German Weather Service: Those Fanning Fear “Are Foolishly Putting Their Own Credibility At Stake”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

State parliamentarian Wolfgang Greilich led an FDP delegation on a visit to the German Weather Service (DWD) in his home-state of Hesse.The German Weather Service said it’s time to get back to the facts and away from hysteria. Hat-tip: Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt.

Here’s the press release issued by the FDP Free Democratic Party:

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

Visit of the German Weather Service / Greilich: climate debate must be factual and conducted without horror scenarios

“It is of fundamental importance to understand which climate risks (mid-term and long-term) represent a possible danger for our state. It is the duty of politicians to be informed about the current facts concerning climate change so that the appropriate measures can be implemented to weaken the risks from natural catastrophes for the good of the public,“ explained Wolfgang Greilich, Chairman of the FDP faction of the state parliament in Hesse during a visit to the German Weather Service in Offenbach.

“We put a lot of value on drawing conclusions for measures against climate change by using facts instead of myths,“ René Rock, vice faction chairman and climate political spokesman of the state parliament in Hesse. Prof. Dr. Gerhard Adrian, President of the German Weather Service, extensively informed the FDP politicians during over the latest findings concerning weather and climate research during their visit. He reminded that it is necessary to return to the facts and emphasized the importance of scientifically addressing the highly complex issues surrounding weather and climate. The statistics of the German Weather Service show climate fluctuations and their impacts going far back into the last century. One of many examples is the blossom of apple trees, which is currently almost 14 days earlier. Deriving a climate catastrophe from this is, however, false,” said Prof. Dr. Adrian in a discussion with the FDP delegation. After all, strong fluctuations have been shown to always exist. It has been shown that there have always been warm periods with high CO2 concentrations. “Some arguments by climate skeptics are superficial and easy to dismiss,“ explained Dr. Becker.

Another point of discussion was the various methods of measurement that scientific meteorology employs. “Political circles using climate and weather storms to fan the fears of people are foolishly putting their own credibility at stake. An active climate and environmental protection is the task at hand. Necessary for this are valid facts and data for example like those collected and scientifically assessed by the German Weather Service,“ Greilich concluded.

Daniel Rudolf
Press Spokesman
d.rudolf@ltg.hessen.de
www.fdp-fraktion-hessen.de

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

Getting getting back to the facts and away from hysteria is a good idea. But then they go on about “protecting the climate”, which is utter nonsense. How does one protect the temperature? The humidity? What does a psychiatrist do? Does he protect the behaviour of his patient? When someone talks about protecting the climate, then it’s a sure sign he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Dr. Becker then says, “Some arguments by climate skeptics are superficial and easy to dismiss.” Maybe some, but there are many that still need to be answered and we’ve been waiting a long time: 1) Storms are not increasing. 2) The 800-year CO2 lag behind temperature 3) 15 years without global warming. 4) Antarctic sea ice increasing in size. 5) Weather events following the cycles of the sun. 6) A host of questions on the failures of the climate models, just to name a few.

Overall, though, the direction of the visit was correct.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

33 responses to “German Weather Service: Those Fanning Fear “Are Foolishly Putting Their Own Credibility At Stake””

  1. mwhite

    I’ve heard it said that global temperatures have risen 1 degree C over the past century.

    http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabs1880.html

    Tell that to the NCDC.

  2. DirkH

    “6) A host of questions on the failures of the climate models”

    This is the critical one – the climate models constitute the formulation of the CO2AGW hypothesis. This is where the hypothesis is TESTED, and this is where it fails.

    In other words: No matter whether hurricanes increase or decrease or whatever – the climate models are the only tool that can possibly show that there is causation, not only correlation.

    I c an understand that the DWD guy doesn’t want to talk about that. He knows his weather models. It must not be spoken out. His position depends on lavish CO2AGW funding.

    1. Renewable Guy

      Whatever shortcomings of the models are is irrelevant to “Is the cliamte warming and why”.

      The climate is clearly warming. THe instrumental temperature record confirms this. Why is that?

      1. DirkH

        Null hypothesis: The same reason as always. Natural cycles.

        The Bond events prove that there have been vast climatic swings about every 1,500 years.

        To disprove the Null hypothesis, CO2AGW science has to demonstrate that things happen differently now. They have to make a theory (the climate models), derive a hypothesis (a prediction – a model run into the future) and we have to compare to reality.

        We did, and the hypothesis failed.

        This is called the scientific method. It has been described by Popper and Kuhn and is regarded as the necessary test that a theory has to pass to be accepted as true. CO2AGW science fails so far.

        About Popper:
        http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

        1. DirkH

          And that is why the shortcomings of the models are critical and essential.

          The models constitute the ONLY available EXACT description of the theory of the CO2AGW scientist. CO2AGW theory does not exist as a formula, only as a climate model.

          Vague fuzzy verbals won’t do; CO2AGW science calls itself a science, not a party program.

          Vague fuzzy verbal ruminations like “is consistent with” have no scientific meaning at all. There is correlation and there is causation. Even the correlation between avg temperatures and CO2 is extremely bad; but proving causation is way harder. For that, the above described procedure of MAKING A PREDICTION is critical.

          CO2AGW science can’t do that. That’s why they have been trying for ages now to have the bar lowered and have their science classified as “Post-Normal Science” which is, as “post-normal” should imply, a fuzzy hare-brained abomination of the scientific method; suited to justify about anything.

          1. Renewable Guy

            Dismissing, sarcasm, avoidance, all of these do not change the fact that the earth is warming. You must win the argument with a better explanation.

            Can you do that?

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

            Contribution of natural factors and human activities to radiative forcing of climate change.[50] Radiative forcing values are for the year 2005, relative to the pre-industrial era (1750). The contribution of solar irradiance to radiative forcing is 5% the value of the combined radiative forcing due to increases in the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.[52]

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Components_of_radiative_forcing_of_climate_change._Forcing_values_in_2005_relative_to_1750._Source_-_USGCRP_and_IPCC.png

            English: From the cited public-domain source – US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP, 2009): “The figure above shows the amount of warming influence (red bars) or cooling influence (blue bars) that different factors have had on Earth’s climate over the industrial age (from about 1750 to the present). Results are in watts per square meter. The longer the bar, the greater the influence on climate. The top part of the box includes all the major human-induced factors, while the second part of the box includes the Sun, the only major natural factor with a long-term effect on climate. The cooling effect of individual volcanoes is also natural, but is relatively short-lived (2 to 3 years), thus their influence is not included in this figure. The bottom part of the box shows that the total net effect (warming influences minus cooling influences) of human activities is a strong warming influence. The thin lines on each bar provide an estimate of the range of uncertainty.”

  3. Renewable Guy

    Lets start with this from the IPCC that you are so keen to dismiss.

    Natural variablility does not explain the present warming.

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

    Attribution of recent climate change is the effort to scientifically ascertain mechanisms responsible for recent changes observed in the Earth’s climate. The effort has focused on changes observed during the period of instrumental temperature record, when records are most reliable; particularly on the last 50 years, when human activity has grown fastest and observations of the troposphere have become available. The dominant mechanisms (to which recent climate change has been attributed) are anthropogenic, i.e., the result of human activity. They are:[1]

    increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases
    global changes to land surface, such as deforestation
    increasing atmospheric concentrations of aerosols.

    There are also natural mechanisms for variation including climate oscillations, changes in solar activity, variations in the Earth’s orbit, and volcanic activity.

    Attribution of recent change to anthropogenic forcing is based on the following facts:

    The observed change is not consistent with natural variability.

    Known natural forcings would, if anything, be negative over this period.

    Known anthropogenic forcings are consistent with the observed response.

    The pattern of the observed change is consistent with the anthropogenic forcing.

    1. DirkH

      You go on my nerves.

      Here’s the IPCC itself talking about why climate models are junk.
      http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/279.htm

      1. Renewable Guy

        Uncertainty is all through out science. Your dismissal of global warming, and what is happening in the cliamte are two different things.

        There are also natural mechanisms for variation including climate oscillations, changes in solar activity, variations in the Earth’s orbit, and volcanic activity.

        Attribution of recent change to anthropogenic forcing is based on the following facts:

        The observed change is not consistent with natural variability. [Sorry, but it is. See MWP, Roman Period, etc -PG]

        Known natural forcings would, if anything, be negative over this period. [No warming in 15 years, cooling forecast for next 3 decades]

        Known anthropogenic forcings are consistent with the observed response. [Whose observations? Again, look at the Holocene.]
        The pattern of the observed change is consistent with the anthropogenic forcing. [It is not.]
        ##################

        What explains the warming? Answer: The sun and oceans for the most part.

        1. Renewable Guy

          It appears that someone edited my response above. That was confusing to me. I have not had anyone do that before.

          Countering the evidence requires evidence. Would you care to show me your sources?

          1. DirkH

            “Uncertainty is all through out science. Your dismissal of global warming, and what is happening in the cliamte are two different things. ”

            Again, very slowly: A theory has to be validated to become accepted.

            For this, the theory has to make a prediction.

            CO2AGW science makes predictions by virtue of climate models.

            With me so far?

            So far, the predictions of climate models have NOT come to pass.

            None of the model runs have predicted no warming from 2000 to now while CO2 is rising as it has been in that time.

            Therefore, with our current knowledge, we have to REJECT the theory.

          2. DirkH

            My sources: The scenarios in the IPCC reports compared with the UAH temperature record, but I guess you can just as well take even Hansen’s GISTEMP and it still doesn’t hold.

          3. Renewable Guy

            CO2 follows the ice ages and interglacials for about 800,000years. Then co2 was the feedback to the milankovitch cycle. The milankovitch warming phase came out and the co2 solubility decreased increasing the concentration in the atmosphere. Also increasing the the reflected heat back to the surface. In this case the co2 was a positive feedback to the milankovitch cycle.

            Warming and co2 can be shown without a computer. John tyndal in 1862 did this with 1800’s technology.

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

            Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

          4. Renewable Guy

            This is one of the human fingerprints of globalwarming. The computer model proves its worth by hindcasting. This is an important step in showing that the program is adequate or better for reproducing the past temperature record. When the program meets or exceeds a certain performance level then it is used to do the study.

            What will happen if you remove human influences from the model.

            Remember the model reproduces the past temperature record with the present atmospheric blend of gases.

            When the human influences are removed, the model produces a slight cooling trend.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Attribution_of_observed_global_warming_in_the_20th_century_to_human_activities_(USGCRP_and_Hegerl_et_al).png

            English: This image shows the attribution of observed global warming in the 20th century to human activities. From the cited public-domain source – US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP, 2009): “The blue band shows how global average temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only, as simulated by climate models. The red band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures. As the blue band indicates, without human influences, temperature over the past century would actually have first warmed and then cooled slightly over recent decades.” The image is based on a figure in Hegerl et al. (2007). Further details about the image can be found in that source.

            [I don’t know which planet you’re from. On Earth there are an infinite number of ways of arriving at an answer and only one is correct. Just because the answer is right, it doesn’t mean the method is correct. The models do not reproduce the LIA or MWP. There are still a huge number of unknowns. And the data shows that CO2 lags. -PG]

        2. Renewable Guy

          Known natural forcings would, if anything, be negative over this period. [No warming in 15 years, cooling forecast for next 3 decades]

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

          “Fingerprint” studies

          [6] Finally, there is extensive statistical evidence from so-called “fingerprint” studies. Each factor that affects climate produces a unique pattern of climate response, much as each person has a unique fingerprint. Fingerprint studies exploit these unique signatures, and allow detailed comparisons of modelled and observed climate change patterns. Scientists rely on such studies to attribute observed changes in climate to a particular cause or set of causes. In the real world, the climate changes that have occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution are due to a complex mixture of human and natural causes. The importance of each individual influence in this mixture changes over time. Of course, there are not multiple Earths, which would allow an experimenter to change one factor at a time on each Earth, thus helping to isolate different fingerprints. Therefore, climate models are used to study how individual factors affect climate. For example, a single factor (like greenhouse gases) or a set of factors can be varied, and the response of the modelled climate system to these individual or combined changes can thus be studied.
          ###############
          The computer model can correctly hindcast the past temperature record.

          Remove human co2 from the model and the simulated earth cools in its hindcast.

          This is related to the milankovitch cycle which would slightly cool the earth into the next ice age.

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

          For example, when climate model simulations of the last century include all of the major influences on climate, both human-induced and natural, they can reproduce many important features of observed climate change patterns. When human influences are removed from the model experiments, results suggest that the surface of the Earth would actually have cooled slightly over the last 50 years (see figure opposite). The clear message from fingerprint studies is that the observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors, and is instead caused primarily by human factors

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Attribution_of_observed_global_warming_in_the_20th_century_to_human_activities_(USGCRP_and_Hegerl_et_al).png

  4. Graeme No.3

    Renewable Guy:

    you are arguing that man made global warming must be occurring, because people who claim it is have invented various explanations.

    I too, have heard the claim that the World has warmed 1℃ in the past 160 years. Unfortunately never accompanied by any evidence. If you rely on the “conventional” IPCC claim then the rise is around 0.7℃.
    Personally I think both are too low, but again I have no evidence.

    The problem is clouded by the temperatures used are synthetic. firstly they are averaged over sectors, then listed as anomalies, then “adjusted” to prove the theory. Thus the temperatures early in the 20TH century are reduced and recent
    ones increased to make warming look more rapid.

    But I point out that the warming 1975-1998 was 0.65 ℃ in the Northern hemisphere and 0.2 in the Southern hemisphere. You would think that if CO2 was the cause, then the too would have been warmed similarly.

    1. Renewable Guy

      A truism about warming is that the earth is not warming uniformly. Below is the instrumental temperatre record.

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

  5. Renewable Guy

    None of the model runs have predicted no warming from 2000 to now while CO2 is rising as it has been in that time.

    As natural variation works its way though climate such as La Nina and El Nino with all the co2 hanging in the air we have 40 to 50 years of warming if we stopped emitting carbon today. Since 2000 we have about a 1 degree warming trend with high uncertainty. But it is about where the uncertainty is starting to drop down and the warming signal gets clearer. With the warmest years in the last decade, cooling in the long term won’t happen.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
    This was from the GISTEMP data records. This is incredibly easy to use. Just plug in the end dates that you are interested in.
    2011 to 2012
    Trend: 4.15 ±52.21 °C/century (2σ) really huge + trend
    2010 to 2012
    Trend: -11.42 ±22.32 °C/century (2σ) huger – trend
    2009 to 2012
    Trend: -2.57 ±12.59 °C/century (2σ) smaller – trend
    2008 to 2012
    Trend: 3.08 ±9.84 °C/century (2σ) big + trend
    2007 to 2012
    Trend: 0.44 ±7.24 °C/century (2σ) flat
    2006 to 2012
    Trend: 0.23 ±5.29 °C/century (2σ) flatter
    2005 to 2012
    Trend: -0.59 ±4.03 °C/century (2σ) still flat
    2004 to 2012
    Trend: 0.19 ±3.44 °C/century (2σ) still flat
    2003 to 2012
    Trend: 0.10 ±2.80 °C/century (2σ) still flat
    2002 to 2012
    Trend: -0.03 ±2.41 °C/century (2σ) still flat
    2001 to 2012
    Trend: 0.31 ±2.05 °C/century (2σ) starting to go positve
    2000 to 2012
    Trend: 0.97 ±1.92 °C/century (2σ) more poitive
    1999 to 2012
    Trend: 1.42 ±1.73 °C/century (2σ) peak positive
    1998 to 2012
    Trend: 0.95 ±1.61 °C/century (2σ)
    1997 to 2012
    Trend: 1.05 ±1.44 °C/century (2σ)
    1996 to 2012
    Trend: 1.34 ±1.32 °C/century (2σ)
    1995 to 2012
    Trend: 1.33 ±1.21 °C/century (2σ)
    1994 to 2012
    Trend: 1.58 ±1.13 °C/century (2σ)
    1993 to 2012
    Trend: 1.88 ±1.07 °C/century (2σ)
    1992 to 2012
    Trend: 2.08 ±1.03 °C/century (2σ)
    1991 to 2012
    Trend: 1.92 ±0.96 °C/century (2σ)
    1990 to 2012
    Trend: 1.76 ±0.90 °C/century (2σ)
    1989 to 2012
    Trend: 1.79 ±0.83 °C/century (2σ)
    1988 to 2012
    Trend: 1.66 ±0.79 °C/century (2σ)
    1987 to 2012
    Trend: 1.61 ±0.74 °C/century (2σ)
    1986 to 2012
    Trend: 1.67 ±0.69 °C/century (2σ)
    1985 to 2012
    Trend: 1.77 ±0.65 °C/century (2σ)
    1984 to 2012
    Trend: 1.81 ±0.62 °C/century (2σ)
    1983 to 2012
    Trend: 1.71 ±0.59 °C/century (2σ)
    1982 to 2012
    Trend: 1.75 ±0.56 °C/century (2σ)

  6. Renewable Guy

    The uncertainty is rather high at 12 years. Just the same most temperature records are showing warming. What is even more important are the land records where we live. Both records show a strong warming signal in such a short time. We are lucky to have the oceans to moderate our temperatures. But that will change as the oceans warm.

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

    giss 2000 to 2012
    Trend: 0.97 ±1.92 °C/century (2σ)
    noaa 2000 to 2012
    Trend: 0.48 ±1.78 °C/century (2σ)
    hadcrut v3 2000 to 2012
    Trend: 0.07 ±1.78 °C/century (2σ)
    hadcrutv4 2000 to 2012
    Trend: 1.00 ±2.03 °C/century (2σ)
    BEST land only 2000 to 2012
    Trend: 1.76 ±5.03 °C/century (2σ)
    NOAA land only 2000 to 2012
    Trend: 1.68 ±3.12 °C/century (2σ)
    rss satellite 2000 to 2012
    Trend: 0.24 ±2.99 °C/century (2σ)
    UAH satellite 2000 to 2012
    Trend: 1.33 ±3.12 °C/century (2σ)

    1. DirkH

      I see you’re making quite the gymnastics to show that CO2AGW science has made a correct prediction.

      It has not.

      IPCC scenarios showed more warming than actually happened, with less CO2 emissions than actually happened, as the IPCC had not anticipated the quick growth of Chinese CO2 emissions.

      Look at the poor wikipedians. If we subtract this, and assume that, and adjust that, then it could nearly fit!

      Sorry, kids, try again. BUILD A MODEL THAT HAS PREDICTIVE SKILL. Build all those subtractions and whatnots INTO THAT MODEL. And make a prediction. And after 10 years, when we can look at it, and your model did it tright, then I MIGHT start taking CO2AGW science seriously.

      You know what these wikipedia guys did, and whomever they cite there? A POST FACTO correction.

      This is NOT a PREDICTION. They have added corrective factors, fine. Now they have a NEW model. They need to test that AGAIN for a future they DON’T know beforehand , or as the American says so nicely,

      “Hindsight is 20:20”.

    2. DirkH

      And now you’re calling “uncertainty” to the rescue. Be careful. Because with exactly that uncertainty I can simply tell you: This means that CO2AGW science has not disproved the Null hypothesis. The observed temperature history now, with your uncertainty error interval around it, fits totally into expected natural fluctuations.

      CO2AGW theory is ONLY necessary if observed temperature variations fall OUTSIDE that expected interval. The warmists shoot themselves in the foot if they argue that uncertainty is so high. Warmists should be interested in REDUCING the error bar if they are so certain that they will find an extraordinary temperature.

      1. Renewable Guy

        All other factors have been eliminated. Understanding and measuring all that they can. THe sun did not do it. The oceans did not do it. The volcanoes cool for a couple of years and then the atmosphere returns to normal.

        THe remaining explanation is co2

        {You’re ignoring all the other factors to make CO2 look like the culprit. There are mountains of studies showing the sun dominates. You’re being completely ridiculous and zealous with your claims. My patience discussing science with ideologues is limited. -PG]

        1. DirkH

          “It must be CO2 because we can think of nothing else” is not a scientifically valid argument. It is the argumentum ad ignorantiam according to Aristotle.

        2. DirkH

          “All other factors have been eliminated. Understanding and measuring all that they can. THe sun did not do it. The oceans did not do it. The volcanoes cool for a couple of years and then the atmosphere returns to normal.”

          Another thing. climate is brown noise, meaning, the lower the frequency, the larger the fluctuations. Naturally. You find this spectrum in pre-1950 temperature reconstructions everywhere.

          The reason is the thermal inertia of the oceans.

          So the absolute current temperature does not mean anything significant, it was warmer in the MWP anyway. The speed of change could tell us something – but between 1980 and 2000 the speed of change was about the same it was between 1920 and 1940 (disregarding Hansen’s post-1999 scientific malfeasance and history revisionism, of course).

          So everything is normal. Between 2000 and now there’s no change in temperatures. A slope of zero doesn’t sound extraordinary to me.

    3. DirkH

      BTW, trotting out Tyndall and Arhenius (and Fourier if you like) will buy you no cookies. Everybody knows the IR absorption and emission lines of CO2.

      It would be good if you learned about Kirchhoff’s Law. Start here:
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/

      1. Renewable Guy

        Wattsup has never ever changed the science once. Never.

        1. DirkH

          Kirchhoff is not a WUWT contributor. He’s dead.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation

  7. Renewable Guy

    [I don’t know which planet you’re from. On Earth there are an infinite number of ways of arriving at an answer and only one is correct. Just because the answer is right, it doesn’t mean the method is correct. The models do not reproduce the LIA or MWP. There are still a huge number of unknowns. And the data shows that CO2 lags. -PG]

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

    In the past co2 did lag in the ice records. You are correct.

    Where you are mistaken is that soemhow nullifies today’s co2. CO2 is why we have the present holocene,without it we would be an iceball circiling the sun. Adding more co2 makes things warmer. YOu will eventually have to drop that one, it doesn’t hunt anymore. You cannot pick and choose the science you like and dislike. They are all true especailly old science such as co2 is a ghg when and where you want it to be.

    1. Renewable Guy

      They are all true especailly old science such as co2 is a ghg when and where you want it to be.

      Meant to say you cannot pick and choose the science that pleases you and reject the rest. [That’s what you are doing, even going so far as to ignore a huge body of knowledge surrounding the sun, oceans and historical cycles. This is the main deficiency of the IPCC 4AR. I’m not going to play “yes it is, no it isn’t” with you. -PG].

    2. DirkH

      “Where you are mistaken is that soemhow nullifies today’s co2. CO2 is why we have the present holocene,without it we would be an iceball circiling the sun. Adding more co2 makes things warmer.”

      you forgot to add:
      “…ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.”

      Now, as it stands, the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor, not CO2. And if you change the CO2 content, this has changes in the energy flow as a consequence. CO2AGW science posits that the consequence will be an increase in water vapor as well.

      So that is the theory. It has to be tested.

      Again, this is where the models and their predictions come in. The models incorporate the posited positive water vapor feedback effect.

      From there, the scientific method, as multiple times described by me, can take over to help us confirm or reject the theory.

      See above. CO2AGW theory has not been confirmed for now.

  8. Renewable Guy

    {You’re ignoring all the other factors to make CO2 look like the culprit. There are mountains of studies showing the sun dominates. You’re being completely ridiculous and zealous with your claims. My patience discussing science with ideologues is limited. -PG]

    I believe I have dicussed the sun earlier. There is strong agreement from the data from the satellites that the sun in mildly decreasing in radiative activity.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#Solar_activity

    The role of the sun in recent climate change has been looked at by climate scientists. Since 1978, output from the Sun has been precisely measured by satellites.[5]:6 These measurements indicate that the Sun’s output has not increased since 1978, so the warming during the past 30 years cannot be attributed to an increase in solar energy reaching the Earth (see graph above, left). In the three decades since 1978, the combination of solar and volcanic activity probably had a slight cooling influence on the climate.[53]

    1. DirkH

      I mentioned the natural thermal inertia of the oceans, giving climate a brown noise characteristic.

      Think of it like this: You have a pot of cold water. Now you put it on a stove that has a constant power consumption of 1 kW.

      Now, the water will get warmer. The water temperature is the integral of the input energy. While the input energy is constant, the water temperature rises, linearly at first.

      Of course, happenings in the real climate system are more complicated – cloudiness plays a large role, for instance. But what you find confusing can easily be explained without assuming a warming influence by added antropogenic CO2.

      We are warming since 1750; long before industrial CO2 emissions became significant. The theory of CO2AGW can’t explain this, only after 1950 does it try to explain something. But its explanation is not necessary; it lifts no secret that we can’t explain without it.

  9. BOINNK!!! | Interessante nieuwsberichten verzameld door Jeroen Adema

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close