tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post6294046045522657523..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: 2014 - the warmest yeareduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-92119180559157291262015-02-28T14:32:28.513+01:002015-02-28T14:32:28.513+01:00jgdes tells us that
"But also note the fervou...jgdes tells us that<br />"But also note the fervour to correct a cooling trend.Does such a fervour exist for any warming trend? Well, apparently not "<br /><br />The correction to the ocean temperature measurements *reduces* the global temperature trend (combined land + ocean) over the period 1880-2014.<br /><br />http://variable-variability.blogspot.dk/2015/02/homogenization-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html<br /><br />That is, if there supposedly is any (ideologically driven) fervour to correct a cooling trend, surely scientists would have found reasons not to adjust the ocean temperatures (or in the same direction as some of the land temperatures)?<br /><br />And as Rasmus Benestad shows on Realclimate, those who have looked in detail at the real temperature trend on e.g. Svalbard actually find a larger warming trend than GISTEMP does, despite Homewood's implicit claims of inappropriate data manipulation (Booker just repeats Homewood's talking points):<br />http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/noise-on-the-telegraph/Bamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-43241539180962629842015-02-28T12:38:04.687+01:002015-02-28T12:38:04.687+01:00GHB does not linke links. I do not either, but GHB...GHB does not linke links. I do not either, but GHB wants even more. I want it also, but I want many things, and I know that one is not always getting what one wants.<br /><br />I had a look into some of the links and saw soemwhat disturbing diagrams. First I would like to know, if these representations are correct, for whatever reasons. Next I would like to know what the sources (authors) say about the differences, as I can not believe that they would not have commented on such differences - if they are real.<br /><br />Next time, GHB, you try to be polite, would you? Please. And reasonable. It is of course entirely unreasonable to expect a third part to sift through the code as a whole. It is the task of the authors to explain what they have changed in the algorithm, and why, what the consequences of the change are, if necessary in some detail. <br />Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-86661134639471049502015-02-27T19:04:58.277+01:002015-02-27T19:04:58.277+01:00@jgdes
i do not want links.
I want proof. Show ...@jgdes<br /><br />i do not want links. <br /><br />I want proof. Show me in the analysis of the free source code, the free data, the free documentation, where the "tamparing" occurred. The links do not show this. <br /><br />Show me, the difference of HadCRUT4 and HadCRUT3 algoriths. And show me, why this is "tamparing" data? Your link simply claims, they are different, the author did not like the difference. Show me the difference in the approach, data coverage, data analysis. Show me then why HadCRUt4 is worse the HadCRUt3. Comparing picures is not enough.<br /><br />GISS... show me the difference in the algorithm of 1999 and 2014. I do not want animations. Your link does not show it. Why not? Can you not answer this? <br /><br />NOAA:<br />show me the difference in the algorithm and show me why this is fraud. Your link does not show this. Why not?<br /><br /><br />Last question: do you claim the JMA agency, they independent bloggers, the BEST group are also part of a big tamparing conspiracy? They all support the results of the three other agencies. Why? Explain it. They use different datasets, different algorithms, were even paid by the Koch brothers. All alarmists and frauds? Explain it.<br /><br />All in all... all your links are unconvincing. <br /><br />best,<br />GHBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-59158016575194941132015-02-27T11:09:26.319+01:002015-02-27T11:09:26.319+01:00GHB
Seriously is that all you got from my post, a...GHB<br /><br />Seriously is that all you got from my post, a possible nitpick? I guess the rest must be unarguable for you then. Quite! FYI here is the numerical evidence of peak-shifting for Hadcrut, Giss and NOAA:<br /><br />Giss arctic cooling of the past: <br />https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/temperature-adjustments-transform-arctic-climate-history/<br /><br />Hadcrut4 versus hadcrut3 swaps 1998 and 2010 as warmest years: <br />https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/hadcrut4-v-hadcrut3/<br /><br />US Giss 1999 versus 2014 cooling the past again:<br />https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/the-new-and-improved-giss-us-cheating-animation/<br /><br />NOAA tampering:<br />https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/22/noaa-caught-cooling-the-past/<br /><br />As for the sea surface temps, this is a mixed bag. They did correct the rampant alarmist about satellites that showed 3mm/year sea level rise when tide-guages showed 1.7mm/yr back down to 1.4mm/year. Thus the 'acceleration' hysteria went back down to 'better than we thought' but you likely didn't read about it. Josh Willis is rightly critical of error-prone data before 2005. Argo is flat down to 700m and below that Willis says rightly that the data is too sparse.<br />http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/<br /><br />But also note the fervour to correct a cooling trend.Does such a fervour exist for any warming trend? Well, apparently not because note the final reconstruction of Levitus + Argo at the 2000 mark; that step change in temp. comes entirely from an unresolved instrumentation change from XBT to Argo which Levitus just ignored. He was quick enough to worry about the prior cooling period though. There is institutional bias here; not necessarily malfeasance but definitely tampering to increase trends.jgdeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00113923164193106018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-56600213457284986012015-02-16T09:45:03.641+01:002015-02-16T09:45:03.641+01:00@jgdes
the interesting question in your insinuati...@jgdes<br /><br />the interesting question in your insinuations is: which modifications have been made in the algorithms of/for the surface temperature sets since 1998? Please consider: there are several independent implementations that were made by skeptics, which show the same results. Furthermore, consider that the documentation is complete and the source code has been free since at least 2007. <br /><br />Please, show us the modifications. <br /><br />G.H.B.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-54112045385151904272015-02-15T20:49:59.222+01:002015-02-15T20:49:59.222+01:00a. the 2 satellite datasets have not had their 199...a. the 2 satellite datasets have not had their 1998 peaked removed by successive adjustments and so still show 1998 as a peak. We all usually tend to believe satellites in this day and age on any other issue so the main reason not to refer to satellites is surely that they dont show what alarmists want to see. <br /><br />b. All these years were high due to el ninos and were subsequently followed by a big drop due to a la nina, So next year will certainly see a big drop. And what will the alarmists say then? What indeed will alarmists say if skeptics said global warming had stopped due to the 2016 temp drop? Well of course they will start talking about trends again and say that one year makes no difference. It is the most rank dishonesty they show!<br /><br />The fact is that they predicted a parabolic rise and got a plateau. The rise is CO2 never stopped and mankind was now supposed to be dominating the planetary climate but the temperature rate of rise reversed. The scientists response is now to deny that the plateau exists. Where in this response is any science?<br /><br />Of course the null hypothesis is that its all natural. Does anyone honestly see anything other than natural in this mild rise of 0.6K/century, none of which was in the last 18 years temperature rise? Yes 'honestly' is the word! Leaving the false ethics, gross pessimism and the climate crisis funding that keeps all these researchers in a job aside.jgdeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00113923164193106018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-15935889175260235092015-02-06T22:04:32.846+01:002015-02-06T22:04:32.846+01:00.../2
Indeed, there is enough wiggle room in the ....../2<br /><br />Indeed, there is enough wiggle room in the numbers that the center has a different list of the 10 warmest years than those produced using NASA's and Mr. McIntyre's analyses. By the climate center's reckoning, 1998 remains the warmest year for the 48 states (with 2006 second and 1934 third).<br /><br />Dr. Lawrimore, Dr. Hansen and other experts said that trends are far more important than particular years, and the recent widespread warming trend has been clear -- and very distinct from the regional hot spell that drove up United States temperatures in the 1930s.<br /><br />Mr. McIntyre and the government scientists do agree on at least one more thing: the need to improve the quality of climate data gathered around the world, including in the United States, which has by far the planet's biggest network of meteorological stations.<br /><br />Mr. McIntyre is not alone in pointing out that the need to adjust and revise such data -- with the attendant risk of mistakes --would be reduced with more care and consistency taken in collecting climate data.<br /><br />The National Academy of Sciences has repeatedly called for improvements in climate monitoring. An independent group of meteorologists and weather buffs is compiling its own gallery of American weather stations at www.surfacestations.org, with photographs showing glaring problems, like thermometers placed next to asphalt runways and parking lots.<br /><br />Dr. Lawrimore said that the government is preparing to build a climate reference network of more sophisticated, and consistent, monitoring stations that should cut uncertainty in gauging future trends.<br /><br />In any case, he said, the evidence for human-driven warming remains robust. ''Saying what they're saying has just provided an opportunity for them to create doubt in people's minds,'' he said of the bloggers.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-3883227678972467302015-02-06T22:04:13.333+01:002015-02-06T22:04:13.333+01:00August 26, 2007
Quarter-Degree Fix Fuels Climate ...August 26, 2007 <br />Quarter-Degree Fix Fuels Climate Fight <br />By ANDREW C. REVKIN<br /><br />Never underestimate the power of the blogosphere and a quarter of a degree to inflame the fight over global warming.<br /><br />A quarter-degree Fahrenheit is roughly the downward adjustment NASA scientists made earlier this month in their annual estimates of the average temperature in the contiguous 48 states since 2000. They corrected the numbers after an error in meshing two sets of temperature data was discovered by Stephen McIntyre, a blogger and retired business executive in Toronto. Smaller adjustments were made to some readings for some preceding years.<br /><br />All of this would most likely have passed unremarkably if Mr. McIntyre had not blogged that the adjustments changed the rankings of warmest years for the contiguous states since 1895, when record-keeping began.<br /><br />Suddenly, 1934 appeared to vault ahead of 1998 as the warmest year on record (by a statistically meaningless 0.036 degrees Fahrenheit). In NASA's most recent data set, 1934 had followed 1998 by a statistically meaningless 0.018 degrees. Conservative bloggers, columnists and radio hosts pounced. ''We have proof of man-made global warming,'' Rush Limbaugh told his radio audience. ''The man-made global warming is inside NASA.''<br /><br />Mr. McIntyre, who has spent years seeking flaws in studies pointing to human-driven climate change, traded broadsides on the Web with James E. Hansen, the NASA team's leader. Dr. Hansen said he would not ''joust with court jesters'' and Mr. McIntyre posited that Dr. Hansen might have a ''Jor-El complex'' -- a reference to Superman's father, who foresaw the destruction of his planet and sent his son packing.<br /><br />Blogs are still reverberating, but Mr. McIntyre, Dr. Hansen and others familiar with the initial data revisions are clarifying what is, and is not, at issue.<br /><br />One thing not in question, Mr. McIntyre and Dr. Hansen agree, is the merit of shifting away from energy choices that contribute heat-trapping greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.<br /><br />Mr. McIntyre said he feels ''climate change is a serious issue.'' His personal preference is to shift increasingly to nuclear power and away from coal and oil, the main source of heat-trapping carbon dioxide.<br /><br />Mr. McIntyre and Dr. Hansen also agree that the NASA data glitch had no effect on the global temperature trend, nudging it by an insignificant thousandth of a degree.<br /><br />Everyone appears also to agree that too much attention is paid to records, particularly given that the difference between 1934, 1998, and several other sets of years in the top 10 warmest list for the United States are so small as to be statistically meaningless.<br /><br />Mr. McIntyre said that when he posted the revised list under the heading ''A New Leaderboard at the U.S. Open,'' ''I just was sort of having some fun with it as much as anything.''<br /><br />He added: ''The significance of things has been misstated by Limbaugh and people like that.''<br /><br />Dr. Hansen and his team note that they rarely, if ever, discuss individual years, particularly regional findings like those for the United States (the lower 48 are only 2 percent of the planet's surface). ''In general I think that we want to avoid going into more and more detail about ranking of individual years,'' he said in an e-mail message. ''As far as I remember, we have always discouraged that as being somewhat nonsensical.''<br /><br />Jay Lawrimore, a scientist at the National Climatic Data Center of the Commerce Department who works on assembling the climate records that NASA analyzed, said his agency could probably do a better job of emphasizing the uncertainty surrounding its annual temperature announcements.<br />.../2<br />@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-75187889648273525772015-02-06T21:59:06.533+01:002015-02-06T21:59:06.533+01:00Last week I asked on twitter if anyone knew about ...Last week I asked on twitter if anyone knew about previous press reports about warmest/hottest years. Gavin Schmidt replied indicating that he came across two articles in The Economist from 1988 and 1989. I realised there is not much research on this topic so have started to do it myself. <br /><br />Here I list the articles from the New York Times that I found using the search terms "warmest year" AND "on record". There were 14 articles overall, not all relevant to global temperatures. I only reprint the snippets with context of the term "warmest year". In the following post I will show the article which appeared on 26 August 2007 in full, as it merits special attention.<br /><br />3 Jan 1991 <br />1990 was the seventh warmest year on record for the United States. It might have been the warmest ever, meteorologists said, had not the December chill in the Midwest and the West offset record high temperatures in the East. <br /><br />29 June 1999<br />Earlier this year, scientists at the University of Massachusetts and the University of Arizona reconstructed the average annual surface temperature trend of the Northern Hemisphere for the last 1,000 years. While cautioning that the margin of error was large enough to render data from the early centuries untrustworthy, they found that the 20th century was the warmest of the millennium, by far. This and other analyses have found that the warmest years of all occurred in the 1990's, with 1998 the warmest on record. El Nino, the great pool of warm water in the tropical Pacific Ocean that from time to time heats the atmosphere and disrupts weather patterns, was responsible for some of the 1998 heating. <br /><br />A preliminary analysis by Dr. Wigley, however, has shown that when El Nino's effects are filtered out of the global temperature record statistically, 1998 still ranks as the warmest year. (This year is also shaping up as unusually warm, but not as warm as 1998.) <br /><br />August 26, 2007 <br />Suddenly, 1934 appeared to vault ahead of 1998 as the warmest year on record (by a statistically meaningless 0.036 degrees Fahrenheit). In NASA's most recent data set, 1934 had followed 1998 by a statistically meaningless 0.018 degrees. … the difference between 1934, 1998, and several other sets of years in the top 10 warmest list for the United States are so small as to be statistically meaningless. <br /><br />11 April 2010<br />In public discussion, the climate-change skeptics have clearly been gaining ground over the past couple of years, even though the odds have been looking good lately that 2010 could be the warmest year on record. But climate modelers themselves have grown increasingly pessimistic. What were previously worst-case scenarios have become base-line projections<br /><br />22 July 2012<br />The United States is now enduring its warmest year on record, and the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998, according to data that stretches back to 1880. <br /><br />4 December 2014<br />The World Meteorological Organization said Wednesday that 2014 was on track to be the warmest year on record. ''This is an important message for negotiators so that they know that decisions have to be taken quickly,'' Michel Jarraud, the organization's secretary general, said in Geneva. He added that the evidence linking human-generated carbon emissions to climate change was much stronger than it was 20 years ago, and a ''lack of knowledge is no longer an excuse for inaction.'' <br /><br />January 21, 2015<br />Obama: “2014 was the planet's warmest year on record. Now, one year doesn't make a trend, but this does: 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all fallen in the first 15 years of this century.” <br /> @ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-34891956387129952372015-02-01T19:30:31.863+01:002015-02-01T19:30:31.863+01:00Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose.
AndeasRose is a rose is a rose is a rose.<br /><br />AndeasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-88094016374688897462015-02-01T18:37:52.702+01:002015-02-01T18:37:52.702+01:00Andreas
nur zum besseren Verständnis: Hat David R...Andreas<br /><br />nur zum besseren Verständnis: Hat David Rose in der Mail von heute 'Mist verzapft'? Sein Artikel kommentiert ja unter anderem die Nasa Folien und die Differenz zwischen NASA und Met Office Stellungnahme.<br /><br />@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-27998287600285471252015-02-01T17:14:15.877+01:002015-02-01T17:14:15.877+01:00Reiner Grundmann,
I postet a link in #29.
I reco...Reiner Grundmann,<br /><br />I postet a link in #29.<br /><br />I recommend also a deeper analysis (Hansen et al.): http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2015/20150116_Temperature2014.pdf<br /><br />AndreasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-14510417126648593022015-02-01T15:36:34.775+01:002015-02-01T15:36:34.775+01:00Sorry to be so late to this, but two points
First...Sorry to be so late to this, but two points<br /><br />First, the degree to which either Rahmstorf's or Christy's statements are MISLEADING is a much better scale by which to judge. <br /><br />Second, the whole "Honest Broker" concept as pushed by Roger Pielke Jr. is an absolute joke (strong words) for anybunny who has <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.no/2010/01/honest-joker.html" rel="nofollow">any concept of what brokers really do</a>. <br /><br />To Pielke, an "Honest Broker" when asked what restaurants are worth spending calories on, will simply thrust a list into your hand of all those in the neighborhood without any recommendation of which to visit. Pileke views this as expanding the number of choices. <br /><br />Brokers do not expand the scope of choices available to clients, they narrow them. Brokers make markets. Brokers make a living by matching buyers to sellers and taking a commission (You thought they do it for free?). Ethical brokers will go out on the market seeking product suited to clients and will seek clients suited to products available to them. Ethical brokers have mutual obligations to sellers and buyers, to qualify the buyers and vet the sellers, not to sell every piece of nuclear waste to every rube with a cell phone.<br /><br />Good brokers know what is available for purchase and what their buyer's needs are. They select the best matches (with allowance for the front and back end fees they are going to collect). The broker you want often tells the client NO, don't do that. Where the client insists on committing financial suicide the ethical broker is obligated to tell the buyer to take the business elsewhere. EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-28073764385745759762015-02-01T12:45:55.086+01:002015-02-01T12:45:55.086+01:00I asked if someone could post a link to NASA's...I asked if someone could post a link to NASA's website where the statement about the record year could be found. So far no one has done so. Looking through a news trawl about record temperatures I came across this from David Rose in the Daily Mail:<br /><br />"[A] Met Office press release [last week] stated: '2014 one of the warmest years on record globally.' Normally, one might have expected this to be given widespread coverage by broadcasters and newspapers. In fact, BBC news bulletins ignored it altogether. Only one national newspaper mentioned it.<br />The reasons? First, because, with admirable precision, the Met Office pointed out that as its measurements of global temperatures come with a sizeable margin of error, 'it's not possible to definitively say which of several recent years was the warmest'. All one could state with confidence was that 2014 was somewhere in the top ten.<br />Secondly, because the previous week, almost every broadcaster and newspaper in the world had screamed that 2014 was emphatically The Hottest Year Ever. They did so because NASA told them so. Its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the custodian of one of the main American temperature datasets, had announced: 'The year 2014 ranks as Earth's warmest since 1880.' If you'd bothered to click on the sixth of a series of internet links listed at the end of the press release, you could have found deep within it the startling fact that GISS was only '38 per confident' that 2014 really did set a record.." <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-16293522346145780932015-01-30T22:30:00.559+01:002015-01-30T22:30:00.559+01:00Klimaesoteriker: Was Neues für mich, Lobbyist für ...Klimaesoteriker: Was Neues für mich, Lobbyist für Walfang, die antitransrapidistische Straßenbahnliga, bestrahltes Katzenfutter und immer wichtig, die Ölindustrie hatte ich schon. Jetzt will Werner Krauss offiziell den Skeptiker (Das Klima ist sicher, Nobby Blümchen) versus Klimaaktivist (Niemand hat vor, mit Klimathemen eine politische Agenda zu errichten, Waltraud Ulbricht) Diskurs verlassen, aber wer nicht eineindeutig Partei beziehe, wird zum Klimaesoteriker. Tsts. <br /><br /><br /><br />Ich stimme HvS zu, daß die Behauptung, die "physikalische Klimaforschung könne nichts mehr zur Klimapolitik beitragen" ziemlich gewagt ist. Erinnert ein wenig an die Empfehlung an den jungen Max Planck, besser keine Physik zu studieren, weil da schon alles entdeckt sei. Den Fokus der ARs wie des IPCC auf bekanntes (globales) klimatologisches Wissen kann man dennoch für verfehlt halten. Es fehlen imho sowohl die Folgen (Cost/Benefit) regionaler Klimaveränderungen wie auch die Darstellung und Erfassung best practices bei der Anpassung. <br /><br /><br />Grüßle<br /><br />SertenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-32078524781919631892015-01-30T18:19:46.157+01:002015-01-30T18:19:46.157+01:00Ich habe jetzt #88 von "Observer" wg per...Ich habe jetzt #88 von "Observer" wg persönlicher Pöbelei entfernt.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-83320174269018279152015-01-30T18:12:49.161+01:002015-01-30T18:12:49.161+01:00Werner,
wenn ich dich Recht verstehe, ist der Beg...Werner,<br /><br />wenn ich dich Recht verstehe, ist der Begriff Honest Broker fehl am Platz, da er immer unterstellt es gäbe unehrliche? Dichtomien sind binäre Konstrukte, es gibt ja viele Grautöne und Varianten von etwas.<br /><br />Der Vorwurf der Moralisierung der Wissenschaft ist etwas ungewöhnlich in post-Climategate Zeiten. Meine Kritik an der Wissenschaftskommunikation in diesem Beispiel ist im Sinne von HvS's Appell an die Nachhaltigkeit. Wissenschaftler sollten sich um größtmögliche Glaubwürdigkeit bemühen, damit ihnen das Vertrauen nicht abhanden kommt. Wir kommen offenbar zu einer unterschiedlichen Bewertung in diesem Fall aber der *Vorwurf* der Moralisierung ist Fehl am Platz.<br /><br />Nebenbei: Die EU pusht eine neue Orientierung für den Forschungsprozess unter dem Begriff Responsible Research and Innovation. Meint sie damit, dass alle gegenwärtige Forschung unverantwortlich ist?<br /><br />Andreas<br /><br />wir hatten uns doch schon geeinigt, dachte ich jedenfals, in ihrem Kommentar oben: 'I agree with Reiner Grundmann in one point: It's interesting what Christy and Rahmstorf emphasize, but it's far more interesting what they don't say.'@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-61706397983766463262015-01-30T12:35:55.204+01:002015-01-30T12:35:55.204+01:00Observer, ich denke, dies ist ein persönliches Ang...Observer, ich denke, dies ist ein persönliches Angehen, was nicht mit der Netiquette vereinbar ist. Darf ich Sie bitten, Ihren Beitrag zu löschen und ggfs geeignet umzuformulieren.<br /><br />Behauptungen über anderer Leute Motive aufzustellen, geht eindeutig zu weit.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-33598061135987742092015-01-30T11:22:53.079+01:002015-01-30T11:22:53.079+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-52360644284527757832015-01-30T10:42:22.579+01:002015-01-30T10:42:22.579+01:00"Die Statistik des Jahres 2014 ist für Aktivi..."Die Statistik des Jahres 2014 ist für Aktivisten allemal robust genug - ebenso wie die vorhergegangenen Jahre. Es ist ziemlich warm, konstant, im Durchschnitt, so warm wie noch nie: reicht das nicht aus?"<br />- das kann man schon mißverstehen, fürchte ich.<br /><br />Wofür sollte dies ausreichen?<br />Nehmen wir mal zwei konträre interpretationen - wir haben einen neuen stationären Punkt erreicht, warm auf hohem Niveau im Vergleich zu früher. Wesentliche Impacts können kaum entdeckt werden. Insofern - bitte anpassen, und nicht interferieren - wäre eine politische Option.<br />Alternativ: wir sind in einem andauernden Anstieg, der sich über Jahrzehnte fortsetzt und derzeit etwas schwach ist, und sich in deutlich stärkeren und folgenreicheren Änderungen manifestieren wird. Insofern eine politische Option: - Änderungen klein halten durch aktives politisches/wirtschaftliches Gegensteuern.<br /><br />Wenn es als Analyse der politischen Situation genommen wird ("Statistik des Jahres 2014 ist für Aktivisten allemal robust genug"), ok - aber als Analyse der geophysikalischen Situation und der Folgerung, es sei etwas zu tun, unzureichend.<br />Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-15955226507306572542015-01-30T10:13:15.068+01:002015-01-30T10:13:15.068+01:00Hier war festgestellt worden, wenn ich es richtig ...Hier war festgestellt worden, wenn ich es richtig verstehe, dass die physikalische KLiamforschung nichts mehr zur Klimapolitik beitragen könnte - also auch die Frage ob Rekord oder nicht.<br />Der guten ordnung halber gebe ich zu Protokoll, dass ich dies für eine grobe Verkürzung halte. Dass aus den Ergennissen der Klimaforschung nicht zwingend Politik folgt, ist sicher richtig - andererseits ist es durchaus von Bedeutung insbesondere für alle Art von Anpassungsmaßnahmen, welche Art von Antrieben wir hinter den derzeit langsamen Anstiegen sehen (dies ist nämlich praktisch die Vorhersage dessen, was wir wann erwarten können), und mit welcher Geschwindigkeiten sich Risiken ändern.<br />Die Frage nach dem Rekord von 2014 ist für diesen Zweck tatsächlich von nachrangiger Bedeutung, vielmehr sollte es um die Frage gehen, wie sich die Änderungen auf den üblichen Zeitskalen, sage mal: 20-30 Jahre entwickeln. <br /><br />zu #66 - Ihre Frage demonstriert, wie wichtig es ist, welche Nullhypothese Gegenstand eines Tests ist. Es gibt ja keine absoluten Fehlerbalken für TemperaturXXX. Wenn XXX = Jahresmitttelwert ist, dann ist die Ungenauigkeit aufgrund von Messfehlern und sampling eine gewissen Zahl; wenn XXX = 100-jähriger Trend, dann ist eine andere Zahl.<br /><br />Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-48989816470959766502015-01-30T09:48:01.974+01:002015-01-30T09:48:01.974+01:00Reiner,
wer mit "aufrichtig" und "...Reiner,<br /><br />wer mit "aufrichtig" und "ehrlich" argumentiert, der unterstellt, dass jemand unehrlich oder unaufrichtig ist. Kommunikation ist kein so großes Rätsel. Und nein, mich stört nicht, dass Du den Aktivisten nicht beipflichtest. Wie kommst Du darauf? Willst Du mich gerne in die Aktivistenecke stellen? Mal ehrlich, Reiner? Mich stört allenfalls, dass Du mit Deiner Moralisierung der Wissenschaft genau das machst, was Du bei anderen anprangerst. Argumentiere doch einfach für Deine Hartwell Politik als Alternative zur mainstream Klimapolitik - das ist doch der strategische Zweck, für den Du wissenschaftliche Informationen einsetzt, und das ist doch völlig legitim. Denn Serten hat ganz recht: es folgt keine bestimmte Politik aus den Klimadaten. Allerdings finde ich, dass eine Notwendigkeit zur Politik daraus folgt, weil ich "der Wissenschaft" als Institution schon glaube, dass sie die Weltkarte nicht einfach aus Spaß rot anmalt. <br /><br />Serten,<br />wen ich mit Skeptiker und Klimaesoteriker hier meine? In diesem Kontext hier: Skeptiker alle die, welche sich durch den Betrugs- und Unehrlichkeitsvorwurf angezogen fühlen, um im Windschatten "ehrlicher Wissenschaft" dem Klimagedöhns endlich mal ein Ende zu bereiten. Und Klimaesoteriker: ja, ich gebe zu, da stehen Sie ein bißchen Pate für diesen Einfall...passt doch eigentlich, oder?<br />Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-28753488813387286662015-01-29T22:55:49.806+01:002015-01-29T22:55:49.806+01:00@Werner Krauss: Wer ist denn mit "Skeptiker...@Werner Krauss: Wer ist denn mit "Skeptiker oder andere Klimaesoteriker dieser Welt, die immer immer ein Argument finden, gegen Klimapolitik ins Feld zu ziehen" hier angesprochen? <br /><br />Die Aussage "Es ist ziemlich warm, konstant, im Durchschnitt, so warm wie noch nie: reicht das nicht aus?" ist einfach zu beantworten: Ja und, wo ist das Problem? Wozu soll das reichen? Ich vermisse jedweden Hinweis welche Art von Klimapolitik aus dem Rekord abgeleitet werden kann oder sollte. <br />Gruß Serten. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-2913828546191856742015-01-29T22:48:03.497+01:002015-01-29T22:48:03.497+01:00@ Reiner Grundmann
"Ich habe Vorschläge zu e...@ Reiner Grundmann<br /><br /><em>"Ich habe Vorschläge zu einer aufrichtigen Wissenschaftskommunikation gemacht."</em><br /><br />Hm, damit habe ich etwas Probleme. Sie haben basierend auf ihren persönlichen Maßstäben die Messlatte angelegt und manches für zu kurz befunden. Mich stört nur, dass Sie ihre Messlatte mit dem Etikett "aufrichtig" bekleben.<br /><br />Für mich gehört z.B. eine Diskussion des nahezu fehlenden ElNino-Einflusses zur gelungenen Kommunikation dazu. Welchen Sinn sollten Diskussionen zur Messungenauigkeit im Hunderstelbereich haben, wenn man Einflüsse natürlicher Variabilität, die Zehntelbereiche erreichen können, verschweigt? Ist mein Vorschlag zur Kommunikation aufrichtig(er)? Unaufrichtig? Mir scheint, das sind die falschen Kategorien. So werden andere Meinungen ausgegrenzt.<br /><br />Und mehr noch: Wenn ein Rahmstorf oder ein Christy von einer Zeitung um eine Stellungnahme gebeten werden, dann habe ich allergrößtes Verständnis dafür, dass den beiden Ihre oder meine Messlatte ziemlich egal ist, sondern das sagen, was ihnen selbst am wichtigsten erscheint. Ich finde, man kann (und sollte) es ertragen, wenn dies nicht immer deckungsgleich mit den eigenen Ansichten von Wichtigkeit ist.<br /><br /><em>"Der strategische Einsatz von Information zu bestimmten Zwecken ist was mich stört."</em><br />Nennt man das nicht kürzer <em>Argumentieren</em>? Nicht jedes Argument ist gut, nicht jedes überzeugt, aber wenn man nicht Teil des Klimakrieges ist, dann kann man jedes ertragen.<br /><br />AndreasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-19354376694856370922015-01-29T19:49:52.079+01:002015-01-29T19:49:52.079+01:00Werner
tut mir leid, aber der "Rückfall in K...Werner<br /><br />tut mir leid, aber der "Rückfall in Klimakriegszeiten" geschieht nicht dadurch, dass ich den Prozess beschreibe. <br /><br />Ausserdem ist der Begriff "dishonest" weiter oben abgehandelt worden, und ich habe ihn im letzten Kommentar bewusst vermieden. Ich habe Vorschläge zu einer aufrichtigen Wissenschaftskommunikation gemacht. Das heisst nicht, dass Christy und Rahmstorf lügen. <br /><br />Der strategische Einsatz von Information zu bestimmten Zwecken ist was mich stört. Dich scheint zu stören, dass ich den Aktivisten nicht beipflichten mag, die dieses Symbol so stark macht, oder sehe ich da was falsch?<br /><br />Und was sagst du eigentlich zum Inhalt, den ich angesprochen habe?@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.com