Movement! German Media Reopen Climate Discussion – Concede Warming Has Stopped, Other Factors At Play

If Germany had recorded a record 5 warmer winters in a row, people would be reading and hearing about it for days without end. However, just the opposite has occurred: Germany has now experienced 5 colder than normal winters in a row – “a record” – now made official by the German Weather Service (This winter 0.6°C below 1981-2010 average). Yet, hardly a peep from the media on this.

But the media peeps are beginning!

At least one arm of the German mainstream media has reported this. In its Panorama section, German online daily Die Welt has an article about the recent trend, written by Ulli Kulke. The introduction reads:

Spring is just around the corner, at least from a meteorological point of view. However Germany is stuck in a record winter without sun and warmth.”

According to meteorologists, since daily sunshine measurements began in 1951, no DJF German winter has been so cloudy and dreary in Germany as this 2012/13 winter. Moreover the DJF mean temperature for the country was 0.6°C cooler than the 1981 – 2010 average. That makes it the fifth winter in a row this has occurred – a record.

Kulke quotes meteorologist Dominik Jung:

In this regard Jung says: ‘The earlier climate projections, i.e. the climate prognoses of the 1980s and 1990s, have, at least for Germany, more or less massively faltered over the last years.'”

The models have not only been wrong for the winters but also for the summers, Kulke writes, citing Jung on prognoses made for hotter and drier summers:

…of the last 10 summers only one was too dry, and that was the summer of 2003, […] otherwise all other summers were normal or too wet.”

What’s worse for the climate models the Met Office forecasts the cooler weather to continue at least through 2017, Kulke writes. Even IPCC chairman and ultra-warmist Rajendra Pachauri recently conceded the cool trend might last “30 or 40 years“.

Die Welt writes that the recent trend may provide “a tailwind in the climate discussion” for those who claim that “the impact of the sun on climate change over the last decades has been underestimated far too much, and that the role of CO2 exaggerated – which by and large has been supported by two new peer-reviewed studies in journals this year.”

Die Welt adds on the cosmic ray – cloud formation – cooling theory:

Theoretically this relationship has been known a long time. The parallelism between global temperature and solar activity over the past 1000 years appears to confirm it.”

Indeed the theory is so compelling that even CERN and the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen are conducting large scale, extensive experiments and studies on it. Die Welt now appears to be opening up to a new climate theory:

“…the results could deliver new explosive material for the climate discussion.”

This truly marks a change in direction for Die Welt.

No matter what is claimed, one thing is certain: The climate discussion is now progressing ahead in Germany with the massive, unstoppable inertia of a glacier, grinding to a pulp every false claim in its path.

Observe how the mainstream German media is coming around and conceding the discussion is indeed far from over, acknowledging that the solar theory is real and gathering in strength, and that warming has unexpectedly stopped.


22 responses to “Movement! German Media Reopen Climate Discussion – Concede Warming Has Stopped, Other Factors At Play”

  1. don

    Its about time is all that can be said.

  2. Ric Werme

    “The climate discussion is now progressing ahead in Germany with the massive, unstoppable inertia of a glacier, grinding to a pulp every false claim in its path.”

    What’s next? Glaciers with unstoppable inertia?

    Umm, what unit is inertia measured in? In high school I concluded it must be simply mass, but then my physics teacher started talking about rotational physics. Unstoppable momentum? Kinda, sorta. How about unstoppable potential energy? Yeah, that has potential.

    And I should go do something useful like shovel the driveway of an inch of now and freezing slush.

  3. BobW in NC

    First of all, I truly hope Germany gets some sunshine soon for everyone’s sake there!

    Noted that “…since daily sunshine measurements began in 1951, no DJF German winter has been so cloudy and dreary in Germany as this 2012/13 winter.” It would be really interesting to see if there were any parallels with the LIA in this regard, recognizing that such data would be harder to come by. So many recent observations are consistent with the earth moving toward another LIA, and Germany (as well as the UK?) appears to be the canary in the coal mine.

    Also, “The climate discussion is now progressing ahead in Germany with the massive, unstoppable inertia of a glacier, grinding to a pulp every false claim in its path.” Hope this inertia reaches the shores of the US and every other country soon. Currently, the mantra of “Climate Change” rules in the popular news media virtually unapposed.

  4. DirkH

    Well, I didn’t notice that it’s more cloudy than other winters, but it would be a wonderful confirmation of Svensmark’s theory.

    1. Edward.

      Ha ha – nice one Dirk!

  5. thebiggreenlie

    What’s very disturbing, is that this discussion has taken so long to get started!…………the “greenies” did do a good job in getting their false messages out for the last 10 years plus………………

    The backlash against these green imposters is like a heavily laden freight train that takes a long time to get up to speed and even longer to stop!

  6. Juergen Uhlemann

    The Antarctica is showing quite a cooling. The summer ice extend is well above average.

    Where is the media now. When the Arctic had the lowest ice extend last summer the media was over it. Btw.: The refreeze of the Arctic was quite fast. It’s right now more than the last few years. Trend reversed?

  7. Ike

    what about all these solar panels on german roofs?

    1. Mindert Eiting

      Hopefully, they are not from a Dutch firm that went bankrupt last year. Their panels show spontaneous combustion when exposed to the sun.

      1. DirkH

        Cases like that happened in Germany as well. The reason were sub par connectors that would start to smolder when high power is produced. I think at one time the at the time largest solar roof, made by BP Solar, burnt down.

        1. Mindert Eiting

          AlecM today on BH suggests: ‘Why don’t they simply reverse the power connections so their new coal fired power stations make the diodes in the PV cells produce light?

          1. DirkH

            they can’t produce light… but heat. To melt the snow…

  8. mwhite

    “So much for global warming! Four out of the last five winters have been COLDER than average”

    “Over the last five years, only last winter saw the mercury rise above the 3.3C (38F) average – taken from 30 years of statistics from 1981.”

  9. mwhite
  10. G. Watkins

    It would be interesting to find out the actual output from German solar panels – probably less than 10% of nameplate output for the last 6 months.
    Can you access those figures Pierre?

  11. Doug Cotton

    Warming was only ever natural, as this will explain …

    Sometimes I note that people confuse force with energy. They assume, for example, that gravity can generate energy in effect out of nothing. It can’t, because a force in physics is never energy.

    According to this Wikipedia item “it is clear that energy is always an indispensable prerequisite for performing mechanical work, and the concept has great importance in natural science. The natural basic units in which energy is measured are those used for mechanical work; they always are equivalent to a unit of force multiplied by a unit of length. Other equivalent units for energy are mass units multiplied by velocity units squared … Classical mechanics distinguishes between potential energy, which is a function of the position of an object within a field, and kinetic energy, which is a function of its movement. Both position and movement are relative to a frame of reference, which must be specified.”

    So, broadly speaking, energy can be grouped into potential energy (PE) and kinetic energy (KE) and, since energy is not normally created or destroyed in our atmosphere, it is correct to say that (for any small region) the mean (PE+KE)=constant in an adiabatic process, that being one in which no external energy is added to a system, and no energy removed from the system.

    An important point to note is that the basic laws of Newtonian physics can be applied with reasonable accuracy to the free path motion of molecules travelling between collisions. As the paper explains, the change in PE (due to a change in the vertical component of its position in a gravitational field) can be represented as an opposite change in its kinetic energy. But during collisions (where PE is obviously the same for each molecule) there is a propensity for KE to become homogeneous. We can observe this when diffusion spreads warmer temperatures horizontally across a room without any apparent air movement. However, whilst it also spreads warmer temperatures in a vertical plane, as it does so a thermal gradient evolves because the thermodynamic equilibrium that is eventually established is in fact isentropic, meaning that the mean (PE+KE) for molecules is the same, but not the temperature, because the temperature is a function only of the mean KE and that KE must vary when PE varies in order to keep (PE+KE) the same at all levels.

    It seems that climatologists are somewhat determined to rubbish the Loschmidt postulate that a thermal gradient would thus evolve by diffusion, even in a perfectly insulated, sealed cylinder of air. (They probably realise that the postulate demolishes the greenhouse conjecture in a single blow.) Consequently, they make out that convection must be necessary, and they call the gradient a “lapse rate” in order to associate it with some “lapsing” process, which is thought to result from convection. Then they assume that warm air only ever rises by such convection, and, if there were no convection, they assume there would be isothermal conditions at all altitudes. None of this is the case in our real world.

    But there is an ingrained concept it seems, that the thermal gradient must have something to do with expansion of air in a column as it moves upwards and thus cools. Consequently they start their calculations by introducing pressure which is included in the Ideal Gas Law. But the ideal gas law itself can be derived from first principles (using kinetic theory) provided that we understand first that temperature is proportional to mean kinetic energy and is only a function of that mean KE of molecules in the (small) region.

    I deliberately avoid unnecessary computations in my paper, in order to show the simplest derivation of the thermal gradient – done in just two lines, using first principles, wherein we assume mean (PE+KE) remains constant in all regions and throughout all regions.

    Some people, it seems, judge a paper by the number of lines of computations, rather like judging a book by its cover. Computations may appear impressive, but they prove nothing if the underlying assumptions are false in the first place. Likewise the multi-million dollar computer models of the assumed radiative greenhouse effect are completely fictitious, because the assumptions are indeed wrong.

    For example, climatologists have been known to misuse the Virial theorem which relates to forces of attraction between individual molecules, and which thus leads to another form of PE. But that PE has nothing to do with the gravitational PE being discussed in the theoretical derivation of the thermal gradient, which is based on interchanges of KE and gravitational PE.

    Others work with the Ideal Gas Law, but fail to understand the prerequisites and limitations thereof. You can’t even derive these laws without starting from the concept that temperature is proportional to mean KE and not a function of pressure, density or anything else. Hence any computations which show temperature as a function of pressure, density etc are simply incorrect.

    If you turn a horizontal, perfectly insulated sealed cylinder of air to a vertical position, these steps occur …

    (1) Gravity rapidly sets a pressure gradient by physically moving some molecules downwards until a physical equilibrium evolves in which more molecules in the lower half of any small vertical column physically support a smaller number of molecules in the top half, doing so by collision processes.

    (2) Meanwhile the process of diffusion of KE causes a thermal gradient to evolve far more slowly, so we immediately see that there is no relationship between pressure and temperature.

    (3) Simultaneously with (2) the slight variations in temperature cause very minor consequent changes in pressure which “fine tune” the pressure gradient.

    Then, there is nothing to stop a general cooling of the whole cylinder of air if the insulation is removed. The pressure will remain almost the same, and there certainly will be a pressure gradient. But the temperature is not maintained by the pressure. Instead, it needs new energy to be added in order to replace that which is being lost. And so it is that the atmosphere absorbs energy originally from the Sun and the whole surface-plus-atmosphere system radiates away to space a very similar amount of energy per second as it receives from the Sun. This sets the overall level of the thermal plot of temperature against altitude in the troposphere. Then the thermal gradient sets the plot in position so that its intersect with the surface is at a pre-determined temperature and all the assumed “33 degrees of warming” was in fact already more than achieved by gravity, with water vapour reducing the gradient and thus the surface temperature. We can probably give carbon dioxide the credit for a very small cooling effect brought about in the same way that water vapour reduces the thermal gradient – aka “lapse rate” – as is well known to occur. So much for the GHE conjecture!

  12. mwhite

    “A TOP German politician sparked fury last night by saying Britain should export some of our limited energy resources to Europe”

    “His comments were described as “nonsense” by Roger Helmer, Ukip’s energy spokesman, who said Britain is facing an energy crisis as power stations close to meet EU green directives”

  13. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
  14. Brian H

    Is it possible? After so many decades of Teutonically determined irrationality, that Germany could reach and implement sane conclusions. The bind moggles.

  15. Brian H

    Edit: …sane conclusions? The…

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy