Climate/Geology Professor Friedrich-Karl Ewert Says “Standards Of Science Not Met” By Climate Models

EwertA few days ago I posted a piece about an article written by award-winning journalist Günter Ederer, who had reported on Prof. Karl-Friedrich Ewert’s analysis of NASA temperature data – data that he found to have been “incredibly altered” to show warming. That NTZ post has been shared or liked close to 20,000 times so far, making it one of the most shared ever at NTZ.

Prof. Ewert now writes that he has received many enquiries requesting to see his results. He has posted a reaction at the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) here. What follows is a summarized version I’ve translated.

Plot of unaltered data NASA GISS. The reference of 13.8°C is the IPCC’s global mean temperature for 1880. The cooling in the 5th phase was modest at first, until 1960, but then was significantly stronger, despite rising CO2. Atmospheric CO2 rose by 1 part for each 10,000 due to emissions.

Ewert writes that man has always known that climate change exists. And as science developed, the reasons were for this were discovered: changes in solar activity and the sun’s the interactions with the earth. Yet, beginning in the early 1980s, out of the blue, solar activity ceased being a factor and suddenly atmospheric trace gas CO2 morphed into the major factor and is now regarded as dominant for the development of the climate.

Ewert remarks that the climate movement first started out as one run by environmental activists, but soon also scientists saw they could exploit it for advancing their careers, and thus shifted their efforts to producing evidence and computer models to show that CO2 was the cause of warming since 1980 and that it would continue warming into the future respectively.

However Prof. John Christy of the Uni­versity of Alabama compared the projections generated by the most important computer simulations and found that the results were completely different. Therefore the standards of science were not met because these standards require that different approaches reach the same result. The computer results showed the exact opposite: a warming range of 0.3°C to 1.3°C by 2020! Which result can be valid when they are all different? None!

Ewert says it is false to claim that a few decades of data from the earth’s 4.5 billion year history are sufficient to say the models are reliable for simulating the climate of the future. He notes that German experts Ulrich Berner & Hans-Jörg Streif scientifically analyzed the geological past, up to the present, for German government institutes and have proven that climate warming by man-made CO2 emissions is not taking place as claimed.

Despite the expertly performed analyses by John Christy, and Ulrich Berner & Hans-Jörg Streif, climate politics continue to claim a manmade global warming is taking place due to CO2 emissions. The sole basis for the political claims are climate models projecting warming despite the current cooling phase. The planet is currently cooling. Although the IPCC said early on that forecasting the climate is not possible because it is a chaotic system involving a myriad of factors, governments and scientists continue to rely on the computer model forecasts.

Ewert writes that much evidence exists showing that CO2 emissions are meaningless, but that the evidence simply gets ignored.

One example is the more than 100 years of measured temperature readings that taken from weather stations worldwide. This is the reason it was necessary to manually evaluate the registered temperatures from 1881 to 2010 in detail. The results are available in the pdf-file report. The chart above summarizes what was found. It shows:

– that four cooling phases and three warming phases occurred between 1881 and 2010,
– that stronger warming occurred before CO2 emissions began in earnest, and despite the longer cooling phases,
– that the temperature over the first 100 years even cooled slightly, and
– that there is no recognizable effect by CO2 emissions on temperatures.

The long version (in German) can be downloaded in two parts from the annex.

 

13 responses to “Climate/Geology Professor Friedrich-Karl Ewert Says “Standards Of Science Not Met” By Climate Models”

  1. Bjorn Ramstad

    Thank you. This feels good to read.

  2. Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)

    This is undoubtedly the biggest scandal in human history.

  3. StewGreen

    OK, steady, steady. Can we confirm that the concerns Peter O’Neill raised have been dealt with ?

  4. papertiger

    Haven’t said it in a while which is an oversight on my part.

    Goss, you are the man! I’ve been wanting to see the the de-manipulated NASA temp data for quite a while. Judging from the success of your post, I’m not alone.

  5. Doug

    Has professor Ewert’s been turned into a paper that has undergone peer-review and been published. If so, I’d appreciate posting the link to peer-reviewed study. Thanks.

    1. Stephen Richards

      Why do you feel the need for pal review? are you unable to do your own review? Most people who are sceptics actually can do their own because they know that the ‘pal’ review process is CRAP

      1. Doug

        Because climate catastrophists will immediately discount and dismiss it unless in has been peer-reviewed. And, yes, that’s even though peer-review is too often buddy or pal review. Why not submit it for peer-review? What’s the harm?

  6. John

    It occurred to me that pinning the News Articles to the graph might be a nice way to show that the news at the time also followed the actual raw data. Steve goddard has a tin a researched news clips from the same time period verifying these same findings.

  7. Lasse

    Have I seen this periodicity anywhere else?
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1880

  8. cementafriend

    Glad to see SOD who has no understanding about anything has kept quiet.
    The temperature on the graph is realistic but the CO2 is not. the 300ppm for CO2 prior to 1950 is not only an assumption but was “cherry-picked” from a range of actual measurements much of which was higher. There were several actual measurements that showed the CO2 peaked around 1941 at a level close to the recent 400ppm. That is just further indication that CO2 has no influence on surface temperature.

  9. sod

    “There were several actual measurements that showed the CO2 peaked around 1941 at a level close to the recent 400ppm. That is just further indication that CO2 has no influence on surface temperature.”

    You are just plain out wrong. We can calculate how much CO2 we add to the atmosphere. Nobody is denying the current rise.

    Please tell us, how this curve jumped to 400 and back down again. Please!!!!

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2

  10. Doug Proctor

    On this western side of the Atlantic, it would appear that Germany is the only Western European country that is expressing climate skepticism in the public arena. Which is more than remarkable considering the extreme green position of it’s leader.

    Is this a fair comment? The seasons have not been favourable to a generally warming concept for much of Europe, by my (anecdotal level) observation. Would this be true, and, if so, what would you say of the public opinion of the Netherlands, the Estonia etc. block. Russia seems a bit of a skeptic also, but it is hard to tell.

    What would you say, coming up to the COP21. In Canada, I’d say the average Joe follows the IPCC line, but the leadership has been very, very slow/reluctant/foot-dragging in anything other than rhetoric. Recently Alberta passed a wide-spread “carbon” tax, a consumption tax across the board, but only admited to planning on a “portion” going to green technologies. (Coal plants still in operation have a “plan” for shutdown, but when, at what compensation etc. are very much up in the air. The non-shutdown is very much a possibility. What the whole thing might be is a sop to Bill McKibben etc. in order to smooth the way for the Keystone XL pipeline approval in a couple of years.)

    An opinion blog on this would be interesting. Over here we are understandably dominated by American eco-group ideology. It is obvious that China, India and (now) Malaysia have absolutely no intention of reducing CO2 emissions if it interfers with their economic or social development. And they would only do that if they thought the potential harm of CO2 was significantly less than the actual harm of non-fossil fuel energy development.

    COP21 is going to be very interesting. Without the $$$ from the developed, the developing countries INDCs have little to no emission reductions. And they are organized as a bloc, with spokesmen. The threats of non-participation have already been made. If the developed world holds fast on not giving the 100 billion/year, what will the result be? All the developing world has to do is say it is a “line in the sand” that was crossed, for the meeting to be a worse disaster than Copenhagen.

    How will Obama spin this? There is going to be some very, very neat footwork, whatever happens. Maybe Seth Blatini should have been given Pauchauri’s job. He’d have gotten everyone standing shoulder-to-shoulder …….

  11. Karl

    Firstly, we need to gets some facts strait. CO2, like any gas is an insulator. Contrary to popular belief, it is water vapor that is the the most effective insulator, not CO2 but there is a direct correlation between the 2. Secondly, the earth is heated by secondary radiant energy from the sun, think one way glass. adding to the “reflective” capabilities of the atmosphere will cause temperatures to rise. If you don’t understand how this works, you shouldn’t be speaking about climate change… Sadly this professor is using false research methods (think of the study that showed that coffee drinkers live longer).