Spiegel has finally gotten around to conceding that global warming has ended, at least for the time being.
Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski published a piece called: Klimawandel: Forscher ratseln uber Stillstand bei Erderwarmung (Climate change: scientists baffled by the stop in global warming).
We’ve been waiting for this admission a long time, and watching the media reaction is interesting to say the least. Bojanowski writes that “The word has been out for quite some time now that the climate is developing differently than predicted earlier”. He poses the question: “How many more years of stagnation are needed before scientists rethink their predictions of future warming?”
Bojanowski adds (emphasis added):
15 years without warming are now behind us. The stagnation of global near-surface average temperatures shows that the uncertainties in the climate prognoses are surprisingly large. The public is now waiting with suspense to see if the next UN IPCC report, due in September, is going to discuss the warming stop.
The big question now circulating through the stunned European media, governments and activist organisations is how could the warming stop have happened? Moreover, how do we now explain it to the public? To find an answer, Bojanowski contacted a number of sources. The result, in summary: scientists are now left only to speculate over an entire range of possible causes. Uncertainty in climate science indeed has never been greater. It’s back to square one.
One explanation Spiegel presents is that the oceans have somehow absorbed the heat and are now hiding it somewhere. Yet, Bojanowski writes that there is very little available data to base this on: “There is a lot of uncertainty concerning the development of the water temperature. It has long appeared that also the oceans have not warmed further since 2003.” Spiegel then quotes Kevin Trenberth concerning NASA’s claim that they’ve detected a warming of the oceans: “The uncertainties with the data are too great. We need to improve our measurements”.
Spiegel also writes that the missing heat may be lurking somewhere deep in the oceans. But here Bojanowski [Spiegel] quotes Doug Smith of the Met Office: “This is very difficult to confirm”. Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI) suspects that energy has been conveyed to the ocean’s interior, but there’s a dire lack of data to confirm this. Bojanowski writes over the current state of ocean data measurement: “Without intensifying the data measurement network, we are going to have to wait a long time for any proof”.
Scientists also suspect that the stratosphere may have something to do with the recent global temperature stall. Susan Solomon says the stratosphere has gotten considerably drier, and so warming at the surface may have been reduced by a quarter. But Bojanowski reminds us that under the bottom line, the scientists are pretty much without a clue; he writes:
“However, climate models do not illustrate stratospheric water vapour very well,” says Marotzke. The prognoses thus remain vague.”
Well then, maybe it’s due to aerosols from China and India blocking out the sun, some scientists are speculating, and “thus weakening warming by one third”. Spiegel writes that “If the air were cleaner, then climate warming would accelerate.” But aerosols have always been used a convenient joker in climate models to explain unexpected cooling, such as from 1945 to 1980.
In fact, all the explanations presented by Bojanowski above have already been thoroughly looked at in a book one year ago by a pair of scientists: Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Luning. Last year much of the media massively ostracised them for floating “crude theories”. A year later it’s indeed strange to see that their “crude theories” are now completely in vogue.
How does Bojanowski sum it up? “The numerous possible explanations do show just how imprecisely climate is understood.”
Trenberth is left with only anecdotes, isolated singular events
Yet, as Bojanowski points out, some scientists refuse to give up on the AGW theory. He writes:
Under the bottom line, there are a number of various ominous signs of warming: rising sea levels, Arctic sea ice reduced by a half in the summertime, melting glaciers. At some locations there are signs that extreme weather events are increasing. ‘There are many signs of global warming,’ emphasizes Kevon Trenberth, “near surface air temperatures is only one of them.’”
Sorry, but isolated singular events do not constitute trends, let alone science. Prof. Trenberth really ought to know that. This is pathetic. The observed data and measured trends have stopped showing global warming. So are scientists now claiming that singular events are robust signs? This would be only one step away from astrology!
Bojanowski reminds us again that the science is poorly understood and that a number of factors are at play. He writes:
Indeed new surprising data keep popping up. Recently a new study appeared showing that soot particles from unfiltered diesel engine exhaust and open fires have had an impact on warming that is twice as high as what was first thought.”
Bojanowski also tells his readers that “Computer simulations have shown that warming has made tropical storms more seldom.”
He also mentions other factors that are poorly understood, such as: solar radiation�s impact on clouds, water vapour cycles, and natural and man-made aerosols.
Short term prognoses remain “especially uncertain”. But longterm ones are sure?
Spiegel at the end of the article seems to be duped into thinking that short-term prognoses are uncertain, but longterm ones are rather sure. Spiegel quotes warmist Jochem Marotzke of the MPI:
Climate prognoses over time periods of a few years still remain especially uncertain. ‘Our forecasting system in this regard still lets us down,’ says MPI director Marotzke. “But we’re still working on it.”
This to me appears to be an attempt to have readers believe that although they’ve botched the short-term projections completely, they are likely still right about the longterm projections of warming. Now take five minutes to get your laughing under control. … If the models failed for the first 15 years, then they are no good! Period! They’re crap, and you cannot rely on them for projecting the long-term. They belong in one place only: the dustbin! How long must we wait before climate scientists return to science?
Don’t get me wrong, at least this article, admitting something is terribly amiss, is a very encouraging step in the right direction. But it’s difficult to remain hopeful when climate scientists continue demonstrating that they do not even know what proper scientific methodology is.
Lastly, I like they way Bojanowski ends his piece:
Current prognoses warn of a 5C warming if CO2 emissions continue as before. But it is not now well-known just how much natural climate impacts are able to change the temperature development the new NASA data have revealed this as well.”
Spiegel science writers would be well-advised to read Fritz Vahrenholt’s and Sebastian Luning’s “Die kalte Sonne”. Practically every question brought up by Bojanowski has been answered there � one year ago. Moreover, Luning’s and Vahrenholt’s temperature model for the next 100 years so far has been dead on.
Jim Hatem
Jim.Hatem@yahoo.com
