climatepatrol.wordpress.com will make it easy for you to navigate from one topic to another and from one language to another
Oct 27, 2007
Oct 15, 2007
Blog Action Day - Rose out of Green Trash Can
One day, when I returned from my holiday, I spotted a white rose in a very unusual place. A few weeks ago - I remember - I had just dumped the pot with the sick rose bush with its yellow leaves into the green trash. A little slot of the trash can lid remained open. Out of the same slot, stretched a new plant, grown in record speed and holding its beautiful white open blossom. This was a hint by the creator that there is always new beginnings, new life is possible, and new houses can be built out of the rubble of old ones. Biological carbon is one of the chief constituents of life.
Environmental Down-to-earth politics versus Eco-Ideologies
This is a list of practical steps for environmental care beyond any green ideology. Here are some suggestions as partly found during the October 2007 Swiss Election Campaign, as suggested by my favorite candidate, Josef Jenni, energy planner in Switzerland. Jenni became famous for the first 100% solar powered appartment bloc in Europe in Burgdorf, Switzerland. In his "energy visions for the future", he suggests among other things:
All the above can be achieved by taxes from old engines and heating systems that are no longer energy efficient. A taxation system should be neutral, i.e. all taxes should go into domestic projects such as the above to increase energy efficiency and to promote energy independence from abroad, most particularly independence as much as possible from fossile fuels from the Middle East.
Getting out of Our Comfort Zones
According to a position paper of the EDU party (Federal Democratic Union), a Christian minority party similar to the Evangelical Peoples Party (EVP) of Jenni, ideal climate politics should not be separated from realistic energy politics. It is deceptive to believe that our free society can function with environmentally friendly energies alone, if we are not willing to get out of our comfort zone. Incentive taxes are therefore necessary, but they should be introduced according to the amount of energy used (both for cars and for heating), and according to the pollutants. Moreover, EDU suggests individual accounts for heating and hot water in all appartment blocs. The former is already standard in Switzerland.
With domestic projects such as the above, we will be on the right track even if the climate starts to cool down again for whatever unprecedented reason.
Environmental Down-to-earth politics versus Eco-Ideologies
This is a list of practical steps for environmental care beyond any green ideology. Here are some suggestions as partly found during the October 2007 Swiss Election Campaign, as suggested by my favorite candidate, Josef Jenni, energy planner in Switzerland. Jenni became famous for the first 100% solar powered appartment bloc in Europe in Burgdorf, Switzerland. In his "energy visions for the future", he suggests among other things:
• Electricity from water power. 60% of Swiss electricity is water powered.
• Passive use of solar energy through clever installation of windows.
• Solar panels: ALL YEAR ROUND for hot water and heating; a combination of solar panels and wind energy for the production of electricity.
• Geo-thermal projects to drill heat from the mantle of the earth (3 - 5 kilometers) are fit for the future: In densely populated areas, unlimited heat can be gained from the earth for the production of electricity as well as heating and hot water.
• Industrial and commercial waste heat can be a useful source of energy.
• Use wooden pellets for heating wherever available. The biggest effect can be achieved by means of a good chimney heater with a water cooled heat exchanger.
All the above can be achieved by taxes from old engines and heating systems that are no longer energy efficient. A taxation system should be neutral, i.e. all taxes should go into domestic projects such as the above to increase energy efficiency and to promote energy independence from abroad, most particularly independence as much as possible from fossile fuels from the Middle East.
Getting out of Our Comfort Zones
According to a position paper of the EDU party (Federal Democratic Union), a Christian minority party similar to the Evangelical Peoples Party (EVP) of Jenni, ideal climate politics should not be separated from realistic energy politics. It is deceptive to believe that our free society can function with environmentally friendly energies alone, if we are not willing to get out of our comfort zone. Incentive taxes are therefore necessary, but they should be introduced according to the amount of energy used (both for cars and for heating), and according to the pollutants. Moreover, EDU suggests individual accounts for heating and hot water in all appartment blocs. The former is already standard in Switzerland.
With domestic projects such as the above, we will be on the right track even if the climate starts to cool down again for whatever unprecedented reason.
Oct 7, 2007
New Evidence on Future Climate Variability
Increasing Variability in a Warmer World? The Abstract did not challenge that, the contents did!
Changes in variability and persistence of climate in Switzerland: Exploring 20th century observations and 21st century simulations
Abstract
This paper investigates the shift in variance under conditions of atmospheric warming, under the paradigm that a warmer climate induces greater variability, as has been suggested by a number of other studies. Based upon observational data since 1900 at both a low and a high elevation site in Switzerland it is shown that, at least for these locations, the inter-annual and decadal variability of both maximum and minimum daily temperatures has in fact decreased over the course of the 20th century despite the strong warming that has been observed in the intervening period. The decrease in climate variability is attributed to changes in daily weather conditions as well as these aggregated in weather types, with an observed reduction in the more perturbed weather types and an increase in the weather patterns that exhibit greater persistence, particularly since the 1960s and 1970s. The greater persistence recorded in daily weather conditions associated with more elevated pressure fields helps to explain the decrease in variability during a period where minimum and maximum temperatures have been observed to rise considerably since 1900. An insight into the future behavior of temperature variability in Switzerland, based on the daily results of a regional climate model applied to the IPCC A-2 emissions scenario (a high greenhouse-gas emissions scenario leading to strong climate forcing during the 21st century) suggests that a warmer climate may induce greater variability in maximum temperatures, but also greater persistence beyond selected thresholds; in the case of minimum temperatures, variance remains close to current conditions in the latter part of the 21st century, but the persistence of cold events diminishes substantially, as can be expected in a climate that is estimated by the climate model to warm by about 4°C on average in Switzerland.
Source:
www.sciencedirect.com
Global and Planetary Change, Volume 57, Issues 1-2, May 2007, Page vii
Martin Beniston and Stéphane Goyett.
So this is what the abstract says. You wouldn't probably expect a copy of an intro for a climate change related paper on this blog, which looks into future climate variability in Switzerland, given the scenario of an increase in temperature of 4°C towards the end of the 21st century. In the recent post consensus and sea ice record tandem, a consensus of >0.4°C could be deducted throughout the 21st century, if the current trend of human induced increase in global mean surface temperature continues. Looking from the corner of one's eye at Oreskes' claim that non of the abstracts of a sample of hundreds of peer-reviewed papers challenge the consensus on global warming, one could shrug and say. OK - another paper that does not challenge the consensus position.
Now this is what Beniston and Goyette, 2007, found out:
The team collected daily maximum and minimum temperature records from a low elevation station station (Basel, 300 meters above sea level, my home town) and a high elevation station (Saentis, 2500 meters above seal) from 1901 to 2004. These stations were selected based on their quality, representativeness, and completeness. For each year, they calculated the mean and variance of the daily maximum and minimum temperatures, and they converted the mean and variance values into anomalies based on a 1961-1990 "normal" 30-year period.
They demonstrated that the temperatures at both sites have increased by approximately 2°C over the most recent four decades. However, here comes the surprise. The authors note that whatever the period considered, the variance decreases with increasing temperature. Let's say it again: So the minimum temperatures were less extreme, but the maximum temperatures were also less extreme.
This is contrary to to horror scenarios which suggest that the weather will be more violent with rising temperatures, right? This is why the contrarian 'World Climate Report' picked it up from the newly published science book Global and Planetary Change and posted itand posted it here
Changes in variability and persistence of climate in Switzerland: Exploring 20th century observations and 21st century simulations
Abstract
This paper investigates the shift in variance under conditions of atmospheric warming, under the paradigm that a warmer climate induces greater variability, as has been suggested by a number of other studies. Based upon observational data since 1900 at both a low and a high elevation site in Switzerland it is shown that, at least for these locations, the inter-annual and decadal variability of both maximum and minimum daily temperatures has in fact decreased over the course of the 20th century despite the strong warming that has been observed in the intervening period. The decrease in climate variability is attributed to changes in daily weather conditions as well as these aggregated in weather types, with an observed reduction in the more perturbed weather types and an increase in the weather patterns that exhibit greater persistence, particularly since the 1960s and 1970s. The greater persistence recorded in daily weather conditions associated with more elevated pressure fields helps to explain the decrease in variability during a period where minimum and maximum temperatures have been observed to rise considerably since 1900. An insight into the future behavior of temperature variability in Switzerland, based on the daily results of a regional climate model applied to the IPCC A-2 emissions scenario (a high greenhouse-gas emissions scenario leading to strong climate forcing during the 21st century) suggests that a warmer climate may induce greater variability in maximum temperatures, but also greater persistence beyond selected thresholds; in the case of minimum temperatures, variance remains close to current conditions in the latter part of the 21st century, but the persistence of cold events diminishes substantially, as can be expected in a climate that is estimated by the climate model to warm by about 4°C on average in Switzerland.
Source:
www.sciencedirect.com
Global and Planetary Change, Volume 57, Issues 1-2, May 2007, Page vii
Martin Beniston and Stéphane Goyett.
So this is what the abstract says. You wouldn't probably expect a copy of an intro for a climate change related paper on this blog, which looks into future climate variability in Switzerland, given the scenario of an increase in temperature of 4°C towards the end of the 21st century. In the recent post consensus and sea ice record tandem, a consensus of >0.4°C could be deducted throughout the 21st century, if the current trend of human induced increase in global mean surface temperature continues. Looking from the corner of one's eye at Oreskes' claim that non of the abstracts of a sample of hundreds of peer-reviewed papers challenge the consensus on global warming, one could shrug and say. OK - another paper that does not challenge the consensus position.
Now this is what Beniston and Goyette, 2007, found out:
The team collected daily maximum and minimum temperature records from a low elevation station station (Basel, 300 meters above sea level, my home town) and a high elevation station (Saentis, 2500 meters above seal) from 1901 to 2004. These stations were selected based on their quality, representativeness, and completeness. For each year, they calculated the mean and variance of the daily maximum and minimum temperatures, and they converted the mean and variance values into anomalies based on a 1961-1990 "normal" 30-year period.
They demonstrated that the temperatures at both sites have increased by approximately 2°C over the most recent four decades. However, here comes the surprise. The authors note that whatever the period considered, the variance decreases with increasing temperature. Let's say it again: So the minimum temperatures were less extreme, but the maximum temperatures were also less extreme.
This is contrary to to horror scenarios which suggest that the weather will be more violent with rising temperatures, right? This is why the contrarian 'World Climate Report' picked it up from the newly published science book Global and Planetary Change and posted itand posted it here
Sep 13, 2007
Consensus and Sea Ice Record Tandem
What Consensus?
What kind of consensus is there at present about global warming and its causes? What sources are reliable on this subject?
It makes a big difference whether scientists just agree beyond reasonable doubt that the globe has warmed by about 0.5 C throughout the last 100 years - which would not be alarming per se - or if they see in the accumulating greenhouse gases enough evidence for catastrophic warming of 7 C of global mean surface temperature by the end of the century with such apocalyptic consequences as seen in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". That movie casted reasonable doubts on the existence of a scientific consensus behind it. The answer came pronto with the other famous documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" early this year. So a consensus must be somewhere in between the two movies.
During my search for a source giving evidence to scientific consensus from outside the UN, I stumbled upon a debate around Naomi Oreskes (Ph.D., Stanford, 1990), Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California. She is listed in Who’s Who in America and Who’s Who in Science and Engineering. According to the latest findings in the bloggosphere, Lord Christopher Monckton is said to be behind a recent research "update" on the renown Oreskes paper. Monckton is a former managing editor of The Sunday Telegraph Magazine and is known for his contrarian views on climate change, most particularly for his provoking article "What consensus?" against Science Magazine where Oreskes (Oreskes 2004) proved the authenticity of the UN consensus on climate change (IPCC 2001). Interestingly, the "update" was performed by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, a medical researcher and consultant in endocrine surgery. What's he got to do with climate science? Apparently, Schulte's concern was the well-being of patients who got sick for fear of catastrophic global warming. Thus he wanted to find out by himself if there were a valid scientific reason for this fear(Schultes 2007).
Using the same database (ISI Knowledge of Science) and the same search terms as Oreskes, he examined 528 papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which one of the DailyTech bloggers has obtained a 'pre-publication copy'.
It then appeared in the Dailytech blog as a new study that attempted to reveil that
This was a slap in the face of Naomi Oreskes who continues to be a strong advocate of the consensus position as originally published in Science.
This is the gist of it:
None of Oreskes' sample of 928 abstracts as published in refereed scientific journals disagreed with the consensus position that humans were likely the cause of the warming of the atmosphere as observed throughout the past decades.
Oreskes reinforced her stand on the subject by her recent presentation at the American Meteorological Society where she claimed to be in line with the new UN consensus (IPCC AR4 2007).
Enraged by the Dailytech revelation, Oreskes answered Schultes in what appeared to be an open letter.
Now this is where Tim Lambert, a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales (Australia), comes in. I stumbled upon his blog using the keywords schulte_replies_to_oreskes. Yes, the open-letter-exchange goes on! Lambert is very adebt at scientific analysis and reviews. He made a critical review of two drafts by Schulte and Monckton, which were said to originate from the same source and resulting in the claim that "a growing number of scientists now doubt the consensus position...". Lambert focused on those papers which according to Dailytech explicitly contradicted the consensus position in both Oreskes' and Schultes' update sample from the ISI database. He ended up finding just two out of the 528 newer papers and disqualified the other five findings of Schulte (among those papers published from 2004 to February 2007) as "misclassified". As to Oreskes' original dataset which came out as a "misinterpretation" of Oreskes' 2004, Lambert found hardly any that even attempted to refute the consensus position and NONE (like Oreskes 2004) from the peer-reviewed ones that actually managed to refute that position. Lambert's analysis was then "peer-reviewed" by the blogger community (see comments there below. In my humble opinion, after an imput originating from a commenter from the in-group, the "consensus" of the commenters ended up in the following result:
In fairness to Dr. Schulte, I want to give him the benefit of a doubt regarding his motives and post his original explanation here.
Now, for a layman like me, a consensus regarding an increase in global mean temperature by 0.2 C within 50 years is not alarming per se. It does not seem to require global governance to mitigate its effects. Which effects? This is where the consensus stops and the debate continues. We often hear that the science is settled. Yes, with regard to human activites throughout the past 50 years and "most" of the increase in temperature since. The mainstream scientist community now takes it for granted as much as they do take for granted that in life, evolution by natural selection of the fittest is a non disputable fact (Oreskes 2007). There is just no other scientific explanation available which passed the peer test. That's probably one of the reasons why the discussions about climate change have shifted from the question of the main cause of the warming (antropogenic greenhouse gases) towards how to fix the observed impacts and how to keep our planet a livable place.
Right-wing politicians all over the world now recognized that. Even ExxonMobile admits the evidence of human attribution to the warming of our planet on their website since December last year. About at the same time, they stopped the funding of media effective think tanks which (among many other things) attempted to refute the science behind human induced global warming. These think tanks and their publications, together with their contrarian peers, continue to cast doubts about any consensus among scientists while ExxonMobile has jumped on the global warming bandwagon. Ironically, ExxonMobile now takes advantage of higher oil prices as a result of global warming fears. Is this the reason why we have now a strong advocate of catastrophic global warming among President Bush's political advisers? (See update link: Update of September 14)
What does all this have to do with 'sea ice record tandem' in the title above? Well, there is always two sides of a coin. For instance, it just happened that on our side of the 'ball', Arctic sea ice has just shrunk to a record minimum extent ever since satelite measurements are available. At the same time, at the other side, at the end of the Antarctic winter, we are observing just the opposite. The Antarctic continent is entirely wrapped around by sea ice in early September 2007. Guess what - it has just reached a new maximum!
End of scientific part.
How great are the wonders of this world! Who can understand them?
The heavens keep telling the wonders of God, and the skies declare what he has done. (King David BC in the book of Psalms 19 - CEV
What kind of consensus is there at present about global warming and its causes? What sources are reliable on this subject?
It makes a big difference whether scientists just agree beyond reasonable doubt that the globe has warmed by about 0.5 C throughout the last 100 years - which would not be alarming per se - or if they see in the accumulating greenhouse gases enough evidence for catastrophic warming of 7 C of global mean surface temperature by the end of the century with such apocalyptic consequences as seen in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". That movie casted reasonable doubts on the existence of a scientific consensus behind it. The answer came pronto with the other famous documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" early this year. So a consensus must be somewhere in between the two movies.
During my search for a source giving evidence to scientific consensus from outside the UN, I stumbled upon a debate around Naomi Oreskes (Ph.D., Stanford, 1990), Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California. She is listed in Who’s Who in America and Who’s Who in Science and Engineering. According to the latest findings in the bloggosphere, Lord Christopher Monckton is said to be behind a recent research "update" on the renown Oreskes paper. Monckton is a former managing editor of The Sunday Telegraph Magazine and is known for his contrarian views on climate change, most particularly for his provoking article "What consensus?" against Science Magazine where Oreskes (Oreskes 2004) proved the authenticity of the UN consensus on climate change (IPCC 2001). Interestingly, the "update" was performed by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, a medical researcher and consultant in endocrine surgery. What's he got to do with climate science? Apparently, Schulte's concern was the well-being of patients who got sick for fear of catastrophic global warming. Thus he wanted to find out by himself if there were a valid scientific reason for this fear(Schultes 2007).
Using the same database (ISI Knowledge of Science) and the same search terms as Oreskes, he examined 528 papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which one of the DailyTech bloggers has obtained a 'pre-publication copy'.
It then appeared in the Dailytech blog as a new study that attempted to reveil that
a growing number of scientists(6%) now explicitly doubt the consensus position as portraited by the UN panel on climate change.
This was a slap in the face of Naomi Oreskes who continues to be a strong advocate of the consensus position as originally published in Science.
This is the gist of it:
None of Oreskes' sample of 928 abstracts as published in refereed scientific journals disagreed with the consensus position that humans were likely the cause of the warming of the atmosphere as observed throughout the past decades.
Oreskes reinforced her stand on the subject by her recent presentation at the American Meteorological Society where she claimed to be in line with the new UN consensus (IPCC AR4 2007).
Enraged by the Dailytech revelation, Oreskes answered Schultes in what appeared to be an open letter.
Now this is where Tim Lambert, a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales (Australia), comes in. I stumbled upon his blog using the keywords schulte_replies_to_oreskes. Yes, the open-letter-exchange goes on! Lambert is very adebt at scientific analysis and reviews. He made a critical review of two drafts by Schulte and Monckton, which were said to originate from the same source and resulting in the claim that "a growing number of scientists now doubt the consensus position...". Lambert focused on those papers which according to Dailytech explicitly contradicted the consensus position in both Oreskes' and Schultes' update sample from the ISI database. He ended up finding just two out of the 528 newer papers and disqualified the other five findings of Schulte (among those papers published from 2004 to February 2007) as "misclassified". As to Oreskes' original dataset which came out as a "misinterpretation" of Oreskes' 2004, Lambert found hardly any that even attempted to refute the consensus position and NONE (like Oreskes 2004) from the peer-reviewed ones that actually managed to refute that position. Lambert's analysis was then "peer-reviewed" by the blogger community (see comments there below. In my humble opinion, after an imput originating from a commenter from the in-group, the "consensus" of the commenters ended up in the following result:
Out of 1467 abstracts on the subject "climate change" (taking into account both datasets) 1463 endorsed or appeared not to challenge the hypothesis that human attribution to the rise in temperature of the second half of the last century was > 0.2 C.
In fairness to Dr. Schulte, I want to give him the benefit of a doubt regarding his motives and post his original explanation here.
Now, for a layman like me, a consensus regarding an increase in global mean temperature by 0.2 C within 50 years is not alarming per se. It does not seem to require global governance to mitigate its effects. Which effects? This is where the consensus stops and the debate continues. We often hear that the science is settled. Yes, with regard to human activites throughout the past 50 years and "most" of the increase in temperature since. The mainstream scientist community now takes it for granted as much as they do take for granted that in life, evolution by natural selection of the fittest is a non disputable fact (Oreskes 2007). There is just no other scientific explanation available which passed the peer test. That's probably one of the reasons why the discussions about climate change have shifted from the question of the main cause of the warming (antropogenic greenhouse gases) towards how to fix the observed impacts and how to keep our planet a livable place.
Right-wing politicians all over the world now recognized that. Even ExxonMobile admits the evidence of human attribution to the warming of our planet on their website since December last year. About at the same time, they stopped the funding of media effective think tanks which (among many other things) attempted to refute the science behind human induced global warming. These think tanks and their publications, together with their contrarian peers, continue to cast doubts about any consensus among scientists while ExxonMobile has jumped on the global warming bandwagon. Ironically, ExxonMobile now takes advantage of higher oil prices as a result of global warming fears. Is this the reason why we have now a strong advocate of catastrophic global warming among President Bush's political advisers? (See update link: Update of September 14)
What does all this have to do with 'sea ice record tandem' in the title above? Well, there is always two sides of a coin. For instance, it just happened that on our side of the 'ball', Arctic sea ice has just shrunk to a record minimum extent ever since satelite measurements are available. At the same time, at the other side, at the end of the Antarctic winter, we are observing just the opposite. The Antarctic continent is entirely wrapped around by sea ice in early September 2007. Guess what - it has just reached a new maximum!
End of scientific part.
How great are the wonders of this world! Who can understand them?
The heavens keep telling the wonders of God, and the skies declare what he has done. (King David BC in the book of Psalms 19 - CEV
Sep 10, 2007
Die Fakten von der Propaganda trennen
Vor Kurzem traf ich im Bahnhof ein Werbeteam von Caritas Schweiz. Ich legte mir meine Antwort zurecht. - Also erstens gibt es so viele gute Projekte, sei es christlich, humanitär, ökologisch oder ein Gesamtpaket davon - die ich gerne unterstützen würde wenn ich das entsprechende Budget hätte. Das entgegnete ich der jungen Frau. Aber ich konnte es nicht verkneifen, auch etwas über meine Bedenken zu äussern in Bezug auf die Art und Weise wie Caritas den Klimawandel als Propagandamittel benutzt für Spenden nach Darfur. Damit dies klar ist - Caritas engagiert sich bestimmt sehr gut für jene Flüchtlinge. Der Sahel ist eine Zone die sehr empfindlich gegenüber Klimaschwankungen reagiert. Da gibt es kein Zweifel. Die Region wird aber noch empfindlicher vom laufenden Bürgerkrieg getroffen. Persönlich kann ich die Unterstützung dieser Ärmsten durch Christian Solidarity International CSI empfehlen.
Es geht mir um etwas anderes. Wir sollten bei der Wahrheit bleiben, wenn wir lautere Werbung für Spenden machen wollen. Tatsache ist, dass Darfur kaum ein Thema war während der schlimmsten Dürre während den achtziger Jahren. Seit dieser Trockenzeit hat sich die Durchschnittstemperatur der Erdoberfläche ständig erhöht. Die CO2 Konzentration erhöhte sich. Während des immer noch wütenden Bürgerkriegs haben die saisonalen Regenfälle um das Darfur Camp herum und im Sudan generell zugenommen und ebenfalls das Pflanzenwachstumauch, wenn man dem Center for the Study Carbon Dioxide & Global Change mit der Webseite CO2 Science" oder anderen Quellen vertraut. Wem soll ich denn glauben? Etwa Caritas die behaupten dass eine Steigerung der Temperatur zu weniger Regen und Nahrung im Sudan führen soll? Kürzliche Berichte lassen genau das Gegenteil vermuten. Es gab verbreitet Überschwemmungen im Sudan dieses Jahr. Wir sollten einfach zugeben, dass wir die Folge von mehr CO2 in der Atmosphäre für die Sahel Zone im Speziellen nicht voraussehen können, so etwa war meine Antwort. Die junge Frau von Caritas reagierte sehr nett und verständnisvoll. Gott segne sie!
Es geht mir um etwas anderes. Wir sollten bei der Wahrheit bleiben, wenn wir lautere Werbung für Spenden machen wollen. Tatsache ist, dass Darfur kaum ein Thema war während der schlimmsten Dürre während den achtziger Jahren. Seit dieser Trockenzeit hat sich die Durchschnittstemperatur der Erdoberfläche ständig erhöht. Die CO2 Konzentration erhöhte sich. Während des immer noch wütenden Bürgerkriegs haben die saisonalen Regenfälle um das Darfur Camp herum und im Sudan generell zugenommen und ebenfalls das Pflanzenwachstumauch, wenn man dem Center for the Study Carbon Dioxide & Global Change mit der Webseite CO2 Science" oder anderen Quellen vertraut. Wem soll ich denn glauben? Etwa Caritas die behaupten dass eine Steigerung der Temperatur zu weniger Regen und Nahrung im Sudan führen soll? Kürzliche Berichte lassen genau das Gegenteil vermuten. Es gab verbreitet Überschwemmungen im Sudan dieses Jahr. Wir sollten einfach zugeben, dass wir die Folge von mehr CO2 in der Atmosphäre für die Sahel Zone im Speziellen nicht voraussehen können, so etwa war meine Antwort. Die junge Frau von Caritas reagierte sehr nett und verständnisvoll. Gott segne sie!
Sep 6, 2007
The Science is Settled in Switzerland
There is no doubt that climate has changed dramatically in Switzerland during the past decades. 2003 was a freakin' hot summer and 2006 was the hottest year on record. Glaciers melt at record speed. No wonder you'll probably have a hard time to interview a climate scientist here who calls himself a global warming skeptic.
The first national climate forum was held in Switzerland today. Since the science on climate change is settled in this country, "big steps" are to be taken according to organizer Peter Staehli (to Baz Online). The climate forum offered a platform to various groups in politics, economy and science to seek solutions for energy and climate protection issues. 13 Universities were represented in the so-called "NFS Klima" (national climate research). The University of Berne and the faculty of Professor Thomas Stocker, ice core researcher and final editor in the IPCC reports, were represented as the scientific head during this forum, whereas Bundesrat (minister) Samuel Schmid took part as the political head. Stocker predicted a rise in temperature of about 5°C as seen later in the news on Swiss TV channel SF1. But Schmid pleaded for just small steps, no big activism to try to save the planet in one go, as he said.
The climate alarmists prevail in Switzerland whatsoever. They fear impacts in tourism, safety and agriculture, with glaciers as water reserves melting, rocks crumbling, mud sliding, ski resorts closing and the town of Lyss being flooded for the 3rd time within 3 months. Aren't we biased regarding global warming?! No wonder, international calibers were present such as the German minister Klaus Toepfer and of course AL GORE! Well actually, the former U.S. Vice-President has just improved his personal eco-balance. He visited Switzerland by video this time.
The first national climate forum was held in Switzerland today. Since the science on climate change is settled in this country, "big steps" are to be taken according to organizer Peter Staehli (to Baz Online). The climate forum offered a platform to various groups in politics, economy and science to seek solutions for energy and climate protection issues. 13 Universities were represented in the so-called "NFS Klima" (national climate research). The University of Berne and the faculty of Professor Thomas Stocker, ice core researcher and final editor in the IPCC reports, were represented as the scientific head during this forum, whereas Bundesrat (minister) Samuel Schmid took part as the political head. Stocker predicted a rise in temperature of about 5°C as seen later in the news on Swiss TV channel SF1. But Schmid pleaded for just small steps, no big activism to try to save the planet in one go, as he said.
The climate alarmists prevail in Switzerland whatsoever. They fear impacts in tourism, safety and agriculture, with glaciers as water reserves melting, rocks crumbling, mud sliding, ski resorts closing and the town of Lyss being flooded for the 3rd time within 3 months. Aren't we biased regarding global warming?! No wonder, international calibers were present such as the German minister Klaus Toepfer and of course AL GORE! Well actually, the former U.S. Vice-President has just improved his personal eco-balance. He visited Switzerland by video this time.
Sep 1, 2007
Religious War over Global Warming
Source:
warwickhughes.com
For over a decade the IPCC has published global temperature trends distorted by purely local warmth from Urban Heat Islands (UHI's).
This is not the statement of just another global warming sceptic blog. It is the conclusion according to a paper published online by Warwick Hughes, a freelance earth scientist from Australia.
Urban Heat Islands (UHI)
In the above map, the areas with significant warming throughout the last hundred years show a large red dot. The larger the red dot, the more regional warming has occurred on the respective station. The big cities on the U.S. East coast show significant warming. Around Greenland, blue (cooling) dots are close to red dots. In Russia, Central Asia and China, large areas show warming of up to 4 degrees C. Very few stations measure sea surface temperatures and hardly any are located in the hot and cold deserts of this planet.
So where is the warming? Mostly over growing heat islands which were supposedly taken into account when calculating the adjusted global temperature record. Hughes' paper focuses on Russian datasets which lack credibility in his opinion. Hughes is not the only one who questions the claims of Jones et al. and Hansen et al. that growing urban heat islands have been taken account of completely in the global avarage temperature history. Namely the U.S. datasets were corrected recently just because a blogger had proven that there were inconsistencies, (e.g. the temperature of one particular station was flawed by used air from a huge newly built airconditioning system. A picture of this station went around the world with mocking comments). Since said blogger, Steven McIntyre, found out that 1998 is no longer the hottest year in the United States but 1934 is, those of us who doubt the magnitude of CO2 induced global warming should no longer feel persecuted as "deniers". Although GISS NASA boss James E. Hansen, who has become increasingly political (understatement) as a scientist, may still roar like a lion towards "deniers", they are in good company now since more and more scientists join the bandwagon of AGW sceptics.
What about the Chinese datasets? Like many other scientists, statistician McIntyre doubts the credibility of the heated up red dots in China (see above grid) and has already digged deeper there. Douglas J. Keenan, another mathematical researcher meanwhile has published a report entitled Wey-Chyung Wang fabricated some scientific claims. Again, it is all about growing UHI's. And - look at that!! He joined forces with Hughes and McIntyre questioning the data used in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
Conclusion
There are voices like this: Hey, what if it turns out that all our efforts to lower the world's average temperature are good for nothing? So what? Are all these efforts like carbon trading schemes, carbon taxes and new renewable energy sources not beneficial to the environment whatsoever? Well personally, I am still convinced that only the truth and nothing but the truth will set us free, no manipulation please! Let us simply be good stewards of our resources even if the world starts to cool down again. This would not come so much as a surprise to me...
Aug 25, 2007
Separating Facts from Propaganda
Recently, I met a fundrasing team from Caritas Switzerland. I had my answer (or excuse) ready. Well, for one thing there are so many good projects - Christian, humanitarian, ecological or a package deal of them all - which I would like to support if only I had the budget. So I told the lady that. But I also took the chance to vent out some of my concern about how Caritas uses climate propaganda to justify the support of Darfur. Let me put this straight. Caritas is doing a great job to help those refuges. The Sahel is a zone sensitive to climate change of any kind, no doubt about that. But it is even more sensitive to the ongoing civil war. Personally, I would recommend the support through CSI. My point is to just stick to the truth when raising funds. Fact is that Darfur was not the main topic during the worst drought in the eighties. Since that drought, the world's temperatures kept rising. The CO2 level went up. During the present civil war around the Darfur camp and in Sudan in general, the seasonal rains have increased and the plant growth has accelerated according to CO2 Science. So whom should I believe? Caritas who claims that the increase in global temperature will lead to less rain and food in the Sudan-Sahel? Recent news suggested just the opposite. There was widespread flooding in Sudan this year. So we simply don't know the effect on more carbon hydrate in the atmosphere on the Sahelian zone in particular, so I replied. Period. The lady was nice and understanding. God bless her.
We don't even know for sure how much the influence of the sun and cosmic rays are on our planet, cloud formation, sea surface and land surface temperature. There is ongoing research in various fields. For more information click Science Direct
We don't even know for sure how much the influence of the sun and cosmic rays are on our planet, cloud formation, sea surface and land surface temperature. There is ongoing research in various fields. For more information click Science Direct
Aug 16, 2007
UNO Klimaprozess - Monopol für künftige Verhandlungen
Das christliche Magazin in der Schweiz factum veröffentlichte unter dem Titel 'Zwischen Hysterie und Hybris' seine Einschätzung: Die Klimadebatte sei bestens dazu geeignet, Menschen unabhängig von deren politischen Überzeugungen und persönlichen Interessen anzusprechen. Da scheint es einen nie dagewesenen Konsens zwischen Völkern und allerlei Gruppierungen zu geben. Werden nun Greenpeace, Sozialisten, Liberale und Konservative zusammen stehen, um gegen eine ganze Menge heisser Luft zu kämpfen?
Etwas später, aber immer noch vor dem G8-Gipfeltreffen in Heiligendamm, Deutschland, schrieb Rolf Höneisen über die Gefahr dass unzählige Forschungsprogramme von einem rein materialistischen, atheistischen Standpunkt aus ausgewertet werden könnten. Höneisen sieht nicht nur voraus, wie Marktteilnehmer die geschürten Ängste dazu ausnutzen könnten, mit neuen klimafreundlichen Produkten eine Stange Geld zu machen. Nein, die konzertierten Massnahmen könnten sogar in eine Ökodiktatur münden, schreibt er in seinem 'Factum'-Artikel.
Da scheint Höneisen den Nagel auf den Kopf getroffen zu haben, denn wir sind auf dem besten Weg dazu. Die Weichen wurden am 7. Juni 2007 gestellt, in der folgenden Erklärung aus dem G8-Gipfeltreffen unter dem Titel (übersetzt aus dem Englischen)
'WACHSTUM UND VERANTWORTUNG IN DER WELTWIRTSCHAFT'
Mit deren Unterschrift unter obige Erklärung haben die USA ihren ursprünglichen Plan fallen gelassen, den UNO-Prozess über den Klimawandel zu unterminieren. Dies sieht jetzt ganz nach einem weiteren Baustein für die neue Weltregierung aus.
Etwas später, aber immer noch vor dem G8-Gipfeltreffen in Heiligendamm, Deutschland, schrieb Rolf Höneisen über die Gefahr dass unzählige Forschungsprogramme von einem rein materialistischen, atheistischen Standpunkt aus ausgewertet werden könnten. Höneisen sieht nicht nur voraus, wie Marktteilnehmer die geschürten Ängste dazu ausnutzen könnten, mit neuen klimafreundlichen Produkten eine Stange Geld zu machen. Nein, die konzertierten Massnahmen könnten sogar in eine Ökodiktatur münden, schreibt er in seinem 'Factum'-Artikel.
Da scheint Höneisen den Nagel auf den Kopf getroffen zu haben, denn wir sind auf dem besten Weg dazu. Die Weichen wurden am 7. Juni 2007 gestellt, in der folgenden Erklärung aus dem G8-Gipfeltreffen unter dem Titel (übersetzt aus dem Englischen)
'WACHSTUM UND VERANTWORTUNG IN DER WELTWIRTSCHAFT'
Wir anerkennen, dass der UNO-Klimaprozess der geeignete Weg ist, um künftige globale Massnahmen gegen die Klimaerwärmung zu beschliessen. Wir schreiten in diesem Forum voran und appellieren an alle Teilnehmer, aktiv und konstruktiv an der UNO-Klimakonferenz in Indonesien im Dezember 2007 mit der Absicht teilzunehmen, eine umfassende Nach-2012-Vereinbarung (Nach-Kyoto-Protokoll) zu verabschieden, welches alle hauptsächlichen Emittenten einschliessen soll.
Mit deren Unterschrift unter obige Erklärung haben die USA ihren ursprünglichen Plan fallen gelassen, den UNO-Prozess über den Klimawandel zu unterminieren. Dies sieht jetzt ganz nach einem weiteren Baustein für die neue Weltregierung aus.
Aug 11, 2007
UN Climate Process - Monopoly for Future Negotiations?
Swiss Christian magazine factum had published under the title 'Between Hysteria and Hubris' its estimation about how the climate debate is most suitable to address people no matter what their convictions or points of interest are. There seems to be a consensus like never before. Will Greenpeace, Socialists, Liberals and Conservatives unite themselves to fight a lot of hot air?
Lateron, but still before the G8 Summit in Germany, Rolf Hoeneisen wrote about a big danger of countless research programs being evaluated from a materialistic (and atheist) point of view. As a result, the action plans in the area of climate protection could politically mutate into Eco-Fascism. At the same time, the economic participants will take advantage of the situation to earn a lot of money with new products to curb the problems.
Hoeneisen hits the nail on the head because the above is already happening. This is an extract of G8 Summit Declaration (7 June 2007) under the title
'GROWTH AND RESPONSIBILITY IN THE WORLD ECONOMY'
By putting their signature under this declaration, the U.S. backed off from their original plan to undermine the UN process on climate change. Seems like this is another brick in the wall of the New World Government.
Lateron, but still before the G8 Summit in Germany, Rolf Hoeneisen wrote about a big danger of countless research programs being evaluated from a materialistic (and atheist) point of view. As a result, the action plans in the area of climate protection could politically mutate into Eco-Fascism. At the same time, the economic participants will take advantage of the situation to earn a lot of money with new products to curb the problems.
Hoeneisen hits the nail on the head because the above is already happening. This is an extract of G8 Summit Declaration (7 June 2007) under the title
'GROWTH AND RESPONSIBILITY IN THE WORLD ECONOMY'
We acknowledge that the UN climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change. We are committed to moving forward in that forum and call on all parties to actively and constructively participate in the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia in December 2007 with a view to achieving a comprehensive post 2012-agreement (post Kyoto-agreement) that should include all major emitters.
By putting their signature under this declaration, the U.S. backed off from their original plan to undermine the UN process on climate change. Seems like this is another brick in the wall of the New World Government.
Aug 5, 2007
Zeitgeist Klimaerwärmung
Climate Change - Article in English
Während Klimadebatten für Kontroversen in Amerika's Kirchen sorgen, hegen Christen in der Schweiz keine Zweifel am Sündenbock für die Klimaerwärmung, so scheint es zu mindest heute.
Während des 1. Christlichen Klimaforums der Schweiz in Aarau am 2. Juni 2007, bezeichnete Professor Thomas Stocker von der Universität Bern, als einer der führenden Klimaforscher, der wesentlich zum 4. Sachverständigenbericht des Weltklimarates IPCC beitrug, die Ursache der Klimaerwärmung als eine "nicht widerlegbare wissenschaftliche Erkenntnis". Peter Hennig, Rektor am Theologischen Seminar (TDS) in Aarau doppelte gemäss den 'Schaffhauser Nachrichten' nach: "Diese Erkenntnisse müssen mit grossem Respekt zur Kenntnis genommen werden."
Man schien sich mehr als nur über die simple Erkenntnis der Klimaänderung und deren menschlichen Beitrag einig zu sein, sondern auch über gewisse sozio-ökonomische Horrorszenarien, wie sie während des Forums präsentiert wurden.
"250-550 Millionen zusätzliche Leute werden an Hunger als Resultat der Klimaveränderung leiden", erläuterte Gerhard Bärtschi vom 'Tear Fund'. Nach seinen nicht in Frage gestellten Ausführungen wusste ein Geschäftsmann und Lobyist für Umwelttechnologien in seiner anschliessenden Präsentation gleich die richtige Medizin dagegen.
Ein Beobachter einer christlichen politischen Partei hatte im Nachhinein den Eindruck, dass es keine ernsthafte Debatte gab und es kaum Platz für kritische Fragen gab. Die Folgerungen waren für ihn zu geschmeidig aneinander gereiht.
Aber halt: Es gibt hier zu Lande zumindest zwei christliche Magazine, welche dieses grün eingefärbte Evangelium hinterfragen. Was wäre wenn all dieser durch die Schirmherrschaft der Uno und der G8-Staaten verbreitete Aktivismus um die (zumindest politisch) aufgeheizte Atmosphäre am Ende die Lage nur verschlimmern würde? Bitte lesen Sie nächste Woche weiter.
Während Klimadebatten für Kontroversen in Amerika's Kirchen sorgen, hegen Christen in der Schweiz keine Zweifel am Sündenbock für die Klimaerwärmung, so scheint es zu mindest heute.
Während des 1. Christlichen Klimaforums der Schweiz in Aarau am 2. Juni 2007, bezeichnete Professor Thomas Stocker von der Universität Bern, als einer der führenden Klimaforscher, der wesentlich zum 4. Sachverständigenbericht des Weltklimarates IPCC beitrug, die Ursache der Klimaerwärmung als eine "nicht widerlegbare wissenschaftliche Erkenntnis". Peter Hennig, Rektor am Theologischen Seminar (TDS) in Aarau doppelte gemäss den 'Schaffhauser Nachrichten' nach: "Diese Erkenntnisse müssen mit grossem Respekt zur Kenntnis genommen werden."
Man schien sich mehr als nur über die simple Erkenntnis der Klimaänderung und deren menschlichen Beitrag einig zu sein, sondern auch über gewisse sozio-ökonomische Horrorszenarien, wie sie während des Forums präsentiert wurden.
"250-550 Millionen zusätzliche Leute werden an Hunger als Resultat der Klimaveränderung leiden", erläuterte Gerhard Bärtschi vom 'Tear Fund'. Nach seinen nicht in Frage gestellten Ausführungen wusste ein Geschäftsmann und Lobyist für Umwelttechnologien in seiner anschliessenden Präsentation gleich die richtige Medizin dagegen.
Ein Beobachter einer christlichen politischen Partei hatte im Nachhinein den Eindruck, dass es keine ernsthafte Debatte gab und es kaum Platz für kritische Fragen gab. Die Folgerungen waren für ihn zu geschmeidig aneinander gereiht.
Aber halt: Es gibt hier zu Lande zumindest zwei christliche Magazine, welche dieses grün eingefärbte Evangelium hinterfragen. Was wäre wenn all dieser durch die Schirmherrschaft der Uno und der G8-Staaten verbreitete Aktivismus um die (zumindest politisch) aufgeheizte Atmosphäre am Ende die Lage nur verschlimmern würde? Bitte lesen Sie nächste Woche weiter.
Aug 1, 2007
Zeitgeist Climate Change
While climate debates have caused controversy in America's churches, Swiss Christians don't question the culprit of climate change, at least for now.
During the 1st Christian Climate Forum of Switzerland, held in Aarau on June 2, 2007, Professor Thomas Stocker of the University of Berne, Switzerland, one of the key climate researchers contributing to the 4th Assessment Report of the Intergovernal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), described the cause of climate change as a "non disputable scientific insight". "These insights have to be acknowledged with great respect", said Peter Hennig, Headmaster at the Theological Seminary (TDS) in Aarau, according to the daily newspaper "Schaffhauser Nachrichten". There not only seemed to be unity on a simple evidence of climate change and its human contribution, but even unity to accept the global socio-economic horror scenarios as portrayed during the forum. "250 to 550 Millions of additional people will suffer from a lack of food as a result of this climate change", declared Gerhard Baertschi, Tear Fund. After his non disputed speach, a Swiss businessman and advocate for environmental technologies knew the right medicine already. Bottomline, there was no serious debate, any critical questions raised where not given room for further clarification. The whole event ended up being so smooth - in the analysis of the impacts of climate change as well as in the actions that should be taken to solve it, according to an observer of a christian political party.
Wait a minute, there are at least two christian magazines which try to see beyond this green-shaded Gospel. Could all the worldwide efforts to solve climate change that are now spreading as U.N. and G8 induced umbrella action plans over the heated atmosphere (at least politically) finally make things worse? Please read more here.
During the 1st Christian Climate Forum of Switzerland, held in Aarau on June 2, 2007, Professor Thomas Stocker of the University of Berne, Switzerland, one of the key climate researchers contributing to the 4th Assessment Report of the Intergovernal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), described the cause of climate change as a "non disputable scientific insight". "These insights have to be acknowledged with great respect", said Peter Hennig, Headmaster at the Theological Seminary (TDS) in Aarau, according to the daily newspaper "Schaffhauser Nachrichten". There not only seemed to be unity on a simple evidence of climate change and its human contribution, but even unity to accept the global socio-economic horror scenarios as portrayed during the forum. "250 to 550 Millions of additional people will suffer from a lack of food as a result of this climate change", declared Gerhard Baertschi, Tear Fund. After his non disputed speach, a Swiss businessman and advocate for environmental technologies knew the right medicine already. Bottomline, there was no serious debate, any critical questions raised where not given room for further clarification. The whole event ended up being so smooth - in the analysis of the impacts of climate change as well as in the actions that should be taken to solve it, according to an observer of a christian political party.
Wait a minute, there are at least two christian magazines which try to see beyond this green-shaded Gospel. Could all the worldwide efforts to solve climate change that are now spreading as U.N. and G8 induced umbrella action plans over the heated atmosphere (at least politically) finally make things worse? Please read more here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
blog action day
