Puzzled Schellnhuber: “Not At All Surprised” Short Term Models Are Wrong…But Insists Long-Term Models Are Correct!

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Last week in Potsdam, Germany, the First World Conference on Climate Impact took place.

No matter how many studies come out contradicting the models of catastrophic climate change, the Potsdam and IPCC scientists insist catastrophic warming is a fact and can only be averted by implementing drastic CO2 reduction measures, i.e. transforming society. The catastrophe is just postponed a bit.

In the press conference video above at the 7:19 mark, Connie Hedegaard tells the press concerning the Otto et al paper:

“I was in my home city of Copenhagen last weekend, and there last week some knowledge came out that maaaaybe things are slowing down a bit because, yes, we have past the 400 parts per million mark, but did the temperature really follow suit? And I think the interesting things is that there is something in the nature of man that makes us grasp this so that you immediately find the headlines: “Climate Change is Postponed” or we can wait to do something, you know that sort of headlines. Although if you sort of came down to the details you could see that no,l it just meant that maaaaybe we have a bit more time… .

In other words she is telling everyone not to believe any news suggesting that climate warming has slowed down. Don’t believe the observations, just believe the models.

Schellnhuber was hardly able to hide that he too is puzzled by the 15 years of no warming and the claims of the Otto et al paper. At the 34:08 mark of the video above, a journalist asks Schellnhuber about the temperature stagnation we’ve seen over the last 15 years and the Otto et al paper:

First of all, this was a sort of a Leserbrief, a correspondence to Nature Geoscience, which was done actually by former members of the Potsdam Institute who work at Oxford University. And if you read it carefully, it tells you 2 different things: The first one is the long-term projections of the climate models are confirmed actually. So it means the big picture is intact. The second is, just taking into account what you said, what happened over the last 15 years, since the big El Nino event in 1998 actually. There has been a slowing of global warming at the Earth’s surface, yes, which is very important. Taking that into account, simply the projections, again projections, for the next two, three decades have been revised a little bit to the lower side, actually. So we see no surprise because everybody can see that we didn’t have a steeper rise in global temperature in the last decade as we had in the previous decade. But if you now analyze this, why does it happen? And there has been a number of important scientific papers on that recently, which did not make it to the media, is people had analyzed where does the heat go to? Because if you look at satellite data at the top of the atmosphere, you clearly see we have an excess of energy, more energy going into our planetary system then what is going out. This is the first law of thermodynamics: energy is conserved. So it has to go somewhere. So now obviously most of it is now going into the deeper layers of the ocean. And you have to appreciate that the top three meters of the ocean globally contain as much heat as the entire atmosphere. So things are going deeper down. Then of course you will have a certain slowing down of what is happening at the surface. So what we probably see now is a sort of saturation of deeper ocean layers, …but once the job is done, the surface will warm once again, and even faster actually later on. This is by the way accompanied by, if you look at the data as I did this morning, you had many more La Nina events, that is the cool phase in the Pacific, in the last decade then you had in the previous decade. This is in a sense precisely in a La Nina event the oceans more or less take up heat while in an El Nino event they release heat. So just wait for the next big El Nino and we will have again a boost in global temperature. So again, what does this tell us? It simply tells us that global warming does not happen in a linear way where every year the same amount of warming happens. Nobody was actually expecting that, we always talk about natural variability. So I’m as a physicist not at all surprised and there’s no reason, unfortunately, there’s no reason to call off global warming.”

Unbelievably, Schellnhuber says nobody was really expecting a steady rise (er, except 44 modellers and lots of other scientists), and so is indirectly saying that nobody really expected the models to get the short-term (first 20 years) right.

What Schellnhuber is saying can be summed up as follows: We are not surprised that the short-term (up to 2025) models have been wrong, but we are sure the long-term models are right.

Temperature Chart RSS-UAH

Schellnhuber claims he is not at all surpised by the 15-year absence of warming. Chart source: www.drroyspencer.com.

The only conclusion that one can draw is: If the models up to 2025 are completely wrong, then the long-term models (2100 or 2200) are complete rubbish.

Looking at Roy Spencer’s chart above, the models expected a 0.5° rise from 1998 to 2013 – but we’ve gotten nothing. And the models expect another 0.5°C rise from 2017 to 2022. That too no longer looks tenable given the current ocean and solar cycles.

Schellnhuber’s only option now is to act like he is not surprised about the models getting the first 15 years completely wrong, and to insist the heat will come later, but with more strength.

Haven’t we heard that kind of talk before from slippery investment bankers?

 

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

27 responses to “Puzzled Schellnhuber: “Not At All Surprised” Short Term Models Are Wrong…But Insists Long-Term Models Are Correct!”

  1. Mindert Eiting

    Is Schellnhubers Great Transformation of Society (the GTS factor) also predicted by and adopted in the long-term models?

    1. Mindert Eiting

      It is sometimes called the intervention paradox. A clairvoyant could see a future airplane crash and make a call to the airport. If they keep the airplane at the ground, the clairvoyant could not have seen the future. Otherwise he/she is condemned to the horror of either seeing that nothing happens or that it really happens. Let’s hope for Schellnhuber that the climate crash happens after his death.

  2. DirkH

    Thanks Pierre for watching the video for us. I couldn’t stand a few more minutes of Her Excellency Heedegard talking.

    Second, noteworthy, right at the start Schellnhuber announces this one guy who has the new post as Chief Scientist at UNEF.

    So we can say that the globalists and communitarian movement are continuing to use “scientists” as their method of choice to push through their power grabs; this further discredits science as a whole. I don’t know where the job reputation of scientists currently is but I would expect it to be headed the way of the journalist.

    A question that always bugs me: Why does a quantum physicist like Schellnhuber become a simple climate modeler… Well that was a joke. Quantum physics is hard.

  3. Emka

    Schellnhuber mentions:

    “Because if you look at satellite data at the top of the atmosphere, you clearly see we have an excess of energy, more energy going into our planetary system then what is going out.”

    Do we really have such satellite data at the planetary level? Is the data available somewhere?

    1. DirkH

      That would probably be ERBE data.
      I think this result comes from Lindzen using ERBE data; he found that an
      increase in SST increases outgoing LWIR… while the climate models are parameterized to show a decrease.
      http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/themen/klima-1/co2_treibhaus.php#erbe

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veerabhadran_Ramanathan
      “His focus then shifted to the radiative effects of clouds on the climate. This was done using the Earth Radiation
      Budget Experiment (ERBE), which showed that
      clouds have a large cooling effect on the planet.[7][8] ERBE was also able to measure the greenhouse effect without the use of climate models.[9]

    2. DirkH

      ERBE data
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/03/spencer-on-lindzen-and-choi-climate-feedback-paper/#more-12444

      Interestingly, ERBE has no page in the wikipedia. I think they might have deleted it because various people have found large cooling effects through clouds using the data, Ramanathan (a warmist) and Lindzen (a skeptic)

      There’s another comment from me in the spam bin…

  4. RoyFOMR

    This from Schellnhuber is truly the stuff of smoke and mirrors:
    “[Heat] going into the deeper layers of the ocean. And you have to appreciate that the top three meters of the ocean globally contain as much heat as the entire atmosphere. So things are going deeper down”

    To the layman this must sound very reasonable as the obvious (deliberate) interpretation would be, that the heat is going deeper than 3 metres – perhaps even to 4 metres.
    That Schnellnhuber omits to mention that the Heat going deeper, actually, skips the next 600-700m and ends up miraculously much, much, further down at these depths clearly demonstrates his agenda.
    That this subterranean lurking has never been detected clearly worries the good doctor or he would have mentioned it for the sake of transparency.
    Perhaps he could visit Scotland and find the Loch Ness Monster for us!

    1. Bernd Felsche

      H.J.’s Märchenstunde.

      Alas, Schellnhuber displays a lack of grasp of thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, experimental and scientific methods.

      Did he bother to check if the “missing heat” actually got to the surface as ASSUMED? Checking assumptions doesn’t seem to be favoured by those who see climatology as a social science.

      Of course no. He, like everybody else on the panel (including the UNEP “Chief Scientist” Joe Alcamo), is functionally no more than a politician looking to tell a convincing story to a gullible public; via the even-more gullible press. The whole panel is designed to produce an air of “authority” (“the cream of integrated planetary science”); which any scientist/engineers should understand is worthless given the extent of ignorance about nature; as well as a resort to a classical fallacy.

  5. catweazle666

    Apart from the necessity of ignoring certain matters such as convection, according to Hadley Centre data there has been steady cooling of the sea surface since the turn of the century.

    So how does the heat get to the deep oceans, magic?

    They’re desperate.

  6. Robin Pittwood

    The cult is being exposed, and they struggle in the realm of cognitive dissonance.

  7. Manfred

    If the oceans take up heat now due to La Ninas, they released heat in the 30 years before via El Ninos and warming was in significant part natural. Why did Schellnhuber not mention this ?

    Another disturbing thing is that Schellnhuber/Rahmstorf hand picked PIK staff gets employed elsewhere in other countries.

  8. DirkH

    At around 30:40 Schellnhuber answers a question in which he says that with a future supercomputer one could maybe break down the model grid boxes to 1km to improve regional projections.

    He does not say – lying by omission – that this destroys the statistical approach of the modeling – as the models do not simulate local processes but parameterize them with fitting functions, they can only work when MANY instances of the processes are in one grid box, therefore allowing a statistical description by a fitting function.

    This breaks down with the current 50 times 50 km gridboxes already, in cases of large scale single instance processes – convective frontns namely which can span thousands of kilometers. When grid boxes become smaller it breaks down more often.

    He would make a good journalist; he is talking on Reuters-Thomson level.

  9. Gerry

    Sorry…couldn’t get past the first sentence of the video ….”good afternoon. ..or whatever time you feel it is …” WTF is that all about ? ….

  10. Jimbo

    The first one is the long-term projections of the climate models are confirmed actually.

    Confirmed by what?

    If heat going into the deep oceans can explain the temperature standstill then can head coming out explain the recent warming?

  11. John F. Hultquist

    “Last week in Potsdam, Germany, the First World Conference on Climate Impact took place.”

    Did Earth just go through a time warp or some other space-time thing? This must be the 27th or 53rd or even the 269th such confab. These are confused and silly people. They want all to feel guilty and give up remaining liberty and money – to them.

    1. DirkH

      ” These are confused and silly people.”

      Most Germans are in a state of mind similar to an East coast liberal. They have no values except for the wish to make equal what is not equal; science and policies are subjugated to this goal. Warmism and the self destruction of the Euro zone are two results of their actions.

  12. DennisA

    This missing heat has been missing for a long time. Read this account by the late oceanographer, Robert Stevenson, from 2000. He describes just how the “missing heat” cannot end up in the deep ocean, in fact, there isn’t any heat missing at all.

    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html

  13. Duke

    It is not so difficult to understand that heat-trapping gasses (i.e. CO2) trap heat. I mean, how could they not?

    It is a very simple calculation to know PRECISELY how much energy an X amount of CO2 will absorb and then re-radiate out based upon the amount of radiation/energy (i.e. sunlight) that is coming in. This is not rocket science but freshman-grade physics (high school freshman that is).

    Now we know with certainty that the 40% of extra CO2 that man has added to the atmosphere (approximately 1,1 trillion tonnes) is the equivalent of an extra 1.7watts of energy per square meter for each square meter of earth. This is beyond question.

    1. DirkH

      Why do you not mention clouds? Why do you not mention that the average percentage of cloudiness influences the radiative balance much more than small increases of CO2? Why do you not mention that GCM’s are unable to emulate real life cloudiness distribution by latitude?

      Do you not know all of these; i.e. are you completely ignorant? Or are you simply malevolent?

  14. Manicbeancounter

    Much of climate science is very much about public relations. It is far better to have positive messages images to win people over. The best method of convincing the lay public of long-term climate apocalypse is being able to develop a good track record in making shorter-term predictions about the world that they get right. The clearer and more eye-catching the better. Global warming trends is the primary one, but there are other areas like accelerating sea level rises and worsening hurricanes that are also important.
    The poor chaps seem to have got stuck in a rut of excuses and attacking other voices, so I have provided suggestions of how to get their campaign back on track. 🙂
    http://manicbeancounter.com/2013/05/29/three-positive-ways-to-counter-climate-denial/

  15. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
  16. Arno Arrak

    Connie Hedegaard can be ignored as a politician but Schellengruber has serious science credentials. That is what puzzles me because at the same time he also shows a faith-based attraction to a distorted version of climate science. He should have had enough experience in solving problems to understand what to do with observations of nature and yet he seems like a blind man when presented with real world observations. I am talking of that “temperature stagnation” whose presence he says is not a reason to call off global warming. That of course is an opinion that he is completely unable to justify with science. The models got it all wrong, he admits, but then says that the long-term models are right and warming shall return. His explanation of why it shall return is based on entirely unjustified speculation. He asserts that at the present time there is an excess of energy coming in over energy going out of the planet. Where is that energy going if there is no sign of warming? He says it goes into the ocean, and when the ocean gets full it will start coming out again and warming up the world as promised by their long term prediction. A likely story, indeed. Their greenhouse warming theory states that greenhouse gases, by which is meant carbon dioxide, absorb some of the outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR). The energy of absorbed radiation turns to heat, warms the atmosphere, and we have greenhouse warming that will heat up the world. Only that is not happening any more because there has been no greenhouse warming for the last fifteen years. What he is saying is that this energy that should be warming the air is not lost but makes a bee line for the ocean bottom and is not seen again. Likely story. This is quite a switch from their previous greenhouse doctrine and is even less likely than the original was. He ought to be ashamed for concocting fairy tales like that to explain climate. Observations show that there has been no greenhouse warming for 15 years. Observations of satellite temperature curves also show that there was a no-warming period in the eighties and nineties. It lasted eighteen years, from 1979 to 1997. In most ground-based temperature curves this period was shown as a steady warming called the “late twentieth century warming.” No one could find a cause for this warming and this fact was taken as proof that it was man-made. When I wrote my book”What Warming?” I knew about this discrepancy and put it into the book. Nothing happened. Until last fall, that is, when GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC decided in unison to get rid of that fake warming and start using satellite data for the eighties and nineties. They knew just how to do it and did not tell anyone about it. I consider this joint action tantamount to admission that they knew it was a fake warming. Now we have an eighteen year segment of no warming starting in 1979. And we have the entire twenty-first century as a no-warming zone. In between there is a narrow window, just enough to accommodate the 1998 super El Nino and its associated step warming. That step warming was caused by the large amount of warm water the super El Nino carried across the ocean. In four years it raised global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius and then stopped. As a result, all temperatures in the twenty-first century are higher than in the nineties. Hansen noticed that and pointed out that of ten warmest years, nine happened after 2000. He is right of course because they all sit on the warm platform created by the step warming. He is simply wrong to call it greenhouse warming because the step warming was oceanic, not atmospheric in origin. Now it is time to look at the complete picture. The two non-warming stretches and the super El Nino together take up the entire satellite data set, leaving no room for any greenhouse warming during the satellite era. This means that there was no greenhouse warming at all for the last 34 years. In view of this, can you believe that any warming prior to the satellite era was greenhouse warming? I think not. Look to Ferenc Miskolczi for an explanation of why.

  17. Rogerio Maestri

    There is a major contradiction in the following paragraph:
    .
    “The first one is the long-term projections of the climate models are actually confirmed. So it means the big picture is intact.”
    .
    The models were calibrated with data from the past and say that this confirms the hypothesis is completely false.
    Models are calibrated and verified with a series with another. This is the basic science that works with any model.
    So if the models were calibrated with data until 1990 and checked with a time period later, the only thing that can be concluded is that the model is not appropriate.

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

Close