Sonntag, 15. Januar 2017

Wie schnell steigt der Meeresspiegel? 1,5 mm pro Jahr.

Wir bekommen von den Medien verschiedene Aussagen über den Meeresspiegelanstieg. Und auch darüber, ober er schneller ansteigen wird.

Doch wie sieht es in der Realität an den Küsten aus?

Dave Burton hat versucht, eine objektive durchschnittliche Kalkulation der verschiedenen Meerespegel zu machen. Das Problem ist, dass das Land an manchen Stellen steigt, und an anderen sinkt. Er nahm sich alles Stationen vor, die länger als 50 Jahre Aufzeichnungen hatten. Dann strich er die 40 Stationen mit dem geringsten Anstieg und 30 mit dem höchsten Anstieg. Übrig blieben 155 Stationen mit einem durchschnittlichen Anstieg von 1,48 mm/Jahr. Das sind 15 cm in hundert Jahren.

Seit mehreren Tausend Jahren steigt nun schon der Meeresspiegel - und zwar einfach aus dem Grund, dass wir aus der Eiszeit kommen, und die Eismassen langsam schmelzen. Bei der letzten Eiszeit lag der Meeresspiegel rund 150 Meter tiefer als jetzt.

Dave Burton schreibt auf 

http://sealevel.info/avgslr.html#conclusion

"So I tried another approach, this time explicitly eliminating "outliers." I started with just the "50+ year" stations, but excluded the 40 stations with the lowest rate of sea-level rise (including most of those experiencing falling sea-level), and the 30 stations with the highest rate of sea-level rise (including most of those experiencing severe land subsidence, like Galveston, which is built on sinking fill dirt). The resulting average and median rates of sea-level rise (calculated from 155 stations) are both 1.48 mm/yr:

http://sealevel.info/NOAA_AllStationsLinearSeaLevelTrends_2015-08_50yr_less_high30_and_low40.xls
or http://sealevel.info/NOAA_AllStationsLinearSeaLevelTrends_2015-08_50yr_less_high30_and_low40.htm



The Secrets of the Faith of a True Believer

Johannes Herbst

including possibly some satirical expressions 


The question and title of a former article here on WUWT was:

"Can the Left adapt to the Trump era? Watch their climate activists for clues."

I went trough the thread and found a lot of Rights or skeptics who even doubted if Trump will do something against the CAGW (catastrophic man-made global warming) meme. As there were no big clues what will happen, here is my humble opinion about the situation.


The Lefts

Just lets talk about the active Lefts: Scientists and teachers, young supporters and activists, media, politicians, party followers and green industry. They are not so much, but they are special: They have a big faith.

This faith is not founded on facts; the Lefts will even not listen to real facts if they do not fit to their belief. But they will everything embrace what will support their faith.

Yes, it is a strong faith. This faith ist not build upon facts. It is build on a story, one of the biggest and most told stories in this world: The story from Paradise.

The story from salvation of the nature and of mankind living in it in harmony with all creatures. But the paradise is not yet here, we see it just from a distance, or we grasp here and there a piece oft it.

And there are enemies who endanger the comming paradise: Egocentric guys and bad industries which are threatening to destroy it. But there are also heroes who are prepared to fight against the the bad guys and destroyers of the promised land.

Yes the left believers have already fought against the highest of the enemies and his demonic supporters. It seems that those have won, but the fight is not yet over. The true believers will continue, and if necessary in the underground as members of a resistance group. At least they feel like that.

Just because Trump has won the election, they will not give up, and even commands and violence will not destroy their will. When necessary, they even will suffer for their good cause.

So the scientists and teachers, the politicians, the press and other media, the activist groups and supporters, and their internet community will continue and not give in.

This was a description how hard-core lefts are oriented.

Okay, there are others, who just not believe in the climate stuff, and much more who are not interested in it at all. And than there are opportunists who will ever do what brings a benefit.


The Rights

The Rights may be right in many points, but they have a problem: They are against the big good story, they are not positive and they are nay-sayers. And very often they are cynical and angry and - at least as the Lefts perceive it - they are hateful.

And the Rights have another problem: They have no big story. A story has power - strong power - and can only be overturned by another good story.

So what will Trump do? Will he as a president openly declare, that CAGW is a lie and tat he will reverse everything which is connected to it? True, he said this once, but then he said it was a joke.

If he would openly oppose to CAGW and other left issues, there would be an open fight. And that is not his aim. I think he wants to make deals and not to divide the nation. So he will focus on goals which he can achieve easily. And during doing that, here and there he may correct something, together with other issues. Possibly including the chance for an open, free discussion. No big fight, but easy going.

And what to do with the believers of the big story? A wrong scientific theory normally will last as long the gurus of it get retired or until they die. Possibly we will get some support from nature, and get a very long pause of warming or even a cooling. For a real believer this is no problem. He will adapt his story. Like many religious groups have postponed the end of the world several times, they will also have explanations.

The hardcore green believers are possibly few, but they have key positions and they are the opinion makers. And they will not easily be overturned.

Thinking in new direction

But again - what shall we do with them? I think we need another big story. A positive, encouraging story - the story of the real paradise, starting here and now. And there must be visible success which fits to the story: Less poverty, more jobs, wealthy communities, and a blooming and growing nature.

Not only in America, even in other parts of the world. Not the usual development aid, which only helps the rich there, but support for other Nations to get wealthy as a whole.

Let's paint this picture and share it in an open, positive way. We see that the new social media can be distributors of new messages and stories, but not with the whole content. But they can point out to web sites, groups and video channels which step deeper into the the new story. In a convincing and encouraging way.

The problem is: Such positive and encouraging sites and channels are not easy to find. What can be found are sites with ranting and whining guys who talk about "the other side" as enemies. One example: I like to visit Breitbart, because I get there a lot of concise news about not so often heard stories. But when it goes to the comments, then what to read there is sometimes hard to bear. It is not fair and often even racist and hateful. Instead of using a unifying "we", they use the splitting "us and they". When we want to convince others we can only do in a fair, friendly and inviting atmosphere. And possibly a comment section is not always the best idea if you want to maintain a positive atmosphere.

When it comes to facts in websites and videos, then we often see lengthy videos of lectures with sensational titles and boring content. Or very long and for laymen not easy to understand articles. And endless discussions about physics, which should have been settled years ago. We need short and clear explanations, possibly in the form of courses and FAQs. We need fair statements about things we do not know. We need short video clips of few, say three minutes, which keeps up the interest to click for the next ones. We need videos with the ability to go viral and to reach out to everybody.

If this other big story and its positive outcome will be visible, then even the hardcore-lefts will start to think different.

I am not sure, if the Rights and the Skeptics are prepared for this. Long times they have been the oppressed ones. Possibly they have to learn a new role. I think Trump is a good example: Hard fighting when necessary, but relaxed and generous when the goal is achieved.

Johannes Herbst is a former German Green who went skeptic. He worked as self-employed Handicraft Master and vocational trainer. He founded and worked on a Craftsmen School for small-scale Renewable Energies in Tanzania, East Africa for seven years. At the time being he is designing and building long-lasting and affordable Houses. He is married and has five children.

82% aller Wissenschaftler stimmen überein, dass sich die Welt in einer Abkühlungsphase befindet und weiter abkühlt-

Zumindest war das so in den 70er Jahren, nachdem die Temperatur seit den 30er Jahren um knapp ein halbes Grad gefallen war.



https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IyercsPh4kU/Vw1k5OXanrI/AAAAAAAACQ8/CHBGrimE2sodt5smg_NH5GtTlcCqK45dQCLcB/s400/global%2Bcooling%2B1977.PNG

23 vom 28 Wissenschaftlern, die dazu Studien veröffentlicht hatten, gingen damals von einer weiteren Abkühlung aus.

Samstag, 14. Januar 2017

Why CO2 and downwelling radiation is not against the laws of thermodynamics

There is a common misconception that CO2 doesn't radiate back to earth, because it is against the law that no cooler body can heat up a warmern body. So I was forced to write a short explanation on wattsupwiththat.com
 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/10/the-william-happer-interview/

My reply was to this comment:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/10/the-william-happer-interview/#comment-2393740

"Great post, but why would CO2 cause any warming at all? Unless you agree with the GHE theory, which I doubt, this claim of “only 1C warming” is not valid within the laws of thermodynamics."

This "CO2-warming-is-against-laws-of-thermodynamics meme" does a great harm to the skeptics reputation, because it ignores simple radiation physics.

Just to get the idea:

  • There is a stove in a cold room, giving out a certain radiation energy.
  • Now take a black matte painted solid sheet around in a certain distance from the stove. It will be heated up and radiate towards to stove and the rest of the room. The stove will be hotter to a certain extend. This is what a cloud does, being close to the properties of  ab blackbody.
  • Now take away the solid sheet and put there a black matte one with holes punched in, so that about two thirds of the area is covered. So this is now also heated by the stove, but to a lesser extend, and also the stove gets a little hotter. This is what watervapour is doing, leaving through some radiation.
  • Now take another black sheet with lots of holes punched in, covering only one quarter of the area. Now the re-radiation is much lower, and the stove stays only a small amount hotter. This is what CO2 is doing in the atmosphere.
  • Now try to get the whole picture: CO2 is always there in a quite even distribution. This is the sheet with the big holes. Water vapour is not evenly distributed, So it compares to a second sheet behind it,with differently big holes. Clouds are not always there, but if, they are covering the certian area completely.
  • We see: CO2 has a small function in the radiative play. So it doesn't really matter that much.
  • But: All three components of the atmosphere are re-radiating some amount of heat, thus slowing the cooling of the "stove". They are cooler than the stove and they are not heating up the stove. There is always a net flow of heat towards the cold room. Sometimes more, sometimes less, and always within the laws of thermodynamics.

Dienstag, 20. Dezember 2016

Was der Weltklimarat über Hurrikane und tropische Stürmen sagt

Tropische Stürme und Hurrikane
IPCC 2013, AR5, WGI, Kapitel 2, Seite 216: “No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”
Übersetzung: “Keine robusten Trends bei den jährlichen Zahlen von tropischen Stürmen, Hurrikans und Stark-Hurrikans konnten in den letzten 100 Jahren im Nordatlantischen Becken ausgemacht werden.
Tropische Zyklone
IPCC 2013, AR5, WGI, Kapitel 2, Seite 216: “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century and it remains uncertain whether any reported long-term increases in tropical cyclone frequency are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.”
Übersetzung: “Aktuelle Datensätze zeigen keine signifikanten beobachteten Trends bei der weltweiten tropischen Wirbelsturmfrequenz während des letzten Jahrhunderts und es ist ungewiss, ob ein berichteter langfristiger Anstieg der tropischen Wirbelsturm-Frequenz robust ist, nach Berücksichtigung der letzten Änderungen in den Beobachtungs-Möglichkeiten.“
Außertropische Zyklonen
IPCC 2013, AR5, WGI, Kapitel 2, Seite 220: “In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low. There is also low confidence for a clear trend in storminess proxies over the last century due to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world (particularly in the SH). Likewise, confidence in trends in extreme winds is low, owing to quality and consistency issues with analysed data.”
Übersetzung: “Zusammenfassend ist das Vertrauen in große Änderungen in der Intensität extremer aussertropischer Zyklone seit 1900 gering. Es gibt auch [nur] ein geringes Vertrauen für einen klaren Trend bei Sturm-Proxies wegen Inkonsistenzen zwischen den Studien oder wegen dem Fehlen von Langzeitdaten des letzten Jahrhunderts in einigen Teilen der Welt (vor allem auf der Südhemisphäre). Ebenso ist das Vertrauen in Trends in extreme Winde niedrig, wegen der Qualität und wegen Konsistenz-Problemen mit den analysierten Daten.“
Dürren
IPCC 2013, AR5, WGI, Technical Summery, Seite 50: ”There is low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall), owing to lack of direct observations, dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice and geographical inconsistencies in the trends.”
Übersetzung: “Es besteht ein geringes Vertrauen im globalen Maßstab beobachteten Trend an Dürre oder Trockenheit (Mangel an Niederschlag), aus Mangel an direkten Beobachtungen, Abhängigkeiten von abgeleiteten Trends auf der Indexauswahl und wegen geographischer Unstimmigkeiten in den Trends.“
sowie IPCC 2013, AR5, WGI, Kapitel 2, Seite 215: “In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global scale observed trend in drought ordryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, owing to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950.”
Übersetzung: „Zusammenfassend kommt die aktuelle Bewertung zu dem Schluss, dass es zur Zeit nicht genug Hinweise und [nur] ein geringes Vertrauen in einen beobachteten globalen Trend an Dürre oder Trockenheit (Mangel an Niederschlägen) gibt, aus Mangel an direkten Beobachtungen in der Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts, geographischen Inkonsistenzen in den Trends und Abhängigkeiten der abgeleiteten Trends auf der Indexauswahl. Auf Basis aktualisierter Studien waren die AR4-Schlußfolgerungen bezüglich global zunehmender Trends an Dürre seit den 1970er Jahren wahrscheinlich übertrieben. Es ist jedoch wahrscheinlich, dass die Häufigkeit und Intensität von Dürre im Mittelmeerraum und Westafrika sich erhöhen könnte und im Zentrum von Nordamerika und Nordwest-Australien seit 1950 abnehmen könnte.“
Nachtrag
Es ist bemerkenswert, dass alle diese Zitate und Aussagen in der 28-seitigen deutschen Fassung des Summary for policymakers (hier) fehlen!

Auszug aus eienm Artilkel von EIKE

Mehr Daten über Extremwetter findet man hier

Montag, 19. Dezember 2016

My answer about a heated up Arctis


Yes, it seems to be a not yet seen warming.

But one has to be careful with short-time changes in temperatures, as no one can say what will be measured next month. At the moment the temperature went already down considerably. So we have to wait until we see if that was a short spike down or it will go again higher.

On the other hand, we had a extrem cold spell over Siberia. Possibly a weather pattern made this exchange between the Arctic and Siberia.

We had one of the strongest El Ninos 2015/16. Very often we will see a La Nina after it, with temperatures going down below average.

In fact, a complete ENSO event (El Nino La Nina southern oscillation) will take up to five years until it is balanced out.

Climate change is something which is happening over a longer term, WMO says normally about 30 years.

So clearly the temperature worldwide and in the Arctic went up considerably in the last decades, being on a high level for over ten years, Especially the summer ice extend went down considerably.

Otherwise, the yearly temperature rise went down, and the average NSIDC Arctic sea ice extent over the whole years average had a flat trend the last 13 years.

So only future will tell sure more so we can get sure.

Samstag, 17. Dezember 2016

Arktische Temperaturen seit 100 Jahren


Hier noch eine Ergänzung meiner Artikel über Temperatur und Eisflächen an den Polen:

Die Temperaturkurve der Lufttemperatur 2 Meter über dem Boden von Professor Ole Humlum nach den Daten des britischen MET Office für die Arktis:



Seit der 60er Jahren ist es tatsächlich immer wärmer geworden. Vor 10 Jahren hat die Temperatur ihren Höchststand erreicht und ist nicht weiter gestiegen. Nun ist sie auf einem Tableau, das es vor 60 bis 70 Jahren schon einmal gab.