Translation via the GWPF
Speculation Alert: “New Little Ice Age Cannot Be Ruled Out”
Wednesday, 15 December 2010 09:16 Rickmer Flor, wetter.info
It is already clear: the average temperatures in Germany this year (8.1 degrees Celsius) were 0.2 degrees below the long term measured average of 8.3 degrees. “I fear we will end up still significantly lower by the end of the year”, said Globig. The long-term average is actually the average of all German stations from 1961 to 1990.
Coldest December in 100 years
In Berlin, there was an absolute cold record in early December, “For 100 years it had not been as cold as in the first decade of December,” said Globig. This also applied to other regions. But why is it so cold just now? Might it have anything to do with climate change? “I’m very sceptical”, replied Globig. A few years ago when we had a period of mild winters many climate scientists warned that winter sport in Germany’s low mountain ranges would soon no longer be possible anymore because of global warming. “Now they are saying: the cold winters are a consequence of global warming – a questionable implication,” according to Globig.
“Unbelievable amounts of snow” in Berlin (AW note: 800 flights grounded in EU)
Globig appeals to our long-term memory – and recalls a prolonged period of extremely cold and snowy winter in the 1960s and 1970s. Half a meter of snow fell in Berlin in early March 1970, in Potsdam even 70 centimetres. “From today’s perspective, these amounts were unbelievable.”
Then followed a period of milder years, and, probably the impression spread that there will be no more real winters in Germany”, said Globig. “That was a misjudgment.” People became careless, and as a result the authorities run out of grit in a very short time last winter and this year the airport operators lacked de-icing fluid for airplanes. In the Berlin the S-Bahn traffic came to a halt because of the cold and the high-speed trains did not run either. “Our modern, high-tech world was completely overwhelmed with the winter situation” said Globig.
Even the last winter was extremely hard
Many had succumbed to the delusion that the usually mild winters of the past ten years would continue. But already the winter 2009/2010 – with its long periods of frost and snow well into spring – was an eye-opening event for many. “This eye-opening experience could be even bigger this year,” predicts Globig.
Globig sees two main causes for the significant cooling: First, the cyclical changes in the big air currents over the Atlantic, and second, the variations in solar activity.
“Everyone has heard about the high over the Azores and the low over Iceland,” said Globig. The most important question for weather forecasts for many years was: “What are the air pressure differences between the two regions, how stormy will it be – and how much mild air is being shovelled sequentially from the Atlantic to Europe?”
“Both pressure areas do not exist right now,” explains Globig. On the contrary, over the Azores there is lower air pressure and a high over Iceland. “The weather over the Atlantic is upside down,” said Globig. Now cold air from the polar region has lots of space to flow to Europe – and that is what is happening.
“Normal” fluctuations with large currents
“These changes in the so-called ‘Atlantic Oscillation’ are totally normal – just hard to predict in detail,” explains Globig. The storm “Kyrill” in 2007 was the peak of the flow activity from the Atlantic to Europe. “Since then it has grown quiet over the sea,” the meteorologist said. The lows over the Atlantic have become weaker and weaker.
This effect has taken place in previous years, but at irregular intervals. Science does not yet know much about it, says Globig, „but here lies the key to a better understanding of the seasons”.
The low temperatures could very well go on a few years, maybe decades. Even more icy cold could be possible. „It has happened before, and can be explained with natural climate variability,” said Globig. We could even be at the beginning of a Little Ice Age, “the probability is at least given.”
This is also supported by the current development of solar activity. Solar activity has passed the zenith of a nearly 200 years continuing phase of high activity and will decline in coming decades. Around the years 2040/2050, scientists expect a new so-called solar minimum, with very little supply of solar energy into the Earth’s atmosphere.
Spread of the Arctic ice?
“I think it is even conceivable that the Arctic ice spreads significantly in the years to come,” said Globig. The impact of solar activity on climate has been criminally underestimated for a long time.
The last two weeks have been the coldest in England since the second-to-last solar minimum, many hundreds of years ago. “What actually will happen depends on the next five to ten years,” believes Globig. But one thing now appears to be very likely for the weather expert, “We will have to abandon some climate forecasts. “
Wetter T-Online, 14 December 2010 (translation by Philipp Mueller)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
R. Gates writes:
“What has happened in the past 2 winters to open the freezer door is that we’ve seen a shift in atmospheric pressure that has spanned both the last El Nino and La Nino cycles of ENSO…i.e. you can’t blame the current La Nina for the negative AO of last winter. This pressure shift has made the outbreak of cold air to regions further south more likely and also has coincided (or been reflected in?) a period of more frequent Arctic Dipole Anomalies. Some scientists are blaming lower sea ice for this, but I have a feeling it is more complicated than that (but still likley related to AGW), but the net result is that the cold air that normally stays north isn’t being trapped up there.”
Sir, what you just wrote is tautological and trivial in all ways. To illustrate the point, I will compare what you said with another report:
“In the summer of 1980, a stalled high-pressure system over the midwest caused a record breaking heat wave in St. Louis, MO, which saw 90 days with temperatures soaring above 90 degrees. The stalled high pressure system opened the oven door and baked St. Louis. In addition, the high pressure system blocked all cooling winds that might have brought relief to St. Louis. This high pressure system has been associated with a pattern of more frequent high pressure systems in the midwest and is likely associated with global warming.”
All I said in my quoted paragraph immediately above is that there was a high-pressures sytem over St. Louis, which happened to experience 90 days above 90 degrees. In other words, it is a simple report of fact that says nothing about what might have caused this event or high likely the event might be in the future. As a matter of fact, the event has not re-occurred in 30 years and there is no noticeable heating of the environment of St. Louis.
You write as if the causes of the European cold are just about to reveal themselves as AGW. Yet you actually say just what I say, namely, that there are these temperatures and these pressure conditions, which might be unusual.
Would you please stop your fiendish habit of propagandizing for the AGW cause by dressing plain factual statements in the garments of the latest starlet, Angelina Jolie or whoever it might be? Sir, you are gushing! Restrain yourself. Otherwise, I highly recommend that Anthony ban you.
I have lived in Germany in Hanover in the early 90’s. I remember really cold snow rich winters, where the snow would be around forever on the streets getting ever blacker, that were unknown to me from my home country, the Netherlands. Still, this only demonstrates that as long as weather is not global, there is no point in discussing global climate or the change or “disruption” thereof; what on earth could this possibly mean?
I read the original. From the context it appears that it was not Thomas Globig who talked about “very little supply of solar energy” – because then, i would expect it to be in quotes, like they do when they quote him.
German:
‘Um die Jahre 2040/2050 rechnen Wissenschaftler mit einem neuen sogenannten Solarminimum, also mit sehr wenig Zufuhr von Sonnenenergie in die Erdatmosphäre.’
(not marked as an utterance by Globig)
My translation, with my remarks in brackets:
Around 2040/2050 scientists (they don’t say which) expect a new so-called solar minimum (well, we have one every 11 years, so this must have been written by a journalist) , meaning very little supply of solar energy into the Earth’s atmosphere (come on – no meteorologist would phrase it that way).
The journalist is Rickmer Flor from wetter.info. Sounds like a pretty rare name. Googling for him, i find this foto report about exotic travel locations:
http://reisen.t-online.de/privatinseln-zum-mieten/id_20811606/tid_embedded/sid_20810350/si_10/index
So my hunch is that he is not a climate specialist but just a journalist doing all kinds of jobs.
Oh please!
Peisner’s getting lame.. I had this up a day earlier already, and you were tipped. Okay, he added a few anecdotes here and there.
http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/14/little-ice-age-and-expanding-arctic-ice-coming-climate-models-will-have-to-be-thrown-in-the-dustbin/
I’m watching you now Peisner. Watch yout step, bro.
You’re getting an e-mail tomorrow, Peisner.
R Gates says:
Wow, the sun’s supply of solar energy is going to slow to almost a trickle during a “new so-called solar minimum” in the years 2040/2050? Is this the height of ignorant writing or what? I will kind a guess the author simply wasn’t aware of the less than 1% variance in TSI between solar max and minimum means that during a solar minimum the earth is still receiving 99% of the “supply of solar energy” (and thank god it does, or we’d be back to the ice house earth of 700 million years ago.
This is the sort of truth that is designed to mislead.
The fact is that 100% of the sun’s energy is needed to maintain the earth at about 288K. If the sun’s output drops by 1%, all other things being equal, the temperature will drop by about 1K. Since this is more than the increase in the last century it is not to be ignored. Moreover all things are not equal. We know that during these periods of low overall output the sun’s short wave radiation drops by far more. The solar wind also drops and all sorts of feedbacks are possible given these changes. If the AGWarmers are allowed to conjure up as yet unproven positive feedback mechanisms to amplify the 0.7K warming for a doubling of CO2 why can’t the sun worshippers do the same.
Personally I cannot get excited about any of this. Until someone comes up with some real data I am going to remain sceptical of both sides of the argument.
This is the ‘money shot’ for me (my emphasis).
R. Gates says:
December 18, 2010 at 1:49 pm
” The issue is whether a 1% variance in TSI (at the most) from solar max to minimum along with secondary effects that may be produced by the variances in galactic cosmic rays is all of a greater influence than a 40% rise in CO2 over a few centuries. For many the issue is settled, for others, the jury is still out…and hence, why WUWT can be so much fun!”
The obvious difference is that the Sun has 330,000 times the mass of the Earth and 1% of its output has real significance, while the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is infinitesimally small.
Think of it this way – my water has 1 ppb of arsenic, but later on it tests at 4 ppb. It has had a 400% increase – but it is still insignificant in any real sense.
In the case of CO2 you are worrying about the minuscule impact of humans (4% per year) of an incredibly small portion of the atmosphere that has been much higher for the vast history of the planet, but since it is such a useful substance (to life) it has slowly been sequestered out through various biological processes.
My personal belief is that if nothing had come along to release these fossil fuels (like us) then the planet may very well have faced a massive extinction from the lack of plant growth.
I think that those who are complaining about the phrase used in that article, “with very little supply of solar energy into the earth’s atmosphere” are missing something that should be rather obvious.
The problem is not likely due to ignorance on the part of the scientist or original author of the article but rather in the translation from German to English.
Translating from one language to another is a very tricky thing and that is one reason why computer translation programs are notoriously poor. In this case, it was an individual who was doing the translating but almost certainly this person is more proficient in one of the two languages than the other.
Very often when translating an article, one must reconstruct entire sentences in order to attempt to capture something close to the intended meaning of the original author. This is in part because certain words and phrases which exist in one language do not exist in the other or because common idioms are used for an expression in one language but would mean something entirely different if translated word for word from one language to the other.
Instead of using “very little supply of solar energy” the translator perhaps should have used “significantly less solar energy” or perhaps “much reduced solar energy” or something similar.
Remember that to scientists, any change in the level of solar energy output is considered to be significant. So in attempting to highlight the significance of reduced solar energy output, the German author may have used words which German-speaking readers would understand far differently than English-speaking readers would.
In any case, I think the problem there is with the translation and not with the intellect of the scientist involved. I seem to recall some other phrases in the article which were clumsily translated, such as “the first decade of December, 2010…” My guess is the German author meant either the first one-tenth of the month of December or perhaps the first ten days of the month but in the translated version it did not make sense, in English.
el gordo reads this:
‘The impact of solar activity on climate has been criminally underestimated for a long time.’
And replies:
“Fighting words which support the proposition that CO2 has low climate sensitivity.”
‘Fighting words’??? The alarmist crowd runs away from any fair debate with their tails tucked firmly between their quivering hind legs.
‘Fighting words.’ As if alarmists aren’t all a bunch of cowards. Abraham is still holed up in his ivory tower, scared to death of coming down to face Lord Monckton, who never runs from a fight.
And if CO2 had the high climate sensitivity claimed, temperature would track rises in CO2 very closely. But it doesn’t. Why? Because sensitivity to CO2 is very low. QED
***
Regarding the silly idea that the gulf stream will shut down, that’s about as likely as the jet stream shutting down. Both act according to the 2nd Law and the Constructal Law. They are heat transfer mechanisms. Worrying about them shutting down is a waste of time.
Re “criminally underestimated”. The original says:
“Der Einfluss der Sonnenaktivität auf das Klima sei lange Zeit sträflich unterschätzt worden.”
My translation:
The influence of the sun’s activity has been recklessly underestimated for a long time.
“sträflich” doesn’t mean “criminal”; more discussion (in German) here:
http://dict.leo.org/forum/viewUnsolvedquery.php?idThread=308631&idForum=1&lp=ende&lang=de
LT in Florida says:
December 18, 2010 at 3:14 pm
“I think that those who are complaining about the phrase used in that article, “with very little supply of solar energy into the earth’s atmosphere” are missing something that should be rather obvious.
The problem is not likely due to ignorance on the part of the scientist or original author of the article but rather in the translation from German to English.”
In this case, you are wrong. It is incompetently written to begin with.
In diesem Fall liegst Du falsch. Es ist schon im Original schlecht geschrieben.
DirkH says:
December 18, 2010 at 3:42 pm
“In diesem Fall liegst Du falsch.”
I’m starting to get the idioms of my mother tongue wrong. Should read “In diesem Fall liegst Du schief.” 😉
dbleader61 says:
December 18, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Without being overly dramatic, there is a pernicious side to the alarmist mantra about warming, in the sense that it is leading to people being a less prepared for the cold that still occurs – whether you believe in AGW or not…..”
Not me. I predicted last summer that this winter in Philly would be bitter cold but little snow so I cut and split extra wood. Glad I did. My woodstove is nice and warm right now and there’s plenty of wood to last the winter!
R. Gates says:
December 18, 2010 at 1:49 pm
……
.I’ve no doubt that the sun influences the climate– how could it not? Just as I’ve no doubt that the composition of the earth’s atmosphere also is a great influencer of climate. The issue is whether a 1% variance in TSI (at the most) from solar max to minimum along with secondary effects that may be produced by the variances in galactic cosmic rays is all of a greater influence than a 40% rise in CO2 over a few centuries. For many the issue is settled, for others, the jury is still out…and hence, why WUWT can be so much fun!”
I’ve seen some good posts from you R Gates but I don’t think this is one of your better ones. You surely must realise that it is far too simplistic to suggest a 40% variance in CO2 must outweigh a 1% variance in TSI purely because the 40% is a far bigger number. This is what your post implies via the juxtaposition of the 2 percentage values (re-read it carefully and think about it).
I do agree though that Globig saying “with very little supply of solar energy into the Earth’s atmosphere” is very poorly phrased whether due to translation issues or not.
The two thermostat settings of planet Earth as shown by ice cores, geology and many other earth sciences, are shown to be a regular cyclic pulse between bl@ur momisugly@dy cold for long periods and benign for short periods.
It can be totally beyond doubt that CO2 has any role in the switching process, and most likely zero effect on our temperature or climate. That being said our flora world wide is thanking us for the extra and the greening is moderating weather conditions on a local basis.
The inordinate sums of money thrown at the so called climatologists to prove that climate change is the fault of mankind, would have been more wisely spent on real scientific endeavour to find the cause or causes of the resetting of our thermostat.
A few decades and billions of dollars wasted on unreal science. That a few have steadfastly researched areas of real science and results are now contradicting official wisdom is a credit to them for their dedication in the face of scorn.
Of late Gaia has been some what unco-operative to the doomsayer cause and the public have noticed. The trickle of contrary news will become a flood, drowning the doomsayers. Anthony’s blog started as a dim light shining in a world caught up in stupidity. Then it became a beacon to gather reality, and now it is a glaring spot light shining on those of ulterior and unscientific bent.
So a couple of winthers is enough for a turn of direction? Thats all it takes?
Good grief, what a bunch of whimps.
Shoot! And I had just finished painting my roof white. In a way this is bad news, not for the sadly broken AGW theory, but for the inhabitants of Earth. If we do continue trending this direction over the coming decades (as historical trends seem to indicate will in fact be the case), there’ll be a run on black paint and asphalt, and talk of potential global warming will be of a nostalgic bent as the chill sets in. Maybe Trenberth will find some of that missing heat to help us out, but he’ll likely be hiding out in his igloo at that point (not that I would expect any assistance from the AGW string-pullers or their activist scientists/unwitting followers). So I’m happy these continued AGW coffin nails are being hammered in, but sad that people will suffer far more drastically than they would have with a continued warming trend. The AGW crowd has harped about AGW food shortages. They ain’t seen nuthin’ yet if we are heading toward Maunder, or even Dalton.
Peisner, you’ve become a joke.
Colin from Mission B.C. says:
December 18, 2010 at 11:18 am
I prefer to put it more in terms of “AGW fantasy.” Man’s impact takes a microscope to find compared to other drivers and controlling factors.
I just went over the the story, Please disregard my previous comments. The story was brought to my attention by Benny himself. Yes, I lose track of things at times.
For Sale:
1 (one) lump of coal, “the good stuff”, makes an ideal Christmas gift for the warmist in your life.
accepting offers,
marc…
It is not the 1% or what ever small TSI variation, it is the much larger variations of the many solar components that is the important factor. TSI is a too simplistic measure of all the various solar components that cause differing climatic effects in their changes of output.
At least the German authorities know that grit is needed, even if they aren’t buying enough. Here in Spokane we have a different problem caused by the same basic source. Following orders of the eco-terrorist group “EPA”, the city refuses to use grit until the last desperate minute.
Before the eco-terrorist group “EPA” had full control, this city sanded every street generously, with much fewer accidents and deaths, and much less plowing. Now they are forced to use an ineffective de-icer liquid and spend vast amounts of money on plowing.
Typical result today, after a little 2-inch snow that should have been scarcely noticeable:
http://www.khq.com/Global/story.asp?S=13708552
“Then followed a period of milder years, and, probably the impression spread that there will be no more real winters ”
Know what they call climbers who believe that their will not be bad weather?
The victims.
A while ago a group of climbers were caught in a snow storm on Ben Nevis, half dug in and half walked down. The half who bevid down survived the other three were found some 10, 20 and 30 feet from safety.