Aller guten Dinge sind drei

Aller guten Dinge sind drei – solange brauchte der Faktencheck der Maischberger-Sendung vom 20.09.2023 bis jetzt für Korrekturen. In der Sendung ging es um das Thema Energie und Sandra Maischbeger hatte Luisa Neubauer und Michael Blume von der CSU zu Gast. Aber, noch immer hat der Faktencheck Fehler. Mal sehen, wie viele Korrekturen noch notwendig sind bis alle falschen Fakten aus dem Check entfernt sind. Vertrauen in den Öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunk wird durch solche Minderleistungen nicht befördert. Wir berichteten bereits über die Sendung, in der die Gäste mit Falschaussagen glänzten, u. a. Luisa Neubauer, die mal eben flott behauptete, es gäbe keine Importe von Strom aus Frankreich, der aus Kernenergie stammt. Im ersten Faktencheck wurde das noch nett umschrieben, im zweiten dann schon etwas weniger sanft. Es schien fast so, als wollte der Faktenchecker Neubauer irgendwie schonen. 

(Abbildung: Screenshot ard.de)  

+++ 

Grünes Licht für den ersten Kernreaktor in Polen. Euronews: 

“Poland is also one of several countries set to receive financial help from the US for new nuclear technology. As part of ‘Project Phoenix’, there are plans to build small modular reactors across the country. It is still an emerging technology and has mostly been used in pilot projects. Recent advances and the impact of the energy crisis, however, have sparked interest and political support for nuclear power across Europe. Alongside Czechia and Slovakia, feasibility studies will be carried out in Poland for converting coal-fired power plants to use this new nuclear technology.” 

+++ 

Die Finnen sind bei Sinnen. Sie wollen sich ein Stück vom Kuchen der Wasserstoffproduktion in Europa abscheiden. Aber nicht, um ihn dann zu exportieren, sondern um die eigene Industrie zu bedienen. Dabei hilft Ihnen der Energiemix, wie Enformer, der Energieblog von RWE berichtet. 

“Kernenergie macht einen bedeutenden Anteil des finnischen Energiemix aus, die Regierung unterstützt sie als emissionsarme Energiequelle. Die Wasserstofferzeugung aus dem Stromnetz wird daher zunächst von dem hohen Anteil der Kernenergie an der gesamten Stromerzeugung abhängen. 

Das Land verfügt über vier Reaktoren, die zwischen 43 und 46 Jahre alt sind. Dazu kommt ein neuer Reaktor, Olkiluoto 3, der im April 2023 mit der regelmäßigen Stromerzeugung begonnen hat. Die Pläne für zwei weitere Kernkraftwerke, Olkiluoto 4 und Hanhikivi 1, wurden 2015 bzw. 2022 eingestellt. 

Finnlands neuester Reaktor wird die Stromimporte des Landes verringern, aber der Mangel an Neubauplänen und Stilllegungen deutet darauf hin, dass die Kernenergie allein nicht das Potenzial hat, die neue Nachfrage langfristig zu decken. Sie wird auch nicht den überschüssigen, kostengünstigen und grünen Strom liefern können, der für einen dynamischen Wasserstoffsektor erforderlich ist.” 

+++ 

Europa braucht Erdgas aus den USA – noch sehr lange. Financial Times: 

“Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here. https://www.ft.com/content/7e94bc82-c358-4a8c-b539-781d62dbc3c9 

US LNG companies, which condense gas for loading on to ocean tankers, have continued to sign new long-term supply deals with Europe. Cheniere Energy, the largest US LNG exporter, has agreed two contracts with Europe-based Equinor and BASF this year, promising to deliver 2.55mn tonnes a year across the Atlantic into the 2040s. “We continue to see significant need for natural gas in Europe for decades, especially for end users who value long-term partnership and security of supply,” said Anatol Feygin, Cheniere’s chief commercial officer. Venture Global LNG, another US exporter, signed a 20-year contract to deliver 2.25mn tonnes a year of the fuel to German state-owned company SEFE, or Securing Energy For Europe, in June. Together with its 20-year contract with EnBW signed in October, Venture Global is expected to be Germany’s largest LNG supplier.” 

+++ 

Vor kurzem ereigneten sich schlimme Überschwemmungen in Libyen. Ganz neu sind dies schrecklichen Phänomene leider nicht. Bereits 1969 hatten ähnliche Fluten Teile von Tunesien verwüstet. WUWT hat die Links und das Video.

++

David Pferder (Pseudonym) auf Achgut:

Unsere Apokalypsen

Der ostdeutsche Schriftsteller Thomas Brussig wurde durch das unübertroffene Buch „Helden wie wir“ bekannt. Jetzt widmet er sich dem allgemeinen Weltuntergangs-Milieu mit „Meine Apokalypsen“, will dem kollektiv-denkenden Gruppendeutschen aber nicht zu viel zumuten.  

Thomas Brussig, ein deutscher Schriftsteller aus Ostdeutschland, der zum DDR-Komplex das unübertroffene „Helden, wie wir“, aber eben auch die beiden auf unterschiedlichen Ebenen exzellenten Themen-Sequels „Das gibt’s in keinem Russenfilm“ und „Die Verwandelten“ erschaffen hat, diskutiert bei der Darstellung des DDR-Untergangs („Helden, wie wir“), der im wahrsten Sinne verrückten Nachwendezeit (Verwandelten) und dem roads-fortunately-missed DDR-hat-überlebt-Dystopie (Russenfilm) auch immer die aktuell-politische Situation auf unserem real-existierenden bundesdeutschen Vergnügungsdampfer.

Mit „Meine Apokalypsen“ hat er diese ihm wichtige Thematik löblicherweise einfach direkt angepackt – ich habe das Buch sehr gern gelesen und kann es sehr empfehlen, selbst wenn ich, so viel sei direkt verraten, mehrere der grundlegenden politisch-technischen Thesen nicht wirklich teile. Aber, auch dies vorab, ich hoffe, dass Thomas Brussig mir diese gedankenpolizeiliche Denunziation verzeiht: Er „glaubt“ an diese Teile selber nicht, sondern hatte vielleicht einfach keine Lust, zu viele „Leugnungs“-Vorwürfe auf einmal zu hören.

Die Grundidee ist bei Brussig, wie eigentlich immer, von durchschlagender Einfachheit: Thomas Brussig zählt schlicht die Apokalypsen-Horrorszenarien auf, die er mit seiner mittlerweile 45 Jahre Realdeutschlanderfahrung seit dem Beginn seiner Religionsmündigkeit mit 14 Jahren im Jahr 1978 durchlebt und teilweise durchlitten hat. Ich betone die Religionsmündigkeit, da ich finde, dass der Deutsche an sich ab diesem Alter tatsächlich ein formales und echtes Recht auf das so häufig gehörte und aus tiefem Herzen kommende „das glaube ich nicht“ hat.

Und weil er sich vor diesem „das glaube ich jetzt nicht“ ein bisschen absichern will, nennt Thomas Brussig die diversen Apokalypsen meines Erachtens nach auch „meine Apokalypsen“, obwohl es natürlich „unsere Apokalypsen“ sind und deshalb so heißen muss. 

Weiterlesen auf Achgut.

Auch Vera Lengsfeld befasste sich mit dem neuen Buch.

+++

Jessica Weinkle:

Don’t hate the player, hate the game

On Patrick Brown, Science Wars, and the Academic Publishing Business

In a remarkable essay at The Free Press, Patrick Brown, a researcher at The Breakthrough Institute, gave the world a lesson on how the sausage is made in headline stirring climate change science. Start the research with the publication outlet end in mind.

The editorial practices of elite academic journals such as Nature, matter for how society understands the state of knowledge and how we relate to the world. On occasion matters arise that bring attention to the fraught activity of gatekeeping at the journal and its broader family of journals. 

For instance, in the late 1980’s, Nature, published a research article under the condition that the journal could send investigators to the lab to review the researchers’ methods. The investigating team included the journal’s editor, a peer- reviewer with a negative opinion of the work, and “The Amazing Randi,” an illusionist leader of the “skeptical movement.”

Weiterlesen bei Jessica Weinkle:

+++

CERES Team:

The orchestrated disinformation campaign by RealClimate.org to falsely discredit and censor our work

In July and August 2023, several of us at CERES-Science were involved in three important new peer-reviewed scientific papers. So far, most of the feedback from the scientific community and the public on these papers has been very positive.

However, a small number of activist scientists have been aggressively conducting an orchestrated disinformation campaign to discredit the papers and the scientific reputation of the authors. This disinformation campaign appears to be spearheaded by the RealClimate.org team.

Last week, we debunked their main claims in a Sep 8th, 2023 blog post. However, despite this, they have doubled-down and are continuing their disinformation campaign with multiple false and misleading claims about these papers and the authors.

We have trawled through all of their disinformation and compiled a list of all their false and misleading claims. In this new post, we will go through each of them and fact-check them.

The claims are as follows:

• Claim 1: The MDPI scientific publishing group is unscientific (False)
• Claim 2: The 37 co-authors of S2023 are “climate deniers” (False and ad hominem)
• Claim 3: Our rural-only record is cherry-picked and poorly sampled (Misleading)
• Claim 4: Our rural-only record is inconsistent with other non-urban temperature records (False)
• Claim 5: The Hoyt and Schatten (1993) TSI record has been debunked (False)
• Claim 6: The Hoyt and Schatten (1993) TSI record was based on Baliunas & Jastrow (1990) (False)
• Claim 7: The scientific debates over the best satellite TSI composite are irrelevant for evaluating TSI changes since the 19th century (False)
• Claim 8: The Hoyt and Schatten (1993) TSI reconstruction is the only one of the 27 that finds a large solar role (False)
• Claim 9: Soon (2005) made a “failed prediction” about Arctic temperatures (Misleading)
• Claim 10: Dr. Soon is in the pay of Big Oil and all his work is corrupted by fossil fuel money (False and ad hominem)
• Claim 11: Dr. Soon’s science is based on faulty assumptions and bad science (False and ad hominem)
• Claim 12: The 37 co-authors of S2023’s scientific reputations are very poor (False and ad hominem)
• Claim 13: Dr. Soon assumes that the Sun must be the dominant climate driver and is blinded by confirmation bias (False)

Before we get to the detailed fact-checks on each of these claims, it is important to have a reasonable understanding of the background to our research, its significance and the past behavior of the RealClimate.org group.

Background to our research

Recently, several of us at CERES-Science co-authored three important new peer-reviewed scientific papers:

• “K2023”: G. Katata, R. Connolly and P. O’Neill (2023). “Evidence of urban blending in homogenized temperature records in Japan and in the United States: implications for the reliability of global land surface air temperature data”. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. 62(8), 1095-1114. https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-22-0122.1. (Open access)
• “C2023”: R. Connolly, W. Soon, M. Connolly, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, C.J. Butler, R.G. Cionco, A.G. Elias, V. Fedorov, H. Harde, G.W. Henry, D.V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D.R. Legates, N. Scafetta, J.-E. Solheim, L. Szarka, V.M. Velasco Herrera, H. Yan and W.J. Zhang (2023). “Challenges in the detection and attribution of Northern Hemisphere surface temperature trends since 1850”. Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/acf18e. (Still in press, but pre-print available here)
• “S2023”: W. Soon, R. Connolly, M. Connolly, S.-I. Akasofu, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, A. Bianchini, W.M. Briggs, C.J. Butler, R.G. Cionco, M. Crok, A.G. Elias, V.M. Fedorov, F. Gervais, H. Harde, G.W. Henry, D.V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D.R. Legates, A.R. Lupo, S. Maruyama, P. Moore, M. Ogurtsov, C. ÓhAiseadha, M.J. Oliveira, S.-S. Park, S. Qiu, G. Quinn, N. Scafetta, J.-E. Solheim, J. Steele, L. Szarka, H.L. Tanaka, M.K. Taylor, F. Vahrenholt, V.M. Velasco Herrera and W. Zhang (2023). “The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Data”, Climate, 11(9), 179; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11090179. (Open access)

These papers provide substantial scientific advances in the very challenging and complex scientific problem that is referred to technically as the “detection and attribution of climate change” since the mid-19th century.

Essentially, “the detection and attribution of climate change” problem involves trying to answer two different, but related questions:

1. Detection of climate change: How has climate changed since the mid-19th century?
2. Attribution of climate change: What factors are responsible for those climate changes and are they mostly human-caused (“anthropogenic”), mostly natural, or some mixture of both?

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim to have confidently resolved the answers to both questions in their highly influential Assessment Reports (AR for short).

In their most recent 6th Assessment Report (AR6, 2021), they concluded with remarkable confidence that:

• Global surface temperatures have risen about 1°C (nearly 2°F) since the mid-19th century, and that this rate of global warming is “unprecedented in more than 2000 years”.
• Human drivers (chiefly greenhouse gas emissions) are responsible for all (or most) of that global warming.

These IPCC findings have been widely reported around the world, e.g., The New York Times, Aug 9th, 2021; Science, Aug 9th, 2021; Reuters, Aug 9th, 2021; BBC News, Aug 9th, 2021; The Economist, Aug 9th, 2021; The Guardian, Aug 9th, 2021.

However, our latest papers collectively show that the IPCC had failed to satisfactorily address several critical scientific problems when they carried out their detection and attribution analysis. As a result, those widely-reported confident conclusions were scientifically premature.

For a quick summary of what we found, see our Sep 1st, 2023 press release. For a more detailed summary see our blog post from last week (Sep 8th, 2023).

Essentially, we have shown that:

1. The IPCC substantially underestimated the extent to which the land component of their global surface temperature data was contaminated by “urbanization bias”. Urbanization biases are localized warming effects affecting thermometer stations located in urban areas. Urban areas only account for 3-4% of the land surface and only about 2% of the planet’s surface, but urbanized stations represent the majority of the thermometer records (more than 75% of all stations and more than 85% of the longest thermometer records).
2. The temperature data from outside of urban areas from multiple sources – long rural station records, ocean temperature records, tree ring temperature proxies and glacier length temperature proxies – show a more nuanced history of temperature changes since the mid-19th century. This non-urban data suggests temperatures have alternated between multi-decadal periods of warming and then of cooling and then warming. In contrast, the urban data suggests an almost continuous warming since the 19th century.
3. The IPCC’s chosen estimates of the changes in solar activity (“total solar irradiance” or TSI for short) only represented a small subset of those used by the scientific community. Several of the TSI estimates the IPCC had neglected in their analysis suggest that most of the warming since the 19th century could be natural – especially from the non-urbanized data. Others suggest that the warming has been a mixture of natural and human-caused factors. Others agree with the IPCC’s attribution statements.

Given these uncertainties, we have concluded that the scientific community is not yet in a position to say whether the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been “mostly human-caused” (as IPCC AR6 claimed), “mostly natural” or some combination of factors.

So far, the feedback we have received from both the scientific community and the public on our latest work has been very encouraging and supportive.

However, a handful of activist scientists have been carrying out an orchestrated disinformation campaign to discredit and misrepresent our findings. This campaign seems to be largely organized by the RealClimate.org team.

Weiterlesen beim CERES Team