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.
Sea level rise is slowing. TOPEX U. of Colorado
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.
CO2 addiction is hard to cure
This remark from Steven Goddard fits Rahmstorf like a glove
despite the fact that he used this phrase as a header on an article about Met Office once again predicting an “warm winter”.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/co2-addiction-is-difficult-to-cure/
If the warming in these events was local to the Northern Hemisphere and the average temperature of the globe didn’t change, then we should find corresponding low temperature spikes in the Southern Hermisphere. If we don’t find such a correspondence, we must conclude that the average temperature of the globe did warm during those events.
The highly paid AGW scientists are nervous these days. They see their importance wane as the Biodiversity machine takes over the headlines. With the importance goes the funding. Long gone are the days that the biggest computer on Earth was called the Earth simulator. Bye bye, AGW.
They often say that CO2 is a well mixed GH gas in the atmosphere.That there is an increasing amount of it in the atmosphere year by year.
Yet we seem to an undeniable warming trend since 1979,ONLY in the Northern hemisphere.The Southern hemisphere shows nearly flat trend of the same time scale.How can that be,if all CO2 does is compel warming,and with an increasing amount of it,MUST warm up the deeeeep south more on a yearly basis.
But it never seem to show up,imagine that!
How about this one,
Since they babble so much about what an awesome warm forcing agent CO2 is.That it can make even mighty and much more common “”GHG”” Water Vapor,Be led around by the “nose”,to make it get MUCH warmer,with each NEW additional CO2 molecule volume that comes on board every FIVE years.
Why no go further and ask why there is even any cooling intervals since 1977 at all.Since they continually prate that yearly additional amounts of CO2 would only add that much more warm forcing power to its total.The “well mixed” gas that should be by default make the ENTIRE WORLD warm up and continuously.
Why has it failed to warm continuously since the 1970’s?
Snicker……
I looked up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard-Oeschger_event
– i know, it doesn’t count for much… but this article is largely unchanged since Connolley got the boot; so it should be considered “AGW canon” –
and it says:
“Although the effects of the D-O events are largely constrained to ice cores taken from Greenland,[5] there is evidence to suggest Dansgaard-Oeschger events have been globally synchronous.[6] ”
footnote 6 links to
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-44D4MCW-1&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2002&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=45bdb2aba1776de8a76201cd20a04039&searchtype=a
I’m conserving this here due to the truth-is-determined-by-who-edits-last policy of wikipedia. There are still a lot of Connolley’s gang active.
And here is a script from a lecture at Uni Jena; it shows in
Abb. 3.3-2
(scroll down to the last fifth of the page)
temperature anomalies for the Vostok ice core.
It looks similar to the Greenland ice core analyzed by Rahmstorf: rise at the end of the ice age, then a peak – the holocene climate optimum, and today we are cooler than that.
http://www.igw.uni-jena.de/angeol/vorlesungen/eis/Eis.htm
To me it looks very much like the SH behaved similar to the NH. I don’t know why Rahmstorf does not acknowledge it, but i think if he did acknowledge it, he would completely torpedo the fear of dangerous global warming, so he prefers to pretend that it isn’t so. Unfortunately, the ice cores paint a different picture.
The AGW scientists get entangled in contradictions.
What is the temperature in central Greenland at this time of the year, or in Siberia? Ask S.R., or see here:
http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geomet/meteo/winfos/synNNWWarctis.gif
Today: Greenland -53°C & Siberia -34°C
Most of you already know about this peer reviewed scientific paper but I link it anyhow because it really pulls the plug on all warmist semi science about the Arctic.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/30/new-peer-reviewed-paper-says-there-appear-to-have-been-periods-of-ice-free-summers-in-the-central-arctic-ocean/
Rahmstorf looks on a photo like a sympathetic guy, but he is major league ass—-. Warmest in last 2 million years, is he sane at all?
Greenland and Arctic is as warm as North Atlantic, and NH record copies NA pretty well. So Greenland record is not global, but some massaged Californian bristlecone is definite proof of NH hockey stick.
I hope once their junk institute will be defunded and they will all go cataloging ancient shit sediments or something worse.