German veteran meteorologist Klaus Eckhart Puls writes a piece at the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) on what he calls the “glaring contradiction between IPCC prognoses and reality”. Rather than increasing 0.2°C per decade, global temperatures over the past decade have actually declined.
Global mean temperature hasn’t risen in over 10 years. (Chart K.E. Puls)
Warmist Max Planck Institute now in a state of panic
Since Fritz Vahrenholt’s and Sebastian Lüning’s skeptic book “Die kalte Sonne” has become a German bestseller, major German climate institutes have gone in a state of panic to salvage global warming scenarios. They refuse to acknowledge that observed data deviate completely from their model projections. Instead they have undertaken a massive campaign to feed the media panic machine by unveiling their “latest model projections” which shows the planet is warming rapidly. However, the observed trends tell the opposite story.
The Max Plank Institute (MPI) for Climate Research in Hamburg and the Alfred Wegener Institute in Bremen last week went on a professional media blitz, claiming that temperatures are going to climb faster than ever and that the Arctic ice cap will melt – all based on their latest computer models, which will become part of the IPCC 5th Assessment Report. Why do they ignore reality and real observed data and focus on crystal ball projections?
Puls writes:
The most beautiful catastrophe from the computer crystal ball – the so called climate model – is always juicier than the arduous look at reality, which looks entirely different.”
Puls makes his point using charts from observed data and trends. Here I will present only the global data charts. Here’s what the Daily Mail said a month ago (see blue text in chart):
Here’s the global trend over the last 10 years:
Falling global temperatures (Chart: K.E. Puls)
The above chart is from data from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia – a leading provider of climate data to the IPCC. Where’s the warming catastrophe? Answer: in the climate crystal balls of the Max Planck Institute and others only, and nowhere else!
Modellers ignore natural factors sun and oceans, massively inflate CO2
So why do their models continue to produce only warming? It is because the modellers are deliberately ignoring major climate driving factors such as ocean cycles, solar cycles and their amplification mechanisms, and wrongfully transfering their respective warming effects over to human-emitted CO2. Volumes of data and the trends of the last 15 years show this is wrong to do – but they continue to intentionally do it anyway.
From wrong science to fraud science
Deliberately ignoring the major natural factors while wildly exaggerating another, despite the volumes of data out there, has been going on in the IPCC models for years now. We’ve seen the culture of deception in the Hockey Stick, Al Gore’s exaggerated AIT, Climategate, Hansen’s adjustments and just recently with the behavior of Peter Gleick. With every passing year, scientists have noticed the widening deviation between their models and reality, yet they continue to ignore the major factors of sun, oceans and soot, and they manipulate the models even more to make CO2 appear as the culprit.
This systematic fudging and manipulation of models is increasingly fitting the definitions of criminal fraud. Unless the IPCC changes its course and starts acknowledging the sun, oceans and soot in its models in its next report, then the public will have grounds to sue them for fraud in a class action suit. The sheer weight of the data showing that the sun, oceans, etc. have considerable impacts is overwelming and can no longer be ignored in good faith.
A society the feels defrauded needs to start taking the legal steps to begin moving the case forward. It can be argued that the line between wrong science and fraud science was crossed long ago and that the hand of justice needs to intervene.
German readers can read more about Klaus-Eckhart Puls’s piece at EIKE here and “Die kalte Sonne, here“.
It occured to me in attempts at debate with William M. Connolley on the “Omitted Variable Fraud” thread on WUWT (he ignored me, BTW) that the modelers have a very simple means of achieving whatever future prediction they want.
a) Any model must maintain conservation of energy – in each time step, energy between cells can only be redistributed, not created or destroyed. This is something that goes easily wrong, so they really do test that that holds; an error here would be too blatant.
b) Energy comes in from the sun. This is modelled as largely constant; with which I agree. TSI won’t change much.
c) Energy leaves only to space.
By controlling c) they control the temperature of the model. That’s why they are so relaxed when one tells them, look, you try to model a chaotic system, your simulation MUST go off the rails in no time. They know it can’t happen – they simply control the energy that leaves to space.
And how do they do it? Simple.
The Aerosol fudge factor. Control the thermalization of photons by aerosols and you have a control knob for the energy content of the model. After decades of research, there are still large uncertainties about the forcing caused by aerosols, and even whether it’s net positive or negative.
They have no intention of changing that. If experiments would narrow down the range they would lose this very simple means of tuning the models to whatever warming they like. There is to my knowledge no research other than more modeling going on with regards to the aerosol forcing. That modeling will of course deliver exactly the right results to justify the model’s behaviour; a scientific shell game, a tautology; an obfuscation for the public.
I am certain that no form of arguing with the warmist religion will ever convince them otherwise. Let them end up as martyrs in jail after litigation has shown them up for the fraudsters they are. The law is the last resort, so be it.
In the text, three lines below the man’s photograph, the phrase “the Arctic ice cap” is used. I think skeptics ought not to use this phrase and when quoting from elsewhere it should be noted as an error. Usually, in English, this is done with : (sic)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic
A more truthful phrase is: floating Arctic Ocean ice
This might be helpful to some. Consider the statement by Henry Waxman that WUWT used as Quote of the week #5, back in April of 2009:
“. . . there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap . . .”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/quote-of-the-week-5-waxmans-stunningly-stupid-statement/
@John F Hultquist
Well, there is an Ice cap in the Arctic : in Greenland. This is probably the idea behind “the Arctic ice cap”, although it is not the proper term. I think that most people understand that.
Fair enough comment, and I agree. However, there isn’t “a lot of tundra” under the Greenland ice and it hasn’t been the focus of all those claiming “an ice free Arctic” in the not too distant future. It has been the floating ice that Al Gore made famous with comments and photos of “doomed” polar bears. I think it is a good strategy to always distinguish between frozen ocean and land-ice.
According to Alex Rawls , one of the review authors on the latest IPCC reports [AR5] , IPCC gives CO2 40 times the weight factor in climate forcing that it gives to solar effects . He could not reveal the exact figures but said the AR4 figure was 1.66 W^m2 and for the sun it was 0.12W^m2 which was 13.8 times more. With this kind of reasoning their answers will again be high and wrong . http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/#more-57212
There is an interesting post on Paul Hudson’s blog .
As regards 2011 as a whole, according to the Met Office, 2011 was the 12th warmest year in their 150 years of global temperature records with an anomaly of 0.346C.
This compares to their 2011 forecast of 0.44C.
Although this discrepancy is within the stated margin of error, it is the 11th year out of the last 12 when the Met Office global temperature forecast has been too warm.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2012/02/met-office-global-forecasts-to.shtml
If these organizations were to admit their continued high bias , It would be game over for them. They have little credibility any more if they continue to under estimate the solar influence in my opinion. We are headed for more continued low solar activity and warming of the kind we just had is not in the cards for many decades
I might point out that Girma Orssengo with his simple mathematical model using an overlay formula of hadcrut 3gl for Global Mean Temperature predicted 2011 at 0.375 C. His has been by far the best of the predictions
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/image2.jpg
Girma’s model looks much like what the FAO has here, look at page 50.
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e08.pdf
Their model is based on LOD (Length Of Day); the temperature anomaly in the upper graph is detrended.
Also look here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/22/wuwt-poll-what-should-we-call-the-current-solar-minimum/
Peter Taylor (12:11:31) :
“In Theodore Landscheidt’s ‘Sun, Earth, Man’ published in 1989, and his
2003 paper ‘New Little Ice Age instead of Global Warming’ Energy &
Environment , Vol 14 no 2&3, he makes the prediction that the sun will
enter either a Dalton-type or Maunder-type minimum in the first cycles
of the 21st century. He predicted that 1990 would be the peak of sunspots
(cycle 22) and that cycle 23 peaking in 2000-2001 would be lower, and
that cycle 24 would be much lower, with 25 leading into the minimum.
He reckoned there was an 85% chance that it would be a Maunder-type
minimum and that by 2030 we would be in the depth of a new Little Ice Age.
”
It must be noted that Girma as well as the FAO have the ~60 year cycle right but have not taken into account the possible grand minimum Landscheidt talks about, and which seems to materialize – already driving the first warmist extremists mad.
Dirk H
Had you seen the sunspot graphs on this web
http:/ /www.climate4you.com/.
I’m regularly looking at WUWT’s temperature and solar reference pages. Yeah, we’re approaching the solar maximum and there’s barely a spot. Soon they will all disappear according to Penn and Livingston.
According to Anthony Watts, they’re expected to disappear around 2015-2017…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/13/solar-activity-still-driving-in-the-slow-lane/#comment-679528
Dirk H
One of the things that those who feel that the sun is the prime surface climate forcer through the oceans rather than CO2 is to better explain solar/ocean/ atmosphere mechanism. There appears to be a lag time between the solar event and the rise in global atmospheric temperatures. This time varies but active solar events [typically 3-5 years long] around a solar maximum from one solar cycle may not always be felt in the atmosphere until sometime during the following solar cycle. There is no better example to illustrate this point than the biggest El Nino on record, namely the one 1n 1878. The starting point was the solar cycle # 11 which ran from 1867- 1878 and peaked at sunspot number of 139. The most active period was from 1869-to 1873 with the max in 1870. Approximately 9 years later in 1878 you have one of the biggest atmosphere temperature spikes in modern history. The Southern Hemisphere SST temperature anomaly [hadSST2] in 1876 was -0.471C and by 1878 it was around -0.148 C and by 1887 it was down to -0.461C.[see graph below] The Northern Hemisphere SST also started to rise in1877 and peaked at+ 0.084 C that year The Southern Hemisphere ocean temperatures started to go up in1874 and also peaked in 1878 and then went down. The global temperature anomaly [hadcrut3gl] was -0.400 C in 1876, peaked at +0.028C in 1878 and went down again to 0.386 C by 1887. What put all that heat first into the oceans and then into the atmosphere? .
There is evidence going back to 1860, that the Southern Hemisphere Oceans were already warming through two previous solar cycles # 9 and #10 which were with peak solar spot numbers of 124.7 and 95.8 respectively So in my opinion, the solar cycle #11 put extra energy into the Pacific Ocean between 1869 and 1873 which started to further raise the temperature of the Pacific Ocean around the equator region by 1874 and more aggressively by 1877. The atmosphere temperature peaked by 1878 through the release of the heat from the largest El Nino on record.
Direct atmospheric solar heating in 1878 was not cause as that year was a solar minimum year with sunspot number of only 3.4.
Lag times make sense. But the last solar cycle was already weaker. We’re in a double dip La Niña and there’s still chances it becomes a triple dip. Maybe already the influence of the last weak cycle. After that it might become worse.
An idea for an explanation would be:
The thermocline is at 200m depth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocline
UV rays reach depths of 400m. UV is highly variable during a Solar cycle and energy-rich. The thermocline is stable most of the times. But after a while the solar energy absorbed under the thermocline must cause an instability; upwelling sets in and propagates due to the turbulences and you get a chain reaction until the entire ENSO 3.4 region flips into a different state.
The “tipping point” theorists should have looked at that instead of imaginary water vapor feedback, it’s much more interesting and a REAL tipping point.
When Piccard’s bathyscaphe dived, it hit the Thermocline and hovered there for a while until they were able to make it heavy enough to sink through the much colder waters:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17060355
Oh, and I don’t have a link for that but recently it was discovered that UV from the sun goes UP during the falling shoulder of the Solar cycle. Total TSI stays nearly constant but it’s a shift in the distribution of the energy.
DIRK H
A similar situation happened with the 1997/1998 El Nino which was the after effect of the 1988-1992 solar maximum activity of cycle #22. The sunspot number in 1997 and 1998 was only 21.5 and 64.3 respectively. So it was not the solar activivty of 1997/1998 that caused the El Nino but a lagged solar event The chain of events noted below leading up the 1997/1998 El Nino illustrates the impact of the previous solar cycle # 22.
1] 1986 solar cycle #22 starts
1986/1987/1988 El Nino from previous solar cycle #21
2] 1988 Major activity of solar cycle #22 starts with sunspot number reaching 100.2. The major solar activity is through to 1992 with numbers of 100.2, 157.6, 142.6, 145.7, 94 .3 in the following years [a major solar cycle]
3]1989 solar maximum is reached at 157.6
4]1989 Pacific ocean [south] SST start to climb after dropping after the 1986/1987/1988 El Nino from previous solar cycle #21. The SST peaks by 1991 and troughs by 1992
5]1991/1992 An El Nino starts . This also is the after effect of solar cycle #21
6] South Pacific SST troughs by 1992
7]1993 South Pacific ocean SST again starts to rises and peaks in 1994
8] 1994/1995 EL Nino
9]1995 South Pacific SST drops
10] 1995 Pacific Ocean SST again rises and peaks in 1997
11] 1997 Start of the 1997/1998 EL Nino
We can see how the previous solar cycle acting on the Pacific Ocean SST and in a lagged fashion caused a series of El Nino’s with the large 1997 /1998 being the culmination of major heating before. One can follow the South Pacific SST anomalies changes on the graph below from Bob Tisdale’s web page [ see reference below .] Also the Nino 3.4 SST Anomalies graph can be found on Bob’s web page .
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/january-2012-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/#more-1205
DIRK H
2009/2010 EL Nino
The 2009/2010 El Nino was the after effect of the 1999-2002 solar maximum activity of solar cycle #23. The sunspot number for 2009 was very low after the December 2008 solar minimum. It had a monthly average sunspot number of about 1.7. It ranged between 0 and 10.6. The sunspot number for 2010 was also low with a monthly average sunspot number of only about 13. So clearly the solar activity of the immediate years around the El Nino is not causing the El Nino’s. It is the lagged heat in the ocean from the earlier solar activity that may be the cause
As there has been no significant solar activity since 2000/2001 and since solar cycle #24, 25 and 26 are predicted to be quite low in terms of sunspot numbers , the next 2-3 decades could be absent of global warming and global cooling is very likely. Spending money to fight global warming is like is like investing in air conditioning units to fight a major snow blizzard. It makes absolutely no sense when we should be preparing for the opposite and secure the necessary energy for the cooler era ahead.
Merkel to the rescue!
http://www.real-science.com/eat-green-energy
I apologize for the inpertenance, but this picture of Madame Merkel is just too funny.
More on Landscheidt can be found here. http://www.landscheidt.info/
Thanks, David!
How do i get a copy of the book. Also dirkh would you be able to email the information you have found. my father has been looking into it and agrees with wat your saying.
What information do you mean, david?
[…] German meteorologist warns us to prepare for cooling, not warming. He’ll be in Von Luger’s cooler in no time for saying stuff like […]