Prof. Hans von Storch’s site Klimazwiebel here brings our attention to a new site called Information portal climate change posted by the Austrian ZAMG – Austria’s Central Bureau for Meteorology and Geophysics.
Normally Klimazwiebel posts in English, but because, I suppose, the links and related literature are in German, Prof. von Storch posted this one in German.
The new ZAMG site has the purpose of providing site visitors with a trustworthy resource on the subject of climate science. It is for informing the public.
One of the contributors to the site is Dr. Reinhard Böhm of the ZAMG. Translating the quote provided by Klimazwiebel, Reinhard Böhm writes, interestingly:
In more than 80 individual articles, which have about 1000 references and links and offer additional literature, we wish to create a work of ‘Public Science’ at a scientifically reasonable level. We think we have been successful in achieving this. With this, as a body of rational information, we hope to deliver a counter view – especially at this time – when the COP 16 conference in Mexico will again provide the usual international climate hype.”
Even a moderate warmist like Böhm admits what the IPCC is all about.
In my view the ZAMG Internet resource is warmist, yet rational and not alarmist. I haven’t yet closely examined the links and data the site uses to make the assertions it does on the subject of science, but to me my first impression is that it’s too warmist and does not explain why this warming is any different from previous warmings throughout history.
ZAMG is a government funded institution. One thing is sure: climate science is very politicised and depends heavily on the source of funding. One can only go out so far on a limb before it gets sawn off.
Reinhard Böhm is the author of the book Heiße Luft. Reizwort Klimawandel – Fakten, Ängste, Geschäfte (Hot Air Word of Controversy Climate Change – Facts, Fears, Business).
Austrian countryside just across the border is flooded with windmills, all built through governmental subsidies. A governmental agency will not go against governmental policies. But sound a bit better than MetOffice.
Hi Juraj,
I just sent you an e-mail. Your proposal sounds really interesting and hope to hear from you soon about this.
Concerning Dr. Böhm, it’s at least a significant step away from alarmism.
Pierre, e-mail sent.
Yes, Dr. Böhm might steer away from alarmism but he’s still a believer.
of AGW, just like the Pielkes.
They also believe we have to take measures to reduce CO2 emissions.
Provide them with a platform and we lose the war.
I underwrite the views of Dr. Timothy Ball who has a very simple message.
CO2 induced AGW or Climate Change is a fraudulent scheme and a crime against humanity.
Clear language and sound arguments.
I looked at the explanations of ZAMG re GCM’s; i was interested in whether they acknowledge the current flaws of the models. No mentioning of the inability to model cloud formation accurately, no mentioning of the inability to get a realistic latitudinal distribution of clouds via GCM’s, but the postulation that continental-scale developments can be very well modeled.
In my opinion, these guys are blind to the fallacies of their own work, and don’t recognize that what they’re doing is vastly complex curve-fitting via parametrization. IOW, they tune the parameters until continental scale developments look like they’re modeled correctly. And then they gloat about it. Call me unimpressed.
I don’t think these models will ever develop predictive skill beyond a week.
From a conversation between Demetris Koutsoyannis and R. Böhm published at climate audit:
His [Böhm] main point was that the original data are contaminated with biases and inhomogeneities and thus need homogenization. Therefore, only processed data are useful and should be available to the public.
I disagree with this thesis and I addressed three questions to him in the end of his talk:
1. If I homogenize a data set of an area, do you think that there might be a possibility that I introduce more biases that originally contained?
2. If you studied the climate of that area would you rely solely on my processed data or would you retrieve also the original data?
3. Do you think that the original data should be available to the interested scientists or not?
In my question 1 he replied “yes”, which I appreciate, given that I believe that standard procedures for consistency checking and homogenization are strongly affected by inappropriate statistical assumptions (e.g. iid variables with exponential distribution tails), which are invalidated in the real word. In question 2 he replied that if I give explanation of the procedures I followed he would rely on my processed data. About question 3 he said (if understood well) that its reply would need a long time, but in brief the raw data should not be available on the internet because some could misuse them, e.g. choosing only a few stations that demonstrate a specific behaviour that they want to advocate.
I was not happy about the last answer and, next day, I found the opportunity to reply indirectly, using the first slide of my own talk (http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/991/), which contains the title and the web link to my presentation. I said that the online availability is not just for this presentation. Rather, in my group we believe in transparency and have agreed that everything we produce, papers, reports, data, etc., should be openly available on the internet. And I continued “Please feel free to misuse them but, also, please be advised that transparency is the most powerful weapon against misuse”.
Zamg original data is unavailable, only homogenized data is accessible, and it shows some of the largest rate of warming, like Switzerland
http://www.zamg.ac.at/histalp/
Patagon
26. November 2010 at 20:13 | Permalink | Reply
“From a conversation between Demetris Koutsoyannis and R. Böhm published at climate audit:
His [Böhm] main point was that the original data are contaminated with biases and inhomogeneities and thus need homogenization. Therefore, only processed data are useful and should be available to the public.”
Yeah, because all of the public are dumb sheeples and need to be protected from data before it gets manipulated. We can’t be exposed to raw data. We might be doing the wrong adjustments, e.g. subtracting the UHI influence.
Or reasoning for ourselves. We paid for the data. We have the right to access it. Theoretically. If this was not the EUSSR.
Update. It looks very much like the days of the EUSSR are numbered.
“”Wenn die Euro-Zone nicht überlebt, wird die Europäische Union nicht überleben”, warnte Mitte November EU-Ratspräsident Herman Van Rompuy. ”
http://www.ftd.de/finanzen/maerkte/:schuldenkrise-austritt-aus-dem-euro-geht-das/50199039.html
and a lot more signs of panic at http://www.ftd.de (in German)
English translation ” If the Euro zone doesn’t survive, the EU will not survive”, warned the president of the Soviet (sorry, i don’t know the english translation of “Rat”, only the russian) of the EU, Herman Van Rompuy.
My opinion: this is a sure sign that collapse is imminent.
The future: Back to nature (and polygamy). 16 Fotos of real people living without technology in Germany. Hope they make it through the winter.
http://www.zeit.de/lebensart/essen-trinken/2010-11/fs-holon
Met Office joining the hype (again)
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/11/talking-usual-garbage.html
Response from Joe Bastardi to the Met Office claims:
FRIDAY NIGHT, AS THE NORTHWEST FREEZES: A RESPONSE TO VICKI POPE COMMENT:
Here it is:
Theres a very clear warming trend but its not as rapid as it was before, Pope told reporters yesterday in London. Where the average temperature rose at about 0.16 degrees per decade since the 1970s, the rate through the 2000s has been from 0.05 to 0.13 degrees, she said.
No Ms Pope, there is a very clear response to the warming cycle of the PDO and AMO in tandem and you should see the enso response within the background of warming that is caused by the larger multidecadol oscillations. So in the spirit of competition, just like last winter, let me issue another challenge to the UKMET office, which seems to love to trumpet warmth ( he some like it hot, right)
The 2011 temp will FALL to levels comparable to 1999, ACCORDING TO THE OBJECTIVE SATELLITE DATA, EASILY ACCESSED HERE: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Game on, just like last winter, the response is to the enso, not co2, just like the response in the coming decades will be to cool as the oceans cool, just like it was to warm like the oceans warm, with the lag as is a well known in any stimulus-response system. And remember, in spite of the best efforts of those that want to twist my words, the cold winter for Europe and the eastern US was made with a forecast for a global SPIKE in temp, simple to see coming due to the nino… Why? The temps respond to the oceanic temp and the deck has been stackjed for warm the last 15-30 years.
Do me a favor, if you are wrong, dont quit, like you did with seasonal forecasting, just open your minds a bit. I do like the office as a whole, and do think they are good at what they do. Truth be told I dont want them judged by their worst day, but will challenge them when I dont agree, and obviously a challenge looms here and has been issued. The forecast is made. lets see what becomes of it and the link is there for all to watch, no fudging or adjustments from previous decades.
Okay, fair enough.. a challenge on the objective field of battle for all to watch
They now hae a chance to tie this up if the global temp does not fall.
And if they admit it has to fall, then my point is made as to what the cause is! ciao for now ****
And this update from today about the London Winter Temps:
SATURDAY MORNING: COLD NOVEMBER, WARM WINTER?
The coldest November in the last 20 years in London was 1993 at 3.8 below normal. The winter finished 1.3 above normal
In 1996 London was 1.3 below normal, the following winter .1 below normal
1998 had London 2 below normal in November ( note all numbers in Fahrenheit) but 2.6 above normal in the winter
2005 had London 1.5 below normal for November, then .2 above normal for the winter
In the samples we see here, There were two below normal Novembers with temps near normal ( one .1 above, the other .2 below) The other two were above normal winters.
So lets play a game here, using this very small sample to predict the London winter. The average of all the below normal Novembers listed above is 2.15 below normal, with the winter averaging 1 above normal. This is very very interesting, because the forecast I have there ( London specific) is for temps a little above normal to the order of .5c ( which is .9 F) It would appear that the blend of all these agrees with my current forecast. Given the coming end days of the month, London should average 1-2 below normal for November this year
The winter last year was 2.6 below normal