It's the snow in Siberia, stupid or: Jump on the jetstream, baby

Ah, sing me the song of climate change!
Jump on the jetstream, baby,
and let's fly into the stratosphere!
All around the world on the back of words
as clear as sparkling stars on the Northern skies!
Ah, horizontal, vertical, meandering -
Siberia, Eurasia, the Rockies:
it's so cold in Germany,
but we are (not) afraid to die
'cause global warming is in our mind, it's all in our mind.

All the beauty of meteorological prose that inspired this poem, find it here in this op-ed piece in the New York Times: 'Bundle up, it's global warming', which is written by the meteorologist Judah Cohen. He makes a great effort to show why the snow in Germany is a sign for global warming, too:

It’s all a snow job by nature. The reality is, we’re freezing not in spite of climate change but because of it. [Read the rest.]

And here he develops his argument in finest meteorologist talk:

Carbon Kitsch

In Jonathan Lethem's novel "Chronic City", the New York Times is called the "hegemonic bulldozer". Considering the fact that the NYT is for sure among the world's leading journals and home of the best journalists, no one should underestimate its influence. Journals like the NYT do not mirror reality, but they filter relevant news out of the sea of information and turn them into narratives. They socially construct reality, to use a term we appreciate and use here on klimazwiebel.
This, of course, is also true for how we perceive global warming. Global warming is both a scientific fact and a story to be told. A story about science and about morals that has to be re-narrated again and again. To put a long story short, yesterday I stumbled across such a grand global warming narrative in the NYT, 'A scientist, his work and a climate reckoning'. 

Bad weather

The UK is notoriously unprepared for wintry conditions. Yesterday the Neue Zuricher Zeitung was poking fun at the British transport secretary who in a parliamentary debate stated that winter tyres would damage the roads and wear out too quickly. Likewise, the problems at Heathrow airport were attributed to British lack of investment in snow ploughs, etc.

„Klimaforscher sollten sich in Demut üben“

Gastbeitrag von Silke Beck:
In der WELT vom 21.12.2010 nutzt Fritz Vahrenholt die Gunst der „kalten“ Stunde, um ordentlich gegen die Klimaforschung und die deutsche Energiepolitik auszuholen:

„Die Winter werden merklich kälter, die Erderwärmung pausiert“ und „Klimaforscher klären zu wenig auf und setzen so ihre Akzeptanz aufs Spiel“.

 Die Erklärung, welche die Klimaforschung seiner Meinung nach immer noch verschweigt, hat dafür Vahrenholt parat:

„it´s the sun, stupid.”

Er schlägt gleich noch einmal in die Kerbe:

„In England hat der Klimarat IPCC nach den Falschaussagen schon längst die Deutungshoheit verloren“

 und zieht dann folgenden Energie-politischen Schluss:

„In einer Art Torschlusspanik entschloss sich Deutschland, das hinsichtlich der Sonneneinstrahlung mit Alaska zu vergleichen ist, in den nächsten Jahren weit über 100 Milliarden in uneffiziente Photovoltaikanlagen zu versenken, Finanzmittel, die fehlen werden, wenn es wirklich darum geht, den Ländern des Südens bei der Umstellung auf eine nachhaltige Energieversorgung zu helfen.“

kälter ist wärmer als gestern

Man  kann sich des Eindrucks nicht erwehren, dass sich die Kollegen aus der Klimaforschung manchmal um Kopf und Kragen reden. So geschehen heute in einem kleinen feinen Artikel auf   faznet. Dort erklärt der Geowissenschaftler Hüttl vom PiK die Dialektik der Erderwärmung:

"(...) ist es nicht überraschend, dass es in Alaska wärmer wird, während wir hier einen kalten Winter erleben“ (...). Es gebe in der Forschung eine Reihe von Arbeitshypothesen für solche Entwicklungen. Als Beispiel nannte er unterschiedliche Sonnenaktivitäten, die Einfluss nähmen. „Ich kann aus der Erdsystemforschung sagen: Wir verstehen das System noch nicht hinreichend.“

Wir verstehen das System nicht, aber es ist nicht überraschend, dass... Alles klar auf der Andrea Doria.

The limits of (climate) science

The last time I visited Spain a few weeks ago, I needed to buy some drugs in the pharmacy. I was surprised and amused to see that, for the small amount of 10 euros, customers could recharge their 'bio-magnetic wristband' to protect them from multiple diseases, increase their well-being and general personal balance. And then I realized that the prospects of convincing the general population that we should reduce our carbon emissions because 'science tells us so' are really slim. 

Fortsetzung des Interviews mit Hans von Storch

Im Zuge einer Studie zur "Darstellung des anthropogenen Klimawandels in den deutschen Medien" wurden mir eine Reihe von Fragen gestellt. Einen ersten Block von Fragen und Antworten hatte ich am 15. Dezember hier auf der Klimazwiebel veröffentlicht. Hier kommen die verbleibenden Blöcke. Mir wurde zugesagt, dass wir für die Klimazwiebel eine Rückmeldung über die Ergebnisse der Studie bekommen werden.
Die Studentin hinter dem Interview liest die Antworten von den Lesern der Klimazwiebel mit (und sagt Dankeschön).

The year when global warming began

It began pretty accurately in 1987 in a dramatic very non-linear fashion. Later on, in 1992 its growth as slowed considerably.

Cancún: Pfeifen in dunkler Nacht? Gastbeitrag von Reinhard Böhm

 
Originalfassung von Reinhard Böhm, gekürzt erschienen in „Die Furche“, Wien, am 16.12.2010)

Pfeifen in dunkler Nacht?

Es gehört zu einer der mir bis heute präsenten Erinnerungen aus der Volksschulzeit, dass ich einige Zeit lang Probleme hatte, beim Aufbruch in die Schule so ohne weiteres an dem dunkel gähnenden Abstieg in den Keller des Gründerzeit-Mietshauses vorbeizukommen, in dem wir damals wohnten. Der Grund war eine Vorstellung im Theater der Jugend, die die Altwiener Sage vom Basiliskenhaus in der Schönlaterngasse recht drastisch vorgeführt hatte – offenbar vermutete ich in der Zeit danach den Basilisken mit seinen glühenden Augen da unten im Keller. Und ich erinnere mich noch gut, dass eines der Hilfsmittel, an dieser Gefahrenstelle vorbeizukommen, das Pfeifen eines gängigen Liedchens war, eines der damals populären Seemannslieder von Freddy Quinn glaube ich.

Was das mit der dieses Wochenende zu Ende gegangenen Weltklimakonferenz in Cancun zu tun hat, werden Sie sich fragen? 

The arrogance of Cancún

Gustavo Esteva in the Guardian has an  interesting comment. After another disappointing climate summit he draws a sobering conclusion:

To affirm or to deny climate change supposes that we understand our planet well, that we know how it reacts – both now and for the next hundred years – and that we have the appropriate technological fix. This is plain and simple nonsense, and intolerably arrogant.

Hans von Storch beantwortet Fragen in einem "Experteninterview - Klimawandel und Medien"

Im Zuge einer Studie zur "Darstellung des anthropogenen Klimawandels in den deutschen Medien" wurden mir eine Reihe von Fragen gestellt - hier diese Fragen und meine Antworten.

Tony Gilland: “Time to move on from the IPCC?”

Tony Gilland, science and society director of the "Institute of Ideas", London, has published this piece: “Time to move on from the IPCC?” on the Times Eureka blog. He spoke at the debate "Can we trust the evidence? The IPCC - a case study" at the Battle of Ideas festival on Sunday 31 October 2011 in London, alongside Oliver Morton and Fred Pearce. With his permission, I am republishing his piece here:

New realism? - the Royal Society ...

It seems that the Royal Society is looking beyond the optimistic 2 degree goal, and is beginning to analyse possible alternatives. When do we need to talk about 4 degrees? - See the theme issue 'Four degrees and beyond: the potential for a global temperature increase of four degrees and its implications' compiled and edited by Mark G. New, Diana M. Liverman, Richard A. Betts, Kevin L. Anderson and Chris C. West in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (A; January 2011).

Klimazwiebel running now for one year ....

.... so what? - Hans

Wiedemann interviewt Pachauri

siehe ZDF Mediathek - vom 5. Dezember 2010. Für mich ist dies das erste Fernsehinterview, das ich mit Pachauri überhaupt gesehen habe.

Verschiedene Ansichten - besser oder schlechter geworden seit einem Jahr?

Michael Wiedemann vom ZDF hat in seinem Beitrag für ZDF Umwelt, 5. Dezember, Ottmar Edenhofer und Hans von Storch u.a. gefragt, ob die Klimawissenschaft heute besser dasteht als vor einem Jahr. - Die Antworten waren -nicht erstaunlich - durchaus nicht identisch - siehe ZDF Mediathek.

Cancún: the return of the global capacity to act?

Surprising news from Cancún: contrary to what many expected, Cancún doesn't seems to end in a failure like Copenhagen.  Instead, the news report hopes for a common deal. Here the Guardian:

Hopes are growing for an new international deal to tackle global warming, with delegations at the UN climate summit in Cancún backing one of two key agreements.

 The draft documents state deeper cuts in carbon emissions are needed but do not establish a mechanism for achieving the pledges countries have made.

The agreement by 190 countries will establish a Green Climate Fund, intended to raise $100bn (£64bn) each year by 2020 to help developing nations tackle climate change; protect tropical forests by tackling deforestation; and share new clean energy technologies.

The talks are the latest attempt by the UN to keep global temperature rises to less than 2C, after rich and poor countries failed to agree on the best way to cut emissions at last year's summit in Copenhagen.

And even more optimistic, spiegel online in German language. They even announce the end of the global paralysis:

Climate science & Politics

Daniel Sarawitz wrote an interesting article about "Lab politics" with a special focus on climate science. According to a recent poll in the US, only 5% of US scientists are Republicans, while 55% are Democrats, 32 % are independent and the rest is "don't know. " Does this matter? "After all, it's the scientific facts that matter, and facts aren't blue or red".  Of course, this matters: 66% of Democrats (and 74% of liberals) say the effects of globl warming are already occuring, as opposed to 31 % of Republicans. Don't Republicans understand the math? Are they scientifically illiterate?
The reason is, of course, that the differences are essentially political:

For 20 years, evidence about global warming has been directly and explicitly linked to a set of policy responses demanding international governance regimes, large-scale social engineering, and the redistribution of wealth. These are the sort of things that most Democrats welcome, and most Republicans hate. No wonder the Republicans are suspicious of the science.

Democrats see themselves "as keepers of  enlightenment" (remember the Bush era!), while  Republicans "have come to believe that mainstream science is corrupted by ideology." This is a problem, indeed. There are not enough Republicans in science.
Of course, the US are different from Germany. But anyway, we are familiar with this problem; the problem as stated by Sarewitz is at the very origin of klimazwiebel, I guess:

Yet there is clearly something going on that is as yet barely acknowledged, let alone understood. As a first step, leaders of the scientific community should be willing to investigate and discuss the issue.

Against the Fred Singer picture: a poem for Cancún

 The Hollies knew: All we need is the air that we breathe (and to love you). But the air we live in is not given or "just there" anymore. That's the strange lesson of anthropogenic climate change. For more than hundred years, engineers are already experts in cooling / heating closed spaces. In shopping malls we even have artificial air with different scents. In the future, living will be more than ever a problem of air conditioning.
Meteorology has turned weather events successfully into a spectacle for the TV news. And now the atmosphere. We are in it, whether we want to or not. The air we live in is as much a technological problem as it is a philosophical one. Where are we when we are "in the atmosphere", when we live "in air"? Maybe this lady knows. We should find out what she is thinking of, what she is seeing and what she is dreaming of.

Silke Beck: Are “climate skeptics” gaining ground in Germany?

A comment by Silke Beck:

In the aftermath of COP 15 and “Climategate,” lobby groups and members of the German Parliament - like the business-friendly Free Democratic Party (FDP) - try to take advantage of the situation. Paul Friedhoff, the economic policy spokesman of the FDP's parliamentary group, had invited Fred Singer, one of the most influential deniers of climate change worldwide, to Berlin. Marie-Luise Dött, the environmental policy spokeswoman for the parliamentary group of Angela Merkel's center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), also attended Singer's presentation (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,721846,00.html).

Nordhaus and Shellenberger in WSJ: How to Change the Global Energy Conversation

For two decades, world leaders have been trying--and failing--to hammer out a workable deal on global warming. Now they're meeting once again, this time in Cancun, Mexico, to kick around the same issues one more time--and, inevitably, stumble over all of the same roadblocks.

At the heart of it, these deals all come down to mandating emissions cuts, which means paying a lot more for energy. Some greens deny it, but clean energy still costs vastly more than fossil fuels. Significantly raising energy costs slows economic growth--something no country wants to do.

As a result, every country has an incentive to point the finger at someone else, while trying to game the system: sheltering key industries, understating emissions and overstating reductions.There is a better way. Nations should focus on lowering the cost of clean energy, not raising the cost of fossil energy. The goal? Make clean energy cheap enough to become a viable option for poor as well as rich nations. Until that happens, emissions will continue to rise, and no effort to regulate carbon can succeed.

How do we accomplish that? Stop subsidizing old technology that will never compete with fossil fuels and create incentives for innovation. Along with ramping up support for research, governments should buy cutting-edge clean-energy technologies, prove them--and then give away the intellectual property, so others can improve on it.

Read the whole article here.

"How to live with climate change" (in a yellow submarine) [revised version]

Last week's The Economist has the best climate change cover picture ever, which gives a good leitmotif for Cancún and beyond (more than the articles). The articles in this issue focus on adaptation, on winners, losers and  consequences of global warming. It's definitively a post-Copenhagen attitude, ready for smaller steps and a more pragmatic perspective. Climate change "won't be stopped, but its effects can be made less bad". It's no longer an alarmist rhetoric between salvation or getting burned in hell; instead the title  imitates the pragmatic American "how to do " attitude: "How to live with climate change". Whatever we do, "none of this will make climate change all right. It remains the craziest experiment mankind has ever conducted. Maybe in the long run it will be brought under control. For the foreseeable future, though, the mercury will continue to rise, and the human race must live with the problem as best it can." I highlighted "craziest experiment", because this illustrates a really interesting attitude towards climate change and what to do about it. In my understanding it says that the whole world has turned into a laboratory now, and all of us are part of this experiment.