Co-author of “The Neglected Sun“/geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning made a presentation at the 7th International Conference for Climate and Energy in Mannheim, Germany, back in April. EIKE has now put it up. The presentation is in German and so I am providing below a round up of the main points made by Lüning.
Lüning starts by reminding the listeners that geology is key to understanding the past, which in turn can help us to better understand the present and provide valuable clues of what to expect in the future.
The German geologist is a specialist in the geology of Africa. The scientitific literature shows that the Sahara was green a mere 6000 years ago, and his slide at the 0:45 mark show remnants of that time.
Remnants of a green Sahara, 6000 years ago.
Back then, in the mid Holocene, it was 1 – 2°C warmer than it is today and the Sahara was teeming with wildlife.
At the 2:20 mark Lüning shows a slide of cave painting, in the middle of the Sahara, depicting wildlife seen at the time:
Cave paintings of wildlife in the middle of the Sahara.
The changes over the Holocener period clearly are greater than what we are seeing today and are due to natural flcutucations, primarily solar activity. Lüning adds at the 3:40 mark:
This is a geological context that unfortunately is lost on many people like physicists who believe their formulae more than they believe the true facts.”
Greenland is cooling
At the 4:10 mark Lüning brings up the Axforf paper of 2013, which shows Greenland was “2 – 3°C warmer 6000 to 4000 years ago than it is today” and that the ice survived.
At the 5:00 mark he presents a 2013 paper by Lecavalier et al showing that Greenland has cooled 2.5°C over the last 8000 years.
Greenland has cooled 2.5°C over the last 8000 years.
On his slide Lüning writes:
Despite the thousands of years of continuous warmth, the dramatic ice collapse never occurred.”
At the 6:00 mark Lüning shows a chart from Bob Carter, also showing nothing unusual is happening, Co2 playing only a minor role.
At the 7:30 mark Lüning brings up the IPCC 1990 millennium temperature chart that distinctly shows a warmer Medieval Warm Period and a little ice age. At the 8:30 various hockey sticks are shown, which Lüning describes as “incorrect”. “Even Michael Mann had to admit that he had exaggerated”.
Climate driven by solar activity
Starting at the 9:45 mark, his charts show that solar activity correlates well with temperature, which Lüning calls “a surprisingly good match”. He then presents the various solar cycles that the sun undergoes, going into the works of Gerard Bond, who made temperature reconstructions using layers of ice-rafted material in the North Atlantic. Lüning calls the synchronicity between solar activity and temperature found by Bond “stunning”. See chart 13:20 mark below)
Strong correlation between solar activity and temperature.
At around the 14:00 mark Lüning recounts how he naively expected an explanation from Rahmstorf on why Bond’s findings were being ignored. Rahmstorf replied that “Bond’s cycles could not be reproduced by other groups” and that “Bond himself later stopped believing in his cycles” and that “Bond cycles are a scientific dead-end”.
But at the 14:45 mark, Lüning clearly shows this was not true, and presents a 2003 paper by Hu et al, where Bond is one of the co-authors. That paper too also showed a good correlation between solar activity and temperature over the last 12,000 years. Here the theory was enforced, rather than not being reproducible, as Rahmstorf falsely claimed. Another 2005 paper that included Bond as a co-author is shown at the 15:45 mark.
Clear solar signal found worldwide
Lüning then shows other papers showing solar activity driving climate patterns all over the world, in places like Australia, Oman, North Caorlina, China. He sums them up in chart at the 17:04 mark.
IPCC models have no chance of success
Lüning says that there is clearly a solar signal in climate over the millenniums, and therefore says the IPCC models have no chance of ever successfully modeling the climate. He says that the IPCC models have gotten worse, and not better.
Lüning at the 20:00 mark presents evidence showing that the recent warming is due primarily to the extremely high level of solar activity over the 20th century. Even the flowrate of the Parana River in South America is in sync with solar activity (21:45). Even Lake Victoria fluctuates in sync with solar activity (22:30).
Lüning then brings up the solar amplifier and Svensmark’s theory (23:20) and that cloud formation is modulated by cosmic ray intensity, which in turn is modulated by the sun’s magnetic field. Lüning believes such research deserves some funding (applause) and that the sun acting as one of the major climate modulators makes perfect sense.
Warming of last 20 years “statistically insignificant”
At the 28:00 mark he calls the warming of the last 20 years “statistically insignificant” and says it has indeed stagnated no matter which dataset you look at. At the 28:15 mark he shows how the IPCC’s previous prognoses are “all too hot”, see following figure:
Models have all been false.
At the 29:00 mark he calls the recent claims of an unprecedented warning unjustified and shows that similar warming episodes have occurred in the past. Even Phil Jones admits it.
Ocean cycles responsible for the 1980-2000 warming
At the 30:00 mark Lüning says the natural oceanic cycles have been responsible for the recent decadal temperature fluctuations, and at least for half of the most recent 1980 – 2000 warming. The remaining half has to be responsibly assigned to the other factors. At the 31:20 mark, he believes that cooling is ahead for the 20 years:
Cooling projected for the next 20 years.
He thinks it is also possible that the low solar activity will lead to a cooling of one or two tenths of a degree Celsius over the next 5 years, which he says “could be very interesting for the discussion” (32:00). He cites Judith Curry. At the 33:00 mark he cites other papers showing that CO2 climate sensitivity has been overstated and needs to be corrected.
At the 37:30 mark Lüning tells the listeners he expects a huge drop in overall solar activity to take hold in the decades ahead and global temperatures to drop by 0.2°C by 2030 (see following chart).
Lüning believes 0.2°C cooling is possible by 2030.
All graphics cropped from Lüning’s presentation with permission.
28 responses to “German Geologist: IPCC Models A Failure, “Have No Chance Of Success”…Sees Possible 0.2°C Of Cooling By 2020”
Good presentation that shows how vast the IPCC’s blind spot truly is in the field of climate science.
Thank you very much for providing this guide to his presentation.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2014/06/29/german-geologist-ipcc-models-a-failure-have-no-chance-of-success-… […]
I am sorry that this is off topic, but this has been discussed before. The Temperature data sets are inaccurate. There is a very important Thread on WUWT where Anthony Watts has admitted that Stephen Goddard has been correct all along. The USHCN data has been manipulated by the keepers of the data by Cooling the Past and Warming the Current period.
Not enough Climate Forums are picking up this story, which is huge as it has turned a currently cooling globe in to a warming one by Infilling data on very large numbers of Stations, some of which are no longer even in use.
The comments of the defenders of the “faith” are also very enlightening.
We’re all aware of this development and it comes as no surprise that the US-maintained datasets appear to be in shambles. I think Anthony will be keeping us up to date on a response that we are now awaiting from NCDC, or whoever the hell is responsible. Personally I think the matter has gotten lots of international attention and the problem isn’t going to go away.
Not just the USA data. The Australian and NZ data that is fed into the Hadcrut, Giss sets etc. is manipulated. See http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/ or http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/ where I quote
“In Part 1 of this series I showed a 66.6% increase in warming trend of Australian annual minimum temperatures caused by adjustments to the ‘raw’ data. This was based on analysis of 83 of the 104 Acorn sites, as I restricted my study to only those sites with at least 24 months overlap between old and new stations within 30 kilometres.”
As Warwick Hughes pointed out in 1 year the Bureau of Meteorology thought it necessary to adjust 359 minimum temperatures by up to 1.5℃.
There have been no consequences for Jeff Corzine of MF Global fame; what makes you think any climate scientist will feel the need to suddenly become honest about temperatures. They have built their careers on fabrications; they won’t change anything; and no administration will hold them accountable.
I am no art critic, but when I enlarged that cave painting, it seemed to me that it is a fine piece of work.
The Tassili frescoes show a great detail of animal life in the Sahara then. Giraffes, Elephants, hippopotami (proving existing permanent water) and grazing animals.
Also a tame leopard? or cheetah. And a developed social life.
Recently, archaeologists have decided there were 2 periods of occupation coinciding with warm periods but divided by a cold period (see Holocene Optimum temperature records).
Graeme No 3 I suggest that some parts of these cave paintings are modern, particularly the females have a thin waist and the man with modern clothes towards the middle at the bottom. Stick figures are more realist for ancient drawings.
However, there is better geological evidence that the climate was better in early Eygptian times.
The link below takes you to the web site of the magazine Aramco World:
The current issue is highlighted and the small buttons (Cover & 1, …, 6) are links. Pick the Cover and then link 3. The story is relevant to this post. I don’t know if the full article is available. We get the print edition – it’s free.
So Rahmstorf thinks Bond cycles are a scientific dead end.
“Im Jahr 2003 identifizierte der Klimaforscher Stefan Rahmstorf einen 1470-Jahre-Zyklus, in welchem das Phänomen auftrat. Als Erklärung für die Ereignisse schlug man im Jahr 2004 Ozeanzirkulationsmoden vor. In einer Folgestudie, die 2005 durchgeführt wurde, konnte die Periodizität auf eine Überlagerung zweier bekannter Aktivitätszyklen der Sonne zurückgeführt werden. ”
Translation: In 2003 Rahmstorf identified a 1470 year cycle for the phenomenon. Suggested explanation were ocean circulation modes. In a follow up study in 2005 the periodicity correlated with the superposition of two known activity cycles of the sun.
It looks like it took Rahmstorf a while to see where the bread is buttered.
I have a methodological problem: How do ten thousands of years with strong sun-temperature correlations prove dat human activity cannot possibly have had some inpact over the last hundred years?
Almost nobody claims that human activity has had “no” impact. The dispute is over how much impact.
it is possible that man’s CO2 contribution changed the atmosphere so that 1 part in 10,000 changed to CO2. (100ppm changed to CO2) since 1880.
Consider the effects of changing 1/10,000th of the atmosphere and compare it to the effects of the ocean cylces, the sun, global extent of clouds, height of clouds, water vapor, planetary orbits, earths wind patterns and the earths magnetic field. And let’s not forget to add in random natural cyclic climate change of whatever reason that we don’t even know about.
The final graph in this post – Lü_7.gif – has a mistake.
It shows the IPCC 2007 trend line starting in 2000.
Dr Lunings forecasts are very similar to mine.
For predictions of the timing and extent of the possible future cooling based on the 60 and 1000 year quasi periodical cycles in the temperature data and using the neutron count- 10 Be record as the best proxy for solar :activity” see esp Figs 3,4,5,6,7,8 (esp 8 C and D),9,at
RE “Greenland is cooling”
See the first article at this link. The data is from Wolfram Alpha, so you can check it for yourself (follow instructions under figure in article).
Bottom line, the average temp of Greenland had been relatively stable at -5 deg C from about 1983 to 1997 when it began to drop. Over the course of 3 years it fell to -25 deg C. It’s been going up and down a bit since 2000, but on average it’s been almost 20 deg C COLDER in Greenland for the past 13 years than it was for the previous 14.
Yes, I would say Greenland has indeed “cooled.”
I have a question about the graph with climate models by dr. Spencer: how can hadcrut4 and uah both start at zero in 1983? And why is he using that peculiar baseline?
Are the baselines even identical for all graphs?
All normalized to zero at 1983.
Thank you, Dirk, but that does not quite answer my question on baselines. I see that he uses only the four preceding years as the baseline, which is not very much. Normally a climatologic baseline is 30 years. It looks as if the author selected its values to make his point.
Also there should be far more information in a complicated graph like this. I still am ignorant on the parameters used for the models, the location of the measurements (world or a specific region?), the relation between troposphere and surface temp – in short, all the stuff I tried to teach my students for thirty years on presenting their experiments. Worrying.
Having said that, I do not dispute that the climate models generally come out higher than the actual temperature. But science should be different from propaganda.
“I see that he uses only the four preceding years as the baseline, which is not very much. Normally a climatologic baseline is 30 years. It looks as if the author selected its values to make his point.”
What kind of confused sophistry is that? You normalize them and see how they develop. I’m sick and tired of all that anomalist language. A comparison is a comparison. Live with it.
Nobody takes people whose models are 97% false seriously any more.
Dear Dirk, I do not quite understand why you get angry when I ask a normal question. If I offended somebody I apologize.
Still, it is peculiar that Spencer chooses the top of the four year range to calibrate for zero. Also, I am still not clear on how the baselines for the models and the UAH-Hadcrut compare.
All I ask that somebody explains to me how exactly this graph is constructed, so I can rule out all misunderstandings.
What difference does it make to the differences?
The “anomaly” is defined as the difference from a “baseline”, which is the average temperature over 30 years; a NUMBER.
This NUMBER becomes irrlevant when you take all the time series from all the models, and a measurement time series like RSS or UAH, and re-offset them such that they are all zero on your graph at a certain time.
You don’t care for the baseline because you are not interested in the anomaly, you are interested in the differences between the time series.
MODELS INSPIRED BY POST MODERN “SCIENCE”
I.e., garbage in garbage out exposed. But they won’t stop lying, because you don’t have to fool all the people all the time, and there’s too much money at stake.
[…] fundet via No Trix Zone […]