End-of-world warnings are as old as civilization itself. Of the thousands of charlatans who have prophesized end-of-world scenarios over the past thousands of years, none obviously have come true.
So isn’t it only natural that sane people today would be a little, if not very skeptical of new announcements of a coming climate Armegeddon?
A few days ago I posted here how Prof. Dr. Marc Salzmann of the Institute for Meteorology at the University of Leipzig found in a study that “climate change so far has not had an impact on the average global precipitation amount” but that “this could change by the end of this century“. In a nutshell, climate doom gets postponed again!
His results of course point to that the many projections of doom from intense, global-warming fired storms are totally overdone and so, admittedly, I took the opportunity to chide climate science a bit.
My post did catch Salzmann’s attention and it obviously hit a raw nerve. In a comment here, he wrote:
You posted your own translation of a German press release on your website. It says: ‘It is also known that as a consequence of climate change, there are heavy rainfalls more often.’ In other words, the frequency of heavy rain events has already increased. The translation also says that ‘the Arctic is melting, temperature and sea level are rising, and every year a new record is reached with CO2 in the atmosphere’and that ‘precipitation has increased in some regions of the earth, but at the same time it has decreased in others.’ Yet, none of this worries you. Instead you take comfort in the finding that the global mean precipitation has not changed much. But you just hear what you want to hear and see what you want to see. In a few decades from now people like you will probably say that nobody had told them.”
I accept differences, but strange here is that Salzmann exposes some dogmatism he has concerning climate outcomes of the far future. In science everyone knows that dogmatism and excessive certainty concerning specific outcomes in complex, chaotic systems – decades out into the future – has in fact nothing to do with science. It’s crystal-balling. He gives the impression of being sure about a particular outcome for 2050 and beyond, i.e. things are going to get much worse. Nowhere does he mention nature’s cycles.
The other point I found peculiar is that he got emotional, and scolded me for being skeptical of the science and the dire projections of outcomes that are supposed to take place “in a few decades from now“. Salzmann obviously was perturbed that someone would have the audacity to play down the significance of short-term climate data, and ridicule projections decades in the future. For him it’s about faith and belief, and not about science.
Overall my advice is that Salzmann should focus more on his meteorology, first improving 7-day or 10-day forecasts, and leaving the 50-year climate crystal balling alone. In the least, he ought not lash out at those who doubt long-term predictions that greatly resemble religious prophecy.
There’s a whole new field of climate quackery.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/climate-medicine/
“. Instead you take comfort in the finding that the global mean precipitation has not changed much.”
funny, he basically said exactly the same that i have said.
a global mean showing little increase (or no significant increase) is not a good result, when we know that extreme events increase (though also not significant, if watched on a big enough level).
‘though also not significant’
So you are saying things will get verrrrrry, verrrrrrrrrrrry slightly worse- and we should panic over that?
Be worried. Be a tiny, teensy-weensy bit worried.
Come to think of it, I am ever so slightly aghast.
There is no increase in extreme events on any scale. At least you are edging to that viewpoint now
Your point about doomsday being again postponed is well taken but he doesn’t think it pertinent. He feels the modelling is physically fine, and only the time frame uncertain. You – and I – think the modelling is uncertain (wrong in principle), so any delay reflects error, not variable speed.
If you believe in witches, your current good life is only due to the witches being busy elsewhere. If you don’t believe in witches, you might attibute some part to hard work and a savings plan. The witchcraft believers would dismiss you as naive denialists and, really, a danger to society.
Witchcraft is a correlation belief dressed up as a causation science. Is CAGW really any different at this time?
“… you just hear what you want to hear and see what you want to see. In a few decades from now people like you will probably say that nobody had told them.” – Salzmann
Translation = “Who you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?
Salzmann and his ilk, on the other hand, only find what they are paid to find.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/is-federal-funding-biasing-climate-research/
He sounds like he’s a Paul Simon fan, he can’t be all bad.
I am just a poor boy.
Though my story’s seldom told,
I have squandered my resistance
For a pocketful of mumbles,
Such are promises
All lies and jest
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest.
Ric – I just visited your home page (clicked on your name) and read the very interesting section re climate change. I have concluded much the same and perhaps a bit more which might interest you. It is mainly a simple equation which matches the measured temperature trend 97% since before 1900. See it at http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com
Can he use data from 30 years ago to “predict” currant conditions? If not why should we accept his prognosis for 30 years hence? It will be very hard to say “nobody told us” in the future as the record of the catastrophic announcements is well documented. What will be hard to do in 30 years is get him to recant his prediction because their will be storms, more precipitation in places less in others, heat waves somewhere and extreme cold in others, sea level problems somewhere, and “much more to come because of our mismanagement and lack of control”.
If he really believes his own dire projections, he’s probably building a giant wooden ship in his backyard right now, but maybe he’s so besotted with the impending end of the world he feels death is a better option, (or even a pleasant outcome).
It seems these loonies all share the same very morbid fantasy, but worse is that even more loony governments actually listen to them and waste trillions of dollars on their suggested ‘mitigation measures’. I.e. renewable energy and other nonsense.
I just can’t understand how the world’s sheeple have been so easily hood-winked and allowed it all to happen. Its truly frightening.
It’s nice that Dr Salzmann has come by. I welcome that. But as a scientist myself I urge him to have a look at the real world data.
It shows no warming for nearly two decades.
That is because ECS is too low to have much of a warming effect. Instead most of the temperature rise from 1906-2005 (which is the IPCC preferred century) was due to solar influence on cloud cover and on the ~60 year cycle in the oceans (which can be seen in the AMO, PDO, global temperature, rainfall data in places like Alaska and several other datasets).
If CO2 does little if any warming how can it change global precipitation?
The models are not much use because they all have artificially high ECS values. The real empirical ECS is close to the TCR responses measured by Lindzen and Spencer: below 1 C/doubling.
Prof. Dr. Marc Salzmann:
If Global Warming means that “both precipitation has increased in some regions of the earth, but at the same time it has decreased in others”, simultaneously, how do you know when it’s fixed?”
Also, do you have any other future decadal extreme climate predictions that have come to pass? Any 5 year predictions? 2 years? 1 year?
Can you include next weeks lottery numbers?
Thanks in advance.
Can Dr. Marc Salzmann use data from 30 years ago to predict today’s conditions? If not I cannot see a reason to accept his prediction for 30 years hence. As for predicting that some will enter his anticipated fierce future and complain that no one told them, I’m sure that is true but there is plenty documentation of the catastrophic predictions so the complaints would be easily proven false. On the other hand, if the future is not so bad it is unlikely he or other doomsters will recant their position because there will always be storms somewhere, more drought somewhere, more floods somewhere, sea level problems somewhere, and a willingness to blame it on humans.
Dr. Salzmann simply comes across as a scared man. Scared of the possible accusation of having committed sacriledge for being interpreted as a potential skeptic, and scared of the outlook for his scaremongering-business.
Predictions of doom are like the crest-wave of a ship’s bows; forever pushed forwards.
Richard Tol calls it “complete madness.”
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/07/un-ipcc-lead-author-dr-richard-tol-bolts-warmist-narrative-calls-gores-claims-complete-madness/
But it’s a lunacy to which, if you don’t subscribe, you will be punished.
http://www.allenbwest.com/allen/fema-to-deny-states-funding-if-they-dont-embrace-global-warming
Those who need to be punished are the parasitic lying lunatic thieves at the UN…
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-taxpayers-cover-nearly-half-cost-un-s-global-warming-panel
…and, naturally, the politicians who are robbing us to sustain them.
He repeats the mantras: ‘the Arctic is melting, temperature and sea level are rising, and every year a new record is reached with CO2 in the atmosphere’
The Arctic melts every year, in less than 2 months it has lost 2.9 m sq km. https://polarbearscience.com/2016/07/05/critical-spring-feeding-for-polar-bears-is-over-sea-ice-levels-are-now-irrelevant/#more-85976
Happens very year. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/09/alarmism-claiming-normal-as-abnormal-began-on-a-global-scale-with-ozone/
Presentation of rising CO2 as an implied cause of “sonething” is a logical fallacy.
There is no exceptional increase in sea level, in some places it is falling.