Once Cocksure Warmist Scientists Now Sounding More Unsure Than Ever…Brönnimann Leaves The Door Open

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

Germany’s online Frankfurter Rundschau features an interview with climate scientist Stefan Brönnimann, Director of the Research Group for Climatology at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

Brönnimann

Sounding more unsure about CO2 than ever…climate scientist Stefan Brönnimann

If Brönnimann represents what is going on among warmist scientists, it is that global warming scientists are no longer so cocksure about their beloved global warming theory and “settled science”. Increasingly they are admitting that there are still lots of unknown factors and that they are lacking explanations.

On the lack of warming over the last 15 years, Brönnimann admits that they were “unusual”, blaming it on the unexpected lack of “strong El Nino events in the tropical Pacific“. Yet he claims that this and the unusually cold European winters over the last few years “do not refute the CO2 greenhouse gas effect“. However Brönnimann is forced to concede:

Yet, extreme warming scenarios that could not be excluded with certainty are now looking highly improbable.”

Brönnimann is then asked if the climate models are in trouble, as Hans von Storch has been suggesting lately.

We don’t expect the climate models to exactly reflect the precise course of the climate, rather only the long-term changes – that is up to 2050 or 2100. […] A few models show only a slight warming for the last 15 years, which in reality has been the case. At the moment observations and models are still in agreement, but just barely.”

This is what we call clinging to your climate guns and Bible. Brönnimann’s claim reminds of the saying used for the doomed: “Hope is the last to die.” One or two percent of the models being almost right hardly justifies claiming that the models as a whole are still hanging in there.

Temperature Chart RSS-UAH

The gig is just about over. Chart source: www.drroyspencer.com.

Concerning Brönnimann’s comment that the models cannot predict the climate curve exactly, this is an admission that scientists still do not understand the powerful natural factors of sun, clouds, aerosols, and oceans, to name a few. But failure to predict over time is just part of the story

Models that don’t have short-term accuracy also cannot possibly have any regional accuracy

If Brönnimann admits that models are pretty much temporally useless over years and decades, then they also cannot be of any use on regional geographical scales. Yet, hundreds, if not thousands, of models have purported to have the skill to predict regional climate. As a result, many policymakers in lots of countries have even based their national policy on such useless regional models – all with the approval and blessings of the climate scientists. Talk about a con-job.

Brönnimann is asked further about what he thinks may be the uncertainties in the models. Here he says that the uncertainties surround “cloud cover and aerosols” and admits that “also the oceans play a big role because they store lots of thermal energy.” Suddenly climate science is full of uncertainties and unknown variables after all. Then he goes on to say:

That we do not know much about the sun, despite the having researched it for a long time, has two reasons: Firstly there is great uncertainty about fluctuations in solar activity. Just how much the does the sun fluctuate as a whole and how strong are the fluctuations in the UV and the visible light spectrum? Secondly there is uncertainty in on the mechanisms.”

Finally climate scientists are leaving the door open to indirect solar impacts and amplification mechanisms. A little later in the interview Brönnimann is asked about why European winters have been so brutal over the last few years and if it’s possible that the sun may be playing a role. Brönnimann responds:

We’ve determined in a published study: A reduced solar activity leads to weakened westerly air currents over Europe, which normally would bring in air masses from the Atlantic. The result is colder temperatures for Central and Eastern Europe. Some of the recent cooler winters depicted such patterns, and solar activity was low. Therefore there could be a relationship. But it is still just one factor from many.”

Brönnimann now concedes the potential for a multitude of factors. Such is the long journey from activism to science. Climate science is progressing. The door is being left open to the sun and other natural factors. Brönnimann is also asked about the cosmic ray theory (viewed as kryptonite by many climate scientists) proposed by Danish scientist Hendrik Svensmark. His comment:

Experiments are being conducted on that at the Swiss CERN. On one hand it’s about the fundamental processes which are also scientifically interesting for aerosol researchers. And on the other hand its about the actual relevance these processes have on climate. Here results are still missing. We are waiting with excitement.”

At the end of the interview, Brönnimann tries to play down the sun’s impact on climate, and pumps up CO2 as a driver, reminding us that it is expected to lead to a warming of 1.5 to 4.5°C by the year 2100 (based on the models). But as the interview shows, scientists like Brönnimnn are now beingg forced to leave the door open to nature’s powerful climate forces. They are not going anywhere.

Expect that door to open up further with each passing year.

 

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

8 responses to “Once Cocksure Warmist Scientists Now Sounding More Unsure Than Ever…Brönnimann Leaves The Door Open”

  1. DirkH

    The question is not what Brönnimann does or thinks. The question is whether the states/governments/funding agencies/… will purge academia from heretics as they did in the past and still do. (Murry Salby is currently being exterminated)

    Brönnimann can fall back to the party line and have a successful career. Or he can become a heretic.

    There is not the slightest sign that the authorities change their use of science as a whore.

  2. John F. Hultquist

    A metaphor would be a wagon with a couple of wobbly wheels. If there is one warm year then the wheels will be running true again and “climate scientist” Stefan B. will jump aboard and start whipping the horses.

  3. Bruce of Newcastle

    “Brönnimann admits that they were “unusual”, blaming it on the unexpected lack of “strong El Nino events in the tropical Pacific“.”

    Dr Brönnimann should look at some climate history. When the PDO is in its cooling phase there are fewer weaker el Nino’s (see page 5 of the PDF by Joe d’Aleo here). ENSO, if smoothed shows the same ~60 year cycle as the PDO and temperatures.

    The problem for consensus climate scientists is that this cycle caused about a third of the temperature rise last century due to the choice of endpoints. And is not included in the models. If this artefact is removed from the ‘warming’ the modelled sensitivity of CO2 falls by a like amount.

    Of course if you then include the solar magnetic field’s impact on cloud coverage the derived CO2 sensitivity falls even more, to about the level found by LC2011.

  4. Stephen Wilde

    Sounds like he is accepting the validity of most of the components of my New Climate Model.

    Will have my own site up shortly, designed to explain, refine and test my Model in the light of on going climate events.

  5. Rodolfo O. Elliott

    Three more sites with an excellent discussion include: SkepticalScience: How reliable are climate models? , and Realclimate: On Attribution & Updates to model-data comparisons .

    1. Bruce of Newcastle

      1 + 1 = 3…?

      That is a very climatic calculation there Rodolfo.

      SkS and RC are not considered to be excellent, except at censoring anyone who disagrees with them. Pierre has not censored your comment, but if I posted a comment with actual data like I did at 01:47 it would last only a few minutes before being removed.

      In Eastern Europe thirty years ago this was also what happened to people who told the truth: what they said would be disappeared too.

    2. DirkH

      Hi Rodolfo. You might be interested in this post:
      “Evasions and Fantasy at Real Climate”
      http://climateaudit.org/2013/07/10/evasions-and-fantasy-at-real-climate/

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