Europe’s Temperatures Show No Evidence Of Warming Since 1998

 By Matti Vooro

The European Environment Agency recently (March 2011) updated their European temperature data by adding the data for the years 2010 and the winter of 2011. The data can be found at EEA 2010, KNMI (http://climexp.knmi.nl), based onClimate Research Unit (CRU) gridded datasets HadCrut3 (land and ocean) and CruTemp3 (land only) from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk

WINTER TEMPERATURES 1948-2011

European winters seem to have gone through an alternating warm-cool –warm- cool cycle since the 1940s and now appear headed for a cooler cycle like the 1962-1987 period.

A LOOK AT THE MORE RECENT WINTER TEMPERATURES 1998-2011

European winter temperatures have been cooling more recently since 1998, and especially 2009-2011.

European annual temperatures warmed from 1998-2007 but have started to cool over the last 3 years in a row since 2008.

SUMMER TEMPERATURES 1998-2010

On the surface, European summers seem to be getting warmer since 1998. However the higher warming summers of 2003, 2006, and 2010 were all preceded by or affected by an El Nino, just before or as the El Nino partly happened during these summers. So the extra warming may be due to a natural El Nino cycle. If one discounts these  El Nino years, the summer temperatures are quite flat and show no real base warming  due to global warming. For more detail information on El Nino years see the NOAA site http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov.

HISTORIC MEAN WINTER TEMPERATURES FOR BERLIN, GERMANY – IMPACT OF THE NORTH  ATLANTIC  OSCILLATION

For those Europeans who still believe that their climate is primarily affected by human generated carbon dioxide, the graph below illustrates that the NAO level seems to be a much more significant cold winter factor affecting temperatures in Berlin, Germany. The temperature data is from GISS Station Temperature Data and NAO data is from CGD’s Climate analysis Section of Jim Hurrell http://www.cgd.ucar.edu. According to the NOAA:

The NAO consists of a north-south dipole of anomalies, with one center located over Greenland and the other center of opposite sign spanning the central latitudes of the North Atlantic between 35°N and 40°N. The positive phase of the NAO reflects below-normal heights and pressure across the high latitudes of the North Atlantic and above-normal heights and pressure over the central North Atlantic, the eastern United States and western Europe. The negative phase reflects an opposite pattern of height and pressure anomalies over these regions.”

FINAL COMMENTS

There is nothing in the above graphs and figures that would warrant the drastic reductions being planned for carbon dioxide emissions and the extremely expensive green energy options being planned by Europe in light of the most difficult economic environment that exists in Europe and the globe. Surely there are much more pressing problems that confront the world and Europe than solving an apparently non-existing problem that is only speculated to exist 100 years from now.

37 responses to “Europe’s Temperatures Show No Evidence Of Warming Since 1998”

  1. matti

    Early indicators in the Pacific Ocean are that the globe will again experience an La Nina type of condition later this year and through the winter [like we had last winter].Europe ‘s coldest winters are more during NEUTRAL and strong El Nino years as this seems to correlate with the presence of negative AO ‘s and cold temperatures more often. If there is another L a NINA,then North AMERICA may again be cold with lots of snow this coming winter. Europe and UK may have a more normal winter or warmer than last year’s winter which was extra cold due to a “one in 100 year” cold December. I don’t see such a December again this year and January and February were not as cold as December in Europe. La Ninas are not as severe in weather to Europe as North America . I see the La Nina extending well into 2012.

  2. Billy

    Mean temperature is the arithmetic center between the high and low. It does not reflect on average temperature. This detailed analysis of mean temperature indicates that some people have nothing better to do or that there there is too much money available for proving some political idea.

  3. DirkH

    Germany is climatically rather stable, as E.M.Smith ( chiefio.wordpress.com )recognized when analyzing temperature records over the last 200 years country by country.

    But thinking about what WOULD happen (to species in our environment) if there were a climatic shift, i had to think of this recent study:

    Surviving Climate Change by migrating meters… or even millimeters…
    http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/jun/14jun2011a4.html

  4. NikFromNYC

    Berlin has one of the oldest thermometer records of all:
    http://k.min.us/idAOoE.gif

  5. DirkH

    Matti, do you know if there’s a correlation between the SOI and European temperatures? It is said to be a 9 month leading indicator for global temps when you reverse the sign. From the look of it, it roughly fits the last cold winter.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/soi30.png

  6. matti

    Dirk

    I see western Europe temperatures less colder to about 2015 only but once the Atlantic and Arctic get cold again [AMO NEGATIVE ] [ after 2015 ] look for temperatures for Germany like the late 1970,s down to -2 deg C for winter average temperatures. Eastern Europe may be cold sooner already like they had 2010 and 2011] like central North America

    1. DirkH

      Sounds reasonable, thanks.

  7. matti

    Dirk

    I don’t know if the early SOI levels are indicators of European Temperatures . The previous study only looked at the global temperaures and SOI correlation . The SOI indicator is I believe 5-7 months not 9 months. It was right on last year.

  8. matti

    NIK FROM NY

    Thanks for your information. My previous European Giss data only showed Berlin data to 1881. The interesting fact that all these older data sets for Berlin and CET show is that there were at least 5 previous global warming ramp ups after 1700 prior to the last one from 1976-2008, so this global warming is not unprecedented not caused by man at all but a regular natural cycle that happens every 60 years or so.

  9. matti
    1. DirkH

      Yes. Couldn’t find the link… forgotten to store in my archive, thanks again!

  10. matti

    Since the 1990’s the AGW scientists and IPCC have been telling us that the recent warming from post 1970’s era was unprecedented, caused primarily by man and that the world is at great risk unless we drastically cut our co2 emissions . They are projecting temperature rises of 3-6 C by 2100[or 0.03 to 0.06 C rise per year], depending on which IPCC option you pick] or 4 deg C rise by 2060 [ or 0.08 C rise per year] as per the Met Office. However past history shows that naturally occurring warming periods like we just had and will have again in the future are a regular event on this planet and not at all unprecedented and they were not caused by man at all . There have been at least four previous warming periods of even greater warming magnitude in the last 316 years alone. Prior to that the most notable was the Medieval Warm Period . These are Central England temperature records which are not global data but it is one of the best indicative records that we have of what happened in Europe.

    RECENT HISTORIC WARMING PERIODS NOT CAUSED BY MAN
    All data per CENTRAL ENGLAND [CET] Monthly mean temperature data per Met Office http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat
    Previous
    1695-1735 0.07 deg C per year [or 2.79 C rise in 40 years]
    1812-1834 0.103 deg C per year [or 2.27 C rise in 22 years [
    1838-1868 0.077 deg C per year [or 2.33 C risen 30 years]
    1915-1945 0.048 deg C per year [or 1.44 C rise in 30 years]

    Latest
    1970-1998 0.028 deg C per year [or 0.77 C rise in 28 years]

  11. Bobbie

    Since the 1990’s the AGW scientists and IPCC have been telling us that the recent warming from post 1970’s era was unprecedented, caused primarily by man and that the world is at great risk unless we drastically cut our co2 emissions . They are projecting temperature rises of 3-6 C by 2100[or 0.03 to 0.06 C rise per year], depending on which IPCC option you pick] or 4 deg C rise by 2060 [ or 0.08 C rise per year] as per the Met Office. However past history shows that naturally occurring warming periods like we just had and will have again in the future are a regular event on this planet and not at all unprecedented and they were not caused by man at all . There have been at least four previous warming periods of even greater warming magnitude in the last 316 years alone. Prior to that the most notable was the Medieval Warm Period . These are Central England temperature records which are not global data but it is one of the best indicative records that we have of what happened in Europe.
    +1

  12. Ulrich Elkmann

    D’accord – but this will not impress stubborn warmists. They will point out that it all depends from which base you start out. 1695-1735: that’s the end of the Maunder minimum; 1812-1834 sees the warming after the Spörer minimum; also a warming in mean temperatures tells us nothing per se about long wet winters or rainy summers.

  13. matti

    Urlich
    It does not matter.
    My main point is that there were a significant warming periods in our recent past due to causes that were not manmade . The warmist also measured the warming from the trough of the 1970’s to the peak of 1998 , falsely claiming that this was due to manmade green house gases when it has been clearly shown by others that it was the El Nino’s that were behind the warming.

  14. matti

    This graph does not apply to Europe, but I wanted to post here to illustrate the point that inland areas[ away from coastal oceans ] are cooling faster than the coastal areas . The same thing is happening in Europe and Asia . Eastern Europe will see faster cooling. Intersting thing about the US is that every region is showing winter cooling even the west coast because the northern Pacific has also been cooling.
    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01538f760eac970b-pi

  15. Pragmatic Jim

    Holy cherry picking Batman !!!!
    Long term graphs for winter temperatures only.
    Graph for annual temperature too short to make any meaningful statistical analysis. Clearly this an attempt at obfuscation. It’s only good enough to convince people who want to be convinced. Like those who see the virgin Mary on their morning toast.
    “It must be true, because it says exactly what I want to believe, and it has graphs and everything !!”

  16. Pragmatic Jim

    Did we forget about the girl?
    Our intrepid denialist says “the higher warming summers of 2003, 2006, and 2010 were all preceded by or affected by an El Nino”
    What about La Niña ?
    Starting his short term “trend” on the peak of an El Niño event, and ending it at the trough of a La Niña event is definitely a TRICK. Funny thing is, this is supposed to be the No Trick Zone. Mean temperatures rather than average, short term trends, passing off warm years as a consequence of El Niño, while totally disregarding the effect of La Niña, winter deviations over the long term, but no long term annual deviations considered, these all lead me to believe that you should call you blog the “Trick Zone”.
    Lets go cherry picking some more. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKejMuKoVLY

  17. Ulrich Elkmann

    So, if I understand right, “cherry-picking” and “playing tricks” is actually “Pfui,” as Nero Wolfe used to say? Or is it admissibly of The Right Side does it?

  18. matti

    Pragmatic jim

    The focus of this very brief article was to comment primarily on the temperature change in Europe since 1998. There was a recent peer reviewed paper that commented that there had been no global warming according to them since 1998 and I wanted to see whether this was also true for Europe . This what they said

    “Data for global surface temperature indicate little warming
    between 1998 and 2008 (1). Furthermore, global surface
    temperature declines 0.2 °C between 2005 and 2008. Although
    temperature increases in 2009 and 2010, the lack of a clear increase
    in global surface temperature between 1998 and 2008 (1),
    combined with rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and
    other greenhouse gases, prompts some popular commentators
    (2, 3) to doubt the existing understanding of the relationship
    among radiative forcing, internal variability, and global surface
    temperature. This seeming disconnect may be one reason why
    the public is increasingly sceptical about anthropogenic climatechange”

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/pnas-201102467.pdf

    Also it is always the author’s perogative to focus on what ever time frame they choose for their focus . One does not always have to go back to the beginning of time to comment on a current situation. If you want to study a longer term , why don’t you study it and post it here. But this was not my focus . There is nothing wrong to cherry pick periods and show the time frame used clearly. Don’t you thing other bloggers cannot read that the data was for the near term and you must point it out to all that I used the term 1998-2011 . In hind sight I should have left the winter 1948 -2010 graph off just because of comments like yours , but I included in merely to illustrate that Europe’s winter climate which has been cooling since 1998 , fluctuates, as it did in the past and cooler periods like we have now started ,have happened before . Matter of fact Professor Don Easer brook of US has pointed it out many times that there have been 22 cooler periods in the last 500 years . Showing your long term annual temperature trend for Europe illustrates this also.

  19. Pragmatic Jim

    “the author’s perogative to focus on what ever time frame they choose for their focus” see Cherry Picking.
    No self respecting climatologist would even think of drawing conclusions from such a short term data set. To say it is their “perogative” [sic] to pick 1998 as a start date is laughable.
    One needs only to look at the global temperature record to see exactly why 1998 is chosen as THE start date for all denialists attempting to claim reduced warming, or in some cases cooling. Because of the anomalous spike, it is the ONLY year from which one could show a “hiatus in warming”.
    The only redeeming quality of the “Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008″ paper is that it recognizes the fact that the AGW problem has been temporarily muted by the recent increase in sulfur emissions from China. Realistically though, China is working to curb its sulfur emissions. What is in the air now will very quickly be gone, but the CO2 will remain. Expect to see this decrease in warming (note I did not say “cooling”) to be followed by a sharp increase, as aerosols clear.

    1. DirkH

      Dogmatic Jim, the “Chinese Aerosols” are used as another fudge factor by your team. You always use aerosols for that. You’ve run out of tricks, the sorry lot of you.

      Sigh. Who will amuse us when you’re all gone. AGW was such fun.

      1. Pragmatic Jim

        It’s not dogma, fudge factor, or tricks. It’s science. Sorry if you can’t understand it.

  20. matti

    Pragmatic jim
    You said

    “The only redeeming quality of the “Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008″ paper is that it recognizes the fact that the AGW problem has been temporarily muted by the recent increase in sulfur emissions from China. ”

    You and your AGW pals have a new cause every other day for global warming between 1998 and 2008 .First it was carbon dioxide, then it was EL Ninos[see below ] and now you claim sulfur emissions . I am sorry JIM , your latest arguments just have no credibilty. There is no redeeming quality for this paper other than reognizing that warming has become non existent in this period . I think the El Nino argument makes sense but the sulphur argument will also die on the vine like carbon dioxide did . It seems to me that when you do not know the real cause of the warming any excuse seems to be in order and sulphur is the latest one unfortunately

    Attached is the latest release from the UK Met Office on the causes of the recent global warming when all the global temperature records were set 1999 -2008. .I quote part of their relase here.

    Observations indicate that global temperature rise has slowed in the last decade (Fig. 2.8a). The least squares trend for Janu­ary 1999 to December 2008 calculated from the HadCRUT3 dataset (Brohan et al. 2006) is +0.07±0.07°C decade–1—much less than the 0.18°C decade–1 recorded between 1979 an2005 and the 0.2°C decade–1 expected in the next decade (IPCC; Solomon et al. 2007). This is despite a steady increase in radiative forcing as a result of human activities and has led some to question climate predic­tions of substantial twenty-first century warming (Lawson 2008; Carter 2008).

    El Niño–Southern Oscillation is a strong driver of interannual global mean temperature variations. ENSO and non-ENSO contribu­tions can be separated by the method of Thompson et al. (2008) (Fig. 2.8a). The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after remov­ing ENSO (the “ENSO-adjusted” trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade–1, implying much greater disagree­ment with anticipated global tem­perature rise.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/global_temperatures_09.pdf

    1. Pragmatic Jim

      Atmospheric sulfates are nothing new, their effect has been studied for decades. Do some research. ENSO has been a red herring used by denialists, not scientists. Scientists see it for what it is, a short term cyclic variation, not a long term trend driving factor. When it is warming rapidly, the denialists say “it’s ENSO” when warming slows, they say “see, there is no warming”.

  21. matti

    PRAGMATIC JIM

    I see that you are now calling Uk’S MET Office as denialists too because their scientists wrote the article in the earlier post that clearly showed that El Nino’s were behind the warming of the 1998-2008 decade. They are a pillar of your AGW science. If you cannot deal with the science you are trying to attack all messengers . You appear to be one who does not do his homework before speaking and only offers negatives about what others do .

    Here is another study.

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/does-the-sea-surface-temperature-record-support-the-hypothesis-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/#more-595

    1. Pragmatic Jim

      The met office rightfully chose to remove the ENSO signal from their 1999-2008 temperature trend summary, because 9 years is very short, on a global climate scale, and consequently the trend can be hidden by short term noise, such as ENSO. What they did NOT do was remove positive ENSO events while retaining negative ENSO events. I can deal with that. Can you understand it? To be honest, I agree with climatologists, who feel that trying to find a trend in such a short time span is subject to a very large degree of uncertainty, and is more than a waste of time. It is food for the ignorant to feed their bias.

    2. Pragmatic Jim

      I must point out, after reading your most recent link, that the Bob Tisdale blog, is certainly not a study. It is a weak attempt at blaming El Nino . I refer to my previous comment “When it is warming rapidly, the denialists say “it’s ENSO” when warming slows, they say “see, there is no warming”. Answer me this, if El Niño is responsible for the warming trend since 1981, and la Niña does not count, as Bob Tisdale implies, what has changed?

  22. Alexander4

    Need cheap generic ABANA?…

  23. matti

    Pragmatic jim

    No one said that La Nina’s do not count . That is your own wrong understanding . La Ninas did not cause warming during the summers that I referred to in Europe in my opinion, so I did not mention them .
    By your odd comments you sound like you have never studied the La nina /el Nino effects yourself sufficiently . You will find that these ENSO signs affect Europe differently to North America and the strength and type of the signs has a big bearing on the climate differently in different regions . L a Nina’s are less cooling for Europe than North America . Strong El Nino’s and Neutral signs can sometime cause cooler winters in Europe as they correlate with strong negative AO and blocking jet streams [like DECEMBER 2010]
    The situation globally becomes more apparent when we look at the number of EL Nino and La Nina months during a 12 year cool period [1965-1976] when AMO and PDO both were negative or cool and during a 12 year warm period 1994-2006 when AMO and PDO were both positive or warm
    PERIOD LA NINA EL NINO
    MONTHS MONTHS
    1965-1976 62 39
    COOL
    1994- 2006 36 49
    WARM
    During negative or cool phases of PDO and AMO, there are equal number La Nina’s and EL Nino’s but more La Nina months compared to El Nino months.1965-1976] Recent La Nina’s of significant cooling were 1973-1976 ,1988/89, 1998/99/00/01, 2007/2008 and 2010/2011 La Nina’s.
    During positive or warm phase of PDO and AMO, there are significantly greater number [2.5 times] of strong El Nino’s than strong LA Nina’s and more El Nino months compared to La Nina months [1994-2006]. There were less La Nina’s in total as well .This is why there is more warming when the PDO is positive. Three El Nino’s were particularly strong and resulted in 3 major temperature rises, namely 1982/83, 1986/87/88, 1997/98.Global warming resulted from the simultaneous occurrence of the warm or POSITIVE PDO from 1976 to 2007 and the warm or POSITIVE AMO from 1994 to the present. That is why there was extra warming during that past period and why it has now stopped. The PDO is a residual or after affect of ENSO events in the Pacific. Both the PDO and AMO effects may have part or all of their origins in the deep ocean circulation pattern called MOC or Meridional Overturning Circulation which flows through all the major oceans.

    What has changed you ask ? Sounds like you have not read any recent climate data yourself or you would not be asking such an odd question [ I assume you are asking about more recently to cause cooling the last decade ?] North Pacific has been cooling since 2007 [PDO is mostly neagtive ] Atlantic is cooling [ AMO is slowly dropping and Atlantic Ocean heat content is dropping. The number of La Ninas and Neutral years are increasing . The sun has been Minimum for more years than normal . Inland areas in Northern Hemisphere are cooling faster than coastal areas for a decade now but more significantly after 2006/2007. Isolated winters are already approaching the temperatures of past cooler periods some even going back 100 years and more. Northern Hemiphere Snow extents have been increasing and were at the 3rd highest since the 1960’s in North America. The jet stream patterns have changed. There are now more negative NAO and AO levels. The list goes on and on . You don’t have to believe in any of this but Nature is bound to freeze your butt during the coming decades reagrdless of your conviction that global warming will become unprecedented as AGW science claims.
    The last three winters were just the prelude of what lies ahead by 2015.

    By the way the web page of Bob Tisdale is excellent and the level of his study is far superior in my judgement to the superficial IPCC studies when it comes to SSTand ENSO effects in their last report. Itseems that IPCC ‘S mandate was to only study the impact of “man induced global warming” not all causes of global warming . Check this out yourself, Jim, if you do not believe me .

    1. Pragmatic Jim

      I am sure that I am not the first person to agree with you, that the IPCC reports are political propaganda products, and therefore prone to exaggerations and mistakes, never mind the bias. This is why I do not use them as reference material, though I have read the last two thoroughly. I have however, used them for their lists of resources, in my early investigations into AGW . The idea that that PDO cycles might be responsible for long term trends has been studied for quite some time. Here is link to a recent actual study of ENSO, and it’s possible effects on long term climate change. If you are not a member of AAAS, you can register for free, and gain access to some of their publications, including this particular paper. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5608/877.full
      It is FAR superior in quality to anything you might read in 99% of denialist or warmist blogs. The long and short of it seems that ENSO is not well enough understood to make accurate claims about it’s effect in the long term. It may be a bit of chicken/egg argument that goes on for decades. It certainly looks like it is a feedback mechanism, but at beyond that, anyone who claims to be certain exactly what percentage of the past century’s warming it can be attributed to it, is fooling himself. The same goes for any mechanism, including CO2, but we can be certain, based on everything that we know, AGW is real, and worth addressing. Why does the IPCC not address natural mechanisms to the same degree that they do anthropogenic? What would you do to change ENSO, solar variations, volcanic activity? The earth is warming, mankind has a major role to play. I’d rather cut back on our excesses, and invest in alternate sources of energy while we can still make a difference. Even if you doubt the veracity of AGW, watch this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY and tell me that you don’t think that we should be investing NOW in alternative energy sources, and conservation of our existing ones.

  24. matti

    I notice that one of my exhibits did not reproduce as I had typed it. This should clarify things

    During the cooler period of 1965-1976 there were 62 LA NINA months and 39 El NINO months
    During the warmer period of 1994-2006 there were 36 La nNINA months and 49 EL NINO months

  25. matti

    Pragmatic jim

    You made a number of comments and asked a number of questions.

    I have personally done a review of the literature on PDO and I also analyzed its correlation to temperature changes particularly for North America. It is not a direct indicator of North Pacific’s SST but a spatial pattern of temperatures and an ‘after effect’ of the Enso signal. It is not directly responsible for long term trends in temperatures but its index correlates with changes happening in the North Pacific’s SST. The Pacific Ocean makes up half of all the oceans and it has the single biggest effect on global climate as it is the largest heat sink on our planet. A significant part of the weather of North America comes from the west, the Pacific Ocean. So the PDO index is an indicator of what is coming for those who read its index properly. It has a long history, it has a fairly cyclic pattern, but it can also change as we saw with the great Pacific climate shift of 1976. There have been other regime changes as well. My own studies and those of others have shown this index is a vital indicator of possible future climate especially for North America [other indicators are AMO, AO, NAO and ENSO and SST LEVELS and the jet stream]. I will read yoursuggested reference. I do receive the AAAS e-mail.

    My own take on the co2 is that the warming effect of this gas and especially the portion produced by man has been blown way out of proportion without any real proven science behind their claim. The planet is not so sensitive to increasing co2 levels as claimed . The last 13-15 years is ample proof of this. The impact of man produced co2 gas on global temperatures is insignificant. Spending trillions of dollars on cutting co2 emissions and storing co2 will do nothing to global temperatures that can even be detected by our instruments. It is an absolute waste of money in a very critical financial situation or stage for our globe.

    From my own studies tell me that the Ocean SST is the key driver and indicator of our planet’s weather.
    Periodic impact of changing interstellar gas affecting our solar system has been not well documented and studied. I believe this was behind the recent little ice ages not a reduction in the number off sun spots and a changed solar out put.

    I think the issue of pollution prevention, energy policies and global warming and normal climate change are 4 separate issues that have now been wrongly mixed together by AGW scientists in my opinion. They are separate issues entirely.

    We should be investing in minimum of real pollution [not minimum of co2], least cost, and energy efficient projects that suit the regional needs of each region and nation. The AIR QUALITY INDEX measures real pollutants. Co2 is not part of it.

    I see nothing wrong with installing the cleanest coal energy technology, natural gas or shale gas plants. Wind and solar installations are still quite expensive and not suitable for large MW plants. They may be suitable in smaller and special regional installations. I do not think that we should be wasting money by shutting down perfectly good fossil fuel plants [assuming they have been converted to cleanest fossil fuel options ] and replacing them with extremely expensive solar or wind or nuclear. That is being wasteful and irresponsible with public money. Prematurely shutting down good nuclear plants in safe locations also seems wasteful with public money . Those that are in hazardous locations [as now discovered in Japan] need to be reviewed again for safety and new potential hazards such as floods , tsunamis , earth quakes , drought and lack of water, terrorist threats , etc. If you still want to shut them down then at least wait until they have reached the end of their normal operaing life or major upgrade level,