Leibniz Institute Admits Models Have Failed

Not that is hasn’t been obvious. The Leibniz Institute for Ocean Sciences of the University of Kiel reports here that ocean chemist Dr. Christa Marandino and lead a group that will use new, innovative measuring techniques to directly measure the exchange of trace gases between oceans and atmosphere. 

Dr. Marandino wants to fill another gap in climate science and the IPCC models. (Photo credit: J. Steffen, IFM-GEOMAR)

Excerpts of the IFM GEOMAR press release are as follows, with my comments:

It sounds so little. Only 0.04% of the earth’s atmosphere consists of CO2. And yet it is this tiny amount of gas that provides for a greenhouse effect on the earth, makes life possible and with a small change can lead to considerable increasing temperatures on the planet.”

Co2 concentrations have gone up about 110 ppm over the last 150 years, yet the temperature is only up 0.8°C. Much of that temperature increase is traced back to solar activity and ocean cycles. So the above statement is certainly a load of BS. Note how they complete ignore acknowledging water vapour, aerosols, the sun and ocean cycles as climate factors.

Other trace gases include methane, dimethyl sulfide or also acetone. And like CO2, these gases are continuously exchanged between the oceans and the atmosphere. To which scale and speed the exchange occurs is an important factor for atmospheric chemistry, and thus for climate change. Unfortunately there are no measurements for many of these material flows at the boundary between water and air. Mathematical formulas that have been used up to now have proven to be inaccurate in getting values.”

In other words: The models have failed. This is a clear admission that they don’t understand the climate mechanisms and that the science is filled with gaps.

Dr. Christa Marandino of the Leibniz-Institute for Ocean Sciences (IFM-GEOMAR) wants to close this gap using a new techniques. The method is called eddy correlation technique. ‘Simply said, one just measures the vertical wind speeds, the changes in gas concentrations and connect the two,’ explains the 35-year old scientist. For CO2 this method is already being used by some work groups worldwide. But for the most trace gases with tiny concentrations, the technical difficulties have been too large so far. The measurements have to be extremely fast and highly precise, and that on a bobbing measurement platform like a research ship.”

Don’t worry about it. I’m sure you’ll find the right correction factors and get the results you need. Anything goes in climate science. The money will always be there.

‘That’s the problem’, explains Dr. Maradino. She has already conducted the first promising attempts with newly developed equipment, an atmospheric pressure chemical ionization mass spectrometry“ (APCI-MS), at the University of California in Irvine. Dr. Marandino has been working in Kiel since 2008 and she wants to tweek the technology more here. The Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Deutscher Forschungszentren (HGF) will support Dr. Marandino beginning January 2012 with the formation of a Helmholtz group. Over the coming 5 years she will receive  €250,000 for her research.”

The press release then ends with the usual “we are very glad to have this young scientist working here” blah blah blah.

I don’t mean to devalue her work here by any means. I’m just surpised to read that even though some insist the science is settled, we hear of yet another admission that it is indeed filled with gaping holes. And that means the IPCC models are discredited.

German Economics Professor Concludes: “Solar Subsidies Are Senseless”

And so how many more studies do we need to tell us the obvious?  There are so many studies out there that conclude renewable energy subsidies are a failure, yet you can be sure they will all be ignored by the next IPCC report, which instead will focus on some oddball quack paper by Ottmar Edenhofer.The University of  Witten/Herdecke has put out a press release here. Hat tip: oekowatch.de.

According to the press release, Prof. Dr. André Schmidt has drawn a harsh conclusion on the German EEG feed-in laws for renewable energies.

In his study of the economic and ecological impacts of the EEG Feed-in Act for favouring renewable energies for the Federal Office of Research, Prof. Dr. André Schmidt, economist at the University of Witten/Herdecke, has reached a devastating conclusion: they are counter-productive! “In Europe the feed-in act does not save a single microgram of CO2, subsidises carbon power plants in foreign countries, solar module  manufacturers in China, and so the German solar industry as a result gains no benefits on the market.“

Harsh words, and he has arguments behind them: “Through the EEG Act, power from solar cells has a price that is eight times higher (€ 0.34 /kwh) than conventionally produced power,“ he calculated. And he asked what do we get in return?

Carbon dioxide: When climate gases decrease because of the EEG, then the supply of of salable emission rights also goes down  (if  a functioning trading system indeed exists). ” The biggest polluters at home and abroad can cheaply purchase a free pass instead of thinking about filters.“

Employment: For the 48,000 German jobs (Source: Federal Association of Solar Economics for 2009) subsidies to the tune of €8.4 billion were forked out in 2008. “That comes out to €175,000 per job! When one compares this to coal mining subsidies, which are a relatively modest €75,000 per job, coal looks really good!“, Schmidt grumbles.

Competitiveness: 48% of all solar systems installed in Germany originate from China because German capacity simply cannot meet the demand. The global market share of German companies is at about 15%, and trending down: “When India and Thailand come onto the market soon, we’ll be at 8-10%. Here in Germany companies are investing too little in R&D, productivity advancement is sub-par, sales have stagnated. In 2010 there was a €4.3 billion trade deficit in solar modules.“. In Schmidt’s view, the inflated and guaranteed feed-in rates have paralyzed innovation in this industrial sector.“

In summary, the German EEG feed-in act is a flop.

 

 

Henryk Broder And ARD Public Television Expose, Ridicule German Climate Fanaticism

German flagship ARD public television broadcast a half hour show that was actually fully devoted to poking fun at the now religious climate movement in Germany.The show even ended with a warning that the movement may be getting out of hand. Okay, it was aired at 11.15 p.m., long after most Germans had gone to bed. Better than nothing, I guess.

The video at the above link is in German and I can’t post here because of copyright. But if you understand German, it is worth watching.

The show features Henryk Broder and Hamed Abdel-Samad journeying through Germany where they stop at various climate protection events and projects, etc. and at times speak to various climate protection leaders. Although the pair pokes fun at the people they interview, one gets a sense of just how radical and fanatic the movement has become.

In Germany, man-made climate change is long established and institutionalised. Germany is well into its mission to rescue the planet. The media, institutes, information centres, schools, government offices, tax laws, economic central planning programs, subsidies, etc. are all in place and geared at rescuing the climate. Everyone is being advised today to do their part to protect the climate.

At the 17:30 mark Broder and Abdel-Samad stop by and surprise German Green Party Chief Claudia Roth, who clearly doesn’t want to talk to Broder. Eventually she does answer Broder’s question after he presses her to tell us what she thinks sustainability means, about the eco-dictatorship and forcing everybody to live that way. Roth says:

“I don’t want someone going around telling everybody ‘you have to do this, do that, do this. I just want the citizens to have a “human literacy” so that they can decide for themselves. I don’t want to act with bans, but I can see limits are necessary, so if you’ll excuse me I really have to go.”

What she means by “human literacy” is that she wants people to believe the fairy tale and that they behave the way she wants them to. And with “limits” she means that if people go beyond them, then it’ll be very uncomfortable. The green person that Broder is left talking with after Roth is chauffeured)away in a luxury car reveals more about how the green vision looks:

And if we succeed to live well with another, cultural, ecological and technological standard, for example mobility will change, agriculture and nutrition will change, living, that is everything will change …the Great Transformation)’

Broder replies:

In the end a big beautiful world?”

Broder’s and Abdel-Samad’s journey takes them to the Bavarian Ministry of Environment, where a director tells them about the virtues of separating your garbage, installing solar panels and turning off the lights.

Next stop is a school in Hamburg with a project to climatically brainwash its kids. For example a teacher tells us how children are taught not to open the oven while the pizza is baking because it’s bad for the climate. Throughout the journey, Broder and Abdel-Samad’s often pose the question: “What do we do with those that don’t cooperate?”. The answer is always in a nutshell (paraphrasing):

We have to convince them to do so…otherwise we’ll make their lives hell.”

Even a young pupil is shown telling us that people who don’t go along have to be made to feel embarrassed and guilty about it. One zealously committed teacher proudly says they are all “acting as role models for the rest of the world”.

At the 25-minute mark, see how it all works in the classroom and how the kids are allled to think it’s all going to lead to utopia. Indeed kids are assigned to run around the school to check the heaters, lights, ventilation, windows, etc.  Eco-absurdity and climate protection madness that has indeed gripped Germany.

Broder appropriately ends with an ominous comment as a warning:

I really believe that in every idea to make a better world, lurks a hidden threat.”

Yale Paper Shows That Climate Science Skeptics Are More Scientifically Educated

I think I’ve found the root of Joe Romm’s problem. He needs to go back to school and learn more maths and natural sciences! At least that’s what a recent Yale University study shows.Somehow this paper got by me. Maybe this is old news, and so forgive me if this is already known. It’s nothing you’d hear about from the “enlightened” media, after all.

Recall how climate alarmists always try to portray skeptics as ignorant, close-minded flat-earthers who lack sufficient education to understand even the basics of the science, and if it wasn’t for them, the world could start taking the necessary steps to rescue itself.

Unfortunately for the warmists, the opposite is true. The warmists are the ones who are less educated scientifically. This is what a recent Yale University study shows. Hat tip: www.politik.ch.

Professor Dan M. Kahan and his team surveyed 1540 US adults and determined that people with more education in natural sciences and mathematics tend to be more skeptical of AGW climate science. Of course this means that people will less education are more apt to be duped by it.

Surprised? Here’s an excerpt of the study’s abstract (emphasis added):

The conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes impediments to public understanding: Limited popular knowledge of science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.

Time for you warmists to go back to school (though I seriously doubt many of you are capable of learning much of anything, on account of extreme cultural cognition disability).

To learn more, here’s a video on Cultural Cognition and the Challenge of Science Communication which looks at risk perception w.r.t. the issues of climate change, and here’s a video on Cultural Cognition Hypothesis.

Devout Warmist’s Advice Of The Week: “Strive To Disprove Your Own Research Results”

Michael Brzoska (Photo credit: NATO)

Folks, here’s a polite something to illustrate what climate science in Germany has decomposed to.

Here’s an interview with a seemingly true believer Michael Brzoska, scientific director of the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg and a principal investigator at the Integrated Climate System Analysis and Prediction’s (CliSAP) research group “Climate Change and Security”.

The CliSAP is a cluster funded with 32 million euros over five years and was started in October 2007.

As you read the interview you’ll quickly get the impression that Brzoska is convinced that since about 1900 all the world’s conflicts have increasingly been due to man-made climate change and will increasingly be so in the future. The way to stop war is to cut CO2 emissions.

Obviously he lacks historical literacy. History shows that cold periods led to food shortages, and thus uncontrollable social strife. But during warm periods, societies prospered. I’ll submit to Brzoska that war and conflict result much more from political and diplomatic failure by leaders, and much less from imagined man-made weather.

So indeed – isn’t climate change wonderful? Thanks to people like Brzoska, world leaders today have carte blanche to shirk all their responsibilities, completely and without any apprehension, and to blame everything (like war) on man-made climate change, i.e. their own citizens. But hey, maybe these thinkers are accomplishing something valuable with those €32 million they have been generously given.

Q: What do you see as CliSAPs largest achievements so far?
A: I have too little knowledge on most of the research topics and disciplines in CliSAP to answer this question with any confidence. My impression is that CliSAP has advanced quite a bit in its attempt to study climate change issues comprehensively. In social sciences, where I have a better judgment, main gaps remain, but CliSAP has clearly raised the interest of colleagues to get involved.”

Recall that the Cluster was started in October, 2007. So after 4 years he has “too little knowledge to answer this question with any confidence”? Could someone please tell me what we are paying them for? To raise interest of colleagues?

And now here’s Brzoska’s advice for young scientists:

Q: What constitutes “good” science?
A: Max Weber once wrote that it is the purpose of scientists to strive to disprove their own research results. Thus good science is critical science, including of what seems established even by oneself.”

Here I could not decide whether to laugh or to spill my dinner all over my keyboard.

Hint to Brzoska: That advice does not only apply to young scientists, but it also especially applies for the older ones too. Has Brzoska ever considered, for just a fleeting moment, that the true warmist believers could be, ahem, wrong? Seems he hasn’t.

And has he ever considered the horrific human consequences of massively and obstinately planning for the wrong scenario? Bear in mind we are not far from proving willful intent by scientists in producing wrong scenarios. There exists a massive amount of data that indicate things may very well turn out completely different than what they insist. Yet they refuse to acknowledge it.

His advice is of course correct. Science is about being open minded. Unfortunately too many climate scientists have been far too obstinate, elitist, overly pampered, corrupted and cemented deeply in dogmatism, and so the advice falls on many deaf ears. Indeed the greatest risk that global security faces today is not warming, but governments heeding the senseless advice that many scientists demand we accept without question.

Question for Prof Brzoska:

What should society do with highly influential scientists who absolutely refuse to consider they may be wrong, obstinately insist no matter what that they are right, and actually spend an entire career propping up falsehoods? Should society resist? Well, resisting has led to things like the WBGU advocating a watering down of democracy.

Sorry Mr Brzoska, but your perspective of the world, and on the causes of war, really do frighten me. I expect they frighten many others too. And they ought to be frightened. After all, nothing is more dangerous than a science that becomes decoupled from reality and truth.

Welcome to modern climate science in Germany.

Another Professor Resigns – From The Belgian European Society of Engineers and Industrialists SEII

News from Belgium…Yet another professor, Dr. Ir. Henri A. Masson, has resigned from yet another once prestigious organisation, which too has succumbed to the darkness of climate dogmatism and censorship.

In late August the Société Européenne des Ingénieurs et Industriels (European Society of Engineers and Industrialists – abbreviated  SEII) had organised a conference where scientists S. Fred Singer and Prof. Claes Johnson, of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, had been scheduled to speak on climate change.

I wrote about this here.

This all came to the attention of IPCC Vice Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, who found that skeptic views have no place in the climate religion, and so moved quickly and demanded the SEII disinvite the 2 distinguished speakers. The conference had to be moved.

For SEII event coordinator Dr. Henri A. Masson, this closed-minded attitude by the SEII and van Ypersele became intolerable and so he has submitted his strongly-worded resignation, written in French below, and sent to me by e-mail  (Sorry, no translation in English. But use Google to get the gist of it).
==========================================================

A l’attention de: M. Philippe WAUTERS, Président
Objet: démission de tous mes mandats exercés au sein de la SEII et annulation de ma qualité de membre de la SEII.

Monsieur le Président,

Je viens de prendre connaissance du document officiel établi par le Secrétaire Général de la SEII relatif à l’affaire « Climategate », par lequel il informe les Administrateurs que le Bureau Exécutif, à une très large majorité, vous a réitéré sa confiance, malgré les évidences factuelles, que j’ai fournies antérieurement, qui établissent la réalité des mensonges que vous leur avez faits.

Il appert que, après l’avoir nié par écrit, vous avez bien dû reconnaître que vous avez agi suite à une intervention d’une « tierce personne », comme le qualifie pudiquement le Secrétaire Général dans sa lettre aux Administrateurs, cette intervention d’une tierce personne étant en fait une lettre de protestation du Professeur VAN YPERSELE. Pour moi, en clair, il ne s’agit de rien d’autres que d’avoir participé à un trafic d’influence, basé sur des déclarations diffamantes que vous n’avez même paspris la peine de vérifier, et vous avez bien cédé à des pressions externes à la SEII visant à censurer des intervenants défendant un point de vue opposé à celui de M. VAN YPERSELE et des instances qu’il représente.

Ces faits sont incontestables, quels que soient les arguments casuistiques que vous tentez de développer pour évoquer une faute de procédure grave que j’aurais commise. En l’absence de définition des limites extrêmement floues du mandat qui m’a été confié dans le cadre des activités de formation de la SEII, et plus précisément dans celles visant à animer un « café philosophique pilote consacré à la controverse climatique », je ne vois vraiment pas quelle est la procédure je n’aurais pas suivie, dans la simple exécution d ‘une activité récurrente de ce groupe de travail que j’anime depuis plus d’un an.

Lorsqu’il s’agit d’envoyer un agenda ou un procès-verbal de réunion d’un tel groupe de travail de la SEII, ou encore de tenter d’inviter de nouveaux membres à se joindre à lui, car c’est bien et uniquement de cela qu’il s’agit en l’occurrence, il me semble qu’il est de règle d’employer un papier à en-tête SEII à cet effet, et cela sans avoir à faire intervenir le Bureau à chaque fois; D’ailleurs, sans l’intervention de M. VAN YPERSELE, vous n’auriez plus que vraisemblablement rien trouvé à y redire.

Mais, évidemment, rien n’oblige le Bureau à rester cohérent et objectif dans ses jugements.

Les faits que je vous reproche sont de nature stratégique pour la SEII. Essayer de s’en disculper en utilisant des arguments de procédure spécieux ne vous grandit pas. Il aurait été beaucoup plus judicieux de reconnaître que vous avez été grugé par M. VAN YPERSELE, sur base de la réputation dontil jouit encore en Belgique, malgré ses liens avec la branche la plus radicale de Greenpeace. Preuves à l’appui, Je vous ai fourni l’occasion, pendant une semaine de revoir votre position; vous n’avez pas voulu la saisir.

Je ne peux donc que constater que ni vous, ni le Bureau Exécutif ne partagez un certain nombre de valeurs qui me sont chères et sur lesquelles je n’ai jamais transigé et ne transigerai pas à l’avenir.

En conséquence de quoi, je vous présente ma démission de toutes les fonctions que j’occupais au sein de la SEII. Je souhaite également ne plus figurer sur la liste des membres et ne plus recevoir vos mailings.

Je me réserve, par ailleurs, la liberté de plaider ma bonne foi, preuves à l’appui, dans l’affaire qui nous oppose, auprès des personnes et instances de mon choix.

Je vous prie d’agréer mes sentiments de circonstance.

Prof. Dr. Ir. Henri A. Masson
Cc: Administrateurs de la SEII

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

Expect to see more resignations in the future as once respected societies keep taking up the practices of the Dark Ages.

PS: I don’t know what hurts the warmists the most: their blatant censorship of debate, or them showing up to debate? If it’s truly them showing up to debate, then their science has got to be embarrassingly bad.

Germany Rejects Phony Value-Adding Carbon-Capture-Sequestation – “Uncontrollable Like Nuclear Power”

CCS process. (Public domain graphic)

The German media today are reporting on the decision by Germany’s upper house of parliament, the Bundesrat, to reject a proposal to capture and sequester carbon dioxide emitted by power plants by pumping it into the ground, read here in English.

This rejection is a major setback for climate hero Angela Merkel and her silly plans to control GHG emissions.

Merkel’s government was hoping to compress, liquefy and store millions of tons of CO2 underground in a bid “to rescue the planet from “dangerous climate change” at a cost of billions to consumers (CCS is estimated to cost about ($30/ton). Indeed many of Germany’s politicians view the dumping of billions of euros into the ground to lower the global temperature by a few ten thousandths of a degree as a wise investment.

The truth is that many are involved in sweetheart deals with special interests and stand to make a killing. Unfortunately the Bundesrat, stirred by activists, thought the scheme was technically “too dangerous”. Just call it one stupidity killing another. But we’ll take a good decision any way we can – even if it is based on the wrong reasons.

Another reason the draft law was slapped down was because of a clause allowing individual German states to prevent CCS facilities from being built, thus enabling them to shirk their responsibilities.

As bad as nuclear energy!

Environmental kook groups like Greenpeace have been leading the protest against the CCS process, claiming dangerous CO2 “poison gas” poses “incalculable risks” and could explode or contaminate groundwater. Germany’s English-language The Local writes there are “fears of possible explosion-like uncontrolled emissions of the gas” and that “pressurised carbon dioxide storage underground was like nuclear power in that it was uncontrollable and not possible to secure.”

So what is left in Germany? Wind parks are facing mounting protests, burning fossil fuels face growing hurdles, nuclear power is being shut down, bio-fuels such as sun-diesel and ethanol are sinking further into controversy. Germany is boxing itself into a darkroom. Thank God the Eastern European countries are not rushing down the same path of folly. Soon Germany is going to need them to supply power.

4th International Climate And Energy Conference in Munich Germany

Skepticism of junk climate science has taken root even in Germany. Already the 4th International International Climate And Energy Conference is taking place in Munich on November 25-26, 2011.

Leading scientists, experts and critics of the AGW science and man-made climate change are gathering to present the newest results. Mark it down on your calendar!

New speakers this year will include:
– Andrew Montford
– Werner Kirstein
– Henrik Svensmark
– Chris Horner
– Piers Corbyn

They’ll be joining an impressive line-up of speakers like Nir Shaviv and Jan Veizer. Last year I attended the conference in Berlin and I hope to attend this year too.

This year’s line up of speakers looks even better, and the program (still preliminary and likely to change some) has been expanded to 2 full days. Read more at EIKE. Here’s how the program looks right now:

Friday – November 25

8:00 a.m.
Registration

9:00 a.m.
* Welcome – Why do we still deal with climate change?
Dr. Holger Thuss, European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE)
Wolfgang Müller, Berlin Manhattan Institute (BMI), European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE)

9:30 a.m.- 12:30 p.m.
Panel: Measuring vs. modelling
* Real temperature measurements vs. climate alarmism
Prof. em. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft des Saarlandes
* Glaciers as climate witnesses
Prof. em. Dr. Gernot Patzelt, University of Insbruck
* Anthropogenic sea level rise: from scenario to panic
Dipl. Meteorologe Klaus-Eckart Puls, Press spokesperson, EIKE

11:30 a.m. – 12.00 a.m.
Break
– Mission impossible – geological facts of carbon capture and storage in Germany
Prof. em. Dr. Friedrich-Karl Ewert, University of Paderborn

12:30 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.
Lunch – conference venue

2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Panel: Cosmic rays, CO2 and climate
* Climate, water, CO2 and the sun
Prof. Dr. Jan Veizer, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
* The cosmic ray climate link – evidence and implications to the understanding of
climate change
Prof. Dr. Nir Shaviv, Racah Institute of Physics – The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
* The impact of solar activities and cosmic rays on the world climate
Prof. Dr. Henrik Svensmark, Centre for Sun-Climate Research of the Danish National Space Centre

4:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.
Break

4:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.
Panel: Update on the CERN study cosmic rays and climate change
Prof. Dr. Jan Veizer, Prof. Dr. Nir Shaviv, Prof. Dr. Henrik Svensmark

5:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.
Climategate – The story of a cover-up
Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill Blog
Followed by dinner – buffet

Saturday – November 26

9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.
Panel: Forecasts vs. scenarios
* Climate change between statistics, models and substitute religion
Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein, Institute for Geography, University of Leipzig
* Accurate long term weather forecasts are possible
Piers Corbyn, Weather Action, London

11:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.
Break

11:30 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.
* The urban legend of the Hockey Stick
Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill Blog

12:15 p.m. – 13:00 p.m.
* Investing wisely– opportunities and dangers in alternative energy
(tbc)

13:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.
Lunch – at conference venue

2:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Panel: Climate- and Energy Policy – Wish and Reality
* The green economy: Crony capitalism’s newest big idea
Dr. Christopher C. Horner
Center for Energy and Environment – Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC
* The costs of Germany’s green energy agenda – plan vs. reality
Prof. Dr. Gerd Ganteför, University of Konstanz

4:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.
Break

4:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.
* Covering their tracks: the IPCC and transparency
Dr. Christopher C. Horner
* Center for Energy and Environment – Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC

5:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.
* Climate policies – a threat to liberty
Prof. Dr. Gerd Habermann; University of Potsdam, Hayek Society

6:30 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
* Closing remarks
Dr. Holger Thuss, President Of The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE)

7:00 p.m.
Reception / end of conference

Prices for admission
€80.00 for 1 day, private individuals
€140.00 private individuals for 2 days
€290.00 person for companies
Prices already include VAT.

Also included are the documentation, 3 meals and 4 coffee breaks/day. Note this is only the preliminary plan and is subject to change!

Registration form will be made available soon.

More info here at EIKE.

Heidelberg Professor Ulirke Ackermann Warns German Green Movement Is “Paternalistic, An Enviro-Dictatorship”

The Swiss online NZZ has a commentary written by Social Sciences Prof. Ulrike Ackermann, Director of the John Stuart Mill Institute for Liberty Research in Heidelberg, read here (in German).It’s no secret that the German Greens have been on the rise and that their movement has spearheaded the drive against the use of fossil fuels and atomic power in Germany and Europe. Ackermann writes: “For the Greens, nature is good, humans are bad” and thus must be always kept under the watchful eye of a powerful, better-knowing state. This means more central (by amateurs) planning, equalization and social uniformity.

It means the destruction of individual responsibility, and thus the individual.

Ackermann reminds us: “History shows us that this is precisely what never has put us on the path to democracy, freedom and prosperity.”

The German Greens advocate massive state intervention and deep interference in our private lives with the aim of squashing individual liberty and independence. The Greens in Berlin, for example, aim to require all do-it-yourself home improvement projects to be subjected to state permitting. This, they say, would ensure cheap and affordable housing. Installing hardwood floors or other similar improvements only serve to make living quarters more luxurious, and thus less affordable to poorer people.

The same massive state intervention is also called for when it comes to transportation. People need to be herded into public transport systems and other forms of “healthy transport modes”…like bicycles, buses, or walking. Airport expansions, on the other hand, are to be stopped at any cost. Ackermann writes:

On the path to this noble target, adult citizens are being treated like children. The program is in ‘easy language’ that is especially designed for people with ‘learning difficulties, reading impairments and speech problems’, and so verily pushes infantilism to a new high.”

To me this indicates that people who do not have the faculties to care for themselves as responsible adults are particularly attracted to Green promises. Green sympathizers probably can be classified in 3 primary categories: 1) people who want to nanny and boss everyone around, 2) people who want to be nannied and bossed around, and 3) the many gullible who actually believe the climate catastrophe scam.

The Green movement of course needs scientific authority to sustain it. This is provided by Hans Schellnhuber’s WBGU, which in English stands for: Scientific Council of the German Government for Global Transformation. Global transformation by Germans?

Here once again we have a few arrogant Germans with an insatiable desire for world domination. One function of the WBGU is, as Ackermann writes:

With a new contract for society, the Council desires to implement the Great Ecological Transformation to a nuclear-free and carbon-free global economy. A powerful, ruling government shall provide for this, and will care for the ‘societal problemtic’ of ‘non-sustainable living styles’. Climate protection will be one of the fundamental targets of the state. Our current parliamentary democratic legal process is to be supplemented by a ‘Future Council’ which will be expressly superordinate over Parliament, party squabbling and conflicting interests, and will be assembled by draw.”

This means a select unelected elitist group of European white guys, would have the final say on global decision making. Clearly the green movement is well on its way to something of quite another color. Ackermann asks:

Haven’t we seen something like this before?”

Ackermann summarizes by writing we do not need a paternalistic, dictatorial state that decides everything for us, thus destroying the individual. Instead, she writes, we need a state that promotes all individuals, their independence, and thus their pride and self responsibility. Only a society that  can produce such individuals can expect to see prosperity, justice and equality. The Green Movement will deliver none of that.

Kudos to the NZZ for publishing Prof. Ackermann’s commentary.

Financial Times Admits Gore’s Climate Movement Is Irrevocably Ruined

Simon Kuper of the Financial Times recently wrote a piece called Climate change: who cares any more?, which clearly reveals the frustration and growing resignation among warmists and how the climate cause is irrevocably ruined.

As the hoax of climate catastrophe becomes increasingly exposed, it is being taken far less seriously today than back at the peak of the scare in 2007. For example Kuper describes how he felt when leaving a climate conference in Britain in 2007:

I left feeling that if you were running a country like Britain in 2007, you probably thought climate change was the single overriding issue. Terrorism, immigration and even the economy were details by comparison.”

My how the mightiest of scares have fallen. If that doesn’t confirm that Gore’s movement is lost, then nothing will. In his opening sentence Kuper himself admits to having given up on protecting the climate, realising it is a senseless endeavour:

When someone offered me a trip to India, I said, “Definitely.” A couple of years ago I’d have fretted about the carbon emissions. But like almost everyone else, I have given up trying to prevent climate change.”

Kuper however blames the failure of the movement on the bad economy and human resignation and apathy, claiming people are more worried about their own prosperity. But the reality is that the science behind climate catastrophe has fallen apart, and this is being made known to the public. The public is realising that all the hype over climate change was mostly a hoax perpetuated by a few select greedy interest groups out to make a ton of money. That’s why the public is turned off over the climate issue. It just isn’t a real threat any more.

Now that the scientific data is getting analysed, people are realising it’s no longer necessary to worry about climate when deciding the direction of energy policy – because coal and other fossil fuels simply don’t have the destructive impact on the climate that was once hypothesized. The data simply doesn’t show it. Indeed while coal consumption globally increased 30% over the last 10 years, global temperatures have actually dropped.

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

Data source: Review of World Energy

So why would any country do something as stupid as cut back on cheap coal during cooling times? Especially when it would only lead to lots of people freezing to death.

Kuper complains and appears baffled by the fact that the media have dramatically reduced their reporting on climate change. Come on Kuper, admit it: It’s not because people have resigned, it’s because people have woken up, and the phony climate catastrophe has since become a non-issue. Few are interested in it, and

Al Gore’s 24 Hours of Reality clearly demonstrated the folly of crying wolf for the ten thousandth time. Now it’s all falling on deaf ears. Fewer people than ever now believe all the climate catastrophe hogwash. Recall how everyone saw through the whole charade and all the bias behind the reporting of Hurricane Irene, which exposed the desperation of the movement. I ask: just how stupid do you think the public is, Mr. Kuper?

It is over.

A better question is: How stupid can one possibly be not to see the man-made climate change charade, and to continue believing the obvious hoax of global climate catastrophe?

No, it is not resignation by the public. It is an awakening. Rich and poor countries alike have opted to continue to do what they have been doing for thousands of years: ADAPT. As sea levels rise their usual 1 or 2 or 3 mm a year, people will simply take one or two or three steps back each century. That’s what they’ve always done as climate has always changed in the past.

“Shivering Winter” Is Forecast For Central Europe

Two short items today. One a winter forecast for Central Europe and the other is a look back at Germany’s recent wet and “warm” summer.2011/2012 Winter forecast
Another forecast for Germany (Central Europe) for the 2011/12 winter is out. This one is from Dominik Jung, a young whippersnapper meteorologist for Germany’s leading daily tabloid Bild, read here in German in a piece called: Weather Expert Expects A Shivering Winter, h/t: Reader Ike

Jung believes the 2011/2012 Winter, i.e. December, January and February, will be colder than the mean temperature for the period of 1960-1990, which has been designated as being “normal”. Bild quotes Jung:

Already during the last three years it was up to 2°C colder than the average. If that happens again this year, which we believe it will, then it would be the fourth cold winter in a row and so a small sensation.”

Jung believes that it will be especially cold in Southern Germany with lots of snow and ice. I remind you that Jung is a warmist, and so his words need to be taken with caution when assessing the quality of his science. After all, warmists do believe CO2 is the major driver of climate, and that other factors like the sun and oceans are irrelevant.

Claim that German summer 2011 was too warm is “stupidity”

We just heard that Great Britain had its coolest summer in 20 years and how a number of butterflies died off as a result. Things were not much better in Germany, which just had one of its coolest summers in 20 years. But that didn’t keep the warmstream media from declaring it as “too warm”.

Readers Edition has a short piece here and brings our attention to a video clip of a discussion on German NDR public TV.

The video is some sort of talk show where guest meteorologist Stefan Kreibohm explains why Germany’s summer was a washout this year. At the 2.20 mark the question comes up on whether or not this was an unusual event and if this is the sort of thing we will all have to start getting used to in the future and if we are in a “death spiral”.

Quite surprisingly Stefan Kreibohm answers “no” and says:

It is simply nature’s mood. It happens. There have been summers where it hardly rained and there have been summers where it has rained a lot. This year we happened to have a summer where it rained a lot.”

and over the last 300 years, he adds:

There have always been warmer phases and colder phases.”

The lady then brings up an interesting point at the 3:31 mark and remarks that she perceived the summer to be cool, and so asks how come we are told it was warmer than normal, with a gentleman adding that in June parts of Germany even saw a frosty night. At the 4:05 mark Kreibohm explains:

There’s actually a dispute among meteorologists. The German Weather Service always uses the period of 1960 to 1990 as a reference. This was a time that was a little bit colder than today. So if you compare this summer with that, we see that it was warmer then normal. That’s nonsense – no one understands that. So if you tell someone the summer was too warm, it’s of course pure stupidity. If you compare it to the last 30 years, it was completely normal.”

Well shiver me timbers! A bit of reality here, and on German public television no less! Expect the producers to be reprimanded and Kreibohm never to be invited again.

 

NOAA Data Shows Slowing Sea Level Rise

We keep hearing various stories about sea level rise. Some alarmists even claim that it’s accelerating and coastal locations could be drowning in water by the end of the century, if not sooner. So I decided to make quick check of the data myself.

I took a sampling of 21 randomly selected locations scattered all over the globe and checked their respective sea level trends (not satellite data) to see what is happening. The following map shows the locations:

As you can see, the points are scattered all over the globe. The idea is to take a random representative sampling – much like a quality engineer who takes a random sampling of raw material from a bulk tanker truck arriving at a factory.

What follows is the corresponding list of the locations with the sea level trends measured by the NOAA.

Location  –  rate in mm per 100 years  –  observed most recent rate trend

1. Ketchikan, Alaska  (-19 mm/100 yr) – steady drop
2. San Francisco, CA. (+201 mm/100) – slowing down
3. Honolulu, Hawaii (+150 mm/100) – slowing down
4. Kwajalein, Marshall Is. (+143 mm/100) – speeding up
5. Piladelphia, PA (+280 mm/100) – steady rise
6. St. Petersburg, FL (+236 mm/100) – slowing down
7. La Libertad, Ecuador (-122 mm/100) – steady drop
8. Cristobal, Panama  (+141 mm/100) – slowing down (last 10 years)
9. Cananeia, Brazil (+420 mm/100) – speeding up
10. Argentine Is, Antarctica  (+172 mm/100) – slowing down
11. Newlyn, UK (+171 mm/100) – steady rise
12. Tenerife Spain (+153 mm/100) – steady drop
13. Walvis Bay, Namibia (+33 mm/100) – steady drop
14. Simons Bay, S Africa (+159 mm/100) – speeding up
15. Karachi, Pakistan (+48 mm/100) – steady drop
16. Cochin India (+137 mm/100) – steady rise
17. Legaspi, Philippines (+522 mm/100) – slowing down
18. Sydney Australia (+59 mm/100) – slowing down
19. Fremantle, Australia (+148 mm/100) – slowing down
20. Wellington, New Zealand (+241 mm/100) – slowing down
21. Hosojima, Japan (-53 mm/100) – steady drop
For example San Francisco sea level is rising at a rate 201 mm per 100 years and the latest trend shows that sea level rise is slowing down.

Here are the results

– Steady drop: 6
– The rise is slowing down: 9
– Speeding up: 3
– Rising steadily: 3

Do you see any red flags? The average of the 21 NOAA measured trends is 147 mm/100 years (6 inches). This is a far cry below the IPCC projected 22 inches for the next 100 years.

Most of the sampled locations are dropping or the sea level rise is slowing down. Only at 6 locations is the rise steady or speeding up. The Marshall Islands show a speeding up, but Pago Pago, American Samoa shows a decline.

Clearly this random sampling of locations shows no signs of any accelerating disaster. To the contrary, it indicates that sea level rise is most likely slowing down.

This is a preliminary check only, and of course much more data would need to be crunched to make a final conclusion. But from the preliminary check, we can safely say that anyone who claims that SLR is accelerating is probably just a charlatan who is trying to get more funding.

Concerning satellite data, someone really ought to check the calibration of the satellites.

2011 Record Arctic Ice Melt? Not Even Close!

Sea ice turns up sharply. Source: ijis.iarc

When it’s the 2nd coldest year of this century, sea levels are dropping and you’re a warmist desperate for headlines, what do you do? You resort to using outlier and obscure data sources – like the warmist University of Bremen – and claim Arctic ice is “dramatically shrinking” and has reached “a record low” (since satellite measurement began 30 years ago).

Too bad all other datasets show the opposite is true. Using the other well-known sources, the NOAA IMS, NSIDC, JAXA, NORSEX, DMI, or AMSR-E, 2011 was not even close to 2007.

By most accounts, 2011 fell about 300,000 sq km short of 2007. That’s more than 8000 Manhattans. You can see all the up-to-date charts at Anthony Watts excellent sea ice page here.

Dr. Steve Goddard prepared an excellent comparison chart of 2007 and 2011. As you can see it’s not even close when viewed objectively.

Green shows ice added in 2011 compared to 2007.

Source: Dr. Steve Goddard’s Real Science blog.

How the U. of Bremen measures ice to me is truly mysterious. Are they into science or media manipulation? Serious and objective observers of course will be extra careful with future statements coming from Bremen.

Will 2011 take a turn downwards in the days ahead?

Right now temperatures north of 80°N latitude are below normal (see chart below) and falling rapidly, as they typically do this time of the year. Refreezing is now taking place at a vigorous rate. In fact, by most accounts, the 2011 melting season ended near a record early point (Sept 9 – IARC-JAXA). A warming world would show ice melts into late September, and not ending in early September.

Temperature above 80°N, http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php:

Source: Danish Meteorological Institute.

Arctic freezing and melting is but only one single indicator from many in discerning global temperature behaviour. Ice-free North Poles were recorded back in the 1950s. And over the last months Steve Goddard’s site has presented numerous accounts of “rapidly melting Arctic ice” – from the early 20th century! Clearly there is nothing unusual about today’s global climate and “ice-free Arctics”.

The relatively low ice extents today in the Arctic are all part of the ongoing global cyclic changes. They are nothing new. Indeed many scientists expect the Arctic to recover. And when it does, it could very well be that melting will shift to the Antarctic.

And if it doesn’t, then expect places like the University of Bremen to see to it that it does.

Gore’s Last Gasp – German Media Completely Ignores His Bitter Slur-athon

A scan of the larger German online dailies such as DIE WELT, Bild, Der Spiegel, FAZ, etc.  here in Germany shows absolutely no interest or any coverage of Al Gore’s 24 Hours of Reality.Maybe the old continent is losing interest in a movement that once appeared to be scientific, but has long since been reduced to childish name-calling and data manipulation.

The AFP here put out a news blurb, but little else is out there. It could be that editors will print something later, if space allows. But in general the silence is deafening.

Gore’s long losing streak

Objectively speaking, Al Gore is on serious a losing streak. His book sales have hit rock bottom, the Chicago Climate Exchange is dead, so is the Kyoto protocol successor, skepticism is growing, and his new Climate Reality Project is getting few visitors after a brief jump right after it opened. Indeed the global warming issue is out – totally passé.

A big problem is how Gore combatively frames the issue. For him it’s either you accept the science of climate catastrophe, or you are a despicable denier. Gore simply doesn’t grasp that most people are somewhere in between.

Even the warmist/alarmist sites in Germany are not even bothering to report on Gore’s senseless rantathon. One gets the feeling that he is appearing more and more washed up with every passing month. And with every emotional outburst, he is being regarded more and more as an embarrassment to the movement rather than a bonus.

IPCC Models Completely Botch East Africa Rainfall Projections

Portuguese blog Ecotretas here reveals how the IPCC completely botched its forecasts for East African rainfall in claiming the Horn of Africa should expect more precipitation. With severe drought now ravaging the region, the IPCC forecasts and models are beginning to look like a complete farce.

Deadly drought and famine hit East Africa (Chart source: USAID)

Lately we have all been hearing about the serious drought that has been causing misery in impoverished East African countries – especially Somalia with tens of thousands of deaths, and some 750 000 expected to die in the next four months, Ecotretas points out that “one would imagine that the IPCC would have predicted it” with their multi-million dollar super computer models and “leading scientists”. Well, it turns out they indeed made forecasts back in 2007, but today just the opposite is occurring, i.e. instead of getting more rainfall, as was forecast by the IPCC, rainfall has all but disappeared.

Ecotretas looked up what the IPCC projected for Eastern Africa in its 4th Assessment Report of 2007. For example in Chapter 11 of the Executive Summary:

There is likely to be an increase in annual mean rainfall in East Africa.”

On page 869, in Chapter 11.2.3.2 (emphasis added):

The increase in rainfall in East Africa, extending into the Horn of Africa, is also robust across the ensemble of models, with 18 of 21 models projecting an increase in the core of this region, east of the Great Lakes.”

So much for the ensemble of models. Surely one can only conclude that the claims made by the IPCC’ models concerning global temperatures for the next 100 or 200 years simply can no longer be taken seriously. Read more at ECOTRETAS here.
 

A host of other institutes parroted the IPCC bogus forecasts

It was not only IPCC scientists who were completely wrong with East African rainfall projections, but also a number of other institutes and organisations got it all wrong – probably because they only parroted the junk scenarios put out by scientists like Mike Hulme.

Ecotretas presents a collection of more rainfall for the African Horn here, which includes Christian Aid in the UK in 2009, International Livestock Research Institute  in 2010, The World Bank in 2010, the Institute for Environmental Security in January 2011, and the Grantham Institute for Climate Change in 2009, which claimed:

In eastern Africa, including the Horn of Africa, and parts of central Africa average rainfall is likely to increase.”

When are people going to stop listening to these charlatans?

Ivar Giaever – Nobel Prize Physicist – Resigns From Dogmatist American Physical Society

Hat-tip: Climate Depot here.Below is the full text of Ivar Giaever’s full letter of resignation to the APS to protest the APS dogmatic warmist stance:
================================

From: Ivar Giaever [mailto:giaever@XXXX.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:42 PM
To:kirby@aps.org
Cc: Robert H. Austin; ‘William Happer'; ‘Larry Gould'; ‘S. Fred Singer'; Roger Cohen
Subject: I resign from APS

Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth?s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ?warming? period.

Best regards,

Ivar Giaever

Nobel Laureate 1973

Merkel’s Solyndra – Germany’s Green Industries Start Their Collapse

Not long ago I wrote about how German solar cell manufacturers are drowning in a sea of red ink, read here and here.

The latest to bite the economic bullet are a biofuel plant in Freiberg, and Germany’s E10 ethanol blended fuel.

Merkel’s Solyndra – Choren Industries GmbH goes insolvent

The online leftist TAZ reports here that Choren Industries GmbH located in Freiberg, Saxony is now insolvent. The plant was designed as a pilot for future plants in producing “sun-diesel” from wood waste and biomass. It was designed to produce 18 million litres of the “climate-friendly” fuel, the TAZ reports. It employs 300 workers.

Even Chancellor Angela Merkel visited the plant along with a substantial entourage, before cameras, in April 2008. Unfortunately, the plant was never able to make a profit. The TAZ writes:

Indeed neither the manufacturing costs nor the technology appear to be controllable. Shell opted out already in 2009. Then VW and Daimler followed in July, and so insolvency was unavoidable. Approximately €100 million have been invested so far, €30 million of which were subsidies.”

It turns out that the entire project is not financially feasible and naive calculations had been made. Such a plant requires huge quantities of wood and biomass to operate. All the handling, power, equipment and effort needed to process the raw material ended up consuming much of the energy that was produced. The result: an economic fiasco. Your government masterminds at work.

Still, Germany does not allow itself to be easily deterred by a few green follies and failures. Indeed it is now building a 60 million euro pilot plant in Karlsruhe, insisting that more development is needed. But not everyone is convinced. The TAZ writes:

Biologist Stefan Klotz of the Environmental Research Centre in Leipzig is doubtful when it comes to the production of biofuel. The sun energy stored in biomass via photosynthesis is used with an efficiency of less than 1%. To grow extra plants and then to burn them is a ‘dead-end’.”

Germany’s E10 fuel debacle

Now add the E10 debacle. Awhile back Germany mandated that petroleum companies must blend in 10% bio-ethanol with regular fuel and to offer this so-called E10 fuel to consumers at petrol stations – all part of reducing CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, the government forgot to ask consumers if they had any interest in buying the low-grade stuff to begin with. As the online DIE WELT reports here, few people are interested in filling up with E10 fuel because of concerns the fuel could damage sensitive engine parts and lead to premature wear and expensive repair costs. DIE WELT writes:

The ADAC made headlines with a long-term test of an Opel Signum, which was rated as not being able to handle the E10 fuel. The conclusion: ‘E10 can be damaging’. After 27,000 kilometers of driving, according to ADAC Motorwelt magazine, the driver noticed an intense gasoline smell. The wall of the fuel pump was completely corroded.”

So adamant was the government about petrol stations selling the “environmentally friendly” fuel that it threatened to levy massive fines on companies who did not fulfil sales quotas. DIE WELT writes:

In the industry it’s already clear that the biofuel quota of 6.25% will never be reached.”

For Holger Krawinkel, energy expert of the Federal Association of Consumers:  it is already clear:

E10 is factually dead.“

And these people want to rescue Greece?

The more that Angela Merkel and the Greens try to take over and manage Germany’s energy industry, the more of a laughing stock they are becoming.