saved someone from the Cult, or, at least, started them on the road out of the darkness and into the light.
Personally, though, for the FUTURE, and as noble as I regard your above attempt, I think one ought to avoid dignifying such twisted logic and stubborn resistance to facts with a response.
There are plenty of devil’s advocates and principled debaters here (and some honest inquirers, too) with whom debate (or education) will not only be more sane, but more productive.
Trolls thrive on creating strife — it gets them attention and that is ALL they care about.
Werner Brozek says:
April 22, 2013 at 12:48 pm
Phil. says:
April 22, 2013 at 10:33 am
The Foster & Rahmstorf paper does address them and shows significant underlying temperature increase.
It does not look like Bob Tisdale agrees. See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/02/tisdale-takes-on-taminos-foster-rahmstorf-2011/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/14/tisdale-on-foster-and-rahmstorf-take-2/
Still a suitable method for removing the effects of ENSO needs to be used if you wish to use the NOAA statement in your argument. If you can’t properly do so then you can’t make use of the statement.
“In which case the same basic physics says we should expect a transition to a square root dependence, i.e. stronger than logarithmic.”
This makes no logical sense at all. It is as if we say the force of gravity varies inversely as the square of the distance and to then say if we get far enough away from Earth, the relationship changes. I can certainly appreciate that the relationship is not logarithmic for under 100 ppm or so, but to say it gets stronger than logarithmic above a certain point seems odd.
Logic has nothing to do with it! We’re not talking about an inverse square law, we’re talking about the absorption of light in lines which are broadened as the concentration of the absorber increases. Astronomers refer to the result as the ‘Curve of Growth’. It starts off as a linear dependence for weak absorption, transitions through logarithmic to square root for strong absorption.
See for example:
http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/lattimer/PHY521/atmos6.pdf
Stan W. says:
April 22, 2013 at 1:00 pm
@werner — the 1998 el nino was 15 years ago — that’s a long time.
a better question is, why have temperatures not *fallen* since the 1998 el nino?
Yes, that is a long time. And I think a still better question is why the 1998 mark has not been beaten on 4 data sets.
Stan W. says:
April 22, 2013 at 1:01 pm
@werner — why do you continue to show graphs of RSS data but not UAH data? is it because one supports your thesis and the other does not?
Is UAH reliable? 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.”
Stan W. says:
April 22, 2013 at 1:04 pm
the effect is logarithmic, but CO2 emissions and levels are increasing exponentially
That was true decades ago, but not lately. In the last 16 or 17 years when temperatures have flattened on several data sets, the rise in CO2 is no longer accelerating. See the slopes below. They are virtually identical over the last 17 years as over the last 9 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2004/trend
Phil. says:
April 22, 2013 at 5:13 pm
It starts off as a linear dependence for weak absorption, transitions through logarithmic to square root for strong absorption.
Stan W. says:
April 22, 2013 at 1:10 pm
The deviation can be 10% or more for C ~1000 ppm.
Over the last 16 years, the effect has been 0 on three data sets. And 10% of 0 is still 0.
(P.S. Thank you Janice!)
@werner — is RSS reliable? How do you know?
@werner — have you really never heard of the “Keeling curve?” it is increasing exponentially.
over any small interval, an exponential can be approximated by a linear term. but only over small intervals, which you seem to rely on for all your so-called conclusions.
an exponential is a much better fit to the long-term data.
@werner – are you aware that in the last 5 yrs 10 months RSS has an upward trend of 0.18 C/decade?
that’s it’s 0.26 C/decade over the last 5 yrs 4 months?
werner–
“Yes, that is a long time. And I think a still better question is why the 1998 mark has not been beaten on 4 data sets.”
so you don’t have an answer to why temperatures haven’t fallen back after that largest el nino on record? that’s telling.
this, combined with the strong ocean warming and ice melting and sea level rise, is a good sign the earth is still undergoing an energy imbalance.
Do you think you’re convincing anyone out there of anything Stan? Other than the fact that you’re a f**king idiot.
References:
1) See, example “so you don’t have an answer to why temperatures haven’t fallen back after that largest el nino on record? that’s telling”.
Carry on.
Stan W. says:
April 22, 2013 at 6:55 pm
@werner — is RSS reliable? How do you know?
RSS and UAH have their differences, but both are unanimous that the climate models are crap and not reliable. See:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/
Stan W. says:
April 22, 2013 at 6:59 pm
@werner — have you really never heard of the “Keeling curve?” it is increasing exponentially.
over any small interval, an exponential can be approximated by a linear term.
Neither NOAA nor Ben Santer nor I consider 17 years a “small interval”. Even a warmist with whom I had a conversation three years ago implied that while 8 years means nothing, 15 years is nothing to sneeze at when we were discussing Phil Jones’ interview. But if you consider 17 years small, that is your prerogative.