Wikileaks: Officials Knew Way In Advance Copenhagen Would Fail

I’m wrong with my last post. There is some climate material in those Wikileaks documents. I started sifting through and found this one. Nothing earth-shattering, but you see the deals being done behind the scenes.

May 8, 2009
Here we see China was never going to accept any targets on CO2 emissions. But they did promise to bring “action items”!
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/05/09BEIJING1247.html

Climate Change
————–

8. (C) UK DCM Wood said the UK Environment and Science
Minister had recently had talks with Chinese officials on
climate change. In the lead up to Copenhagen, China would
not agree to targets on emissions
but was willing to be
constructive and would come to Copenhagen with a package of
action items related to nuclear power, renewable energy and
reforestation. Wood said his impression was that China could
be induced to do more on climate change. “

They knew long before that Copenhagen was going to fail.

There are likely more about climate in there. It’ll take an army to go through it. There are some real doozies in their on other topics of Iran, gas and oil projects, etc. I’d say a gold mine of info for many corporations too. This is going to be worse than I thought.

Expect lots of “action items” in Cancun to save face.

==================================================================

Another Wikilieaks climate document found: Jan 29, 2008

Merkel pushing for aggressive measures. Here we see that Merkel is a flaming warmist.
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/01/08BERLIN122.html

13. (C) Chancellor Merkel and the rest of Germany’s political
leadership remain serious about pursuing aggressive
international measures to meet the challenges of global
warming.  Merkel has made climate change a priority of her
Chancellorship and enjoys the overwhelming domestic support
on this.  Merkel’s support for mandatory, targeted global
limits on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and an international
cap-and-trade regime reflects a deep-seated belief that only
drastic, concerted efforts on the part of the international
community can slow — and ultimately reverse — the human
contribution to global warming.  If anything, Steinmeier
supports tougher standards.  While the Germans have been
willing to consider alternative solutions, such as new
technologies for clean coal and renewables, fundamental
differences in our approaches to the issue of climate change
remain, and could lead to more public disagreement in the
future.  For example, while Germany will send a delegation to
the January 30 Major Economies Meeting (MEM), the German
Government remains skeptical about the value that the Major
Economies Process (MEP) adds to the UNFCCC track. The Germans
are particularly concerned about the need to avoid
duplication of effort in the various other climate
change-related forums, including the UNFCCC and the G-8.
TIMKEN JR

Wikileaks – Are Climate Documents Getting Buried?

World leaders don't discuss climate? Is it a non-issue?

I’ve been keeping an eye on the Wikileaks disclosure of classified documents, which has deeply embarrassed a wide collection world political leaders, and particularly the US government in general.

I was hoping that among all of these confidential documents, some would be protocols, messages or reports on discussions on climate policy. So I did some trolling in the Internet, hoping to find more on this, but came up with nothing. Admittedly my search was not the most thorough of searches.

Seems very odd that this “vital” issue, one we are told our very survival hinges on, is nowhere mentioned in any of these hot documents. Do you mean to tell me world leaders never talk about it behind the scenes? I have a truly difficult time believing that. Call it the deafening silence.

Either:

a) World leaders, in reality, couldn’t care less about the topic, and thus all the talk about rescuing the climate is just a facade issue in front cameras and mikes to distract the public, meaning the leaders never really talk about it behind the scenes, and so no climate-related protocols exist. This seems highly unlikely to me.

or

b) The leaked documents were selectively disclosed to simply to target and cause personal embarrassment to some world leaders, while others were kept under wraps, meaning climate-related documents were sifted away by Wikileaks or by the media outlets with whom they were entrusted (e.g. the Guardian and Der Spiegel). Selective release with the intent to produce a designed reaction would be immoral, irresponsible, arrogant and a complete abuse of journalistic power.

The danger and the probability here is that Wikileaks, or the media outlets with whom the documents have been entrusted, have carefully cherry-picked the documents in order to engineer and produce a desired political reaction. This is what makes the release of the documents so disturbing, dangerous, and untrustworthy. We probably are getting only the picture that the disclosers want us to see.

I’m not into conspiracy theories, but I do smell a rat. We’ve seen this pattern of behavior time and again in climate science journalism.

If anyone knows of the existence of any climate-related documents that are already out in the public domain, we would all like to see them. All the data is needed to make an accurate picture of the situation.

================================================

UPDATE 1: h/t Ron de Haan: Wikileaks co-founder on Climategate E-mails:

At 4-min mark:

UK Intelligence tried to frame us as a conduit for the FSB because they didn’t like the truth of what was in those e-mails.”

They’re both hiding things.

FOCUS: “Many Of The Widespread Horror Scenarios Are Baseless”

Yesterday I wrote about the latest issue of FOCUS news magazine HERE.

I just picked up the new issue, out today, and read it. It’s an unmistakable departure from usual doom and catastropheism, which had generated so much of the fear and urgency needed to justify the rush to reckless policy making and profiteering.

FOCUS shows that the urgency is undue and that it’s time to get back to rationality, and away from all the mass hysteria that has taken policymaking on a ride on the crazy train.

Part 1: It’s getting warmer – that’s good!

In its first part, FOCUS describes the Sahara region as it was thousands of years ago – an area rich in wildlife and plants where humans settled and even built a 500 meter long by 5 meter wide protective wall 1000 years before Christ. Then came a climate catastrophe (naturally of course), in the form of cooling and drying. The once green paradise dried up into a desert wasteland. Today the Sahara desert, thanks to warming, is greening up again. Says Stefan Kröpelin, geo-archaeologist of the University of Cologne, who has been researching the region for 30 years now:

At the southern edge, vegetation in most places has been moving northwards since the end of the 1980s. Global warming here has been a blessing. If the trend continues at this pace, the Sahara will be green again in a few hundred years.”

The Sahara is just one example of the advantages of global warming. FOCUS also writes:

More and more renowned scientists are saying climate change does not lead to only catastrophes, rather it also brings with it rich advantages for both man and nature. But this will hardly play a role in Cancun. Politicians, scientists and media are too fixated on the problems of the future – from sea level rise, to storms, to the spread of tropical diseases (see page 86).

Studies worldwide show that many of the widespread horror scenarios are baseless.”

FOCUS continues to believe the science underpinning the theory that global temperatures will rise 2 – 4°C by the end of the century, and this being due to man’s activities. Here, FOCUS naively ignores the impacts of oceanic and solar cycles. But even so, it has, at least in this article, truly departed from the planet-is-going-to-hell-in-a-hand-basket narrative. That’s huge progress for traditional German journalism – make no mistake about it.

And what does Stefan Kröpelin say about climate models for the future?

I trust the data from the earth’s history more than any climate model.”

Josef Reichholf, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Munich speaks on biodiversity.

The earth’s history shows that warm periods are characterized by high levels of biodiversity. In general, the rule is: the warmer it is, the more biodiversity you get.”

FOCUS then writes about the warm and cold cycles the earth has experienced, in particular the ice ages that have occurred every 100,000 years and the massive ice sheets that once covered many parts of the globe. This part really puts the earth and climate in the right perspective. Readers see that things have been far more extreme than the puny half-degree fluctuations we are biting our nails over today. The earth does change naturally, and often dramatically.

FOCUS also writes about the Holocene optimums and minimums, and the challenges and benefits that man derived from them. Climate has always been changing. The Vikings even settled in Greenland in the year 982, FOCUS points out.

FOCUS also puts CO2 in the spotlight and discovers that it is not that “climate-killing” gas everyone has been making it out to be. Indeed, the gas is actually a fertilizer for plants. It makes the planet greener. It boosts agricultural yields, which means more food to feed the world.

CO2 is often called a climate poison or climate killer, but: ‘It is an essential building block for photosynthesis, and thus the basis for all life,’ says Hans-Joacheim Weigel, Director of the Johann Heinrich von Thünnen Institute for Biodiversity.”

Part 2: The 7 scourges of the end time

FOCUS then looks at the 7 climate scourges alleged will occur as the world ends, or something, and debunks them one by one. Here I think FOCUS did a good job – a must read. Here I summarize with just a few key words.

FOCUS (in a few words):

1. Islands will sink: “Satellite photos show they are not”
2. Disappearing glaciers. FOCUS writes: “not a new phenomena”
3. Melting of the ice caps: “Highly improbable – very high temperatures would be needed”
4. Gulf Stream collapse: “NASA shows it’s not true”
5. More storms: “Chris Landsea shows it won’t be so.”
6. Polar bears will die: “They are growing in number and are highly adaptable – no big problem.”
7. Tropical diseases will spread: “DDT ban was a cause. And Paul Reiter says it’s BS.”

Part 3: Who’s who in climate science?

One interesting section of the FOCUS report was the part on who’s who in climate science? They list 11 names:

1. Rejendra Pachauri: “calls to resign”
2. Michael Mann: “doubts on his methodology”
3. James Hansen: “warning of AGW since the 1980s”
4. John Christy, Atmospheric Sciences:

Analyzes climate data from satellites at the University of Alabama. Is against alarmist statements from other scientists who warn of catastrophic temperature increases and sea level rises, and considers climate protection measures unnecessary.”

5. Stephen McIntyre, mining specialist:

The Canadian analyzed Mann’s hockey stick curve together with economist Ross McKitrick, who both found deficiencies in the methodology, which put the curve’s shape into question, as well as the claim that never in the last 1000 years has it been warmer than today. McIntyre became known when Mann refused to reveal his data. He is active with his blog Climate Audit.”

6. Stefan Rahmstorf: “A lead author of the IPCC 4AR report and many publications”
7. Björn Lomborg: “Recommends adaptation”
8. Mojib Latif: “Projected a pause in global warming”
9. Richard Lindzen:

Researches at MIT and one of the most prolific skeptics. He says the earth is never in equilibrium, and for that reason natural changes such as ocean currents or atmospheric cycles can explain the warming. For this reason it is senseless to attempt to fight climate change.”

10. Nicholas Stern: “Inaction is more expensive than action.”
11. Paul Crutzen: “Advocates geo-engineering.”

So much for the ballyhooed consensus and settled science. This FOCUS article shows that the science is hotly disputed, and more importantly, that the catastrophe scenarios are hysteria, and that warmer climates would bring real benefits.

For German journalism, this to me represents a watershed event. This piece breaks a lot of taboos in Germany. The reactions indeed will be worth following. Expect hellfire and vitriol from the greenshirts.

I wish I had time to write more, but this I think is a good overview of the extensive 14-page FOCUS piece. Go out and buy it.

Focus Magazine: “Global Warming Is Good For Us”

**  BREAKING NEWS!   **  BREAKING NEWS! **  BREAKING NEWS! **

Stunning!

Another huge slab of the Climate-Berlin-Wall has fallen. It’s a climate skeptic jail-break! I imagine the Climate-Politburo members must be quivering and trembling in their bunkers in Potsdam by now.

Big hat-tip to NTZ reader Ike.

A leading German news magazine has decided to depart from the dogma of angst and catastrophe and bring up climate science issues that, up to now, have been strictly taboo here in the Vaterland. Tomorrow FOCUS magazine will come out with its newest issue titled:

Prima Klima! Umdenken:Wieso die globale Erwärmung gut für uns ist(Best Climate! Change of Thinking: Why global warming is good for us.)

Change of Thinking – yes! And the timing couldn’t be better.

Folks, this is the first time in a long time that a major German news magazine has decided to do a little investigative reporting, instead of relying on the press releases from the Palaces Of Panic like the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, NOAA, Alfred Wegener Institute, etc., and seriously look into this controversial global issue. Game over comrades!

When the global warming hoax collapses in Germany, then Europe follows right behind it – and then, of course, the rest of the world. Germany is that one domino. This represents a major setback for the warministas. Indeed it would be interesting to know what went on in the FOCUS editorial offices.

Perhaps the normally über-alarmist FOCUS has already gotten tired of the winter and longs for the warmer days. I can’t explain why they are coming out with such an issue – especially during Cancun. Whoa! That’s all I can say.

Here’s what tomorrow’s issue will feature:
78   Warm times are good times. Harvest yields increase, Forests grow, deserts shrink
86   Which impacts of climate change are proven?  Which are not?
90   The “Who is who“ in climate science

Promo video (in German, see English text below):
http://www.focus.de/magazin/videos/focus-titel-prima-klima_vid_21483.html

The video begins with:

This week in the coming FOCUS: Best Climate. Change in thinking – global warming is good for us. FOCUS editor Dr. Christian Pandler (sp?) researched the current topic and reports on it in the new issue.

Editor Dr. Pandler (a bit paraphrased):

In the new FOCUS issue, we take a look at the question of climate change. This week the world climate conference is taking place in Cancun, where world leaders are going to debate over how to combat warming. Our question: Is global warming actually bad? Does it entail only disadvantages and only catastrophic consequences? Up to now, people have only focused on what will be bad. The question is what could be good? No one has really looked at this. It’s taboo in Germany.

We know from history that warm periods were good periods for us. Cold periods were bad periods. We know that 20,000 years ago Europe was a frozen wasteland where nobody lived. That was a real climate catastrophe. For example we had a warming 10,000 years ago, which led to a greening of the Sahara. Then there was cooling which led it to be parched again. Now it’s warming, and there are lots of signs that show it is greening up again. For the people in Africa, it is absolutely a positive development. If it continues that way, it could once again become green with a variety of wildlife, rivers and lakes and so on. This is a consequence that hardly has been discussed.

We’ve spoken to scientists who are there on site. One researcher in particular has gone there every year for 30 years and photographed how the Sahara is gradually getting greener.”

Go out and reward FOCUS by buying this issue – get an additional copy for a friend too. Thank the editor for having the guts to do this.

In the meantime, my advice to that brave editor at FOCUS: Put on your bullet-proof political vest and find the deepest possible bunker. The greenshirts are sending over the B-52s! Achtung!

This is going to be something to relish.

Ironically this comes out precisely when the science is showing signs that cooling is coming instead, and so FOCUS may be only getting false hopes up. Lol! You just can’t make this stuff up. It makes my day.

Predicting The European Climate From The CET Record – Lesson Learned

We were told that the mild winters we experienced in Europe were due to global warming. Now, suddenly, we are getting hit with yet another nasty cold winter.

Why? Guest writer Juraj Vanovcan presents his observations and interesting evidence that it has nothing to do with CO2. He presents what I think is an astonishing finding near the end.
===============================================================

Predicting The European Climate From The CET Record – Lesson Learned
By guest writer Juraj Vanovcan

This post was inspired by the article Negative AO bringing cold winters back to Europe.

Recalling the summers and winters of the early 1980s, it becomes obvious to me that it is the prevalence of air circulation that determines if a season is warm or cold. The very mild winter of 2006/2007 in Central Europe was characterized by a sustained flow of warm Atlantic air over the European continent, while the cold and snowy 2005/2006 winter received a lot of Arctic air entering the mid-latitudes from the North.

Air circulation is governed by pressure differences and basically this is what North Atlantic Oscillation is all about.

 

Fig 1 Example of positive NAO (Source: JISAO webpage).

I compared the NAO index with the European long-term climate record. Checking the Central European Record (CET) shown, one sees there is an obvious correlation between NAO and winter temperatures. The dark blue line is CET, orange/light blue is NAO.

Fig 2 North Atlantic Oscillation index compared with CET winter record, 1860-2010 (CET graph source: http://climate4you.com/ ).

As observed above, the NAO oscillates in an 80-year long sine wave cycle. The first period with mild winters happened in the 1920s, which of course we do not remember. The second positive phase began in 70s and mild winters in Central Europe become frequent since late 80s. It also seems that the current period with prevalent NAO-positive years has ended; the recent string of cold winters in North-Western Europe suggests this as well.

On the other hand, CET summers do not show correlation with NAO in the early part of 20th century. Comparing the CET summer anomalies with AMO index (detrended North Atlantic SST) however gives reasonable correlation again. Summers in the period 1930-1950 were often as warm as the recent ones, and the extremely hot and dry summer of 1946 in Central Europe with its catastrophic impact on crops has since never been repeated. However, warm summers in this period were combined with cold winters, like those of 1939/40/41.

Fig 3 Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation index compared with CET summer record, 1860-2010

It is worth noting that while the NAO peaked circa 20 years before the warm AMO phase centered on 1940, their warm phases were much closer to each the other in the later part of the century. It means that while Europe experienced cold summers and mild winters in 1920s and warm summers and cold winters in the 1940s, the last 20 years saw both warm summers as mild winters. This is also probably the reason why 2000-2010 decade is slightly warmer than 1940-1950.

Based on the observed SST and OHC record for North Atlantic, it seems however that AMO had peaked around 2005 and it is now heading down. This time, both NAO and AMO being in their negative phases will mean miserable summers and cold winters. Such shift in temperature trend is already being observed in the whole northern extratropics record.

Fig 4 Northern hemisphere north of 30N, HadCRUT3 data

IPCC attributed the post-1975 warming phase almost solely to anthropogenic reasons, namely to increased “greenhouse effect” caused by increase of CO2 molecules from 3.5 to 4 per other 10,000 molecules in the atmosphere.

We can conclude, however, that at least for Europe, observed warming is fully explainable by natural variations, two of which – AMO and NAO – had their positive phases overlaid during the last 20 years. Neither CO2, aerosols nor greenhouse effect theory are needed.

For those still seeking the anthropogenic signature in recent warming, here is a comparison of 1890-1920 warming trend compared against 1980-2010 warming trend in the winter CET record. The running 10-year mean is strikingly similar, following even minor dips and upticks.

Fig 5 CET winter record with late century warming superimposed on early century warming 

Extrapolations into the future may be tricky, especially when pulling some 20-year trend into year 2100, which seems to be a favorite practice in modern climatology. Observing the European climate record of the early part of 20th century and understanding its causes gives us much more predictive skill when forecasting climate for the next decades. All climate indicators today point to cooling, and not only in the European region.

Juraj Vanovcan (juraj.vanovcan@gmail.com)
26 November 2010

Snow In China Arrives 40 Days Early – 700 Heads Of Livestock Die. Record Cold IN UK

Not only Europe is getting walloped by winter, so are some regions in China, where the most snow has fallen in 30 years.

The early snowstorms have isolated herdsman living in remote areas, see map, and Chinese relief services dispatched assistance.

According to China.org.cn:

Snow storms has hit four towns in Xing’an Prefecture, a pasture region about 1,500 km northeast of the regional capital, Hohhot, since last Saturday.

Snow has accumulated up to 30 cm deep in most parts of the region and a meter in some areas.

The snow was 40 days earlier than its usual arrival time and was the heaviest in 30 years. At least 700 heads of livestock are believed to have died in the storm.

Winter arrives early in Northeast China

And more here: Winter in China

UPDATE: Record cold in the UK. h/t: M White

Die Zeit Takes Aim At The Skeptics In “The Abetters of Doubt”

The Climate-Berlin Wall surrounding Germany has been cracking for some time now, and crumbling with increasing speed. Die Zeit’s online smear The Abetters of Doubt takes aim at the skeptics, who have scaled the Wall and are exercising their right to free expression. They are hammering away at climate science dogmatism in Germany, much to the chagrin of the warministas.

The warministas are horrified and have embarked on a campaign to intimidate and marginalize the freedom of expression that skeptics enjoy in Germany. Climate skeptics who speak up today do so while always having to look over their shoulder, knowing they could be hit by a vicious smear and attack campaign. This is hardly the environment for a free and open society. Yet, it confirms that warminista science is trapped in the corner.

The days of Germany’s once exemplary model of a free and open society would of course risk unraveling if the warministas got their way. Indeed skeptics have long since been denied a voice in Germany’s publicly funded media, and so as a result have moved to the Internet, where they’ve chipped away.

Like it or not, this discussion is going to take place. Live with it.

Greenshirts resorting to brown tactics

What does an arrogant class, so totally convinced of itself, do when exhausted of argument and finds itself badly losing the intellectual debate and, along with it, its dream of The Green Reich?

It does what Die Zeit newspaper has done in its latest piece called The Abetters of Doubt; it resorts to brown tactics. The latest from Die Zeit is a 4-piece attack and smear campaign, with the objective of intimidating, marginalizing and silencing climate skeptics. It’s the same we have recently seen from other major dailies like Der Spiegel and the Handelsbaltt, with the usual names popping up: Stefan Rahmstorf and attack canine Naomi Oreskes. Lacking journalistic talent, Die Zeit has stooped to rehashing old stories.

Not only does the piece smear skeptics and advocate they be denied a voice, it attempts to morally degrade them as well. Ironically, it is becoming obvious who is actually morally degraded. Being a dissident here behind the Climate Berlin Wall and watching these smear tactics, I’m beginning to have an idea of what it must have been like to be gay during Medieval times, or Jewish before Kristallnacht. Die Zeit’s message to the skeptics in Germany is clear: “Be worried – be very worried”.

Fortunately, it’s nothing more than a last desperate threat coming from an intellectually bankrupt media outlet and a few activist scientists hiding in the background.

Growing skepticism, and desperation

Die Zeit’s piece is eerily laced with a strange combination of fear, anger and desperation, and it makes clear that the warministas are fed up with the turn climate science has taken. For them, the science was settled years ago. Damn the skeptics, bloggers, Internet and Fred Singer. Damn EIKE and the few German politicians who are beginning to listen up. They have gone too far. Die Zeit frets that public opinion in Germany is waning and that it’s time to put an end to it. In its piece, Die Zeit puts the spotlight on the bloggers:

Last year’s failure in Copenhagen and the hacked e-mails from climate scientists, which supposedly proved falsification, have been making waves through the media. The deniers and skeptics of global warming have been gaining momentum. They are omnipresent, mainly in the Internet – and appear to strike a chord with people who are fed up with all the climate talk, or with people who don’t want to change their lives because of a warming planet.”

Damn that denier European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE)

Die Zeit then singles out Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, a retired professor who is now the Press Speaker of the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE). Die Zeit haughtily implies that Lüdecke is imposturing as a climate scientist:

Professor emeritus for Physics and Computer Sciences, but to his audience he introduces himself as a ‘climate scientist.'”

Indeed Prof. Lüdecke has been busy spreading the skeptic message, and has been effective. Skepticism in Germany has almost doubled over the recent months – now 1/3 no longer believe CO2 is a problem. This has infuriated and alarmed the warministas. Lüdecke recently gave a presentation to the Nordoberpfalz business group. Here’s how Die Zeit describes it:

The audience was made up of company owners, the mayor, local dignitaries and decorated lieutenant colonels. Hardly anyone noticed that Lüdecke was citing outdated reports, asserting uncertainties that no longer exist and suppressed facts that were inconvenient.”

Not only is Lüdecke imposturing as a climate scientist, but he is also using phony data, Die Zeit wants its readers to believe.

Damn those bloggers and the Internet (again)

The warministas by far view the Internet and bloggers as their biggest problem. This ought not be a surprise, as skeptics have long since been denied their right to be given a voice by Germany’s massive public radio and television media, where they are viewed as unworthy of a public platform. Call it media-gatekeeping. So, naturally, skeptics use the resources that are available, i.e. the Internet, and the little money and time they have at their disposal.

On the topic of bloggers, Die Zeit interviews no. 1  crybaby Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research(PIK), introducing him as: “one of the world’s leading oceanographers”. Die Zeit writes:

In Potsdam, at the Einstein-Science-Park on the Telegrafenberg, climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf sits in front of his computer and moans. ‘In the Internet, the climate skeptics are by far the dominant force,’ says Rahmstorf. There, an amateur can hardly do any research. ‘There have always been skeptics since he’s been doing research, ‘but last year they have broken into the serious media.'”

It just really stinks when the opposition has a voice. Die Zeit continues:

Together with his colleagues, he [Rahmstorf] counters skeptic claims and erroneous media reports at the Internet blog KlimaLounge, where some think he is overly fervent. Rahmstorf says that this is no fun, but sees no alternative. No matter where he goes, in government offices, in politics, top management levels of business – everywhere you hear skeptic arguments.”

I find it astonishing that a scientist would spend his work time preoccupied with PR work and spin. I thought they are supposed to be doing science, and not PR damage control. Clearly Rahmstorf spends much of his time writing stories for the NYT Times, Die Zeit, Der Spiegel and blogging, and not on the work he is paid to do.

A big part of Rahmstorf’s problem is that he’s turned a lot of people off with his smear tactics, getting on the wrong side of a huge number of scientists. He’s got no shortage of enemies.

Damn Big Oil and industry

In the Die Zeit piece, out comes the old worn out tactic of linking skeptics to Big Oil oil or to the coal industry, which  only further confirms the bankrupt state of the global warming narrative.

Also the top managers of power giant RWE took part in a conference by mining engineers who presented ‘solidly established doubt’ on man-made climate change. Foremost, the coal lobby is spreading doubt about global warming in the 2009 annual report of the coal association one reads that the brakes have been put on climate change.

Employees of E.on, Bayer and BASF in the USA this year contributed at least 70,000 dollars to skeptic politicians.”

If Rahmstorf and the warministas had their way, private contributions to the organizations he disagrees with would be banned. Sounds undemocratic to me. Let’s not talk about the BILLIONS that flow into warmist coffers.

Falsehoods about Climategate and the IPCC are being spread

Die Zeit refuses to acknowledge any scandals in climate science, particularly Climategate and the IPCC 4AR, and twists itself into a pretzel defending the rogue institutes behind them. Not once did Die Zeit publish the damning e-mails, keeping them hidden and locked away from the public instead. Die Zeit claims that many of the ‘scandals’ have already been debunked, and even goes on to defend Mann’s crooked hockey stick. Die Zeit complains:

Even so, these supposed scandals have made their way through the Internet blogs thousands of times.”

Damn Internet. Of course, the entire climate science community knows that these scandals have not been debunked. Here’s a list of 94 scandals that have yet to be resolved. An updated and much expanded list is coming out soon. As far as the IAC is concerned, it Admits Well Is Poisoned, Yet Insists Water Is Safe.

Damn Fred Singer and the Heartland Institute

Part 3 of Die Zeit’s piece focuses on Fred Singer, the Heartland Institute, tobacco in the 1960s and Oreskes’s Merchants of Doubt. This is old and is just a lazy rehash of what appeared already weeks ago at Der Spiegel here. Die Zeit goes on and marginalizes scientific debate:

As usual the debate took place for years in the scientific journals, and the uncertainty is pretty much cleared up. This is now just constant back and forth that has since taken place in the lurid light of the public,’ says Hartmut Grassl, the 71-year old doyen of German climate science. Skeptics cherry-pick uncertainties in such debates. But all this has nothing to do with skepticism, nothing to do with critique and testing.'”

In Die Zeit’s simple world, it all goes back to Fred Singer. And CO2 drives the climate, of course.

Damn EIKE and their climate conferences

Spreading skepticism in Germany, as it was done in USA, has been successful, thanks to Holger Thuss, spokesman and founder of EIKE. EIKE is funded exclusively by private donations and has less than a hundred members. This year in December it will hold its 3rd Climate Conference in Berlin, and this time they have just enough money to have the food catered instead of buying it at a supermarket like they had to do last year. Die Zeit:

The conference next week at the Maritim Hotel in Berlin shows that EIKE, despite its dubious science, has been successful in building a network. The list of speakers includes the former President of the German Steel Industry Association. One co-sponsor of the conference is the market-radical Berlin Manhattan Institute for Entrepreneurial Freedom, which has only a one-man office, but has a board filled with economic professors who convey an air of seriousness.”

Die Zeit also has jumped in on the mob-political-lynching of Marie-Luise Dött, German Parliamentarian and a central figure on Angela Merkel’s environmental committee, whose crime was to express skepticism on climate change. Read here.

Hans von Storch chimes in

Die Zeit ends its piece quoting Hans von Storch, who assumes his comfortable perch on the fence.

“I’ve taken a look at such skeptic conferences twice.  The level for the most part was catastrophic’. Many go there to simply spread pre-packaged opinions. ‘A real interest in a discussion could not be detected.”

Detection is indeed a big problem in climate science. Some things that hardly exist, get overly detected, while other things staring right at you in the face are ignored. There’s a lot of confusion in climate science.

Skeptics’ reaction

Finally I asked EIKE for their thoughts on the Die Zeit piece, to which they kindly answered. In a nutshell, they didn’t seem the least bothered by the Die Zeit report, taking it in stride and actually welcoming it. A spokesman wrote it will bring much more attention to the discussion and generate even more interest in the Climate Conference in Berlin. Then he added, quoting Gandhi:

First they ignore you.
Then they ridicule you.
Then they attack you.
Then you win.

We are now at stage III.”

Like it or not, this discussion is going to take place. SO LIVE WITH IT.

Austrian Weather Service Scientist: COP16 “Usual International Climate Hype”

Prof. Hans von Storch’s site Klimazwiebel here brings our attention to a new site called Information portal climate change posted by the Austrian ZAMG – Austria’s Central Bureau for Meteorology and Geophysics.

Normally Klimazwiebel posts in English, but because, I suppose, the links and related literature are in German, Prof. von Storch posted this one in German.

The new ZAMG site has the purpose of providing site visitors with a trustworthy resource on the subject of climate science. It is for informing the public.

One of the contributors to the site is Dr. Reinhard Böhm of the ZAMG. Translating the quote provided by Klimazwiebel, Reinhard Böhm writes, interestingly:

In more than 80 individual articles, which have about 1000 references and links and offer additional literature, we wish to create a work of ‘Public Science’ at a scientifically reasonable level. We think we have been successful in achieving this. With this, as a body of rational information, we hope to deliver a counter view – especially at this time – when the COP 16 conference in Mexico will again provide the usual international climate hype.”

Even a moderate warmist like Böhm admits what the IPCC is all about.

In my view the ZAMG Internet resource is warmist, yet rational and not alarmist. I haven’t yet closely examined the links and data the site uses to make the assertions it does on the subject of science, but to me my first impression is that it’s too warmist and does not explain why this warming is any different from previous warmings throughout history.

ZAMG is a government funded institution. One thing is sure: climate science is very politicised and depends heavily on the source of funding. One can only go out so far on a limb before it gets sawn off.

Reinhard Böhm is the author of the book Heiße Luft. Reizwort Klimawandel – Fakten, Ängste, Geschäfte (Hot Air Word of Controversy Climate Change – Facts, Fears, Business).

3rd International Climate Conference – Henrik Svensmark Speaking

Only 8 days to go!

A new paper published today in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics suggests that the relationship proposed by Henrik Svensmark is supported. Svensmark proposes that changes in the sun’s magnetic field modulate the density of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) which in turn seed cloud formation on Earth, which changes the albedo/reflectivity to affect Earth’s energy balance and hence global climate. Read more here at WUWT:

Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes, B. A. Laken , D. R. Kniveton, and M. R. Frogley.

This will make the 3rd International Energy and Climate Conference that much more interesting as Svensmark himself will be one of the distinguished speakers, along with Fred Singer and others.

Roster of Speakers

Prof. Dr. Fred Singer, USA, Atmospheric Physicist, Chairman IPCC
Prof. Dr.Dieter Ameling, Former President of Business Union Steel and Chairman Stahl institute VDEh.
Prof. Dr. Robert Bob Carter, Australia, Geologist
Prof. Dr. Vincent Courtillot, France, Geophysicist
Prof. Dr. Karl-Friedrich Ewert, Germany, Geologist
Prof. Dr. Ian Plimer, Australia, Geologisist
Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein, Germany, Dipl. Physicist & Geography
Prof. Dr. Horst Lüdecke, Germany, Press Spokesman for EIKE

Prof. Dr. Nir Shaviv, Israel, Astrophysicist
Prof. Dr. Henrik Svensmark, Denmark, Atmospheric Sciences
Prof. Dr. Jan Veizer, Canada, Paleo-geologist
Dr. Emmanuel Martin, France, Economist
Dr. Horst Borchert, Germany, Physicist
Dr. Lutz Peters, Germany, Author of Klima 2055
Dipl.-Ing. Michael Limburg, Germany, Vize President EIKE
Dipl. Meteorologist Klaus Puls, Germany
Günther Ederer, Germany, Business Journalist and Film Producer

Climate conference location

Berlin, Germany
10117 Berlin Mitte, only a few steps away from the S-Bahn and Metro stations Friedrichstraße.

Conference dates and times

Starts Friday 3 December 2010 at 1 p.m. and ends at approx 8 p.m.
Starts Saturday 4 December 2010 at 8 a.m. and ends at approx 4 p.m.

Conference fees
120€ private participant (70€ day ticket)
250€ company representative
220€ for a student sponsored by company

Please book before 26 November 2010. After that a 30€ surcharge gets levied.

Info, registration, tickets

Email: info@berlinmanhattan.org
Fax: (+49) 30 69 20 800 39

More information here: 3rd International Energy and Climate Conference.

Negative NAO Bringing Cold Winters Back To Europe

Scandinavia is getting hit hard by extreme cold weather and snowfall, and central Europe is about to follow. Temperatures in northern Sweden have plummeted below the -30°C mark. I don’t know if any records have been broken – perhaps our Swedish readers can let us know.

For years we heard that the warm winters in Europe over the last couple of decades had been caused by man-made climate change. Now “experts” are finding out that natural cycles are behind it. The Swedish English-language The Local has a report today titled: Bitter winter on the way: expert, which starts off with:

The winter 2010/2011 is set to be as cold and snowy as last year, as a slew of weather phenomena push cold air from the poles down over Sweden, experts predict.

The phenomenon is described in meteorological jargon as the North Atlantic oscillation is entering a negative phase (NAO).

The North Atlantic oscillation (NAO), according to Wikipedia, is a climatic phenomenon in the North Atlantic Ocean of fluctuations in the difference of atmospheric pressure at sea level between the Icelandic low and the Azores high. Through east-west oscillation motions of the Icelandic low and the Azores high, it controls the strength and direction of westerly winds and storm tracks across the North Atlantic.

It’s been known since the 1920s (er, long before man-made climate change entered the picture). The above graphic shows its cyclic behavior.

Wikipedia writes the NAO is a largely atmospheric mode. It is one of the most important manifestations of climate fluctuations in the North Atlantic and surrounding humid climates, but it should not be confused with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

Westerly winds blowing across the Atlantic bring moist air into Europe. In years when westerlies are strong (positive NAO), summers are cool, winters are mild and rain is frequent. If westerlies are suppressed (negative NAO, the temperature is more extreme in summer and winter leading to heatwaves, deep freezes and reduced rainfall.

The Swedish The Local writes:

Prior to last winter the phenomenon had not occurred for years, with the standard situation being that NAO was in a positive phase with warm southwesterly winds bringing mild, almost snow-free winters to northern Europe.

But this has changed since last year. This is the longest it has remained negative – since years. No one can predict what it will do next. And so bitter cold winters, which until recently were believed would be rare in future because of man-made global warming, are back now with a vengeance in Europe, at least until the NAO flips back to its positive mode.

European climate has been regulated by the natural cycles, it turns out, and not at all by CO2. Surprise – surprise! The switch of one atmospheric cycle can change the climate in Europe so that the difference is like night and day.

Happy Thanksgiving! The Pilgrims Adapted (And Avoided The Folly Of Mitigation)

As an American citizen living in Germany, today is just another regular work day here, but of course I still celebrate Thanksgiving, and do so by having a lavish turkey dinner on Friday evening with friends and family. For the non-Americans who visit this site,  here’s a short version of how Thanksgiving started and became a tradition.

The Pilgrims escape oppression in Europe

Giving thanks and celebrating festivals for successful harvests had existed for centuries, way before the first American Thanksgiving. Giving thanks in America started when the first Pilgrims came to Massachusetts (Plymouth Rock) from England on the Mayflower in 1620. The Pilgrims came to the New World to escape persecution and oppression, particularly from the Church of England, kind of like how climate skeptics are oppressed by the Church of Climatology today.

The Pilgrims land at Plymouth Rock and many starve to death because of climate

The Mayflower with its 102 passengers had been originally bound for Jamestown, Virginia, but Atlantic storms blew the ship north to Massachusetts (Storms back then had natural causes, and were not man made ;). The first winter there was especially harsh, and because they had arrived too late they could not grow crops and they didn’t have fresh food. Half the Pilgrims on the Mayflower died of mal-nutrition and starvation during the first winter alone. But despite the extreme hardship, these newcomers had some luck, as it was the tradition of the local Wampanoag Indians, led by Chief Massasoit, to share food with any visitors.

The Indians teach the Pilgrims adaptation, and not useless mitigation

The following spring, in 1621, the Indians taught them how to grow corn (maize) and introduced cranberries, which were new foods for the new settlers. They also showed them how to grow other crops like beans, pumpkins and squash in the strange soil. The Indians taught the Pilgrims how to hunt and fish as well. Back then, the Indians taught the Pilgrims that it was useless to mitigate climate. Now just imagine if the Pilgrims had resorted to rain dancing and forbidden tree cutting. We can be thankful they were smarter then our political leaders of today.

The fruits of adaptation

After the first harvest had been completed by the new colonists in the autumn of 1621, the colonists had an abundance of food (the wonders of adaptation!). Governor William Bradford therefore proclaimed a day of thanksgiving and prayer. And to thank the Indians for teaching them how to survive in the New World, the Pilgrims of Plymouth Rock invited their Indian friends to their first Thanksgiving. It was a three day celebration to give thanks to God and the leaders of the Wampanoag Indians.

Thanksgiving spreads to other states and declared a national holiday 

After the first Plymouth Thanksgiving, the custom spread to the other colonies. But each region chose its own date. In 1789 George Washington, the first president of the United States, declared November 26 as a day of thanksgiving, but it still was not an official holiday. Thanksgiving Day continued to be celebrated in the United States on different days in different states – until Mrs. Sarah Josepha Hale, editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book, embarked on a campaign. For more than 30 years she wrote letters to the governors and presidents asking them to make Thanksgiving Day a national holiday.

Thanksgiving becomes a national holiday

In 1863, President Lincoln called on Americans to unite “with one heart and one voice” and to celebrate Thanksgiving Day on the last Thursday of November. In 1939 President Franklin D. Roosevelt moved Thanksgiving Day a week earlier to make the Christmas shopping season longer. However, because some states used the new date and others the old one, it was changed again just 2 years later. Now Thanksgiving Day is celebrated on the fourth Thursday in November.

Freedom of Want – by Norman Rockwell (1943)

Why turkey?

The turkey tradition was pushed by Benjamin Franklin, who even wanted to make it the United States national symbol. In the end the bald eagle was selected instead of the wild turkey as the official national symbol. I think most Americans will agree it was the right choice. Finally, the turkey was made famous by Norman Rockwell’s 1943 image of the family Thanksgiving, Freedom of Want, that appeared on the cover of the Saturday Evening Post. The turkey has been the Thanksgiving Day favorite ever since.

Dinner and family

The American tradition of Thanksgiving revolves around an extravagant meal, with turkey at the center.  Thanksgiving dinner also includes corn, cranberry, potatoes, gravy and a variety of pies for dessert – like pumpkin pie or apple pie. It’s tradition to say a special prayer of thanks before the meal. In many homes, family members each mention something they are very thankful for. Thanksgiving is a time for families to come together.

I have very fond memories of Thanksgivings in New England as a boy, especially of coming in out of the cold into a warm house heated by a wood-burning Franklin stove and savouring the aroma of an 18-pound turkey that’s been baking in the oven for five hours. Thanksgiving memories last a lifetime.

Extreme Winter Weather…-36°C…Sweden Calls In The Military!

The winter has even overwhelmed winter-hardened Sweden. So much so that the military has been called out to assist.

Temperatures as low as -36 degrees Celsius have been recorded in Sweden as snowfalls and storm winds play havoc with transport services.

Sweden’s main meteorological agency, SMHI, noted that the winter continued its march south across the country as strong winds from the Baltic Sea brought heavy snowfalls in eastern areas of Svealand and Götaland.

The snow is expected to remain on the ground in many parts of southern Sweden as temperatures are set to remain well below zero.

“There has been a lot of snow overnight,” Lisa Frost at SMHI said.

Kalmar county was obliged to call for military help on Wednesday to aid in the battle against widespread flooding which had caused damage to property in the area.

Read more: http://www.thelocal.se/30396/20101124/ (The Local).

The Independent got half of it right anyway. Maybe not “rare”, but at least “exciting”.

Predictions Of Warm Winters Get Buried In Ice

With the bitter cold and snowfall forecast for the days ahead in northern and central Europe, this winter is truly shaping up to be the 3rd consecutive hard winter to batter Europe with snow and cold. This of course all flies in the face of projections made 10 years ago and even less. I thought now is a good time to bring up what the consensus and settled science told us 10 years ago.

The Independent brought us an infamous story that has become a favorite of the climate realists, click here, titled:

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past

Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become ‘a very rare and exciting event’.

‘Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,’ he said.”

And what gets printed by The Independent in March gets used for April Fools Day by Der Spiegel, read here, article dated 1 April 2000:

Snow never again?

Influenced by man, temperatures will continue to rise here with a certainty of 95%. In Germany the bitter cold winters belong to the past: ‘Winter with deep frosts and a lot of snow like 20 years ago will no longer occur at our latitudes”, says scientist Mojib Latif of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg”

Damn that 5%! To be honest, it seems like Der Spiegel has April Fools climate stories every day.

Finally, WDR German public television talk show “Hart aber fair” (Hard but fair) featured the following topic on January 17, 2007, i.e. less than three years ago!

Warmer winters, broken climate – welcome to the hot future?

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to locate the video clip of that show. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to imagine what that discussion was like.

Today things are indeed very different. Suddenly all the talk of warm winters in central Europe has disappeared from the media radar. Instead all the talk is now about hard winters coming to Europe – due to global warming, of course.

Green Police Orders Confiscation Of Enviro-Contraband

Lubos Motl here wrote up a piece on this story about 2 German engineers who were busted for attempting to bring environmental contraband (incandescent light bulbs) across the Climate Berlin Wall. Last year the EU banned the 100-watt bulbs as the start of an incandescent light bulb phase-out that will take place over the next years.

I’d like to add a little more to what Lubos has written already. I myself have a stash of about 50 pieces. This story was brought up last week by another blog or two, but it got by me.

As Lubos points out, Germans behind the Climate Berlin Wall now have to smuggle in the things they want, just like East Germans had to do before the political Berlin Wall fell.

Recently, the two German engineers quickly sold 4000 of the climate-killing bulbs as “heat balls”, and so they ordered up another 40,000 pieces from China. To get them through German customs, they declared the bulbs as “heat balls” – miniature heaters that could be powered by a standard fluorescent light bulb fixture.

But the German government got a whiff of the scam and ordered customs officials to seize the shipment at the Cologne/Bonn airport. The German online Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reports here on the story. According to the FAZ, customs officials confiscated the “dangerous” shipment. The FAZ writes:

Engineers Siegfried Rotthäuser and Rudolf Hannot wanted to get around the EU bulb ban, and thus argued that the 100-watt heat balls produced mainly heat, and were not lamps.

The heatball satire resonated well with the general public. Within just a couple of days, the first batch of 4000 pieces of miniature heaters were sold out at the handsome price of €1.69 ea., whereby Rotthäuser even promised to donate 30 cents for each unit sold to projects that protect the rain forest. Due to the media buzz, they soon had orders for another 40,000 units.

But the government officials were not amused. On Tuesday customs officials received an advisory from the local Cologne government, Department 55, Product Safety and Explosives, on the 40,000 heating units.

Rotthäuser found out that customs officials had been put under “massive pressure” by the Department of Environment to stop the shipment. The Department of Environment responded, writes the FAZ:

According to information from the local authorities, customs did not confiscate the goods, moreover they simply ‘suspended’ their release until samples of the seemingly dangerous goods could be examined. Now a Cologne defense expert will soon determine that the heatballs contain no explosives, but indeed do light up.

The 2 entrepreneurial brothers say they would welcome a debate on the sense of the bulb ban. The newly government-prescribed energy saving lights are far more dangerous for the environment because of their mercury content.

Never mind though – government leaders think customs officials need to focus their time and resources on the really dangerous stuff like incandescent light bulbs, and less on terrorists and real explosives.

Meteorologist Dissects Computer Model Forecasts Made By State-Funded Climatologists

A couple of days back I wrote about a German meteorologist Dr. Karsten Brandt here, who claims climate prognoses are “not worth the paper they are printed on“.

Dr. Karsten Brandt says CO2 is completely overblown in climate models. Photo source: donnerwetter.de

At his website here, Germany’s new climate enfant terrible posted a report titled: The Future Of Our Climate In Europe (in German) where he fires blistering criticism at regional climate forecasts made by computer-models.

Worthless models – ocean currents are 100 to 1000 times more powerful than CO2

First Brandt takes a look at CO2 versus other climate factors. Brandt says that surely CO2 will have some impact over the long-term – over centuries, but over the shorter term (100 years) and on continental scales, CO2 plays nary a role compared to other factors like ocean currents:

At the continental level, ocean currents are especially capable of completely knocking our climate out of whack. In Europe, that would be of course the Gulf Stream. This has an influence factor on our climate that is 100-1000 in comparison to the long-term CO2 impact.

So how can we trust computer climate model forecasts made for the next 100 years? Can you leave out such factors like the sun, ocean cycles and volcanoes – which are all poorly understood – and still get a useful outlook? To answer this question Brandt uses a financial analogy (which Brandt knows something about, as he runs his own private meteorological services company):

Imagine you are preparing the financial plan for your company, but you completely forget the all-important factors of taxes and mandatory expenses for employee benefits. You’re sure to go bankrupt. That’s basically the appraoch used in the climate models and their prognoses. These models exclude numerous difficult details. Still, climatologists go out and hock their climate forecast maps of central Germany and Bavaria for the year 2060.

Gulf Stream factor 100+ times bigger factor than CO2. NASA photo

By now, any normal reader begins to understand just how dubious and worthless such forecasts truly are. Just months ago we recall how these climate forecasters predicted warm, mild winters for Europe, along with the end of the ski industry in the Alps. Now today, having their heads pulled out of the sand by meteorologists, the same climatologists are forecasting bitter cold winters in Europe. Gone suddenly is all the dreaded warming. If this to you all sounds like a swindle, you’re not alone.

Brandt tells us more about how climatologists behave:

 Just a small change in the Gulf Stream results in Europe shivering, thus rendering obsolete all the plans made for a mild future. What’s even worse, many climate scientists know this, but still claim to make precise prognoses. The business with the future is really great, especially when the speculation involves no risk, or if others have to bear the costs of the forecasts.”

Brandt is sure that the climatologists of 2040 will need a good supply of excuses for the climatologists of today, and suggests some for the newspapers of 2040:

‘Well, that was the state of the science back then.’

or:

The models were correct, they just under-estimated this one factor.’

Brandt adds:

Perhaps you can send your suggestions for excuses to PIK in Potsdam.”

He then presents tables of the strengths of impacts of various climate drivers for Europe. We see that Europe’s climate is significantly coupled to the Gulf Stream. If the Gulf Stream were to weaken, then forget about mild winters. Winters in England could become like winters in Newfoundland. Brandt summarizes:

If you still haven’t heard from the climate debate which climate factors must be taken into account when making regional forecasts, it certainly isn’t CO2.”

Brandt does say that CO2 will have an impact over larger timescales, i.e. 1000 years.  But who knows where the climate will be in 1000 years. The earth could be back into an ice age. The earth could also be obliterated by an asteroid. You choose the scenario! Brandt writes:

Over the very short term (2-50 years) and short-term (50-100 years) climate prognoses for continents, especially Europe, depend on a number of unpredictable factors. For the next 1000 years, the Gulf Stream is the decisive factor. Even changes in air currents have similar impacts as CO2 does. Over time, the earth’s orbital parameters, random volcanic eruptions, and, in a 1000 years, again the earth’s orbit will have huge impacts. That alone is already an explosive mixture for every climate computer model, in which the most important factor is still not even accounted for: the Gulf Stream.

If that doesn’t convince you that the models and claims made by climate institutes like PIK in Potsdam are useless crap at best, then you truly belong among the fundamentalists in the AGW religion.

Another One Makes It Through!

A top East European climatologist, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with UN global warming colleagues, jumps a sinking ship as ocean data signals a cooler climate.

Dr. Lucka Kajfež Bogataj left cold clear water between herself and her former UN shipmates by declaring that rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide probably don’t cause global temperatures to rise. The news scuppers hopes for a change in fortune for the beleagured UN climate agency. Their doomed ‘ship,’ the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been sailing on an ill wind ever since it was struck by that Climategate ‘torpedo’ last year.

The Slovenian climate professor made the chilling announcement last month…read fully story at Climate Realists here

==============================================

Extreme Cold To Grip Europe. Forecast -38°C in Switzerland…Will Be Even Colder Later…Pattern Not Seen in 70 Years.

Computers have been forecasting a wicked cold winter for Europe this year. Looks like it’s shaping up to be just that.

Later this week a blast of Arctic air is set to sweep across northern and central Europe, as a huge high pressure zone off in the Atlantic combined with low pressure system Gundula to east over the Baltic pump frigid air over the continent.

One meteorologist says such a weather pattern was last seen 70 years ago.

Wetter.com writes here:

Cold air will clash with moist air and, as a result, we will get more and more snow in the days ahead. But that’s not all. By and by the cold will tighten its grip, and by Friday temperatures will not get above freezing.

That is still not the end of it. This weekend temperatures nationwide [Germany] will be between 5 below and 13°C below at night. But hang on tight. Next week will be even colder – especially at night, where for example, the temperature in the Black Forest will drop to 26°C below!

And if that is not enough, then drive out to the Swiss mountains. 38°C below is the forecast during the night from Sunday to Monday!

German tabloid Bild newspaper reports here, quoting meteorologist Dominik Jung of wetter.net:

The weekend will be bitter cold. Daytime highs will climb to only -8°C to -2°C . Nighttime temperatures will drop to -10°C. But in areas with clear skies and snow cover, especially in the central mountain regions, temperatures of -25°C will be reached.

Jung says such a weather pattern can stay around a long time before it goes away. He tells Bild newspaper:

When cold polar air is really there, than it’ll stick around for awhile. At the moment weather models show no end in sight for the coming cold wave. Quite to the contrary, the first weekend of December is going to be even colder, and there’s the threat of heavy snowfalls.

We’ll be getting temperatures like we would only expect in the dead of winter. A similar weather pattern led to the extreme winter in 1939/1940.”

And it’s still autumn officially!

Strange how the leaders of the world’s most climate-activist countries will be discussing ways to prevent warming in balmy Cancun Mexico just when their respective countries will be struggling in bitter cold. The Gods have a sense of humour.

Swiss Academy Of Sciences: Skepticism Is Scientific – Unless It Comes From Climate Skeptics

Pro-Clim, a forum of the Swiss Academy of Sciences, has recently put out a news release titled: The Arguments of the Climate Skeptics. Below you’ll find the news release translated in English by yours truly. Hat tip to NoTricksZone reader John Patagon.

The Swiss Academy is apparently unswayed by the change in direction recently adopted by the Royal Society in Britain. Pro-Clim is sticking to activism and dogma, at least until further notice. Comically it claims that skepticism is scientific, but only if it does not come from climate skeptics. More on this below.

The news release that follows serves to remind warministas that the science is settled and that arguments against “climate change” are to be dismissed. So keep the faith! The release also links to a pdf file, which provides frustrated warministas with arguments they can use against skeptics in public debate. Here is the release in English:
===================================================================

The Arguments of the Climate Skeptics
Climate Press No. 29

Skepticism is the basis for scientific work, as scientific findings must be reproducible and stand up to rigorous examination. On the other hand, the skepticism coming from climate skeptics is problematic because they accept scientific proof only selectively.

The arguments from climate skeptics are numerous, but often contradictory. The facts behind climate change are challenged in more or less complex ways.  These are arguments that have been either refuted already, or simply are not scientifically plausible when examined more closely – but are always put forth anyway. In the meantime answers and detailed explanations for each point can be called up from websites at any time. A look at the collection of arguments allows them to be categorized into groups. Arguments made by climate skeptics almost always fall under one of the categories. The described categories will help you orgnanize the hundreds of arguments.

===================================================================

To me it seems strange that a scientific society would take sides instead of remaining neutral. I especially like their claim “the skepticism of climate skeptics is problematic because they accept the scientific proof only selectively“. What they are saying here is that skepticism becomes unwelcome and dismissible if it threatens their dogma.

When this belief becomes a guiding principle of a scientific society, then it has truly succeeded in reducing itself to a joke.

Sorry, but you don’t get to accept or dismiss skepticism based on whether you like it or not. If you don’t like skepticism because it’s “selective”, or “problematic”, then science is not your field.

Papers Show Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity

NTZ reader and contributor Ed Caryl brings us his newest essay. This one is about the climate’s (low) sensitivity to CO2.

==================================================================
On CO2, Did You Know That… ?
By Ed Caryl

Nearly all the papers on CO2 and high global warming are based on climate models, not actual data.

  • Did you know that there is one paper that uses satellite data to actually measure CO2’s affect on climate?
  • Did you know that the temperature figure for CO2 doubling (climate sensitivity) found in that paper is 0.6°C?

Dr. Roy W. Spencer and Dr. John Christy are the “fathers” of satellite based global temperature measurements. Dr. Spencer is also the author of the book, The Great Global Warming Blunder. Dr. Spencer and Dr. William D. Braswell co-authored the above paper.

First, to prepare you, some mathematics:

The formula for the amount of warming due to a doubling of CO2 is:

X = ∆T * (3.7 W/m2)/∆F

Where X is the warming in °C,

∆T is the equilibrium temperature change measured in °C,

∆F is the sustained forcing in W/m2, that produced that change,

The 3.7 W/m2 figure is the radiative forcing due to doubled CO2 as measured at the top of the atmosphere. This figure is from the IPCC 2001 report, and is agreed on by most researchers, including Spencer in The Great Global Warming Blunder (page 48).

Any sustained forcing of less than 3.7 W/m2 is positive feedback, resulting in an X of 1°C or more. Any sustained forcing more than that figure is negative feedback, resulting in an X of less than 1°C. If there is no feedback, positive or negative, the figure for CO2 doubling is 1°C. The IPCC figures, 1.5 to 4.5°C, assume positive feedback, mostly from water vapor.

Most of the climate sensitivity calculations use climate models, rather than real-world data. All produce climate sensitivity numbers of more than 1°C, most centered around 3°C. Roy Spencer used actual satellite temperature measurement data to find the real-world climate sensitivity. In another paper, found here, he describes evidence that the forcing is between 6 and 8 W/m2, thus climate sensitivities for CO2 doubling of from 0.46 to 0.6°C, or 0.8 to 1°F. This low number is attributed to negative feedback from clouds. This is an inconsequential amount of warming, and even that may not be reached if CO2 does not double.

This low climate sensitivity along with ocean cycles like the AMO, ENSO, and PDO may be the reason for no warming since 1998. See Bob Tisdale’s post in WUWT here for reinforcement of that idea.

Have those figures been published in a peer-reviewed journal? Yes, in the Journal of Geophysical Research. See: Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf

Is there any independent confirmation of such low climate sensitivity? Stephen E. Schwartz (2007) (also peer reviewed in the JGR) has studied the ocean heat capacity, and has produced two significant numbers: 1) the time constant for temperature changes is 5 ± 1 year, not the much longer periods touted by others. And 2) the climate sensitivity measured this way is 1.1 ±0.5°C, very close to the no feedback case, but not excluding Spencer and Braswell’s numbers. Schwartz uses GISS temperature data, not the somewhat lower satellite data, so his climate sensitivity number may be high.

Albert Einstein:

No amount of expeimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

Well, here are two. (Three, if you count Bob Tisdale’s post.) These are “experiments” that use actual real-world data, not models. The science is settled? You be the judge.

Climate Hypocrite Of The Week: Disney And Selena Gomez

Sometimes you have a slow day in climate news and so you have to post something trivial. This is such a post. But it’s short.Hollywood environmental campaigns always seem to involve some “star” who sings and lectures us on saving the planet. But then the star hops on a private jet and flies circles around the globe, smothering it in jet exhaust.

One recent campaign is Disney’s Friends for Change campaign in Germany, which has a promo video featuring singer Selena Gomez. I just couldn’t help but notice in the music video, Make a Wave, that Gomez and her hunk are driving to the beach in a huge gas-guzzling 4WD SUV. Why didn’t they go by foot or by bicycle? At the very least, they could have used a small hybrid car?

I often get the impression that Disney and Hollywood elitists believe CO2 is a gas that is emitted only when “other people” use energy, jets and SUVs, but not when they do.

Reading up about Selena, I see that she’s only 18 years old, and so I won’t blame her. Obviously Hollywood is just exploiting her. I really doubt she knows the first thing about climate. Poor girl is all confused.