tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post8972864368787367711..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: Sirens for New Yorkeduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-1847100635537398452014-10-09T10:41:19.599+02:002014-10-09T10:41:19.599+02:00PS.: I luv typos as well ;) PS.: I luv typos as well ;) Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-31510835488287388942014-10-09T10:40:01.290+02:002014-10-09T10:40:01.290+02:00Gartner uses the Hype circle in analysing technolo...Gartner uses the Hype circle in analysing technology trends and predicted the dot.com bubble with it. In so far an important device. <br /><br />The traditional phases see <br />http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Hype-Cycle-General.png<br />1.Technology Trigger.<br />2 Peak of Inflated Expectations <br />3 Trough of Disillusionment <br />4 Slope of Enlightenment <br />5 Plateau of Productivity<br />Nick Dentons new Hype circle includes failures, the German Transrapid may fall under that as well. <br />http://gawker.com/252968/the-new-hype-cycle<br /><br />It may compare different market contenders in one plot, e.g. linkedin versus second-life (R.I.P.) and facebook. <br /><br />http://www.knowledge-communication.org/pdf/gartner-case-study-inspection.pdf<br /><br />Now Hans von Storchs Notion about the prague "same business as yesterdecade" seems to allow for repeated peaks respectively plateaus, but no success in getting to the "slope of enlightement". A similar failure as in the Dutch study for renewables. <br /><br />Reiner Grundmanns sees the peak in 2007 and 2009, now the question is - what do you think came next? If the visibility is still respectively again high, we fail to get productivity. <br /><br />Cheers Serten <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /> <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-37772155733026456892014-10-09T09:46:39.379+02:002014-10-09T09:46:39.379+02:00Niche sentence - nice sentence!Niche sentence - nice sentence!@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-64617713127167279532014-10-09T09:45:50.964+02:002014-10-09T09:45:50.964+02:00Serten
thanks for the two links about hype cycles...Serten<br /><br />thanks for the two links about hype cycles. There is a very niche sentence in the Dutch study:<br /><br />"Policy makers are modernist actors who need to ‘tell themselves forward’. They need to tell stories and make promises about how they will solve problems. This credibility pressure creates willingness to accept certain promises from product champions. It also explains why warnings about feasibility are often downplayed."<br /><br />Regarding the question 'where are we in the hype cycle of climate change': Looking only at levels of media coverage there has been an overall growth, many ups and downs, and massive peaks in 2007 in 2009. The issue has never gone away and my bet is it will not go away any time soon.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-8366822124813416852014-10-07T08:53:26.175+02:002014-10-07T08:53:26.175+02:00Hans,
no, I do not assume that all skeptics are o...Hans,<br /><br />no, I do not assume that all skeptics are of the same opinion. In #75, I explicitly talked about "those skeptics who doubt climate change in general". I also don't have any problem in using the term alarmism. I just wanted to suggest to extend the scope of discussion beyond exclusively attacking the "Rahmstorf / Schellnhuber / Great Transformation complex", and beyond providing a platform for those skeptics who think that anthropogenic climate change is no or a minor problem (to be more precise). <br /><br />And yes, sometimes I am afraid that many of our non-skeptical readers already decided that they don't want to read yesterday's paper anymore; there is - apart from a few exceptions - a certain skeptical (and undisputed) monoculture in our comment section. But maybe this is only my perception.<br /><br />Reiner,<br /><br />yes, you are right, Geden & Co maybe really wouldn't like to be called alarmists. My argument was misguided, somehow. <br /><br />Maybe this way it works better: Seen from the perspective of those who consider anthropogenic climate change a hoax implemented by the left or as a minor problem only which will soon be solved by the industry in a free market society - for them, even those who are only concerned about climate change are already "alarmists". <br /><br />But yes, there are many reasons to criticize alarmism in the sense you define it, no doubt. But that is no reason to give skeptics (as defined above) a free ride. Because they are even more wrong. In my opinion, of course.Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-29099266507241328742014-10-06T12:29:14.315+02:002014-10-06T12:29:14.315+02:00Werner
the posts by Geden, Beck and Revkin do not...Werner<br /><br />the posts by Geden, Beck and Revkin do not show what you claim. <br /><br />Geden and Beck make a plea to leave the alarmist posturing behind, especially as 'expressed in the planetary boundaries paradigm' which uses the 2 degree target as an absolute.<br /><br />Revkin's blog dedicates much space to Victor's rebuttal of Rahmstorf and Romm -- two arch alarmists. I cannot see any change in positions here.<br /><br />But you are right of course, things always change and maybe there is something afoot. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/03/climate-consensus-scientists-and-sceptics-suspend-hostilities" rel="nofollow">The Guardian reports about a meeting</a> between climate scientists and sceptics which indicates they may be changing tone, style & attitude.<br /><br />Your re-definition of alarmism is curious (see above @ 18): everyone who is concerned about climate change and wants to do something about it. This is the position of someone who is ... concerned. Alarmism adds a different dimension to it by suggesting that we will be facing catastrophic events if we do not cut GHGs urgently. The rhetoric makes use of apocalyptic visions and thereby moralizes the debate, and demonizes those who see things differently. The tropes are 'it will be too late', 'there are those who are responsible', 'the science tells us'.<br /><br />I very much doubt that Geden, Revkin, or Beck would adopt the label for themselves. @ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-24280171584421075372014-10-06T10:23:55.712+02:002014-10-06T10:23:55.712+02:00Werner,
it is common that the same term is used i...Werner,<br /><br />it is common that the same term is used in different ways in different milieus. No reason for me not to use it anymore, as long as it is well defined in the group within which the communication is going on. (How well the term is in this group of Klimazwiebel, I do not know.) <br /><br />The same appliles to the term "skeptic" - but you use the term nevertheless as if everybody would relate it to the same "opinion" (?).<br /><br />Similarly, what consitutes "yesterday's paper" or "todays's paper" may be an issue we should leave with the reader? Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-73658467048914554162014-10-06T10:08:47.902+02:002014-10-06T10:08:47.902+02:00concerning heuristics: The problem is that "a...concerning heuristics: The problem is that "alarmism" as a heuristic device lumps together too many diverse interests, approaches and concepts. It blurs the differences for example between Nisbet's three categories - that are all, from a skeptic's point of view, alarmist. To call someone an "alarmist" for analytical reasons is hardly possible anymore; maybe because it is too much of a political statement itself.Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-36951003765872077102014-10-05T19:45:16.780+02:002014-10-05T19:45:16.780+02:00Reiner,
for different reasons. One is the current...Reiner,<br /><br />for different reasons. One is the current debate about the 2 degree target and the possible end of or change in the close relationship between (alarmist) science and climate politics, for example here by <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jun/11/science-policy1" rel="nofollow">Oliver Geden</a>; together with Silke Beck in <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2309.html" rel="nofollow">Nature Climate Change</a>, and only recently the heated debate between Victor / Kennel on the one side and Romm / Rahmstorf on the other, summed up here in <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/getting-over-the-2-degree-limit-on-global-warming/?_php=true&_type=blogs&module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Climate%20Change&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body&_r=0" rel="nofollow">dot.earth</a> - all of these contributions indicate that there is something going on.<br /><br />And why being only negative about everything? There is a highly diverse social movement; there are city initiatives to reduce carbon emissions; there are bilateral talks and negotiations between nation-states, for example US and China or US and Pakistan (?); and yes, there are still the much hyped global negotiations and expectations. It is true that Stern's focus (and of many others) seems to be exclusively on global solutions; but it is also true that Klein's approach or the Hartwell paper are not. And maybe one doesn't like the left wing / occupy style of Klein or the capitalist Breakthrough approach - this is a matter of taste, of political opinion and so on; but both make more sense to me than discussing on and on that maybe climate change is not a problem at all. Have a look at my summary in #28 and similar statements left undisputed here on Zwiebel - something went wrong here, I guess.<br /><br />It is true that Klimazwiebel again and again repeated that the global-only approach does not work; maybe we have repeated it so often that we turned into a one-trick pony, with a few skeptics as the only audience left. If you fight alarmism too long, you end up in bed with those skeptics who doubt climate change in general.<br /><br />I have no problems in discussing critically global-only-strategies or all too simple alarmist rhetoric, but who wants to read yesterday's paper over and over again?<br />Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-22315257481520645822014-10-05T18:57:41.114+02:002014-10-05T18:57:41.114+02:00@68. Are you equally disturbed by the lack of mora...@68. Are you equally disturbed by the lack of morals shown by people who call skeptics "deniers"? Naomi Klein, for instance; I see that the name is used frequently in the book, including the name of a chapter. A brief glance at a few of the sections indicated to me a thoroughgoing paranoia, giving her ideological opponents the worst motivations for everything.<br />One of the first lines I saw: "Those involved feel free to engage in these high-stakes gambles because they believe that they and theirs will be protected from the ravages in question, at least for a generation or so."<br />It can't really be that they <i>disagree</i> with her.<br /><br />Do you find any of that disturbing?MikeRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00127456522803816485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-66944653657337498322014-10-05T15:44:38.048+02:002014-10-05T15:44:38.048+02:00Werner
what makes you think that times have chang...Werner<br /><br />what makes you think that times have changed in such a way that the term alarmism has no heuristic value? Is this a personal opinion, a hypothesis, or based on research?<br /><br />In my reading the Sirens for New York have to be seen as an attempt to revitalise the momentum that we saw in the build up to Copenhagen. The hopes associated with such a strategy are naive, as we said many times here on Klimazwiebel. Even if Paris would bring about a global treaty with strong GHG reduction targets ( a big IF), we would not have made progress with regard to real decarbonisation.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-20018722699667127652014-10-05T10:52:49.793+02:002014-10-05T10:52:49.793+02:00Reiner,
meanings of words change over time. At a ...Reiner,<br /><br />meanings of words change over time. At a certain time, the term "alarmist" made sense to instigate a debate about the dangerous relationship between (alarmist) climate research and climate politics.<br /><br />But if we follow Oliver Geden's recent policy analysis, alarmist science lost its influence in shaping climate politics. Instead, the problem is to get out of the alarmist position (2 degree goal etc) without losing face. <br /><br />Seen from this perspective, the term alarmist has lost its heuristic value. There is no "innocent" use of it. Climate pragmatism or realism is NOT a position between alarmist and skeptic; it is a position that takes climate change and its effects seriously and does not get lost in the blame game between institutes, scientists and political ideologies. We can leave this to other blogs, in my opinion. Klimazwiebel can do better.Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-22740232384591432702014-10-04T17:24:52.322+02:002014-10-04T17:24:52.322+02:00A certain K.M., Privatdozent aus Trier claimed tha...A certain K.M., Privatdozent aus Trier claimed that stellt sich die Menschheit immer nur Aufgaben, die sie lösen kann, denn genauer betrachtet wird sich stets finden, daß die Aufgabe selbst nur entspringt, wo die materiellen Bedingungen ihrer Lösung schon vorhanden oder wenigstens im Prozeß ihres Werdens begriffen sind. <br /><br />Seems an alarmist is someone who claimes, that we can solve the problem. There are not much alrmists around tsunamis, which is a m uch larger risk, since we seemingly cannot deal with them. <br /><br />Serten<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-86523966248234737752014-10-02T19:25:40.959+02:002014-10-02T19:25:40.959+02:00Reiner,
Thanks for alerting us to this interesting...Reiner,<br />Thanks for alerting us to this interesting study. It was published in 2006, almost a decade ago. It maps various ways of talking about climate change at that time. Curiously, the study does not seem to include scepticism yet as a 'linguistic repertoire'. As far as I can tell, the Klimazwiebel uses 'alarmists' (which is not the same as 'alarmism') in opposition to 'sceptics'. This gives the word 'alarmist' a special type of meaning. 'Alarmist' seems to be used almost as a cover term for anybody who is not a sceptic or a so-called 'realist'. Interestingly, the study quoted also says that alarmism "excludes the possibility of real action or agency by the reader or viewer. It contains an implicit counsel of despair – ‘the problem is just too big for us to take on’." This certainly does not apply to the 'linguistic repertoire' adopted by the two authors discussed in this blog, Stern and Klein. So at least in this instance the term 'alarmist' seems to be used in error.<br />RaffaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-62287004908076059382014-10-02T16:40:53.630+02:002014-10-02T16:40:53.630+02:00Alarmism in the climate discourse is a term widely...Alarmism in the climate discourse is a term widely used. I quote from a British <a href="http://www.ippr.org/assets/media/images/media/files/publication/2011/05/warm_words_1529.pdf" rel="nofollow">publication </a>which analyzed different linguistic repertoires: <br /><br />'The alarmist repertoire is typified by an inflated or extreme lexicon. It incorporates an urgent tone (‘We<br />have to act. Now. Today!’) and cinematic codes, with images and ways of speaking that are familiar from<br />horror and disaster films ‘astonishing scenes that might have come straight from Hollywood’ (Catt 2005)).<br />It employs a quasi-religious register of doom, death, judgement, heaven and hell, using words such as<br />‘catastrophe’, ‘chaos’ and ‘havoc’.<br />It uses language of acceleration, increase, intractability, irreversibility and momentum (‘temperatures shot<br />up’, ‘process of change… surged ahead’, ‘a tipping point beyond which break-up is explosively rapid’<br />(Leake and Milne 2006)). It allows for no complexity or middle ground – it is simply extreme. Metaphors<br />and omens or predictions of war and violence extend the physical threat into a societal threat: ‘the<br />breakdown of civilisation’.<br />Climate change is most commonly constructed through the alarmist repertoire – as awesome, terrible,<br />immense, beyond human control – and this repertoire is not just evidenced in the tabloids. In fact, it is seen<br />everywhere, and is used or drawn on by many, including many of those seeking to bring about attitude or<br />behaviour change on this issue. It is common in campaigning materials – from the Stop Climate Chaos<br />website to the Climate Challenge online video produced by the Department for Environment, Food and<br />Rural Affairs (Defra).<br />The alarmist repertoire does try to bring climate change close to people’s lives, through shock tactics such as the image of a boat in a UK suburban street (in Boscastle, for example).'<br /><br />The other repertoires found in the British press are:<br /><br />Settlerdom<br />British comic nihilism<br />Rhetorical scepticism<br />Free market protection<br />‘Expert’ denial<br />Warming is good <br />Techno-optimism<br />David and Goliath <br />Small actions@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-85238956074164459612014-10-02T07:51:11.766+02:002014-10-02T07:51:11.766+02:00@raffa
The author cannot understand your question...@raffa<br /><br />The author cannot understand your question because the moral values are different here. The authors here, except Werner Krauss, think, that it is okay to defame people as alarmist, fraud, exremist, antidemocratic preacher, or nazi alike. All of these terms are used without an consideration of the persons who are being insulted by the Zwiebel authors. <br /><br />Different people, different moral values. I am not here to judge, but it is disturbing... <br /><br /><br />No aliasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-86684619134321167442014-09-30T20:14:11.170+02:002014-09-30T20:14:11.170+02:00Nisbet distinguishs between different sort of acti...Nisbet distinguishs between different sort of activists but leaves out all sort of agnostics and sceptics. Is that useful? <br /><br />I believe the "umbrellas of Hong Kong", those defending the strong combination of free market and free speech there are much more of importance than current sirens and weathermen of New York. <br /><br />Kleins book explain nothing about the HK protests. If climate change and "buy her book" are the only means to fight capitalism, capitalism does not have to care much. <br /><br />SertenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-61806313276201574212014-09-28T14:32:57.300+02:002014-09-28T14:32:57.300+02:00Reiner,
no time to read Nisbet right now, but the...Reiner,<br /><br />no time to read Nisbet right now, but the categories make sense to me. I do not consider them as mutually exclusive; they are all "alarmist", but designed for specific purposes, I guess. They are also shaped very much by disciplinary and national cultures (Breakthrough for example is hyper-American - they are as ignorant about the background of the Energiewende as if they were American tourists -:); Stern comes from economy; Klein is a Canadian activist and journalist - ain't it funny that a German journalist in the SZ sympathizes spontaneously? What exactly does connect them so easily?<br /><br />Reading today's NYT editorial, I think that different approaches like hope for a breakthrough in Paris; or opting for bilateral cooperations between US and China, or for regional activities (low carbon cities) etc - these approaches are also not mutually exclusive because climate change has to be tackled on all levels. And there is also no need to pin down a diverse movement. As I mentioned somewhere above: there were Breakthrough pragmatics and Naomi Klein on the same People's March. Things have changed, maybe, and so should we and our approaches. It doesn't make much sense anymore to attack "alarmists" and to not criticize those skeptics who simply jump on the Zwiebel bandwagon. Most of all, because the influence of climate science is in decline. Climate change is politics, finally.Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-87124501395961276792014-09-28T12:06:50.962+02:002014-09-28T12:06:50.962+02:00How do you open up a debate by (name-)calling peop...How do you open up a debate by (name-)calling people who care about climate change 'alarmists'? Are those talking about doomsday scenarios such as 'world domination' also 'alarmists'? Why do you use this label?<br />RaffaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-35584171217762814042014-09-28T10:59:09.656+02:002014-09-28T10:59:09.656+02:00Thanks for the clarification Werner. There is noth...Thanks for the clarification Werner. There is nothing in your last post I disagree with but I still have the impression we are talking past each other.<br /><br />The title of my post Sirens for New was chosen to indicate that two highly visible protagonists have stepped forward to alarm the public in the run-up to the next Climate Summit in Paris. The New York meeting was a warm up for this. My background assumption was that the dominant approach in climate policy (global treaty) will lead to a re-run of the Copenhagen situation, that world leaders, and grassroots movements will try to build momentum and raise expectations, so that this time the breakthrough will be possible. I am deeply sceptical about this strategy.<br /><br />Yes, Klein, Hulme and Hartwell make reference to non-scientific values (solidarity, virtue, dignity) and in so far are advocating specific approaches to climate policy.<br /><br /><a href="http://climateshiftproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Nisbet_inpress_PublicIntellectualsClimateChange_WIREClimateChange.pdf" rel="nofollow"> Matt Nisbet has a nice paper</a> in which he analyses these types advocates (which he calls public intellectuals). He distinguishes between <br /><br />Ecological Activists, Smart Growth Reformers and Ecomodernists. <br /><br />Klein is in the first category, Stern in the second, Hartwell in the third. Maybe the root of our misunderstandings can be found here: while we both argued for an opening up of the debate between skeptics and alarmists, there are differences nevertheless. Perhaps you have become more sympathetic to the eco-activist position? @ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-87785461702500143572014-09-28T10:24:17.800+02:002014-09-28T10:24:17.800+02:00Reiner,
sure, it's boring, I'll stop it.
...Reiner,<br /><br />sure, it's boring, I'll stop it.<br /> <br />My point was: I just wanted to switch from the routine of bashing alarmists (see #28) to an interest in a different reading of "the sirens of New York". Like the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/opinion/sunday/a-group-shout-on-climate-change.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0" rel="nofollow">New York Times</a> today, for example. I suggest being interested instead of the usual right / wrong debate. Maybe something is going on, and we don't know what it is yet...<br /><br />I mentioned "punk rock" in order to suggest a different reading, that is, in terms of cultural studies. I am interested how Naomi Klein relates body / planet / climate, see <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/13/greenwashing-sticky-business-naomi-klein" rel="nofollow">here</a> for example. This is different from political analysis in the traditional sense. Like "Meat is Murder", her book is popular culture and can be interpreted like that. It is symbolic, agitprop, extremely personal, both surprisingly insecure and professional, all in one. And remember that even Hartwell argues in the name of values like "dignity", or Mike Hulme in terms of "Christian values" and so on. She is not unique in this mix, and as a non-academic, she can be more open about it. (And even our hardcore climate realists and skeptics love to discuss "soft" questions like meat or veggies, political correctness, masculinity and so on.)<br /><br />That's why I suggested to read the reviews also as both political and cultural statements. They all want to change / to keep / to be part of the (political / cultural) system. <br /><br />All in all, this was my idea: the sirens of New York mean a change in the climate debate, maybe, and I suggested to change our critical perspective accordingly. <br /><br />Hope this helps to understand my position.<br /><br /><br />Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-89941501016875300352014-09-26T15:36:31.929+02:002014-09-26T15:36:31.929+02:00Werner
for what it's worth, everyone can see ...Werner<br /><br />for what it's worth, everyone can see that I engaged with Nick's points in post 48 and he replied to that. I don't complain that he or you have not enagaged with everything I said, that's the nature of blogging. <br /><br />You want to raise points without making them by constantly saying Read the book, read the book, it's all in the book. I am baffled to be honest. My post does not claim to do a book review but to summarize points from a Guardian interview. You seem to have misunderstood the purpose of the post. If you think Klein's position is not captured in the interview (or in my comment) you should point out the arguments yourself. Instead you play a refusal game (because I have not read the book and have not done a book review).<br /><br />@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-7188348230785314912014-09-25T23:39:44.722+02:002014-09-25T23:39:44.722+02:00passend zum thema:
There is thus now solid peer-r...passend zum thema:<br /><br />There is thus now solid peer-reviewed evidence showing that the underlying forcing and heat uptake estimates in AR5 support narrower ‘likely’ ranges for ECS and TCR with far lower upper limits than per the AR5 observationally-based ‘likely’ ranges of: 2.45°C vs 4.5°C for ECS and 1.8°C vs 2.5°C for TCR. <br /><br />also bitte, wo bleibt der weltuntergang? <br /><br />quelle: http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/24/lewis-and-curry-climate-sensitivity-uncertainty/<br /><br />lg<br />michael m.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-33857624373104240212014-09-25T22:20:04.765+02:002014-09-25T22:20:04.765+02:00What a childish way to close a conversation.What a childish way to close a conversation.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-55476188361862684412014-09-25T21:19:52.718+02:002014-09-25T21:19:52.718+02:00Naomi Klein "This changes everything: Capital...<br />Naomi Klein "This changes everything: Capitalism vs The Climate", 7.99 Euro, kindle shop.Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.com