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.

UK climate change secretary -- halfway to Hartwell?

Guest post by Mike Hulme

The UK energy and climate change secretary Chris Huhne was on national radio this morning speaking about Cancun etc. ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9237000/9237631.stm

An interesting mixture.  He could not bring himself to ditch the rhetoric of an (urgent) all-embracing legally-binding climate change UN agreement, and yet when pushed he conceded – de facto - much of the Hartwell thinking: small incremental initial steps, clean energy innovation, tackling issues on their own terms rather than as ones stitched into the fabric of climate change, etc.  It’s as if he – and others – are now trying to speak the new language, but deeply frightened to let go of the perceived safety of an outdated orthodoxy.

Breakthrough Institute launches Europe blog

The US based Breakthrough Institute has just set up this blog for Europe. The site will be staffed by Jerome Roos, a Breakthrough Fellow from the Netherlands. He has the first installment of a three part series on the failure of EU efforts to address climate change posted -- "Cancun Can't."

Here is a teaser:

Europeans hang on to the dead treaty process because letting go requires acknowledging an uncomfortable reality. Europe has not reduced its emissions and is in no position to lecture the world. Fed up, the world's largest developing powers -- China, India, Brazil, and South Africa -- broke away from Europe in Copenhagen. That the U.S., not Europe, mediated the divide, stung all the more.

This should provide some interesting mixing of perspectives, across the Atlantic!

Roger Pielke Jr in Capital: Wacht endlich auf!

Ein Kommentar zu Cancun, der es auf den Punkt bringt. Scheitert mit dem neuen Gipfel auch die ganze Klimapolitik? Roger meint: nein.

ZAMG offeriert ein neues "Klimaportal"

Der österreichische Wetterdienst "Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geophysik" (ZAMG) ging heute online mit einem neuen Produkt, dem Informationsportal Klimawandel. Frage an die Leser des Klimazwiebel - nützlich, informativ, verwirrend, alarmistisch oder abwiegelnd?

Climate Wars

Climate is both politics and science. These fields are never independent; instead, they are connected in multiple and ever new ways. The recent elections in the US changed majorities, with effects on future climate politics, of course. In the  The New Yorker, Elizabeth Kolbert writes an alarming comment. The new chairman of the Oversight Committee, Darrell Issa, wants to investigate climategate and climate scientists once again. "Not content merely to ignore the science, they have decided to go after the scientists", writes Kolbert.

climategate app

Just found this app for your iphone. A selected (?) list of the hacked emails, with a search function. I have no idea who is behind this idea and what the intentions are.
In the description it says:
"The scientists who wrote the emails have been officially cleared of wrongdoing, by several inquiries in both the USA and Great Britain, so the emails, and some of the fascinating quotes contained therein, should not be interpreted as evidence of wrongdoing. For more information about the official reviews and their findings, please visit:http://www.realclimate.org ."

Where should innovation come from ?

I have finished reading Roger Pielke's The Climate Fix  and last Thursday  I listened to a talk by Nico Stehr, who basically presented the main thesis in the Hartwell paper.  Both, Roger's book and the Hartwell paper, make an interesting reading, and have, with justice,  been positively reviewed in many other quarters.  Here I would like to comment on one point of  the Hartwell scheme that seems to require some elaboration. Some of the questions posed to Nico Stehr after his talk also raised doubts about the feasibility of 'forced innovation'.

The luxurious life of an IPCC lead author

The IPCC has sometimes been compared to a church, and it some sense it may be true. Some prelates fly first class, but others just eke out a living in some developing country trying to save souls.

cable from China ...

Klimazwiebel is not accessible in China - censored. However, RealClimate is not ...

Enchanted atmospheres: a non-statistical approach to climate

"O Wind,
if winter comes, can spring be far behind?"

 From: "Ode to the West Wind" (P. B. Shelley)

Judith Curry's blog

Judith Curry has an interesting blogpost under the heading 'Reversing the direction of the positive feedback loop'. She analyses the dynamics of the climate issue as driven by a policy process with the self-interest of the IPCC at its heart.She writes:

Climate Change Skeptics: Strictly Science

In a recent posting Rob Maris conducted a survey to determine what makes a climate change skeptic. It received both criticism and praise. Mention was made that skepticism might reside in the science-policy interface. I have chosen not to enter into the fray of policy as I believe science that shares a bed with politics has a tendency to lose its objectivity and, as history has repeatedly demonstrated, results in dogma. Consequently this discussion is limited to climate change skepticism in climate change science. Here I attempt, first, to forward the definition of climate change skeptic in climate change science. After all, outside of our area of expertise we are limited to expressing opinion, be that good or bad, it is the reality.  I then present a few empirical examples that add to the confusion.

ARD Film 21. Mai 2007 - mit Tol, Lomborg und Calder

 So sah eine kritische Berichterstattung zum IPCC vor mehr als 2 Jahren aus:

http://www.br-online.de/das-erste/report-muenchen/50-jahre-report-muenchen-denkverbote-fuer-klimaforscher-ID1287325454368.xml

Immerhin äusserte sich das IPCC hier explizit zuu Vorwürfen.

Rosponse to a seminar: David Rayner from Göteborg on bicycles and more

This is a reaction  to a recent seminar given at the department of Earth Sciences in Göteborg (Sweden). With David's permission, I reprint his comment here:

Oliver Geden in FTD

Oliver Geden schreibt zum Thema "Gipfel in Cancún" den Kommentar Vergesst die große Klimarettung!. Geden argumentiert, dass "der Weltgipfel in Cancún wird genauso scheitern wie die vorherigen Einigungsversuche. Statt weiter auf den großen Wurf zu warten, sollte die EU kleine Schritte machen."

A quote provided by Mathis Hampel

Mathis Hampel, who writes a dissertation on "cultural contingency, social and epistemic authority of climate knowledge production" at the University of Venice, Italy, suggested to publish this quote without further discussion.

"Climate is a constitutional government, whose organization we see and understand...but weather is a red-hot radical republic, all excitements and uncertainties, a despiser of old rules, a hater of propriety and order. Climate is a great stately sovereign, whose will determines the whole character of the lives and habits of its retainers, and is therefore so little felt that it seems like liberty, but weather is a cruel capricious tyrant who changes his decrees each day and who forces us by his ever varying whim, to remember that we are slaves. Climate is dignity, weather is impudence."

Frederic Marshall in "Weather" (1875), taken from Blackwoods Edinburgh Magazin of the same year

How many angels can dance on a Medieval Warm Period ?

The Medieval Warm Period seems to play the role of climate porn, attracting lots of attention but actually distracting from more interesting periods in the recent past climate, from which we could learn more about the future.

Rob Maris' survey among skeptics

Skeptics Survey Analysis

(see announcement on 26. September 2010)

From September 26th until October 11nd, a survey has been run with the focus on “Skeptics”: what do they think etc. The survey was responded to quite well, with almost 500 full responses and another 173 partial responses. After validity/plausibility checking of all records, 578 records are left as useful.

It must be emphasized that this is not a representative survey; to begin with, we have no generally accepted definition of what a “skeptic” constitutes. Instead we have simply asked in the introduction “Do you consider yourself a skeptic?”, and invited for responses only if this question was positively answered. However, we consider our survey useful, as it provides a number of hypotheses about this unknown population of “skeptics”, and it is hoped that social scientists may have a starting point to seriously engage in research about this socio-political phenomenon.

Silke Beck on Lomborg: A climate change of mood? Lomborg’s turn from a skeptical environmentalist to an honest broker?

The German magazine DIE ZEIT just published an interview with Bjørn Lomborg;  (see also www.guardian.co.uk/.../bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turn). Lomborg is a statistician at the Copenhagen Business School and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming. In former controversies, Lomborg advanced to the role model for a “skeptical environmentalist” (TSE) and to the “bogeyman” for climate activists.
Bjorn Lomborg is in the news again. In interviews with the Guardian and the ZEIT (that do not differ very much), Lomborg appears to make a surprising about turn in his views:

values in science

In GAIA 3/2010, p. 175-177, one of the co-publishers, Hans-Jochen Luhmann, asks “Auf welche Wissenschaft beruft sich die Politik beim Zwei-Grad-Ziel?“ and summarizes his answer like this: Die multilaterale Politik bekennt sich zum Zwei-Grad-Ziel, um den Klimawandel zu begrenzen. Sie stützt sich dazu explizit auf Empfehlungen „der Wissenschaft“. Bemerkenswert ist, dass sie sich dabei nicht – was doch naheläge – auf das IPCC beruft. Dieses Gremium hat sich nämlich explizit versagt, „Werturteile“ wie das Zwei-Grad-Ziel zu formulieren. Da die Politik aber nach solchen Urteilen verlangt, bedient sie sich pragmatisch an anderer Stelle – bei einer Wissenschaft, die nicht strikt zwischen Fakten und Werturteilen trennt. Letzteres sollte auch ein Kennzeichen einer Wissenschaft von der Nachhaltigkeit (sustainability science) sein.

After having been confronted with a similar analysis by S. Keller in “Poiesis & Praxis”, Dennis Bray and I wrote a rebuttal of this approach in this journal Poiesis & Praxis (2010; 7:211–219 DOI 10.1007/s10202-010-0085-3; open access)

Nico Stehr and Reiner Grundmann on Expertenwissen

For those able and willing to read German, this new book might be of interest: 
Expertenwissen: Die Kultur und die Macht von Experten, Beratern und Ratgebern, Velbrueck Verlag 2010 (English version will be published by Routledge in March 2011)

IPCC WG II informs its lead authors about Busan

Having the privilege of being a lead author in Working Group II of AR5 IPCC, I got after the Busan meeting the following information. It deals with the response to the Interacademy Council (IAC, see Klimazwiebel reporting and discussing) report on the IPCC published earlier this year. The IAC is independent of the IPCC.

Changing course towards Hartwell

Subsidize research in clean technologies through a carbon tax. It seems that the ideas in The Hartwell paper are gaining some traction

Climate change in the media

I have just published an article, together with my colleague Ramesh Krishnamurthy who is a linguist. We analysed full text coverage of newspaper coverage on climate change in the USA, the UK, France and Germany over a 20 year period, using special software. We found some interesting results, for example, that different terms invoke different associations. Key concepts like 'global warming' and 'climate change' have different collocates in different countries. Some countries are emphasizing the scientific dimension whereas others are stressing political or moral aspects. You can read the full article here
Bear in mind that this is a pilot study based on uncleaned data downloaded from Nexis-Lexis, Our dataset stops in 2007. We are working on an updated and cleaned dataset, with a much more refined analysis. Watch this space!

Law and order in paleoclimate

Unfortunately, lawyers are again making forays in the realm of climate science, which is distracting to say the least and probably only damaging. It is clearly not helpful.

I am not acquainted with legal terms and definitions and so this post is just an account, from an interested lay person, of my thoughts about two cases that have grabbed my attention in the last days/months. In both cases I have some background knowledge, though probably not complete.

Spam filter

Dear readers and contributors,

a few months ago Blogger introduced a spam-filter, which apparently cannot be switched-off. The spam-filter seems to be too restrictive sometimes. Interpreting Blogger's description of the spam-filter it seems that it runs on  a learning algorithm, and hopefully, as time progresses, the algorithm will learn to tell spam from non-spam. I will try to look into the spam-filter often, but if you suspect that a comment has been unduly arrested, drop me a line, and I will bail it out.

Jerry Ravetz - a reply to various comments

Response from Jerry Ravetz to several comments in this blog

There is so much to discuss here, that I am nearly overwhelmed. That did happen to me after my first post on Wattsupwiththat. Hundreds of comments, of every possible variety and attitude, came pouring in. Just going through them was a full day’s work; I couldn’t begin to sort them, to say nothing of making a systematic reply. One result of this was that I was drawn too much into the debate as it developed around me, and quite forgot some key points of my own scheme of things. Just now I have a big stylistic problem: if I pick off points from the discussion it will be disjointed and incoherent, and if I give my own synthesis it will be just another essay! I have read and re-read the discussion, and hope to have something worthwhile here.

Reiner Grundmann on decarbonization

Already under discussion on Roger Pielke jr.'s  blog, here you can see an interview with our klimazwiebel contributor Reiner Grundmann from Aston University in Birmingham, UK. Filmed in a nice British campus setting, this video also serves as a great example of one of the many ways how social scientists approach the issue of climate change and climate policies (here via media analysis).
Reiner elegantly develops his argument for decarbonization and explains why we should put less emphasis on science - in the end, it is too often used as an excuse for political inaction:
"If you put the science at the centre, it seems as if there is some rational voice that knows it all and tells us what to do. But this is a political issue, essentially."

Still no reaction to Richard Tol's assertion about incorrect statements by Edenhofer in ZDF

Here on the Klimazwiebel we had a detailed account Richard Tol challenges assertion by Ottmar Edenhofer in ZDF -  Richard Tol claimed that WG III Chair Otmar Edenhofer had given a false account in that TV program.

I had informed the IPCC secretariat (as well as Otmar Edenhofer) about Richard's Tol claim. After having not received a response, I inquired at Renate Christ, IPCC secretary on 17 Setpember 2010:

I informed you a few days ago that there have been published claims about false conclusions about consensus in the WG III report of AR4, and about misleading public statements of IPCC representatives. So far, you have not responded to this information; I assume that you do not intend to do so in future. Thus, I have to inform you that I will begin to include this case into my background exchanges with media and policymakers. Also I will point out that your office is still unable to deal professionally with such claims, even after the recommendations of IAC. Indeed, I had been told by journalists before that your office has a reputation of being reluctant in communicating.

This reminder gave a response after a few days, on 20. September 2010

Dear Mr. von Storch,
I acknowledge receipt of your message dated 17 September as well as a message from you to Mr. Edenhofer dated 11 September 2010. Both messages were received during my vacation and therefore I did not reply earlier. Mr. Edenhofer is currently traveling but I will get in touch with him and the appropriate IPCC bodies on the matter raised by you.
Allow me also to inform you that the recommendations of the IAC and their implementation will be considered by the upcoming Plenary Session of the IPCC.

Best regards,

Dr. Renate CHRIST
Secretary of the IPCC
IPCC Secretariat

Since then - nothing.
The Interacademy Council writes about the IPCC on p. 53 of its report:
Developing an effective communications strategy. In the wake of errors discovered in the Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC has come under severe criticism for the manner in which it has communicated with the media. The lack of an ongoing media-relations capacity and comprehensive communications strategy has unnecessarily placed the IPCC’s reputation at risk and contributed to a decline in public trust of climate science.

Nothing learned so far. The same arrogance as before.

Erinnerung an eine Wolke

Der Schriftsteller Lars Gustafsson erinnert sich an eine Wolke vom 4. Juli 1953, die zu einem Hagelunwetter führte:
"...warum diese unerhörte Energieentwicklung, warum dieser Hagel, der von extremen Aufwärtsströmen immer wieder in eisbildende Höhen gehoben wird, so dass sich das Eis Schicht um Schicht anlagert? Warum entwickeln sich nicht alle Regenfronten so? Warum sind manche Lieben anders als andere?"

Aerosols or natural variability ?

A second paper authored by Thompson, Wallace, Kennedy and Jones, focused on quirks of the global temperature record in the 20th century has appeared in Nature. As the first paper, it carries the rather humdrum title, An abrupt drop in Northern Hemisphere sea surface temperature around 1970, but after reading it it seems to me that it contains quite explosive material.

Rob Maris: Skeptics Survey launched

A discussion in the posting „Das ist eine Verrohung des intellektuellen Niveaus“ from August, 3rd marked the birth of a new idea for a survey. There is big uncertainty about the scene of skeptics. We would like to know more about their motivation, to be precise: what do they think, how did they get to „skeptics", etc.
The survey has been set up by Rob Maris with the help of some skeptics, with grateful thanks to Peter Heller who contributed to the above mentioned discussion, and now contributed to the survey formulation.

The survey starts with some simple questions in order to get some general information. The core of the survey is represented by subsequent questions related to statements, issues and resources in the „climatosphere". There are ten questions, and the estimated time should be approx. 10 minutes to fill out the survey. The survey runs from today until Monday, October 11th (inclusive). Non-skeptics are asked to refrain from answering the survey: it is for "skeptics only".

The survey runs on a separate site. After expiry, the results will be summarized here, and detail statistics will be available on the survey site.

CliSci Survey - results documented

The results of the latest survey CLISCI by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch among international climate scientists are now documented in GKSS-Report 2010/9: CliSci2008: A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change. Results are also available for earlier similar surveys in 1996 and 2003 are documented in GKSS Report 2007/11.

Dennis Bray has published several minor analyses with these data on this weblog.

Marcel Severijnen: Dutch practicality or soberness: the Deltaprogramme

In september 2008 the Dutch Deltacommissie (chair Prof. Veerman) published her view on how to deal with expected effects of climate change. The report (full or summary) while keeping sustainability as guidance, focused on safety levels, and some proposed measures.

Most attention was drawn towards the protection against higher levels of the Northsea, Ijsselmeer and major rivers like Rhine and Meuse. The commission estimated a 130 cm sea level rise at the end of the century, and the level for 2200 reached almost Al Gore’s values. It was the result of worst case scenario’s as elaborated in appendix 3 of the report.

The Deltacommissie was supported for this item by a group of 24 international experts who prepared an advice according to worst case conditions. Among them scientists of German origin: Sterl (KNMI-NL), Plag (Uni Nevada), Rahmstorf (PIK-Potsdam), von Storch and Weisse (GKSS). The commission’s estimate of sea level rise was presented without informing the international working group, and soon protest was heard from members of the group and from sceptic blogs, calling the estimate as too exaggerated. This was certainly meant to shock the nation, and surely helped to attain political support for funding the adviced measures.

Now, two years later, a first Delta Programme drawn up by Deltacommissioner Wim Kuijken is presented to the Lower House. This programme is the government’s response to the report of the Deltacommissie of 2008. Citation from the press release: “As proposed by the Delta Commissioner, this ‘new-style Delta Plan’ was drawn up using Dutch level-headedness. It is based on measurements and the 2006 scenarios of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI). The programme is founded on a safe and flexible approach. The Delta Programme contains measures to secure the safety of our delta in the near future and offers a basis for preparing for the future.” (bold added).

Deltacommissioner Kuijken explained this soberness in an interview in NRC of september 21 and 22 (subscription needed):
“We don’t want to start from extreme scenario’s for climate change and sea level rise, but from KNMI’s scenario’s (which levels are significant lower). Starting from actual knowledge and taking measures gradually like roofing tiles for the further future.” And: “Let’s at first try to reach our actual safety levels” Kuijken defines this sober approach as adaptive deltamanagement.
It seems that soberness and practicality has landed at last.

klimazwiebel forever!

Discourse madness

Harald Welzer did a lot of research on racism and violence; he is also the author of the book 'Klimakriege'. In zeit-online, he is interviewed as an expert on the recent debate about Thilo Sarrazin, who wrote a much debated book about the alleged dangers of Muslim immigration for Germany ("Deutschland schafft sich ab"). Welzer (and many others) blames Sarrazin to make use of racist or eugenic arguments. Welzer argues that bringing the "jewish genes" into play, as Sarrazin does, disqualifies the book for public discussion. He goes on saying that discussing immigration issues under these premises is the same as discussing with holocaust deniers or climate skeptics - it is impossible to do so. Here the quote in German:

hans von Storch: Critical questions of a theoretical physicist

Note, this thread is in English - the background, with which this thread begins, is an exchange in German.

In the Spektrumdirekt-Interview Wir müssen die Herausforderung durch die Skeptiker annehmen by Daniel Lingenhöhl, published 30. Juli 2010, I had said:"Wir müssen die Herausforderung durch die Skeptiker annehmen und in die Auseinandersetzung mit ihnen einsteigen, um sie zu gewinnen. Viele Physiker, Chemiker, Ingenieure oder Geologen haben offene Fragen zum Klimawandel, die sie noch nicht beantwortet sehen. Hier ist ein erhebliches und sehr berechtigtes Fragepotenzial vorhanden, auf das leider zu selten eingegangen wird. Stattdessen werden sie teilweise als Skeptiker beschimpft, was sie verärgert. Dadurch bauen wir kein Vertrauen auf. Wir müssen zu einer anständigen Gesprächskultur zurückkommen..

Werner Weber, Chair of Theoretische Physik II at TU Dortmund, has responded to this assertion. He wrote
"Ich kann relativ leicht querbeet durch das ganze Forschungsfeld 10 wesentliche Punkte nennen, wo ich das wissenschaftliche Vorgehen der Klimaforscher, sagen wir, nicht ganz nachvollziehen kann. Ich könnte diese Punkte einer Gruppe von Experten vortragen, und würde mich von diesen auch gerne eines besseren belehren lassen. Ich habe aber genug Selbstbewusstsein, dass ich die Hoffnung habe, dass es auch umgekehrt kommen könnte."

My response was to suggest that he should summarize his questions here on Klimazwiebel. He has done so now, beginning with 5 questions, the first two are specified in some detail below.

Climate & Bicycles

Something I don't understand: Recently, Georg Hoffmann wrote here in a comment that he is sharing a joke with Richard Tol "about people thinking they will stop sea level rise when taking a bicyle". And  Hans von Storch was (correctly or not) quoted in the Hamburger Abendblatt as considering the adaptation efforts along the Elbe River as much more useful than "the litany of those who say that climate change could be stopped through intensive bicycling".
So here are my questions:
a) Where does this concept of the cyclist as the enemy or idiot come from? Why not ridiculing for example the climate scientist who demonstratively drives a hybrid car, or who proudly pays an extra fee for his carbon footprint when flying to a conference (both examples are true cases)? Wouldn't that be a better object for polemics? Why blame cyclists and for what?
b) Maybe I am completely wrong, but wouldn't a change to bicycles (and other non-emission vehicles) in big cities help to reduce urban heat, and, in the sense of Roger Pielke sr., maybe even contribute to help mitigate regional climate change phenomena? No, I don't say that riding a bicycle will stop global climate change - me not stupid! But wouldn't it contribute to a better environment for citizens?

"Experts predict more storm surges in the future"

The relation between storm surges and anthropogenic climate change is a permanent source of debate. Now experts say on the "Storm Surges Congress" in Hamburg that "through the effects of climate change and extensive human use of coastal areas, storm surge risks could rise worldwide." According to Prof. Nicholls from University of Southampton,  “(r)ecent predictions of the OECD assume that the risk of being hit by a so called one in hundred years flood will be multiplied for large harbor cities worldwide by the year 2070”.
While coasts in Germany should be well protected for the next two decades, according to Hans von Storch, this might change in the future: “Between 2070 and 2100 rises in maximum storm water levels in the range of three to eleven decimeters are conceivable along the entire German North Sea coast”.

Attention: I just DELETED a quote from Hans von Storch in Hamburger Abendblatt, Sept. 15th., which I had posted here originally. Hans let me know that this quote was not authorized (see comments). This is, I guess, how many discussions start: from a fake quote. I fully respect Hans' intervention, of course. It doesn't make any sense to start a discussion on basis of something that was never said. Or start it with a correction. Anyway, I am afraid that's the way many discussions go!

Richard Tol challenges assertion by Ottmar Edenhofer in ZDF

Richard Tol:

Ottmar Edenhofer claimed in „ZDF umwelt“ on September 5, 2010 “Die Aussage, der IPCC hätte bewusst Dinge herausgehalten, die ihm unbequem waren, die nicht gewissermassen in eine Gesamtstory gepasst hätten, kann ich beim besten Willen nicht sehen”. (I cannot understand, even if I try hard, the assertion that the IPCC would deliberately have omitted things, which would have been inconvenient, which would not have been consistent with the overall story.)


This assertion of the co-chair of Working Group III of the IPCC is at best peculiar if not outright false. In the following, I will back this statement in some detail, by demonstrating how specific conclusions from white publications, known to the IPCC lead authors, have been filtered out in support of a (false) claim of consensus in the Summary for Policymakers. At the time of his interview, Dr. Edenhofer was aware of these inconsistencies.

Climate in everyday life

Street corner in Bonn, Germany. Poster Green party: "Climate without the ifs and buts. Now. For tomorrow."
I am not sure what that exactly means, literally. But, of course, the fragile blue planet formed as a heart helps to explain.
There is also a sign "bike station". You can easily rent a bike in many cities nowadays.
Without being noticed too much, climate change is part of our everyday culture. We should learn more about it.

IAC Report: Statements on TV

Controversial statements concerning the IAC report on German TV by Hans von Storch and Ottmar Edenhofer (4min, in German). Including a fine differentiation by Hans von Storch: The task of the IPCC is not to declare the truth about climate change, but the truth about the knowledge on climate change.

Interview with Roger Pielke sr.

In my series of interviews with eminent atmospheric scientists in the Atmospheric Sciences Section of AGU Newsletter a new one has now been published - with Roger A Pielke Sr. He voices rather critical views, and likely not everybody will like his assertions. But being a Fellow of both the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in 2004, a former Chief Editor of the Monthly Weather Review and Co-Chief Editor of the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences he is undoubtedly a legitimate participant in the discussion among scientific experts.

The full series of now 6 AGU-interviews can be downloaded here.

Redefining peer review - again

In an appendix to the Russell-Muir report the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton gives a ‘brief history of peer review’. In it, he addresses the question of quality control through peer review and the issue of influencing the process of peer review.

Hans von Storch on IAC's report on IPCC

The Interacademy Council has published its Review of the processes and procedures of  the IPCC (press release)

And now for something completely different

I would like to post 4 diagrams concerning scientists’ perceptions of some aspects of the state of climate science. The data was collected in 2008. Three lists were employed in constructing the sample. List one included a list of authors, affiliations and email addresses drawn from climate journals with the 10 highest ISI impact ratings for the last 10 years. These are authors of climate related papers in peer reviewed climate related journals. The second list was the list of authors who contributed to Oreskes’ (2004) published conclusions concerning consensus in the climate change issue. A third list was drawn from readily available email lists on institute web sites (i.e. NCAR, MPI, AMS, etc.). Duplicates in the three lists were removed before distribution. The combined invitation list numbered a potential 2677 respondents; defunct email addresses reduced the valid mail out to 2059. Invitations to participate in the survey were distributed by email, providing a link to the on-line survey. Provisions were made so that should someone submit a duplicate form the form identifier resulted in the original being over written. Consequently, for each invitation it was only possible to have one completed survey written to the data set. The response rate for ISI authors list was approximately 27%, for Oreskes’ list, approximately 10%, and from the Institute list, approximately 19%, for a combined response rate of 18% (375 responses). (The full survey will shortly be available on-line as a GKSS report)


The diagrams are presented without comment or interpretation and the results are open for discussion.   

Marcel Severijnen reports about adaptive nature policies in NL

This week the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) in cooperation with Wageningen University announced in a press release a study on adaptive nature policies: ”Adaptatiestrategie voor een klimaatbestendige natuur” Official English versions of neither the press releyase nor the report are available, so my short summary may be of some help:

Neitzschean Deconstruction and Quantum Mechanics: The Solution to Global Warming

OK. The fun is over. (It was fun though!) Science sometimes has to be serious. And what more serious than the global warming issue. And I believe there may be a solution. And, after eating many helpings of humble pie, I have to say that the answer might lay in post modern methodology. (Yes, today it is post-modern, not post-normal, or could it now be post-normal-post-modern analysis.  Ah, enough - like I said, this is a serious matter.)

The Total Deconstruction of Everything: A Short Essay

Table of contents

Post Normal Science or Post Normal Scientists?

This started out as a response to Roger Pielke’s comment about my comment about post-normal science. My response got a little lengthy so I decided to turn it into a posting.


I basically asked just what is a post normal ‘situation’. Roger was not clear on the distinction between situation and science. Here’s Rogers reponse: ‘According to Funtowicz and Ravetz a post-normal situation (science) occurs when "facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent." Normal science would thus be when fact are certain or values in agreement or the decision stakes are low. I'd elaborate this to say it is not simply the presence of uncertainty, but the managability of uncertainty and the presence of ignorance (where uncertainties themselves are ‘uncertain).Building an airplane or developing a vaccine is normal science. An oil spill is not,’

I know 'THE' definition of post-normal science. But, as Roger demonstrates, lately science and situation seem to have become interchangeable.  And,  just for the record, building an airplane is technology and an oil spill is an accident (in this case) not science.  Developing a vaccine I would have thought contained all of the necessary qualities, especially during times of impending epidemics.
Bet’s first take a look at his criteria for post normal whatever:

A post-normal situation: Gulf oil spill revisited

To find out the truth about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico should be simple compared to the question of anthropogenic climate change. Just send some scientists over there, and they will find out. Far from that: according to a commentary in the New York Times, we have a situation familiar to us from our climate discussions. It is a post-normal situation: locals and the public need to know what is at stake in the Gulf; politics asks science, science comes up with contradictory answers; there is interest from the oil industry, of course, and  the media pressure politics to send more experts to clarify the situation.... just another day in the reality of the 21st century. Muddy waters, stinking fish, and clueless politicians.

Lomborg versus Schellnhuber & Co

The world will go down or it won't - in any case, the stories are always structured in the same way. After having discussed Schellnhuber's Spiegel- and Latif's BILD  interviews, here now a commentary with the opposite message written by Lomborg and published in several newspapers (here in German) . On the one hand, I am more sympathetic to Lomborg's message - raising fear permanently is counter-productive, and the apocalyptic rhetoric tends to be oversold. On the other hand, there are striking similarities to the alarmist rhetoric in the way Lomborg builds his own argument. The way he comes to his conclusion is as speculative as Latif's and Schellnhuber's conclusions.  In my opinion, the main problem is how these narratives on climate change are presented. Alarmist or not - I argue that this kind of story telling is oversold.

McShane and Wyner on climate reconstruction methods

Some readers have expressed their interest in discussion about the recent paper on climate reconstructions methods A statistical analysis of multiple temperature proxies: are reconstructions of surface temperatures reliable? by McShane and Wyner. It has also some indirect connection to our recent paper A noodle, hockey stick, and spaghetti plate: a perspective on high-resolution paleoclimatology by Frank et al., 2010, so I will try to give here my personal opinion.

H.J. Schellnhuber Interview in English translation

Today, spiegel online published an English translation of the interview.  Great service! (thanks, Harold, for the link).

Schellnhuber im SPIEGEL

Im SPIEGEL 33/2010, S. 110-113, findet sich ein ausführliches Interview mit Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber. Ein bemerkenswertes Interview; u.a. statt 2 Grad kann es auch der 2-3 Grad Korridor sein; 10% der Parlamentsitze könnten für Ombudsleute reserviert bleiben, die nur den Interessen zukünftiger Generationen vepflichtet sind; und Geoengineering, zum langfristigen Herunterkühlen auf die Jungsteinzeit, sollte in das Instrumentarium der Möglichkeiten.

Aufenvenne: Klimadeterminismus

Phillip Aufenvenne hat in seiner Diplomarbeit Im Schatten des Klimadeterminismus - Eine Analyse der Wahrnehmung und Interpretation des Klimawandels unter Studenten der Geographie am Geographischen Institut der Universität Osnabrück "die Wahrnehmung und Bewertung des Klimawandels durch Studenten der Geographie" in den Blick genommen.

An analysis of climate politics and science in The Netherlands

The Dutch Rathenau Institute has published the report "Room for Climate Debate: perspectives on the interaction between climate politics, science and the media" by Jeroen van der Sluijs, Rinie van Est and Monique Riphagen. The report can be downloaded from:
http://www.rathenau.nl/en/publications/room-for-climate-debate-1.html.

The coauthor Monique Riphagen has supplied us with this summary.

Abstract
   Since the establishment of the IPCC, national and international climate politics have leaned heavily on the scientific assessments of the IPCC. Politicians legitimate their climate politics by pointing to science: the IPCC tells us which political goals should be set. Climate politics is based on the linear model of science: knowledge is the basis of decision-making and more science will lead to more knowledge and less uncertainty. As is shown in the Netherlands, this has left politics with little space for political debate, causing this debate to move to science and thus politicising science.
   The weakness of the linear model is the underexposure of dissent, which is reflected in the consensus model of the IPCC. The recent review of the IPCC is mainly focussed on evaluating processes and procedures of the IPCC. Of course strengthening these procedures can prevent future mistakes and will make the fifth report more authoritative. However, a mere focus on this will not lead to less criticism and more faith in climate science. To depoliticise science and offer more room for the political debate, more space should be given to dissent opinions, sceptic as well as alarmistic. More openness about uncertainties in scientific knowledge and more room for these dissent scientific views in the IPCC reports would restore the political debate and enhance societies’ capacity to deal with this uncertainty.

Silke Beck in Das Parlament

Unter dem Titel Vertrauen geschmolzen? Zur Glaubwürdigkeit der Klimaforschung hat Silke Beck eine interessante Analyse veröffentlicht in der Beilage "Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte" der Zeitschrift Parlament.

Mojib Latif in der BILD

„Das alles ist nur ein Vorgeschmack ...“:
Klimaforscher Mojib Latif sieht einen Zusammenhang zwischen der Hitzehölle in Russland und dem weltweiten Wetterchaos

Sustainable ... science?

Doing science, creating new knowledge, in German: Wissen schaffen, is a social activity. As all social activities, it can be done sustainably. Or not.

Krauss in nature geoscience

Werner Krauss had the comment Rooted in society in Nature Geoscience 3, 513 - 514 (2010) doi:10.1038/ngeo927 - unfortunately the internet-access goes with a fee ... but many institutions will have arranged for a free access for its staff. Werner summarizes his article like this:

Geden now also in English: Beyond the Two Degree Target

Oliver Geden, from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs has now published his theses "What Comes after the Two Degree Target? The EU's Climate Policy Should Advocate for Flexible Benchmarks" in English.

'Das ist eine Verrohung des intellektuellen Niveaus'

Here the interview with Hans von Storch on zeit-online. Useful information about recent weather events; a polemical statement why skeptics and alarmists resemble each other;  Hans' contribution to the IPCC working group, and the role of climate science after climategate.

Merkwürdig: Wie werten wir das Fehlen römischer Kondensationsheizungen?

, der diese Mail bekam, unaufgefordert, mit Namensangabe, aber ohne vorherigen Kontakt:

Inquiry about the purpose of re-doing the construction of past temperature variations based on thermometer reports.

who got this inquiry:
"As a general science enthusiast with a particular interest in public controversies about scientific subjects, I've been trying to get myself informed on the science of climate change. I realise you must be very busy, and that you probably get questions like these all the time from laymen, but I would really appreciate your response.
       In a recent article in Der Spiegel, you were quoted as advocating an independent reconstruction of surface temperatures. I can certainly see how this may be necessary for regaining public trust after the past few months. However, a somewhat more skeptical friend of mine has inferred from this that you have significant doubts about the basic conclusions of the temperature analyses (i.e. that we are currently still in a long term warming trend, and have been for the past several decades), and that you expect substantial differences to result from a new analysis. I did not get this impression from the article, but as the original version was in German and my German is quite rusty, my impression may be mistaken. Is my friend correct in making this inference - that is, do you expect significant changes in these basic conclusions from an independent analysis?"

which Hans von Storch answered with: "Your friend is NOT right. I would not expect significant changes in a new analysis, but instead would expect that the thermometer-based temperature results (as opposed to tree-ring estimates) published so far would be almost completely reconfirmed. But when this additional exercise would be done by independent people, the trust in the result, and climate science as a whole, would be significantly increased. Thus, the measure would be needed for public communication, not for purely scientific reasons.
See also our statement in nature online, 18 December 2010".

Interview mit Reinhard Böhm zur MIttelalterlichen Warmperiode

Im neuen (?) Blog "Mittelalterliche Warmperiode" geht jemand, er sich William von Baskerville nennt und Österreich als seinen Standort angibt, eben der Mittelalterlichen Warmperiode nach - und dabei hat er ein interessantes Interview mit dem auch auf der Klimazwiebel bekannten und geschätzten Reinhard Böhm geführt.

Epilogue to Lysenko-debate by Nils Roll Hansen

Nils Roll-Hansen, 27.07.10: The lesson from Lysenkoism

I am happy that the comments to my blog “A lesson from Lysenkoism?” (Klimazwiebel, 6 June 2010) give me an opportunity clarify a couple of issues.

• Firstly: I believe there is an important lesson about scientific autonomy to be learned. The present threat is not direct political intervention like in 1948, but subtle ideological, political and economic factors that undermine scientific autonomy in the long run.
• Secondly: Lysenko became infamous for his genetics. But it was contributions to plant physiology that launched his career. His personal career as well as that of his teachings can only be properly understood on this background. Traditional historiography misleads by neglecting the work that first gave Lysenko both national and international scientific status and recognition.

Wieder Geden: Was kommt nach dem Zwei-Grad-Ziel?

Oliver Geden von der Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik hat seine Überlegungen zur Post-2-Grad Zeit fortgesetzt in einem 4-seitigen SWP Aktuell (#55) Was kommt nach dem 2 Grad Ziel?.

In der PRESSE: Klimaforschung und die Medien. Eine fragile Beziehungsgeschichte.

Die beiden CLISAP-Klimaforscher Irene Neverla (Medienwissenschaftlerin) und Hans von Storch (Klimastatistiker) schreiben in der österreichischen PRESSE vom 24. Juli 2010 über die mediale Karriere des Klimaproblems.
Unter dem Titel "Wer den Hype braucht" (Original: Klimaforschung und die Medien. Eine fragile Beziehungsgeschichte") heisst es "Am Anfang war „Klimawandel“ nur eine – gut begründete – Hypothese. Innerhalb weniger Jahrzehnte wurde daraus mediale Gewissheit: erst die einer nahenden Katastrophe, schließlich die einer längst gegenwärtigen globalen Tragödie. Zur Karriere eines Begriffs." Der ganze Text auf der Webseite der Presse.com.

A cloudy or a sunny future ?

A key factor in determining future global warming is the reaction of the clouds to rising temperatures: if cloud cover diminishes or clouds reflect less solar radiation they can exacerbate the effect of CO₂: by the same token, they can moderate the warming if they become more extensive or more reflective in the future. Since climate models are nor particularly good at simulating clouds, this is the most important single source of uncertainty.

Brain Hoskins and Camilla Toulmin, drinking tea with The Economist

I have just discovered that The Economist offers a series of interesting short interviews on a series of different topics. Two of them are related to climate change. One is with Brian Hoskins, a very well known expert on atmospheric dynamics and review editor in the last IPCC Report. He offers what I find are candid views on uncertainties, climate models and action on climate change. This interview is post-climategate.

Do you believe in global warming?

I recall Werner confronting me with this question some moths ago in this blog, and now one of our regular readers, Jon, has sent me a thoughtful article published in Global Change containing exactly the same question. The author of this article is clearly seeking a common ground to break the current stalemate, something that is really welcomed.

A mistake with consequences ?

A new paper in press in Journal of Climate by Jason Smerdon from the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory and collaborators documents surprising, and somewhat inexplicable, errors in some previous pseudo-proxy studies by Mann and collaborators.

Investment in new energy technologies

The FT has an interesting article on energy technologies. It reports on the Climate Change Committee’s warning that the UK is not on track with investment in this area and is falling behind other countries (read the Committee's full report here)

The Committee on Climate Change, the statutory body that advises ministers on emissions reduction targets, said the UK spent 0.01 per cent of GDP on energy in 2007, the latest year for which comparative figures are available. That compared to 0.03 per cent in the US, 0.05 per cent in France and 0.09 per cent in Japan.

Stepen Schneider dies from Heart Attack

It may seem strange, but this sad news is not yet in the mainstream media. I saw it on RPjr's blog and here.

update: hottest june / spring / year ever

It's summer, and temperature is rising. More than ever, according to recent data. According to the Guardian and many other sources, it was the hottest June ever:
'The trend to a warmer world is now incontrovertible. According to NOAA, June was the 304th consecutive month with a combined global land and surface temperature above the 20th-century average. The last month with below-average temperatures was February 1985. Each of the 10 warmest average global temperatures recorded since 1880 have occurred in the last 15 years with the previous warmest first half of a year in 1998. '

Homöopathie & Wissenschaft

This is just paraphernalia, but it's fun to think about. Unfortunately only in German: in the spiegel-online interview, a scientist argues that 'Homeopathy is a dogma' in contrast to science (orthodox medicine). The political background is  the proposition to ban homeopathy from health care services. In the interview, the scientist argues that there is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy according to standardized tests. His main argument is that homeopathy is not 'scientific'- 'nicht wissenschaftlich'.

Two recent pieces in The Economist

The Economist runs this week two pieces on climate. I liked very much the leader article titled Flawed Scientist , although the title does not actually correspond very well with the content of the article. If someone would ask me to summarize my view on the present controversies I would point to this op-ed. The lengthier report Science behind closed doors in the magazine about the recent Dutch, Oxburgh, and Muir-Russel assessments is, I think also, quite accurate.

Muir Russel Inquiry report published

The full report can be downloaded here, it is 160 pages long. The BBC reports as main findings that the integrity of the scientists is not in question but that openness about data was a problem. Little suprise here. The BBC says:

"Sir Muir commented: "So we conclude that the argument that CRU has something to hide does not stand up".

Dutch analysis of quality of WG II AR4 reports finds no significant errors

The PBL in the Netherlands has published its assessment of the WG II report of IPCC AR4. The Report and a press release are available on the net.

Guardian on long-terms effects of ClimateGate

In the Guardian of 4. July, science writer Fred Pearce has written 'Climategate' was 'a game-changer' in science reporting, say climatologists After the hacked emails scandal scientists became 'more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties'. In preparation, Fred Pearce has approached a number of scientists, asking for their opinions. Off course, only part of the answers entered the article, which I consider well researched. For the readers of the Klimazwiebel, it may be interesting to read what the full accounts of those asked were. Here are some:

Roger Pielke sr. claims to have found errors in WGI-report of IPCC AR4

Roger A. Pielke Sr. claims that the Working Group I report of IPCC AR4 (2007) contains at least three significant errors - with error meaning "an inaccurate or flawed analysis of the available, scientifically legitimate knowledge available in time of the deadline of AR4". Thus the issue is not whether the statements about the climate are in hindsight wrong or right, but if the assessment provides a reliable account of the knowledge at the time of the assessment. The deadline was in mid 2006.

One error refers to an incomplete account of the drivers of climate change (absorbing aerosols and land-use changes), another relates to a figure caption, and the third to the attribution of recent warm years only to elevated greenhouse gas levels.

Yale project on climate change communication: On public perceptions of climate change and climate scientists

The Yale project on climate change communication released a working paper, a reader of this blog pointed out to us,  that examines the impact of Climategate on public perceptions of climate change and climate scientists, drawing on a national survey which was conducted in December, 2009 and January, 2010.

In brief, the project found that "Climategate" had a significant negative effect on public beliefs in global warming and trust in scientists. The loss of trust in scientists, however, appears to have been primarily among people with a strongly individualistic worldview or politically conservative ideology. Nonetheless, the project found that Americans overall continued to trust scientists more than any other source of information about global warming.

You can download the working paper from the project's website.

Consumer Science

We live in an age of consumerism. A basic idea is to sell goods, goods and more goods. Could it be that some aspects of science have bought into this? Science is though, somewhat of a strange market model. As far I can ascertain, it is the only entity that produces goods (journal articles) to either give away or even pay to give away (publishing costs). And it is not often, to my knowledge, that a presentation by a scientists receives the same fee as say a presentation by Bill Clinton or Al Gore. So could it be, admittedly tied up with recent rage to ‘communicate’ science, that scientists have devised (likely unknowingly) a new currency on which to judge success in a world gone mad with consumerism? Has climate modelling transmogrified from a science to a technology, shifting the tendency even more towards consumerism?

Gwyn Prins on Newsnight

Newsnight covered climate policy again, this time interviewing (among others) Mike Hulme and Gwyn Prins, authors of the Hartwell Paper. You can watch it here, starts 16 minutes into it.
There is also an appearance of Sir Daivd King, former chief scientific advisor to the UK government. It may be significant that he has come round to the idea that aggressive CO2 reductions is the wrong approach.

Wiedemann im ZDF: Trittbrettfahrer, Klimakosten

Schon am 30. Mai 2010 hatte Michael Wiedemann beim ZDF (Umwelt) wieder mit einer Sendung zum Klimathema zugeschlagen. Ausgangspunkt ist ein Gutachten beim Bundesfinanzministerium. Ich finde, die Sendung lohnt sich anzugucken.

Guest comment: Knutti Reto on an opening comment in an article ...

A reader quoted the two following two sentences from our recent review article about climate sensitivity:”The Earth’s climate is changing rapidly as a result of anthropogenic carbon emissions, and damaging impacts are expected to increase with warming. To prevent these and limit long-term global surface warming to, for example, 2°C, a level of stabilization or of peak atmospheric CO2 concentrations needs to be set.” That statement could be misinterpreted as a political statement of the authors of what has to be done about climate change, or a political statement driving the study.

IPCC - sea level meeting in Kuala Lumpur

Today, the IPCC workshop "Sea Level Rise and Ice Sheet Instabilities" has begun. In Kuala Lumpur. I am reporting here becauses of  a number of interesting details and of interesting invited talks.

Newton and sea level rise

By how much would sea-level rise if the Greenland ice sheet disappears ? Probably quite a lot, but not in Germany, or in North Western Europe for that matter. There, sea level would virtually unaffected. To formulate it a bit provocatively, Greenland is for Western Europeans irrelevant. They should be rather observing Antarctica more closely.

[Update: some other blogs referring to  this post present it as a new study of mine. This study is neither new nor mine. The figure caption in this post refers to some publications. You can also google  authors Milne, Tamiseia, Basset among others. ]

Oliver Geden in 2008 über "Klimabewusstes Alltagsverhalten"

Oliver Geden hat schon 2008 die Frage des "klimabewusstes Alltagsverhalten" in einem längeren Aufsatz geschrieben, der das Effizienz-Kriterium aufnimmt. Für die, die nicht gerne lange Texte lesen, gibt es in der Süddeutschen ein Kurzfassung.

Reinhard Böhm: Musil's fine summer day in 1913

Guest comment bei Reinhard Böhm
NO DEEP REFLEXION OVER MUSIL’S FINE SUMMER DAY IN AUGUST 1913 JUST A LITTLE PIECE OF EASY STATISTICS

Poor Ulrich – “der Mann ohne Eigenschaften” -, who lived in the post-fin the siècle Vienna, obviously had a slightly shifted perception of what a “fine summer day” had to be. The 1910s saw the coldest summers of the last 200 years. I am sure – born in Vienna myself - the Viennese will have been in their famous mood of lamenting all the time. And in fact they were right: They had experienced a slow but relentless cooling of Augusts for more than 60 years. And they did not know they lived right at a change point: from then on climate warming took the command also in Vienna.

And for the entire summers (the means of June to August) it had been even worse: 1913 saw the second coldest summer, only 0,3°C from the record holder 1813.

What do we learn?

1. Vienna was a trendsetter in the 19th century – the year without a summer happened three years earlier in our city than in the rest of the world, astonishingly also 2 years before the famous Tambora eruption.
2. Extraordinary cold summers happen each 100 years – so we expect the next for 2013
3. “Don’t worry – be happy” and take weather and climate as what it is: an interesting background of our lives but not the dominating one – learn the lesson from the “Mann ohne Eigenschaften”: Right at the climax of terrible summers he was quite happy about a “fine summer day”.
4. Don’t take too seriously what I was writing – just have fun with it!