Tuesday, May 29, 2012

von Storch on 11 F: "I consider this pure alarmism"

Hans von Storch agrees: No way 11°F by 2050.

About that Reuters article he writes:
"...the 2 degree goal is repeated as a need established by scientists.

"...A forth interesting issue is that climate science has become irrelevant; it shows up in passing, when "limit devastating climate effects like crop failure and melting glaciers" is mentioned, and the quote "the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (by 2050)" is made.This is a pretty bold prediction, given that we have so far less than 1 degree warming since pre-industrial times, so that the warming must be more than 5 degrees/38 years, i.e., about 0.7-0.8 deg/decade. I consider this pure alarmism, which is related to the timing, and a misuse of scientific analysis for creating some unsustainable short term drama for the Bonn-negotiations. I wonder if this 6-degrees claim is really from IEA, or just an addition by Fatih Birol, because is no not mentioned in the IEA's announcement."
I've written to Birol asking about his carbon-climate response function, but haven't heard back yet.

H/T: Tom Nelson


tonylearns said...


I am not sure why you are still writing about this before getting some response from the source of the article.
I agree that reuters is a reputable source of news for GENERAL information, but for anything specialized it makes no sense to accept the media report without finding out from the source if it is accurate.
I have seen over and over again media reports on science that simplify or distort to the point of uselessness because the reporter had to file a story of a certain length and submitted something that made sense to them.
this paticular allegation is so far outseid waht any climate scientist has said, way beyond anything I have read hansen say, that I would take the position that the source most likely was misquoted or misunderstood.
The whole 2035 Himalayan glaciers is similar because even someone like me who has no trainign in these issues knew this was impossible as soon as I heard about it.
And the radical denialsphere latches onto these things and won't let you pry them out even when shown to be wrong. As evidenced by the contined reference to the himalayas, and in my case Steve Goddard never admitting that Hansen did not predict manhattan would be underwater by 2010
If Birol really DID say this and stands by it, then I totally support your jumping all over him. Just as I consider Hansen's 5 meter sea level rise by 2100 to be fantasy. but at least Hansen admits it is not backed by science,
But getting other experts to make judgements about something like this just seems like sensationalism to me. have you looked at any other of his work to see if it is consistent with such a statement?

Martin Vermeer said...

What tonylearns said. It's not alarmism, it's sillyism. Find out where the silly comes from before pronouncing judgment.

And I would also have something to say about Die Klimazwiebel being a remotely authoritative source on anything, if I weren't such a polite guy :-)

EliRabett said...

Eli now has proof that the 2050 was an insertion by Reuters based on a misunderstanding.

In the other posts, the comments have provided you proof that the IEA and Birol think that 6C is a possible outcome, although no date was attached and that 2100 or a bit later is a possible date.

Tony Watts is now pushing this.

Since you have started this train moving, you damn well better get ahead of it and try and stop it before it flattens your reputation.

EliRabett said...

Allow Eli to point you to this interchange on Romm's blog

Eli Rabett says:
May 27, 2012 at 5:07 pm

In the Reuters piece it says 6 C by 2050 which makes no sense. What did Birol really say?? any idea

Martin Vermeer says:
May 29, 2012 at 6:00 am

Good question Eli. I only find 2050 in the Reuters piece,

“When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (by 2050), which would have devastating consequences for the planet,” Fatih Birol, IEA’s chief economist told Reuters.

It’s not in Birol’s slides, and not in his transcript. And it doesn’t make sense.
Joe Romm says:
May 29, 2012 at 6:08 am

I meant to post that 2050 is obviously a mistake by the reporter.
Steve Bloom says:
May 30, 2012 at 3:48 am

If the 2050 figure did get mentioned, it could perhaps refer to a commitment to 6C by then given a continuation of current emissions trends.

Martin Vermeer said...

Small correction: Klimazwiebel isn't entirely worthless. This comment refers to an IEA press release, where it says

“We have a responsibility and a golden opportunity to act,” said IEA Deputy Executive Director Ambassador Richard H Jones. “Energy-related CO2 emissions are at historic highs; under current policies, we estimate that energy use and CO2 emissions would increase by a third by 2020, and almost double by 2050. This would likely send global temperatures at least 6°C higher. Such an outcome would confront future generations with significant economic, environmental and energy security hardships – a legacy that I know none of us wishes to leave behind.”

Mix this with a journalist, and stir.

EliRabett said...

Reuters has issued a correction. The IEA is referring to the consequences at the turn of the coming century

"When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (towards the end of this century), which would have devastating consequences for the planet," Fatih Birol, IEA's chief economist told Reuters. "

Time to move in front of that train David

Anonymous said...

Much like the situation with Goldenberg and Gleick, Appell has very little interest in getting the story correct. Notice how he'll jump out with information that supports his preferred narrative (Romm is alarmist!) without getting the information beforehand. Then he'll be very lax at getting to any correction. This is journalism at its worst.

Is it ironic that these initial posts were here to criticize other journos?

climatehawk1 said...

Thanks for the followup, Eli.

Neven said...

Congratulations, Tom Nelson has returned the link: http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/05/david-appell-humans-are-really-so.html

I don't know if Marc Morano considers you interesting enough to quote you out of context (Appell sez: all humans deserve to die). Maybe he'll have mercy on you because of your silly attack on Romm.

I've noticed more often that you seem to jump on something without thinking it through. You really have to start to be careful with that.