Fiery hell and Biblical floods: This is what’s in store for mankind in the future, so suggests chief climate modeler Stefan Rahmstorf of the ultra-alarmist and catastrophe-obsessed Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in an interview with the German Press Agency (DPA) here.
As sure signs of the approaching climate catastrophe, the DPA cites “floods in Great Britain, icy frost in USA, extreme snowfall in Japan, and droughts in Australia. Climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf warns of the consequences of climate change.”
Already we get the sense that some climate science institutes fancy themselves as prophets who possess credible visions of future doom and gloom. Unbelievable as it may seem, once again we see scientists returning to the Dark Ages, a time when priests sought out witches on whom to blame bad, famine-causing weather on. We’re back, at least in Potsdam, to the Medieval witch hunts and burnings.
So how dramatic is the situation today? Rahmstorf says in the interview:
Again and again we have to deal with weather extremes like heat waves and heavy rains, which are increasing in intensity and frequency due to climate change.”
Rahmstorf then tells the DPA that the climate change is all caused by human CO2-induced global warming and that…(my emphasis)
The number of heat records in the monthly mean values is today already five times higher than one would expect it to be during a stable climate.”
Here Rahmstorf is actually implying that humans could see a stable climate – if only they simply changed their behavior or if governments took bold action aimed at controlling the behavior of humans. This is nonsense and reminds us of the Medieval belief that bad storms and weather could be prevented if only “witches and sorcerers” were burned in public.
Rahmstorf also claims that sea level rise is accelerating due to the melting of the large ice masses on Greenland and Antarctica”. He adds:
It is depressing how man is running into the crisis with open eyes without resorting to already determined counter-measures. Foremost great efforts by governments would be necessary.”
Rahmstorf concedes models have little predictive value
Rahmstorf claims that swift action in the form of “great efforts” by governments is warranted by hard science and data. So we can assume that they have a pretty good idea of what to expect in the future. However, at the end of the interview, Rahmstorf is forced to admit that they don’t have an idea of what the future holds.
Model simulations are able to show how a possible future might look like. However, it is very difficult regionally to make reliable conclusions as we run against the limits of what is possible with climate models today. You can only fathom the possibilities.
That’s the disadvantage of leaving the known, stable climate of the past and charging into waters where the old data of experience are no longer applicable. Man is living with increasing uncertainty and has to anticipate more surprises.”
True. And some of the big surprises include the massive cold and snow gripping the northern hemisphere, 17 years of no global warming, and record sea ice in Antarctica.
24 responses to “Potsdam Institute Scientist Rahmstorf Suggests Man Could Guide Planet Back To A “Stable Climate”…Warns Of “More Surprises”!”
That really is meievel thinking. What the hell is the man thinking. He is a luny.
He is a Calamitologist!
Why are climatologists now commenting on the weather?
I see “stable climate” but what does this mean? Here are some climate extremes during the Holocene.
…stable climate of the past… Tee hee.
So this chappy never learned about the big snow storms that taught the French to like horse meat when Napoleon took them to Moscow?
Or the big storm that drove the Spanish Armada on the rocks?
There is something seriously wrong with this man’s education.
some of questions for you.
1) According your opinion is the ultra-alarmist and catastrophe-obsessed fanaticism stronger in Germany than in other western countries?
2) Would German based scientists have the scientific freedom to serve as, for example, editors of international scientific journals dealing with climate change issues?
3) In Germany are there specific national laws that could or would interfere with the scientific freedom of scientists investigating freely climate change issues?
1) I’d say yes. The PIK is notoriously and dogmatically alarmist and are relentless in their insistence of a climate catastrophe. The German government also has made it clear on what it thinks of alternative views: https://notrickszone.com/2013/05/16/german-ministry-of-environment-identifies-targets-american-and-german-enemy-skeptics-in-123-page-pamphlet/
2) I think so. But I know that German scientists expressing any doubt get tarred and feathered in short order by their German colleagues, who enjoy massive support and funding from the government.
3) I don’t know of any laws interfering with such work. But such scientists will certainly not see any funding coming in, and like I said in number 2, they get gang-mobbed by the heavily funded warmist scientists. Climate science in Germany is definitely corrupted.
You may want to talk privately to some of your German colleagues. My perspective is that of an observer.
On CBS This Morning, a major network news morning show in the U.S., we were treated to physics professor Michio Kaku explaining to us how the warming of the arctic is the cause of our severe winter here in the eastern half of the U.S. Of course, he had the exact same explanation for the heat and drought in the western half. I wasn’t impressed with his science. I was impressed by his ability to deliver it with a straight face.
The idiot probably believes it himself.
Came across this article at the Christian Science Monitor. Presents a sample of research largely linking to the “warming” Arctic but with reservations but also includes a study that also found that plugging in the AMO gives similar results.
“Francis and colleagues also have looked specifically at sea ice loss and winter weather extremes, finding a link.
In effect, the ever-shrinking amount of sea ice in the fall makes more moisture available for snow. Increased snowfall over the North American or Eurasian Arctic earlier in the fall-winter season cools the air more quickly than a later snowfall would.
This more southerly mass of cold air affects pressure patterns in ways that boost the likelihood of blocking patterns and cold snaps.
This idea appears to draw some support from modeling work that was published last August and conducted by Yannick Peings and Gudrun Magnusdottir of the University of California, Irvine.
When they plugged the average Arctic sea ice decline between 2007 and 2012 into the model, it yielded cold conditions at mid-latitudes, mainly over Asia. The model also produced some increase in the depth of the jet stream’s meanders, although the statistical significance was small. All this tended to take place in February.
But by 2090, according to their model projection, the Arctic warmed so much that wintertime cold extremes at mid-latitudes remained only as frequent as they were in 2010.
Further work by Dr. Magnusdottir and colleagues has added another wrinkle. Long-term swings in Atlantic sea-surface temperatures, known as the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation, appear to have the same effect on the jet stream’s meanders and blocking patterns that Arctic warming and sea ice are purported to have.
When the AMO enters its warm phase – its condition since the 1990s – the jet stream tends to weaken and buckle. Blocking patterns increase, and colder temperatures prevail at mid-latitudes.
“This also supports the colder winters of recent years,” Magnusdottir says, adding that the results seem robust, since they show up in real-world data as well as in computer simulations.
Others looking for predicted circulation patterns have a hard time finding anything. In a study published last month in Geophysical Research Letters, Dr. Barnes of Colorado State and colleagues used three independent approaches to identifying blocking patterns in climate data. They reported finding trends in isolated regions and at specific periods, but no trend was significant and common to all three approaches.
“Blocking is so variable from year to year that there’s no evidence that anything out of the ordinary is occurring,” Barnes says. Nor has she found trends in changes to the jet stream’s meanders or travel time around the hemisphere.
Does this mean that Francis and Vavrus are wrong? “Not at all,” Barnes says.
The evidence may be masked for now by the “noise” of natural variability. And other factors affect the jet stream. Perhaps “you have a tug of war going on” between the influence of sea ice and something else, Barnes says.”
Rahmstorf should tell the newspapers that Old AGW is false and that a New AGW was invented in which W means weirding. For statistical reasons it will take one century in order to show that weather extremes have become more frequent. So he has a lot of time to work out the physics, how IR absorption by CO2 causes weather extremes without warming (false OLD AGW).
New AGW is a powerful theory because it is already confirmed by extreme rainfall in the UK. Therefore, it must have predicted that event. We may assume that PIK has submitted to a notary a list with predictions from which he cited in the interview. We may also assume that the list does not contain events that did not came true.
Will Delson 12. Februar 2014 at 20:35 |
He is a BBC favourite when they need to roll out their compliant idiot no matter what the subject might be.
A couple of the extreme high climate model “predictions” show warming of about one degree C. in 2013 having started at zero departure from the 1979-83 average. (look for this information at Roy Spencer’s site, Feb. 7th, or on WUWT Feb.10). The mean of the models (not a good thing, really) is about +0.63 for 2013. Actual measured temperature is about +0.33 (I’m using Roy’s chart and reading on the screen).
I was under the impression that catastrophic warming was out in the range from 2070 to the end of the century, when average temperature is supposed to be several degrees higher. Yet we are now told that every weather event is the result of +0.33 C. degrees global warming. I spoke with a person yesterday that assured me the lack of snow in the Cascade Mountains of Washington State was so caused. It was snowing up there as he spoke! The Great Lakes are frozen over (not the first time) and this, too, is caused by global warming. Dry in California. Hot in Australia. Wet in NW Europe. Not exactly surprises.
Here’s an image of a person’s mind that believes this crap: Take Roy’s spaghetti graph and twist it into the shape of a pretzel and pull it all into a tight knot – a Gordian Knot.
Regarding Will D’s note:
For the current century (2002 – 2013; IARC-JAXA), the ice on the Arctic Ocean last September was in the middle of the pack (no pun intended). The 2012 season was the lowest and 2003 highest. These numbers are all lower than the mean from 1979 forward. It seems, then, that every year since 2002 ought to have given us the sorts of weather being seen this winter. Alternatively, there is a ~15 month lag from the lowest, 2012 September, to the resulting severe weather. I would not want to have to explain how that works.
Rahmstorf needs an iconic graph describing weather extremes over the last two millennia (demonstrating that current weather is far worse than in the “stable climate” prior to the 1800s).
But a hockey stick won’t do – needs to be something with a long, narrow handle and a thick, busy end…
Sounds remarkably like a toilet bowl cleaner.
Kurt in Switzerland
While Rahmstorf might be willing to concede, however grudgingly, that climate models have limitations, fellow PIK notary H. J. Schellnhuber seems to have no such reservations. Schellnhuer has recently been involved in work using “network analysis” projection, which is claimed to provide Very early warning of next El Niño with a 75% likelihood forecast of a return to El Niño conditions in late 2014.
This forecast has been used recently as the basis for alarming Australian farmers already suffering in drought conditions over much of the country.
Rahmstorf……..”extreme snowfall in Japan”
No, not at all. Last Saturday it snowed in Tokyo/Kanto plain. Kanto gets snow most winters, just not very much. This winter they had a single heavier fall than usual, that is all.
I have the snowfall records for my town in Tohoku (northern Honshu) going back to 1960. Average snowfall per winter (measured as the sum of daily snowfall) is 9.7 metres. The previous two winters were 16.3 and 15 metres. These numbers are typical for the heavy snow areas in Japan.
This winter’s numbers aren’t in, but I judge we will be around the 5 metre mark. That would put it at the bottom of the range. Honshu has had a very light snow winter. The difference between 5 metres and 10-15 metres is very noticeable, believe me.
Rahmstorf is ignorant.
Australia climastrologer Matthew England says:
So stronger air current across the surface of water “drives” the heat deeper into the water?
Perhaps they’ve about forgotten about “evaporation” as climate “scientists” are wont to do. Or simply think us to be more stupid than they are. Certainly, it appears that their fawning presstitutes have no grip on reality.
Unsurprisingly, Matthew England is a researcher at the University of New South Wales which has recently spawned such equally brilliant scientists as Antarctic
explorer adventurertourist Professor Chris Turney.
“And some of the big surprises include the massive cold and snow gripping the northern hemisphere, 17 years of no global warming, and record sea ice in Antarctica. ”
WOW….Pierre….I did not realize that. Really…..17 years of no global warming. Hmmmmmmm. You know….all those thermometer “thingies” that all those “meteorlogical groups” use? You’ll NEVER guess what they say.
They say it HAS been warming. And not only has the atmosperic temp been rising…..the ocean temperatures have been rising even faster than the temperatures in the atmosphere. You did know that 90% of the warming is happening in the oceans didn’t you?
Did you know that the Arctic has been VERY WARM so far this year? In fact…I’m surprised you haven’t reported on it.
The Arctic ice sheet is at ITS LOWEST LEVEL ON RECORD for this time of the year. You can follow this at the NSIDC website:
And something else I’m surprised you haven’t mentioned: The mass of the Antarctic ice sheet (the TOTAL MASS of the Antarctic ice sheet……has been dropping). I know it was probably just an oversight of yours when you mentioned that the sea ice EXTENT of the Antarctic has been growing SLIGHTLY over the last 30 years. But did you know that the overall mass of the ENTIRE Antarctic ice sheet (yes….that includes the part on land) is actually dropping?
What’s shocking is that you don’t know that ERA40 is a Reanalysis . i.e. a model.
And that wild fluctuations in winter temperatures in the arctis are completely normal. It’s too cold for anything to melt anyway.
But keep on watching it for a few years and you’ll get the hang of it, Buffy.
17 years – You are picking the “adjusted” data set.
Ocean temp – which depth? The surface is cooling. The deeps might have warmed 0.02 degrees and that warmth will never be seen again unless you believe that water 1000 meters down at 4 degrees C can warm the atmosphere at 14 degrees C.
Arctic warming? The cold is scattered down to 45 N latitudes. Yes, Alaska is warmer than normal. That isn’t the whole arctic..
Arctic ice at it lowest ever – learn to read a chart!
Antarctic ice – you are cherry picking studies.
The ocean can absorb 100 times more heat than atmosphere. So if 1°C worth of atmospheric heat gets transferred to the ocean, then you’ll see a temp rise in the ocean of 0.01°C, an amount that’s well out of the range of measurement certainty.
Buddy, this is really “shocking”
If the Antarctic got really cold and dry, and snowfall stopped, the ice flowing off would result in loss of ice mass.
From the website that Buddy provided the link.
…Preliminary measurements from CryoSat show that the volume of Arctic sea ice in autumn 2013 was about 50% higher than in the autumn of 2012. In October 2013, CryoSat measured approximately 9,000 cubic kilometers (approximately 2,200 cubic miles) of sea ice compared to 6,000 cubic kilometers (approximately 1,400 cubic miles) in October 2012. About 90% of the increase in volume between the two years is due to the retention of thick, multiyear ice around Northern Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago…
Buddy, a tip, read the whole article, study the detail, before exposing yourself to be a very gullible fool.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2014/02/12/potsdam-institute-scientist-rahmstorf-suggests-man-could-guide-pl… […]