Physics & Climate
Climate Science
Introductory Remarks
Climate
is
the
weather
averaged
over
several
decades.
While
it
is
relatively
easy
to
observe
daily
variations
of
the
temperature,
humidity
or
wind
speed,
changes
of
the
climate
requires
to
measure
smallest
trends
of
these
strongly
varying
quantities
over
many
years
and
large
areas.
Even
more
difficult
is
to
make
reliable
climate
prognoses,
when
the
origin
and
interaction
of
some climate drivers are not known or not fully understood.
Over
recent
years
climate
science
has
rapidly
developed
to
an
interdisciplinary
branch
of
sci
-
ence
and
now
adays
covers
many
of
the
classical
disciplines
like
meteorology,
geology,
earth-
and
atmosphe
ric
physics,
chemistry
and
biology,
pale
ontology
or
astrophysics.
Meanwhile
it
even
includes
subjects
like
climate-ecology,
-health,
-psychology,
-law
and,
of
course,
climate
politics.
And
indeed
for
understanding
such
an
extremely
complex
‘phenomenon‘
like
climate,
interdisci
plinarity is an absolute requirement.
But up to now climate science suffers from some principal problems:
1.
Despite considerably improved measuring techniques for temperature, humidity, clouds or
sea-level heights - meanwhile covering the whole planet by means of satellite techniques -
direct measurements are only available for relatively short observation periods. For longer
trends researchers have to rely on proxy data like ice cores, stalactites, dendrology or sto-
mata of leaves with much higher uncertainties.
2.
Up to now the main processes and drivers for a changing climate are not really understood.
There exist different hypotheses but because of the long time constants and a lot of compe-
ting effects, it is extremely difficult to verify one of them. Only climate models based on
many assumptions and endless parameters can be used to simulate the past and future
climate.
3.
The different research fields are not really integrated and do not form a common discipline.
Often scientists proceed in their original research but under the label of climate science,
which is known to be well funded. Meanwhile climate covers all fields of our society, and any
inconvenient developments are traced back to climate. Already brief insinuations of danger
or catastrophes assumed to result from climate changes give the highest guarantee for
receiving attention from media, politics and finally for further funding.
4.
As long as science cannot explain unambiguously the processes responsible for previous
and future climate variations, speculation and ideology defeat serious science. It is easier
and more spectacular to retrace all changes to human activities and to neglect any natural
effects.
5.
At present a lot of fundamental research of serious scientists is no longer recognized.
Instead, ideologized environmental and political organizations, which don‘t care about real
science, dictate our actual environmental and energy politics. Our society and particularly
some of our politicians are manipulated and indoctrinated by these groups, which believe:
“The only way to save our planet is to stop all anthropogenic CO
2
-emissions.“
Unfortunately,
the
actual
climate
discussion
is
strongly
dominated
by
pseudo-science
and
speculations
about
domino
effects
or
tipping
points,
which
are
initiating
the
doomsday,
when
the
CO
2
-emissions
are
not
strongly
reduced.
But
in
this
overheated
debate,
even
seasoned
climate
experts
and
realists
often
forget
to
remember
that
we
are
living
in
an
Ice
Age
,
currently
the
Quaternary
.
From
paleoclimatic
studies
it
is
largely
settled
that
for
more
than
4
billion
years
the
Earth‘s
climate
was
determined
by
Warm
Ages
,
which
were
interrupted
by
Ice
Age
Periods
of
18
to
300
million
years.
Over
the
last
2.4
billion
years,
the
temperatures
were
only
comparable
to
today's
values
for
one
fifth
of
the
time,
i.e.,
for
4/5th
of
the
time
higher,
temporarily
even
significantly
higher,
up
to
10°C
more
than
our
current
temperatures.
This
also
applies
to
the
last
570
million
years, i.e.,
reaching back to the Cambrian (Palaeozoic), as derived from proxy data.
But
it
is
not
known
that
these
Warm
Ages
caused
tipping
points
like
de
-
struction
of
fauna
and
flora.
On
the
contrary,
to
-
gether
with
a
significant
-
ly
higher
CO
2
concentra
-
tion
this
gave
the
basis
for
new
forms
of
life
to
develop
in
an
un
expect
-
ed way.
Warm
Ages
were
also
the
basis
for
the
emergence
of
the
extensive
resour
-
ces
of
fossil
fuels,
the
use
of
which
only
made
economic
development
and
today's
prosperity
possible.
The
Warm
Ages
were
interrupted
by
4
Ice
Ages
,
which
are
characterized
by
one
or
both
polar
caps
being
icy.
We
are
therefore
living
in
an
Ice
Age
,
the
Quater
nary
,
which
began
about
2.6
million
years
ago
and
is
still
going
on.
Within
such
ice
ages
we
find
periodi
cally
recurring
distinctive
ice
periods, the
Glacials
, and warmer peri
ods, the
Interglacials
.
So,
in
the
Eemian
Interglacial
more
than
115,000
years
ago
it
was
at
least
4
degrees
warmer
than
today
in
the
actual
interglacial,
the
Holocene
.
At
that
time
there
were
hippos
on
the
Upper
Rhine,
as
numerous
bone
and
tooth
findings
show.
Again,
there
are
no
signs
of
a
climatic
tipping
point
or
domino
effect,
instead,
higher
temperatures
have
mostly
led
to
more
favorable
living
conditions for animals and plants.
During
the
Holocene
,
i.e.
over
the
last
11,000
years,
there
were
various
warmer
periods
that
had
higher
or
comparable
temperatures
than
today.
It
is
therefore
a
falsification
of
climatological
history to claim that we have never had such high temperatures as today.
After
the
Medieval
Warm
Period
of
a
few
hundred
years
and
a
subsequent
much
colder
epoch,
which
lasted
from
around
1450
to
around
1850
and
is
known
as
the
Little
Ice
Age
,
we
have
since
been
in
a
climatic
phase
with
slightly
increasing
temperatures.
Fortunately,
we
live
in
a
warmer
period
of
the
Ice
Age
Quaternary
and
should
be
happy
that
temperatures
have
risen
by
a
few
tenths of a degree since the Little Ice Age.
This
temperature
increase
since
1850
is
about
0.9°C,
although
there
is
still
a
hot
debate,
how
far
such
an
increase
can
really
be
confirmed
and
is
not
falsified
by
urban
influences
or
changes
in
the
recording
of
measured
values
over
the
years.
For
example,
measurements
from
stations
in
rural areas that have not been relocated, show an increase of only about 0.5 °C.
This
increase
is
presented
by
some
climate
experts
as
unique
with
an
unprecedented
speed
in
climate
history
(see,
e.g.,
Mojib
Latif,
GEOMAR
Helmhotz
Institute
Kiel),
although
reconstruc
tions
from
proxy
data
do
not
remotely
allow
a
sufficient
measurement
sensitivity
and
temporal
resolution to be able to make such a statement at all.
At
the
same
time,
previous
warmer
periods
in
the
Holocene,
such
as
the
climate
optimum
4
–
8
thousand
years
ago,
the
Roman
Warm
Period
or
the
Medieval
Warm
Period,
are
not
acknow
-
ledged
or
are
simply
omitted
(see
3rd
and
4th
IPCC
Assessment
Report,
Hockey
Stick
Curve
by
Michael Mann).
The
increase
in
temperature,
as
found
from
large-scale
satellite
measurements
since
1979,
shows
an
average
of
0.13°C/decade,
i.e.
about
one
hundredth
of
a
degree
per
year.
This
increa
-
se
was
by
no
means
continuous
but
appeared
in
oscillations
and
sometimes
in
individual
steps
that
correlate
strongly
with
El
Niño
events
(warming
in
1983,
1988,
1992,
1995,
1998,
2003,
2007,
2010,
2015),
i.e.
it
was
not
rising
monotonically
or
evenly
to
the
atmospheric
CO
2
increase.
Between
2000
and
2015
there
was
no
warming
at
all,
although
greenhouse
gas
(GHG)
emissions
continued to increase steadily during this period.
So,
there
is
an
average
increase
of
1/100th
of
a
degree
per
year,
this
with
temperature
differ
en
-
ces
on
Earth
sometimes
of
more
than
100°C
at
one
location
(Verkhoyansk-Russia:
105.1°C)
and
even
more
than
180°C
between
different
climate
zones
(Topan
Basin
China
+82.3°C;
Antarctica
-98.6°C).
That
means,
we
are
talking
about
changes
that
are
not
greater
than
one
10,000th
of
the observed temperature differences on Earth over the year.
Also
the
global
temperatures
are
scattering
from
one
year
to
the
next
by
about
2°C.
Neverthe
-
less
from
this
the
I
ntergovernmental
P
anel
on
C
limate
C
hange
(IPCC),
many
nongovernmental
organiza
tions,
politicians
and
media
derive
an
unprecedented
increase
and
threaten
with
the
end of the world, if all fossil emissions do not fall to zero by 2050.
Different
to
the
IPCC,
which
assumes
almost
exclusively
anthropogenic
warming
and
estimates
a
natural
influence
to
be
less
than
10%,
detailed
own
calculations
show
that
only
about
30%
of
the
ob
served
warming
can
be
assigned
to
the
GHG
and
70%
traced
back
to
solar
anomal
ies
to
-
gether with cloud variations.
In
addition,
further
comprehensive
studies
of
the
carbon
cycle
indicate
that
humans
should
not
have
contributed
more
than
15%
to
the
increasing
atmos
pheric
CO
2
concen
tration
over
the
In
-
dustrial
Era.
Therefore,
30%
x
15%
=
4.5%
from
0.9°C
give
a
human
fraction
to
global
warming
of
not more than 0.04°C.
The
following
section
presents
a
survey
of
the
own
climatological
studies
and
results
together
with some critical comments to the actual international energy and climate debate.
•
The German Way or the CO
2
Delusion and its Consequences
This article presents some consequences of the actual environmental and energy politics of
many industrialized countries like Germany.
•
IPCC and UNFCCC
This Subsection summarizes the main deficits of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change and its politics. It also lists some alternative organizations, which see no climate
emergency and fight for serious climate research that is independent of politics and based
on facts.
Advocates of Climate Science
Wrong Climate Forecasts
•
Own Climate Studies
This Subsection gives an overview of own climate investigations. It shows the negligible
influence of human emissions on our climate.
a) Greenhouse Effect
b) Climate Sensitivity
c) Methane Sensitivity
d) Carbon Cycle
e) Solar Influence
•
Actual Reports & Publications
Compilation of the own reports and publications and of some other authors with related
topis.