Germany’s catastrophe-obsessed weekly Die Zeit is now claiming that climate models have in fact predicted long temperature stagnation after all. Suddenly, periods of temperature stagnation are showing up in models, climate scientists are discovering.
Last week, I wrote about how a Swiss climate modeller had suddenly discovered temperature stagnations in the models, and tried to claim this showed the model warming scenarios were right on track after all.
Now the catastrophe junkies at Die Zeit news magazine here have joined in. Until just a few months ago, Die Zeit had been telling us just the opposite: things were warming faster than ever!
In its latest article, Die Zeit writes that “climate skeptics are jubilant that the IPCC models are faulty”and that on the other hand Prof. Jochem Marotzke, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and IPCC author, vehemently scorns the skeptics for being so, insisting the climate catastrophe is coming:
“We are completely sure that at the end of the 21st century it’ll be warmer than today. However, the path to that point is simply not a straight line that follows CO2 concentration.”
Die Zeit writes (my emphasis):
Indeed such temperature plateaus have occurred also in the climate models; only the exact time of their occurrence is difficult to predict.”
Die Zeit goes on and explains that the temperature stagnation is caused by “external factors like volcano eruptions” and also”chaotic fluctuations in the atmosphere and oceans”, citing La-Niña and El-Niño-events, ocean currents, etc.
For 15 years in a row?
Next Die Zeit quotes Marotzke, who actually contradicts Die Zeit, saying the current stagnation is in fact a mystery:
Also the question of how long the plateau will persist and what happens afterwards cannot be answered at this time.”
Well, why not? The models are supposed to do that. Now you say they can’t. You can’t see what lies ahead for the next few decades? Unbelievable.
If the models had included all the factors, like the WELL-KNOWN solar cycles and the WELL-KNOWN ocean cycles, as Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning did in their book Die kalte Sonne, the models would have at least come up with the current stagnation. Moreover, the IPCC models would have seen that the stagnation would last until 2040. Now they are left standing there desperate for an explanation.
The solar and ocean cycles were known to the modellers years ago, but they were ignored, covered up, and swept out of sight. A reasonable model showing no warming until 2040 was the last thing they wanted the public to see. It would have taken all the alarm out of issue. If there ever was a case for organized scientific fraud and deception, then this is it. THEY KNEW OF THE NATURAL CYCLES YEARS AGO!
Jochem Marotzke and Die Zeit still hope to keep the charade going, insisting that we believe the heat is there – somewhere! Die Zeit writes:
That the surface temperature is currently stagnating does not mean in any case that global warming has taken a break, says Marotzke. To the contrary: The warming is just taking place somewhere else – in the oceans.”
Marotzke and Die Zeit now sound worse than slippery used-car salesmen.
Unfortunately there’s no data to support this – anywhere. Even Die Zeit admits it:
In any case, climate scientists cannot say for sure where the warming really is. ‘The measurement system for this is just not sufficient enough,’ says Marotzke. 3000 buoys have been in use only a few years now, within the scope of the global ocean observation systems (GOOS) – they sink only to a depth of about 2000 meters. Thus it cannot be proven whether the deep ocean is warming strongly or not.”
Die Zeit later in the article winds up admitting that the scientists really don’t have a clue at all as to what’s going on, writing that some scientists blame the current stagnation on aerosols, or “reduced water vapor concentration in the stratosphere”. Consensus is non-existent more than ever.
Marotzke also answers questions on why the IPCC 5AR models failed to foresee the 15-year plateau:
With these long-term climate models, you can’t expect such short-term plateaus to be predicted at the right times.”
Well, not using your kind of science. Die Zeit adds:
You simply don’t throw a climate model into the dustbin just because it fails to preceisely predict the weather in one year.”
That’s true. One only does that when it fails 15 years in a row!
“Many of us are now amazed climate is not linear”
Die Zeit finally tells its readers that the climate system is far from being understood and brings in Prof. Mojib Latif of the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany to answer some questions. Latif, also an IPCC lead-author, has spent 90% of his time over the last years calculating natural climate fluctuations (see, he knew). Die Zeit writes:
In any case, Latif admits that we have underestimated ‘how important it is to communicate the importance of natural climate fluctuations’.”
That’s an understatement. You guys never bothered to put these “important natural fluctuations” in the models. You were too damn obsessed with keeping the level of alarm elevated. This all reeks of intentional deceit.
Die Zeit adds:
The science often simplified things too much and reduced graphics to mean values. That’s why many of us got the impression that climate is always linear – and now are amazed that this does not correspond to reality.”
11 responses to “Temperature Stagnation Suddenly Being Discovered In Climate Models…Erred Scientists Desperately Clinging!”
“This all wreaks of intentional deceit.”
Hi Pierre. That should read “reeks” (as in smells).
All the best.
Thanks – fixed! Actually I should have known that because the German word is “riechen”. A check of Websters shows: [Old English rēocan; related to Old Frisian riāka to smoke, Old High German rouhhan, Old Norse rjūka to smoke, steam]
If they would re-run their models with zero sensitivity, they suddenly would discover periods of temperature increase appearing in their models everywhere. They would call that Type I error. Nobody talks about Type II error. If statistics is not important anymore, look around you in your house. If you see two screws and a stripe, you may interpret that as a smiling face. After some time you see smilies everywhere. It’s really addictive.
Mojib Latif => Communication issue? Seriously?
I remember a scientist, I believe in the 70’s or 80’s, saying on German TV that the temperature before an ice-age was moving up and down without a visible trend. I guess it was around the ice-age scare.
Looking at some information that comes from the AGW corner like “The coldest winter in 40 years” then I can see that the up’s and down’s still exist. When at the same time the Arctic experience the lowest amount of ice and the Antarctic experience the biggest amount of ice (since 1979), then I know that there is no visible trend.
It’s like gambling. People believe that they can see a trend and then they are shocked when the trend stops. Then they come up with another calculation to include the broken trend scenario. Again, it will work for some time, until …
When did the high priests of any millennial cult say ‘Whoops, my goodness were we wrong big time! You can all go back to your homes and jobs now – please forgive us for distracting you, and for getting some of you killed by starvation or cold, and some of you scared witless by our histrionics’?
We have had a lot of cults, but as far as I know, none of them have ever displayed much in the way of common sense and honesty.
On the other hand, studies such as ‘Heaven on Earth’ by Richard Landes tell these cults never last very long – decades at the most. I like to think we are near the end of one of the longer-lasting ones.
Noteworthy: Even though Die Zeit is a social-democrat, warmist, eco-fanatic outlet, the comments under the article are nearly all sceptical; only one who retreats to the well known real but usually hidden position that even when CO2 does NOT warm the planet we must stop plundering it.
(We know that this position was the reason to invent warmism in 1975 at the Our Endangered Atmosphere conference in the first place; participants Schneider, Holdren, Lovelock, Mead, in Stanford)
It all just goes to show, that with any computer model – you can make it do – what you predict: with a little tweak here and a new algorithm or three there.
I guess in the end, it’s a man made thing, this computerised warming stuff.
Clinging indeed …
It’s a travesty that they can’t explain the missing heat. Oh hang on… it was a travesty about 5 years ago.
But I’ve found it! It’s melting their models faster than the Arctic ice.
It’s almost as if climate modelers are shouting, “I’M RIGHT!!! I DON’T CARE WHAT YOU SAY!!!” And, if that doesn’t work, they put their fingers in their ears and say, “La,la, la, la…I can’t hear you.”
And they claim they are scientists? Sheeesh…
For scientists: collect for the most important scenarios the simulated temperatures. Compute for 1997-2012 the simulated slopes of linear regression. Compute their mean and standard deviation. Determine the slope for temperatures 1997-2012 at which the null hypothesis of no warming would have been rejected at Type I error rate of five percent. Call this the critical slope. Determine for the scenarios the percentage of slopes less than the critical slope, which is the Type II error rate. If that rate is below five percent, the scenario is falsified because the null hypothesis was not rejected and we do fair play. Basic stuff but I have never seen this evaluation. Some one else did?
A pity the lottery doesn’t work like that.