Hamburg Will Turn Into A Barbecue City By 2050, Commissioned Climate Modellers Claim

German daily Bild here reports on a study commissioned by the Hamburg Environmental Office. The study, which projects what Hamburg’s climate will be like in 2050, was carried out by the University of Hanover and a company named Geo-Net.

To say the least, the study appears to be another example of customized science for pay. The study’s conclusion Bild writes (like we’re really surprised):

The number of days with a maximum temperature of over 25°C increases: At the moment the number is 21 in the city centre, but in 2050 it will be up to 29!”

To me that sounds like a welcome improvement. Who wouldn’t mind a few extra warm days in cool, dreary Hamburg? And what’s the reason for the extra warm days? Climate change of course, the study says. But, surprisingly, it also cites the urban heat island effect as a reason.

Number of 30+°C days will almost double

Of course, every environmental study needs something dramatic with which to scare public. Bild adds:

There are also going to be more heatwave days with temperatures over 30°C: In the city there are now 6 per year. In 2050 that figure will be 11!’Because of climate change, the figures will almost double,’ the scientists say.”

Now there are a few things about the number that seem peculiar. Firstly, today 21 days are over 25°C – of which 6 are above 30°C (29%). But in 2050 the numbers change to 29 over 25°C, of which 11 will be over 30°C (38%). Or, in other words, of the 8 extra days over 25°C, 5 will be over 30°C. If one imagines a Gaussian distribution curve, the study’s mathematical claim is pure nonsense. Shifting the curve to the right will not create such a result.

The second point is: what trend are we seeing now? Are we really getting more and more hot days in Hamburg?

I went back into the records for the last 10 years and here’s what I found for the number of days over 30°C:

2003: 11
2004: 4
2005: 2
2006: 8
2007: 1

2008: 9
2009: 2
2010: 10
2011: 0
2012: 3

The first 5 years saw 26 days of 30+°C (average = 5.2 days). The second 5 years we saw 24 days (average = 4.8 days). Here we see that the last 10 years are below the average of 6 days per year that the study says is normal for Hamburg. Moreover, the last 5 years were less than the 5 years before, indicating heat days are likely declining, and not increasing.

Of course this is just a crude, first-check analysis, and a better, more scientific approach needs to be applied. But this simple preliminary check does raise red flags. There are no numbers that indicate heat days in Hamburg are increasing or going to increase. Granted I need a copy of the report to see how it reached its conclusion.

The increase appears to be purely in crystal ball models loaded with dubious warming assumptions. They do not even fit with normal data distributions one invariably sees in such datasets. And they appear not to agree with observations.

 

Gaussian distribution curve.

To the scientists at the U. of Hanover, you might want to go back and check your crystal balls again – compare them to real observations. And your client, the Hamburg Environmental Office, and taxpayers, may want their money back for what appears to be worthless fortune telling.

We’ll be keeping an eye on Hamburg over the years ahead.

 

15 responses to “Hamburg Will Turn Into A Barbecue City By 2050, Commissioned Climate Modellers Claim”

  1. DirkH

    The article concludes with
    “Alarmierend: Zurzeit sind 28 Prozent der Hamburger von einem belastenden Bioklima betroffen. Im Jahr 2050 werden es 84 Prozent sein!”
    “Alarming: At he moment 28 percent of Hamburgers suffer from a weary bioclimate. In 2050 it will be 84 %.”
    Ok. So what is bioclimate. Bild/Nadja Aswad doesn’t say. wikipedia doesn’t know but sends me on a goose chase between biometeorology, bioclimatic, which leads to “Green Building”, and bioclimatology, this one, incredibly, even states that
    an imbalance between photosynthesis and respiration contributes to rising CO2. Is that the wikipedia’s attempt at humor?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioclimatology

    I guess as long as it’s alarming one doesn’t have to explain what one means. Very cheap fishing for sales by Bild this time.

  2. Ed Caryl

    “Bio” used as a prefix, refers to biology. So bio-climate would be the climate due to biology. In other words, earth’s climate. Because without biology the earth would have no oxygen in the atmosphere. Of course they mean that man is changing the climate.

  3. Pascvaks

    I am reminded of “You get what you pay for!” and “There’s a fool born every minute!”, oh yes, and “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you better be careful, people do like to eventually get even!” Who are the MOST dangerous idiots in government today? The ones who sit on the Select Committee that awards Federal Grants and Stipends and Allowances for Scientific Research. (And let us not forget the idiots who nominate and vote for these idiots, they are just as dangerous as the idiots on the Select Committee of Idiots;-)

    Is anyone else detecting a common thread here? You think that maybe, just maybe, it doesn’t matter who the Chancellor or PM or Prez is; that it matters more who your Representative, MP, Senator is? It just can’t be that simple! Right? It can’t be as simple as voting for a person with a lot of common sense and integrity. It just can’t! Hummmmmm… I wonder… ahhhhhhhh… No! No! No! Vote for someone else, I’m too busy!

  4. mwhite

    “BBC burnt over climate change claim UK will be as hot as Madeira”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9488069/BBC-burnt-over-climate-change-claim-UK-will-be-as-hot-as-Madeira.html

    Heard a radio interview a few days ago, this prediction is based on climate models. Probably from the metoffice.

  5. Jeff Green

    3 sigma events are increasing in number and area across the world.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Summary-of-Hansen-Nov-2011.html

    1951 to 1980 baseline. James Hansen is comparing the world regions anomalies to 2003 to 2011.

    1 sigma events occur 33% above and below a mean (or central point)
    2 sigma events occur 2.43% above and below
    3 sigma events occur .13% above and below

    if you look at fig 3 up in the rt hand corner are the percentages of the points lieing in the sigma ranges.
    sigma
    ………-3. -2…-1 ….0 …. +1…+2..+3
    1955…. 0… 2… 45…32…. 20…1…..0
    2010….. 0….1….15….18….34…18.. 13

    2003…….6%
    2004…….3%
    2005…….5%
    2006…….5%
    2007…….5%
    2008…….4%
    2009…….6%
    2010……11%
    2011……..8%
    The near normal distribution expected is close to what 1955 is. If you go back and look at 1965, and 1975 you will see similar numbers provided by Dr. James Hansen. +3 sigma is the very hot category. The sigmas are decreasing and the + sigmas are increasing all through the last decade which is the hottest decade in instrumental temperature history.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1242

    1. DirkH

      James Hansen is a master in cooling the past. He can see evidence where no one else can.
      http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/19/more-data-corruption-from-giss/#comment-90722

      1. Jeff Green

        There isn’t much for me to look into and see what Steve Goddard is talking about. No matter how look at it, both graphs show warming.

        Does Steve go into why NASA did it, and why it was right or wrong? No?

        Hansen uses data from 1951 to 1980 which excludes your questionable cooling period. There is a very clear trend of warming world wide.

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

        The more co2 the more we warm our climate. This graphic above illustrates the short term tends which are just on their way to a warmer climate.

        1. DirkH

          By flattening the pre-1950 temperatures, Hansen makes it appear as if the warming slope during the second half of the 20th century is somehow extraordinary.

          Before his flattening of the pre-1950 temperatures, slopes for warming periods before and after 1950 were exactly identical.

          BTW, why did temperatures not continue to warm for 15 years? CO2 continued to rise. The CO2AGW conjecture is falsified.

          1. Jeff Green

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

            Giss 1997 to 2012

            Trend: 1.05 ±1.44 °C/century (2σ)

            ######################

            Uncertainty is a little high yet, but 15 years is a short time. Warming is evident at this time interval.

          2. DirkH

            Hansen, another blink comparator.
            http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/tormented-hansen-in-the-months-before-he-corrupted-the-us-temperature-record/

            You, place your trust in Hansen; me, I won’t.

            We’ll see who fares better.

  6. Pierre Gosselin: Hamburg Will Turn Into A Barbecue City By 2050, Commissioned Climate Modellers Claim | JunkScience.com

    […] No Tricks Zone Share this:PrintEmailMoreStumbleUponTwitterFacebookDiggRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in Climate Change and tagged climate hysteria, climate models, climate research, dioxycarbophobia, PlayStation® climatology, weather superstition. Bookmark the permalink. ← Bryan Walsh: Why West Nile Virus Is a Self-Inflicted Wound […]

  7. DirkH

    Death of Big Coal in USA postponed by court. EPA CO2 regulations shred to pieces.
    http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/huge-victory-for-king-coal/