Politicians in all parties in Germany, from the communists to the conservatives, and everything in between, are all racing to be the first to jump off the let’s-save-the-climate cliff.
All have made rescuing the climate a target that absolutely has to be achieved – no matter the cost. Politicians of every stripe have pledged to cut Germany’s CO2 emissions 80% by 2050. Minister of the Environment Norbert Röttgen, of the conservative (in name only) party, even sets it up as a life and death matter, as absurd as it sounds:
That rescues our climate.
No kidding. Everything else takes a back seat to this imperative – consumers be damned. Taking the little guy to the cleaners in Germany knows no limits. And so, expensive green energy sources like wind and solar are being subsidized with total abandon, and consumers are getting the big-time shaft through skyrocketing electric bills- The government profits in the end. Ederer writes:
Renewable energy must be fed into the power grid at a mandated fixed price, which for the consumer will mean a price increase of 6 cents per kwh for 2011 alone.
What benefit will all this pain render consumers? It’s a fact that CO2 emissions globally are going to continue increasing, as most countries outside of Europe could give a rat’s rear about foregoing prosperity in order to play the make believe game of rescuing the planet.
If Germany succeeded in reducing its CO2 emissions 80% by 2050, what theoretical impact would it have on the environment? Ederer tells us:
If Germany reduced its share of CO2 by 80%, or even 100%, then it help to warm the planet 0.0072 °C less. As I said earlier, that’s if all figures and calculations of the IPCC are correct.
With the Democrats getting voted out of office in Congress, the respective concepts for protecting the climate will wind up in the trash can. Europe should quickly search for willing partners.
All together now: Ohhhhh! How dreadful!
But hope is the last to die, and not quite everyone has lost it. Yet, Der Standard sees the writing on the wall:
While there are still a few NGOs who have hope in the good of people and Obama, there’s no one left in the USA who is ready to bet even a single cent on a US climate law could get off the ground.
Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University in New York, and occasionally a columnist for Der Standard says:
There’s nothing left to salvage!
According to Der Standard:
In an interview conducted via Skype with participants of a Climate Workshop in Brussels, Sachs stated that people in the United States have practically zero interest in climate protection. At least for the next two years, but likely it’ll be much longer before any real kind of initiatives on the issue of climate protection can be expected.
Der Standard mopes that the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico had no impact on the public’s opinion, and that a wide majority of Americans favor offshore oil drilling. Now come the old conspiracies and paranoia. Der Standard:
The reason is fear of losing jobs and an unprecedented propaganda machine that was put into motion by the oil industry and its allies.
These allies include a number of evil European corporations like Eon, BP, Bayer, Basf, Arcelor oder GDF-Suez. Now the enviro-malcontents in Europe and at Der Standard say Europe has to shift its focus to China. Der Standard writes that China has become a “high flyer” in wind and solar energy. Partnership there must be enhanced.
Europe has to accept that there is nothing more to gain from the USA, except frustration. It makes much more sense to work on mutual interests with China.
Consider this a major milestone. Cap & Trade is dead for good in the United States. Even Europe sees it.
Whatever happened to CO2 driving the climate and causing melting of the ice caps? So now we have to use the ENSO as a barometer for ice melt (or freezing), sea level rise and climate variation? It is certainly a hell of a lot more plausible, that’s for sure.
Gravity field satellites observe for the first time the fluctuations of ice mass of the Antarctic ice sheet due to El Niño.
29.10.2010 | Potsdam: The change in the ice mass covering Antarctica is a critical factor in global climate events.
Scientists at the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences have now found that the year by year mass variations in the western Antarctic are mainly attributable to fluctuations in precipitation, which are controlled significantly by the climate phenomenon El Niño.
They examined the GFZ data of the German-American satellite mission GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment). The investigation showed significant regional differences in the western coastal area of the South Pole area.
Two areas in Antarctica are of particular interest because of their potential sensitivity to global climate change: the Antarctic Peninsula, which is currently experiencing a warming exceeding the global mean and the disappearance of large ice shelf areas, and the Amundsen Sector of West Antarctica, where currently the largest flow rates and mass loss of the Antarctic Ice Sheet is occurring. For some glaciers the ice thickness is decreasing rapidly, and glaciers and ice streams are notably retreating back into the interior. With 0.3 millimeters per year, both regions are currently contributing considerably to the global sea level change of about three millimeters per year.
In the study, the mass balance of both regions is reevaluated from gravity data of the satellite mission GRACE. As a result, the estimates were lower than those of conventional mass balance methods. “With the GRACE time series, it was for the first time possible to observe how the large-scale ice mass varies in the two areas due to fluctuations in rainfall from year to year,” said the GFZ scientists Ingo Sasgen. It has long been known that the Pacific El Niño climate phenomenon and the snowfall in Antarctica are linked. The complementary piece to the warm phase El Niño, the cold phase known as La Niña, also affects the Antarctic climate: “The cooler La Niña years lead to a strong low pressure area over the Amundsen Sea, which favors heavy rainfall along the Antarctic Peninsula – the ice mass is increasing there.
In contrast, the Amundsen area is dominated by dry air from the interior during this time. El Niño years with their warm phase lead to precisely the opposite pattern: reduced rainfall and mass loss in the Antarctic Peninsula, and an increase in the Amundsen Sectorfield, respectively” explains Professor Maik Thomas, head of the section “Earth System Modelling” at the German Research Centre for Geosciences (Helmholtz Association).
The recording of the entire ice mass of the South Pole and its variations is a central task in climate research and still raises many unanswered questions. In principle, the study could show that the continuous gravity data of the GRACE satellite mission contain another important medium-term climate signal.
Sasgen, I. Dobson, H., Martinec, Z. and Thomas, M., “Satellite Gravimetry Observation of Antarctic Snow Accumulation Related to ENSO,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2010.09 .015.
Is paranoia contagious? It seems so in certain circles. Like fear, it begins with one, and then spreads like wildfire.
Yesterday I wrote about Professor Stefan Rahmstorf’s hissing and fitting reaction to a piece written by EIKE, the humble sceptic organisation that had the audacity to bring up one of Rahmstorf’s old, yet embarrassing papers here, which I wrote about here.
Something is really getting to the poor fella. Science is supposed to be for the calm, and not the irrational. Rahmstorf has to learn to get a grip.
It seems whenever someone expresses dissent, which is normal in science, Rahmstorf flies off the handle and lashes out, almost irrationally.
Yesterday, for example, Roger Pielke Jr. wrote a piece here with details on an e-mail exchange between Rahmstorf’s sidekick Michael Mann and journalist Daniel Greenberg. These guys really seem to think the whole world is out to get them.
And recall the paranoia that pervaded throughout the Climategate e-mails involving Jones, Mann and the rest of the cast.
In this post I’m only going to focus primarily on Rahmstorf, as he is the issue here in Germany at the moment. But it fundamentally applies to the rest of his team as well.
Firstly, Rahmstorf is one of the very few “climate scientists” who truly believes that sea levels are about to rise at alarming rates over the next few decades, even refusing to accept the much more moderate projections of the IPCC, for which he is a lead author. Even though there is no data out there to support it, Rahmstorf is sure the atmosphere and seas are out to get us.
Calmer minds have attempted on numerous occasions to alleviate his anxiety by pointing out that scientific data do not support his horror visions, and that there is no need to go sleepless about it. For example sea levels over the last 100 years have risen at their normal rate of about 20 cm per century. Over the last years sea level rise has even slowed down, Read more here: Going Down.
And when someones tries to explain to him that the Greenland ice cores provide a reasonable temperature reconstruction of the past for the globe, he refuses to believe that too, insisting the fluctuations were local and not global. And if someone shows him that multiple proxies from all over the globe also show that temperatures fluctuated naturally, corresponding with the Greenland ice core, Rahmstorf still refuses to believe it and insists the climate is coming for us.
Whether it’s sea ice data, accumulated cyclone energy, the last two brutal German winters, ocean cycles, satellite data, etc., Rahmstorf refuses to believe the data no matter what. The climate’s after us.
So why does Rahmstorf refuse to believe data and the fellow scientists who deliver them? Here he also believes that these scientists are paid hacks of the big carbon industries, tobacco, and ultra right-wing think tanks.
The lefty Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper, for example, even reminded Rahmstorf awhile back that EIKE is just small, mailbox sceptic organisation. Are corporations pouring millions and millions and only getting a mailbox operation for their big bucks?
Gravediggers of science
Rahmstorf is acting too paranoid, and this behaviour is now running rampant through much of the warmist side. He even thinks that European corporations are buying up US denier senators. He writes at his piece Headlines From Absurdistan, citing treehugger blog:
Also European companies don’t pinch their pennies when it comes to buying up candidates for the US Senate who deny anthropogenic climate change.
How are regular people reacting to this? Daniel Greenberg wrote to Pielke:
My sympathy to you and anyone else who has to deal with them. They’re gravediggers of science.
It’s called self-destruction.
Relax – the climate is not going to tip and destroy the planet. The data does not show this.
We want to be fair, and so I’m obligated to inform readers that Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, has testily replied to EIKE’s report, which I wrote about just 2 days ago. Rahmstorf retorts at his website: Headlines From Absurdistan here.
First, recall that Rahmstorf is that alarmist scientist who projects an oddball sea level rise of 1.4 meters over the next 90 years, something that almost all scientists dismiss as nonsense (Rahmstorf may not be aware that sea level rise has indeed been slowing down; a few years ago the rate was 3.4 mm per year). Read more here.
Rahmstorf appears to be miffed that EIKE has labelled him as a lowly sceptic. Let us look at what he has written in reply.
1. First off, we’re all bought off. In his retort he first whines about all the money that big business is pouring into the sceptic machinery and to US denier politicians. (I haven’t seen a cent of it). Rahmstorf writes:
Also European companies don’t pinch their pennies when it comes to buying up candidates for the US Senate who deny anthropogenic climate change.
2. Next he points out that the focus of his 2003 paper was an analysis of ice core data from Greenland with respect to the timing of climate changes during the ice age only (Dansgaard-Oeschger events).
3. He then claims that EIKE is confusing local with global temperature fluctuations. Rahmstorf writes:
The Greenland data are mainly characterised by fluctuations in the Atlantic currents (the Dansgaard-Oeschger events), which practically have no impact on the global temperature.
4. In the Holocene in Greenland, like the northern latitudes overall, there was a cooling trend (it was warmer earlier), which was caused by regional solar radiation due to orbital cycles – not a global phenomena.
5. He counters the sceptic argument that past warmings show that today’s warming is natural using the following analogy:
It is as logical as saying that there cannot be forest arson today because there were completely natural forest fires in the past, too.
Of course there were warmer climates in the past than today (but as far as we know, not in the last 2 million years).
Today is the hottest it’s been in the last 2 million years! That’s quite the claim. Rahmstorf then poses the question:
Doesn’t the internet report [by EIKE] simply confirm the wisdom that the deniers of anthropogenic climate change no longer have any arguments – and so they have to resort to the most absurd possible twisting of the facts?
Finally, Rahmstorf takes one last shot at EIKE:
The source of all this nonsense, by the way, is the EIKE “climate sceptic” lobby group with the cute name of “European Institute for Climate and Energy”. For more information read Süddeutsche or the Spiegel.
Needless to say, Rahmstorf cites two lefty sources that don’t exactly say the nicest things about EIKE, calling it a hack organisation that’s headquartered in a mailbox. Funny though how Rahmstorf takes EIKE so seriously that he feels compelled to reply to the “mailbox operation” in less than 72 hours. Must be quite the mailbox.
The latest one comes from the fortune tellers and scryers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, led by psychic Paul O’Gorman, now available at the PNAS here.
The latest horoscope foretells that (later) in the 21st century, summers will be stickier and grittier, and winters will be stormier – this according to visions and images delivered by crystal balls and gazings into MIT scrying pools.
Apparently MIT diviners made contact with the spirits of 1981 to 2000, so writes the HAZ, and felt the unsettling vibes of mystic energy of atmospheres past, and the energy intensity of past climatological storms. MIT’s assortment of sophisticated scrying instruments, made of silicone and crystal, all delivered similar predictions for the 21st century – forebodings all confirmed by their climate tarot punch cards.
The bad vibrations and ill spirits foretell one thing only: doom!
The 21st century
The northern hemispheric middle latitudes will be haunted by severe meteorological storms between the autumn and spring equinoxes, becoming especially intense before and after the winter solstices.
For periods surrounding the summer solstices, crushing doldrums will beset northern middle latitude regions. Stagnate atmospheres will cause pollutants, and the evil spirits they harbor, to accumulate in ever higher concentrations above cities, bringing misery to non-believers.
Be forewarned! The degree of misery about to haunt the middle latitudes in the end will depend on the amount of ice surrounding the magnetic North Pole at the fall equinoxes.
The southern hemisphere will be visited by other misfortune, so say the MIT instruments of clairvoyance, and the diviners who gaze into them. There, ruthless storms will occur year-round, from solstice to solstice, from equinox to equinox.
Careful though, as other celestial alignments may impact the fortune tellers’ predictions. These predictions may change as they depend on what parts of the atmosphere are heavily impacted. If the earthly layer of the atmosphere energizes, then other currents and eddies come into play.
In the northern hemisphere, however, the heavenly layers of the atmosphere shall warm, and this will act to calm the air mass energy.
Come back tomorrow for more predictions!
For personal mystic climate fortune-telling and face-palm reading, make an appointment with Paul O’Gorman: email@example.com.
UPDATE: I’ve just received a photo of just one of MIT’s highly confidential fortune telling instruments, with one of the teams of divine scryers who gaze at it:
The proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming claim that man’s use of fossil fuels has released extra carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere, and that the extra CO2 is warming the earth catastrophically due to greenhouse effects, causing great “disruption” in climate.
There are many parts to this hypothesis. The statement starts out with a truth, and then gets hazier as it progresses, each step suggesting an increasing level of calamity, but a decreasing level of believability. So let us look at the claims one by one:
Man’s use of fossil fuels has released extra CO2 into the atmosphere.
Stipulated. The increase since the dawn of the industrial age is nearly 100 ppm.
The earth is warming in a catastrophic way.
Since the Maunder Minimum, the earth has warmed by perhaps 1°C. There is good evidence that any measurement of more warming than that has been tampered with or subject to confirmation bias. Only warming in the last 100 years, and in particular, in the last 50, can possibly be due to greenhouse effects. Supposedly, any AGW will be seen first in the Arctic. Yet, many Arctic weather stations show no warming.
The warming is due to greenhouse effects
There are nearly as many numbers cited for what a doubling of CO2 will do as there are scientists working in the field. The most often cited expert on the subject is Svante Arrhenius, even though he was a physical chemist, not an atmospheric scientist, lived and worked a hundred years ago, and considered atmospheric science a hobby. He published the first numbers in 1896, 4.7 to 6°C. These numbers were criticized by Knut Ångstrom (one of the first true atmospheric scientists) in 1900 as being much too high. Later, in 1906, Arrhenius adjusted that number downward to 1.6°C. A hundred years ago, there was no consensus, even in one man’s head. Yet today, Arrhenius’ first numbers are the ones most often cited, and Ångstrom’s criticism is forgotten.
The value is estimated by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) as likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, but is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.
Other estimates range from 0.4°C to as high as 10°C. The later number seems obviously too high, given the current lack of warming, and even the IPCC seems to agree. Another, more complete list of estimates is here. Given the amount of confirmation bias among the workers in this field, it is surprising that the average estimate is still less than 3°C. Arrhenius’ 1906 number, 1.6°C, may end up closest to the truth.
The point here is that there is wide disagreement on what the affect of doubling CO2 will do. The numbers cover a range of more than 20. None of these numbers can be more than guesses, and they could all be wrong.
Oh, and other tiny points: Who says CO2 is going to double? And why?
And what is the role of water? Water vapor is a greenhouse gas also. And water, unlike CO2, exists in all three phases. As water changes phase, it takes up and gives up heat. I suspect that Dr. Michael Mann has never seen a southwest desert thunderstorm. Under those towering thunderheads, the temperature can drop from 40°C to 10°C, in just a few minutes, accompanied by heavy rain and hail. Cubic miles of hot air rise in those clouds, expanding and cooling as it rises. The rising air gives up heat to condensing water droplets, and then more heat to fusing hailstones. All that heat is transferred ultimately to the top of the clouds to be radiated to space. This goes on 24/7, all around the world. Is this factored into the climate models?
AGW will cause great climate disruption
Here, the proof is in. It’s not happening! This is the core of the whole debate. James Hansen predicted in 1988 that the West Side Highway in New York City would be under water by 2008. The Battery tide gauge shows a two-inch rise, and the rise has been linear since the gauge was installed in 1856. Worldwide sea levels show the same modest rise at the same linear rate. If Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” temperature rise was true, we should see the same sharp rise in sea level. We do not.
Tornados – also not happening. The peak years were in the early 1970’s, and it has been downhill since.
Hurricanes? This is a bit tricky. Before the satellite era, hurricanes had to have been spotted by ship or plane. The Hurricane Hunter aircraft beginning in WWII covered ocean areas of interest to the military, but the Hurricane formation regions off the African coast were not watched until later. So we don’t have accurate counts until satellites watched everywhere, consistently. We do have some records of hurricanes that made landfall. Here is one long-term record for the Apalachee Bay, Florida. It shows a hurricane frequency peak 2500 years ago and another during the Medieval Warm Period. But it shows no increase in the present. Tropical cyclone formation is driven by sea-surface temperature, so it is reasonable to assume that tropical cyclone formation will be a function of ocean temperature cycles, such as the AMO and the Southern Oscillation. Currently, the Tropical Cyclone Energy is near the 30-year low. This is a point that Al Gore has given up, and he has removed this slide from his presentation.
What about drought, floods, heat waves, cold snaps, insect infestations and other Biblical plagues? All (except the first-born son one, unless you count the 10:10 video) have been mentioned, and all blamed on AGW. The problem is that at any given moment, somewhere in the world, a record is being broken. This is just statistics in action. Any noisy phenomenon, given enough time and space to act, will produce the occasional exceptional spike, but the record phenomenon have no pattern in time.
For a branch of science to have any validity, it must be testable. Tests of a science include: Does it make predictions that can be verified? Do those predictions match observations? So far, the predictions have not come to fruition.
The North Pole has not become ice-free
The South Pole ice is expanding
The icecaps at the poles are not collapsing. One iceberg doesn’t make a collapse.
The oceans are not flooding land anywhere.
The deserts are not expanding
The polar bears are doing just fine, thank you
So are the penguins, (except in South Africa, where they froze last winter).
So what is it again we’re supposed to believe?
The paper by Prof Stefan Rahmstorf confirms that today’s temperatures are actually quite cool compared to temperatures earlier in the Holocene.
In a paper he authored: “Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock“, Geophys. Res. Lett.. 30, Nr. 10, 2003, S. 1510, doi:10.1029/2003 GL017115, Ramhstorf examined the Dansgaard-Oeschger (DO events).
These events are rapid climate changes occurring 23 times during the last ice age between 110,000 and 23.000 BP and were reconstructed from the GISP-2-ice cores from Greenland. The following chart is a plot in Rahmstorf 2003 paper showing the temperature over the last 50,000 years.
The next graphic shows the temperature for the last 50,000 years and the last 9,000 up close below, also derived from the GISP-2-ice cores.
On Rahmstorf’s paper, EIKE writes:
Easy to recognize, at least using the studies done by Rahmstorf, we are living in a comparably cold time today. During the MWP 1000 years ago, when the vikings were farming Greenland, it was 1°C warmer than today. During the Roman Optimum 2000 years ago, when Hannibal crossed the Alps with his elephants in the wintertime, it was even 2°C warmer than today. And during the Holocene climate optimum 3500 years ago it was about 3°C warmer than today. Since about 3200 years ago, there has been a cooling of about 2°C.
Multiple studies confirm that the warming was not a regional phenomena.
Schellnhuber could not discern any warming back in 2003
Meanwhile Prof. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Rahmstorf’s boss at the Potsdam Institute, was unable to discern any warming when examining a multitude of worldwide temperature records back in 2002 and 2003.
In a paper published in 2003, using their own studies, the authors concluded there had been no global warming over the last decades. (J.F. Eichner, E. Koscielny-Bunde, A. Bunde, S. Havlin, and H.-J. Schellnhuber: Power-law persistence and trends in the atmosphere, a detailed study of long temperature records, Phys. Rev. E 68 2003),
The temperature records of 95 stations distributed over the globe were studied. In the paper’s summary discussion, Schellnhuber and his colleagues wrote:
In the vast majority of stations we did not see indications for a global warming of the atmosphere.
Most of the continental stations where we observed significant trends are large cities where probably the fast urban growth in the last century gave rise to temperature increases.
And la pièce de resistance!
The fact that we found it difficult to discern warming trends at many stations that are not located in rapidly developing urban areas may indicate that the actual increase in global temperature caused by anthropogenic perturbation is less pronounced than estimated in the last IPCC Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change.
Last I checked, global temperatures have gone nowhere since 2003. So where’s the warming?
————————————————————————————————— Copyright reminder: It is not allowed to reproduce this post without first obtaining permission from No Tricks Zone. You may cut and paste max. 25% of the content, and then followed by a link to this site. Thanks!
1. Climate science skeptics have been involved in the topic for a long time. More than 50% of the participants have been following the topic 5 years or more. And skeptics are not born as skeptics. Skeptical Science writes:
More than 75% of the participants started off as neutral or even alarmist. That shows the longer one looks at the climate issue, the more skeptical one becomes with regards to alarmism.
2. Skepticism is deepening. Skeptical Science blog writes:
The last two years have been predominated by the debates on the 2007 IPCC Report, failure in climate negotiations at the international level, and Climategate. These have served to deepen skepticism.
3. Skeptics are shown to be competent. More than 2/3 of the participants have a scientific or technical education.
4. Skeptics like to quote highly competent experts, by a wide margin they like citing Steven McIntyre and Richard Lindzen.
5. Skeptics characterised three blogs (Realclimate, Skeptical Science, Klimalounge) as alarmist. Meanwhile Klimazwiebel and Lucias Blackboard were viewed as moderate or neutral.
6. Skeptics do read the alarmist blogs mentioned in no.5, and thus are informed of both sides of the issue. Both “neutral” blogs were viewed very positively.
7. WUWT and CA were the sites skeptics preferred to visit.
8. German skeptics liked visiting EIKE, WUWT and Klimazwiebel the most. [Next time they ought to put NoTricksZone on the ballot, I’d clean all their clocks out. :)].
Q1: The reason for being a skeptic.
2/3 are skeptic because they find that knowledge about the earth’s climate system would be insufficient for legitimating mitigation measures.
Q2: How long engaged/interested in climatic issues? 25% of the respondents became interested after the hot news issue of IPCC 2007. Most layman are no longer than 10 years, and the skeptical scientists are generally engaged for a longer time.
Q.3: Initial opinion upon first contact with climatic issues? There is a clear warmist (38%)/”neutral” tendency.
Q.4 Which experience had respondents upon having asked their first critical questions? Two of the six possible answers were clearly on top of the votes:
– The answer was an attempt to promote a political point of view (35%)
– The answer showed limited competence of the other side.
Q.5 How did attendants get to skepticism? Internet resources was the most ticked choice in this multiple-options question (63%). The hockey stick discussion also represents a major factor. Both of these are clearly less a factor for skeptical climate scientists (Internet 27%); for these scientific publications are an important factor (up to 69%).
Q.6 What is the tendency, related to the past two years? A vast majority (74%) tends clearly towards skepticism in this time scale. Attendants from web pages as eike-klima-energie.eu and nelson.blogspot as well as oekowatch.org are ticked around 83% (or even 100%).
————————————————————————————————— Copyright reminder: It is not allowed to reproduce this post without first obtaining permission from No Tricks Zone. Other sites and media may cut and paste max. 25% of the content, and then followed by a link to this site. Let’s all be fair and let credit go where credit is due. Thanks!
German Weather Service meteorologist Christoph Hartmann writes what I think is a surprising essay on measuring precipitation, and the errors in doing so. Indeed Hartmann says precipitation may be understated by up to 50%, or much more at some locations.
As Hartmann explains, measuring precipitation is by no means an exact science, and results have to be taken with a lump of salt.
Hartman explains that precipitation is generally measured by a rain gage with a known opening area, for example 200 cm² in Germany, which is positioned 1 meter above the ground surface. The gage funnel catches the precipitation and leads it to either
1) a graduated measuring tube or a 2) an optical drop counter
With the measuring tube system, the tube is graduated and the amount of precipitation can be simply read off. With the optical rain gage (drop counter), the amount of precipitation is derived from the number of drops. If the precipitation is snow or ice, then the measuring tube or optical gage are brought inside and the captured precipitation is melted and measured.
Wind and errors up to 400%
Hartmann explains that the biggest sources of error are wind-related. This is easily seen when measuring snowfall. Just before a snowflake falls into the gage, air turbulence sucks it back out tosses it overboard. Just taking a look around after a blizzard, it’s easy to imagine how difficult it is to measure snowfall. Places exposed to wind are barren, while other places are covered by meter-deep snowdrifts. How much snow really fell?
Hartmann says measurement errors of up 400% can occur over time when measuring powdery snowfall in alpine, polar or windy areas.
One way to reduce error is to place the instrument in a wind-protected area. By measuring the wind speed, it is then possible to adjust precipitation measurements. But Hartmann writes:
Wind effects lead to an under-estimation of the actual fallen precipitation. The level of deviation depends on the speed of the wind and the type of precipitation.
Because wind speeds are factored into precipitation measurements, climatological precipitation trends without taking changes in wind speeds into account should always be deduced very carefully.
The second problem encountered arise from the two above described measurement instruments, especially with the optical rain gage, writes Hartmann. With frozen precipitation, the gages are heated up in order to melt the precipitation. But this involves evaporation. And under torrential rains, the optical gage becomes much less accurate. The result, writes Hartmann:
Under equal precipitation amounts, the optical gage measures less precipitation than the measuring tube, both in summer and in winter.
So if two different stations use different instruments, them they will show different precipitation amounts even when the actual precipitation is the same. In summary, Hartmann writes his stunning conclusion:
In total these two sources of errors lead to a precipitation deficit of 5 to 15% for liquid precipitation, and between 20 and 50% for solid [frozen] precipitation. In very windy locations, the deficits are substantially more.
Because instruments measure less precipitation than what actually falls, it means we have a worldwide precipitation deficit solely because of the measurement method.
What does it all mean? Are many of the reported droughts solely the product of faulty readings? And we all thought that the network of temperature measurement stations was a mess. This is a huge open floodgate to potential climatological data manipulation and bogus assertions. See here for example: motherjones – the coming mega-drought (h/t NTZ reader DirkH).
A Swiss report appearing at www.20min.ch claims that the extraction of groundwater for communities and agriculture is adding massively to global sea level rise.
According to a yet to be published paper by the America Geophysical Union, 2000 cubic km of freshwater are consumed yearly – with 1500 cubic km coming from lakes, ponds, rivers etc., and the remaining 500 cubic kilometers of freshwater being extracted from the ground. According to 20min.ch:
Scientists now have calculated how much of this extracted water returns from where it came: only 3%. The remaining 97% flows into the oceans via evaporation and precipitation.
Of course, the scientists say, this bodes extremely ill for groundwater levels and pose a serious threat to arid regions.
Adding to sea level rise
Moreover the AGU paper claims that the extraction of freshwater is contributing to an annual 0.8 mm rise in sea level, 0r more than 25% of the overall 3.1 mm/yr. It goes without saying that there are uncertainties involved here, as dams act to slow the entry of freshwater into the oceans. But 20min.ch writes:
Scientists are convinced that the relation between groundwater reduction and sea level rise will gain importance. Simply because global water consumption will continue to increase and for that reason groundwater reserves will continue to sink.
It can be certain that pumping out groundwater has no measureable impacts on sea levels. But perhaps US scientists are tying it to climate change in order to bring attention to the risks of exhausting groundwater reserves.
Drawing attention to potential groundwater depletion problems is legitimate. But claiming it is leading to sea level rise sounds absurd.
The Portuguese sceptic site Ecotretas has a piece today called Not so fine Mr Gore which features a video clip of Al Gore making a speech before a crowd, predominantly businessmen. Gore seems to think that Portugal’s economy is on the right track and is coming out of recession. Far from it. In fact, Portugal’s economic woes are worsened by Gore’s vision for the planet.
So Ecotretas reminds Gore:
Someone should tell Al Gore that Portugal is not coming out of the Great Recession. In fact, Portugal’s economy is getting worse, as can be seen by the high sovereign risk, usually one of the highest 10 in the world in the last months. This is so because major bad economic decisions have been made in the last years, namely in alternative energy.
Just like Spain, we’re going down, while unemployment keeps going up, and the promised green jobs are one of Europe’s lowest. So, Mr. Gore: If some Portuguese told you that “I feel fine”, I can bet he felt like the farmer in your nasty story!
Gore delivers a humorous story to make a point. Probably a lot of scientists feel like the poor farmer when asked: “Is your data, which show man is causing climate change, fine?”
Slowly, but surely, more and more people in Germany are speaking up against the hoax that is man-made global warming. Websites and blogs are sprouting and scepticism is spreading. The old, established narrative is now being seriously challenged.
The latest example is a piece written by Ronald Gläser in the online news and commentary magazine called eigentümlich frei:
For starters, Gläser calls the 10:10 no pressure film “only the latest high point in the ongoing campaign against climate sceptics”.
In the run-up to the climate conference in Cancun, which starts on November 30, the propaganda machinery of the academic-media complex will get even shriller.
Gläser then cites the slanderish Der Spiegel piece called Science As The Enemy which suggests only a handful of US scientists are sowing doubt on the AGW theory, and that “97% of all climatologists support the theory”. Gläser equates this Der Spiegel claim to communist East German propoganda.
This is a percentage that not by coincidence reminds of the old Communist East German election results.
The Der Spiegel hit-piece was designed to intimidate other scientists into silence. Gläser writes;
This is Mao’s favorite principle: Educate hundreds by punishing one.
Gläser then provides the background on the resignation of University of California Santa Barbara professor Hal Lewis from the American Physical Society (APS), after having been a member for 67 years. Gläser summarises:
With his open letter he has shown again, for the zillionth time, what’s behind the so-called consensus on the topic of global warming: nothing!
Ronald Gläser is a freelance writer and majored in American Studies.
Economist Roland Baader
Dr. Stefan Blankertz
Dr. Hardy Bouillon
Dr. Detmar Doering
Prof. Dr. Gerd Habermann
Prof. Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Prof. Dr. Guido Hülsmann
Robert Nef, lic. attorney.
Prof. Dr. Erich Weede
A couple a days ago I reported on how the German media has hardly been reporting on global warming. Readhere.
That should be no surprise because it’s been cold in Germany over the last 3 months, and so reporting on warming planet would only draw chuckles from the public. After all, August was cool and September in Germany was a 0.9″ C colder than normal – the 26th coldest September since 1900, according to the German Weather Service. Many have been heating their homes for 2 months already.
October is looking even worse. Already we’ve had widespread light frost and many places have already gotten snow, You hear nothing about this in the German lamestream media, though. Winter is weeks early.
At the online German Auto Reporter Net, Wolfram Riedel pokes fun at the climate panic purveyors and their deafensing silence.
Silence is everywhere in the media, not a warmist is stirring. All the excitement caused by the climate madness has taken a break. And why? Because the real-life weather which we’ve been experiencing over the last several weeks simply isn’t suitable for spreading global warming panic through the population. September and October have been colder than normal, and even the first snow has already arrived.
There were some hot days last summer, and so the climate panic purveyors had an easier time painting the devil on the wall, who happens to be surrounded in a cloud of evil CO2.
And how do the coming months look? Also very cold.
The German media reported yesterday that towns and cities are stockpiling road salt because, says the media, “meteorologists are forecasting a harsh winter”.
Last year, having relied on the “rare and exciting winters” forecasts of made by climatologists, towns ran out of salt already in early January. This year they’re listening to real forecasters – meteorologists.
My wife and I are spending a few days at the Baltic Sea near Kiel, and so blogging will be a little on the light side.
I wanted to do some deepsea fishing yesterday, but the boats didn’t go out – not enough customers. They plan to go out tomorrow. Hopefully I can land that big one. It’s a bit disappointing as I wanted to be out on the sea for days, and not just one.
I’m having some technical difficulties picking up my e-mails (some of you have sent ). My son is going to reroute them over to me and so I’ll answer them as soon as I can. Sorry for the delay.
Despite all the media über-hype about this year’s “weather extremes”, which are normal to begin with, and the upcoming Cancun Conference, the German index of public interest on climate protection fell yet again during the 3rd quarter of 2010, from 56 to 55, according to the co2online GmbH, a program set up by the German Ministry for the Environment.
The reason for the drop was due to the lack of interest by the media in reporting on climate change. The public is bored by the topic.
The Climate Barometer is published every quarter and is based on the evaluation of 4 indicators, which are converted to form the Climate Barometer index.
Experts complained about the continued wane in public interest. Thomas Hirsch of the organisation: Bread for the World:
In the energy debate, climate protection is an issue that was very much overshadowed by the recent issue of nuclear power in Germany.
Prof Dr Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research:
Flooding in Pakistan and heatwave in Russia brought the topic in the media, but incredibly little. There is hardly any discussion on the causes of such extreme events.
I can’t help Mr Hirsch, but perhaps I can give Dr Rahmstorf, Prince of Panic, some background on extreme weather events and their causes.
Cyclones globally are near record lows and have been falling 20 years. Thus it can’t be because of global warming. So get a life Dr Rahmstorf. You’re fooling no one.
If you don’t know what to buy the kids for Christmas, then here’s just the thing: computer game The New Beginning. It’s the latest from Daedalic Entertainment, from German game producer gamecity-hamburg.de, see trailer (Sorry, only in German). It’s the latest for teaching German kids the end of the world is coming, unless…!
It’s the year 2500 and what’s left of mankind is on the verge of absolute extinction. Climate change has taken its toll. The planet in no longer hospitable. The few people left live in caves and tunnels. What’s left of the protective ozone layer is about to get wiped out by a solar storm.
It’s the climate meltdown, and we’re right in the middle of it!
Their time is running out, as shown at the 0:54 mark, where a sort of Mann’s hockey stick is used to illustrate this. Something has to be done!
So a group of courageous heroes find a rickety time machine and decide to risk it all to try and go back in time in an attempt to avert the man-made climate catastrophe. Only hero Fay makes it through the time machine and lands in the year 2050.
There she tries to convince the people of what they are doing to the planet – but damn those sceptics and deniers.
San Francisco under water? Tornadoes in Europe?
Finally, Fay end up meeting cranky climate scientist Bent Svensson and begs him to continue his research on his clean fuel, which he has abandoned because his wife died. Can Fay convince Dr Svensson and save the planet?
Now only you can rescue the planet!
This computer game is sure to provide kids with hours of entertainment and education on living responsibly.
Actually, I’m a bit surprised that the end of the world has once again been pushed back 490 years. Al Gore said it would come in 10 years and Prince Charles said 2 years. Now it keeps getting postponed and we have to wait half a millenium.
If Fay had been clever she would have gone back to at least 2000 and disposed of the “deniers” and the HadCrut hacker (if only we knew who he or she was). 2050 seems awfully late. I’d would interpret that as having at least 40 more years to think about the problem. What’s the rush?
Two thumbs down.
PS: I’m spending a few days at the Balitic Sea to try my luck at some deep sea fishing. So posting may be a little light.
Over at Sweden’s sceptic The Climate Scam, Jonny Fagerström writes how pro-wind-park organisation Swedish Wind Energy is lobbying to abolish the municipal veto in order to bypass public refusal of windparks. The public, whose landscape would be ruined, should not be allowed to have a say on whether or not a wind-park is to be installed in their area, read here: Wind Power Industry Threatens Democracy
Wind-park builders and operators find it a nuisance that pesky, stubborn residents refuse to have their local landscape industrialised and property values ruined. For the wind industry, permitting is proceeding much too slowly, and populations should just accept having the windmills forced down their throats, without any further ado.
Jonny writes the threat to strip citizens of their last democratic chance to have a say on their surroundings and life in general will seriously aggravate people, and thinks that politicians simply will not take this proposed abolishment of municipal democracy seriously, but adds:
You never know.
The wind industry has deep poskets, and politicians can be bought easily enough.
In Germany, according to the online Lübecker Nachricten, Citizens near the German port city of Lübeck are protesting a proposed wind-pack on an area of 750 acres that would be home to 14 turbines, each 170 meters tall. Read and see photo here.
Meanwhile in the United Kingdom, people’s rights are also being trampled on as well (h/t IceCap):
Here’s an example of what dissenting opinions have to face here in what was once called the land of poets and thinkers. (In climate science Germany is more the land of dogmatists and intolerants, unfortunately. But as I’ve said, that’s slowly changing).
Taking apart “climate science” is not a real achievement in itself. The science has been crumbling rapidly for quite some time now. Dr Kirstein’s real achievement in this story is, however, daring to speak up against the climate science religion. To do so in Germany, one has to expect multiple character assassination attempts. Georg Hoffmann attempts just that, ridiculing not only Dr Kirstein, but the University of Leipzig as well.
Kirstein’s seminar at the University of Leipzig did indeed upset the climate clergy, not surprisingly, and so they have sent out an underling, Georg Hoffmann, to attack, ridicule and attempt to slap down Kirstein and the University of Leipzig, and it should all serve as a reminder to anyone else who might dare to speak up. Hoffmann wrote his hit piece yesterday at his blog site. The title in English:
The highly acclaimed Climate Hack Of The Month Award for September 2010 goes to Professor Kirstein and his employer, the University of Leipzig. The claim made by Kirstein that “Greenland was mostly ice-free during the Middle Ages” belongs to the Top Ten of probably the most senseless statements ever made on the subject of climate change. Congratulations from the jury.
Here we have a person childishly ridiculing a distinguished professor and an entire university. Seldom do we witness such hubris in Europe, except of course in “climate science”. This is precisely what “climate science” dissenters have to deal with regulary. And such attacks are generously funded by European governments.
I watched the entire Kirstein presentation, and everyone knows what he meant with Greenland. Hoffmann is simply hiding behind his computer in Paris, or wherever, and attacking from the safety of his hinterhalt, like a true coward. He nitpicks and takes things out of context. Of course he cherry-picks his data at every opportunity, and applies post-normal science throughout.
Yet, we all know that if called out to debate face to face in public, people like Hoffmann are the last to show up. Open debate for post-normal scientists is foreign, and it has proven to be nothing but disastrous in the past.
Germany has yet another sceptic website, published by meteorologist Dr Wolfgang Thuene called Der Wettermann. I’ll be keeping an eye on it and reporting on interesting posts that will undoubtedly pop up. I’ve added his site to my blogroll.h/t NTZ reader: Bernd Felsche.
There are many sceptics in Germany. The problem is that the mainstream media and well-funded post-normal climate science establishment marginalise them. But they won’t be able to keep this up for much longer.
Dr Thuene is retired. He was a weatherman at the German Weather Service and former weatherman at ZDF television. He’s a harsh critic of the the AGW hypothesis and does not mince words.
[Climate] is the sum of single values that form a mean. You can calculate it as a guiding value, which is what a lot of ideologues in society are now doing. But the idea of telling nature and weather how to behave, within which boundaries it is allowed to move, between which guardrails the global temperature has to remain, is just complete madness and hubris that cannot be exceeded. The calculated global mean temperature does not create a global climate, a state that one can declare as a good to be protected. A calculated and abstract human being, using a standard height, standard weight, standard intelligence and standard life expectancy, remains only a fiction of thought, and simply cannot be a standard for the 7 billion people living on the planet. The salaries of climate economists and scientists really ought to be reduced to the “global salary”, just so that they wake up to the nonsense they are purporting.
Dr. Thüne was also featured in the German sceptic documentary film: Der Klima-Schwindel– Howthe Eco-Mafia Is Taking Us To The Cleaners.
It should be noted that the film was never shown by the networks.