German Meteorology Professor: Don’t Expect Warming Until Mid Century! … CO2 Models “Have A Fundamental Problem”!

Meteorology professor emeritus Dr. Horst Malberg writes at the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE):

As is evident from the last 15 years, the CO2-driven climate models (and the people pushing them) have a fundamental problem: They did not, or falsely predicted, the current climate development.”

Malberg writes in the conclusion:

The anthropogenic CO2 impact on climate is greatly over-estimated by the climate models and uncritical media, as the recent climate development clearly shows.”

To support this he presents charts that clearly tell us the warming has stopped:

Global annual mean temperature and climate trend since 1970 and climate prognoses since 2001 (blue curve). Chart source: Horst Malberg

 It’s not only global atmospheric temperatures that have been cooling, but so have sea surface temperatures:

 Annual sea surface temperature anomalies in the Pacific ENSO region. Chart source: Horst Malberg

Malberg also cites a paper appearing in Nature (August 2013) by Yu Kosaka and Shang-Ping Xie, who conclude that the missing warming since 1998 can be explained in large part by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), i.e. a natural climate process. Their model of global warming showed that about 60% (0.4°C) of the 0.68°C warming occurring between 1975-1998 can be explained by the PDO.

The decline in PDO intensity that then began in the late 1990s corresponds to the end of global warming:

 Annual mean temperature anomalies 1975 – 2013. Chart Source: Horst Malberg

In his report at EIKE, Malberg goes into further detail on the PDO’s impact on global climate. He writes that the ocean alone is an internal, secondary climate factor, and that it is not the primary climate driver. And because global temperatures are not responding to rising CO2, the trace gas can no longer be regarded as being a main driver behind climate.

Solar activity today comparable to Dalton Minimum

As the primary factor driving climate, Malberg believes it is the sun. The following charts shows the mean value for sunspot activity since 1679 along with mean Central European temperature anomaly:

Chart source: Horst Marlberg

The above two charts show a striking similarity. Malberg writes at EIKE:

Because of empirical analyses on climate change since the Little Ice Age and analyses of the behavior of the ENSO (BWK SO 18/10 and SO 05/12), we can assume that the integral (direct and indirect) solar impact on decadal climate scales is the primary and original factor.”

And adds:

With solar cycle 23 came a drastic decrease in solar activity, with a mean sunspot count of 40 in the current solar cycle 24. Such a collapse in solar activity was last seen 200 years ago during the solar Dalton-Minimum.”

The German meteorologist also says that the sun’s current activity is “without a doubt comparable to that of the Dalton-Minimum and corresponds to the approximately 200-year solar activity oscillation of the de Vries cycle“.

No warming until the middle of the 21st century

Malberg writes near the end of the essay that according to the 200-year cycle, no warming can be expected until the solar activity starts picking up again in the middle of 21st century:

The observed data of the last 300 years speak a clear language: The ‘fickle sun’ as the primary driver is what decides the fundamental extent of the cooling and the warming. The climate hypothesis of the dominance of the anthropogenic climate influence belongs immediately under scrutiny. The anthropogenic CO2 influence on climate behavior is greatly exaggerated by climate models and the uncritical media – as the recent climate developments clearly show.”

Professor Dr. Horst Malberg is the former director of the Meteorological Institute at the Free University of Berlin and a member of the EIKE Committee.

Also read: here/


19 responses to “German Meteorology Professor: Don’t Expect Warming Until Mid Century! … CO2 Models “Have A Fundamental Problem”!”

  1. Martin

    The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis would not have taken such gigantic proportion without the explicit, propagandistic, shameful, bias, support by the media. It would have been impossible to implement so called green policies if medias had the bare minimum journalistic integrity that we should expect from any media.

    1. Recovering Lutheran

      The irony is that journalists themselves are often woefully ignorant when it comes to science and technology. In their world an “expert” is anyone who tells them what they want to hear.

  2. Kurt in Switzerland

    Dr. Malberg needs to watch his backside.

    There are some powerful forces who will “not be amused” with his conclusions.

    Kurt in Switzerland

    1. DirkH

      He’s a prof emeritus. He can say what he wants. Leftist shocktroops are busy with other things; rise of the Euroskeptics.

  3. D o u g   C o t t o n

    The 60 year cycle should bring 30 years of warming between about 2030 and 2060. In the long run, the 1,000 year cycle will head for 500 years of cooling after perhaps another half degree of warming over the next 100 years.

    It’s all natural as you will understand if you read this …

    Loschmidt was the brilliant 19th century physicist who was the first in the world to successfully estimate the size of air molecules – within a factor of 2 or so anyway. We can assume Loschmidt thought about what those molecules did, and, with the knowledge of the fact that gas molecules were far smaller than the space between them, the world saw the beginning of Kinetic Theory being applied to “ideal” gases with documented assumptions that I encourage you all to read, because Kinetic Theory was successfully used by Einstein and others, and from it we can derive the well known ideal gas laws. We can also derive (in just two lines) the magnitude of the so-called dry adiabatic lapse rate without using those gas laws or any pressure data.

    It’s not hard to visualise what Loschmidt did, namely molecules moving around at random and colliding with others rather like billiard balls. When they collide they share their kinetic energy, and as a result, we see diffusion of kinetic energy which results in a tendency towards equal temperatures in a horizontal plane. We have all observed such diffusion in our homes when warmth from a heater spreads across the room.

    But, when those molecules move in free frictionless flight between collisions the assumptions of kinetic theory include the “classical treatment” of their dynamics, noting that “because they have mass the gas molecules will be affected by gravity.” And so Newtonian mechanics tell us that the sum of kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy remains constant.

    But, as a gas spontaneously approaches thermodynamic equilibrium it is approaching a state in which there are no unbalanced energy potentials. That state is isentropic, having (PE+KE)=constant at all heights, and this means that KE varies and, as Kinetic Theory tells us, temperature also varies in proportion to the mean kinetic energy of the molecules.

    It does not matter that the final state is never completely materialised, and so entropy will still be increasing. We are considering what happens as we approach a limit, just as in calculus. Entropy will keep increasing until that limit is achieved, but it never is because, with a new day dawning more solar energy is added causing a significant disturbance to the process and moving it further away from equilibrium. Never-the-less, by the following night if there are calm conditions, the state of thermodynamic equilibrium will again be approached.

    Over the life of the planet the temperature gradient has obviously evolved on all planets with significant atmospheres, and it also occurs in sub-surface regions such as Earth’s outer crust and inside the Moon.

    The empirical evidence is that Loschmidt was right and that Maxwell erred on just this particular issue wherein molecular studies were perhaps not his specialty. The huge significance of this is that there is no need for any greenhouse radiative forcing to explain planetary atmospheric and surface temperatures. These cannot be explained at all by radiation calculations – only by the gravity gradient. The trillion dollar question is thus, was Loschmidt right?

    1. DirkH

      Well said, Doug. Miskolczi used the Virial theorem in his theory and was quite astounded that scientists in the West didn’t use it when describing atmospheric energy exchange; he said its applicability to the atmosphere is taught in the universities of the East as a matter of fact.

      IR-active gases just provide another means of vertical energy exchange.

  4. Edward.

    I cannot speak for Germany but I can say that, here in the UK the media and political elite have decided that man made warming is real and there will be no turning back, the recent wet winter – mainly in the south erroneously confirmed their bias – “climate change” [or a euphemism for man made global warming] will make winters wetter, blah blah.

    We are approaching an energy crisis, next year Britain will begin to decommission some major coal fired power stations under the LCPD – an EU diktat and the lights will go off in winter 2015 in cyclonic conditions – we will have no extra capacity and an outage will trip the whole creaking system – we could be looking at many days if not weeks in the dark.
    Meanwhile, from sunny country to cold northen nation at 50ºN………. Spanish solar companies are relocating to Britain to peddle their useless technologies. Funnily enough, for economic reasons the Spanish ended their feed in subsidies whereas in the UK we are still paying – yes Spain to Britain, if that ain’t lunacy of the first order – I don’t know what is.

    But then, the whole mmCO2 emissions= warming, was a crazy political fiction – from the very start.

  5. Buddy

    “But then, the whole mmCO2 emissions= warming, was a crazy political fiction – from the very start.”

    Yes…..what WAS Svante Arrhenius thinking back in the 1890’s (125 years ago) when he discovered the warming effect of CO2?

    Must have been that the “liberal elite” got to him early…:)

    1. Recovering Lutheran

      Ah, yes – global warming was “settled science” even 125 years ago, evidence to the contrary be damned.

    2. DirkH

      4. März 2014 at 14:03 | Permalink | Reply
      “Yes…..what WAS Svante Arrhenius thinking back in the 1890′s (125 years ago) when he discovered the warming effect of CO2?”

      Arrhenius also believed that electric fields in classrooms would make pupils smarter.

    3. Ed Caryl
  6. D o u g   C o t t o n

    The greenhouse conjecture is demolished by the Loschmidt effect.

    It is wrong to assume Loschmidt’s gravitationally induced thermal gradient does not evolve spontaneously in a gravitational field. It is the isentropic state of maximum entropy with no further unbalanced energy potentials. You cannot explain why the Venus surface temperature rises by 5 degrees spread over the course of its 4-month-long day with any radiative forcing conjecture or greenhouse philosophy. The Venus surface receives barely 10% of the direct Solar radiation that Earth’s surface receives. It would need over 16200 W/m^2 if radiation were heating the surface. Then, during sunlit hours it would need an extra 450W/m^2 to raise the temperature from about 732K to 737K. On Earth, if isothermal conditions were supposedly existing without water vapor and other greenhouse gases, then the sensitivity to water vapor would be about 10 degrees per 1% atmospheric content. But there is no evidence that a region with 1% above it is 30 degrees colder than another region at similar altitude and latitude with 4% above it. The effective surface layer of Earth’s oceans may be considered to be only 1cm thick, or even if 10cm thick it is still very transparent to insolation. But a black or grey body does not transmit radiation, and the surface layer absorbs less than 1% of that incident solar radiation. So the S-B calculations are totally incorrect and planetary surface temperatures cannot be calculated using such.

    This is where the error crept in in 1985 …

    “Coombes and Laue concluded that answer (1) is the correct one and answer (2) is wrong. They reached this conclusion after finding that statement (2a) is wrong, i.e., the average kinetic energy of all molecules does not decrease with the height even though the kinetic energy of each individual molecule does decrease with height.

    These authors give at first a qualitative explanation of this fact by noting that since both the kinetic energy of the molecules and the number density of molecules decrease with height, the average molecular kinetic energy does not necessarily decrease with height.”

    This is absurd. They had the mean kinetic energy decreasing in each molecule, but then they divided again by the number. Try calculating a mean by dividing twice by the number of elements. A glaring error. The Loschmidt effect has NOT been debunked by this nonsense.

    Velasco, S., Román, F.L., White, J.A. (1996). On a paradox concerning the temperature distribution of an ideal gas in a gravitational field, Eur. J. Phys., 17: 43–44.

  7. tom0mason

    Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear.
    This is not a good report for those AGW ‘CO2 cooked my planet’ alarmists.
    If Dr. Horst Malberg is only hlf right then it’s bad. If he is correct (and I fear he is) then this is terrible.

    AGWers where is my global warming. After 60 years of paying for it, I’ve bought it, I want it, or my money back!

  8. John F. Hultquist

    professor emeritus

    I noticed this also. I wonder what he wrote before the emeritus part took hold?

    Buddy is here. Good. You might help us understand this:

  9. Paul Vaughan

    Recent solar-terrestrial update with new data:

    New (refers to detrended version of blue solar cycle deceleration curve illustrated above):

    multidecadal sun-climate (aka ‘stadium’) wave expression in sea surface temperature field:
    (in sixteenth-of-a-wave phase-steps)

    Credit: Map animation facilitated by KNMI Climate Explorer.

    So equator-pole insolation-gradient spatiotemporal-frequency-shift (trivial extension of Milankovitch) modulates annual circulatory topology (in spatiotemporal central limit), causing significant regional deviations from the longer sunspot amplitude integral (the red wave (which tracks global cumulative water heating)).

    It’s a lot simpler than anyone seems willing to say (at this point in time). If it weren’t for the intrusive politics, this wouldn’t be controversial at all and mainstream researchers would run off to extend these trivial insights radially. Countless new studies can be based on these core insights.

    I’ll animate the SST field expression of the longer (red sunspot integral) wave another day. There’s also a global volcanic optical depth seesaw pattern worth illustrating another day. Along with ENSO scrambling, it can easily throw naive explorers (unaware of law-governed constraints) fatally off (the sun-climate) track.


    1. DirkH

      Paul, as usual you sound like you just fell out of a UFO, but thanks for keeping us updated. Interesting correlations.

      1. Paul Vaughan

        KNMI Climate Explorer suggests the p-values are something ridiculously low (like less than 0.0000000001 over most of the globe), indicating extremely high statistical significance. But even so I just can’t get into inference based on assumptions. I’m doing diagnostics the more careful way — i.e. by inspecting residual patterns carefully (manually) rather than letting a computer overlook what it was never programmed to see…

        More details some other days.


  10. Oliver K. Manuel

    The AGW debate could be resolved quickly if mainstream scientists will publicly address nine pages of precise experimental data (pp. 19-27) that falsify the foundation of post-1945 consensus models of stars and nuclei:

    These data are from the world’s top-ranked research institutions, e.g.,

    1. Max Planck Institut für Chemie – Otto Hahn Institut
    2. Universität Bern, Physikalisches Institut
    3. California Institute of Technology
    4. Brookhaven National Laboratory
    5. The Imperial University of Tokyo
    6. University California – Berkeley
    7. University California – La Jolla
    8. Washington University
    9. University of Chicago
    10. University of Missouri
    11. University of Arkansas
    12. Etc., etc.

    Yet, no member of the US NAS, the UK RS, or the UN’s IPCC has accepted an open invitation to address these data in public.

    In exchange for sixty-eight years (2014 – 1946) of deception about the source of energy (NEUTRON REPULSION) in cores of

    1. Heavy atoms like Uranium
    2. Some planets like Jupiter
    3. Ordinary stars like the Sun
    4. Galaxies like the Milky Way

    Humanity reaped only energy poverty and a tyrannical one-world government.

    With deep regrets,
    – Oliver K. Manuel

  11. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?