Top German Climate Scientists now Acknowledge Global COOLING

http://climatephysics.com/german-climate-scientists-flip-on-global-warming/#more-882

German scientists join the leagues of reputable climate scientists who are finally acknowledging the facts......doing what scientists are SUPPOSED to do, instead of adhering to a religion.


by Klaus-Eckart Puls and Sebastian Lüning (translated, edited by P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone)

Currently this 2012/13 winter in Germany and over large parts of Europe we’ve been finding lots of cold, snow and ice - the fifth winter of this type in a row. Who can still recall the prognoses and claims of some alarmists of the established climate science community, like this one [1]?:

‘Winter with strong frosts and lots of snow like 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes,’ said scientist Mojib Latif of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg.”

This quote comes from an interview with SPIEGEL in the year 2000. The headline: “Good-bye winter: No more snow? In Germany bitter cold winters are now a thing of the past.”

However, perhaps Professor Latif meant this as a joke because the article appeared on April 1, 2000! In this regard, one could simply dismiss the comment – had that claim by Latif not been repeated by other climate scientists, e.g. [2]:

“The very mild winters of the last decades can be attributed mainly to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. As a consequence, we are for example seeing a reduction in snowfall. When every 50-year-old was able to go skating as a kid almost every winter, kids today often have to wait many years for larger amounts of snow.”

Well, kids haven’t had to wait at all for the last 5 winters! If that weren’t enough, in 2005 Mojib Latif spoke out once again [3], this time making a 50-year prediction:

In 2050, no more snow in the lowlands; Mainz (dpa). According to climate scientist Mojib Latif of Kiel, winters in Germany will become warmer. Without future climate protection, ‘In 2050 there will no longer be snow in Germany – at least not in the lowlands,’ said the professor of the Institute for Ocean Sciences of the University of Kiel on ZDF television. The observed trend to warmer winters will continue on.

So are we allowed to ask, where has this trend been for the last 5 winters?

In a conference report of the Dow Jones News GmbH [4] the “…renowned climate scientist of Kiel Prof. Mojib Latif…” is quoted:

‘The scenarios discussed by scientists see a further warming of 1.4 to 5.8 °C on average by the end of the century. In Germany there will be no longer frost or snow by then; in hot climate zones there will be ‘desolation’.”

In the meantime, all these statements have since been contradicted: Nature is doing something completely different…the exact opposite!

The first climate warmists to scramble to make a major forecasting adjustment already in 2010 were from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) - and did so through BILD tabloid [5]:

The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research sees the hard winters as being the result of global warming: Icy Arctic winds will be triggered by it and reach all the way to Europe unhindered due to climate change in the Arctic.”

‘Could be,’ may have been the first reaction of a BILD reader. However they likely immediately followed up with the question: Why do scientists always come up with such explanations after the fact? The alarmists used a sleight of hand, and magically and rapidly came up with a rabbit from a hat. [6]:

“A new study shows the relationship between Arctic sea ice cover in the summer and winter weather in Central Europe. […] The probability of cold, snowy winters in Central Europe increases when the Arctic summer has little sea ice.“

Did they ever have such a climate model before the cold winters of the last years? NO! This is precisely the point that WELTWOCHE magazine couldn’t help but notice [7]:

‘…are three cold winters… a coincidence?’… ‘Such winters are inconvenient not only for those who freeze in them, but also for those had announced warmer temperatures because of the CO2 emissions.’ … ‘The reality is, writes American climate scientist JUDAH COHEN, that we are not freezing despite climate change, but because of it.’ … ‘Such an explanation would be convincing only if it had not come afterwards. Indeed just the opposite had been announced for decades. We can recall DAVID VINER of the British Climate Research Unit. In the year 2000 VINER said that snowfall in Great Britain soon would be rare and a sensation. Children will not know what snow is.”

Former television meteorologist Wolfgang Thüne takes apart the entire matter by using factual meteorological aspects [8]:

“The AWI hypothesis published here [AWI press release] now says:

‘The available model calculations show that the air pressure difference when there is less summertime Arctic sea ice cover is less in the following winter, and thus allow cold Arctic air to plunge to the mid latitudes.’

If that were the case, then we should have had cold winters for the last 20 years because this is about how long we’ve been having relatively minimal sesa ice cover.

If this AWI hypothesis were indeed scientifically conclusive, then the North Atlantic Oscillation Index would have to have been negative for the last 30 years – but the opposite is true as the following graphic depicts: positive 22, negative 7, +/- zero 1! Even in the last 10 years it’s only fifty-fifty.”

WinterIndex

Figure: North Atlantic Oscillation Index [9]

Whether it’s the cold winters in Europe or the global temperature development, climate scientists now find themselves with their models up the creek without a paddle. Global warming has stagnated for 15 years [10]:

….however it has long been known that the climate has developed differently than what was predicted: Warming has stalled for 15 years, the rising trend of the global mean temperature hasn’t continued since. The stagnation leads to the assumption that global warming has stopped.’ NASA concedes.”

This fact has been discussed a long time already in the English speaking media, and has now reached the German public [11]. This is very inconvenient because for a long time we had been hearing [12]:

“The warming is developing as predicted. The models were also tested in climates of the past. There’s no reason not to trust the models.”

That obviously can now be perceived in another way [13]:

‘The climate models are not consistent with the currently observed climate development’, said Jochem Marotzke, Director of the Hamburg Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology.”

And Marozke [14]:

According to our first calculations, it would have to warm up a lot and abruptly in the coming years. But we do not trust these prognoses along the way. The simulations should have also seen the temperature increase stagnation – and that didn’t happen.”

Kevin Trenberth [15] wrote on 11 October 2009 [16] of hockey stick inventor Michael Mann:

The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.”

What did our colleague in Kiel say?

“…kids today often have to wait many years for large amounts of snow.”

So children, as you can see, also professors make mistakes – sometimes even 5 years in a row. Just look out the window!

Summary:

Neither the winters nor the global temperatures are doing what the climate alarmists and models predicted. This is an embarassment for the established climate science community. However, malice is not warranted because scientific history has always been connected to being on the wrong path. Errors are permitted, but they must be corrected as quickly as possible when they are detected.

Now we have to look ahead and bring the proportion of the man-made and natural climate factors back into balance in the models. One thing is already clear: The sworn climate catastrophe is not taking place.

WinterTempsGermany

Figure: Winter temperatures in Germany over the last 25 years (DJF). Source: Josef Kowatsch. Data from the DWD German Weather Service.

Quotes:

[1] http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,71456,00.html; 01.04.2000

[2] DIE ZEIT, 27. März 2002, Nr. 14, DOSSIER, Das große Schmelzen hat begonnen: Abbrechende Eisberge, schwere Überschwemmungen und andere Folgen der globalen Erwärmung / Von Mojib Latif

[3] Leipziger Volkszeitung, 1./2. October 2005

[4] Dow Jones News GmbH Frankfurter Beratungsunternehmen 3c Climate Change Consulting GmbH, Bericht über die Konferenz am 28. und 29. März 2006 “Fachwelt entdeckt Klimahandel als Quelle für Investment und Finanzierung”

[5] BILD, 23.12.2010, S.7

[6] AWI, Presse-Mitt. 26.01.2012,

[7] WELTWOCHE, Frostbeulen der Erderwärmung, 1/2011, p.40

[8] http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/ne...ukratives-geschaeft-in-der-wetterwahrsagerei/

[9] Quelle: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/datapages/naoi.htm

[10] http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/...-fuer-pause-der-klimaerwaermung-a-877941.html ; 18.01.2013

[11] http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-cache/klima-skepsis-erreicht-auch-die-deutschen-medien/; 30.01.2013

[12] Leipniz-Inst. Kiel, Mojib Latif, in : BILD , 20.09.07, p.13

[13] FOCUS: (http://www.focus.de/wissen/weltraum...aermung-eine-frage-deransicht_aid_737040.html ; 16.04.2012)

[14] J. Marotzke, MPI HH, in: DER SPIEGEL, 27.02.2012, p. 113

[15] National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Co., USA

[16] Trenberth-Email, uncovered in the ClimateGate scandal 2009, email 1255352257*, here quoted from: DIE WELT, 03.12.09, p.3

Sorry for the long post, but to make Mannie happy I had to include all the citations and stuff......

 

Funny one of the authors of that blog wrote a paper on sea level rises

http://notrickszone.com/2012/12/06/...evel-rise-has-slowed-34-over-the-last-decade/

It is obvious to see that sea level rise has slowed down significantly. In view of the relatively short time frame in which the measurements have been made, it should not be speculated on whether the deceleration in the rise is a trend change or if it is only noise.

Then goes on in your article to do the exact reverse by concentrating on only 5 years of data from European winters

Currently this 2012/13 winter in Germany and over large parts of Europe we’ve been finding lots of cold, snow and ice - the fifth winter of this type in a row. Who can still recall the prognoses and claims of some alarmists of the established climate science community

 

Ironically these 5 years CO2 has been pumping into air in bigger amount than previous years. Yet, no greenhouse effect has been showing up.
Ironically the overwhelming majorities of the scientific community have been officially projecting warming of the mentioned areas and other areas of human habitat during these 5 years. Do believers in the existence of black holes remember hockey up schtick?
Ironically the overwhelming majorities of the scientific community have been claiming accelerating of sea levels rising while no rising at all has been happening (no measurements with a reference point have been conducted and the overwhelming majorities of the scientific community do not even know what I am talking about); to the point that even the overwhelming majorities of the scientific community started accepting reacceleration.

Understand? Yes? No? Man made CO2 goes up, temperature goes down. Understand? Yes? No? The recorded law of nature: we have been observing Man made CO2 goes up, temperature goes down. Understand? Yes? No?

 

Granny says, "Dat's right - the sun an' greenhouse gases heatin' the oceans...

Study: Earth's climate change is heating oceans
Apr 11, 2013 - The temperature of Earth’s atmosphere has been essentially the same for the past decade or so, providing ammunition for skeptics of human-caused climate change.

 

it's either dishonesty or stupidity at work here...

solar activity has been down for 30 years moderating warming, but yet still temps increase, when solar activity returns to normal expect temp to increase rapidly...

all these claims of cooling conveniently have their start point at the super strong el nino of 97-98 and the end point of la nina years, what convenient cherry picking of data...ironically the denier world claim trends have to be long term and here they are using short term data to determine long term trends...when the next strong el nino appears during a cycle of strong solar activity they'll begin this charade again with a starting point measuring from the next el nino of course the following year will be cooler and followed up by a la nina year and the stupid claim "it's cooling, where's the warming" will start yet again...

and it's really disingenuous to demand straight line graphs of data, anyone who has any knowledge of science knows that never happens, it can't there are too many variables/modifiers...disingenuous or just plain ignorant of the process...

then there is just a glaring lack of knowledge on how scientific graphing of data works and how to read the results, I don't know where these people went to school but this is something I learned to interpret in the 8th grade...

 

Human disaster looms...

Climate change: human disaster looms, claims new research
Sunday 19 May 2013 - Forecast global temperature rise of 4C a calamity for large swaths of planet even if predicted extremes are not reached

 

Some argue, Eike is not reliable, falsified data and conspiracy.

 

Climate warming slowin' down in the near term...

Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming 'not as likely'
19 May 2013 - Scientists say the recent downturn in the rate of global warming will lead to lower temperature rises in the short-term.

 

So you are saying that since the 98 ENSO temperatures have continued to rise.

There is nothing ironic or cherry picking about it. You are simply ignorant buying into warmmonger propagandists. Why do we skeptics chose 16 years? Is it cherry picking? No! Its because your own propagandist scientists set the goal posts at 16 years.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

Now get lost with your accusations of cherry picking. Dont let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

 

No (*)(*)(*)(*) not everyone agrees with this perspective. Its bull(*)(*)(*)(*)! The ARGO data doesn't show it. That lying sack of (*)(*)(*)(*) Trenberth did a "reanalysis" of the ARGO data and found his hidden warming. If you beleive Trenberth after reading the vile (*)(*)(*)(*) he wrote in climategate then you are a poor judge of character. The man is a sack of (*)(*)(*)(*) and will stoop to any level to get what he wants. Including but not limited to 'redefining what peer review is.'

The (*)(*)(*)(*) Trenberth pulled to find his missing heat is patently false on its face. His climate models show an increase in sea surface winds. He uses that modeled increase in sea surface wind to run another model that shows the wind forcing atmospheric heat into the deep ocean. He uses this model to readjust the ARGO data and abracadabra we have warming. There is no real data here just models. Of course Trenberth knows that this is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) because his climate model has already failed. There has been no increase in temperature so there also has been no increase in sea surface winds as it is the rise in temperature that drives the winds in the model.



See no wind. Its not real. Just a model that is already falsified.

So lets examine the circular reasoning of that lying sack of (*)(*)(*)(*) Trenberth.

The models have failed to predict the future there has been no increase in temperature.
But the models are not wrong.
Why?
Well its being stored in the deep oceans.
How?
An increase in sea surface winds.
What increase?
The one we see in our climate models.
What causes the increase in the models?
The rise in sea surface temperature.
What rise in sea surface temperature?
The one we see in our models.
You mean the model rise in temperature that isn't there in the real data?
Yes!

 

Note the title of your graph: AMSR-E Global Average Wind variations Sea Surface
Note what Trenberth actually states in Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content:

This states that the important factor is variability, ie a positive and a negative change in wind speed; which he states in the abstract:

"Atmospheric circulation" ! Not wind speed. Nowhere in the paper does he relate wind speed to warming.

No wonder you did not link to the original study!

 

Oh jesus christ Manny. There you go again. You will never ever stop spinning.

What is "wind variability". It is changes in the wind speed which AKA wind speed anomaly.

Left Twix flows caramel onto their cookies then bathes them in chocolate, while Right Twix cascades caramel onto their cookies then cloaks them in chocolate, totally different process.

Wind variability, atmospheric circulation, and wind speed anomaly are all different ways of saying the same damn thing!!!!

Your "analysis" is a joke. Its pure double speak spin. At times with arguments you try and spin I don't know if it is deliberate or you just don't comprehend what you are reading. I think its probably both.

 

Ridicule, conspiracy theory or strawman?

 

Yes Mannie if you argue that Left Twix flows caramel onto their cookies then bathes them in chocolate, while Right Twix cascades caramel onto their cookies then cloaks them in chocolate, totally different process, you should expect ridicule.

If you don't want your arguments ridiculed don't make ridiculous arguments. Arguments will only get as much respect as they deserve. Playing double speak with 3 interchangeable terms isn't worthy of any respect.

 

Try reading Trenberth's paper. It does does not conclude what you state it does.

"The deep ocean has continued to warm, while the upper 300m OHC appears to have stabilized. The differences in recent trends among the different ocean layers are profound. The small warming in the upper 300m is belied by the continuing warming for the ocean as a whole, with considerable warming occurring below 700m. However, this raises the question of whether this result is simply because of the new Argo observing system? The results shown here suggest otherwise, although Argo clearly is vitally important quantitatively. Instead changes (not increase) in surface winds play a major role, and although the exact nature of the wind influence (not increase) still needs to be understood, the changes are consistent with the intensification (increase) of the trades in subtropical gyres. Another supporting factor is the uniqueness of the radiative forcing associated with global warming."

(My comments in gray)
When he means an increase, he states an increase (intensification).
Read!!! Understand!!? I used to respect your reading comprehension skills.

 

Left Twix flows caramel onto their cookies then bathes them in chocolate, while Right Twix cascades caramel onto their cookies then cloaks them in chocolate, totally different process.

Again your argument deserves nothing but ridicule.

The whole idea is there has been an increace vertical mixing from wind-driven waves.

Trendberth has made this clear

A decrease in surface wind does not increase the vertical mixing.

You are trying to play fast and lose with words because you don't have a defense. Ergo your arguments deserve nothing but ridicule.

 

No, Trenberth did not make that clear. The author of the article stated that "That something could easily be strong prevailing winds".
Trenberth stated "You need something to push it down,”.
Now we are into the strawman (stating something that was never stated)part of the discussion. Ridicule >> strawman. Next comes the conspiracy part of the argument (Unless you decide to deflect it to Cook or Mann)

 

Look Manny Trenberths paper is about wind driven waves incensing vertical mixing. That means an increase in wind speed not a decrease. A decrease in wind would not increase vertical mixing.

Apparently your physics education is so poor you do not realize that the words, drive, force, mix all forceful actions. They take an increase in energy. A decrease in energy is not going to drive, force or mix anything. You were praying your were hoping but you didn't know.

As usual your entire argument is pure spin. Nothing but a word game. You have no real argument so your argument is to be ridiculed.

Left Twix flows caramel onto their cookies then bathes them in chocolate, while Right Twix cascades caramel onto their cookies then cloaks them in chocolate, totally different process.

 

Thank you for posting that! Now explain to us why you posted a graph of the Global Average Wind variations Sea Surface when, as your linked article states that "the subtropical trade winds have become noticeably stronger". What do the Global Average Wind variations have to do with the subtropical trade winds?

 

OK. Because you can't explain your deceptive graph, I'll get back to this.

Why don't you get into your car an his a brick wall at 100kph and then tell us that a "decrease in energy is not going to drive, force or mix anything". It's the change in energy which mixes things up. The car's energy goes from m*(100kph)[SUP]2[/SUP] to 0 in an instant; rattling your brains in the process
Now where did you say you got your physics education?

 

Ha ha ha.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

I knew your physics education was bad but I didn't know it was that bad.

 

It's better than your reading comprehension; but then that's not saying much.

 

I want you to take the time to look up and understand the physics of a car crash.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

 

and I want you to try and understand that in a car crash a decrease in energy is going to drive, force or mix the contents of the car; counter to your claim that a "decrease in energy is not going to drive, force or mix anything".

 

No Manny that is not how it works.