Body Blow To German Global Warming Movement: P Gosselin
Posted by jennifer, February 7th, 2012 - under News.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
Page 2 story in Bild today! The first of a series.
“THE CO2 LIES … pure fear-mongering … should we blindly trust the experts?”
That’s what Germany’s leading daily Bild wrote in its print and online editions today, on the very day that renowned publisher Hoffmann & Campe officially released a skeptic book – one written by a prominent socialist and environmental figure.
This is huge. More than I ever could have possibly imagined. And more is coming in the days ahead! The Bild piece was just the first of a series.
Mark this as the date that Germany’s global warming movement took a massive body blow.
Read more here:
http://notrickszone.com/2012/02/06/body-blow-to-german-global-warming-movement-major-media-outlets-unload-on-co2-lies/
I would have agreed with your quote re uncertainty but Prof Jonathan Bamber also said as a result of these GRACE measurements:
“The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero.”
That is much more specific than “much larger uncertainty in high mountain Asia than we thought.”
What a frantic post with luke in crazed weasel mode extremis. Some of his links worked, some didn’t; one that did is the 2007 Arctic sea ice 2007 paper co-authored by Holland about observations exceeding the doom and gloom predictions of the models.
Perhaps Holland should have looked at the Polar see-saw:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5734/536.1.full.pdf
Smith notes:
“A series of warm episodes, each lasting several thousand years, occurred in Antarctica between 90,000 and 30,000 years ago. These events correlated with rapid climate oscillations in the Arctic, with Antarctica warming while the Arctic was cooling or already cold. This bipolar seesaw is thought to have been driven by changes in the strength of the deep overturning circulation in the North Atlantic Ocean, but some have questioned how completely that process can account for the fine details of Antarctic warming events.
Keeling and Visbeck offer an explanation that builds upon earlier suggestions that include the effects of shallow-water processes as well as deep ones. They suggest that changes in the surface salinity gradient across the Antarctic Circumpolar Current were caused by the melting of icebergs discharged from the Arctic, which allowed increased heat transport to Antarctica by ocean eddies. This mechanism produces Antarctic warming of the magnitude observed in ice core records.”
Svensmark has another explanation for the ‘see-saw’:
“The cosmic-ray and cloud-forcing hypothesis therefore predicts that temperature changes in Antarctica should be opposite in sign to changes in temperature in the rest of the world. This is exactly what is observed, in a well-known phenomenon that some geophysicists have called the polar see-saw, but for which “the Antarctic climate anomaly” seems a better name (Svensmark 2007).”
Whatever the cause[s] the see-saw exists independently of AGW and with some warming now in the Arctic correlating with some cooling in the Antarctic it would seem the models and AGW are wrong again.
JW says about one of our “blind friends”…..”I used to stick up for your intelligence, hoping that it never lets your faith get in the way, but I’m afraid I was wrong”
ive reached the conclusion that if you still believe ardently with no room for doubt about CAGW, you are either stupid, ignorant or a zealot blinded by your faith.
Serioulsy you would surely have to be embarrassed to be tied to this band wagon of deception and exageration..wouldnt you?!
You know Cohenite’s scrambling when he can’t even cite properly – it was actually Quat.Sci.Rev. 10.1016/j/quascirev.2005.04.005 (2005). (mate).
And typically fails to learn the lessons I have taught him – models failing – wot rot – indeed – Thompson and Solomon (2002) and by Shindell and Schmidt (2004) tell us why ….
As for Svensmark – well the last refuge of the desperate eh?
Good to see Toby having a froth – maybe if he thought about it – if it quacks like a duck and fingerprints like a duck maybe it’s a duck? But for deniers it will be a solar cycle instead of poultry. thanks to Judith Lean’s pdf above we can all have a good old laugh at the rot being spread around on that score. Soon by Fox News I guess.
Interesting stuff, cohenite….and refreshing to see the different viewpoints on the see-saw.
To be perfectly candid Comrade Luke, the Denialati aren’t certain we are in for a Maunder.
Trouble brewed for Luke?
Check out http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/10/friday-funny-carbonated-drink-stands-in-for-joe-romm-in-debate/
From BoM, a seasonal outlook under stress?
‘The national outlook averaged over February to April 2012 shows the following:
‘warmer days are more likely over southeastern Australia
‘cooler days and nights are more likely over northwestern Australia
‘warmer nights are more likely over northeastern and southwestern Australia’
The real costs hitting us from the AGW mania is found in higher food prices, higher insurance rates, bad flood control policies, high energy prices and increasing taxes.
Hidden costs are the opportunity costs of having a significant fraction of the research community becoming rent seekers for AGW promotional funding and grants, the time not spent pursuing real solutions to real problems, and the confusion of food and energy policies with a fantasy called “mitigation”.
Another Ian,
Who needs Joe Romm to show up for a debate when Luke can do it here quite handily? Luke even makes as much sense as Romm. Luke will likely interpret this as a compliment.
Have you got your Bob Katter app ?
“Happy days are at an end my friends”
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/bob-katter-immortalised-in-soundboard-for-iphone-ipad-ipod-touch-on-apple-app-store/story-fnbt5t29-1226266841624
Luke,
Seriously,
Apart from this comment that many of us would agree with:
…..”I used to stick up for your intelligence, hoping that it never lets your faith get in the way, but I’m afraid I was wrong”
ive reached the conclusion that if you still believe ardently with no room for doubt about CAGW, you are either stupid, ignorant or a zealot blinded by your faith.
As well as appearing blinded by faith, you are now taking some type of ‘leap of faith’ by linking to Bob Katter and therefore insinuating that if people aren’t adhering to CAGW faith that automatically means they must adhere to some other ‘much more sinister’ faith?
Methinks you are projecting?
errr joke Debs – and what’s wrong with Bob?
and I think your knowledge of the AGW subject is zippo. Frankly you can’t string a sentence together on the topic. and what’s with this CAGW business – don’t try to verbal me girlie.
Who is verballing whom Luke?
I didn’t say there was anything right or wrong with Bob, I commented on the Leap of Logic and the insinuation from your link.
My question to you is therefore:
What does Bob Katter’s app have to do with the topic we are discussing?
Great news from overseas, it looks like more and more of this silly fraud is starting to crumble.
Poor extreme Luke will be the last clueless BELIEVER standing.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/we-are-winning-eh-part-4-or-so/#more-20194
Even Gavin Schmidt admits that models suck:
http://www.real-science.com/real-climate-worse
SD – obviously you’re unable to comprehend the graph.
Neville and Nova thinks that the atmosphere cares about carbon markets. And isn’t it strange if Nova thinks it’s “all over” she can stop writing crap and get a real job.
Nicola Scafetta has a guest post at Watts.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/figure9new_thumb.png
The solar lunar cycle theory is provocative.
Good paper El Gordo – an arxiv copy here http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.1301v1.pdf
Need to digest what’s he’s done.
Yes it is a good paper,
The tracking and modelling seems to be describing reality in climate patterns with a fair amount of success.
It clearly states that the IPCC methods cannot be trusted.
It offers another hypothesis to explain what could be key drivers in our global climate..
As always, time will tell.
Perhaps you can explain the paper to us then Debs. It could be overfitted statistical nonsense with no predictive capability at all – do you know? Why do you think he has anything?
Beware the ides of cycles Debs (and March too)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/12/curve-fitting-and-natural-cycles-the-best-part/#bib_1
Even terms like “IPCC methods” indicate you’re talking through your hat.
Y’know Debs, those IPCC methods of projecting AGW, melting Himalayan glaciers etc. You cannot criticise those!
Least of all in simple English. Horreurs!!
And with papers like McLean et al, Archibald http://n3xus6.blogspot.com.au/2007/02/dd.html , and science fiction like Heaven on Earth weeeelllll …..
we’ll just away very quietly now and pretend it didn’t happen …. tip toe … ssshhhh
All those hopeless DUD predictions from Flannery and BOM about rainfall are covered by Bolt in this mornings show.
Denis Jensen does a good interview with Bolt about those clueless predictions and BOM tampering with Darwin’s temp record etc. He also agrees there should be a Royal Commission into CAGW.
A retarded five year old could see through this super expensive fraud so why shouldn’t there be an enquiry?
One quick benifit would be the saving of countless more billions $ soon to be wasted down the plug hole for zero return to the Aust people.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_bolt_report_today4/#commentsmore
Luke,
I can’t be bothered doing an entire critique of the paper to prove anything to you.
However a quick re read and I’m happy to direct you to a few salient sections.
Go to page 3 & read the first paragraph.
Page 4 paricularly point 2.
Page 6 & 7
Conclusion page 9
page 11
And the actual clear message from this paper on page 19 and this time I quote directly:
“Consequently the IPCC projections for the 21st Century cannot be trusted”.
So I’m sorry if I used the word methods instead of projections, but I don’t believe it actually changed the point or one of the clear conclusions in this paper? Maybe you missed it?
Does that help?
And I also repeat, the hypothesis looks partly credible and the tracking and modelling does somewhat reflect reality.
However, as always, time will tell.
So Debs – how do you know it’s simply not curve fitting? THE POINT ! I reckon it’s rubbish.
Yes Neville – call a Royal Commission by all means. Bring it on.
I don’t,
And neither do you.
I don’t know if it’s rubbish, I was just quoting the paper. It appears credible. It did clearly state that the IPCC projections can’t be trusted.
You posted the link Luke, not me.
There are plenty of questions about whether the IPCC have been merely curve fitting.
But as I said, time will tell.
” It did clearly state that the IPCC projections can’t be trusted.” now why would he say that? LOL !
“There are plenty of questions about whether the IPCC have been merely curve fitting. ” – errr nope!
Luke,
You posted the link and you said it was a good paper: Here: copy/paste.
Good paper El Gordo – an arxiv copy here http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.1301v1.pdf
Need to digest what’s he’s done.
I am not defending it…I read it because 2 people from here had recommended it….I would ask exactly the same questions….just commenting on it’s main points and also noticing that their tracking and modelling appeared to have some credibility.
It will be time and real data that will be the judge of this hypothesis….as it is with any other projective work…INCLUDING IPCC!
‘The 9.1-year cycle is shown to be likely related to a decadal Soli/Lunar tidal oscillation, while the 10-10.5, 20-21 and 60-62 year cycles are synchronous to solar and heliospheric planetary oscillations.’
Perfectly fine starting point.
‘We show that the IPCC GCM’s claim that all warming observed from 1970 to 2000 has been anthropogenically induced is erroneous because of the GCM failure in reconstructing the quasi 20-year and 60-year climatic cycles.
Fair comment.
‘Finally, we show how the presence of these large natural cycles can be used to correct the IPCC projected anthropogenic warming trend for the 21st century.’
As Debbie points out correctly ‘It will be time and real data that will be the judge of this hypothesis.’
“Sceptics are like viruses”
IPCC lead author reaction is that scientific scrutiny and enquiry are mental disorders:
http://notrickszone.com/2012/02/12/leftist-german-taz-daily-article-on-vahrenholt-climate-skeptics-are-like-viruses/
Which side of the fence do the real mental disorders lie?
Back on the subject of Europe, Tim Blair notes how certain sections of the media are describing the weather there as “extreme” while avoiding the word “cold” when possible. Warmies are like tricky little kids, aren’t they? I don’t think the present Big Cold proves a thing about anything, but it seems to be making some climate zealots edgy.
We’ll hear of more and more “extreme” weather as the present is distorted and sensationalised and the past is blurred or even buried. The classic message: It’s worse than we thought! The Galveston hurricane, the Arctic ice melt of the twenties, the Big Heat of the thirties will, presumably, be better than we thought! That’s if they can’t be expunged from history all together. Maybe GetUp are working on that.
Meanwhile, I’d keep an eye on the new Spanish leadership. Mariano Rajoy looks just like Gareth Evans, but all resemblance stops there. The guy is a genuine conservative, and, rare in modern Europe, very much an adult. He has a mess on his hands, he’s on his own and needs to tread carefully around the EU and the luvvies, but the guy is a skeptic and has already declared an intention to reform the energy sector.
Keep an eye on him. Europe has been kids-in-the-kitchen till now. That may change.
Robert, you wonder if those Warmies will ever become sceptical but you have to wonder about people who can’t be somewhat sceptical of the second dose of 20th c warming, knowing the first dose was natural. And this present bind is all about that last 0.35c:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1909/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1909/to:1943/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1977/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1943/to:1977/trend
Hot on the tail of Nicola Scafetta….this is getting interesting. Global cooling until 2030.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/13/do-latest-solar-studies-confirm-upcoming-global-cooling/#more-56469
Spangled the interesting thing about that graph is the trend. If the latest rise from 1977 to 1997 is influenced by humans why does it have a flatter trend?
Print that graph out and look at the trend and you’ll notice the first natural trend rate is higher. ( 1910 to 1946.)
Of course silly Luke sees a human influence all the way back to early 1900s, but the IPCC only claims an influence from about 1960.
That flat trend from 1946 to 1977 is a problem for the warmists as well. But the cool PDO during that time seems to be a good bet, plus more la ninas and higher rainfall in OZ.
Yes Neville, the rate of warming is certainly no worse in the latter half of the 20th c with all that ACO2 to assist it.
How could you not be sceptical about CAGW?
Is it about the sensitivity of the atmosphere or the Warmists?
Envisat has been delivering those body blows for years but the Warmists are an insensitive lot.
http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ScreenHunter_113-Feb.-08-19.04.jpg
And as people have pointed out, the world is already back to 1940 temperatures:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/scale:0.00001/offset:0.28
And the prize for the most stupid analysis of all time goes to SD !
GOOD GRIEF MAN !
In the US they’re currently WAY below their 1940 temps. As we are in Australia. And NZ.
It’s only the highly manipulated “global average” that is high due to those sweaty winter retreats in Siberia etc.
I believe you can still buy cheap land in those high lats for a winter playground.
What’s holding you back, Lukie luv?
No time for head in the sand SD. Of course when the sea levels were rising it was the earth was sinking. Now if the satellites still show rising sea levels, it can only be because the sky is falling down.