The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) here posted a video of excerpts of a German Parliamentary hearing on climate change in the German Federal Parliament featuring Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) scientist Anders Levermann and atmospheric physicist Prof. Nir Shaviv of Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
The hearing was to look into the controversy of climate change, with the AfD opposition party casting doubt on the German government’s long-held alarmist position.
In total the hearing lasted some 2 hours, but EIKE has fortunately provided a condensed 16-minute version featuring the main points.
As expected Levermann of the alarmist and activist PIK claimed that the physics of global warming were “rock solid” and that a doubling of CO2 would undoubtedly lead to 3°C of warming. He tried to claim the science was settled.
No proof…dubious hockey stick
At the 1:40 mark, Shaviv responded by saying there was “no scientific proof that showed CO2 has a large impact on climate” and that the arguments used by the IPCC to claim otherwise “are faulty”.
He says we know today that the hockey stick chart was “dubious science”.
IPCC ignores the sun
Shaviv also told the members of the German Parliament that the IPCC refuses to acknowledge the sun’s powerful role on driving climate and sea level rise rate. “The sun has contributed to more than half the warming.”
At the 3:40 mark Shaviv states that CO2 climate sensitivity is in fact only 1 – 1.5°C for a doubling of CO2, far less than the figure suggested by the PIK’s Levermann.
Models are faulty
Levermann then bluntly responded (5:05) with an insult, calling Shaviv’s non-alarmist claims “nonsense”.
But Shaviv fired back (6:10), reminding that there’s much scientific literature supporting the sun is a major driver and that the IPCC climate models are faulty and lopsided.
At the 7-minute mark Levermann claims the global temperature rose 0.2°C over the past 2 decades “in just a short” time, but not mentioning the natural oceanic El Nino event being at play. He then claimed they had already refuted all the points made by skeptics.
From 15.0°C in 1850 to 14.8 today?
An interesting moment came at the 8-minute mark when one Parliamentarian asked Levermann which pre-industrial reference temperature the IPCC was working with. Parliamentarian Dr. Kraft asked Levermann what exactly was the global temperature before industrialization some 150 years ago. According to Levermann, it was “in the area of 15°C”, thus implying today’s global temperature is over 16°C. At this point Parliamentarian Hilse (8:40) noted that “the WMO, NASA and the NOAA gave 14.8°C as the global mean temperature in 2016”. According to Parliamentarian Hilse:
So, Herr Levermann, if what you say is right, then it means the temperature has fallen 0.2°C.”
Levermann then told the Parliamentarians that the fact that CO2 causes warming was as sure as gravity making objects fall, and called everything said by Shaviv “all shit” (9:30).
CO2 sensitivity rapidly declining
At the 9:50 mark Levermann clarifies that a doubling of CO2 itself leads to only 1.1°C of warming, but that the added warming will result from the water vapor feedback. He insists there is little uncertainty here. Yet EIKE points out at the 10:35 mark that the IPCC range in fact contains a high degree of uncertainty: 1.5° C to 4.5°C and that there is nothing certain about the science at all.
Recently scientists have been walking back CO2’s warming effect, EIKE shows:
EIKE presents the above chart to show how leading scientists have been ratcheting down their estimates of CO2 climate sensitivity over the years, which today is well below Levermann’s claims of 3.0°C for a doubling. Image cropped at 13:12.
Strangely at the 11:15 mark, the PIK scientist claims that the CO2 molecule is V-shaped. Yet, it is known that it is a straight molecule (11:50).
Shaviv: “No proof that large CO2 changes lead to large temperature changes”
In the end Shaviv disputes Levermann’s claim that the science is “rock solid”, noting that the models neglect factors such as clouds and that there are a number of studies showing that CO2’s impact on temperature is far more modest.
There’s no proof that large changes in CO2 would lead to large temperature changes.”
Overall, EIKE called the debate before the Parliamentary Committee a “debacle for the climate alarmists”.
12 responses to “Climate Of Confusion: NASA, PIK Scientist Confirm Global Temperature Has Fallen 0.2°C Since 1850!”
So how long before these politicians give us their opinions of the ‘science’ that was discussed in this hearing? Will they each just line up behind their party’s policy position, or show some indication of being able to think for themselves (if they are even allowed to)?
Politicians generally do not offer opinions, they simply parrot what their the polls say.
Boy from T – My thoughts too!
Here’s what EIKE posted in English of Nir Shaviv’s testimony.
Found at Motl’s blog, here.
…where he concludes with the following.
Herr Levermann is a typical elitist – humorless, arrogant, concrete thinking blockhead.
Oops. In my previous post I neglected to provide the link to what Nir Shaviv has on his own website about this topic, here.
If the physics behind the models are “rock solid” then where is the persistent “hot spot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics that their physical models require?
It appears that neither of these gentlemen really understands the engineering subjects of Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer. My German understanding is not good but I heard Lederman (the Prof from the Potsdam Institute) mention Ludwig Bolzmann. He clearly has not read some of Boltzmann’s original article. Boltzmann wrote a proof of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. That postulate (the 4th postulate of Thermodynamics in terms of entropy which is defined in the 3rd postulate) means that CO2 in the cold parts of the atmosphere (which gets colder with increasing height from the surface) can not radiate back to a warmer surface. Invoking Boltzmann means that the whole of the CO2 alarm is a scam and Lederman is part of the scam.
A further point not raised by either gentlemen is that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation only applies to surfaces in a vacuum. (read Stefan’s original work). CO2 is a gas and the SB equation can not be applied other than in a modified form outlined by Prof Hoyt Hottel (whom I suggest neither of these gentleman know anything about) using volume and path length. With the latter the heat absorption of CO2 at the present level is so small to be unmeasurable.
“A further point not raised by either gentlemen is that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation only applies to surfaces in a vacuum.” – cementafriend
Not sure if Shaviv understands it or not (though I would think that he probably does). But that wasn’t the focus of his presentation, given the time constraints. As he writes on his website…
3 minutes isn’t enough time to bring undergrads up to speed on thermo and quantum chemistry. I know Germans are smart, but if he didn’t need to ‘go there’ he was wise to stick with the more obvious stuff, which is hard enough as it is for many non-scientists, specially if they’ve been lied to about it for years.
[…] No Tricks Zone covers data showing that the global temp has dropped since 1850 […]
“According to Levermann, it was “in the area of 15°C”, thus implying today’s global temperature is over 16°C. At this point Parliamentarian Hilse (8:40) noted that “the WMO, NASA and the NOAA gave 14.8°C as the global mean temperature in 2016”.
It’s much worse than we thought! Also in 2016:
GISTEMP — “Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature”
“For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14 Celsius, i.e. 57.2 F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56F [13.3C] and 58F [14.4C] and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.”
NASA Official: Gavin A. Schmidt Page updated: 2016-12-15 19:34
Hansen originally produced this page, but Gavin has charge of it now and has not chosen to alter it.
dennisambler–Doesn’t this merely mean that a significant amount of uncertainty means that proclamations of important certainty are very much besides the point? And therefore misleading? (Perhaps very much not disinterestedly.)
[…] Fonte: No Tricks Zone […]