By Dennis Ambler and Pierre Gosselin
Few institutes have been as adamant and dogmatic about man-made global warming as the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), headed by German climate doomsday professor, Herr Professor-Doktor Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber.
German climate doomsday professor Hans Schellnhuber forced to postpone climate doomsday scenarios due to natural factors, but insists warming is still happening, and it will be worse – at a later time in the future. Photo: PIK
The institute has long maintained that the science was settled, and was instrumental in formulating a master-plan for re-organizing global society and watering down democracy in order to avert the modeled disaster. Their master-plan calls for allotting more power to an elite group of “visionary” scientists – like to Herr Doktor Schellnhuber himself.
So today it’s all the more surprising that they are announcing a paper that concedes natural factors indeed are more powerful than the 0.01% CO2 atmospheric concentration added in part by humans over the last 150 years. This is a milestone for the PIK, which earlier claimed they could not find any real evidence of other factors driving the climate.
Their press release writes (emphasis added):
So far it seemed there were hardly any major natural temperature fluctuations in Antarctica, so almost every rise in temperature was attributed to human influence,” says Armin Bunde of Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (JLU). ‘Global warming as a result of our greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels is a fact. However, the human influence on the warming of West Antarctica is much smaller than previously thought. The warming of East Antarctica up to now can even be explained by natural variability alone.’ The results of their study are now published in the journal Climate Dynamics.”
They had us going there for a minute, but no, it isn’t a real admission they were wrong: global warming has been merely hiding behind natural variability as well as in the oceans, they insist.
The press release continues:
The scientists did not only analyze data from individual measuring stations but also generated regional averages. The results show a human influence on the warming of West Antarctica, while this influence is weaker than previously thought.
However, the warming of Antarctica altogether will likely increase more strongly soon.
Soon? How long are we to wait? Many are losing patience in their long wait for the promised catastrophe. Suddenly things look as if they are losing their urgency.
For several years temperatures in Antarctica, but also globally, have been increasing less rapidly than in the 1990s. There are a number of reasons for this, e.g. the oceans buffering warmth.
The study now published by the German team of scientists shows that man-made global warming has not been pausing – it was temporarily superimposed and therefore hidden by long-term natural climate fluctuations like in Antarctica.2
How do they know it’s temporary? From their models? Well, they have been wrong since day 1. Obviously there’s much more to the climate system than just trace gas CO2.
‘Our estimates show that we are currently facing a natural cooling period – while temperatures nonetheless rise slowly but inexorably, due to our heating up the atmosphere by emitting greenhouse gas emissions,’ explains Hans Joachim Schellnhuber.
‘At the end of this natural cold spell temperatures will rise even more fiercely. Globally, but also in Antarctica which therefore is in danger of tipping.”
The good Herr Dr. Schellnhuber never lets you down. Just be patient longer than we thought. The catastrophe that we promised is just taking longer to get here – but when it does, by golly, it’ll be a lot worse – you’ll all be sorry for not doing what we told you.
This is taking on comical dimensions.
There’s another recent admission of the role of natural cycles:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/inter-decadal-pacific-oscillation-explains-global-warming-hiatus-2000
sooner or later they will also have to answer the inconvenient question of how the natural cycles are effecting the current pause but not the warming period before the pause?
Yes, this will get more and more difficult to explain as the warming remains AWOL.
It also becomes somewhat of a quandary – trying to claim opposites simultaneously:
– there is no hiatus, no pause!
– OK, there is a pause (which could even be cooling), but it’s a “fausse pause”, er, “the heat is hiding!”
Maybe they could get Cook et al to do a search of climate paper abstracts for the terms “pause”, “hiatus”, “plateau”, “flatlining”, “stagnation” — so we uninitiated can analyze whether there is a “consensus” on the pause or not.
At first I thought that some reality might be sinking in to the Potsdamer Climate Wizards. How wrong I was. Instead, they double down!
Schellnhuber said, “At the end of this natural cold spell temperatures will rise even more fiercely. Globally, but also in Antarctica which therefore is in danger of tipping.”
WTF.
Everyone who studied climate in the 1970s and the 1980s knew about multi-decadal cycles of warming & cooling, as well as the presence of long-term oceanic oscillation.
But nobody predicted a continuance of the pattern since 1850 – not Hansen, not the IPCC or any of the national-level clone organizations. So now they’re surprised about natural variation? Give me a break.
First, they tried to explain away the 1940s-1970s cooling by blaming it on airborne aerosols, which of course disappeared once the US’ Clean Air Act was passed in 1970.
So now they’re even reincarnating the infamous tipping points?
“Warming will come back, even more fiercely than before.” Based on what, models?
Many of the familiar alarmist voices even pepper their prose with phrases such as “will return with a vengeance.” As though the climate is Gaia / Mother Nature, looking for a reason to punish the human race.
Hilarious.
These fellows are just gaming the system until retirement. Independent of what transpires, they’ll claim they were right all along.
Unless they are called out on this silly effort to “steer” the climate.
Kurt in Switzerland
Hey, I gotta an idea! If all this “natural variability” is so big that they equal or exceed that demon gas CO2, maybe, just maybe, someone should go study it. I can think of a lot of possibilities, all warrant some serious study. 🙂
Mutter, mutter….
Your grant cheque is in the post, Ric!
With the admission that the oceans have stunted the warming, they also have to admit the opposite as well: That the oceans played a major role in the 19880s and 1990s warming. And what does all this mean for CO2 climate sensitivity in the models?
People have said this.
“It was a time when natural variability and global warming were going in the same direction, so it was much easier to find global warming,” Trenberth says. “Now the PDO has gone in the other direction, so some counter-effects are masking some of the global warming manifestations right at the surface.”
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2013/05/wither-global-warming-has-it-slowed-down/
“Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Co., in 2013 told Yale Climate Connections “One of the things emerging from several lines is that the IPCC has not paid enough attention to natural variability, on several time scales.””
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/03/top-lessons-to-be-learned-from-warming-hiatus/
“And what does all this mean for CO2 climate sensitivity in the models?”
Not much, because in the long-term these cycles average out to approximately zero.
[-snip
I meant what I wrote yesterday: https://notrickszone.com/2015/04/15/science-under-siege-max-planck-institute-study-shows-climate-models-severely-overstate-warming/#comment-1024745 -PG
You’re privilege to comment here has been suspended indefinitely. Try again in about 4 days.]
It gets down to being a proper and polite guest, and not barging in and thinking you own the place and everyone has to cater to your wishes.
I always think of the blogging space as the living room of the particular blogger. You don’t go to your neighbours house and fart and pick your nose and throw the bogies on the carpet, at least I don’t.
So, Pierre, in my book you have every right to pick and choose who you want sitting in your front parlour.
Just don’t lock me out, I have my own hanky in which I park my bogies.
Good for you Mr. Gosselin.
Well said, Pierre. I believe Mr. Appell has form for this sort of thing, and feel any contribution from him is unlikely to be useful.
Hi Pierre,
Your blog, your decision. But anytime you censor an opposing viewpoint, you run the risk of looking like you don’t have a counter-argument.
BTW, if he was merely being rude, then print his rudeness for everyone to see.
Counter-arguments make a blog far more interesting (provided this isn’t just troll behavior).
BTW, David Appell ran away when politely asked how he came to the conclusion that there was a long-term correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and Arctic Sea Ice loss rate. So maybe you could offer him the chance to “redeem” himself by responding to that question as a pre-condition.
Give him a break. He’s a lonely guy over at his blog, which seems focused of late more on attacking individuals rather than attempting to understand science. I got a kick of his recent whine against Steyn for “lying” about Global Warming having ceased for the past decade and a half. That prompted me to read Steyn’s latest post on warming, which is another classic: http://www.steynonline.com/6908/global-warming-in-hot-water
Perhaps our friend David needs to read up on the definitions for “Global Warming”:
global warming: noun 1. an increase in the earth’s average atmospheric temperature that causes corresponding changes in climate and that may result from the greenhouse effect. (ref. Random House)
global warming: noun 1. an increase in the average temperature worldwide believed to be caused by the greenhouse effect. (ref. Collins English Dictionary)
global warming: An increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere, especially a sustained increase great enough to cause changes in the global climate… (ref. The American Heritage® Science Dictionary)
Appell will of course obediently defer to the current Wikipedia spin, which deftly inserts “oceanic” or “earth system” in place of atmospheric surface temperature, thereby enabling believers to convince themselves that warming is still carrying on at breakneck speed, despite it having failed to manifest itself in the key metric of atmospheric temperature anomaly for the past decade and a half.
Kurt in Switzerland
Global warming as a result of our greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels is a fact – See more at: https://notrickszone.com/#sthash.sDAyDHCl.dpuf
If it’s a fact they must unequivable evidence. Where is it. ?
Have they ever wondered at the extremely low probability that natural variation causing cooling has matched their ‘anthropogenic global warming’ precisely for the pause of more than 15 years? This is a coincidence with such huge implausibility that it alone falsifies their claim.
They admit that the ERROR of their models in each time step is at least as big as the “increased CO2 forcing”.
Therefore, they admit that their models do not allow ANY assessment of temperatures over ANY period of time.
That they call the error “natural variability” is just nomenclature.
Do you think they’re beginning to get an inkling as to how history will judge them?
From saving the world to …………..
Re natural cycles here is my exchange with Freeman Dyson
E-mail 4/7/15
Dr Norman Page
Houston
Professor Dyson
Saw your Vancouver Sun interview.
I agree that CO2 is beneficial. This will be even more so in future because it is more likely than not that the earth has already entered a long term cooling trend following the recent temperature peak in the quasi-millennial solar driven periodicity .
The climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Global Warming delusion rests are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year periodicities so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. They back tune their models for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial. This is scientific malfeasance on a grand scale. The temperature projections of the IPCC – UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless. A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted. For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles – most importantly the millennial cycle – and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity check my blog-post at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
The most important factor in climate forecasting is where earth is in regard to the quasi- millennial natural solar activity cycle which has a period in the 960 – 1020 year range. For evidence of this cycle see Figs 5-9. From Fig 9 it is obvious that the earth is just approaching ,just at or just past a peak in the millennial cycle. I suggest that more likely than not the general trends from 1000- 2000 seen in Fig 9 will likely generally repeat from 2000-3000 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2650. The best proxy for solar activity is the neutron monitor count and 10 Be data. My view ,based on the Oulu neutron count – Fig 14 is that the solar activity millennial maximum peaked in Cycle 22 in about 1991. There is a varying lag between the change in the in solar activity and the change in the different temperature metrics. There is a 12 year delay between the neutron peak and the probable millennial cyclic temperature peak seen in the RSS data in 2003. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
There has been a cooling temperature trend since then (Usually interpreted as a “pause”) There is likely to be a steepening of the cooling trend in 2017- 2018 corresponding to the very important Ap index break below all recent base values in 2005-6. Fig 13.
The Polar excursions of the last few winters in North America are harbingers of even more extreme winters to come more frequently in the near future.
I would be very happy to discuss this with you by E-mail or phone .It is important that you use your position and visibility to influence United States government policy and also change the perceptions of the MSM and U.S public in this matter. If my forecast cooling actually occurs the policy of CO2 emission reduction will add to the increasing stress on global food production caused by a cooling and generally more arid climate.
Best Regards
Norman Page
E-Mail 4/9/15
Dear Norman Page,
Thank you for your message and for the blog. That all makes sense.
I wish I knew how to get important people to listen to you. But there is
not much that I can do. I have zero credibility as an expert on climate.
I am just a theoretical physicist, 91 years old and obviously out of touch
with the real world. I do what I can, writing reviews and giving talks,
but important people are not listening to me. They will listen when the
glaciers start growing in Kentucky, but I will not be around then. With
all good wishes, yours ever, Freeman Dyson.
Email 4/9/15
Professor Dyson Would you have any objection to my posting our email exchange on my blog?
> Best Regards Norman Page
E-Mail 4/9/15
Yes, you are welcome to post this exchange any way you like. Thank you
for asking. Yours, Freeman Dyson.
The New Ice Age got climatology about a decade of funding and recognition and then reversed into AGW.
AGW got climatology about thirty years of funding and political clout then stalled and became CC.
Now 97% agree that the Super Hot Future will begin real soon and require much more funding for much longer.
The West is so overgrown with corrupt cronies that there will not be much funding left for the small fries that warmunists are once the paper currencies go to hell.
Hans Schellnhuber is planning ahead. The sham is collapsing, the world is not cooperating, the skeptics won’t shut up and the general public have lost interest.
In a generation or two, and especially when the world enters a warming phase once again to support their meme, they will be right back at it.
They’ve come so close to taking over the world with their brand of ideology, they won’t give up now. They might have to wait, but you can be sure they won’t go away.
Expect more of this. They are laying the groundwork so they can come back.
‘it was temporarily superimposed and therefore hidden by long-term natural climate fluctuations’.
If there is anything we know, it is these long-term fluctuations. Don’t tell me that they forgot to adopt them in their computer models. Why then did more than 95 percent of them fail?
The long term fluctuations are oceanic in origin and still not understood, otherwise we would have reliable El Nino forecasts. Probably unsimulatable because slow motion chaos. Chaos does not become more predictable just because it’s in a lower frequency range.
As the warmunists knew where their bread is buttered they simply ignored all of that, and used invented aerosol forcing histories to explain away hindcasting errors, and replaced the ocean with some flimsy make-belief model.
That’s why you find huge “uncertainties” for the aerosol forcing. It’s the wild card they needed to fix the hindcasting.
They also ignore everything else that is poorly understood. Like the QBE. It’s not in the models. Because nobody understands it.
Sorry. QBO, not QBE.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/279.htm
Thank you Dirk. Now I have a name for it!
Pierre,
Watch for this news.
From a WSJ report on China – Pakistan infrastructure projects:
“The largest part of the project would provide electricity to energy-starved Pakistan, based mostly on building new coal-fired power plants. The country is beset by hours of daily scheduled power cuts because of a lack of supply,” … “The plans envisage adding 10,400 megawatts of electricity at a cost of $15.5 billion by 2018.“
Big question.. will the Taliban let them !
whoops, sorry… I meant the Greenies !
I hope everyone has seen this..
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/wind-farm-owners-upset-that-their-subsidies-may-end/
No, I hadn’t seen it. But I’m going to! Thanks, Andy
[…] Fler kommentarer här. […]