tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post7610959714034672209..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: Jones interview with BBCeduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-72670882700838080342010-02-19T13:57:03.807+01:002010-02-19T13:57:03.807+01:00@reiner
you answered with a quote from Prof. Bob ...@reiner<br /><br />you answered with a quote from Prof. Bob Watson. But the Times story seem to be dishonest again. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/now_its_timesgate.php Hm, the truth is not a simple thing.<br /><br />I observed in the past that "skeptics" never answered with facts when I asked, only with quotes, insinuations, and general blah. On the hand, if I asked in scientific blogs, I got real replies. May be, this view is a bit biased, but in the rough picture it shows my personal experience. Therefore, I am upset about quote mining. <br /><br />please accept my apologies, I must learn to be more polite, I am sorry.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334327604965943036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-11493734651108218672010-02-18T14:09:57.147+01:002010-02-18T14:09:57.147+01:00Ghost
which of Georg's questions do you mean? ...Ghost<br />which of Georg's questions do you mean? I think I answered them above.<br /><br />It would help the quality of this blog if you could stop using words like 'slimy discussion style', 'your general blah blah' etc. A bit more maturity and politeness. We mention netiquette on the sidebar. Maybe it is not clear why we do this, so I shall give a brief explanation: when the style becomes agressive people will respond with accrodingly thus leading to spiral. Or they prefer to ignore you. Either way is not good. Agreed?@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-6782052650099563012010-02-18T14:04:57.085+01:002010-02-18T14:04:57.085+01:00"Where is the alarmistic tone in the IPCC rep..."Where is the alarmistic tone in the IPCC report? " Lemme see... <br /><br />"Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."<br /><br />or <br /><br />“By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised.” <br /><br />Want more?itisi69https://www.blogger.com/profile/00601918913188476920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-6867257875549996242010-02-18T11:08:16.639+01:002010-02-18T11:08:16.639+01:00@itsibitsiteenyweeny
hm, you said: 40% more since ...@itsibitsiteenyweeny<br />hm, you said: 40% more since 1980. And as proof you give a comparison of two points? Are you serious? Nice work. Well done, top notch. You cannot do this. It is pretty wrong because you are comparing noise. You could compute linear trend line, at least. That would be a minimum. my link gave you this for free.<br /><br />@Reiner<br /><br />yes I am upset because I do not like misquotations and lies. And the facts are: Daily Mail lied and Akerman lied. So, why can you not say: oh, maybe they were a little bit dishonest because they have a political agenda? (at least, Akerman had, because it was a political column) Instead you looking for another quote. That is dishonest and a slimy discussion "style".<br /><br />Anyway, you did not answer Georgs question. Give details, Mi Jung, give details. Where is the alarmistic tone in the IPCC report? Not your usual general blah, blah,please. Do you really claim Prof Georg Kaser is an alarmist? He is a co-author of the Copenhagen analysis. Explain it, please.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334327604965943036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-82489021302220912442010-02-18T10:04:18.911+01:002010-02-18T10:04:18.911+01:00"did you just seriously compare two time poin..."did you just seriously compare two time points?"<br /><br />I'm using the same website as you did in your original Arctic message. Are you blaming me for that??itisi69https://www.blogger.com/profile/00601918913188476920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-52293170746198722802010-02-17T22:39:33.335+01:002010-02-17T22:39:33.335+01:00@itisi69:
did you just seriously compare two time ...@itisi69:<br />did you just seriously compare two time points? Read this paper, and then get back to me with your 40%:<br />http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JC004564.shtml<br /><br />And please do get back to me on the *land* ice on Antarctica:<br />http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml<br />(guess where it is going).Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-31931340531058672872010-02-17T22:28:25.781+01:002010-02-17T22:28:25.781+01:00@Tobias W: nice that you forget all the physical s...@Tobias W: nice that you forget all the physical science we know. It's quite simple: we *need* to use the radiative forcing of additional CO2 to explain the warming. Without it, we can't. The radiative forcing of CO2 is basic physics. Unless you wish to deny the existence of the greenhouse effect...<br /><br />That people don't really want to do something about it doesn't change the science. We've seen such examples plenty of time in the past.Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-18548607443919432272010-02-17T22:01:55.989+01:002010-02-17T22:01:55.989+01:00"Please provide a reference to your claim.&qu..."Please provide a reference to your claim."<br /><br />From NSIDC - Co.:<br /><br />03-1980 (3.5 Mio sq km) : ftp://sidads.colorado.edu//DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Mar/S_198003_extn.png<br />03-2009 (5.0 Mio sq km) : ftp://sidads.colorado.edu//DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Mar/S_200903_extn.pngitisi69https://www.blogger.com/profile/00601918913188476920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-90584562779969418592010-02-17T20:59:25.059+01:002010-02-17T20:59:25.059+01:00Marco:
Jeeez, you crack me up! Michael Oppenheimer...Marco:<br />Jeeez, you crack me up! Michael Oppenheimer is still a liar by the way, and the fact that it's warming at equal pace to other rises in temperature in the past makes me feel pretty assured that I will live forever, no matter what.<br /><br />And by the way, the only thing that is being proven by the fact that climate scientists can't explain the warming since 1950, is that they don't know any other answer, not that the answer given is correct. I don't know any other answer to B, so it must be A. Sorry, but that just won't wash. Anyhow it wouldn't even matter if it did, because we (in the west) are not prepared to stop our way of life, and the people in the third world will never wan't anything less then what we have, and they really don't care what we think of that. That really is undisputable, and no green treehugging scarecrow is ever going to be able to do anything about that. Sorry!Tobias Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-1579667657643099482010-02-17T16:33:52.407+01:002010-02-17T16:33:52.407+01:00@Tobias W, I'm glad you already added your own...@Tobias W, I'm glad you already added your own qualification to your claims. The natural variability that you refer to (Solomon et al) is a *cooling* forcing at the moment. Are we now to believe that it has been a *warming* forcing for, oh, say 30 years prior, without any evidence? Also note that it refers to stratospheric water, which is completely different from the expected trend in *tropospheric* water content. <br /><br />That you learned in school that the tropical hotspot was solely related to AGW is a failure of your educators. It's not. It's a feature of warming. The 'AGW' fingerprint is a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere. And lo' and behold, this is what is observed!<br /><br />Your reference to the Frank et al article shows again that you get your information in all the wrong places. The amount of feedback amplification from CO2 is rather low compared to the actual decadal anthropogenic contribution to CO2. That is, the CO2 feedback amplification expected from AGW may be up to 80% lower (depending on the model), but that does not mean warming may be much lower. It's max 80% of a maybe 10-20% contribution to warming. And please tell us which climate models have this amplification in their modeling and are thus wrong.<br /><br />Finally, if you claim winter arctic ice has hardly decreased, I really wonder where you get your info. It is also significantly down (10% over three decades). And that's sea ice extent. Volume is even more reduced.Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-17298445255424319062010-02-17T14:49:13.303+01:002010-02-17T14:49:13.303+01:00marco:
Here's an internal natural variability...marco:<br /><br />Here's an internal natural variability that the climatologists can't understand the causality behind, and which reduces the temperatures of the earth:<br /><br />http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488<br /><br />So when the surface temperature measurements shows this was the warmest decade on record (even though it has been getting cooler), and the modells say that should lead to more water vapor and therefore more warming, it actually reduces the water vapors, which in turn reduces the temperature. This shows the modells are wrong. Wow, an internal natural variability not known by the scientists - who would have known... By the way this proves that your assertion "And while we may not know any and all natural forcings, all those we *do* know point downwards" is wrong. Or does it not?<br /><br />And now that we are at it:<br />http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/abs/nature08769.html<br /><br />Wow, constraints on the climate sensitivity of the atmosphere which suggest 80% less potential amplification of ongoing global warming than the climate modells projections. But, but, this means the modells are wrong... Who would have known? And here I was thinking the science was settled!<br /><br />And as to the arctic sea ice I said: "with a very slight reduction in winter ice." That is the most important, since it regains almost all the ice lost during the "unstable" summers. And if you take in the regained winter ice extent of the last two winters it's quite close to where the records started in 1900 on the chart. Therefore not 20% lost, since almost all is regained. And as to the ice free antarctic of the 1930s, well let's just say that I "spiced" it up a little - like your green friends claiming the warm winds over Vancouver is due to anthropogenic global warming. But certainly there are interesting reports of the 1930s arctic being warmer than today:<br /><br />http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442(2003)016%3C2067:VATOAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1 Quote: "In contrast to the global and hemispheric temperature, the maritime Arctic temperature was higher in the late 1930s through the early 1940s than in the 1990s."<br />Who wuold have known?<br /><br />Regarding hotspots it was even taught in schools when I grew up, that's how settled the science was, that if there was anthropogenic global warming there would be hotspots in the atmosphere over the tropics. The "Teams" avoidance of this fact and their revisionism is quite astounding, even coming from them. And if there are no hotspots would it really invalidate the satellite measurements? It's not untill after they are calibrated against the surface temperatures that they show warming. Or am I wrong?<br /><br />So, Marco, I would say that I live on planet earth were all is well, and you, well... you live on planet "Greenie Kaos" where every disaster known to man is, well, caused by man. But you can allways take comfort in the fact that if you're right I will die a horrible death on planet earth due to my own excesses. However, I will take my chances since every other dystopia being thought up by the environmentalists turned out to be complete bollocks.<br /><br />I'll leave the last reply to you so you can say how "laughable" my arguments are getting. This thread is getting a tad long, and extremely OT.Tobias Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-1837823697129986802010-02-17T11:47:38.782+01:002010-02-17T11:47:38.782+01:00@itisi69:
Please provide a reference to your claim...@itisi69:<br />Please provide a reference to your claim.<br />My reference indicate at best a few percent increase (and it's almost completely seasonal).<br />Start here:<br />http://www.skepticalscience.com/An-overview-of-Antarctic-ice-trends.html<br />where you will also see the land ice *decrease*.Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-3340458732649264942010-02-17T11:36:25.697+01:002010-02-17T11:36:25.697+01:00How nice, Corinna, that you attack me for using sc...How nice, Corinna, that you attack me for using scientific data that has a disclaimer, but don't scold Tobias W for making a claim *without any evidence*.<br /><br />The data DOES support what I said: there is *no evidence* that the amount of arctic ice was less in the 1930s.Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-70333818035695600992010-02-17T10:57:43.785+01:002010-02-17T10:57:43.785+01:00ghost
you seem to be in a rage, this does not hel...ghost <br />you seem to be in a rage, this does not help making your point any clearer I am afraid@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-86314572360444371452010-02-17T10:24:03.730+01:002010-02-17T10:24:03.730+01:00And BTW, Marco, have you seen the Antarctic Sea Ic...And BTW, Marco, have you seen the Antarctic Sea Ice extent lately (+40% since 1980)?<br /><br />it is wrong... http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?annot=1&legend=1&scale=75&tab_cols=2&tab_rows=12&config=seaice_extent_trends&submit=Refresh&hemis0=S&img0=trnd&hemis1=S&img1=plot&mo0=02&year0=2010&mo1=03&year1=2010<br /><br />either way, it is really idiotic how "may be intelligent people" try to quote mine. Even Reiner Grundmann. Quote mining is pretty much worthless. Even more worthless is, if the quotes are distorted and shortened. <br /><br />Fact is: Akerman fabricated a quote and the source for it. Peiser and all the skeptics copied the fabrication. I am sorry, that I do not believe that a journalist tracks down the quote from a newspaper interview, changes it accidentally, and put totally accidentally a wrong source for it. WTF.<br /><br />BTW: Fact is: Prof Jones was misquoted by the Daily Mail and the Times. It is fact because everybody with a little bit brain can read it for herself. <br /><br />Case closed.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334327604965943036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-55878990188332937482010-02-17T10:06:40.122+01:002010-02-17T10:06:40.122+01:00Thread is drifting OT, but re Artic Sea Ice extent...Thread is drifting OT, but re Artic Sea Ice extent loss, the air temperature might not the (only) cause, there's a new research here: "Team finds subtropical waters flushing through Greenland fjord" http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=69134&ct=162.<br /><br />And BTW, Marco, have you seen the Antarctic Sea Ice extent lately (+40% since 1980)?itisi69https://www.blogger.com/profile/00601918913188476920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-59874517737107137742010-02-17T09:35:32.952+01:002010-02-17T09:35:32.952+01:00Marco,
regarding the ice data:
http://arctic.atm...Marco, <br />regarding the ice data: <br />http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg<br /><br />did you read the description of the dataset: <br /><br />Please note that large portions of the pre-1953, and almost all of the pre-1900 data is either climatology or interpolated data and the user is cautioned to use this data with care (see “Expert user guidance”, below). <br /><br />And the Expert User Guidance: <br />The temporal and spatial inhomogeneities in the data sources that went into the construction of this dataset require that any historical analysis of the data is done with caution and an understanding of the limitations of the data. <br /><br />and the more detailed information about the 3 fundamentally different periods in the data set: <br />There are three periods for which the sources of the data change fundamentally:<br /><br />1972-1998: Satellite period - hemispheric coverage, state-of-the-art data accuracy<br />1953-1971: Hemispheric observations - complete coverage from a variety of sources. The observational reliability varies with each source, but is generally accurate.<br />1870-1952: Climatology with increasing amounts of observed data throughout the period.<br /><br />Guess you should be a bit ore critical when rejecting critical comments from ´skeptics´. Guess you did exactly what was not supported by the dataset.<br /><br />It also well illustrates, that the strategy to hide these informations in an expert user guide instead of putting it front up in the graph is really misleading, the general public and even the educated public-<br /><br />Corinnacorinnahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04276992257045005331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-81398892877961755022010-02-17T07:34:26.502+01:002010-02-17T07:34:26.502+01:00@Tobias W: I guess I live on Earth and you...well....@Tobias W: I guess I live on Earth and you...well...somewhere else.<br /><br />I urge you to do the analysis yourself, and check my claims, but HADCRU gives about a 90% confidence that the earth has warmed since 1995. In other words, there is a 10% chance that the warming is 'not real'. Taking the last decade is reducing the confidence of the trend significantly. In short, your claim of a "cooling trend" is vastly less significant than your pounding on the slightly less than 95% confidence that we have had warming since 1995.<br /><br />And while we may not know any and all natural forcings, all those we *do* know point downwards. And yet the temperature goes upward. Do you really put your faith in an unknown natural forcing that just happens to be upward? And no, GCR does not work (as I have understood it also would yield a cooling bias over the last two decades, assuming the hypothesis is correct).<br /><br />The IPCC AR4 WG1 attributes quite nicely the most likely causes of warming of the first half of the 20th century. But they don't explain the current warming, and thus cannot explain all the observations we currently have.<br /><br />Your comments on the arctic ice are getting laughable. First you point to "ice-free" in the 1930s. Was it? Well, let's get the evidence:<br />http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg<br />Hmmmm....1930s and an ice-free arctic? The data doesn't fit the claims! Also note the downward slope since the 1950s. The annual ice cover, has dropped by about 20%! (and I corrected for the 'upward trend' of the last two years). "Incredibly marginal"?<br /><br />Regarding hotspots, start here:<br />http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/tropical-tropopshere-ii/<br />Note also, if it isn't there, there is no warming. This would invalidate both the satellite measurements and land and ocean measurements.Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-17795460898967366922010-02-17T01:08:11.692+01:002010-02-17T01:08:11.692+01:00marco:
We must live on different planets, the one...marco:<br /><br />We must live on different planets, the one I live on is a planet which has been cooling (however slightly) for the last decade or so, and have had no statistical increase in temperatures since 1995. I also live on a planet where the word "all" means that there is no other explanation, and when someone knows there are other explanations, saying this, it means they are lying. <br /><br />I'm repeating myself but note the word "all", that's what makes him a liar, not that he claims that they (the impacts) are somehow connected to a warming trend caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which seems to be mainstream within climate science. So, please, don't put words into my mouth.<br /><br />You say: "Yes, we have seen previous warmings, but that of the last 35 years can not be explained by any natural variation." <br />Phil Jones said: "...we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing." Both you and he makes the assertion that all natural variabilities are known, and therefore can be discarded. But, if all natural variations are not known, then this means that this assumption would be wrong no matter how expensive computers is being used. <br /><br />And by the way if it is only the last 35 years that can be attributable to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, then how could all these processes begin, sometimes ,100 years before this time, yet "all" be attributable to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing? As you say: "Oppenheimer knows the only plausible explanation for all these observations is CO2 forcing." That really doesn't make any sense at all. But I guess you'll have your take on this from that parallel world that you inhabit.<br /><br />And by the way where are those "hotspots" in the atmosphere that everyone was talking about all that time ago. It was one of those things that would prove that anthropogenic greenhouse gases produced extra heating, if I am not entirely mistaken. Well, that to me seems like falsifiable; are they or are they not there? Or maybe this was a falsifier cleverly put into the theory, like a trojan horse, by those nasty sceptics so that they could disprove the theory...?<br /><br />And about the arctic ice, well, as both you and I know there were reports of an icefree arctic in the 1930s. That would actually make the last 80 years an upward trend - hurray (if you love ice anyway)! And the incredibly marginal decline in arctic ice since the satellite measures began in 1979 (year correct right?), actually shows a very stable arctic, with a very slight reduction in winter ice. And since the 2006-07 decline, caused by winds and currents not anthropogenic global warming, the ice has once again stablilized and regained almost all of the lost ice. Is this a catastrophic trend to you, on your planet?Tobias Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-61157191738773284242010-02-17T00:52:48.483+01:002010-02-17T00:52:48.483+01:00"Yes, we have seen previous warmings, but tha..."Yes, we have seen previous warmings, but that of the last 35 years can not be explained by any natural variation" Act of God. Really how do you know all climate forcings are known? Your blind faith in AGW is touching. Reminds me of people when being asked "can you prove God exists?" they answer "can you prove that he doesn't exist?"<br /><br />Now Ghost, what do you think about Houghton's WMD quote (see above link)?itisi69https://www.blogger.com/profile/00601918913188476920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-29400778869348666222010-02-16T22:40:45.505+01:002010-02-16T22:40:45.505+01:00Tobias W:
I see you decide to move the goalposts, ...Tobias W:<br />I see you decide to move the goalposts, and come with more distortions.<br />Yes, we have seen previous warmings, but that of the last 35 years can not be explained by any natural variation. In fact, the natural variation points *downward*, which you would have been able to read in Phil Jones' interview. Funny how you read one thing, and completely overlook the other. Also, glaciers *all over the world* are melting. Interesting that that everywhere is to be explained by local events, and supposedly has nothing to do with warming. You can learn something here: http://tinylink.com/?AfcvEcMLRl <br /><br />And I wonder whether you ever looked at arctic sea ice extent:<br />http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/<br />Please do take a firm look at the trend. Down for 31 years already (it's not just the January, but I could not find the annual this fast).<br /><br />Oppenheimer knows the only plausible explanation for all these observations is CO2 forcing. He's not lying, he's saying what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying. I guess they are all liars, in your opinion. Do note that that includes our hosts here, so tread carefully.Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-18157449253360280342010-02-16T20:16:36.908+01:002010-02-16T20:16:36.908+01:00@tobias W
the difference is, the actual quote is ...@tobias W<br /><br />the difference is, the actual quote is a simple observation, because the quote is longer (did bishop hill not give the complete quote... interesting, who ever had thought that). Many people noticed that.<br /><br />The other, fabricated quote, hints an evil plan to make up disasters. Such a plan may evolve from the first quote, but that is your task to prove it. <br /><br />I know, you will see it differently, but I really do not care.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334327604965943036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-60638566789524946112010-02-16T20:12:45.487+01:002010-02-16T20:12:45.487+01:00Update on the Phil Jones-Roger Harrabin interview:...Update on the Phil Jones-Roger Harrabin interview:<br /><br />http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/16/a-comment-from-roger-harrabin.html<br /><br />Interesting read.Tobias Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-35551885673026588832010-02-16T20:08:33.418+01:002010-02-16T20:08:33.418+01:00marco: You're on top of things as usual. I wen...marco: You're on top of things as usual. I went back and checked and in fact he didn't say anything about either hurricanes or Katrina (I was playing the sceptic's newspaper:-). What he did say was this:<br /><br />”…before this episode occurred [glaciergate] we knew the earth was warming, sea level was rising, glaciers are melting, the ice is retreating, the ocean is becoming more acidic, all due to the buildup of greenhouse gases.”<br /><br />The fact is that the earth was warming without anthropogenic greenhouse gases being attributable (need I really quote Dr. Jones, or can we just state that clearly). He knows this.<br /><br />Sea level, to my knowledge at least, started rising in the 19th century, before the IPCC report claims that anthropogenic global warming had anything to do with it. He knows this.<br /><br />The fact is that the reason for melting glaciers are really situational, as the example of Kilimajaro shows where it is loss of precipitation from deforestation that has actually caused most of the glacierretreat, not global warming. He knows this.<br /><br />The ice in the artctic was retreating in 2006 and 2007, this was attributable to unusually warm winds and currents sweeping up across the artcic, hence not caused by global warming. Equally he made an "IPCC-special" by leaving out that allthough sea ice is retreating in the greenland and the antarctic (I'm guessing this is what he's refering to), the glaciers are actually getting thicker, and that the sea ice in the antarctic actually was declining from it's top notation. He knows this.<br /><br />Finally, something that he is correct of is ocean acidification, although it really is hard to see whether this actually is as bad as is inferred.<br /><br />Are these impacts: "all due to the buildup of greenhouse gases" as he claims? I think not, and he knows this, hence he is lying. Why? - Because he is advocate first and scientist second.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oxFx41nE1c<br /><br />ghost: Here is the quote attributed to him: <br />"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen."<br /><br />Here's what he actually said:<br />“If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”<br /><br />Much difference? I don't think so. But he is right, it wasn't from his book, it was from an interview which he didn't dispute then (1995), and hasn't yet today.<br /><br />source: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/16/no-he-did-say-it.htmlTobias Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-57578705073474942242010-02-16T19:38:16.834+01:002010-02-16T19:38:16.834+01:00@Reiner
quote mining is stupid, the interview was...@Reiner<br /><br />quote mining is stupid, the interview was about his belief in God, and he is showing why he said good policy needs a disaster. I do not agree with him, but maybe he is right. Many security and safety improvements and regulations were made after disasters. That is a pretty different meaning to the other quote. <br /><br />But a problem is: Climate change is slow, inert, but long lasting. If we really see many climate change related disasters, then we have a huge problem.<br /><br />PS: oh, Prof von Storch has nice interview about climate change and Donaldism... let me dream a bit: new IPCC head thinking Donald is real. Should we trust a crazy scientist? (http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/Media/interviews/091005.taz.pdf) (fand das Interview sehr entspannt und sympathisch, leider bin ich der DDR aufgewachsen, kein Donald mit 8)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334327604965943036noreply@blogger.com