Der Spiegel: Global Warming Now Causes Sea Level Drop…Through Weather Shifts!

It wasn’t long ago a PNAS study led by Stefan Rahmstorf had come out claiming sea level rise is “accelerating”. This of course was followed by the mainstream media jumping on the global warming bandwagon and trumpeting doom and gloom would strike sooner than we ever thought, maybe even before we die.

Unfortunately, the acceleration has been in the opposite direction, thus making the authors of the PNAS study look just a bit foolish.

The latest NASA satellite data show that sea levels have dropped 6 mm over the last year – the biggest drop ever recorded since satellite data has been taken. This is hardly the kind of acceleration Rahmstorf had in mind. You’d think the media would be falling all over themselves to report this good news. They have not. Only a tiny few German media outlets have reported the plummeting sea level news.

It’s due to a “weather shift”!

Der Spiegel rolled out a report called: Weather Shift Drops Global Sea Level, authored by Axel Bojanowski, hat-tip Dirk Maxeiner here. Caution: don’t be fooled into thinking Der Spiegel writers have become sceptical. To the contrary, they are cleverly, indirectly, blaming global warming for the “peculiar” sea level drop.

Global warming, you see, leads to weather shifts, which then leads to sea level drop. Hence global warming leads to sea level drop. Of course Der Spiegel will never admit this is what they are claiming, but they do indeed want you to believe it’s all because of “unusual freak weather” (which started when humans started driving SUVs).

The eastern Pacific heated by up to 10°C, huge quantities of water evaporated – and then later the mass of water fell to the ground via numerous storms over South America and later over Australia during the La Niña period.”

As is often claimed with temperature, sea level drop is now weather and sea level rise is climate. To Der Spiegel’s credit, Bojanowski at least admits that sea level rise has slowed down (emphasis added):

However since 1993, the oceans have been measured by satellites. They have detected a rise of 3 mm per year. During the last eight years, the rate of increase has slowed down.”

Leading German tabloid Bild here also expressed shock that sea levels have dropped by more than half a centimetre over the last year. Here, Bild blames the ENSO (er, weather) for the sea level drop.

Over the last 12 months, more precipitation than usual poured down over the continents, for example the destructive flood in Australia. The blame for this: the especially pronounced weather phenomena El Niño and La Niña.”

German sceptics mock bogus “accelerating” sea level claim

Germany’s online auto-reporter.net expresses doubts about the coming climate catastrophe, citing that back in the 1980s Germans were projecting the end of the forests due to acid rain. 25 years later the forests are as healthy as they have ever been.  Auto.reporter.net questions the supposed sea level rise:

It is supposed to be rising rapidly and submerging many countries. Now scientists have determined that sea level is sinking. […] The causes have yet to be determined. Scientists had expected a continuous increase.

What can we learn from that? That scientists can never exactly know what is happening. And this is the case concerning alleged man-made climate change. It is foolhardy when people think they can impact the climate over 100 years. The political target of limiting the temperature increase to 2°C  is haphazardly selected. […]  We’ll probably laugh about the climate change discussion in 20 or 30 years just as we laugh today over forest die-off, which in reality never came to pass.”

Finally German science publicist Dirk Maxeiner here simply could not contain his urge to mock the alarmists:

Global sea level has dropped by more than half a centimetre over the last 12 months. That equals 5 metres of sea level drop over the next 1000 years – at least that’s what my computer simulation shows. Now how on earth are the island states supposed to cope with all this expanding land? What a catastrophe! We have to immediately form a special commission charged with the task of managing the great transformation of these regions and setting down ecological guidelines. Professor Schellnhuber – it’s up to you!”

IPCC Vice Chair van Ypersele Suppresses Open Scientific Inquiry – Shuts Down SEII Skeptic Forum

Prof. Claes Johnson’s blogsite here reports on how an IPCC Vice Chair recently used his UN position to suppress scientific dissent and discourse. Hat-tip: Hans Labohm.Johnson, professor of applied mathematics at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, had been asked by the Société Européenne des Ingénieurs et Industriels (European Society of Engineers and Industrialists) to participate (along with Fred Singer) in discussions on climate science in Brussels Sept 1-2.

Spooked, an IPCC higher-up intervened and cancelled the discussion – obviously too much scientific dissent over a science that can no longer take it.

Johnson got the following letter from the SEII dated August 20 signaling a coming invitation:

SEII (Société Européenne des Ingénieurs et Industriels, Prof Henri Masson) organizes a conference for Fred Singer and Claes Johnson at the Fondation Universitaire in Brussels on September 1, at 18.00 h. Official invitation from SEII follows by E-mail.

The next day 2 September there will be a workshop with some of our Think Tank. Our preliminary programme looks as follows:

– 18.15 S. Fred Singer: What is new in climate change?

– 19.00 Claes Johnson: Blackbody radiation and Climate Thermodynamics

– 19.45 to 20.30: Questions and Answers”

But for Johnson, the invitation never came. Instead a letter (written in French) was sent August 22 by IPCC Vice Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, who is also a member of the Belgium Royal Academy, was sent to the Fondation Universitaire.

The effect of the letter: The SEII/Fondation Universitaire seminar was cancelled.

Yes, that cancellation of open scientific debate was brought about by a “forceful intervention” by IPCC vice president Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, who wrote in his letter to the Fondation Universitaire:

[…] You should know that Fred Singer is a person who leaves very little to be desired when it comes to scientific honesty. His activities of disinformation are financed by the fossil fuel lobbies (see XXXXXXXXXXXXXX), and it is scandalous that such a person could be remotely or closely associated with the SEII and to the Fondation Universitaire.

Some eiminent colleagues have also written me that M. Johnson is no better. One of his recent textbooks, where he spoke up against climate change, published by the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH, Sweden), should have been retracted because it contained errors.

I thank you in advance if you’ll rapidly inform me of the measures the SEII intends to take in order to distance itself from this ‘event’?  […]

Cordially, Prof. Jean-Pascal van Ypersele

There you have it – a Vice Chair of the IPCC reacting to scientific dissent like Superman reacts to kryptonite. They haven’t learned that science is all about taking a hypothesis and putting it on the test-stand of rigorous scrutiny. Not that this has never been done in climate science – indeed it has been done many times. Therein lies the problem! The AGW hypothesis holds up about as well has a sugar cube left out in a hurricane. The only dissent that the IPCC accepts is dissent that agrees with their science.

“…these people will go to any length to suppress scientific dissent”

Here’s S. Fred Singer’s reaction, who got news of the suppression soon after:

– Why am I not surprised by this disreputable action of this IPCC officer? After all, we know from Climategate emails that these people will go to any length to suppress scientific dissent. Even to libel and to use bald-faced lies.

Of course, I am not supported by fossil-fuel industry. That is complete nonsense and invention.

My Europe visit is paid by the Ettore Majorana Foundation — to give an invited talk at a climate conference in Erice. I am using the occasion to accept additional invitations to speak (without lecture fees) at the Univ of Hamburg, Imperial College, Univ of Paris – Jussieu, and of course at the KNMI in De Bilt. By happenstance I was also invited to address 100+ engineers in Zurich.

– Our IPCC colleague van Yp also questions my honesty. Well now —  the IPCC has been using me as a scientific reviewer, I publish regularly in peer-reviewed journals and am an elected Fellow of several scientific societies. So there must be some who disagree with van Yp.”

The more the IPCC suppresses and tries to shut down dissent and debate, the more suspicious other scientists will get. Hardly a good way to build trust and respect.

UPDATE 1: Also read Russell Cook’s piece here.

=====================================
PS: You can contact the SEII and asked them why they refuse to have professors Singer and Johnson.
Tel.: Fondation Universitaire: 32 (0)2 545 04 00 (ask for SEII)
Fax: 32 (0)2 502 98 31
Email: info@seii.org or seii@tiscali.be

Nestlé CEO: Biofuels Have “Returned Hundreds Of Millions Back To Extreme Poverty”

German online daily DIE WELT reports here on how Nestlé CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe says that the farming of biofuels dramatically exacerbates global hunger. Nestlé is the world’s largest food conglomerate. Hat-tip: oekowatch.org.

Recently a truly lame-brain study (later debunked here) was published claiming that global warming caused war. It would be advisable for the incompetent authors of that study to look at the connection between food prices and war instead.

Die Welt quotes Brabeck-Letmathe:

‘Through biofuels, we have returned hundreds of millions of people back into extreme poverty,’ he said in an interview with the Frankfurter Rundschau with regards to the hunger catastrophe in Somalia and rising food prices.

It is truly amazing that today more than one half of American corn and one fifth of the entire sugar cane harvest gets converted into biofuels while there is not enough food to feed humanity’.”

Brabeck-Letmathe says that the food shortage and spiralling prices are directly caused by the massive biofuel consumption and that the price spiral is leading to civil unrest in poor countries.

Biofuels were once enthusiastically supported by environmental groups, like Greenpeace,and were seen as a way of reducing human CO2 emissions, and thus curbing global warming. Governments worldwide are massively subsidizing the agriculture of biofuels. Farmers now prefer to grow crops for fuels rather than food for feeding the planet because it is simply more profitable.

Now hundreds of millions more people are starving needlessly.

Photo credit: Wikipedia

German Media Reaction On Irene – e.g. Der Spiegel: NYC “Threatened With More Than $100 BIllion In Damages”

NASA photo of Irene

Irene is the first hurricane to hit the US mainland in almost 3 years since Ike hit back in September 2008. So much for global warming causing more hurricanes.

In fact, if no hurricanes had hit the United States this year, it would have been the longest lull between U.S. hurricane landfalls in recorded history, this according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA.

But that hasn’t stopped the disaster-craved German media from splashing huge block-letter headlines of Irene on the front pages, warning of an “unprecedented event”, a monster scale Armageddon, etc. Call them schadenfreude-junkies. They’ve been waiting 3 years for a fix.

Yesterday German media hopes of a huge hurricane disaster were once again boiling with life. Like the glory days of Katrina. What follows are just a few samples of German media headlines / excerpts (emphasis added).

Der Spiegel: Thousand-Kilometer Storm Threatens America’s Coast

President Obama warns of an ‘extremely dangerous storm’  and has interrupted his vacation: With 175 km/hr wind speeds Irene threatens a number of large cities on the US coast, tens of thousands of people are fleeing. Meteorologists are measuring the hurricane with air crafts. Their data are alarming.

The Big Apple itself is threatened with more than 100 billion dollars in damages; in low-lying areas like Manhattan hospitals and retirement homes have been evacuated.”

and

In the storm’s interior, inferno conditions: The wind near the eye is at 175 km/h; thus the hurricane has reached category 2 or 3 on the 5-category scale.”

Die Welt: In New York It’s Life And Death

Irene is on course for New York: airports are closing, public transportation is shutting down. The mayor is preparing the the citizens for the worst.”

and

‘If you get an order to evacuate, please heed it’, the President added. The hurricane has to be “‘taken seriously’. All previous information say that it is going to be a “historic hurricane’.”

Bild: Fear of “Irene“! New York Fears Total Chaos

Hurricane Irene has put millions of people on the US coast in a state of fear  – destructive wind gusts and storm surges threaten. A state of emergency has been called in metropolitan New York. The Monster Storm could steer directly for the city and trigger a historic catastrophe!”

and

Hurricane expert Bernard expects that Irene will be scaled up to  category 4 during Friday. If the storm does not weaken again, then it would cause extreme damage to buildings with winds of 210 to 249 km/hr.”

FOCUS: Hurricane Irene Grows To The Size Of Europe 

Millions of Americans are fleeing: hurricane Irene is approaching the east coast. Already the storm has reached about the size of Europe. Due to the immense threat, New York has ordered an unprecedented mass evacuation.

Obama warns of a ‘historic hurricane’.”

Today, all media outlets are backpedalling big time, and look just a bit silly.

German Reaction To CERN Project: Stubbornness And Dismissiveness – To The Bitter End

Here is a sampling of the media reaction coming from Germany on CERN’s cosmic ray cloud seeding experiment.

Normally the German mainstream media is quick to report on new scientific developments, especially anything indicating catastrophic global warming. But this time they have been slow and cautious.

FOCUS magazine online starts with:

Climate skeptics doubt that man-made greenhouse gases are to blame for global warming. A new study appears to confirm their claims.”

FOCUS, in its comprehensive 6-part piece, goes on to concede that the questions behind the causes of global warming are far from being answered. FOCUS tries to play down the CERN results, and so resorts to quoting 2 hardline warmists, Jochem Marotzke, Director of the Hamburg Max Planck Institute for Meteorology and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (2 institutes that would be pretty much be out of business if the cosmic ray theory proved right).

‘The mechanism is plausible, but it is not quantitatively enough to explain the observed warming’, assessed Jochem Marotzke. Stefan Rahmstorf completely threw out the the idea recently: ‘Cosmic rays have been measured since 1953; they show no increasing or decreasing trend analog to solar brightness. Without such a trend, one can also explain no change in cloud cover,’ he insists.”

Die Welt writes:

And: Which role do clouds play in all this?  ‘Cloud’ has found the first preliminary answers to that. The sun could play a bigger role than first thought. “Could!”, emphasizes Kirkby und Curtius.

Actually Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark found the preliminary answers, and CLOUD simply added a huge dose of confirmation. And funny how Die Welt in the past never emphasized the word “could” in its numerous articles on kook warmist scenarios, but is quick to do so here.

Die Welt also quotes Kirby who compares two charts: one of temperature vs solar activity and Mann’s hockey stick chart. Die Welt writes:

‘Look here’, he said ‘at how striking the correlation between solar activity and global temperature has been over the last 1000 years.’  In comparison another chart stands right next to it, the famous ‘Hockey Stick Chart’, which suggests that there was hardly any climate fluctuation over the last 1000 years and that a sharp rise began only 150 years ago. That would mean: Only man drives the climate, and the sun not. “It turned out to be false”, he [Kirby] said.”

Indeed Mann’s view of the past 1000 years is looking more and more like a fairy tale of epic proportions. Die Welt did find space to mention Svensmark:

Also Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark is working on the interaction between solar activity and climate change. ‘Although our experiments were not very complex, we had similar results three months ago’.”

Yes, Svensmark produced good data – on a shoestring budget. Compare his cost-effectiveness to the countless tens of billions of dollars wasted on the loads of useless junk science produced by warmists. A few million dollars are proving the $100+ billion wrong.

Finally Die Welt writes about the chief of CERN and his controversial request of last July of “not to interpret the results”.

Curtius denies having received such a request. ‘Of course we have to interpret our results’, he said, “otherwise other people will do it’.”

German skeptics slam German stubbornness

Skeptic blogs and sites have been blasting German stubbornness and warming dogmatism, and their refusal to acknowledge CERN’s results. Science journalist Edgar Gärtner at his blog slammed obstinate German science, writing a piece called: Cloud Experiment Exposes Climate Swindle: He writes:

Already 200 years ago it was detected by famous English astronomer William Herschel that the price of bread always increased when the number of sunspots was very low. Svensmark believed he could explain why it was so. But when he published his hypothesis together with his boss Eigil Friis-Christensen, then IPCC Chairman Bert Bolin called them ‘naive and irresponsible’.

Funny how who’s turning out to be “naive and irresponsible”. Gärtner also writes:

One can suspect that the results contain political dynamite, also when taken alone they do not suffice to bring down the greenhouse gas house-of-lies. But in combination with the recently published NASA satellite measurements, which we reported on not long ago, it could very well happen. These measurements have clearly shown that a man-made heat trap in the atmosphere just cannot be. The temperature increase recorded over the earth’s land mass at the end of the last century, which in the meantime has stagnated, has to be attributed to other causes. The successfully completed Cloud experiment on fluctuating solar activity offers a solution. The trillions of euros that the EU wants to have for fighting the supposedly man-made climate change are purely for nothing.”

So could it bring down the “greenhouse gas house-of-lies” as Gärtner suggests? Don’t bet on it.

AGW is now fatally embedded in all German institutions

It’s going to take Germany a long time to wake up from it’s global warming science folly, if at all. The prospects are poor. All of Germany’s major institutions like the public media, government, political parties, science bodies (such as the PIK, German Weather Service, Max Planck Institute), schools, etc., all have negligently and wrecklessly embedded the global warming dogma deep and firmly into their structures and psyche, thus making it the main pillar on which the architecture of Germany’s future society will rest. Now that pillar is cracking and crumbling. Suddenly Germany’s grand plans for a Green Empire are facing the scrap heap.

Will German leaders be able to come to terms with that? They seemingly (and stupidly) have gone beyond a point of no return with their zeal. They’re pushing their heads deeper into the sand. Expect them to get shriller. Germany is stuck in a self-made dilemma. Once a brand of science gets institutionalized nationally, and to the extent that it has in Germany, it is very very difficult – if not impossible – to remove. Germany has tragically been though something eerily similar before. Will a complete demise be the only way out? Germany has a way of hanging in – all the way to the bitter end.

German Media’s Reaction To CERN Experiment Confirming Cosmic Rays And Cloud Seeding

???

===========================================
UPDATE: Oh wait! Here’s something: http://www.focus.de/wissen/wissenschaft/wissenschafts-dossiers/tid-23443/neue-studie-bestaerkt-klimaskeptiker-die-sonne-unter-verdacht_aid_658937.html

I need to be more patient with Germans. They have a habit of thinking about things from different angles before shooting off. That’s good of course. Will write more about the FOCUS report later today.

Global Coal Consumption Jumps Almost 50% – Yet Global Temps Drop!

A recently released BP report here shows that global coal consumption has risen over the last 10 years by almost 50%. So wouldn’t you think that all those millions of tons of emitted CO2 (food for plants) as a result would drive the global temperatures up? Have temperatures risen along with all that extra coal burning?

No they haven’t. In fact they’ve dropped slightly over the same period. So go figure!

The blue line shows skyrocketing global coal use, yet global temperatures have fallen.

In the above chart the blue line shows global coal consumption, data taken here, Review of World Energy. According to the report, India and China alone are responsible for 90% of the world’s coal consumption increase, while renewable energy in the 2 countries plays nary a role. According to BP figures, global CO2 emissions rose 5.8% in the year 2010.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) says that China will add a whopping 600 gigawatts of coal power plant capacity by the year 2035, equivalent to the current capacity of the USA, EU and Japan – combined! So as China adds one coal power plant each week, Europe and the USA are lucky to get a single one approved during an entire year.

Demand for coal is not about to change directions any time soon. The IEA estimates that the global population will climb to 8.5 billion people by the year 2035. That means a huge growth in demand for power. Already today the sad truth is that 20% of the global population still has no access to electricity. Forcing the prices up with CO2 emission trading schemes and carbon taxes will only make the situation worse for the very poor.

But now that we know burning coal has hardly a noticeable impact on temperature and climate (zero-correlation), it’s high time to double our efforts in producing more coal so that the world’s demand can be satisfied so that bitter poverty may be alleviated once and for all.

German Weather Service Publishes A “Spot The Errors” Diagram

Recently the German Weather Service (Deutsche Wetterdienst DWD) released its 100-year temperature prognosis chart to the public, claiming that Germans should expect more hot days in the future.

German Weather Service: More hot days in the future

DWD releases highly misleading 100-year outlook

Light blue line (before 2010): temperature record from 1881-2010
Yellow line (before 2010): 5th degree polynomial smoothing (annual mean temp.)
Orange line (after 2010): optimistic prognosis
Red line (after 2010): pessimistic prognosis

Not surprisingly, the chart has the typical catastrophic hockey stick shape. Peter Heller at Science Skeptical here closely examined the chart and found a number of deceptive irregularities that all serve to dramatize the future. As a result he dubbed it: a spot-the-errors diagram. 

Can you spot the errors? Peter Heller has.

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

German Weather Service Publishes A “Spot The Errors” Diagram

By Peter Heller

For some people, especially children, a spot-the-errors diagram is a lot of fun. But there is nothing funny about errors and inaccuracies in scientific diagrams. This at times is purposely done in political debates in order to hide just how poorly certain claims truly are. How diagrams can be used to mislead is well known. There are books and plenty of articles about it everywhere. Still, it’s attempted time and again, and often successfully. One particularly perfidious example has been produced by the German Weather Service (Deutsche Wetterdienst – DWD). The following graphic was brought to my attention by the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) in a recent article.

Figure 1: The DWD “spot the errors” diagram. (Click to enlarge)

Figure 1 shows the diagram with curves and three dots I’ve added to denote 1) the error, 2) the deception done on purpose, and 3) the inconsistency.

Dot no. 1: the error
The DWD uses a 5th degree polynomial curve (yellow) to smooth Germany’s temperature record (annual mean 1881-2010) in order to clearly illustrate the trend. No question here – that’s perfectly okay to do. Figure 2 is my attempt to reproduce the curves and it shows a somewhat different polynomial trend curve, namely at the end it is flat and in no way increasing upwards as calculated by the DWD. The flattening of the curve is due to the comparatively cool 2010, for which the DWD calculated a mean temperature of 7.8° C. Using the polynomial curve that the DWD uses, I also get a flat end…that is when I use a temperature of 8.6°C for the year 2010. Probably an error.

Figure 2: My reconstruction. (Click to enlarge)

Dot no. 2: the deception

Of course the purpose of the graph is to show the horrific climate change that lies ahead for Germany. This becomes especially pronounced when one draws curves that rise upwards as dramatically as possible after 2010. To amplify the the rate of increase, one simply employs a more effective horizontal scale. Hey, who is going to notice? And so after only 40 years the curves shoot up into an apocalypse. But notice how the horizontal axis shows the year 2100. Maybe DWD just wanted to make some room for the thermometer to make the chart look prettier. In the end, this ends up being an intentional deception in order to make the future look more dramatic.

Figure 3: Graphic using a correct scale for the future. (Click to enlarge)

Dot no. 3: the inconsistency

In Figure 3 I simply superimposed my diagram over the original DWD diagram and gave the chart the correct scale on the right side of 2010. You can already see the difference in both polynomial curves (yellow). The gray line is the linear trend (which the DWD opted not to show) that allows a prognosis. Suddenly much of the drama gets lost. Here one must recall the following: A prognosis is always the extrapolation of a known trend. One can make a prognosis completely independent of having knowledge of the fundamentals behind the trend. And in the following case, making a prognosis would simply mean extending the fluctuation of the annual mean temperature (yellow line) about the gray line. The orange and red lines in Fig. 3, on the other hand, are DWD projections and not prognoses.

To do these projections, models were used that most likely are in accordance to what is propagated by the IPCC, see Figure 4. In any case, there is good agreement with the calculations used in the recently DWD published “Regional Climate Atlas“, which is green in the graphic. The “Klimaatlas Deutschland” has quite identical results and can be seen at the DWD website.

Figure 4: Flattening already in 2100? (Click to enlarge)
 
Interestingly the course of the DWD projection between 2011 and 2100 in Figure 1 is completely different than what is shown in Figure 4. It is concave, turning sharply upwards, and not convex. I would at least call this an inconsistency.
We can summarize as follows: The DWD, as a public institute directly subordinate to the German Federal Government (Ministry of Transportation, Construction and Urban Development), believes it is correct and important to take a clear position in a highly political issue in a press conferencez. And to support this position it resorts to using a diagram that has errors, deceptions and inconsistencies that contradict to its own calculations. All of these are perfidiously placed in the diagram in a way they are not easily detectable. One indeed has to look very closely. All three of the elements happen to dramatize the situation. That’s not a good way to build trust.

Peter Heller
(Translation/editing by P Gosselin)

=================================================
Peter Heller points out that he does not value it as very important, and adds. “Handling of diagrams of all kind in this way happens everywhere and every time – especially in climate related discussions.”

Uncooperative Green Economy – Germans Turning Their Backs On “Green Cars”

Solar panels, electric cars, windmills, biofuels – It’s all been ballyhooed as the next socio-technological revolution. One that would transform our energy supply and ensure “sustainability”, thus saving the earth from climate doom. “Go green” was the motto.All that was needed was a little help from the state. Now it looks as if even a Soviet style intervention is not going to save the green movement. Rather, it looks as if state intervention has doomed it. Everywhere the green economy is in tatters.

It seems everything that the government touches nowadays ends up turning into a folly. We are seeing it with solar energy, see here, herehere and here. The same goes with wind, biofuels and deforestation, and even the toxic mercury-laden light bulbs that are poisoning the land. How much longer before it all goes bankrupt?

Just recently Marc Morano unplugged the Chevy Volt, revealing the folly behind government supported electric cars, see here. No one wants them – even with the massive subsidies. And not even in Green Germany.

Germans opting more for gasoline and diesel engine cars

Here a recent study released by oil company Aral shows that Germans are once again interested in acquiring a new car, read here in German. That’s good news for the economy. The problem is that fewer people are expressing interest in buying electric cars and hybrids. The Aral press release writes (emphasis added):

The preferred drive system remains the Otto engine by a clear margin. After 2009 when only 51% were interested in buying this conventional type of drive system, the number has since risen 10 percent to 61%. Also diesel engines can be happy with a share of 28% (+2%). A significant decrease was posted by cars driven by natural gas. Here the number of potential buyers has dropped by 50% over the last 2 years, going from 10% to 5%. Also electric cars have suffered a setback: Only 28% of those surveyed said they could imagine buying an electric car. Two years ago the figure was 36%.

Greenpeace Copenhagen Gatecrashers Convicted – Fret They Are Being Persecuted

Here’s something you won’t find in the MSM, but thanks to NoTricksZone, a few of us out there will hear about it. (Just imagine if they had been tea-partiers).It’s official: Some of Greenpeace’s members have found guilty. Eleven activists from Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States were found guilty today in Denmark of falsifying documents and number plates, this according to Univision.com here. They were sentenced to 14 days suspended prison terms.

On 17 December, 2009, the head of Greenpeace Spain Juan Lopez de Uralde and Norwegian Nora Christiansen crashed the Danish parliament’s security and unfurled a banner with the words: “Politicians Talk, Leaders ACT”.

Yet, the impatient radical activists ought to be happy with the judgement, as they got off easy. Univision.com writes:

In its ruling, the court explained the low sentences by “the character of the circumstances on the one hand, and on the other, the fact that the transgressions were part of a peaceful political happening with the goal of causing debate,” pointing out that “no particular serious rights were infringed upon.”

The goal of causing debate? Right. The last things these kooks want is debate. These are dogmatists who are incapable of listening to other opinions, they deny contradictory data,  and demand that their views of the world be enacted as law immediately. Democracy for them is a just a bothersome obstacle. Luckily democracy is still keeping these loons in check.

Feeling unappreciated and peeved, the planet-saving López de Uralde added:

We were treated almost like terrorists.”

The court also found the Greenpeace Nordic wing guilty of organising the demonstration and fined the group  $15,000.

Of course don’t expect them to be repentant now that they’ve been slapped on the wrist. They believe their actions were justified. Just listen to former Juan López de Uralde, as quoted recently by the leftwing online German Tageszeitung (TAZ) here:

The whole process was completely over the top. and a bit surreal. The worst is: Although the most recent data on climate change are alarming and emissions have increased since the failed summit in Copenhagen, rising 5% just last year, massive action is being taken against activists. There’s a huge and obvious contradiction between the will to take on climate change and the persecution of activists.”

Walter Russell Mead Calls The Green Jobs Initiative “Bogus – An Embarassing Mess”

I’ve been writing lately on the folly that is the Green Economy, citing a number of examples here in Germany, read here for example.

Walter Russel Mead at The American Interest has a must read on how the once much ballyhooed Green Jobs Initiative stands in the USA today. It isn’t pretty.

Feeding The Masses On Unicorn Ribs

by Walter Russell Mead

Besides healing the planet and returning the rising seas to their natural beds, then-Senator Obama promised that his administration would create beautiful green jobs: well paid, stable, abundant jobs, unionized, with full benefits and making the earth healthier and the American people richer. As President, he stayed on message: even after the truther-enabling “green jobs czar” Van Jones left the administration, green jobs have been one of the President’s signature policies for putting the American people back to work. Continue reading here…

Some excerpts from Mead’s article:

Obama promised to create 5 million green jobs within ten years.”

and

…New York Times has also figured it out that the administration’s green jobs initiative is an embarrassing mess.”

and

What worries me is that they didn’t understand that making something this bogus a central plank of his actual governing plan on an issue as vital as jobs would have serious costs down the road. Many liberals want green jobs to exist so badly that they don’t fully grasp how otherworldly and ineffectual this advocacy makes the President look to unemployed meat packers and truck drivers.”

Read the entire article for more.

Green Solar Jobs In Germany Fail To Materialize – German Greens On Perry

(Photo: US government)

Two short reports today…

1) Solar jobs in Germany overstated

The idea was to shift from dirty fossil and dangerous nuclear fuel power generation over to clean, climate-friendly renewable energy, and thus create thousands of new green jobs that would usher in the German Green Revolution and so make Germany a model for the rest of the world on how to responsibly use energy.

Unfortunately, it may be becoming a model of what not to do.

A recent report throws more ice water on the green dream – at least in the solar industry. The report says that the number of solar jobs in Germany is much less than what is claimed by the industry. Instead of 133,000 solar jobs, the number is only 80,000.

According to CO2 Handel.de:

According to the Berlin Polytechnic University for Technology and Economy(HTW) there are currently about 80,000 jobs in the German photovoltaic industry, this reported by Welt am Sonntag.”

The 133,000 jobs claimed by the solar industry trade associations have not been reached by a long shot. According to the Berlin Polytechnic University, approximately 75% of the jobs are not even in the so-called hightech areas of manufacturing, but rather in distribution and installation.

A few days ago NoTricksZone here reported how solar companies in Germany are bleeding to death, and shifting production to Asia. Solar panels are increasingly being manufactured in China and Malaysia where costs are much cheaper.

Not only are the lost jobs in the fossil fuel and nuclear industries not being replaced, but electricity rates have begun to soar as well, adding another hit to the economy.

2) Green statists on Rick Perry

It’s now dawning on Europe’s greenies that Obama’s challenger in 2012 is going to be a solid skeptic (It obviously has not dawned on them that even Obama thinks little of the issue, probably because he knows the green revolution is a scam and would slam especially the poor). Statist green German website Klima der Gerechtigkeit (Climate of Justice) looks at emerging front-runner Rick Perry’s and his positions on climate change.

Perry is currently the favorite to be the Rupublican nominee. In the primaries his anti-climate positions likely will not be a disadvantage. That could change if the Republicans nominate him to go up against Obama. Climate change has had a noticeable impact on Texas over the last 20 years; it has become hotter and dryer. So far Perry has moved forward with his platitudes. But his home state is moaning under one of the worst droughts in its history – farmers face harvest losses of US$ 10 billion. Its governor allows his campaign to be financed by the oil and gas lobby and demands an end to all state regulations.

It’s going to be a fun campaign. Seriously.”

It very well may be. Texas is one of the fastest growing states, creating 40% of all new jobs in the entire country. It’s population is booming too. Concerning climate change, 69% of all Americans believe scientists have lied about climate change. Let’s see if Obama is stupid enough to side up with the 31%.

Meteorologist Blasts “Horoscope” Longterm Forecasts – Over 100 Sign “Hamburg Declaration On Long-Term Prognoses”

UPDATE 8/20: For whatever reason, Frank Abel has completely taken down his post. Most likely it did not amuse some particular persons.
==================================We all know that seasonal forecasts looking 90 days or so into the future are not easy to make and have considerable uncertainty. But that hasn’t kept some bold meteorologists from going out and issuing 3-month seasonal forecasts that even include the week-by-week weather development for the period, and claiming up to 80% probability they will be right. I’m not aware of any technology that would allow that.

And who can forget the forecasts of “barbecue summers”?

Increasingly a number of serious meteorologists are now getting annoyed by these crackpot crystal ball forecasts, which are eagerly spread by the media and never turn out to be correct.

One vocal critic is German meteorologist Frank Abel here, who is a weatherman at MeteoGroup Deutschland GmbH in Berlin, part of the biggest private European weather company.

Abel took two prominent summer-2011 forecasts made by 2 popular German meteorologists back in March and May respectively, and tells us today how they panned out. Abel:

In summary what they did get right was (like with a horoscope) purely by chance.”

He then quotes the Institute for Weather and Climate Communication (IWK) in Hamburg concerning the forecasts made by the 2 meteorologists.

Frank Böttcher of the IWK told me what he thought: ‘What does that tell us? Their projections are worse than if they had been picked randomly.”

Indeed Abel and dozens of other meteorologists had gotten so fed up with the dubious seasonal forecasts that they banded together back in April and drew up the so-called Hamburg Declaration on Longterm Prognoses, which has since been signed by well over 100 meteorologists. Here it is in English (my translation):

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

Hamburg Declaration On Longterm Weather Prognoses
by the Meteorologists of the 6th Extreme Weather Congress

We, the signers of the Hamburg Declaration, do hereby declare:

Long-term prognoses for approaching seasons are among the major targets of meteorology. Generating these prognoses are still at the very early stages of development. For producing such prognoses, research institutes are using super computers, without which, from today’s scientific perspective, it would be impossible to calculate the long-term developments. The results provide information on the monthly-basis anticipated deviations from the mean value and the probability of their occurrence. Such forecasts are currently possible only for very large extended regions.

Using today’s state of the art science, only the following type of forecast for June would be possible: ‘With a probability of 65%, it will be 0.3° to 0.5°C cooler than normal in southern Germany.’ Considerably more accurate forecasts for weeks and days for specific local areas, in the view of the undersigned, are not meteorologically and scientifically tenable and thus serve to damage the reputation of serious meteorologists. Thus the undersigned hereby request that making and publicizing of such prognoses, which give the public the incorrect appearance that it is possible to make accurate forecasts with our current level of knowledge, be avoided.

Signature

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

Well how about that – 65% probability a forecast for a period only 2 or 3 months into the future will be correct? Now what should that tell us about forecasts made for 5, 10, 20, 50 or even 100 YEARS down the road? Precisely – also just “horoscopes”, and them actually happening would be “purely by chance.”

Declaration On Climatic Forecasts

I now propose a Declaration on Climatic Forecasts. Serious meteorologists admit that seasonal forecasts are tricky and fraught with huge uncertainties. So isn’t it only appropriate that climatologists stop fooling the public and admit that their decadal and 100-year forecasts are also highly uncertain?

And please spare us the bullcrap that weather forecasts and climate prognoses are completely different. If anything, for obvious reasons, climatic prognoses are even far more difficult and thus uncertain.

One only has to consider that there is absolutely no agreement today among scientists on the strengths of forcings from the vast array of factors that act on our climate.

Science begins with honesty.

——————————————–
For German readers also see: Peter Braun at klimazwiebel.blogspot.com.

German Solar Module Companies Taking a Bath In Red Ink – Production To Move To Asia

Bleeding money. (Photo credit: US Government photo - from Wikipedia)

That means start kissing German green jobs good bye. Yet another Soviet-style propped up industry begins to bite the dust.

According to co2-handel.de here, rising raw material prices on the purchasing side, falling prices on the sales side, falling market demand, and reduced subsidies are spelling big trouble for the once booming German solar industry.

Solarworld, based in Bonn, did better than most other German solar companies. For the first 6 months of 2011 it recorded a profit of €22.4 million, but that was down significantly from €34.8 million for the same period last year. Half-year sales plummeted 12% to €535 million.

Hemorrhaging red ink – production moving to Asia

Konstanz-based Sunways AG’s 2nd quarter sales collapsed from €64.6 million to €38.7 million during the first half of this year, posting a loss of €2.5 million euros.

Things were even worse for Conergy. According to CO2-handel.de, the Hamburg-based company lost €41 million in the first 6 months of this year compared to a profit of €5 million for the same period last year.

Bavaria-based Phoenix Solar extended its losing streak, posting a loss of €21.1 million compared to a loss of  €18.7 million for the same period last year. Sales plummeted 61% to €140.8 million.

Q-Cells in Bitterfeld-Wolfen plans to shut down a large portion of its solar cell production at facilities in Bitterfeld-Wolfen and shift it to Malaysia in a bid to stem the hemorrhaging red ink. CO2 handel.de writes about Q-Cells:

Production capacity in Germany is to be scaled back by 50%.”

Asian manufacturers are now flooding markets with cheap modules. Solarworld director Frank Asbeck expects 8 gigawatts of over-capacity from Asia.

The flood of red ink is occuring despite government subsidies, which however have been scaled back this year. Face it without the still generous subsidies, the figures would be much worse. And despite the low-priced cells coming from Asia, it’s still a lousy way to produce energy – especially in gray and rainy Germany.

Is Our Climate Really More Extreme? Lots Of “Weird Weather” – In 1971!

Is our climate becoming more extreme?
By Paul Homewood

Hurricane Katrina (Photo credit: NOAA)

There has been much discussion recently about “Climate Disruption” or “Global Weirding”. John Holdren has talked about “increases in floods, wildfires, droughts, heat waves and hurricanes” while Rajendra Pachauri says: “Based on observation, we know that there will be more floods, more drought, more heat waves and more extreme precipitation events. These things are happening”.

Al Gore of course is quick to blame any extreme weather event on climate change. Even reputable climate scientists such as Katharine Hayhoe talk about Global Weirding. “Heavy rains, deep snowfalls, monster floods and killing droughts are signs of a new normal of extreme U.S. weather events fueled by climate change,” scientists and government planners said.

Katharine Hayhoe climate scientist of Texas Tech University told reporters:

It’s a new normal and I really do think that global weirding is the best way to describe what we’re seeing.”

But are we really seeing more extreme weather nowadays?

Our memory of events from years ago tends to blur into the mists of time. Furthermore the global nature of today’s news media often brings to our attention stories which we would not have even known about if they had happened decades ago. I have therefore put together the following record of extreme weather events from 1971, which I hope will provide a certain amount of perspective when looking at what is happening today. Why 1971? Quite simply it is 40 years ago, a nice round number, and of course, before the gradual rise in global temperatures began a few years later.

DROUGHTS

 In the US there were several notable droughts in 1971:

 * Florida – The worst drought on record resulted in 400,000 acres of the Everglades burned by fires. (1)
 * Texas – Worst drought since the 1950’s. (2)
 * Maryland – The 1958-71 drought produced the largest recorded annual departures from average stream discharge. (3)
 * California – The summer of 1971 was “extra hot and long. Rainfall did not completely wet the (tree) root zones the winter of 1971-72 (sic)”. The same report in 1978 stated “the rate of development (of dieback of tree limbs) has been accentuated in recent years”. (4)
 * Hawaii – The drought on Maui was described as the worst in 22 years. (5)
 * North Carolina – The Air Force Bombing Range Fire destroyed 29300 acres of forest. (6)
 * Minnesota – The Little Sioux Fire destroyed 14000 acres following “a period of abnormally dry weather”. (7)
 * In total there were 108398 wildfires in the US in 1971 affecting 4.2 million acres. ( Figures for 2010 were 71971 fires and 3.4 million acres). (7a)

In the rest of the world there were many more:

 * Australia – In Victoria  what was described as a severe drought began that would last to 1973. (8)
 * Ethiopia – 1971 saw the start of a 2-year drought that would claim 300,000 lives. (9)
 * Kenya – 150,000 people were affected in what was described in 2006 as even worse than the 2005 drought, itself one of the worst on record. (10)
 * Sahel – Mali, Chad, Nigeria and Burkina were in the middle of a drought that lasted from 1967-88 and which was described in Nigeria as the worst since 1913. (11)
 * Okinawa – Experienced the worst drought in history. (12)
 * China – Much of Northern China was in the grip of what in Beijing was on record as the worst drought ever (before or since). (13)
 * Afghanistan – This was the worst in the country’s history. (14)
 * Iraq – This severe drought led to the mercury poisoning tragedy. Iran was also affected. No drought there has been as bad since. (15)
 * India – The 1971-72 drought affected many states and ranked as the 5th worst since records began in 1876. (16)
 * Argentina – The 1971 drought was worse than anything since. (17)

FLOODS

 * North Vietnam – The Red River flood was an absolutely terrible disaster leaving 100,000 dead. It was listed by NOAA as one of the century’s top weather events and described as a 250 year event. (18)
 * India – Orissa was hit by a cyclone which left 10,800 dead. (19). Also, in Central India the Bundelkhand district was hit by floods (which were followed in 1972 by droughts). (20)
  * Malaysia – 32 people were killed and 180,000 affected in the Kuala Lumpur floods in the worst floods since 1926. (21)
 * Australia – In January the Canberra flood claimed 7 lives followed a month later by floods in Victoria which were called a 100 year event. In Queensland every month from January to May saw major floods and significant flooding returned in December. (22) (23) (24)
 * New Zealand – The New Plymouth area was hit by their worst ever flood after 11.4 inches of rain fell in 24 hours.(25)
 * Brazil – 130 dead in Rio de Janeiro floods. (26)
 * Quebec – Heavy rainfall caused a massive landslide at the village of Saint-Jean-Vianney, leaving 31 dead. (27)
 * Spain – 19 died in floods in Barcelona after 308mm of rain in 24 hours. (28)
 * USA – Alaska suffered a major flood, only exceeded by the 1986 flood in the last 50 years. (29)
 * USA – In February significant flooding occurred in Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois and Wisconsin.(30)
 * USA – In March Southeastern States were affected with Georgia recording record levels in some areas. (30)
 * USA – May and June brought significant flooding to Utah, Idaho, Nebraska and Wyoming. The discharge from the Bear River in Utah was considered a 75 year event. (30)
 * USA – Significant flooding hit Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia in June and July. (30)
 * USA – In August Baltimore was struck by one of the most damaging thunderstorms in 50 years and 14 died from the resulting floods. (30)
 * USA – Widespread flooding followed Tropical Storm Doria up the coast from North Carolina to Maine in August. Some streams in New Jersey and Pennsylvania registered record floods. (30)
 * USA –  Extended flooding occurred in September and October affecting Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma. (30)
 * USA – More significant flooding hits Oklahoma and Arkansas in December. (30)

HURRICANES, TORNADOES, ETC. 
* The Atlantic hurricane season was a “fairly active” one with several notable storms.(31)
 * The strongest was Edith, a Category 5, which killed dozens in Nicaragua before turning north and hitting Louisiana. (31)
 * Ginger is on record as the longest lasting Atlantic hurricane ever, or at least until the 1899 San Ciriaco hurricane was retroactively discovered to be longer. (31)
 * An unnamed storm in August attained hurricane status further north than any other North Atlantic tropical cyclone. (31)
 * Canada was unusually on the receiving end of the tail ends of 2 hurricanes, Beth and Doria which both caused huge amounts of damage from flooding. Both were listed by Natural Resources Canada among the 18 major hurricanes of the 20thC. (32)
 * In the Pacific the hurricane season was above average with 18 named storms, 6 of which made landfall. This latter number is still the record for a season. (33)
 * The typhoon season was also a busy one with 24 typhoons of which 6 were super typhoons. This compares to 7 typhoons including 2 super typhoons in 2010. The season had an extremely active start with a record number of storms before August. (34)
 * Typhoon Rose left 130 dead in Hong Kong plus many more at sea. It was described by the Hong Kong Observatory as “one of the most intense and violent” to have affected Hong Kong. (34)
 * Cyclone Althea hit Queensland as a Category 4 cyclone in December. Damage was extensive but would have been worse if it had not arrived at low tide. (35)
 * The tornado season in the USA was also above average with 58 F3+ tornadoes ( compared to 39 in 2010). (36)
 * The worst tornado outbreak occurred in the Mississippi Valley during 2 days in February. 19 tornadoes were spawned claiming 123 lives across 3 states. (37)

OTHER EVENTS

 * The highest ever UK January temperature was recorded in Gwynedd at 65F. (38)
 * In Canada the snowfall record for one season was set on Mount Copeland in British Columbia in the winter of 1971/72. (39)
 * In the same winter Mount Baker in Washington broke the US record when 1122 inches fell. (40)
 * Montreal’s “snowstorm of the century” left 17 dead with 70 mph winds producing second storey drifts. (41)
 * Texas and Oklahoma were hit by a giant blizzard which set the state record snow depth in Oklahoma of 36 inches. The National Weather Service in Amarillo lists this blizzard as one of the top 20 weather events in the Panhandle. (42) (43)
 * Columbia suffered its worst winter in years resulting in economic losses of $150 million. To make matters worse heavy rains caused the two biggest rivers, the Magdalena and Cuca, to flood vast regions in the Central and Western parts of the country. (44)
 * Most of the USA was colder than normal. 1971 nationally was the 36th coldest in the 20th century. (45)

Which year saw the more extreme weather, 1971 or 2010? Who can say. How can anyone compare the severity of, say, a hurricane with that of a drought? Or a flood with blizzard? Katharine Hayhoe complains that our weather is becoming unpredictable but surely it has ever been so. Perhaps we should really start worrying when we stop getting extreme weather events.

Paul Homewood

References:

(1) http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=458001
(2) http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=457569
(3) http://md.water.usgs.gov/publications/wsp-2375/md-dc/md-dc-html.html
(4) http://joa.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&ArticleID=1504&Type=2
(5) http://www.maui-lahaina-sun.com/strange-maui-drought.html
(6) http://fire.forestencyclopedia.net/p/p450/
(7) http://nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/597
(7a) http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html
(8) http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/2766420
(8a) http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/068f13bccd03f27bca2569de001f1072?OpenDocument
(9)  http://www.photius.com/countries/ethiopia/society/ethiopia_society_refugees_drought_a~170.htm
(10) http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportID=88067
(10a) http://www.alnap.org/pool/files/erd-3452-summary.pdf
(11) http://www.adf.gov/NDpart1-thedrought.pdf
(12) http://www.ideaconnection.com/solutions/611-Drought.html
(13) http://www.china-daily.org/Scientific-News/Beijing-case-of-the-worst-drought-in-40-years-more-than-a-thousand-people-drinking-water-2/
(13a) http://www.china.org.cn/environment/2011-01/24/content_21807550.htm
(14) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_in_Afghanistan
(15) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/864801.stm
(15a) http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Mercury+Poisoning+in+Iraq+-+1971
(16) http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/bitstream/2009/951/3/UOH-1995-133-2.pdf
(17) http://www.marketwatch.com/story/argentina-declares-drought-emergency-bbc
(17a) http://www.usatoday.com/weather/drought/2009-01-23-argentina-drought_N.htm
(18) http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mysterious-flood-strikes-north-vietnam
(19) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_North_Indian_Ocean_cyclone_season#1971_Orissa_Cyclone
(20) http://bundelkhandinfo.org/general/climate/drought_flood.html
(21) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Kuala_Lumpur_floods
(22) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Canberra_flood
(23) http://www.egcma.com.au/file/Floods%20Week%203_EG%20News%2025%20July%202007.pdf
(24) http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/fld_history/floodsum_1970.shtml
(25) http://www.newplymouthnz.com/AtoZOfCouncilServices/StormwaterandFloodProtection/FloodProtection/
(26) http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tech/Nature/Disasters/
(27) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Jean-Vianney,_Quebec
(28) http://geographyfieldwork.com/ExtremeWeather.htm
(29) http://ak.water.usgs.gov/flood/2006August/index.php
(30) http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tech/Nature/Disasters/Floods/1971.asp
(31) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Atlantic_hurricane_season
(32 http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/naturalhazards1999/majorhurricanes/hurricanes_stats_new.html
(33) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Pacific_hurricane_season
(34) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Pacific_typhoon_season
(34a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Pacific_typhoon_season
(35) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970%E2%80%9371_Southern_Hemisphere_tropical_cyclone_season#1970.E2.80.9371_Southern_Hemisphere_tropical_cyclone_season
(36) http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/tornado/tornadotrend.jpg
(37) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_1971_Mississippi_Valley_tornado_outbreak
(38) http://www.torro.org.uk/site/maxtemps.php
(39) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Weather_Extremes
(40) http://classic.mountainzone.com/news/99/bakerrecord.html
(41) http://www.ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=6A4A3AC5-1
(42) http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ama/?n=top10_events
(43) http://newsok.com/journal-entries-remembering-the-blizzard-of-1971/article/3346008
(44) http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=gzNmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8IoNAAAAIBAJ&pg=3825,2341650&dq=flood+colombia&hl=en
(45) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

EIKE: “IPCC And DWD Playing Around With Tricked Data”

Cartoon by Josh

The Germany-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE)has a piece called: First The IPCC and Now The DWD: Tricked Series With Alleged Warming After the Year 2000. The piece alleges that both the IPCC and the German Weather Service (DWD) are playing it loose with temperature data sets to produce the illusion of global warming for the last 10 years.

========================================
First The IPCC and Now The DWD: Tricked Series With Alleged Warming After the Year 2000
By Josef Kowatsch, for EIKE

In February 2007 Working Group I of the IPCC released its Summary for Policymakers (SPM) on the status of the global climate for political leaders. It was already false at the time it was published and it certainly hasn’t gotten more correct since then.

Fig. 1 shows the B1 scenario with a CO2 increase to 600 ppm, A1B to 850 ppm, and the pessimistic A2 of 1250 ppm. The year 2000 scenario illustrates the optimistic case of CO2 remaining stable at 390 ppm.

Although the IPCC computer graphic appears colorful and pretty, it is completely remote of reality, and is a science sham.  To explain why, let’s begin by dividing up the graphic in 2 parts.

Part 1: 1900 to 2000

From the year 1900 to 2000, i.e. the left half, this part is made up of real measured data, even if the IPCC does not cite a data source.  According to the curve, there is a detectable temperature increase. No one disputes the fact that it has gotten warmer since the end of the Little Ice Age.

Here one has to consider the fact that the global warming was for the most part driven by the urban heat island effect (UHI), which was caused by man over the last 100 years. Measurement stations, which earlier were mostly located outside of built-up areas, are located today in the middle of built-up areas. The thermometer themselves don’t know whether the warmth originates from the climate or from built-up infrastructure, and so they record the error along with the measurement. Out in the open countryside, or out to sea, these temperature increases do not occur.

If one cleans up the temperature records to account for the UHI effect, then the alleged temperature increase becomes much less obvious.

Also see: “Wärmeinseleffekt täuscht Klimaerwärmung vor“ (UHI masquerades as climate warming).

Fig. 2: In the last 100 years, temperatures in Germany have remained more or less the same. There have been warm years and cold years – even decades. We had an increase just before the millenium ended. After 2000 we had a decline.

Part 2, 1900 to 2000

After the year 2000, is the above curve headed for reality? According to the IPCC the C02 concentration increased 15 ppm over the last 10 years. And the temperatures? Contrary to the tricked IPCC curve, they’ve fallen. The curves of the IPCC should have gone downwards. Therefore all 4 shown scenarios are false. In Germany the temperature drop since 2000  is 2°C. This was confirmed by the German Weather Service (DWD) in Offenbach (by E-mail dated 6 September 2010):

…globally 1998 is the warmest year and in Germany it is 2000. That’s no secret, and anyone can know this …“

The real temperature drop is not shown in the IPCC curve from Figure 1. Shown are only the false projections beginning in the year 2000. Neither politicians nor the media (and forget the Umweltbundesamt [German Federal Department of Environment]) have bothered to take the time to examine the data for the IPCC and at the DWD for the years 2000 to 2010, which show average temperatures of:

9.9/ 9.0/ 9.6 / 9.4 / 9.0 / 9.0 / 9.5 / 9.9 / 9.5 / 9.2 / 7.8.°C

This is how the easily duped, like the media and our politicians, become victims of a climate propaganda and then act to further propagate the fantasy of ongoing warming. 

From the entire course of the original DWD values, we now consider only the last 12 years.

Fig.3:  Original curve of the DWD: The section of the first 6 years up to 2004 is 9.4°C. The section of the following 6 years up to the year 2010 is 9.15°C. Strangely, this curve was on the official DWD website for only a few weeks.

Summary

The IPCC is playing around with tricked data. The temperature curve of the IPCC shown in Fig. 1 still keeps popping up in the media. Here the first part of the curve is not correct, and the computer forecast second part is completely false for the first 10 years. Nobody really knows what will happen in the next 10 years. And as far as the year 2050 is concerned, absolutely no one can know.

Josef Kowatsch for EIKE
====================================================

Translated by P Gosselin

Climate Of Intimidation – “Under Deniers”

Dirk Maxeiner

In a piece titled Under Deniers, science publicist Dirk Maxeiner writes about how dissent over any politically touchy topic in Germany is increasingly being suppressed lately: by applying the label “Leugner” (denier).

Especially when one considers what Germany went through during its history, I find it appalling that a person’s right to speak up and to exercise dissent here would be suppressed in that particular manner. Sadly, that is exactly what is happening now whenever someone expresses a “different opinion” on any politically sensitive topic, especially climate change.

So just how are climate dissenters being regarded here in Germany? Among some: like criminals. Maxeiner describes how:

Whoever even quietly doubts this or that aspect of catastrophic global warming finds himself in no time at all in the company of those on the dock of the Nuremberg trials, or of Bishop Williamson and Ahmadinedschad. It is as if the denial of a crime in the past could be compared to the doubt over a feared future catastrophe.”

Well, this is pretty much what’s happening in Germany. How often does we hear the term “climate change denier” in the “debate”?

In Germany it was just on the anniversary of Kristallnacht last November when a group of leading German Green Parliamentarians (Dr. Hermann Ott, Bärbel Höhn, Hans Josef Fell, Sylvia Kotting-Uhl, Jürgen Trittin etc.) sent a brief query to Chancellor Angela Merkel demanding that she explain how someone in her party could have the gall of meeting with “climate change denier” Fred Singer.

The query contained the term “denier” at least 7 times, once in the title, 3 times in the introduction (once even personally calling Fred Singer, who is Jewish, a “climate change denier”), once in point no. 6, once in point no. 10 and once in point no. 11 (see here). It is all documented.

But to Germany’s credit, for whatever it’s worth, this brand of science bullying was not it’s own invention, but more so appears to be of American origin. The German Greens seem to be content to use it for all it’s worth. Maxeiner tells us how the real groundwork was prepared:

To do this, it was first necessary to equate modern industrial societies with the Holocaust. For the climate protection apologist Al Gore ‘the evidence of an ecological Kristallnacht is as clear as the shattering of glass in Berlin.’ For well-known American climate scientist James Hansen one has to ask the question when one views the calving of glaciers: ‘Could the the sound of breaking ice masses serve as a Kristallnacht to wake us up?’ Regarding coal trains, he found it appropriate to comment: If we don’t succeed in stopping the construction of new coal power plants, then these are death trains that are no less gruesome than the trains that rolled into the crematoriums.’ For the last remark, he at least apologized.”

And let’s not forget Dave Roberts (of Grist) and his notorious comment:

When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

In the end, all this rhetoric has served to label climate science dissenters as criminals on par to Holocaust deniers. In Germany the term “denier” has lately become the fashionable weapon of the politically correct in attacking opposition, and so it is no surprise that it is being widely used here for a number of other issues, like the recent shooting spree in Norway and criticism of Islam. Maxeiner writes:

Claudia Roth of the Green Party speaks of ‘denying the reality of Islam’ when addressing critical views of Islam. Magazine Der Spiegel, always one to use the latest word-trends and to not miss a single beat, concocted the magic term: ‘Islam-denier”.

And today anyone who expresses criticism of the euro now risks being labelled a “euro-denier”.
So speak at your own peril. To dissent is to “deny”, which is now being associated with crimes of the worst kind. One has to remember that in Germany there is little debate on climate change. The dissenters are an extremely small minority and have very few resources. The risks of speaking here up are very real.

As for me – the more they try to shut us up with this kind of bullying, the more I’m going to bring up their crude examples.

=========================================================
Dirk Maxeiner is the author of the book: Hurra wir retten die Welt, which is highly recommended.

Dirk Maxeiner photo credit: http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php.