Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Farewell: Climate catastrophe and CO2 delusion in free fall - worldwide!

Google translation of post today on the German EIKE site:

Farewell: Climate catastrophe and CO2 delusion in free fall - worldwide!

Therefore - it's time for a fact check:

(1)

Temperature: For 15 years, the end of global warming

In the English-speaking media, the openly for several years, such as: "Global warming nonsense gets a true cold shoulder" writes The Daily Telegraph [2] Or, "Forget global warming" subtitled Daily Mail [3].

Now the skeptical debate has also reached the media in Germany [4], for example, writes Der Spiegel [5] :

".... But already got around that the climate has recently developed differently than predicted: For 15 years, increased warming ., the upward trend in the average global temperature has not continued since 1998, 'The stoppage has led to the assumption global warming has ceased ', admits NASA. "

Or elsewhere [6]: "It's Official: There is no global warming."

All these statements are based on the temperature-evaluations of IPCC-related institutions, such as in Figure 1

Figure 1

Global temperature analyzes of the British Met Office [7] The blue curve shows the average trend across the temperature curve to cooler values, the inserted brown trend line over the last 15 years;

This is also to be noted: The meteorological and climatological elements show strong fluctuations of nature, a so-called "noise". Therefore, conclusions about trends or trend reversal is statistically with a "significance test" to check. This is said in the cited paper where:

"Until thought scientists fourteen years without further warming were to bring their forecasts in line - but not" "15 years or more," as NASA researchers in the journal four years ago, "Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society konstatierten . "Transferring this NASA statement on the current situation, the continuous phase is now 15 years since the heating stops outside the "noise" of climate and climate models. This will also repeatedly advocated the correlation with the continuing increase in CO2 emissions and ultimately a major anthropogenic cause of the secular warming of the 20th Century called into question.

F o sum

The geophysicist Professor Larry Bell [8] it brings in an overview article on the point [9] :

"The climate stubbornly refuses to work with the warming alarmists together." (2)

Sea levels: Continuous slowing the rise

Figure 2

Sea level trend globally; satellite measurements [10] 1993-2012

The increase is slowing down (red arrow);

The result shown in Figure 2 is clear: since the last ice age already millennia sea level rise slowed globally.

Show the same result for the German North Sea coast of the data REKLIM study [11] North German Research Institute: "The evaluation [12] shows that even when the levels are comparable to the satellite data trend towards weakening of the sea-level rise, with a statistically quite "robust" data set of about 160 years .... ".

As well as the state government of Lower Saxony [13] says:

"Climate change is not noticeable for a rising sea level on the North Sea coast of Lower Saxony as a result of climate change, the state government sees no signs ..... trend of the increase in unchanged 25 cm per century A faster increase was not observed.."

And the National Association NLWKN ... [14]

"All the discussions and nightmare scenarios for defiance: a scientific evidence for a massive increase in sea level for the period up to 2100 there is not."

Writes the lyrics to all these facts, the regional press [15] repeatedly headlines this kind: "Bremerhaven is sinking in the sea?" ... accompanied with a picture, just see the port from the hotel in Bremerhaven on the North Sea looks up and out. Where are the voices of established scientists who are opposed to such a hysteria-shaping of citizens, so make some mischief in the newspaper right?

(3)

Extreme Weather: IPCC [16] found no trends

A "believing" the public by some climate researchers, but especially in the media suggested [17]: "The number of devastating storms, rainfall and other weather-related natural disasters has been in Germany since the 1970s, more than tripled - and will continue to increase ... "

Quite the opposite show the measurements and statistics of weather services in Germany and around the world! Even the IPCC's 2001 report, found no trend toward more extreme weather [18]:

"New analyzes of changes in local severe weather (tornadoes, thunder days, lightning and hail) in some selected regions provide no compelling evidence of widespread systematic long-term changes."

Ten years later, before the climate conference in Durban in 2011, the IPCC even created a special report (SREX) on extreme weather, with the same result [19]:

"... Still some extreme events, the researchers can not really be attributed to human influence ..."

And ibid there is a wealth of other statements that are helping to making the public completely covered disaster debate:

"The special report of the IPCC says the uncertainty is quite clear from this and from some climate activists already sharply attacked" ... "We forget all over the greenhouse gas debate that floods, storms and heat waves occur even without climate change."

In another survey [20] to this passage:

"On the development of most other weather extremes (Note: except heat and drought) but science can not make any statements satisfying .... The estimates are based on surveys among experts, so they have no hard scientific basis." ... and finally ibid:

"The real message is that we know about most of weather disasters too little to predict the development."

There are numerous other compilations and summaries to extreme weather statistics, the result is almost always the case from [21]:

"After 100 years of global warming (until 1998) find the weather service this earth no trends toward more extreme weather. Why should this change in the coming decades, even to where it is no longer warmer in 14 years? About the climate of the next 100 years may only be speculated and fantasized nature does already something other than the models ".

F t azi:

It does not even require the analysis of a "skeptic" scientists ostracized critical to realize: there is no trend toward more extreme weather. The IPCC reports themselves prove that!

(4)

Storms: Decreasing trend in hurricanes and storm surges

Not all tropical storms develop into hurricanes, however: Both a decreasing trend for almost half a century is documented as the picture shows 3.

Figure 3

Trend in hurricanes and tropical storms [22]; Inserted arrows and text boxes

For this, the researcher Ryan Maue of Florida State University [23] says: "Global Tropical Cyclone ACE does not show in communion with upward trend in global temperatures."

Hurricane SANDY was declared in the media to air signal. What was not mentioned [24]: "... reached 'Sandy' Category 2 hurricane on the five-point scale ...", hence SANDY was a whirlwind of second lowest class. A high destructive effect had SANDY only in that he reached the cities of the U.S. east coast, and about one in ten hurricanes takes this path.

The storm frequency over the North Atlantic and the North Sea is associated with the oscillations of the North Atlantic Oscillation NAO Barometer been known for more than 100 years and still unpredictable irregular oscillation. For about 20 years there is a decreasing trend in storms and storm surges:

Figure 4

Statistics of storm surges in Cuxhaven [25]

(Trend Arrow included)

This writes the BSH Hamburg [26]: "A generally increasing trend in the frequency and intensity of storm surges as a harbinger of global climate change is not currently visible" ... "Already, coastal protection and levees are designed to keep storm surges higher than the level previously occurred."

... and the German Weather Service says [27]: "It can be for Central and Western Europe have demonstrated no long temporal increase in storms in strength and / or frequency"

(5)

More droughts? No - The deserts shrink!

Was written by the National Geographic Magazine [28] in a report: "desertification, drought and despair - that's what global warming has in store for most parts of Africa - at least that's what we hear, the becoming visible facts draw a lot. much different picture - one in which rising temperatures can be a boon for millions of Africans in the driest areas of the continent. "

And ... waaO: "Scientists now see signals that the Sahara and surrounding regions become green due to increasing rainfall."

The same is reported in ZDF 'adventure' knowledge '[29]: "... common notion": "... grow to be the deserts ... and the people flee from this hostile environment ..." ... "But this scenario does not ... namely the Sahara will be wet and therefore greener than it is today. Evidence provides the desert itself - in the middle of Libya. "

Insofar as the findings in the North Sahara. The same positive picture emerges very recently in the Südsahara in the Sahel zone [30]:

"Change of power in the savannah - trees gain the upper hand over Grass ... Large parts of the African savanna could be to forests by 2100 This emerges from a study of the Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre and the Goethe University in Frankfurt, held today in 'Nature'. was published., the results suggest that fertilization results in a denser forest cover due to rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere in all of Africa, when a certain CO2 level is exceeded ... this way the risk of falls by vibrations of the Earth system an abrupt change in vegetation. "

And not only increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration on photosynthesis affects positively for plant growth, but also the precipitation increases in the drylands to [31]:

"The desert lives: In the 1980s, this area of the Sahara in northwest Sudan was still a dry hostile desert ... The greening of land in this decade because it was raining much more - most likely due to climate warming."

Also in Germany there is a secular trend with +10% more precipitation [32]. Therefore, it is irresponsible, even if in the regional press of such headlines are reprinted

[33] : "Central Europe is a desert, Africa dries out completely," and elsewhere [34] : "Because of water scarcity and drought can cause significant crop losses." ... so they peddled by the press repeatedly without verification against the facts, here is the German Farmers' Association. (6)

The Arctic is melting to the Antarctic sets

Exactly what was recently stated by the AWI researcher Professor Peter Lemke short and clear [35]: "It has been measured that the ice has declined rapidly in the Arctic the same time the ice has increased in the Antarctic and the largest expansion since at least 40th reached years. "

While one can determine the surface at the poles of icing with satellite fairly accurate measurement of the ice volume is much more difficult. This is particularly due to the fact that the ice sheets on Greenland have a thickness of 3 km and on the Antarctic continent of 4 km. Estimates with different scientific methods come to this conclusion: The Greenland ice losing mass, the ice on the Antarctic continent sets to [36]:

"From 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet has increased by snow in the mass loss due to ice flow by 49 gigatons per year (2.5% of the input), as demonstrated ICESat laser measurements of the height of the ice sheet."

The global ice overall balance is more positive because otherwise the already-millennium sea-level rise would accelerate this for decades, but slowed down (see above under "sea level").

Figure 5 / ICESat [37]

Antarctica: a huge block of ice, saves 95% of the world's fresh water -

Trend: increasingly, the green lines connect points of measurement of the satellite

Recent studies show that all of these processes run very slowly [38]:

"Our data show that during the Eemian (Note: 125.000 years ago) up to eight degrees Celsius warmer was in Northern Greenland than today," says project leader Professor Dorthe Dahl-Jensen of the University of Copenhagen that the Greenland ice sheet. have not so sensitive to this temperature increase, as previously thought, is the good news of the study "... and waaO:".. these new findings are really exciting to refute not only all horror scenarios where the Greenland ice sheet as part of a Warm Period disappears in a flash. Moreover, you confirm model calculations that have been made already about a decade ago at the Alfred Wegener Institute, "says Prof. Heinrich Miller, co-author of the study and Helmholtz Professor of Glaciology at the Alfred Wegener Institute."

F o sum

The Arctic is melting, Antarctica shall be: A disaster is neither the one nor the other!

(7)

Models: Not CO2 "is to blame", but water vapor!

Some climate institutions and promote an IPCC global warming of 2 .. 5 .. 8 degrees for a doubling of CO2. However, what the public is virtually unknown: The CO2 can not afford physical reasons, what exactly is to be read also in the world of Air Council reports [39] :

"When considering only measured under laboratory radiation effect of CO2 results in a climate sensitivity of 1.2 ° C. However, there are feedback effects, including mainly the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback and cloud. Consequently, the possible and probably higher than assumed values, a value of 3 ° is now accepted as the most likely. "

The choice of words used by the IPCC "... the possible and probably assumed values ..." says it clearly: There are large uncertainties in this kind of temperature forecasts "adopted" reinforcing processes - are hypotheses!

This is confirmed as the director of the Coastal Research Institute, Hamburg, Hans von Storch [40]: "We climate researchers can only offer possible scenarios, so it can also get quite different" ... and von Storch elsewhere [41] "Climate research is currently in a post-normal situation. The inherent uncertainties are enormous. "

Just now the show has become well known in advance texts and illustrations from the new IPCC report 2013/14, which already provides for the climate alarmists for some excitement [42]: "The leaked draft of parts of the report of the IPCC 5th state startled and awakened the professional world as well as dedicated observers. was even talk of a 'bomb'. "

Specifically identified [43] there is the temperature forecasts:

"Temperature development Depicted in the draft of the IPCC AR5 coming ..... It is clear to see the current temperature did development lies in the lower range of the IPCC scenarios and did the temperature increase enlarge load has not accelerated over the years."

Figure 6

IPCC temperature forecasts compared to reality [44]

And loc ... for sea-level Development:

"Sea level development Depicted in the draft of the upcoming IPCC AR 5: The overall range of the four previous IPCC reports is shown alongwith the actual plot-observed sea level (...) Clearly the current sea level rise has not accelerated and. is in the lower range of the IPCC scenarios. "

(8)

Disillusionment with the climate alarmists

There will be no international climate agreement. It is always assumed that the do not with non-European industrialized countries, because they do not want to weaken their economy. That plays a role. Any further aspect, however, is that in the major science nations such as USA, China, Japan, India, Russia, Canada scientists also have a realistic climate-skeptic think access as a government agent:

China [45] "... chief negotiator Xie Zhenhua said even at conferences:" There are alternative positions that lead back climate change on natural processes, we must remain open.. "..."

Elsewhere ... and the Zurich WELTWOCHE [46]:

"It is time to abandon such useless conferences .... It is the last convulsions of a political approach ..... Summon many states nonetheless the international climate, it is only because they hope, in view of the abzubekommen identified billion payments a bit. "

Realism and disillusionment are spreading. The shows also just started a movie in theaters Climate Crime, what it says in a press release [47]:

"Actually, the climate is supposed to save our earth, but now he instead accelerated the destruction of the last natural areas." UwaaO. "Away from large conferences and beautiful words dominate the climate destructive large-scale projects." ... And waaO:"What is currently in the name not only the climate, but also of green growth proceeds, I would describe as a kind of rampage against nature and thus to the last bit of ecological rationality. (Niko Paech, economists). "

(9)

Climate protection = environmental protection?

NO! This example of the former director of the Meteorological Institute in Berlin, Prof. Horst Malberg [48] says, "to breathe clean air, drink clean water, unpolluted lakes, rivers, oceans, and soils, as well as an intact ecosystem are among the fundamental rights of man a. stable climate heard how the climate history teaches us not to. "

Even more clearly, the AWI Assistant Director Prof. Heinrich Miller [49]:

"Who talks of climate change, awakens illusions ', Miller warns about modesty,' climate can not protect and stabilize at a desired temperature. It has also often drastically altered without human impacts. ' Keywords such as climate collapse or catastrophe he considers misleading. 'Climate can not collapse, natural disasters knows no'. "

In contrast, green ideologues and profiteers of climate protection projects and energy-turn suggest something quite different [50]: "The obvious particularly pronounced in Germany CO2 climate hysteria is ... linked ideologically and materially by a community of interests of profiteers and enforced. "

For this reason, you almost never hear that the IPCC-affiliated institutions to correct excessive disaster scenarios of the media in Germany and more objective, which you can run, it serves the business.

Scientifically, it is almost absurd to some by a few turns of CO2 screws would retain 'a nice comfortable stable climate'. So is the "2-degree target" is a goal [51]: "Summit in L'Aquila (2009): ... The leaders of the eight largest economies have agreed that global warming on two degrees Celsius is to be limited. "it actually falls on anyone? Politicians decide what to do the air! To the mathematician and climatologist Professor Hans von Storch says in THE TIME [52]: "Two degrees is a political, a meaningless number I think this is bullshit."

In addition:

In an irrational climate debate is saddled it for political and ideological reasons, an adventurous and for the citizens extremely price-driven energy policy.

The current prices "explode", as a result, other costs and prices.

The policy has a pseudo-science called "climate protection" possession. Not to be confused with it: climate research is important. But this should not be abused with unsecured findings as politically motivated basis for the conversion of entire societies.

(10)

Summary:

Here it is sufficient to the summary of an extensive overview article [53] to the climate issue of the professor of physics and energy research, Philip Lloyd [54] To quote from the University of Cape Town:

"The world is a little warmer., The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases. Plants grow better than before because of this increased content of CO2., The sea level is rising at a barely measurable rate. Climatic disasters are not worse than before. The animal kingdom is the growth of a single species harassed, namely us, but this has nothing to do with global warming. And these are the reasons that there is a climate of skepticism. "

Note:

An abridged version of this essay appeared in the northern German culture magazine RUN PASS:http://laufpass.com/ausgaben/eBook/eBook_0213/flash.html ;

This version is attached here as a PDF file, courtesy of RUN PASS publisher Bremerhaven.

[1] SPON, report to the extreme weather; 18.11.2011 www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0, 1518,798406,00 html.

February 01, 2012

16 October 2012

[4] http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-cache/klima-skepsis-erreicht-auch-die-deutschen-medien/ ; 30/01/2013

[5] Spiegel Online

18/01/2013

[6] German Economic News, Environment, 08.01.2013

[7] http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

[8] http://blogs.forbes.com/people/larrybell/

[10] http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

[11] REKLIM, Our Climate (Hamburg, 2011), p.9, Figure 2.4