[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[escepticos] MPIM Hamburg goes contrarian

        Para los interesados en lo del clima aqui van datos y bibliografia.

        Jose Enrique

>From: ram en fiji.ucsd.edu (V. Ramanathan)
>Subject: MPIM Hamburg goes contrarian
>>Date: Wed, 4 Jun 97 17:49 +0100
>>From: 091335371-0001 en t-online.de (Peter Dietze)
>>X-Sender: 091335371-0001 en t-online.de (Peter Dietze)
>>Subject: MPIM Hamburg goes contrarian
>>To: klaus.hasselmann en dkrz.de
>>Cc: jthoughton en ipccwg1.demon.co.uk, grassl en wcrp2.wmo.ch, storch en gkss.de,
>>        schoenwiese en meteor.uni-frankfurt.de, bach en uni-muenster.de,
>>        maier-reimer en dkrz.de, bengtsson en dkrz.de, info en mail.wupperinst.org,
>>        ige en dar.csiro.au, joos en climate.unibe.ch, djgriggs en email.meto.gov.uk,
>>        gcc en igc.apc.org, wcr en nhes.com, ssinger1 en gmu.edu, lindzen en wind.mit.edu,
>>        100436.3604 en compuserve.com, vega en oceans.org,
>>71553.3017 en compuserve.com,
>>        wigley en meeker.ucar.edu, callander en meto.govt.uk, cdkeeling en ucsd.edu,
>>        p.liss en uea.ac.uk, jfbmitchell en meto.govt.uk, ram en ucsd.edu
>>							      June 4, 1997
>>Dear Professor Hasselmann:
>>After receiving SCIENCE of March 9 with your contribution "Are We seeing
>>Warming?" I want to congratulate for your excellent paper about present
>>infeasibility of detection and anthropogenic allocation of global warming.
>>I am glad to see you trending towards our November 95 Leipzig declaration.
>>is worth indeed to throw a champagne party if I consider that in February
>>you had detected that an increase of 0.7 K is unnatural with 95%
>>confidence and
>>so you concluded in TV, those who do not believe in this anthropogenic
>>must be MAD.
>>I take a translation of Fred Singer from page 80 of Hearing No. 100 of the
>>German Climate Enquete Commission on April 29, 1994 when you said
>>(answering a
>>question of chairman Dr. Klaus Lippold):
>>"We have proven scientifically that it [global warming] is coming, and no one
>>doubts it. .. I am ready to bet my whole fortune that in 20 years we can
>>document a climate change of 1 deg C..This is completely independent of
>>we can see it today.. Except for a few idiots like Lindzen, the scientists
>>that it is 100% sure, that a climate change is coming.."
>>Obviously you didn't consider how much carbon we have already been burning
>>hardly noticible effects. You know I have criticised your 1995 fingerprint
>>in my April 8 mail answer to Sir John Houghton because you had underestimated
>>the natural climate variability, not taking into account solar cycles. You
>>openly admitted this fact in your German DKRZ Internet contribution of
>>15th, 1995 which was titled "Climate Change proved with an estimated 95%
>>On page 915 of March 9, 1997 SCIENCE you state "A reduction in the present
>>uncertainties would significantly improve our confidence not only in the
>>detection of climate change, but also in its attribution to anthropogenic
>>greenhouse warming". Towards the end you say "However, the inherent
>>uncertainties in the detection of anthropogenic climate change can be
>>to subside only gradually in the next few years while the predicted signal is
>>still slowly emerging from the natural climate variability noise."
>>I suggest till then you should do research to find out why the signal is much
>>smaller than expected. The radiative forcing sensitivity of models spans a
>>factor of THREE, Bruce Callander stated in a paper presented at the
>>Congress in The Hague, August 1996. You know that satellite precision
>>measurements of the lower troposphere - and treir trend should be near to
>>ground temperatures - do not show ANY warming since 1979. To my knowledge
>>climate is defined as a mean over 30 years. So I wonder how after two
>>years you
>>got new essential data to reverse your results of 1995. Have you been
>>by two cold winters? Remember: early in 1996 ice-breakers had to keep the
>>Hamburg harbour open, frozen Baltic islands required emergency supply by
>>helicopters and September 1996 was our coldest since 65 years.
>>"Watts wrong with Global Warming?" many critics are asking since and
>>pointing to
>>the impacts of solar variations found by Friis-Christensen and Svensmark
>>As a contributor to Chapter 8 of IPCC SAR you have finally absurded the
>>essential verbal construct on page 4 in Summary for Policymakers: "The
>>of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate".
>>You made Ben Santer's Chapter 8 manipulations obsolete. All the fights
>>about it
>>could have been avoided. A friend of mine even had been so upset that he
>>action against Ben at the International Court in The Hague for
>>falsification of
>>international scientific relevant documents.
>>Now I am surprised your paper is just stating what your colleague Ben had
>>cancelled (I cite the most important passages from the Bulletin of the
>>Meteorologic Society, January 1997, page 81):
>>** "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can
>>   attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases
>>   of greenhouse gases."
>>** "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate
>>   change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
>>** "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely
>>   to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural
>>   of the climate system are reduced."
>>What is the CONSEQUENCE of your SCIENCE contribution? You have essentially
>>weakened the credibility of IPCC. The 1995 SAR WG1 Summary for
>>Policymakers and
>>Chapter 8 are more or less waste paper. This should be reprinted with the
>>original statements. Moreover IPCC should no more hide the science and
>>assumptions the models and results are based on.
>>You are to be applauded for having the courage to publish this WELL DONE
>>I hope you send copies to the German Environment Ministry, Research
>>Ministry and
>>the FCCC office in Bonn as well. As a contribution to turn FCCC
>>negotiations and
>>Kyoto reasonable I will send this mail to about 200 international climate
>>scientists to let them get aware about the discernible reversal in Hamburg.
>>Yours sincerely,
>>Peter Dietze		91094 Langensendelbach, Germany
>>Phone&Fax +49/9133-5371
>>Mail  091335371-0001 en t-online.de
>V. Ramanathan
>Center for Atmospheric Sciences
>Center for Clouds, Chemistry and Climate
>Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD
>9500 Gilman Drive #0221
>La Jolla, CA  92093
>(619) 534-8815  Fax: (619) 534-7452
>vramanathan en ucsd.edu
>Fed. Exp. address
>8605 La Jolla Shores Dr., Rm. 330
>La Jolla, CA  92037

Se legpovas vi tion ^ci vi tro eruditas