Warmist Spiegel/Euro-Media Concede Global Warming Has Ended…Models Were Wrong…Scientists Are Baffled!

Spiegel has finally gotten around to conceding that global warming has ended, at least for the time being.

IPCC temperature chart 2012

Yesterday Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski published a piece called: Klimawandel: Forscher rätseln über Stillstand bei Erderwärmung (Climate change: scientists baffled by the stop in global warming).

We’ve been waiting for this admission a long time, and watching the media reaction is interesting to say the least. Bojanowski writes that “The word has been out for quite some time now that the climate is developing differently than predicted earlier”. He poses the question: “How many more years of stagnation are needed before scientists rethink their predictions of future warming?

Bojanowski adds (emphasis added):

15 years without warming are now behind us. The stagnation of global near-surface average temperatures shows that the uncertainties in the climate prognoses are surprisingly large. The public is now waiting with suspense to see if the next UN IPCC report, due in September, is going to discuss the warming stop.”

The big question now circulating through the stunned European media, governments and activist organisations is how could the warming stop have happened? Moreover, how do we now explain it to the public? To find an answer, Bojanowski contacted a number of sources. The result, in summary: scientists are now left only to speculate over an entire range of possible causes. Uncertainty in climate science indeed has never been greater. It’s back to square one.

One explanation Spiegel presents is that the oceans have somehow absorbed the heat and are now hiding it somewhere. Yet, Bojanowski writes that there is very little available data to base this on: “There is a lot of uncertainty concerning the development of the water temperature. It has long appeared that also the oceans have not warmed further since 2003.” Spiegel then quotes Kevin Trenberth concerning NASA’s claim that they’ve detected a warming of the oceans: “The uncertainties with the data are too great. We need to improve our measurements“.

Spiegel also writes that the missing heat may be lurking somewhere deep in the oceans. But here Bojanowski [Spiegel] quotes Doug Smith of the Met Office: “This is very difficult to confirm“. Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI) suspects that energy has been conveyed to the ocean’s interior, but there’s a dire lack of data to confirm this. Bojanowski writes over the current state of ocean data measurement: “Without intensifying the data measurement network, we are going to have to wait a long time for any proof“.

Scientists also suspect that the stratosphere may have something to do with the recent global temperature stall. Susan Solomon says the stratosphere has gotten considerably drier, and so warming at the surface may have been reduced by a quarter. But Bojanowski reminds us that under the bottom line, the scientists are pretty much without a clue; he writes:

‘However, climate models do not illustrate stratospheric water vapour very well,’ says Marotzke. The prognoses thus remain vague.”

Well then, maybe it’s due to aerosols from China and India blocking out the sun, some scientists are speculating, and ”thus weakening warming by one third“.  Spiegel writes that “If the air were cleaner, then climate warming would accelerate.” But aerosols have always been used a convenient joker in climate models to explain unexpected cooling, such as from 1945 to 1980.

In fact, all the explanations presented by Bojanowski above have already been thoroughly looked at in a book-  one year ago – by a pair of scientists: Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Last year much of the media massively ostracised them for floating “crude theories”. A year later it’s indeed strange to see that their “crude theories” are now completely in vogue.

How does Bojanowski sum it up? “The numerous possible explanations do show just how imprecisely climate is understood.”

Trenberth is left with only anecdotes, isolated singular events

Yet, as Bojanowski points out, some scientists refuse to give up on the AGW theory. He writes:

Under the bottom line, there are a number of various ominous signs of warming: rising sea levels, Arctic sea ice reduced by a half in the summertime, melting glaciers. At some locations there are signs that extreme weather events are increasing. ‘There are many signs of global warming,’ emphasizes Kevon Trenberth, “near surface air temperatures is only one of them.’”

Sorry, but isolated singular events do not constitute trends, let alone science. Prof. Trenberth really ought to know that. This is pathetic. The observed data and measured trends have stopped showing global warming. So are scientists now claiming that singular events are robust signs? This would be only one step away from astrology!

Bojanowski reminds us again that the science is poorly understood and that a number of factors are at play. He writes:

Indeed new surprising data keep popping up. Recently a new study appeared showing that soot particles from unfiltered diesel engine exhaust and open fires have had an impact on warming that is twice as high as what was first thought.”

Bojanowski also tells his readers that “Computer simulations have shown that warming has made tropical storms more seldom.”

He also mentions other factors that are poorly understood, such as: solar radiation’s impact on clouds, water vapour cycles, and natural and man-made aerosols.

Short term prognoses remain “especially uncertain”. But longterm ones are sure?

Spiegel at the end of the article seems to be duped into thinking that short-term prognoses are uncertain, but longterm ones are rather sure. Spiegel quotes warmist Jochem Marotzke of the MPI:

Climate prognoses over time periods of a few years still remain especially uncertain. ‘Our forecasting system in this regard still lets us down,’ says MPI director Marotzke. “But we’re still working on it.”

This to me appears to be an attempt to have readers believe that although they’ve botched the short-term projections completely, they are likely still right about the longterm projections of warming. Now take five minutes to get your laughing under control. … If the models failed for the first 15 years, then they are no good! Period! They’re crap, and you cannot rely on them for projecting the long-term. They belong in one place only: the dustbin! How long must we wait before climate scientists return to science?

Don’t get me wrong, at least this article, admitting something is terribly amiss, is a very encouraging step in the right direction. But it’s difficult to remain hopeful when climate scientists continue demonstrating that they do not even know what proper scientific methodology is.

Lastly, I like they way Bojanowski ends his piece:

Current prognoses warn of a 5°C warming if CO2 emissions continue as before. But it is not now well-known just how much natural climate impacts are able to change the temperature development – the new NASA data have revealed this as well.”

Spiegel science writers would be well-advised to read Fritz Vahrenholt’s and Sebastian Lüning’s “Die kalte Sonne“. Practically every question brought up by Bojanowski has been answered there – one year ago. Moreover, Lüning”s and Vahrenholt’s temperature model for the next 100 years so far has been dead on.

 

47 responses to “Warmist Spiegel/Euro-Media Concede Global Warming Has Ended…Models Were Wrong…Scientists Are Baffled!”

  1. mwhite

    Be interesting to see how they would explain a 20-30 year cooling trend?

    1. klem

      A 30-year cooling trend is climate change too of course.

  2. Juergen Uhlemann
  3. Verity Jones

    Great post Pierre and quite gratifying to see such articles from major publications. There’s a significant change happening – in slow motion.

    1. Bernd Felsche

      There’s a significant change happening – in slow motion.

      You could say that the change is glacial. ;-)

  4. Juergen Uhlemann

    The graphic in Der Spiegel with the title “Temperaturen auf der Erdoberfläche von 2008 bis 2012″ shows that Mauna Loa (Hawaii) is in a blue colored area.
    Amazing, the location of the data source of CO2 since 1958 is actually cooling.

    There is also a link to “Response to Today’s Loeb et al Paper on Missing Energy” and I’m amazed that it says “2008 was the coldest year this century and so where did the heat go?”. Science is not settled if they have problem with a single year.
    It’s like: I played the right numbers in Lotto but they didn’t come – what went wrong with the draw. ;-)

    1. Mindert Eiting

      If you are not angry at this moment, there are two ‘explanations’, that nothing made you angry or that you are very angry but your anger is suppressed deeply in your unconcious ocean. The first is more parsimonous.

  5. JC Smith

    <>

    So has global warming ended for the month…..for the year….for the decade? Let’s take a look at this chart done by someone in the United States:

    http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2012/08/ratio-of-new-record-high-temps-to-new_30.html

    That chart seems to show clearly that warming is continuing unabated on a decade-by-decade basis. In fact, on a year by year basis, he has another chart that shows the same thing as well:

    http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2012/08/ratio-of-new-daily-record-high-temps-to.html

    Boy, those alarmists and their facts. Amazing.

    1. DirkH

      KC Smith, show that any warming is caused by elevated CO2 levels instead of being a normal continuation of the warming since the LIA.

      Why was the slope of the warming from 1980 to 2000 exactly identical to the slope of the warming from 1910 to 1940?

  6. Walter Schneider

    “Scientists Are Baffled!” is an accurate translation of what the title of the article in ‘Der Spiegel’ stated, but that statement is not quite correct. It is true that some scientists are baffled by the 15-year stop in global warming, but, given that the science relating to global warming is not settled, only the scientists who were given to spread gloom and doom about global warming are baffled. The scientists trying to understand what natural causes drive global temperature trends and by how much are still searching for the truth and appear to come closer and closer to finding it.

  7. Ed Caryl

    We have now gone over the warm top of the latest 60-year cycle and are headed into the next cooling phase. The cooling will be faster and deeper than GISS and all the other temperature databases can adjust for. China will clean up their act and produce less soot and dust, so the Arctic ice will recover. What will the explanation be for the next 15 years? Will the Calamitologists switch back to ice-age predictions? Or will they try to bluff it out for 20 years? Because their careers and memories are not that long, I predict ice-age predictions coming within 10 years or less. Then, in about 2050, they will switch back to warming. By then, because of the long memory of the Internet, their credibility will be completely shot.

    1. Juergen Uhlemann

      Yes, the Internet has a good memory.

      We are actually in the second swing in our live time. Maybe you know the Time Magazine “Another Ice Age?” arcticle in 1974.
      Dr. Stephen Schneider was one of the Scientists that believed at that time we will go into another ice age. If you want something to smile then read http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/26/stephen-schneider-ice-age-alar

      Anyone that was around (old enough) at that time will (should) remember it. I do.

      It was even claimed that we will end in a big ice age as the Holocene time has reached its end. I even remember some scientist saying on TV that you could not see the start of the previous ice ages as it went warm-cold-warm-… I guess he talked about the ice core data.
      Unfortunately, I didn’t save any article from that time. It would be a great read today. ;-)

      Btw,: Dr. Stephen Schneider was also a key person in relation to the IPCC and you can make him out on some pictures with Al Gore http://news.stanford.edu/news/2007/october17/nobelsr-101707.html

      1. DirkH

        A longer history
        http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/

        Stepehen Schneider was one of the original inventors of the Global Warming scare
        By polistra:
        1975 `Endangered Atmosphere’
        Conference: Where the Global
        Warming Hoax Was Born
        Mead, Schneider, Holdren and Lovelock
        http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/highlights/Fall_2007.html
        http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf

      2. DirkH
        1. Juergen Uhlemann

          Thanks DirkH
          It just proves, again, that in the middle of this is the Club of Rome.

          The new approach of the Club of Rome:
          The “CHANGE-THE-COURSE.ORG” and their young participants (recruits) http://www.change-the-course.org/participants/

    2. Stephen Richards

      I have a book by Carl Sagan from that era. It was a book written to complement /supplement a BBC program on the coming ice age. Ironic !!!

    3. JC Smith

      Oh Ed….you finally got around to a very important point. You see, once China “cleans up their act”(visible pollution)….global warming will actually get worse for a while.

      If you look at the climate history of the US over the past 100 years, scientists found that into the early 1970′s….pollution in the US had been getting worse and worse. And then…..those darn American’s elected that famous “liberal” Richard Nixon to be prsident, and HE started the Envirnmental Protection Agency. Those alarmists and liberals in the US are tricky. You see, Richard Nixon was a Republican, but then he went out and started the Envirnmental Protection Agency…which started to clean up the environment including all of the “visual” pollution you see in the air….and in the water.

      The trouble is…..once the US started cleaning up the air pollutants in the 1970′s and into the early 1980′s….that had the effect of WARMING the climate, because the EPA only concentrated on the “stuff” (pollution) that you CAN SEE…..not the stuff you CAN’T SEE (like CO2, methane, etc). So while the American’s were polluting their air in the 1930′s, 1940′s, 1950′s, and 1960′s….into the early 1970′s…..they were actually slowing down warming in the US. But once that liberal Nixon started the EPA, and they started to clean up the air……then warming continued on its merry way, because CO2 and methane were NOT cleaned up…..and those American’s LOVE their cars.

      Fast forward to today……and you see what is going to happen once China starts to clean up their air pollution. Unless they slow down their us of CO2 emitting cars….and CO2 emitting coal plants……the same thing is going to happen all over again. Which means that as they clean up their air, warming will get worse, because they haven’t stopped or slowed down CO2 emissions into the atmosphere…..all they got rid of was the “ugly stuff” that can be seen.

      So….good work Ed. Way to bring up an important point. I knew you had it in you:)

      1. Ed Caryl

        Why do you think that cleaning up visible pollution causes warming? CO2 isn’t visible. What Nixon did to 2% of the globe couldn’t possibly have caused the subsequent warming. China putting soot filters on their power plants will produce cooling because of the size of their soot production.

        Note that I am assuming you really do believe the things you are saying.

  8. Edward.

    “The public is now waiting with suspense to see if the next UN IPCC report, due in September, is going to discuss the warming stop.”

    Did they seriously say that? God almighty what a set of alarmist numpties @spiegelonline.

    They are probably also unaware that – nobody told them in Spiegel online-HQ [most of the world knows now ever since Galileo Galilei - well most people in the Northern Europe and N. America - can't speak for the middle East and going into the desert and South.....they probably 'know better'] – it’s the earth that goes round the Sun – not the other way round.

    BTW To all those unfortunate souls who work and report for the Spiegel ‘rag’ – the UN IPCC report has already been……….er how can I put this???

    Blown out of the water + wholly discredited + shown up – to be a pile of cow’s doings: here have a look!

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/08/more-ipcc-ar5-the-secret-santa-leak/

  9. Warmist Spiegel/Euro-Media Concede Global Warming Has Ended…Models Were Wrong…Scientists Are Baffled! « Set You Free News

    [...] By P Gosselin | NoTricksZone [...]

  10. Ken

    “The big question now circulating through the stunned European media, governments and activist organisations is how could the warming stop have happened? Moreover, how do we now explain it to the public? ”

    Just be honest. Admit you were taken in by pseudo scientific zealots, who had abandoned the core tennets of the scientific method. Instead of coming up with a hypothesis, and trying to disprove it, they came up with a mission and set out to prove themselves correct, cherry picking evidence, using misleading methods to create “scary and alarming” graphs, trying to prove “unprecedented” warming (there is NOTHING unprecedented about current global temperatures) and perverting peer-review by solely using “pal” review and bullying journals and editors who published contrary results. This led to other scientific bodies trusting the “peer-reviewed” work and supporting the claims of global warming. This led to politicians being convinced due to the (alleged) consensus. There never was a consensus over the rate and extent of the warming. NEVER! There was, and is, a general consensus that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but there was never a consensus over what effect increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would have.

    The zealots claimed to own the science. The facts are different. These alarmist climate change zealots did NOT engage in honest science. They did not come up with a hypothesis and then attempt to DISPROVE it, which is how real science is conducted. They cherry-picked data and hid inconvenient data. They constantly went back to older data and fiddled with it, constantly adjusting it to make earlier temperatures lower and later temperatures higher.

    CO2 is a warming gas, BUT in our atmosphere it CANNOT warm the atmosphere as much as the alarmist’s claim. There is NO contention in that at all. The contention always existed in what the fabled “feedback” mechanisms were and how much warming these would cause.

    The fact is that these feedbacks do not work the way the alarmist’s claim and they never ever have, other wise runaway global warming would have happened many many times in the past few millions of years.

    How to tell the public? Simple. Be honest. Apologise and amend the scientific method so that charlatans can never hijack a small speciality in science and use it for their own political and financial ends, ever again.

    1. Mindert Eiting

      May apply at a few people, Ken, but remember how painful and difficult it is for a woman to admit that she became the victim of a marriage swindler.

    2. DirkH

      Most German journalists do not know what the scientific method is. You can make them believe anything if you speak with authority.

      They also never admit mistakes. They will just become silent about what they were wrong about and start trumpeting another case.

      Largely this has already happened globally. Use Google News, search for “the biggest crisis humanity has ever faced”. Or something like that. You will find loads of hits about the financial crisis. Climate? Maybe on page 20.

  11. Who broke Global Warming?

    [...] Warmist Spiegel/Euro-Media Concede Global Warming Has Ended…Models Were Wrong…Scientists… All the climate models were wrong and the science isn't settled. Apart from that, it's business as usual. The State is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else. Reply With Quote   [...]

  12. Planbureau voor Leefomgeving corrigeert klimaatfout na bericht Climategate.nl

    [...] op land -vervuild door het stadseffect- niet veel zouden verschillen van satellieten en dat temperatuurstijging NIET ver achter zou blijven bij modelprojecties. Terwijl ook langlopende landmetingen die niet door het stadseffect zijn vervuild- zoals in Armagh [...]

  13. RCS

    This is good news. It will only become significant when it penetrates the EU commission and, in particular, our obsessed climate change commissioner.

  14. B.Kindseth

    Is “Die Kalte Sonne” going to be published in English?

    Concerning the earlier reference to Bojanowski being a geologist, anyone who studies geology will find much that trivializes the current warming.

  15. JWR

    IPCC (K&T, KNMI) use the wrong software, based on the two-way heat propagation formulation of 1771 by Prevost, to define from measured temperature distributions non existing huge absorption in the atmosphere, and non existing back-radiation of heat. The latter would be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
    In the link is given a so-called K&T diagram based on the one-way heat propagation, conform the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
    http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/IR-absorption_updated.pdf
    The paper is rather mathematical, but the conclusions are in plain English.
    CO2 is not the reason for climate variations.
    CO2 is food for plants.

  16. Edwin

    What is particularly interesting is there is also no question of what happened to the “settled science” and bullet proof consensus.

    I thought scientists knew everything about this? It must be very irritating to them to see the earth stubbornly refusing to cooperate.

  17. pat

    The Warmists have invested a great deal of themselves in the politics of CAGW. It appeals to their need to control and direct the lives of others. Now that it is clear that this was a hypothesis without facts and a dramatic solution without a problem, they are scrambling, begging for someone to show the world they were right the whole time.

  18. Ace

    Warmists really only have one more trick up their sleeves if the data continue not to cooperate… “fix” the data.

    But seriously, in a real world with real ethical climate scientists, wouldn’t the news that earth hasn’t warmed be welcomed? Shouldn’t it be? Isn’t this potentially great news for planet earth? Maybe we’re not all going to fry… maybe Manhattan won’t flood over… maybe the polar bears will survive… maybe we don’t need to drastically curtail our CO2 emissions…

    So why are the climate scientists not so happy about this 15 year plateau? Are they actually more interested in being right than they are about the future of this planet?

  19. climate change is cancelled … | pindanpost

    [...] NoTircksZone [...]

  20. Scientists Baffled By The Stop In Global Warming | Climate Change Sanity

    [...] that they are only one step away from astrology. To read his review of the Der Spiegel article,  click here. [...]

  21. Anny

    I have come to the conclusion that we all have a little blame global warming and its consequences and guilt even more politicians who do not slow down.

    http://www.globalwarmingweb.com/