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
The problem with UHI is that it only results in a warming trend as long as the urbanization around the station increases. Once its saturated its saturated. If i where the warmists, i would then move the station to a rural area and splice the old and the new record together, then wait until urbanization around the new station gives me another warming trend; rinse, leather and repeat. Of course, to make the step in the data disappear i would have to adjust the past towards cooler temperatures.
Oh wait, they already do that….
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=753
Good article
Mind boggling stuff, creative statistics, liars and the IPCC – go figure.
Great post BTW.
The Institute for Socio-Ecological Research (ISOE) in Frankfurt hopes to turn us all into Arch-Malthusians with a little social engineering. They test their brainwashing out on 90 giunea pig households. Amazing what my tax Euros can buy. English language article.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15312736,00.html
But interestingly the article also emphasizes that people aren’t interested in radically changing their lifestyles – like radicals insist we do. People want their lives to be more comfortable, and not a constant sacrifice. I’ve tried cutting back meat – not to save the planet, but because I think it is just the healthy thing to do at my age. But when I eat less meat, I find I’m always hungry, crankier and even undernourished. So I eat the same amount of meat. I want to spend my life content, and not always hungry, cranky and half-starved. Most people are like that. I don’t expect people will refrain from enjoying the pleasures of life just to save a few molecules of CO2.
Yeah, i noticed that the guinea pig family still uses their old guzzler to drive to weekend sports events. Very climate-friendly 😉
Re meat:
Have you tried eating one egg a day? Should cover most of your protein needs. Works for me. I eat little meat because i’m a lousy cook and good meat is expensive.
I like eggs too, but they’ve got lots of cholesterol.
Meat is expensive – but the fine things in life always have a price.
To me IPCC appears to be nothing but the science arm of a political organization whose prime mandate seems to be to focus on the predetermined and preselected ” man-induced” causes of global warming only. Its prime role seems to me to be to support the political organization in its negotiations with world powers to to get more political control and money from the wealthier countries of the world for their parent political organization . Many countries seemed to have initially signed on to this science as their ruling political parties could see a new and novel ways of taxing the people and to sell their green energy technolgies abroad . However as the real political intent of the global warming movement became apparent and the loss of national control of their resources and their energies and the immense cost was recognized , most smart major nations quickly backed off . One will note that IPCC reports and graphs and data are mostly void of any past , present or future cooling of any kind even though these 20-30 year cooler periods have always been part of the past global climate These regular temperature declines have been happening during the current decade and will be a regual event in the future . Hiding the decline in German temperatures recently is just another example of this attempt to distort climate data.Germany and most of Europe and an obvious cooling period from about 1962-1987. A similar period is underway for the next 20-30 years no amont of hididng the decline will avoid this .
The “Junge Welt” daily just caused some consternation by unabashedly praising the Wall, showing that Communist propaganda rags are not a thing of the past. It was pointed out that the predecessor, “Junge Welt”, was the official magazine of the Hitler Youth from 1938 to 1944. Leafing through such propaganda, both of the brown and the red persuasion, turns up lots of “model (national) socialists”, living the austere life, saving paper and trash to build up the coming paradise, carefully heeding the wise counsel of The Party. Note that this story was put out by the Deutsche Welle (and feel free to draw you own conclusions).
“The Hitler Youth regularly issued the Wille und Macht (Will and Power) monthly magazine. This publication was also its official organ and its editor was Baldur von Schirach.[6] Other publications included Die Kameradshaft (Comradeship), which had a girl’s version for the BDM called Mädelschaft, and a yearbook called Jungen eure Welt (Youth your World).[7]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth
Maybe you have mixed up “Jungen Eure Welt” (Boys, Your World) with “Junge Welt” (Young world”) – the latter seems to be a genuine publication of the DDR.
I meant this:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junge_Welt_–_die_Reichszeitschrift_der_Hitler-Jugend
http://home.arcor.de/hitlerjugendzeitung/welt.htm
http://www.huesken.com/shop/de/hitlerjugend-bdm-pfadfinder-fuenf/junge-welt-52627.html
– but one can really take all these agitprop outlets- In extreme cases, such as North Korea or Turkmenistan under the Turkmenbashi, there will be nothing but those. The Nazis at least allowed “Die Dame” and, in part, the Frankfurter Zeitung, as a sort of “bourgeois” fig leaf; the GDR did this with “Sinn und Form”.
Oh, didn’t see that; they have it well hidden. One would assume that it would be linked to in the main Hitlerjugend article but i checked in the German and English version. Looks like the leftist wikipedia authors play some games again.
Pierre,
this is really interesting: Kowatsch (who as usual has no idea what he is talking about) wrote C02 (with a zero instead of an O, which is really strange, as he is a natural science teacher and should know better), and the single instance of c-zero-two that evaded the correction at EIKE pops up in your article too. are you using some semi-automated translation mechanism?
oh, and make sure to also translate the rebuttals to the error-ridden article that were not censored in the comment section of EIKE.
regards
p.
I don’t know of censorship at EIKE, except for maybe the occasional loony comments (which I sometimes have to censor as well – you ought to know that first hand, Peter). I do know of other sites that censor everything and anything that raises questions.