‘Vahrenholt: Der Spiegle, Interview’ Looking at answer #6
Posted: 20 February 2012 09:24 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15

I’m sharing this one for the heck of it, to see if any one comments or whatever.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A closer look at Vahrenholt’s answers given to Der Spiegel for an interview published February 8th, 2012.
Vahrenholt . . . ‘I Feel Duped on Climate Change’

Question #6 of ‘Models’ and ‘Earth is Cooling’
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

#6 ]  DER SPIEGEL: You make concrete statements on how much human activity contributes to climatic events and how much of a role natural factors play. Why don’t you publish your prognoses in a professional journal?

Dr. Vahrenholt: Because I don’t engage in my own climate research. Besides, I don’t have a supercomputer in my basement. For the most part, my co-author, geologist Sebastian Lüning, and I merely summarize what scientists have published in professional journals—just as the IPCC does. The book is also a platform for scientists who apply good arguments in diverging from the views of the IPCC. The established climate models have failed across the board because they cannot cogently explain the absence of warming.

~ ~ ~
Vahrenholt, exemplifies the problem with dilettantes, they feel they have a right to pick and choose facts, much like fiction writers who have artistic license to mold science facts to fit their stories not restrained by the true reality of the thing.  At least fiction writers and readers appreciate it’s entertainment, not the real world. 

But the likes of Vahrenholt disregard the depth of real world complexity, only choosing those little morsels that fit their imagination… convinced all else is beside the point.  And when they get called-on-it scientificially or when the big guys slam them ~ * Incidentally the big guys are those that did put in the study time and the work, the focus/blood/sweat’n/tears that it takes to understand something as complex, but not incomprehensible, as our climate and biosphere ~ the Vahrenholt types cry foul and conspiracy, rather than a little introspection and appreciating their own flaws in understanding.  Give credit where credit is due.

There’s an old writing rule: you gotta kill your babies.
In writing it means, you may have an oh’so gorgeous sentence or idea, but if it just don’t fit the story being composed…well.  A good writer has gotta be able to chop that fat.  Learning about the real world around us is much the same. 

Seems to me the pack of Vahrenholt, Cohen, Singer, Watts, etc., types lack that ability to self-audit.
Something the collective community of climatologists has learned to do.

If there is a conspiracy it’s a conspiracy of our planet doing what it does.
Don’t attack the folks recording what our planet is doing

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Regarding Vahrenholt’s contempt for “Models” there’s much more to it than he could ever admit to.  A good faith review of the information available reveals many good reasons for valuing climate models.  Rather than getting misdirected by Vahrenholts simplistic lies.

General Circulation Models of Climate
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm
~ ~ ~
How reliable are climate models?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
~ ~ ~
Dry and long, but that’s how it is:
Anatomy of a Climate Model: How Robust are Climate Projections?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wys31lj12aI

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


As for Vahrenholt’s canard of our planet’s warming having stopped.  That claim is smoke’n mirrors.  A good faith review of the full spectrum of Earth Observation reveals an entirely different picture.  Give it a try here’s a starter:

Why Wasn’t The Hottest Decade Hotter?
Posted on 15 July 2011 by Rob Painting

“Why the Pause?
“To identify what may have led to this slow-down, Kaufmann (2011) use a statistical model to compare natural and human-caused forcings. They find that the increase in greenhouse gases was exceeded by an even greater increase in sunlight-reflecting sulfate aerosols, which originate from the rapid industrialization of China.

“The result of the modeling is that the cooling effect of sulfates nearly cancels out the warming effect of greenhouse gases, allowing natural processes to control the climate. In this interval the small drop in sunlight,  reaching the Earth as part of the natural solar cycle, coupled with more episodes of La Niña (natural globally cool episodes) leads to a much smaller push in the direction of warming.” 

Mind you, Rob is basing his explanation on what these studies* have produced.  Furthermore, it continues the self-consistent understanding climatologists have been developing which is tons more than can be said for the scattershot, self-contradictory nature of the various denialists handwaving and spineless suppositions.

*Kaufmann (2011)
Smith (2011)
Rasch (2000)
Manktelow (2009)


[edits… it is a work in progress] wink

[ Edited: 20 February 2012 09:56 PM by citizenschallenge.pm ]
 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 February 2012 06:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15

The full version, that is an examination of all Vahrenholt’s answers and exposing the many lies he peddles, is up at my website.

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2012/02/fritz-vahrenholt-der-spiegel-i-feel.html

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile