Max Planck Institute Director Admits “Physical Causes Unclear…Models Inconsistent With Observations”!

More cracks like never before are appearing in Germany’s climate alarmism.

Not long ago global warming science was considered settled here. So much so that climate protection has long since been institutionalized. Now it’s all starting to look like a very expensive mistake. The threat of a spectacular crumble is becoming real.

Michael Odenwald of warmist news magazine FOCUS has written a status report on global warming science: “Global Warming: “A Matter of Standpoint”.

As the title suggests, the dispute depends on how one looks at the data, and so the science is becoming more unsettled than ever. German media is beginning to report on the growing number of contradictions.

David Whitehouse: Time to recognize the temperature stagnation

As Odendahl describes, the big dispute raging today is whether global warming is continuing, or if it has stalled. According to HadCRUT4, global temperature has remained constant from 1997 to 2011. FOCUS writes:

However, [David] Whitehouse explains further, the IPCC had predicted a temperature increase of of 0.2°C per decade because of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. But this warming has not occurred. ‘We are now at a point where temperature stagnation is dominating the climate development. One cannot ignore that, even if is not 30 years,’ Whitehouse believes. ‘It is now time for the IPCC and the scientific community to recognize the temperature stagnation as reality.“

FOCUS author Odendahl then adds:

With this, it is becoming very clear that the scientific debate over the greenhouse effect is not yet over.

David Whitehouse’s argument points to the failure of climate models to make predictions of any value.

Marotzke: Models have not been consistent with observations

FOCUS consulted Jochem Marotzke, Director of the warmist Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg concerning the reliability of climate models. To his credit, Marotzke admitted that the models aren’t what they are cracked up to be, and that the science is far from clear. FOCUS (emphasis added):

Whitehouse points out that climate simulations, like those carried out at the Hadley Climate Research Unit, indeed show periods of stagnation lasting up to a decade. In the models they occur about every 80 years. However, none of the simulations up to now have shown a pause of 15 years. Also the models that run on the super-computers of the Hamburg Climate Research Centre also show such plateau phases. ‘The physical causes are still unclear, and our simulations show them occurring at other times. Thus the models are not consistent with the current observations.’ admits Jochem Marotzke, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg.”

So clearly the models are wrong, and what does not work in the present cannot be counted on to work for the future. Garbage now, garbage later.

Rahmstorf: There’s a warming trend – if you ignore factors

With one side claiming that warming has stalled, FOCUS reminds us that there are still some scientists who still insist warming is continuing, like Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). Here he’s caught making another one of his famous Rahmstorfian climate-speak statements. FOCUS writes:

According to PIK scientist Rahmstorf, global warming continues. ‘If you deduct the known short-term fluctuations from volcanoes, solar cycles and El Niño, then there’s been a warming over the last 30 years of 0.16° Celsius per decade, which is precisely in the middle of the IPCC projections“, Rahmstorf explains.

Firstly, would someone please nominate this as the Quote of the Week at WUWT? Of course you can get any trend you want by ignoring whatever you want.

Secondly, 0.16° temperature increase per decade is not in the middle of the IPCC’s projected range of 1.9°C to 4.5°C by 2100. Rahmstorf struggles with the truth – again!

 

14 responses to “Max Planck Institute Director Admits “Physical Causes Unclear…Models Inconsistent With Observations”!”

  1. Harry Dale Huffman

    It is now all about getting people in authority to recognize, and tell, the truth about “global warming”–or to recognize those people as a lost cause, get them out, and put in those who will. The very first evidence that I found convincing, on either side of the debates, back in 2009, was the fact that global mean surface temperature had already been stalled for a decade; only very slowly have I seen that definitive evidence rise to its current level of awareness (and it IS definitive, contrary to the self-serving “17 or 30 years needed to make a trend” claims of the modellers, to any competent physicist). I hope the awareness continues to increase geometrically now, but dogma is very much in ascendance in the world today, not just in climate science, and we have not seen the worst days of climate alarmism. I will probably take the defeat of Barack Obama in November as a real turning point, since the climate alarmism is just a part of all that I have been calling “The War of the Insane Left” for the last two years.

    1. DirkH

      The war on logic.

    2. Ed Caryl

      Hear, hear!

      And “If you deduct the known short-term fluctuations from volcanoes, solar cycles and El Niño, then there’s been a warming over the last 30 years of 0.16° Celsius per decade, which is precisely in the middle of the IPCC projections“, Rahmstorf explains.

      Rahmstorf is even wrong about that. Where are the long-term ocean cycles in his deductions. Deduct the AMO, and you get cooling. Deduct the 200 year solar cycle and you get even more cooling. He will spend his old age huddled around a bio-mass fueled stove in a cold basement flat muttering about where the warming went.

  2. DirkH

    First time a German newspaper mentions the decline in water vapor content. Best climate journalism in German print media ever!

  3. Paul

    Good article. You may find this interesting. The next time people go on about drought in Africa and how we are the cause I suggest you set their minds at rest and show them this write up which was written some years ago. It might even blow their minds:

    http://ccb.colorado.edu/ijas/ijasno2/georgis.html

  4. Brian G Valentine

    “Now it’s all starting to look like a very expensive mistake.”

    Who, in their wildest dreams, would believe that “evidence” of “CO2 warming the atmosphere” would not be evident long ago, and and a part of the geological record.

    The geological record of “climate change” is the astronomical record of the Earth in its orbit, for about a billion years (or as long as the periodicity can be tracked, anyway). It is not possible that “CO2 climate change” would not be an obvious part of carbonate sedimentary deposit every where on the Earth.

    If the geological record did not hide astronomical events, then how could it “hide” CO2 related events.

  5. mwhite

    Piers Corbyn has made a prediction for May which could have implications for Northern Europe

    “The coldest or near coldest May for 100 years in Central and East parts with a record run of bitter Northerly winds. Snow at times especially on high ground in NE / East. Spring put in reverse”

    http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=450&c=5

    “Piers Corbyn astrophysicist of Weatheraction.com says “We are making this headline from our 45day ahead Britain & Ireland forecast public because of its importance. It is an economically impactful forecast and more detail of the timing of cold and wintry blasts, East-West splits and drought or not implications are available to subscribers and will also be reviewed for the 30day ahead forecast due at end of April.”

    “The very cold expectations apply to East parts and near – Europe rather than Ireland and West Britain”

  6. Norm Kalmanovitch

    Far more important to the climate change debate is OLR measurements over the past three decades since the launch of weather satellites in late 1978.
    According to AGW orthodoxy the 57.1% increase in CO2 emissions since 1979 has increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration which has resulted in an enhanced greenhouse effect and this is what has caused the increase in global temperature.
    Supposedly this increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased the insulation capacity of the atmosphere preventing more and more of the radiation from the Earth from escaping into space and this trapped radiation is what is causing the Earth to warm.
    Accordingn to the forcing parameter of the IPCC climate models this reduction in outgoing longwave radiation should be precisely 0.782W/m^2 but according to 32 years of satellite measurement of OLR this is simply not happening with no detectable decrease in OLR as predicted by the climate models.
    What in fact the OLR measurements show is that there is an increase in OLR proportional to the fourth power of the Earth’s absolute temperature proving conclusively that the temperature change is due to increases in incoming energy from the sun and definitely not from a reduction in outgoing energy as postulated by the AGW supporters.
    Simply put the claimed enhanced greenhouse effect from increased CO2 emissions does not exist to any detectable extent, and the fact that CO2 emissions continue to increase as the current cooling trend that started in 2002 also continues is further proof of fallacy of the scientifically baseless AGW conjecture.

  7. Casper

    I wonder If it brings any change in the AGW politics.. ;)

    1. Brian G Valentine

      Nichts. Einfrieren zum Tod.

      Look what happened to people in England who who could not afford heating fuel or coal.

      1. Casper

        sarc on
        An excellent solution for overpopulated Earth…
        sarc off
        Seriously, many people in Poland have to burn trash, paper, rubber and plastics for heating because they can’t afford to buy more coal and fuel, It’s a drama!

  8. April 21, 2012 | Another Slow News Day
  9. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?