German Meteorology Professor Expects Cooling For The Decades Ahead…”Climate Protection Is Ineffective”

Meteorologist Prof. Dr. Horst Malberg has an article posted at the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) here. He tells us we ought to be preparing for a cooler 21st century first half.

malberg_foto_

Meteorologist Prof. Horst Malberg. Photo credit: EIKE

Professor Malberg starts his article by showing and discussing various solar activity charts. Today I’m a little short on time, and so I’ve translated his outlook and conclusion part of the article, which sums it up nicely.

Outlook

The sun is currently at the start of a quiet phase of activity and will likely reach the critical mean value of 50 sunspots during the current cycle, or even fall below it, i.e. the boundary value between a warm and a cold period. Analogous to the climate conditions during the time of the Dalton Minimum of 200 years ago, we have to expect a climate cooling for the decades ahead.

Only the “fickle“ sun will decide the general extent of the expected cooling and when the temperature again will gradually start to increase. The latter is expected to occur in the second half of the 21st century, when the sun returns to a more active phase.

Both the 200-year De Vries cycle and the 80 to 90-year Gleissberg solar activity cycle point to an imminent drop in solar activity that will have consequences for global climate and food supply.

Russian scientist I. Abdussamatov of the Russian Pulkovo Observatory near St. Petersburg (www.eike.eu) has reached the same conclusion. Also according to his results, the solar minimum – which corresponds to the peak in cooling – is expected to be reached during the solar sunspot cycle around the year 2055.

CO2 will neither be able to keep Europe nor the globe from cooling. At most it will help temper the temperature decrease a bit.

Global temperature has not risen in 15 years. It has stagnated, and in recent years has even shown a downward trend – despite the massive annual increases in CO2 emissions. (Why hasn’t the public been informed of this by the media?) For the politically motivated IPCC and its followers, it is now time to give up the dogma of CO2’s climate dominance and the marginalization and branding of those who differ with climate science. Just because one belongs to the mainstream does not mean he automatically has a better knowledge of the science.

Predicting a global warming of 4°C and associated apocalyptic consequences by 2100 by the CO2-dominated climate models (World Bank, PIK) is pure hypothesizing. As long as the solar effects and associated interactions are underestimated and the effects of CO2 exaggerated, no realistic climate conclusions can be expected.

The earlier analyses of climate allow only one conclusion to be made:

Compared to the integral solar climate effect, with all its complex, non-linear interactive mechanisms (ocean, clouds, albedo, biosphere, cosmic rays,…), the anthropogenic greenhouse/CO2 effect is only of subordinate significance. Also the media attempts to trace back singular weather events to an anthropogenic influence has no merit. History shows that hurricanes, tropical storms, tornadoes, droughts and floods have occurred on and off over the centuries as a result of synoptic constellations. However, because of the population growth to 7 billion, more and more people and their goods are being impacted by natural catastrophes.

Instead of attempting over-rated and ineffective climate protection, all efforts should concentrate on global environmental protection: clean air, clean water, uncontaminated soil and an intact ecosystem are among the fundamental rights of people. Measures for reducing CO2 can be justified by the limited fossil fuel resources and pollution that comes from combustion processes. So-called climate protection is, on the other hand, the least effective of all measures. There never has been a stable climate over the course of history, and there isn’t going to be one in the future.”

 

36 thoughts on “German Meteorology Professor Expects Cooling For The Decades Ahead…”Climate Protection Is Ineffective””

  1. Yes, you can see tell by this chart that it has already cooled down a LOT:)

    http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2013/02/global-land-temp-difference-1880-2012.html

    Of course…..let’s say he is right….and it does cool down for a decade or so. Take a look at the 1950’s on that chart. The “alarmists” like Hansen and others certainly DON’T rule out a slightly warmer decade. The “cool down” in the 1950’s proved ONLY to be a “rest stop” until temperatures continued their climb.

    But hey….who am I to argue with your Professor and the rest of the 3%?

      1. Dirk: I’m afraid you are mistaken my friend. But it’s still good to speak with you again:). Regarding the poll, here is the information:

        The 2-minute, two-question poll had 3146 responses (30.7% of those polled). Approximately 90% of the scientists who responded were from the U.S., and about 90% held a Ph.D. degree. Of these scientists, 5% were climate scientists who published more than 50% of all their peer-reviewed publications in the past five years on the subject of climate change. The authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory. Question #1 was, When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” About 90% of all the scientists and 97% of the climate scientists said temperatures had risen. Question #2 was, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” About 82% of all the scientists agreed, and 97% (75 of 77) climate scientists agreed. This contrasts with the results of a recent Gallup poll that suggests only 58% of the general public would answer yes. Interestingly, petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters in the new EOS poll, with only 47 and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.

        I think it is fascinating that the petroleum geologists and meteorologists were the biggest “doubters.” I guess they know who butters their bread, don’t they.

        Here’s a link if you want to look into the poll in greater depth:

        http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1184

        1. “About 82% of all the scientists agreed, and 97% (75 of 77) climate scientists agreed. ”

          You were referring to the “97%”. Obviously the 3000 other scientists are not so well suited for your propaganda purpose.

          JC Smith, you are a very predictable cardboard cutout warmist follower. I’ve heard your song a thousand times.

        2. Just asking a question: Why was Hansen predicting an Ice Age in the 70s and now is predicting Global Warming? What’s his motivation? Scientists are now becoming alarmists so they get funding! Hansen has other motivations.

  2. Don’t forget we have just enetered the cool PDO which will last maybe 20 yrs, and in another 10 yrs will be looking at 30 yrs of the cool AMO.

    All in all, I would be very surprised if we see any significant warming before 2050.

    After that, who knows?

    1. “Don’t forget we have just enetered the cool PDO which will last maybe 20 yrs”

      And to think that all the climate scientists didn’t know that. Amazing. What the heck have they been doing:)

      Just think of all the money we can save by shutting down the Met Office, NCDC, NOAA, and all the other international organizations around the world doing reserach on climate science. Paul…..you have saved the world a BUNCH of money!

      1. “Just think of all the money we can save by shutting down the Met Office, NCDC, NOAA”

        That would in fact save a lot of money. We would lose nothing except the intentional damage done by these idiots.

    2. Paul: One other item for you to contemplate. There are only 2 INITIAL SOURCES of heat for our planet: (1) the sun, and (2) the core of our planet (solid iron core surrounded by a molten iron core).

      The atmosphere is able to “hold” a certain amount of heat based on (a) the energy it receives (from the sun primarily…..and a very small amount from our own cores), (b) the composition of the atmosphere (the more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the more heat it can, and will hold).

      The ocean…is NOT an INITIAL source of heat. It ABSOLUTELY can (and does) effect our climate significantly (like PDO, El Nino, La Nina)….but it does so by ABSORBING HEAT and TRANSFERING warm water and cold water. It does not CREATE the heat. By the way….I’m NOT saying that is what you are saying….I’m just pointing that issue out.

      The atmosphere is our “thermostat” (as the science geeks say). If we keep pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the air….our world will indeed continue to warm. The bad thing about CO2….is that it stays in the atmosphere a LONG TIME (some of it will stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years). So we have already “booked” future warming. Think about this: We still have CO2 in the atmosphere from the beginning of the Industrial Age.

      1. “The atmosphere is our “thermostat” (as the science geeks say).”

        No; science geeks say “governor”.

        ” If we keep pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the air….our world will indeed continue to warm.”

        Unproven conjecture, as you know nothing about negative feedbacks; IPCC climate models don’t even get cloudiness right (as the CRU’s Phil Jones has confirmed).

        ” The bad thing about CO2….is that it stays in the atmosphere a LONG TIME (some of it will stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years).”

        Completely meaningless statement. The natural turnaround of the global carbon cycle is about 30 times higher than antropogenic CO2 emissions so what does your statement even mean. Of course there will be CO2 in the atmosphere in the future. Otherwise all plants would die.

      2. In reply to JC Smith.

        Read up on the logarithmic effect of CO2. CO2 traps 80% of all the heat that is capable of trapping by the time it reaches 100ppm. Further increases trap less and less extra heat and that is only in areas where water vapour doesn’t exist because that traps the same infra-red frequencies.

        The IPCC calculates the additional forcing caused by the 20th century increase in CO2 to be 1.4watts/sq mtr. That is a trivial amount of extra heat which is swamped by all the other forcing’s and negative feedback on the climate. Trying to warm the climate with CO2 is like trying to push a train with a feather.

        If you look at the relationship between CO2 and temperatures over the last 800,000 years, warming always precedes CO2 increases by an average of 800years at the end of each ice age. At the start of the next ice age CO2 levels often stay high for thousands of years and when they do fall again there is no effect on temperature.

  3. predictions….
    I doubt ipcc modelists are able to predict future…but i don’t need another prediction…

    the more fool ..well i predict one will be right

    1. I have no information. But it isn’t unusual for a page not to open from time to time NTZ had the same problem a few months ago. I seriously doubt that the traffic from NTZ has overloaded it :)!
      I’m sure it’ll be back up and running before too long.

  4. JC Smith writes; “The atmosphere is able to “hold” a certain amount of heat based on (a) the energy it receives (from the sun primarily…..and a very small amount from our own cores), (b) the composition of the atmosphere (the more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the more heat it can, and will hold).”

    I do love a good alarmist when they try to understand physics: in (b) he/she ( as hiding behind a non-gender specfic alias) quite clearly states that the thermal capacity (the amount of heat it is able to “hold” ??) of the atomsphere is controlled by small trace of CO2 completely ignoring the vast amount of water vapour with a greater specific heat that completely swamps the effect of minor variations in CO2.

    I have reread this passage several times and the more I do the more I get confused as to what this person is trying to saying. The confusions between energy, tempeerature and specific heat are just so many that it is just utter nonsense.

  5. “Completely meaningless statement. The natural turnaround of the global carbon cycle is about 30 times higher than antropogenic CO2 emissions so what does your statement even mean. Of course there will be CO2 in the atmosphere in the future. Otherwise all plants would die.”

    Dirk…so good to hear from you, and in your normal “civil” style:)

    Of course we need CO2 (and other greenhouse gases)….that enables the us to keep warm enough. Too much CO2….and we’ll get too hot. Not enough….and we’ll freeze. The problem ISN’T that we HAVE CO2….the problem is that we’re heading to a point where we have TOO MUCH CO2….and that is not a good thing.

    Have a wonderful….cheerful day:)

    1. JC,
      Do you have any idea of the shape of the greenhouse gasses response curve? It is logarithmic for all of them. The temperature we have now, it is true, is due to greenhouse gases, but we are very high on the response curves. A doubling of CO2 from current levels will have very little additional effect, and a very slight reduction in water vapor, has and will, cancel it out. This, along with cloud changes, is why there has been no warming in the last two decades, despite the CO2 increase. Water vapor, clouds, and thunderstorms, now control the temperature, not CO2.

    2. On what evidence do you base the conjecture that more CO2 leads to warming? On the NON-WARMING of the last 17 years while CO2 was rising?
      On the broken computer models of the IPCC that get nary a thing right and don’t even attempt to simulate known phenomena like the QBO?

      Are you always so gullible? Were you a Marxist in the 70ies and an LSD eater in the 60ies?

      1. Dirk, I think that Joe was born in the 80ies and I fully agree with him that too much is not a good thing.

        1. I found evidence that JC Smith must have been born before 1755.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_Young

          This would explain why he has no clue about dynamic systems, feedback, the influence of temperature on CO2 vs the influence of CO2 on temperatures, the influence of CO2 on plant growth, or the carbon cycle.

          Carbon was first named as an element in 1789 by Lavoisier. So that could explain JC Smith’s total ignorance.

        1. When did the CO2AGW theory make a prediction that only land temperatures would rise? Why do you show land temperatures? Why do you not show global temperatures? Is CO2 IR backradiation capable of distinguishing between land and sea?

          Has the theory just gotten even more bizarre? Or are we maybe just cherrypicking data to stabilize our warmist confirmation bias, JC Smith?

  6. So let’s see….the earth has warmed approximately 0.8 Degrees Celsius in 160 years all while we were coming out of the Little Ice Age. Mean time we are pumping ever increasing amounts of CO2 into the air which is supposed to ramp up the warming even more quickly, but instead we come to a 16 year (not just 15 year) hiatus in the midst of a very large increase in CO2, but we are supposed to trust JC Smith’s faith in AGW? JC, I have a question for you…how much should we have expected to warm without CO2 in the last 160 years? 0.4? 0.5? more? what’s left to blame on CO2? Please remind me why we should be alarmed. Remember, you are apparently blaming all of the warming on CO2….and if you aren’t, your argument becomes even more silly. If CO2 is only responsible for half of the warming, or less…then, it clearly isn’t the drive you and yours think it is.

  7. Good luck with JC Smith. We’ve had to put up with her on another site (under a different name) until the mods got rid of her. The style is unmistakeable and you can expect the venom to start soon.

    Delete this if it offends the mods but carry the memory always.

Comments are closed.