Watch videos with subtitles in your language, upload your videos, create your own subtitles! Click here to learn more on "how to Dotsub"

Klimakatastrophe abgesagt

0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
Governments all over the world are preparing for the big conference on climate change... where decisions will be made on how mankind should respond to the danger of a climatic disaster. Negotiations for replacing the Kyoto protocol by a new agreement in Copenhagen are already on the way. The basis for this agreement are the reports from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Due to the IPCC, our planet is about to experience an unparalleled rise in temperature... caused by mankind and their emissions of CO2 from fossil burning. Climate Disaster Cancelled The climate on our planet always changed... but now we are told that temperatures are rising more than ever. This statement is based on the following graphics: This 10 year old chart, the so-called 'hockey stick'... was supposed to revolutionize our view on the history of our planet's climate. The 'handle' of the hockey stick presents us a balanced climate for almost 1000 years... and a rising end value in the late 19th century, ... a strong raise in temperature, caused by mankind. Previous charts show that climate has significantly varied during the last millenium... and that during the middle ages temperatures were clearly higher than these days. But the 'hockey stick' chart made this warm period of the middle ages and the small ice age disappear. The 'hockey stick' was given a place of honour on the headline of the 3rd IPCC status report. It became the logo of climate disaster. The 'hockey stick' served as proof that 1998 was the hottest year of the millenium. "At this time I was an employee in the mining business and I really wondered how that would know that. This motivated me to have a closer look on the data, and 6 years later I still do this." Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre had doubts about the accuracy of the 'hockey stick' chart. He decided to decipher the numbers beyond, applying the ambition of an auditor. The father of the 'hockey stick', Professor Michael Mann... refused to give McIntyre's the raw data... and it was not until 2003 when McIntyre finally had access to the data. "It turned out that the method for analysing the main components was flawed... and this resulted in a chart looking like a hockey stick for 99 percent of all cases. The method overemphasized a specific class of proxies, ... bristlecone pines, of which the authors beforehand said... that they are not necessarily suitable as a proxy for temperature." Recordings of temperature go back as much as 150 years at most. Temperatures that go back further can be reconstructed by using so-called proxies or... surrogate thermometers. The climate of the past for example, can be determined from tree rings or sediments. The shape of the 'hockey stick' chart was determined primarily by bristlecone pines from North America. McIntyre managed to disassemble the 'hockey stick'. The Academy of Sciences of the UN installed a comission to investigate his results. They found that McIntyre's criticism is valid and announced that... bristlecone pines no longer should be used in order to prove climate change. Steve McIntyre, a maverick in climatology, ... successfully debunked Mann's 'hockey stick', the icon for climate change. But the story wasn't over yet. From now on, new 'hockey sticks' were created in order to replace the old hockey stick. "There was another category of studies that were using series of tree rings. They were created by a scientist named Keith Briffa. The tree rings came from the north of Russia, from a place called Yamal. These studies showed a hockey stick shape even stronger than Michael Mann's hockey stick. Those series of tree rings were used in several studies... and so, over the last years, I tried to get information about... how this specific series of tree ring was construed." Keith Briffa is a big name in climatology. He is professor in the IPCC's fort in the UK, ... the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. He is also the main author of the chapters from the IPCC's report on the history of climate change. McIntyre had to argue for 3 years to get a copy of Briffa's Yamal data so that he could do an analysis on it. A loft of things happened since then. The well-known medieval warm period was a bothering issue to the IPCC-related scientists, the so-called 'hockey team'. In the mid 90s, American geologist David Deming received an astonishing e-mail... in which a well-known climatologist told his colleagues: "We have to get rid of the medieval warm period." # Soon after this e-mail, Keith Briffa published his results of a study in which the history of the millenium's temperature was presented like this: The Briffa study was based on very few tree rings from the Polar-Ural region in Siberia. Using only three short tree ring series he claimed... that the year 1032 (in the middle of the mild medieval period) was the coldest year of the millenium. The present climate looked as if it was very warm. Truly a hockey stick. A few years later, Briffa's colleagues returned to Siberia in order to gather new tree rings. When they added those tree rings to Briffa's original data, surprisingly the chart looked as follows: The hockey stick disappeared and the middle ages again ware warmer than in present days. "Unfortunately these updated Polar-Ural results never had been published... and since the year 2000 Briffa... also never referred to them in any of his publications." This new series of tree rings fell into oblivion. Instead, Briffa replace his weak original data from the Polar-Ural... by a new series of tree rings from the Yamal peninsula that is hundreds of kilometers away. With this new data, the reconstruction looked like this: As for the end of the millenium, the head of the hockey stick shows an upward curve stronger than ever before... and the medieval warm period clearly has been put into insignificance, of not totally erased. The Yamal data became the most important temperature proxy for all subsequent hockey sticks... and had been used for at least seven more studies about temperature reconstruction. But McIntyre knew a lot about how to reconstruct such charts... and doubted that the results of the Yamal-study were valid. The contradiction in regards to established knowledge of paleo-climatology was too big. "The question is simple, ... why the updated Polar-Ural data never had been published. And when the Yamal tree ring series was preferred over the Polar-Ural series, ... then the reasons for this should have been clearly explained to the reviewers. The criteria why one data record was preferred over another data record... also should have been explained in detail." The Finnish Lapland is on the same latitude as Yamal... and there are enough Finnish studies about climate history based on tree rings. Due to the quality of their samples and the method used, those studies are regarded as one of the best worldwide. Which kind of 'hockey sticks' have been found in those studies? "We have this long series that goes back as far as 7000 years, and there is no hockey stick." Briffa's Yamal hockey stick had benn published in the prestigious journal Science. McIntyre requested the raw data from Yamal. "Briffa refused to hand out the data." The publishers of Science refused to inquire Briffa to hand out the data..." It took three years until he obtained the data, ... although one of the most important rules in science is... to grant access to raw data for everyone who wants to reconstruct or review a study. After all, Briffa made a 'mistake'. He published another article with the Yamal Data in a journal of the British Royal Society. This well-reputated science community insisted on the principle of data transparency... and forced Briffa to grant public access to his data. In September this year, the Canadian 'Climate Auditor' was able to confirm their presentiment. "After about three years of frustration... and attempts to analyse the data used by Briffa... and after presumably four years in which people said... that this data supports Mann's research, ... it was very frustrating to see... that this research was built on ten trees which were not randomly selected." The Yamal data only contained 10 living trees from the 1990s... and the fast growth of these caused the steep increase of the hockey stick curve. In Finnish dendrochronological studies barely one would create any statement based on only 10 trees. The minimum required is at least 50 trees for each year, and also many other criteria for quality. How were those criteria applied on the Yamal data? "Very bad as it seems. It looks as if there are problems with the cohort structure... as well as the regional distribution of the samples." McIntyre made a simple statistical test. He replaced the 10 Yamal samples with 34 samples from the same region. The additional samples are represented by the white curve, ... and the combination of the two data records are represented by the green curve. The hockey stick disappears or is even reverted. And the medieval warm period again is warmer than the present. "I think that the preferred selection of Yamal instead of Polar-Ural... took influence on the result... that in the end was presented to the public." Problems with tree ring studies will be discussed next summer on an international economy congress in Rovaniemi. "If you choose an matching series in order to prove an argument, ... be it a hockey stick or anything else, then you are definitely following a wrong premise." The author of the Yamal-reconstruction, Keith Briffa, ... denied any criticism regarding his studies, but the debate is still heavily in focus. Briffa's employer, the IPCC-related Climate Research Unit (CRU)... maintains a globals database of temperature recordings from weather stations. This database is of vivid importance for the conclusion that global temperature has risen alarmingly over the last 40 years. The CRU put together these temperature recordings and calculated an average value, ... using a method they refuse to publish, ... but claiming that this method adds 'extra values'. McIntyre requested the data from the CEO of CRU, Phil Jones, ... but was rejected as many others were rejected as well. "An Australian named Warwick Hughes requested the data, ... and Warwick Hughes had already published some articles ... in which he critsized how the history of temperature was created. And Jones said: 'Why should I send it [the data] to you? We invested 25 years of our time. Why should I send you the data if your goal is to find flaws?' ...which is a very unscientific statement." The CRU database is the most important scientific justification for the statement... that the so far most ambitious agreement in the history of mankind will be met in Copenhagen in december. However, there is no possibility to check the validity of this statement. Recently the CEO of the CRU, Phil Jones, announced... that the original measuring data doesn't exist anymore, due to problems with data backups. They claimed a dog had eaten the most important scientific work... Material for the hockey stick industry was also collected in Finland. The small lake Korttajärvi in Jyväskylä became focus of the international debate about the climate. Based on samples from the sediments... foreign scientists concluded that there must have taken place an enormous rise of temperature in the late 20th century. Contrary to this, Finnish scientists however, used samples from this lake in order to show that climate always changed, ... even more than these days, and without mankind taking any influence on it. Five years ago, one of the Korttajärvi researchers responded to the IPCC's claim... that temperatures these days are higher than ever. "Based on these studies it appears that this statement is not correct, ... at least for the Northern hemisphere, at any rate not for Scandinavia. There is no doubt that we already had warmer winters around the region of Nautajärvi and Korttajärv, ... warmer than today." "What is your estimate on how much warmer it was in Finland during the middle ages compared to the present?" "It's hard to tell this exactly. But we are talking about 0.5 °... or even 1.0° celsius, based on various European studies." At least two teams of scientisct who are related to the IPCC, used sediment samples... which were taken by Finnish scientists. They used it as part of their reconstructions of the climate. This was done in mutual coordination. But the Finnish scientists were suprised to see... that in a study that was published in September, ... their data and conclusions were perverted in their meaning. This is the 1000years temperature reconstruction of the Finnish scientists: And here is the same data presented by the hockey team: A nice hockey stick appeared in the mud of Korttajärvi. The data that marked cold periods in the Finnish study... had been presented by the IPCC as warm periods, and vice versa. This interpretation was approved by peer review. Dr. Atte Korhola, professor for Enviromental Changes at the University of Helsinki: "Some charts and data were used upside down, ... and this for sure isn't a compliment for climatology." In this context it is important to mention that the same people who are behind all this, ... are the same people who run the perhaps most influential climate website of the world, RealClimate. With this they contribute to the credibility of science – or diminish it. In my opinion, this is alarming as this is on the expense of its credibility. And those kind of things happen often, ... that data is used in an inappropriate or even wrong way, ... or that data is cut or not published. This undermines the credibility [of science], and that's a serioius problem." Two weeks ago, ... the author of the september study, Darrell Kaufman, admitted his mistake and sent a revised version to the Science journal. But the main author of a preceding study, Michael Mann, ... father of the original hockey stick, ... still claims to have found a hockey stick on the ground of lake Korttajärvi. The IPCC's climate studies usually are computer simulations, ... based on models of the global climate. Some traditional researchers critzised studies that are based on computer simulations .... and call them 'Playstation climatology'. Based on the most popular computer models ... human activity causes global warming in the following way: But the measurements show that real temperature so far developped like this: Little known is the fact that at the end of the 1990s, after two decades, global temperature stopped rising. Ever since 1998 there is no statistical measurable global warming. Instead, climate is slightly cooling for several years now. Not a single climate model of the IPCC did predict any of that. Some recent studies predict that the colling period will last longer, ... perhaps for several decades. By now, several of the catastrophic consequences turned out to be exaggerated. The arctic ice began to recover from its minimum from 2 years ago, ... the melting of the artic ice slowed down to the minimum in the history of data recordings, ... the rise of the sea level didn't speed up, ... and the hurricane scenarios have been werde moderate. Nature didn't follow the script "In late summer 2008 I've been to England, ... where all the newspapers' headlines predicted the scenario ... that all the artic ice would vanish this summer completely. These predictions were spread by two scientists... from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado,... Mark Serreze and Jay Zwally. Well, what happened is that those predictions turned out to be wrong, ... and that 2008 instead was a much better year than 2007 when the ice stopped extending, ... which apparently was caused by irregular atmospheric pressure ... and wind conditions of the Arctic. Richard Lindzen is professor for climatology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technololy, ... one of the world's most highly-regarded universities of science. He is one of the few scientists who are not using computer models to analyse the climate. He uses research from teh real world. "In this regard, this field of science is completely ill. I mean, there are models of which we know they don't work, ... of which we know that they cannot reproduce a phenomenon, ... but they bend the data until they fit the model. I don't think this can go on much longer without getting embarrassing." In September, Lindzen published a study that hit the core of the climate debate. Based on radiation emissions he calculated ... how much the earth would heat up when doubling... the amount of CO2. The earth is protected from freezing by a 'blanket' of gas in the atmoshphere. According to the theory of a catastrophic warming... this layer is getting thicker due to CO2 emissions, ... thus causing temperature rising dangerously. Scientifically it is an indisputable fact... that a doubling of CO2 is sufficient to cause 1° C in temperature rise, ... which wouldn't have any problematic effect. But the climate models were all created on the assumption... that the warming via CO2 leads to an increase of water vapor in the air... by which this layer again becomes thicker, ... pushing the total amount of warming up to 6° C. "The models do exactly... what they are supposed to do according to the given climate sensitivty. They all show that this layer becomes thicker. And the increasement of thickening is consistent with the sensitivity of the models for CO2 doubling. But if you do the same in nature, nature's behaviour is the exact opposite. And nature does it much more powerful. So you got all those climate models that are conistent among one another, ... and they are all wrong if you compare them with nature." The issue about the water vapor feedback is the key to determine if there's a threat of a climate catastrophy. The climate models assume that the higher the surface's temperature... the thicker the layer around the earth must be. But does this really happen? Lindzen and his team compared ground temperatures... to data from satellites measuring the incoming and outgoing radiation of the upper atmosphere. Whilst all computer models indicate that rising temperature leads to less radiation being emitted into space, ... the reality of measurements in nature is the exact opposite. It turned out that cloud cover changes when temperatures are rising, but the layer isn't getting any thicker. It's getting thinner. This way, nature is protecting the atmosphere from too much warming. Cloud cover responds to temperature change as the eye's iris responds to luminance – ... by contraction or expansion. Lindzen calls this thermostat-behaviour 'iris-effect'. And what does this effect mean for the estimate of manmade global warming? "It says: Instead of multiplying 1° C, ... we should reduce this amount to at least half of it." And how much would that lower the sensitivity? "Measured in °Celsius these results tell us: When doubling the total amount CO2... we may assume an average global temperature anomaly... of a half degree." "And how big is this problem?" "It isn't any problem at all. We see those changes every month, ... year by year, all the time. The truth is, we already had two third, three third °C warming. This is not a period during the world will fall apart. It is a period during which world population has grown, ... in which hunger has been defeated, and people's life span is longer than ever. And there's a high number of human beings that are supposed to heat up the planet terribly ... and in most cases they're living better these days." Based on measurments, Lindzens study shows... that the assumption of an upcoming climate disaster is fundamentally wrong. The IPCC and their supporters responded to this study with total silence. "I think they do that, because it's so easy and obvious. Even the 'alarming-groups' know... that it's better for them not to communicate those results." As for the threat of climate change, Prof. Atte Korhola is a sceptic, ... as well as his colleague in Boston. However, both scientists are worried about the politicization of climatology. "Specifically with regards to the upcoming Copenhagen conference, you get the impression... that also among scientists there are many who lost control. Especially when comparing the original research data to what is being shown to the public, ... how all this is presented in the mass media. There is a huge difference. We receive a lot of material [texts] containing words like 'dramatic', 'catastrophic', 'never before', .... and some scientists even use expressions like 'end of the world' or 'rescue of the planet'." "The real question is: ... Why do we have this enormous increase of ... all these numerous crazy movies? 'An Inconvenient Truth' – spitted nonsense, hysterics. We are all going to die if we don't replace our light bulbs. I can only say: There must be people... who noticed that the temperatures stopped rising... and that all these agendas now cost us billions of dollars... telling us to do this and to do that,... making the people pay taxes, so that they feel happy about... saving the planet, etc. We have these politicians, the bureaucrats, the scientists, etc., ... and they all feel, or 'know', that if temperature goes on rising, ... then everything is over if we don't achieve a breakthrough. It's getting louder." We asked Dr. Petteri Taalas, who is a supporter of the IPCC's statements,... for an interview. He refused. English translation done by a non-native speaker. Please forgive the mistakes you found.

Video Details

Duration: 28 minutes and 38 seconds
Country: Finland
Language: Finnish
Producer: MOT
Director: Matti Virtanen
Views: 7,586
Posted by: rudolf.kipp on Nov 13, 2009

30 minütige finnische TV-Doku über die Klimaforschung.

Caption and Translate

    Sign In/Register for Dotsub to translate this video.