Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out
By Gerald Traufetter
At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.
Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth’s average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.
Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations.
Reached a Plateau
The planet’s temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,” confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany’s best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. “There can be no argument about that,” he says. “We have to face that fact.”
Read the complete article here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Der Spiegel
REPLY: Fixed Thanks
“Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years
…
Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth’s average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.”
Clearly none of this is true –
https://sites.google.com/site/europa62/climatechange/yvtayto200
Nothing in the last ten years looks like any change at all from the warming trend of around 0.2C per decade. Just look at the data.
Now, perhaps in 10 years’ time, if we haven’t seen any new record high global average temperatures, you could legitimately claim that there has been a significant change to the warming trend, but right now there is no difference at all between the last ten years and any other ten year period you care to choose in the last several decades. There is just the normal interannual variation superimposed on the warming trend. Again – just look at the data.
This report is totally bogus.
It has obviously been contaminated by human observations.
The models did not predict this. It is therefore impossible.
/sarcasm
“Spiegel”, please.
Here in Germany we are wondering as much as you are. The Spiegel (by th way, you misspelled that) is for decades now known as the #1 organ for AGW-horrorstories. Everybody here remembers the infamous 1986 front-cover showing the Cologne-Cathedral in 50 meters of water (Cologne is about 220 km away from the coastline, 53 m above sea level).
For many years now, the Spiegel was the court reporter of the PIK and Rahmstorf. This quite open criticism is something really new. Read here a short essay about “Rahmstorf and the Mirror: the end of a marriage?“
Natural climate variations cause warming. The issue is not “whether or not” there is warming. Natural climate variations are nowhere near sufficiently understood, which is why modelers base probabilities & other measures of statistical significance on untenable assumptions of randomness.
One sensible option is to stop conflating issues.
Laughable article. It is like saying on the first of July that ‘summer has stalled’ because of a couple of cool, rainy days 🙂
I guess it is forbidden to mention the dip in the solar cycle and the big Niña. I mean, those put 2007 and 2008 only just in the top ten warmest years instead of having them bust the record (without global warming they would have belonged to the 20% coldest, of course).
The collapse of the AGW House of Cards is going main stream now.
On top of that we now wait for the impact of the ‘”leaked” Hadley CRU data which will pull the rug from under the the scientific establishment that abused science for political objectives.
Watch them and their cronies jump the sinking AGW Titanic that just hit a monster ice berg.
Politicians and Corporate CEO’s are allergic for any involvement or association with high profiled public scandals.
Hopefully the honorable members of the press are able to identify this “Golden” opportunity to restore the integrity of the free press and raise the circulation numbers of their battered media by revealing the biggest scientific, political and economic scam in history to the public.
This scientific scam if it comes out big has the potential to cancel the Copenhagen Climate Conference and trigger an official investigation of unprecedented proportions and a flood of claims.
Re: “Natural climate variations cause warming. ” – ah, so warming has no causes at all. Just happens.
This is a real turnaround. Not only that ” Der Spiegel” is Germany`s most respected political magazine. This very guy Mojif Latif must have had a Saulus-Paulus experience. For so many years now whenever there was a bit of stronger rains or floods or hot weather, you could be sure to see him appearing in public television,predicting that all these events where just the first signs of a catastrophic global warming if we not…… And I don`t think he would careless risk his splendid position. There must be a wind of change among his colleagues.
“The planet’s temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. ”
Wait a minute, isn’t that supposed to be 0.7 degrees from 1900 to 2000?
1900 – 1940 = 0.4 degrees
1970 – 2000 = 0.3 degrees
Icarus (00:13:10) :
“Nothing in the last ten years looks like any change at all from the warming trend of around 0.2C per decade. Just look at the data.
Again – just look at the data.”
Really?
You should take a look at what the satellites tell us:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:1/offset/from:1980/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1990/trend/plot/rss/from:1990/to:2000/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/to:2010/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1980/mean:1/scale:1
Clearly only 1990’s was the decade of rising temperatures.
Germany hosted at least 2 of the series of global meetings by the UN FCCC this year prior to Copenhagen. Which means the German government is among the top promoters of “cut carbon emission deep, or we’ll be doomed” thinking. This analysis in Spiegel should throw some sanity in the minds of the German government’s climate negotiators.
It looks that after all, climate scientists have invented the wheel, or recognized that oceanic cycles have effect on global temperatures in multidecadal scale.
It is shame that amateurs, bloggers and WUWT commenters recognized it before the peer-reviewed scientists did.
I loved recent quote from some “leading climate scientist” from Met or CRU: “We are puzzled and have no explanation for this [temperature stagnation].” I would propose that gentleman to give the diploma back and start doing something completely different.
ICARUS – I am simple sole whose understanding is that global warming is caused by increasing C02 concentration in the atmosphere. C02 levels have continued to rise over the last 10 years but temperatures have not. The conclusion must be that there are greater natural forces masking the greenhouse effect. These effects are not reflected in the models therefore the projections are suspect. Nevertheless governments across the world are proposing to spend billions on unproven premises. The world may be getting warmer but even Al Gore hasn’t suggested it will make us go mad.
Paul,
If the models predict warming, and there is no warming, then the models are wrong. Therefore, it seems to me that “whether or not there is warming” is important.
Fantastic Icarus, an AGW hockey stick and based on the others patently false. Weather watching and cherry picked data, start and end dates and curve fitting I’m afraid. Just listened to peer reviewed science please. The planet is cooling and it can’t do this if AGW is either not true or absolutely dominated by natural variations. The house of cards is collapsing, and never has there been anything so sweet in life.
Someone appears to have broken a hockey stick!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6606227/Antarctic-temperatures-between-ice-ages-6C-warmer-than-today.html
Icarus: Yes, look at the data, but don’t conveniently start your graph in 1949 as you do.
When so-called “scientists” cook the data, adding or subtracting (“adjusting”) temperatures at will, no one really can know what the temperatures or temperature changes might have been.
No “scientific method”, no science. Refusing to release actual temperature measurements, actual computer codes which were used to “adjust” the actual temperatures which thermometers indicated, no effort to even consider “margin of error”. . . refusal to release much of anything as to how they came up with the “temperatures” after the “adjustments” . . . all strongly indicative of complete lack of scientific method, which means no real science going on.
At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.
Why should we trust a weather prediction from these people? The man-made-we-are-all-burning-up people have made any weather predictions nearly impossible in the modern age. I read that the British predictions are laughable these days.
“Nothing in the last ten years looks like any change at all from the warming trend of around 0.2C per decade. Just look at the data”
Good idea, just look at the data.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
In my opinion, the real issue is “Do we have a Carbon-Dioxide Crisis?” The problem, as presented, is that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is dangerously near a “tipping point” where it will cause a run-away greenhouse effect cooking the planet. Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT claims to have measured data that proves this is not true.
I believe the IPCC computer models all assume our climate is like an overloaded, top-heavy ship dangerously close to the point where the slightest additional weight will cause it to tip over. Dr. Lindzen says his measurements show this is not true — we have a situation more like the self-correcting case where the center of gravity is well below the center of buoyancy. It appears, however, that the mainstream press regards this to be a crackpot study not deserving any serious mention.
I believe that questioning the reality of global warming, man-caused or otherwise, is a distraction — the real question is “do we have a dangerous carbon-dioxide crisis?”
Paul Vaughan (00:42:33) :
The two main constituent water masses of the North West Atlantic water circulation are: the deep warm water current, branching of North Atlantic Current in the Nordic Seas, and the Labrador Sea cold current (see http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SubpolarGyre.gif ).
These two currents tightly govern the strength of the North Atlantic Gyre and via it global ocean circulation and the associated heat transport across the North Atlantic Ocean.
It has been shown that if relationship of these two water masses is altered (changes in the Labrador Sea cold current) is a significant contributor to the global climate change.
Labrador Sea cold current is made from contributions of flows through Denmark, Davis and Hudson Straits. They form part of a current, known as the Subpolar gyre. Computer models have shown the slowing and speeding up of the Subpolar gyre can influence the entire ocean circulation system.
Warm water of the Gulf Stream runs northward through, turns westward near Iceland and the tip of Greenland. The current loses heat to the atmosphere as it moves north. After cold Labrador Sea winters, the water in the current becomes cold, salty and dense, plunges beneath the surface, and heads slowly southward back to the equator. The cycle is extremely sensitive to the buoyant fresh waters flowing out of the Hudson Bay and the Arctic Ocean.
Change in the parameters affecting inflow of fresh waters through Hudson and Denmark Straits are shown on this graph:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SubpolarGyre.gif
(work in progress)
I am looking forward to the day when news paper editors realise that you can sell more newspapers with real reporting on this subject than propaganda.