Warming Theory Doused!! World Leading Meteorologist: “Climate Is In Fact Warming Much Slower Than Anticipated”

Alarmists take notice!

Hans von Storch’s blogsite Klimazwiebel has a good excellent article written by one of the world’s leading meteorologists, Lennart Bengtsson, who writes that the alarmist hype needs to be toned down, and that the problem of energy be taken more seriously.

BegnstLennart

Lennart Bengtsson, a warmist, is the former director of Germany’s Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, which unfortunately has recently turned emotional and alarmist on the topic of climate change.

Here are some cherry-picked excerpts that pretty much set the tone of the article:

Natural processes drive climate and practically all kinds of extreme weather have always been part of the climate and are practically unrelated to the modest warming we so far have had. The effect of increasing greenhouse gases is a slow but relentless process that will have to be dealt with but will require more time and better insight in key processes.”

Since the end of the 19th century the global warming amounts to about ¾ °C. This is a very modest increase…”

The lack of any significant warming in the tropical troposphere since the beginning of space observations in 1979 is particularly intriguing in particular as present models show a warming trend over the same time of 0.3-0.4°C in the average, figure 2.”

“…global warming has been taken out of the hands of the meteorologists and traditional climatologists and is now run by professional media experts…”

“…very emotional climate debate today…hardly possible to have a sensible and balanced exchange of views. If you do not support climate catastrophes…you are placed into a deniers box... Some of our colleagues are exposed to a powerful group pressure, …

For Greenpeace and the WWF, “a threatening climate warming have become a necessity and a source of extra income.”

“…feedbacks of the climate system dominate the outcome but are unfortunately so far not well handled by models…”

“…climate is in fact warming much slower than anticipated.”

“…lower tropical troposphere, 20°S –20°N, has only got about a third of the warming compared to what is predicted by present climate models.”

There’s a need to rethink.

Read it all here!

Photo credit: Max Planck Institute.

=========================================
UPDATE: QUESTION TO PROF BENGTSSON FROM ED CARYL

Dear Dr. Bengtsson, Why Is it CO2 And Not The Sun?

I have several problems with the assumptions made by Lennart Bengtsson in his article Global climate change and its relevance for a global energy policy, but this one is central to the whole argument, and it is a point I raised last week in my article Global Warming Has Peaked…Set To Switch To Cooling. “If You Look At History, This Is Easy To See”. All the CAGW Climatologists make a first, and nearly only, assumption that CO2 drives the global temperature to the exclusion of anything else. I just wish to point out the similarity between his Figure 1, and my graphs below.

Ed_1

Figure 1 is Lennart Bengtsson’s Figure 1.

Ed_2

Figure 2a and 2b are my Figures 6 and 7.

The ratio of y-axis scale in Bengtsson’s Figure 1 is 0.314 °K per W/m2 for CO2 forcing, and in my figures is 0.2875 °C per W/m2 for solar forcing, a difference of less than 10%.

My question to Prof. Bengtsson: So which do you think is driving temperature? A response would be very much appreciated.

 

13 responses to “Warming Theory Doused!! World Leading Meteorologist: “Climate Is In Fact Warming Much Slower Than Anticipated””

  1. Casper

    Holy Crow!
    The next one who is retreating from the battlefield. I bet they soon will be claiming the global cooling is caused by AGW, to save the grants and money…

  2. DirkH

    Ed, pressure broadening of CO2 absorption/re-emission lines is a fact. So there is an undeniable influence of CO2 on temperature.
    That being said, the influence of temperature on CO2 is 10 times bigger via the carbon cycle.
    So, given these numbers, nobody could honestly say that CO2 determines temperature but that temperature determines CO2.
    The entire argument here:
    http://motls.blogspot.de/2012/07/land-biospheres-absorption-of-co2.html

    1. Ed Caryl

      Yes, and most of the change in CO2 comes from the ocean temperature change.
      http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/
      I personally think some of the rise comes also from biosphere changes, but that is harder to prove.

    2. Mindert Eiting

      Dirk, have you read the recent series of blog posts by Claes Johnson?

      1. DirkH

        No; got a link you wanna tell me?

        1. Mindert Eiting
          1. Ed Caryl

            Claes Johnson has nailed it. I understand enough about MODTRAN to understand his explanation. A CO2 increase to 600 ppm will warm 0.5 degrees C, above that cooling begins. This without taking clouds and thunderstorms into account. This completely explains why there has not been run-away warming in the distant past, and why there will be none in the future, no matter what CO2 does.

          2. DirkH

            Basically he argues with Wien’s displacement law. I’ve made a similar argument – typical around 300K surface temperatures emit an outgoing OLR spectrum that is most suited to be intercepted by water vapor, not by CO2 – the peak intensity is between the two CO2 absorption bands. I didn’t relate it to tropopause and stratospheric temperatures though.

            Very interesting. As he says, CO2 interacts at 220K color temperature and at I think 600 K; not at the 300K of the surface.

  3. L Michael Hohmann

    I am getting bored. The globe can be getting warmer or colder, but the idea that the human contribution from burning carbon fuels has anything to do with it is not only IMHO the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever – but so says the IPCC itself: http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/west-is-facing-new-severe-recession.html The ongoing discussion pro and con is becoming akin to the scholastic argument as to how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. Which is, of course, exactly what is intended in order to achieve worldwide disorientation away from the actual IPCC aims of monetary and energy policies – and bringing a whole, if not all, of science into disrepute. Even the UK Royal Society has become Lysenkoist.
    I remember also Buckminster Fuller writing in 1981 [CRITICAL PATH, Hutchinson]:

    “For only a short time, in most countries, has the individual human had the right of trial by jury. To make humanity’s chances for a fair trial better, all those testifying must swear ‘to tell the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth.’ ….. If we don’t program the computer truthfully with all the truth and nothing but the truth, we won’t get the answers that allow us to ‘make it’ “. Used to be called GIGO.
    In that respect the jury is still out.

  4. L Michael Hohmann
  5. Konflikt mellan klimatmodeller och verklighet | Larsil2009's Blog
  6. Jeffrey Eric Grant

    I have almost given up trying to determine where the empirical evidence is to the following question: “Please point me to the scientific study that concludes that atmospheric temperature follows atmospheric concentration of CO2”.

    I have asked this for the past six years since the IPPC’s AR4 to no avail. I have asked the “heavy hitters” as well as quite a few in the bloggosphere. I have received many replies, but no pointers – other than “there is no such study”. The people who should know (the heavy hitters) would not share any insight, only to state that I should do my own study!

    Perhaps http://claesjohnson.blogspot.nl/ will give me the insight I am pursuing…..thanks.