Judith Curry: The climate ‘crisis’ isn’t what it used to be

archives said:
“Climate Misinformation by Source: Judith Curry”
https://skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm
Click to expand...

Here is some of the "team" from that site that make comments you are relying on:

Ari Jokimäki

Ari lives in Finland and has a BSc in computer engineering. He has been studying climate science as a hobbyist and runs his own blog (AGW Observer). In Skeptical Science Ari translates articles to Finnish, hosts New Research From Last Week series, and writes other articles every now and then.

Dikran Marsupial

Dikran Marsupial (A.K.A. Dr Gavin Cawley) is a senior lecturer in the School of Computing Sciences at the University of East Anglia. His research interests focus on machine learning (essentially a branch of statistics), and in particular dealing with various forms of uncertainty. He is interested in science generally, and in favour of rational decision making. These interests intersect in climate change, as rational choice of the best course of action requires our best effort at understanding the science of climate, including an appreciation of the uncertainties. SkS makes a positive contribution to this by refuting climate myths and addressing common misconceptions regarding the science of climate change that stiffle productive debate of the key issues. In his spare time, he enjoys luthiery, lute playing, cricket and moustache cultivation.

Doug Mackie

In the 70's I had a dinosaur book that included a Keeling curve as part of the inevitable 'what happened discussion'. (This was before Alvarez). Even before I could spell exponential I still wondered what the Keeling curve would mean for me when I grew up. When I began my PhD I found out.

John Hartz

I’ve been toiling in the vineyards of Skeptical Science for about six years. I am currently responsible for populating the SkS Facebook page with links to current news articles about climate science, mitigation and adaption polices, and energy. I maintain a rolling inventory of the articles and post a Roundup of them on the SkS website each Saturday (US). I also continue to generate the SkS Weekly Digest and post it each Sunday. I also perform moderation duties on the comment threads on both the SkS Facebook page and the SkS website. I have the time to engage in these tasks because I am retired and my wife shares my passion about the need to address manmade climate change.

My environmental philosophy is articulated in the following ancient Native American proverb:

Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children.

The work I do for Skeptical Science is part of my legacy to my children and grandchildren.

My wife and I currently reside in Columbia, South Carolina.

David Kirtley

I am not a scientist, but I've had a life-long interest in the sciences and in learning how the world works, from astronomy and geology to biology and evolution. When "climategate!" exploded on the internet in 2009, I was amazed at the mental hoops some people seemed to use to avoid understanding climate science. With a keen interest in making this complex subject matter easier for other "non-scientists" to understand, I joined the Skeptical Science team in 2013, helping out "behind the scenes" answering emails from readers, offering suggestions and editing blog posts. I live and work in St Louis, Missouri, USA.

Rob Honeycutt

Rob's claim to fame is being the founder of the popular pack and bag company Timbuk2. He is a guru of mass customization and, through the application of Toyota manufacturing methods, created a unique and enduring brand in the outdoor products industry. Rob is a serial entrepreneur, husband and father to two great kids. It's his concern for his kids' future that has driven him to dive into the climate issue as a minor author on SkS.

CollinMaessen

Collin Maessen lives in The Netherlands and has a BSc in software engineering. He works as a back-end developer for a Dutch software firm. In his spare time he writes for his own blog Real Skeptic and volunteers where possible for Skeptical Science.

Kevin C

Kevin is an interdisciplinary computational scientist of 20 years experience, based in the UK, although he has also spent two sabbaticals at San Diego Supercomputer Center. His first degree is in theoretical physics, his doctoral thesis was primarily computational, and he now teaches chemistry undergraduates and biology post-graduates. Most of his reasearch has been focussed on data processing and analysis. He is the author or co-author of a number of highly cited scientific software packages.

His climate investigations are conducted in the limited spare time available to a parent, and are currently focussed in two areas; coverage bias in the instrumental temperature record, and simple response-function climate models. He is also interested in philosophy of science and science communication.

gpwayne

Graham Wayne is a journalist who writes about climate change science and the ways it will affect us in the UK's Guardian, and in his blog (gpwayne.wordpress.com). He writes basic level rebuttals and occasional blog posts for Skeptical Science, motivated in part by a concern for the environment, and partly as a counter-reaction to the demagoguery and disinformation that pervades the public discourse on climate science.

g

John Garrett is a technical illustrator residing in Wildomar, California, USA. In my personal time, I volunteer for a variety of groups including Skeptical Science, the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve, and the Temecula Valley Astronomers. As an astronomy enthusiast, I’ve published photos in Astronomy Magazine and am involved in establishing astronomy clubs in local middle schools. I’m also a member of the International Dark-sky Association.

Doug Bostrom

1958 model, background in broadcast engineering and management, wireless telemetry, software architecture and authorship with a focus on embedded systems, TCP/IP network engineering, systems integration.

My initial interest in the "climate debate" was thanks to numerous accusations of dishonesty aimed at research scientists being thoughtlessly slung around. I'm not a scientist myself any more than the average layperson is occasionally called to think scientifically, but I live embedded in a social fabric of scientist family members and acquaintances. I find allegations of dishonesty as a substitute for cogent arguments against climate research findings to be not only at odds with my personal experience of scientists' affection for truth but also extremely annoying. Irritation at lazy thinking got me involved with this topic.

I was attracted to Skeptical Science by its straightforward explanation of various features of our climate as they relate to our role in modifying its behavior. In particular I found John Cook's attitude to be refreshing; my first acquaintance with John was via an email he kindly sent me explaining how and why a comment I'd posted at Skeptical Science was a little too "fresh" for the general tone of the site. Poor habits developed elsewhere don't really fit the SkS mode.

I've been volunteering with Skeptical Science for several years. I find spending at least some of my time helping SkS more satisfying than empty and repetitious catharsis spent in an endless "debate."

That is just a few. Now, there are a few actual Climate scientists on that site. Not many. The rest are like those above. Feel free to look yourself: https://skepticalscience.com/team.php democrats are just fucking gullible. Dumb as rocks and gullible.
 
Primavera said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Puh-leeze!

https://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2...tribution.html


https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry



If they was any doubt that this guy is an imbecile...
Click to expand...

translation: another corporate flunky who can't logically or factually refute or disprove contrary.

Answer me this, bunky: are you and your like minded ilk stating that a few centuries of massive deforestation, urbanization, increasing industrial pollutants and the like have only minimal effect on the environment?
 
Taichiliberal said:
translation: another corporate flunky who can't logically or factually refute or disprove contrary.

Answer me this, bunky: are you and your like minded ilk stating that a few centuries of massive deforestation, urbanization, increasing industrial pollutants and the like have only minimal effect on the environment?
Click to expand...

I don't debate climate science with imbeciles.
 
.
Here is an article in Die Zeit with Bjorn Stevens
Director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, the principal German climate science research and modelling centre. He is basically saying that clouds play little to nothing of a role in warming. Hence destroying the notion of there being any positive feedback effect promulgated by climate alarmists. It's good that somebody as prestigious as Bjorn Stevens is coming out and tackling alarmists head on, there should be far more like him.

This week Die Zeit published an interview with Bjorn Stevens. Die Zeit is the largest German weekly newspaper (circulation well over one million), and has a highly educated readership.

Bjorn Stevens is Director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, the principal German climate science research and modeling centre. He is very well known for his work on climate sensitivity, aerosols and, particularly, clouds. Professor Stevens is an excellent scientist and a key figure in the climate science establishment. He is joint lead co-ordinator of the World Climate Research Programme’s Grand Challenge on Clouds, Circulation and Climate Sensitivity, and led the 2015 Ringberg Castle workshop that kicked off its climate sensitivity arm.

The interviewer, Max Rauner, an experienced science journalist with a PhD in physics, focused mainly on clouds, however Stevens also had interesting things to say about pronouncements by alarmist climate scientists. An English translation of the interview appears below.

book clouds”
How much fear are scientists allowed to spread in the climate debate? Cloud researcher Bjorn Stevens accuses his colleagues of being alarmist. He finds: We still know far too little.

What do the clouds do when the climate warms up? This is what Bjorn Stevens, director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, is researching. His research group simulates clouds in climate models. When it comes to cloud issues, the World Climate Report relies heavily on his expertise. At the moment, however, Stevens would like to rewrite the world climate report.

DIE ZEIT: Professor Stevens, the world climate report describes clouds as the greatest uncertainty factor for climate forecasts. Why is that?

Bjorn Stevens: See that cloud out there? In my field, most people think of a cloud as these compact white objects in the blue sky.

ZEIT: Just like in the children’s book.

Stevens: Yes, a pretty fluffy cloud. As if you could draw a line around the edge of the cloud. But that’s an optical illusion, as anyone who’s climbed into a cloud in the mountains knows.

ZEIT: Because it’s getting foggy?

Stevens: Exactly. Clouds are tricksters. Even if the contours are sharp, the cloud structure is more like that of puff pastry. Nevertheless, many scientists use the children’s book clouds as a guide because they are easier to simulate. This makes the climate models less accurate.

ZEIT: How much water does this cloud contain?

Stevens: A cloud the size of an old building can only hold a liter of water.

ZEIT: That would fit in a pint of beer!

Stevens: If you distributed all the condensed water in the atmosphere evenly around the globe, you would get a water film that is only two tenths of a millimeter thick.

ZEIT: Why then do clouds affect the climate so much and flood entire countries?

Stevens: Flooding occurs because clouds can be huge and air circulation during storms constantly replenishes the water. And they affect the climate because they are made up of a huge number of droplets that interact with sunlight and thermal radiation. A very large cloud has almost as many droplets as there are stars in the universe. And there are many clouds.

ZEIT: Are they warming or cooling the planet?

Stevens: Both. The energy balance of the earth has two parts: firstly, the incident sunlight and secondly, the heat given off by the earth, i.e. infrared radiation. All clouds have a cooling effect by reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth’s surface. And all clouds have a warming effect by absorbing the earth’s infrared radiation so it doesn’t escape into space – the greenhouse effect. The balance sheet shows: Water-rich low clouds over the tropical ocean have the greatest cooling effect and low-water ice clouds at high altitudes have the strongest warming effect. Overall, the cooling effect is greater.

ZEIT: And how does this balance change with global warming? Scientists from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) recently published a worst-case scenario . It also mentions that by the end of the century our planet could get so warm that all the clouds are practically evaporating and we are doomed.

Stevens: That’s nonsense. Put simply, the atmosphere wants to be cloudy because air rises. It’s hard to get rid of clouds.

ZEIT: Why do the Potsdam climate researchers claim otherwise?

Stevens: You’ll have to ask them that. I can only admire how the colleagues there comb through the specialist literature for the most alarming stories. I find it a pity that these are then presented uncritically.

ZEIT: So the scenario is wrong?

Stevens: Yes. It is based on a work by our institute taken out of context and on a second paper that has numerous shortcomings.

ZEIT: What shortcomings?

Stevens: The dramatic behavior of the climate in this simulation was based on an oversimplification of the clouds, which has nothing to do with reality. If you look closely, the most alarming stories often don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny.

ZEIT: Do you also mean tipping point forecasts such as the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet, the collapse of the Gulf Stream and the desertification of the Amazon rainforest?

Stevens: Yes, and most others. Of course, the world will change as a result of global warming, even more dramatically in some regions. But how, where and when is far from certain.

ZEIT: In the German climate discourse, the PIK usually warns of tipping points , while your institute tends to downplay the danger of tipping points. Why is that?

Stevens: Tipping points are fascinating, and there’s a good chance they exist. But they are also a matter of definition. What do you think of when you hear the word tipping point?

ZEIT: Of a self-reinforcing feedback that is irreversible.

Stevens: An accelerating change that cannot be reversed, right. Like a pencil falling down. He cannot fall back up by himself. But the tipping points highlighted by my colleague Hans Joachim Schellnhuber and others at PIK are based on their private, much weaker definition . Tipping points are reinterpreted to include less abrupt or even reversible climate changes. With this redefinition, they find tipping points everywhere. Then the alarm goes off. My institute does not play down tipping points, we just place more value on clarity.

ZEIT: Do you envy the Potsdam Institute for its media presence ?

Stevens: Who doesn’t want to be interesting? Unfortunately, people prefer stories about the end of the world. I don’t understand much about that.

ZEIT: Are you saying that global warming is not a problem?

Stevens: It’s a huge problem, partly because we know so little about its actual impact. According to the IPCC , whether and where biblical droughts and floods will occur is uncertain for almost all regions .

ZEIT: Stefan Rahmstorf from PIK compares himself to a doctor who found out that smoking is dangerous and now has to call on people to stop.

Stevens: As a scientist, I like to explain to people how things I understand work. But what qualifies me to tell them how to behave? That must result from the social discourse, which should be shaped more by good journalism than by charismatic scientists. If people don’t learn to think for themselves, we’re lost anyway.


“The contribution of the clouds is still overrated”
ZEIT: Let’s talk about the danger of clouds again. Will Clouds Accelerate Global Warming?

Stevens: The interesting number here is climate sensitivity. It quantifies how much the earth will warm up if the CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere doubles…

ZEIT: …compared to the CO₂ concentration before industrialization. That would still be in this century?

Stevens: If we continue as before, yes. In the last IPCC report , it was agreed that the global average temperature would then probably rise by 2.5 to 4.0 degrees Celsius. According to the simulations, the higher temperatures are mainly caused by a change in the clouds. We consider this effect to be overestimated today.

ZEIT: Were the models faulty?

Stevens: Yes. Too many children’s book clouds, not enough real clouds. In the world climate research program we have tackled the climate models. The models with the most extreme predictions have failed, and confidence in the less catastrophic values of climate sensitivity has increased . In my opinion, however, the contribution of the clouds is still overstated.

ZEIT: How great is it?

Stevens: Based on our latest measurements and advances in theory, I would say today: zero.

ZEIT: Zero?

Stevens: Right, at least that’s my working hypothesis. The climate sensitivity is then at the lower end of the IPCC estimate, around 2.8 degrees. We should keep looking, but so far there’s no evidence that clouds play a major role.

https://judithcurry.com/2022/10/22/an-interview-with-top-climate-scientist-bjorn-stevens/
 
Last edited:
Primavera said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
translation: another corporate flunky who can't logically or factually refute or disprove contrary.

Answer me this, bunky: are you and your like minded ilk stating that a few centuries of massive deforestation, urbanization, increasing industrial pollutants and the like have only minimal effect on the environment?
Click to expand...


I don't debate climate science with imbeciles.
Click to expand...

And you actually believe that lame ass cop out fools anyone other than the flabby fool you see in the mirror?

You're pathetic, Primo. A complete corporate stooge with delusions of intelligence. Carry on.
 
Primavera said:
.
Here is an article in Die Zeit with Bjorn Stevens
Director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, the principal German climate science research and modelling centre. He is basically saying that clouds play little to nothing of a role in warming. Hence destroying the notion of there being any positive feedback effect promulgated by climate alarmists. It's good that somebody as prestigious as Bjorn Stevens is coming out and tackling alarmists head on, there should be far more like him.

This week Die Zeit published an interview with Bjorn Stevens. Die Zeit is the largest German weekly newspaper (circulation well over one million), and has a highly educated readership.

Bjorn Stevens is Director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, the principal German climate science research and modeling centre. He is very well known for his work on climate sensitivity, aerosols and, particularly, clouds. Professor Stevens is an excellent scientist and a key figure in the climate science establishment. He is joint lead co-ordinator of the World Climate Research Programme’s Grand Challenge on Clouds, Circulation and Climate Sensitivity, and led the 2015 Ringberg Castle workshop that kicked off its climate sensitivity arm.

The interviewer, Max Rauner, an experienced science journalist with a PhD in physics, focused mainly on clouds, however Stevens also had interesting things to say about pronouncements by alarmist climate scientists. An English translation of the interview appears below.

book clouds”
How much fear are scientists allowed to spread in the climate debate? Cloud researcher Bjorn Stevens accuses his colleagues of being alarmist. He finds: We still know far too little.

What do the clouds do when the climate warms up? This is what Bjorn Stevens, director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, is researching. His research group simulates clouds in climate models. When it comes to cloud issues, the World Climate Report relies heavily on his expertise. At the moment, however, Stevens would like to rewrite the world climate report.

DIE ZEIT: Professor Stevens, the world climate report describes clouds as the greatest uncertainty factor for climate forecasts. Why is that?

Bjorn Stevens: See that cloud out there? In my field, most people think of a cloud as these compact white objects in the blue sky.

ZEIT: Just like in the children’s book.

Stevens: Yes, a pretty fluffy cloud. As if you could draw a line around the edge of the cloud. But that’s an optical illusion, as anyone who’s climbed into a cloud in the mountains knows.

ZEIT: Because it’s getting foggy?

Stevens: Exactly. Clouds are tricksters. Even if the contours are sharp, the cloud structure is more like that of puff pastry. Nevertheless, many scientists use the children’s book clouds as a guide because they are easier to simulate. This makes the climate models less accurate.

ZEIT: How much water does this cloud contain?

Stevens: A cloud the size of an old building can only hold a liter of water.

ZEIT: That would fit in a pint of beer!

Stevens: If you distributed all the condensed water in the atmosphere evenly around the globe, you would get a water film that is only two tenths of a millimeter thick.

ZEIT: Why then do clouds affect the climate so much and flood entire countries?

Stevens: Flooding occurs because clouds can be huge and air circulation during storms constantly replenishes the water. And they affect the climate because they are made up of a huge number of droplets that interact with sunlight and thermal radiation. A very large cloud has almost as many droplets as there are stars in the universe. And there are many clouds.

ZEIT: Are they warming or cooling the planet?

Stevens: Both. The energy balance of the earth has two parts: firstly, the incident sunlight and secondly, the heat given off by the earth, i.e. infrared radiation. All clouds have a cooling effect by reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth’s surface. And all clouds have a warming effect by absorbing the earth’s infrared radiation so it doesn’t escape into space – the greenhouse effect. The balance sheet shows: Water-rich low clouds over the tropical ocean have the greatest cooling effect and low-water ice clouds at high altitudes have the strongest warming effect. Overall, the cooling effect is greater.

ZEIT: And how does this balance change with global warming? Scientists from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) recently published a worst-case scenario . It also mentions that by the end of the century our planet could get so warm that all the clouds are practically evaporating and we are doomed.

Stevens: That’s nonsense. Put simply, the atmosphere wants to be cloudy because air rises. It’s hard to get rid of clouds.

ZEIT: Why do the Potsdam climate researchers claim otherwise?

Stevens: You’ll have to ask them that. I can only admire how the colleagues there comb through the specialist literature for the most alarming stories. I find it a pity that these are then presented uncritically.

ZEIT: So the scenario is wrong?

Stevens: Yes. It is based on a work by our institute taken out of context and on a second paper that has numerous shortcomings.

ZEIT: What shortcomings?

Stevens: The dramatic behavior of the climate in this simulation was based on an oversimplification of the clouds, which has nothing to do with reality. If you look closely, the most alarming stories often don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny.

ZEIT: Do you also mean tipping point forecasts such as the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet, the collapse of the Gulf Stream and the desertification of the Amazon rainforest?

Stevens: Yes, and most others. Of course, the world will change as a result of global warming, even more dramatically in some regions. But how, where and when is far from certain.

ZEIT: In the German climate discourse, the PIK usually warns of tipping points , while your institute tends to downplay the danger of tipping points. Why is that?

Stevens: Tipping points are fascinating, and there’s a good chance they exist. But they are also a matter of definition. What do you think of when you hear the word tipping point?

ZEIT: Of a self-reinforcing feedback that is irreversible.

Stevens: An accelerating change that cannot be reversed, right. Like a pencil falling down. He cannot fall back up by himself. But the tipping points highlighted by my colleague Hans Joachim Schellnhuber and others at PIK are based on their private, much weaker definition . Tipping points are reinterpreted to include less abrupt or even reversible climate changes. With this redefinition, they find tipping points everywhere. Then the alarm goes off. My institute does not play down tipping points, we just place more value on clarity.

ZEIT: Do you envy the Potsdam Institute for its media presence ?

Stevens: Who doesn’t want to be interesting? Unfortunately, people prefer stories about the end of the world. I don’t understand much about that.

ZEIT: Are you saying that global warming is not a problem?

Stevens: It’s a huge problem, partly because we know so little about its actual impact. According to the IPCC , whether and where biblical droughts and floods will occur is uncertain for almost all regions .

ZEIT: Stefan Rahmstorf from PIK compares himself to a doctor who found out that smoking is dangerous and now has to call on people to stop.

Stevens: As a scientist, I like to explain to people how things I understand work. But what qualifies me to tell them how to behave? That must result from the social discourse, which should be shaped more by good journalism than by charismatic scientists. If people don’t learn to think for themselves, we’re lost anyway.


“The contribution of the clouds is still overrated”
ZEIT: Let’s talk about the danger of clouds again. Will Clouds Accelerate Global Warming?

Stevens: The interesting number here is climate sensitivity. It quantifies how much the earth will warm up if the CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere doubles…

ZEIT: …compared to the CO₂ concentration before industrialization. That would still be in this century?

Stevens: If we continue as before, yes. In the last IPCC report , it was agreed that the global average temperature would then probably rise by 2.5 to 4.0 degrees Celsius. According to the simulations, the higher temperatures are mainly caused by a change in the clouds. We consider this effect to be overestimated today.

ZEIT: Were the models faulty?

Stevens: Yes. Too many children’s book clouds, not enough real clouds. In the world climate research program we have tackled the climate models. The models with the most extreme predictions have failed, and confidence in the less catastrophic values of climate sensitivity has increased . In my opinion, however, the contribution of the clouds is still overstated.

ZEIT: How great is it?

Stevens: Based on our latest measurements and advances in theory, I would say today: zero.

ZEIT: Zero?

Stevens: Right, at least that’s my working hypothesis. The climate sensitivity is then at the lower end of the IPCC estimate, around 2.8 degrees. We should keep looking, but so far there’s no evidence that clouds play a major role.

https://judithcurry.com/2022/10/22/an-interview-with-top-climate-scientist-bjorn-stevens/
Click to expand...

That's nice. Then there's this, where your heroine has trouble with the Planck head:

https://judithcurry.com/2015/04/22/bjorn-stevens-in-the-cross-fire/


And I notice that neither wonks like you or the geniuses you reference have a straight, honest in no uncertain terms answer to the following: are you and your like minded ilk stating that a few centuries of massive deforestation, urbanization, increasing industrial pollutants and the like have only minimal effect on the environment?
 
Taichiliberal said:
That's nice. Then there's this, where your heroine has trouble with the Planck head:

https://judithcurry.com/2015/04/22/bjorn-stevens-in-the-cross-fire/


And I notice that neither wonks like you or the geniuses you reference have a straight, honest in no uncertain terms answer to the following: are you and your like minded ilk stating that a few centuries of massive deforestation, urbanization, increasing industrial pollutants and the like have only minimal effect on the environment?
Click to expand...

Look sunshine, I answered that a couple of times in the past but you're truly beyond help as far as I'm concerned, kindly go fuck yourself.
 
You do realize, maggot, don't you- that your Denier game is up and your qualifications as a dangerous moron are confirmed ?
 
Primavera said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
That's nice. Then there's this, where your heroine has trouble with the Planck head:

https://judithcurry.com/2015/04/22/b...he-cross-fire/


And I notice that neither wonks like you or the geniuses you reference have a straight, honest in no uncertain terms answer to the following: are you and your like minded ilk stating that a few centuries of massive deforestation, urbanization, increasing industrial pollutants and the like have only minimal effect on the environment?
Click to expand...

Look sunshine, I answered that a couple of times in the past but you're truly beyond help as far as I'm concerned, kindly go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...

You already played that card, Tommy. Then as now, only you and like minded MAGA/alt-right minions are buying into your lame bluffs and bluster. You don't have the cojones to give an honest direct answer, because ANYTHING you link or your personal supposition and conjecture just won't stand the light of day. That your heroine Curry can't stand up to critical analysis is a prime example.

Come on, ya good for nothing ex-National Front blow hard. I DARE you.
 
Primavera said:
.
Here is an article in Die Zeit with Bjorn Stevens
Director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, the principal German climate science research and modelling centre. He is basically saying that clouds play little to nothing of a role in warming. Hence destroying the notion of there being any positive feedback effect promulgated by climate alarmists. It's good that somebody as prestigious as Bjorn Stevens is coming out and tackling alarmists head on, there should be far more like him.

This week Die Zeit published an interview with Bjorn Stevens. Die Zeit is the largest German weekly newspaper (circulation well over one million), and has a highly educated readership.

Bjorn Stevens is Director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, the principal German climate science research and modeling centre. He is very well known for his work on climate sensitivity, aerosols and, particularly, clouds. Professor Stevens is an excellent scientist and a key figure in the climate science establishment. He is joint lead co-ordinator of the World Climate Research Programme’s Grand Challenge on Clouds, Circulation and Climate Sensitivity, and led the 2015 Ringberg Castle workshop that kicked off its climate sensitivity arm.

The interviewer, Max Rauner, an experienced science journalist with a PhD in physics, focused mainly on clouds, however Stevens also had interesting things to say about pronouncements by alarmist climate scientists. An English translation of the interview appears below.

book clouds”
How much fear are scientists allowed to spread in the climate debate? Cloud researcher Bjorn Stevens accuses his colleagues of being alarmist. He finds: We still know far too little.

What do the clouds do when the climate warms up? This is what Bjorn Stevens, director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, is researching. His research group simulates clouds in climate models. When it comes to cloud issues, the World Climate Report relies heavily on his expertise. At the moment, however, Stevens would like to rewrite the world climate report.

DIE ZEIT: Professor Stevens, the world climate report describes clouds as the greatest uncertainty factor for climate forecasts. Why is that?

Bjorn Stevens: See that cloud out there? In my field, most people think of a cloud as these compact white objects in the blue sky.

ZEIT: Just like in the children’s book.

Stevens: Yes, a pretty fluffy cloud. As if you could draw a line around the edge of the cloud. But that’s an optical illusion, as anyone who’s climbed into a cloud in the mountains knows.

ZEIT: Because it’s getting foggy?

Stevens: Exactly. Clouds are tricksters. Even if the contours are sharp, the cloud structure is more like that of puff pastry. Nevertheless, many scientists use the children’s book clouds as a guide because they are easier to simulate. This makes the climate models less accurate.

ZEIT: How much water does this cloud contain?

Stevens: A cloud the size of an old building can only hold a liter of water.

ZEIT: That would fit in a pint of beer!

Stevens: If you distributed all the condensed water in the atmosphere evenly around the globe, you would get a water film that is only two tenths of a millimeter thick.

ZEIT: Why then do clouds affect the climate so much and flood entire countries?

Stevens: Flooding occurs because clouds can be huge and air circulation during storms constantly replenishes the water. And they affect the climate because they are made up of a huge number of droplets that interact with sunlight and thermal radiation. A very large cloud has almost as many droplets as there are stars in the universe. And there are many clouds.

ZEIT: Are they warming or cooling the planet?

Stevens: Both. The energy balance of the earth has two parts: firstly, the incident sunlight and secondly, the heat given off by the earth, i.e. infrared radiation. All clouds have a cooling effect by reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth’s surface. And all clouds have a warming effect by absorbing the earth’s infrared radiation so it doesn’t escape into space – the greenhouse effect. The balance sheet shows: Water-rich low clouds over the tropical ocean have the greatest cooling effect and low-water ice clouds at high altitudes have the strongest warming effect. Overall, the cooling effect is greater.

ZEIT: And how does this balance change with global warming? Scientists from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) recently published a worst-case scenario . It also mentions that by the end of the century our planet could get so warm that all the clouds are practically evaporating and we are doomed.

Stevens: That’s nonsense. Put simply, the atmosphere wants to be cloudy because air rises. It’s hard to get rid of clouds.

ZEIT: Why do the Potsdam climate researchers claim otherwise?

Stevens: You’ll have to ask them that. I can only admire how the colleagues there comb through the specialist literature for the most alarming stories. I find it a pity that these are then presented uncritically.

ZEIT: So the scenario is wrong?

Stevens: Yes. It is based on a work by our institute taken out of context and on a second paper that has numerous shortcomings.

ZEIT: What shortcomings?

Stevens: The dramatic behavior of the climate in this simulation was based on an oversimplification of the clouds, which has nothing to do with reality. If you look closely, the most alarming stories often don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny.

ZEIT: Do you also mean tipping point forecasts such as the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet, the collapse of the Gulf Stream and the desertification of the Amazon rainforest?

Stevens: Yes, and most others. Of course, the world will change as a result of global warming, even more dramatically in some regions. But how, where and when is far from certain.

ZEIT: In the German climate discourse, the PIK usually warns of tipping points , while your institute tends to downplay the danger of tipping points. Why is that?

Stevens: Tipping points are fascinating, and there’s a good chance they exist. But they are also a matter of definition. What do you think of when you hear the word tipping point?

ZEIT: Of a self-reinforcing feedback that is irreversible.

Stevens: An accelerating change that cannot be reversed, right. Like a pencil falling down. He cannot fall back up by himself. But the tipping points highlighted by my colleague Hans Joachim Schellnhuber and others at PIK are based on their private, much weaker definition . Tipping points are reinterpreted to include less abrupt or even reversible climate changes. With this redefinition, they find tipping points everywhere. Then the alarm goes off. My institute does not play down tipping points, we just place more value on clarity.

ZEIT: Do you envy the Potsdam Institute for its media presence ?

Stevens: Who doesn’t want to be interesting? Unfortunately, people prefer stories about the end of the world. I don’t understand much about that.

ZEIT: Are you saying that global warming is not a problem?

Stevens: It’s a huge problem, partly because we know so little about its actual impact. According to the IPCC , whether and where biblical droughts and floods will occur is uncertain for almost all regions .

ZEIT: Stefan Rahmstorf from PIK compares himself to a doctor who found out that smoking is dangerous and now has to call on people to stop.

Stevens: As a scientist, I like to explain to people how things I understand work. But what qualifies me to tell them how to behave? That must result from the social discourse, which should be shaped more by good journalism than by charismatic scientists. If people don’t learn to think for themselves, we’re lost anyway.


“The contribution of the clouds is still overrated”
ZEIT: Let’s talk about the danger of clouds again. Will Clouds Accelerate Global Warming?

Stevens: The interesting number here is climate sensitivity. It quantifies how much the earth will warm up if the CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere doubles…

ZEIT: …compared to the CO₂ concentration before industrialization. That would still be in this century?

Stevens: If we continue as before, yes. In the last IPCC report , it was agreed that the global average temperature would then probably rise by 2.5 to 4.0 degrees Celsius. According to the simulations, the higher temperatures are mainly caused by a change in the clouds. We consider this effect to be overestimated today.

ZEIT: Were the models faulty?

Stevens: Yes. Too many children’s book clouds, not enough real clouds. In the world climate research program we have tackled the climate models. The models with the most extreme predictions have failed, and confidence in the less catastrophic values of climate sensitivity has increased . In my opinion, however, the contribution of the clouds is still overstated.

ZEIT: How great is it?

Stevens: Based on our latest measurements and advances in theory, I would say today: zero.

ZEIT: Zero?

Stevens: Right, at least that’s my working hypothesis. The climate sensitivity is then at the lower end of the IPCC estimate, around 2.8 degrees. We should keep looking, but so far there’s no evidence that clouds play a major role.

https://judithcurry.com/2022/10/22/an-interview-with-top-climate-scientist-bjorn-stevens/
Click to expand...

Bjorn Stevens is a top flight climate scientist who is internationally respected. Naturally the morons here have never heard of him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top