Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research: “Global Warming Could Cool Down Temperatures”

H/t: www.freiewelt.net
This is no joke. Warming now leads to cooling! That’s the latest scientific news that our tax money has bought from Potsdam – from the house of Schellnhuber and Stefan Rahmstorf.This is what happens when you take activist physicists off the street, give them super-computers and a license to forecast. Here’s their press release: =========================================

Global warming could cool down temperatures in winter

11/16/2010 – The overall warming of the earth’s northern half could result in cold winters. The shrinking of sea-ice in the eastern Arctic causes some regional heating of the lower levels of air – which may lead to strong anomalies in atmospheric airstreams, triggering an overall cooling of the northern continents, a study recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows. “These anomalies could triple the probability of cold winter extremes in Europe and northern Asia,” says Vladimir Petoukhov, lead author of the study and climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “Recent severe winters like last year’s or the one of 2005-06 do not conflict with the global warming picture, but rather supplement it.”

The researchers base their assumptions on simulations with an elaborate computer model of general circulation, ECHAM5, focusing on the Barents-Kara Sea north of Norway and Russia where a drastic reduction of ice was observed in the cold European winter of 2005-06. Those surfaces of the sea lacking the ice cover lose a lot of warmth to the normally cold and windy arctic atmosphere. What the researchers did was to feed the computer with data, gradually reducing the sea ice cover in the eastern Arctic from 100 percent to 1 percent in order to analyse the relative sensitivity of wintertime atmospheric circulation.

“Our simulations reveal a rather pronounced nonlinear response of air temperatures and winds to the changes of sea-ice cover,” Petoukhov, a physicist, says. “It ranges from warming to cooling to warming again, as sea ice decreases.” An abrupt transition between different regimes of the atmospheric circulation in the sub-polar and polar regions may be very likely. Warming of the air over the Barents-Kara Sea seems to bring cold winter winds to Europe. “This is not what one would expect,” Petoukhov says. “Whoever thinks that the shrinking of some far away sea-ice won’t bother him could be wrong. There are complex teleconnections in the climate system, and in the Barents-Kara Sea we might have discovered a powerful feedback mechanism.”

Other approaches to the issue of cold winters and global warming referring to reduced sun activity or most recently the gulf stream “tend to exaggerate the effects,” Petoukhov says. The correlation between these phenomena and cold winters is relatively weak, compared to the new findings referring to the processes in the Barents-Kara Sea. Petoukhov also points out that during the cold winter of 2005-06 with temperatures of ten degrees below the normal level in Siberia, no anomalies in the north Atlantic oscillation have been observed. These are fluctuations in the difference of atmospheric pressure between the Icelandic low and the Azores high which are commonly associated with temperature anomalies over Europe. But temperatures in the eastern arctic were up to 14 degrees above normal level. However, distinct anomalies in the north Atlantic oscillation could interact with sea-ice decrease, the study concludes. One could amplify the other and more anomalies would be the result.

Petoukhov’s study is not about tomorrow’s weather forecast but about longtime probabilities of climate change. “I suppose nobody knows,” he says, “how harsh this year’s winter will be.”


It would be nice if these guys got their stories straight. First we were told for years that winters in Europe would be a thing of the past – rare and exciting. Snow in the Alps would disappear and devastate the ski industry, palm trees would grow in Scandinavia, Greenland ice would melt and on and on went the heat-stories. Now they tell us it’s going to get bitter cold.

24 responses to “Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research: “Global Warming Could Cool Down Temperatures””

  1. TinyCO2

    As the majority of the oldest temperature stations are in the northern hemisphere, does it mean that historically measured cold temperatures were actually caused by global warm temperatures? Therefore there never was a LIA and in fact it’s always been this warm? Or have climate scientists started writing peer review papers when they come home from a night out drinking?

  2. DirkH

    I don’t think this guy used a supercomputer. He used a grid width as you used in state of the art models of the 80ies, so probably he’s just one of 270 drones running models on his desktop PC until he gets a result the calfactor wants published. He probably has a limited work contract, and as soon as the politicos need to pull the plug, the bulk of them will soon stack supermarket shelves. Which would be more productive for society than what he does now for a living.

  3. R. de Haan

    In the warmist era all laws of nature are upside down

  4. Ed Caryl

    Check the Ryan Maue Update on this at:
    The original paper ain’t worth the bytes it’s written in!

  5. R. de Haan

    Climatology is the shadiest branch of science, fattened with excessive government green monies and devoid of knowledge or conscience
    No Fool Like A New World Order TOOL

  6. Magnus

    The important thing here, for Schellnhuber and Rahmstorf, is that they can convince the rest of society that they are morally superior, and responsible about human matters, in contrast to deniers.

    That’s the way they keep their commie friends (in Sweden the alarmists mostly are and has been far left activists) and the support from high government which has to be “pro-good”…

    As long as they can play a post-modern theater pretending being good instead of dealing with the real world, in old fashioned science, this AGW hysteria will not end.

    This isn’t an arena for compromises. The post-mordern view, or marxism, btw consists of syntheses.

  7. DirkH

    The fun thing is that the PIK obviously ran out of ammunition. I’m using the German and American google news frontpage as my benchmark for the warmist’s influence on the media. And nothing appears. This PIK study; just no trace. A few days ago we had some old Rahmstorf sea level rise rehashing in the NYT, nothing new or exciting. A year ago the news were full of warmist stories. It’s dead.

    What’s Monbiot doing?

    Badgers! It’s a few days to Cancun and the Moonbat writes about badgers!

    AGW is dead, dead, dead! The German Greens, they still talk about Klimawandel every day – in a country that has the most stable climate over the past 250 years, as E.M.Smith has documented… their god is dead, they only have not noticed…

  8. Edward.

    I had to blink and rub my eyes when I saw this headline!

    Rahmstorf+ Schellnhuber should go on stage as a (Magic/sorcery) double act.

    If one of ’em rang me at 02.30am and said it was dark outside, I’d open the curtains to check.

    But then White is black and black is white in the netherworld these boys inhabit.
    I think they are malevolent incubi, living deep in the Rhon mountains of (Buchonia?) or something……..not real men, their world is so fantastical/demonic.

    You heard it at NTZ, global warming = global cooling (and science just died).

    Good Grief!

  9. Ike

    I guess PIK is prepairing itself to take a position, so if things don´t turn out as announced nobody can blame them in the future for telling us people wrong things. So first it was global warming, then climate change; first warm winters now cold winters….but always they say “may happen”.

  10. Magnus

    Dirk H: “AGW is dead, dead, dead!”

    This may be an over the top rigid and intellectual reply, but…

    I would — unfortunately — say you’re wrong when it comes to politics. Which important politician has recently denied the existence of dangerous AGW? Politicians seems as dedicated as ever to push for political solutions (that unfortunately destroys economy, and destroy environment by wind power, and so on).

    The statement that AGW is dead can’t mean that CO2 is no greenhouse gas, but it’s easy to (mis)interpret it like that. It’s better to say that dangerous AGW (“gloom and doom AGW”) is dead. I would say that in science it has never been supported as a consensus on IPCC. Oreskes, Rohm and others are in this respect liars. Those who are cheated are just wrong (not liars).

    Dangerous AGW is a phenomenon driven by environmentalism; the story about human negative impact on the environment. I think it’s also enabled by within academia a call for …these low EQ physicists to take stand and be responsible against problems, both real problems (HIV, pollution, energy scarcity etc) and the successful AGW spin. (May this imperative has degraded demand for objectiveness?)

    (Also another perspective is the interconnectivity between media and politicians, e g described by Essex and McKitricks in “Taken by Storm”.)

    The dangerous AGW theater may also has been enabled by a methodological trend in science, where the concept of truth has been replaced by constructivism. Defenders of dangerous AGW paradigm says they follow scientific method due to and within Kuhn’s concept of paradigm. The dangerous AGW is here enabled by the consensus concept, which actually isn’t there. So it’s a coup. (The 1996 and 2003 (published 2007) studies by Hans von Storch and Dennis proves the lack of consensus on dangerous AGW.)

    Dangerous AGW, as well as environmentalism, has also been enabled by political (Marxist?) interests who has organized themselves in the academia, where they have gained positions and achieve influence by changing the structure of the academia. Richard Lindzén describes this very well here:


    (I may emphasize that I do not support any conspiracy theory, or -theorists. I think the sound skeptical position is harmed any time one who is considered to be a prominent “climate skeptic” let themselves be used by Info Wars or similar morons, but I can‘t, and has no ambition to, forbid Monckton or Delingpole to do what they want.)

    What I have mentioned here is things which most people hasn’t any idea of, and I’m not sure any politicans in e g Great Britain, or in Sweden (my country), admit that dangerous AGW is dead this, even if they study these facts. Since constructivism as replacement for truth is important in social science, the politics is driven by the stories rather than facts. This is maybe also how they can punish people with noisy wind power (in Sweden any one who suggest just a bit more restrictive immigration than today is immediately labeled as racist or something worse.)

    I think this situation threatens — or has already destroyed parts of — our democracy. (I think Melanie Phillips latest book is about this, but I haven’t read it, and this was, I guess, my own thoughts.)

    1. DirkH

      No politician or journo will admit it. Yet AGW is no more suited to further the agenda for creating new tax revenues, maybe a EU tax or a worldwide UN tax. It’s also of no more use to journos; it drives readers away, and the order for state media to push it (see BBC or ABC, see Jo Nova’s writeups) will vanish as the politicians will not want to be associated with it anymore. That’s what i mean with “dead”.

      It doesn’t mean we won’t see new scares. Biodiversity is a complete copycat scare. They practically did a copy&paste job from the IPCC there. Deutsche Bank and Munich Re are still actively interested in pushing dystopian fabrications. GE and other green industry pushers will try to reposition their technologies as panaceas for the Biodiversity scare. The wheels keep turning. But AGW? It’s a trainwreck.

  11. Pointman

    Today’s installment of the Cancun Week special is available at


    It’s an assessment of the political approach by China to Cancun .


  12. Magnus

    Edward: “global warming = global cooling (and science just died”

    I agree, but their study says is that NH will be cooler in the winters. These computer modeller climate scientist fraud revolutionaries will use this report to assure media and politicians that this winter’s possible cooling is normal, so the environmentalism bandwagon — a political religion — stays intact.

    When it comes to politics — a force behind the concept of dangerous AGW, and environmentalism (alarmism) — Schellnhuber use to describe social equality as the most important way to tackle dangerous AGW. He wants a new economical system. Commie dressed in science.

    Politicians have invested too much prestige in dangerous AGW, and they also — on the left as well as on the right — now eagerly change subject to biodiversity. The new state religion, environmentalism, prevails.

    This is a struggle for sanity, in politics, in schools etc, but people risk their job if they reject environmentalism alarmism. The struggle may be about rejection of views based on obvious conclusion talk (rumor) and science mixed up with claimed consensus. Ordinary people can’t judge in scientific matters, and are less efficient in killing specific issues, like dangerous AGW. Professional insights in science is of course preferable when debating consensus based science.

    This is like war, where people are stigmatized for their opinion. And it happens in other areas too.

    1. Edward.

      Agreed and AGW was always a political fiction, dressed up as science, therefore a perfect vehicle for post normal ‘thinkers’, whatever the climate, whatever the weather…………it’s all down to MM CO2 = global warming.


  13. Juraj V.

    So first winters were warm because of enhanced “greenhouse effect” and when they turn cold, it is just change of air circulation. But it was ALWAYS a matter of air circulation. What drives the cold air into mid latitudes (winter 2009/10), or keeps it locked up high and letting warm air to pour here instead (winter 2006/07) is more of a meteorological question. My bet is, that SST anomalies have a lot to do with it since they dictate blocking events. Nobody yet proved, that rise of CO2 molecules from three to four per 10,000 other molecules in the atmosphere during the last 200 years has been able to alter the atmospheric circulation.

  14. Nonoy Oplas

    Heads I win, Tails you lose. Still now debate, AGW religion still wins, even if they run away from any public debate on the hard science aspect of climate. Like my experience in challenging to debate the warmers here in Manila,

    1. DirkH

      Great to hear a voice from the Philippines! Especially when it’s a “small-government” voice. Gotta explore your blog…

      Greetings from Hamburg, Germany!

  15. Ike

    Now this is interesting. NZZ online interview with Mr. Edenhofer (Co-Chair of Working Group III of the IPCC – deputy director and chief economist of PIK):

    “Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um. Dass die Besitzer von Kohle und Öl davon nicht begeistert sind, liegt auf der Hand. Man muss sich von der Illusion freimachen, dass internationale Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist. Das hat mit Umweltpolitik, mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch, fast nichts mehr zu tun.”


  16. R. de Haan
  17. Antarctic Ice Explosion

    […] as we expose day by day. Don’t be surprised if soon another model or paper comes out claiming global warming is causing more ice! Read here. Call it desperate pre-emptive damage […]

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