I have two major stories out of Germany to report, one on the rise of Climate Skepticism into the mainstream, as Germany’s Top Environmentalist Turns Climate Sceptic, saying
“I couldn’t take it any more. I had to write this book.”
Doubt came two years ago when he was an expert reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy. “I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate were similarly sloppy.”
….and the other major story is on the failure of solar and wind power in Germany. First, the mainstream skepticism:
Body Blow To German Global Warming Movement! Major Media Outlets Unload On “CO2 Lies!”
Excerpts reposted from NoTricksZone by Pierre Gosselin
Today Germany’s national tabloid Bild (which has a whopping circulation of 16 million) devoted half of page 2 on an article called:.
“THE CO2 LIES … pure fear-mongering … should we blindly trust the experts?”
That’s what Germany’s leading daily Bild (see photo) wrote in its print and online editions today, on the very day that renowned publisher Hoffmann & Campe officially released a skeptic book – one written by a prominent socialist and environmental figure.
This is huge. More than I ever could have possibly imagined. And more is coming in the days ahead! The Bild piece was just the first of a series.
Mark this as the date that Germany’s global warming movement took a massive body blow.
Today, not one, but two of Germany’s most widely read news media published comprehensive skeptical climate science articles in their print and online editions, coinciding with the release of a major climate skeptical book, Die kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun).
Germany has now plunged into raucous discord on the heated topic of climate change
What has set it all off? One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”
Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Well-connected to Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die kalte Sonne cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science.
Conclusion: climate catastrophe is called off
The science was hyped. The book started hitting the bookshops today and has already hit no. 1 on the Amazon.de list for environment books. Indications show that it will climb very high in the overall bestseller charts. It’s published by a renowned publishing house and is now sending shock waves through the German climate science establishment. The first printing will produce 20,000 copies. I expect they will sell out rather quickly.
Read it all here.
=============================================================
While all that is happening, the wind is going out of the sails in the highly subsidized solar and windfarm business in Germany. Michael Limburg writes from Germany that:
We published this very comprehensive study from our author Dr. Günter Keil titled “ Germany´s Green Energy Supply Transformation Has Already Failed”. (http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-cache/germanys-green-energy-supply-transformation-has-already-failed/)
German version here: http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/climategate-anzeige/die-energiewende-ist-schon-gescheitert-mit-update-4112/
It has won a lot of attention and was published in all german speaking sceptic blogs and is as well most regarded by our politicians.
Since a lot of green zealots in all countries praise Germany as the wonderland of manageable green miracles it might be helpful to show them the reality
I am therefore proud and happy to tell you that we managed to translate this very valuable piece of information which reveals the blindness and fanaticism of our present politicians which destroys willingly the backbone of our economy. Please make best use of it. I am sure you will welcome this information. The full report and the press release are attached.
Here is the English version:
Germany’s Green Energy Supply Transformation Has Already Failed!
Energy expert Dr. Guenter Keil has closely examined Germany’s energy policy of shifting away from nuclear and fossil fuels and over to renewables. What he finds is a bleak picture. Years ago Germany ambitiously embarked on transforming its energy supply system, and hopes to supply at least 80% of its energy needs through renewable energies by 2050, and thus become a moral leader on environmental responsibility for the rest of the world.
To do this, the former Socialist-Green coalition government, led by Gerhard Schröder, enacted the so-called Renewable Energy Feed-In Act (EEG) in 2000. This Feed-In Act requires electric utilities to buy all renewable energies, such as solar and wind power, from all producers at fixed, exorbitant rates and to feed it into the power grid for a period of 20 years. This has led to a boom as thousands of homeowners, businesses, and investors have installed thousands of megawatts of solar and wind power capacity over the years. The current Conservative-Liberal government, not to be outdone by its predecessor, is also gleefully pushing the Feed-In Act to the limit.
Weather-dependent supply wreaking havoc on the power grid
The problem is that these energy sources are weather-dependent and thus their sporadic supply is starting to wreak havoc on Germany’s power grid and is even now threatening to destabilize power grids all across Europe. The other problem: the power grid needed to distribute the decentrally produced green power is simply not there yet. They forgot to build it! So far, after tens of billions of euros spent on renewable energy systems and higher prices for consumers, not a single coal or gas-fired power plant has been taken offline. To the contrary, old inefficient plants have been brought back into service in an effort to stabilize the grid.
In a panic reaction, Germany shut down 8 nuclear power plants
To make matters worse, in a fit of panic and hysteria, the German government shut down 8 of its older 18 nuclear reactors in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, thus removing a very cheap and stable supply of power and further pushing the grid to the limits. Before the shutdown of the nuclear reactors, Germany had been a net power exporter; today it is a net power importer and is at times severely straining neighboring power grids. To compensate for the missing nuclear power, the government is now heavily promoting even more weather-dependent wind power, which is further destabilizing the German and European power grids. A solution to the problem of storing electricity is still at least a generation away.
The question of course is how could such absurd decisions have been made to begin with? Were there no experts involved in the planning of the new power generation infrastructure? The answer obviously is no. Power executives are viewed as evil, dirty and greedy polluters, and thus were never really consulted. They could not be counted on to give the politically correct solutions. Therefore the decision to shut down the German nuclear power plants and to massively support renewables was done unilaterally by the government, without consulting the power executives or even neighboring countries.
Offshore wind parks, but no transmission lines to industrial regions!
Now that the damage is spreading, Germany’s utilities are now struggling to keep the grid stable and to fill in the power gap left by the shut-down of nuclear reactors. To do this the German government has ordered the installation of large-scale wind parks in the North and Baltic seas, in addition to the re-commissioning of mothballed, inefficient coal-fired plants. This overall energy production transition from nuclear and fossils over to “renewables” is dubbed by German officials as the Energy Supply Transformation. Construction of the offshore wind parks is now progressing rapidly. But there’s just one problem: the huge high voltage power transmission lines needed to bring their power to Germany’s industrial heartland to the south are missing! More than 3000 km of these lines are needed, but are nowhere near in sight. The government forgot about those too!
Activists groups blocking grid expansion
Building the power transmission lines quickly across the landscape will be a virtually impossible task. Activist groups have long since organized and are effectively blocking their approval and construction. So far only a measly 214 km have been built. As a result, surplus wind power cannot be delivered to the markets, and thus either has to be destroyed, dumped on the market at “negative prices”, or wind park owners are simply ordered to stop generating. No problem though – paragraph 12 of Germany’s Energy Feed-In Act requires electric utilities to pay for the electricity that they ask not to have produced! Technically, there is an incentive for wind parks to destabilize the grid.
Eventually all these costs add up and in the end they get passed along to the consumer. Under the bottom line, consumers have to pay more and more, and for a lower and lower quality supply. German industry is getting nervous and surveys show that many are leaving Germany, or are planning to do so. They no longer view Germany’s power supply as reliable.
In a death spiral…”will fail spectacularly”
Dr. Guenter Keil’s report focusses in detail on the amazing absurdities of Germany’s Renewable Energy Feed-In Act and the country’s utopian Energy Transformation. The government, through intrusive meddling and ballooning bureaucracy, has maneuvered Germany’s energy supply system into a vicious death spiral: the more the government intervenes, the greater the mess becomes. And the greater the mess becomes, the more the government intervenes! Dr. Keil concludes:
“Germany’s energy transformation has already failed. For Germans, the outlook is bleak. …the planned mismanagement is heavily damaging the economy and will fail spectacularly some years later because its economic and social costs will have become unbearable. The question remaining open is how many billions of euros will have to be destroyed before a new energy policy (a new energy transformation?) picks up the shattered pieces.”
So it’s no wonder that according to a survey of experts from 21 national committees by the World Energy Council, 0% said they could imagine their own country completely taking over the German political approach. An equal number believe Germany will reach its stated targets.
Germany’s model will serve as a classic lesson on how not to handle energy production and management.
Michael Limburg; with thanks to Pierre Gosselin from notrickszone for excellent translation support
Dr. Guenter Keil was a scientific employee at the Technical University of Munich / Fraunhofer Society, as well as Project Support at the Federal Research Ministry.
For downloading full 
report & 
press release here or see files attached (remark: Downloads of .doc pressrelease with SAFARI seems not to work, FIRFOX workfs fine)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The timing is excellent! Just when Europe is going through a prolonged cold snap, people will both realise the winters are not getting warmer, and that they really do need stable power sources.
It is not the end, but it is the beginning of the end. The thin end of the wedge.
As for an English translation, I think they would be crazy not to go for it if it sells out in the first few weeks, which I suspect it will.
Reblogged this on Xylance's Blog.
Hello Anthony,
I agree with Manfred, and have repeated a similar message many times.
Natural global cooling, which we predicted in 2002, has a much greater likelihood of causing great human suffering than alleged manmade global warming.
This severe cooling threat is real – it has a significant probability of occurring, but not a certainty.
To be effective, a call to action requires your support and that of the climate realist community.
Please feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss further – I believe you have my email address.
Further comments in CAPS below.
Best regards, Allan
Manfred says: February 6, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Hi Anthony,
I think it is time for leading skeptics and honest climate scientists to consider issuing a warning to the world about the dawn of massive global cooling over the next decades, after the Met Office failed to do so. At minimum, the disturbing climatic history of the little ice age should kick off a sincere effort to check the facts. AGREE
The Met Office recently published a statement, that the sun will shortly enter a Dalton type minimum with 92% probability. However, they said, the temperature effect would be negligible. RE TIMING: NOT SURE IF THE SOLAR MINIMUM WILL BE IN SC24 OR 25 – WE ASSUMED SC 25 IN OUR 2002 PREDICTION, BASED IN PART ON NASA’S NOW-OBSOLETE PREDICTION THAT SC24 WOULD BE RELATIVELY STRONG.
DISAGREE WITH MET OFFICE – SOLAR INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE IS MUCH GREATER THAN THEY SAY, AND CO2 INFLUENCE IS MUCH SMALLER.
What is hardly known even among the skeptical community and mainstream scientists anyways, is, that quality temperature reconstructions of the last few thousand years exist, that proxies are consistent on a global scale and correlated amazingly with solar output. AGREE WITH TECHNICAL POINT. SALLIE, TIM AND I STATED THIS IN 2002. See Fig. 2 in http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
MANY CLIMATE SKEPTICS ALSO AGREE – IT IS THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION IF CO2 SENSITIVITY IS MUCH LOWER THAN THE IPCC ESTIMATES..
These correlations are far superior to Mannian type proxies and speak for themselves. AGREE (BUT THEN, ALMOST EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN IS SUPERIOR TO THE HOCKEY STICK – SEE DIVERGENCE PROBLEM, HIDE THE DECLINE, ETC.).
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/neuralnetwriter/GlobalWarming/JK_Austrian_Speleothem.jpg
http://www.uibk.ac.at/geologie/pdf/mangini07.pdf
As multiple temperature peaks and valleys match in the Alps, North Atlantic, Troja, China, Chile and match as well with solar output data, the only plausible explanation is, (1) that these temperature reconstructions are correct and (2) that temperatures were mainly driven by the sun. GENERALLY AGREE – BUT HAVE NOT READ ALL THE REFERENCES YOU ALLUDE TO.
Having said that, the very likely coming Dalton type minimum will very likely let temperatures plunge by about two degrees in Europe and similarly elsewhere. This will massively deteriorate agriculture, particularly in Europe, the US and China and make growing impossible in parts of Canada and Russia. THIS IS A REAL POSSIBILITY – HAVE NO STRONG OPINION ON 2 DEGREES C, BUT THE IMPACT OF COOLING ON AGRICULTURE COULD BE SEVERE.
The world will be taken off guard and unprepared for such a food and energy crisis. PROBABLY TRUE, GIVEN OUR GOVERNMENTS’ GROSS MISMANAGEMENT OF THE FALSE GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS.
This alarm is in no way comparable to the global warming alarm. It is based only on data and a degree of correlation that requires causation. It is not based on climate models, assumptions, exclusions and projections. AGREE. THE GLOBAL COOLING CRISIS COULD BE REAL. THE ALLEGED GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS, WHICH I STARTED STUDYING IN ~1985, WAS NEVER BASED ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. WE ALWAYS KNEW IT WAS FALSE. NOW, WITH THE CLIMATEGATE1&2 EMAILS, WE KNOW IT WAS FRAUDULENT.
Worse, as the recent warming cycle since the little ice age had been strongly correlated with increased solar activity, greenhouse gases may be a much less powerful climate driver as assumed or even negligible. There may be no offset of the cooling. AGREE, DISCUSSED ABOVE.
There are only a few years left to prepare adaption. MORE ON TIMING: WE PREDICTED GLOBAL COOLING BY 2020 TO 2030. GLOBAL COOLING COULD HAPPEN SOONER, DUE TO A WEAKER-THAN -EXPECTED SC24. IT MAY ALREADY BE HAPPENING NOW. WE NOW HAVE SNOW IN THE SAHARA DESERT (CAMELS ARE MAKING SNOW ANGELS). IS IT WEATHER, OR IS IT CLIMATE?
SERIOUS QUESTIONS:
DOES OUR SOCIETY EVEN STORE SIGNIFICANT QUANTITIES OF GRAIN ANYMORE?
HOW MANY WEEKS OR MONTHS OF GLOBAL SUPPLY IS THERE?
WHAT ARE LOGICAL NEXT STEPS:
STORE GRAIN IN SIGNIFICANT QUANTITIES, IF NOT ALREADY DOING SO..
EMERGENCY RESEARCH ON FROST-RESISTANT GRAIN SPECIES, INCLUDING GENETICALLY-ENGINEERED STRAINS (SORRY GREENS).
OTHER STEPS?
_Jim says:
February 6, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Doug Cotton says on February 6, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Have you any concept of how … energy is exchanged, from propagation in ‘space’ to a molecule – and then re-radiated again?”,
___________________________
Yes, coherent radiated energy is indeed converted to incoherent thermal energy when the peak frequency of the incident radiation exceeds the peak frequency of the recipient body, such peak frequencies being determined by Wien’s Displacement Law and being thus proportional to absolute temperature.
The earth’s surface converts incident high frequency solar radiation to thermal energy, which can subsequently be diffused to the surface by molecular collision, or transferred by evaporation or chemical processes or, if the adjoining atmosphere is cooler, the remaining energy will be radiated to such atmosphere with a one-way transfer of thermal energy from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere, or directly to space. .
Radiation is also generated in the atmosphere from thermal energy which is absorbed in a variety of ways including absorption of both surface and solar radiation, molecular collision and phase change. Any such radiation which meets a (significantly) warmer surface will be scattered and not converted to thermal energy. (See link to proof below.)
Spectroscopy demonstrates this quite clearly for gases which only show absorption lines when the emitting source is warmer than such gases.
I hope that helps you to understand, but if you need mathematical proof visit http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/blackbodyslayer.pdf
Wow ! “Turn out the lights, the party is over……..” ..literally !
_Jim says:
February 6, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Can you explain to us all how a CLOUDY night does not cool off near as much as a clear-sky night?
Clouds usually form when the humidity is so high that the atmosphere reaches its dew point. The moist adiabatic lapse rate is lower than the dry adiabatic lapse rate because latent heat is released when water condenses, thus decreasing the rate of temperature drop as altitude increases.
Third time’s a charm? This comment keeps disappearing into a black hole. I’m determined. Once again and I’ll think you don’t like me anymore.
The mystery is why it has taken so long for the news media and at least some government officials to acknowledge what energy experts like me (I actually am an expert with a long list of credentials) have been telling them for years. Other than in certain narrowly defined, niche markets and applications, renewable energy in most of its forms is economically ruinous. Pathetic energy density and capacity factors doom both wind a solar, even at their theoretical conversion efficiency limits.
Anyone with a journeyman understanding of electric power generation/distribution and in possession of a hand-held calculator could have and should have long ago reached the above mentioned conclusion. That many of those who could have done so did not is a testament to the power of political correctness, fashion and vested interests of our times to bury simple truth under a pile of noble-sounding environmental proclamations.
The front page of today’s Los Angeles Times features a solar article covering what I would describe as an “environmental hangover”. In it, representatives of various environmental protection groups bemoan the pain of having sacrificed (in their view) trainloads irreplaceable desert critters and fauna to the latest rush of federally promoted, commercial solar monsters in exchange for the greater good of preventing global warming calamity. The irony is that the AGW alter on which they’ve made that sacrifice is fraudulent on its face and the resulting solar power plants are unlikely to last past the five years it takes to drain off all the federal tax benefits to private investors hooked up with the current political administration. At that point, horrendous economics is likely to leave U.S. tax payers holding the bag for $ billions in loan guarantees and a lawyer field day will begin over who should be responsible for cleaning up the physical mess left behind out in the desert.
“Doubt came two years ago when he was an expert reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy. “I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate were similarly sloppy.””
This is a very important point. Google “michael-crichton gell-mann-amnesia” and read the first link. Key psychological insight into why so many otherwise intelligent people can be easily misled. Congratulations to Vahrenholt for being willing to follow the evidence.
I guess my question has been answered. You guys don’t like me anymore.
REPLY: Not at all, just the automated spam filter, comments restored – Anthony
__Jim: (continued)
In general, spontaneously emitted radiation has an attenuated frequency distribution with a peak frequency which is proportional to the absolute temperature, quantified in Wien’s Displacement Law. When it strikes another body (eg Earth’s surface) its coherent energy will be converted to incoherent thermal energy only if the surface is emitting (or would emit) at a peak frequency less than that of the radiation. In other words, the surface has to be (significantly) cooler than the source of the radiation, usually the Sun.
So the Earth’s surface converts incident high frequency solar radiation to thermal energy, but reflects or scatters low energy (low frequency) radiation from a cooler atmosphere, the energy therein not being converted to thermal energy and thus not affecting the temperature of the surface.
For mathematical proof see Prof Claes Johnson’s Computational Blackbody Radiation.
You also mentioned IR spectroscopy which does in fact provide evidence for my point. You will find it common knowledge that a gas will not been seen to be absorbing radiation from a cooler emitter when the radiation is analysed by spectroscopy. It is only when the emitter is warmed and its temperature starts to exceed that of the gas that we do in fact start to see absorption lines.
My how this reinforces Donna LaF.’s book, The Delinquent Teenager…
Das is richtig.
RE: “Die Ratten verlassen das sinkende Schiff!”
I stated previously that I have known since 1985, when I first became aware of the alleged global warming crisis, that it was based on false assumptions – e.g.: alleged strong positive feedback of climate to increasing atmospheric CO2, etc.
So how did these “leading environmentalists” achieve their unquestioning, often fanatical support of the discredited global warming crisis?
The evidence was clear that this was a false crisis, unsupported by scientific evidence, more than 25 years ago.
Clearly, these people did not do their homework, or they knowingly embraced a false crisis for political and/or economic gain.
Either way, this recent “road to Damascus” conversion is better late than never, but if one has to question their past motives, one should also question their current ones.
As an analogy, one should not assume that a previously dishonest man is suddenly honest, just because he now agrees with you.
Also, let us not declare victory too soon. It will take some time for all the politicians to admit, at best, that they were easily fooled, and by implication, are indeed fools.
Talking of windfarms, here is John Brogden’s masterful take on Grid Management — never read by politicians —
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2010%20March.htm
Doug Cotton says:
February 6, 2012 at 9:40 pm
…Yes there will be slight cooling in the near future until about 2028, but we should still expect another 0.4 to 0.8 degree rise in the long-term trend before it passes a maximum some time in the next 50 to 200 years. Let’s not be accused of alarmist claims ourselves….
—————————————
Could you elaborate on that or give a link ?
My understanding is – if the cosmic ray link works according to Svensmarks’ theory – that additional clouds would start to form immediately and force cooling.
This may be masked by weather fluctuations or on longer time scales, by ocean oscillations (especially AMO), and the start of overall cooling may be delayed, but either way, that would not match with your projection.
There is a Calvin & Hobbes cartoon where Calvin asks his dad how they know what weight of lorry a bridge can support. His dad tells him they build the bridge, run heavier and heavier lorries across until it collapses. Then they rebuild the bridge now they know the weight limit!
We know of course that architects and engineers know exactly what characteristics a bridge [or any other construction] will have before it is even started.
Renewables seem to follow the same principles related by Calvin’s dad! Germany has spent 100 billion Euros on solar panels, and gives 6 billion a year in subsidies, and they are having problems with the costs. In winter the short days and overcast skies mean they produce almost no energy. The current situation could have been predicted before the first panel was installed, but it is obvious no experts are ever consulted, or certainly not listened to.
There are issues with most ‘green’ solutions. Experts point out that if wind power comprises 20% of the grid the variations in output will destabilise the grid causing blackouts or even damaging the infrastructure, If 15% of cars were electric it would require hundreds of billions spent on upgrading the grid with new power stations and transmission lines. Biodiesel is claimed to produce 4 times as much CO2 as the oil it replaces, and almost a litre of oil is used to produce a litre of biodiesel, plus the destruction of forests for palm plantations. Ethanol has been proved to require 40% more energy to produce than it creates [a green group said they had disproved this but as is often the case I suspect ‘disproved’ should read as ‘ignored’!], and the watts per square metre using corn is abysmal.
It seems that many decisions are made by people who don’t have a clue, surprising when such vast quantities of money are involved. Experts may be consulted but if they give the wrong answer they will be ignored. It is obvious that if Germany continues on the same lines with renewables it will destroy the country’s manufacturing base, and that applies to any country following the same route. It can also be argued that the world would be in a far better financial state if so many trillions had not been wasted on these green delusions.
On the other hand, if you are a green supporter who wants an end to our civilisation then things are going great! Not sure they will like what comes after.
Das ist richtig.
DirkH,
Thank you.
I am trying to learn German but, as any other language, it is highly idiomatic.
What I wrote was a verbatim translation of the way Russians say the same thing.
The correct version sounds much better:
“Die Ratten verlassen das sinkende Schiff!“
“or they knowingly embraced a false crisis for political and/or economic gain”
Of course they did. Which is why throughout this whole thing, the “science” has never mattered except insofar as its a useful tool in advancing the cause. And as the science’s credibility gets thinner and thinner – remember, no-one on the ‘progressive’ side was ever expecting it to come under such close scrutiny, go back 10-15 years the press was squared, the middle class quite prepared, the politicians bought, policy was about to flow from the science – so the caravan will move on. Some other mechanism for destroying capitalism as we know it will be dreamed up, and pushed for all its worth by the bien-pensant, who will have a high old time doing so. And their useful idiots, the Jones and Mann’s of this world, will be left high and dry. Tragic.
David A. Evans: Our Peugeot 807 has no problems starting even at -32 C, but it has a diesel-driven pre-heater that we start in advance (it can be programmed to start at a given time).
Alexander Feht at 8.12pm says: RATTEN ENTGEHEN VON SINKENDEN SCHEFF.
If this isn’t a caption for a Josh cartoon, I don’t know what is!
Message for Norway: YES!
The Norwegian government is one of the biggest climate hysterics in the world, and they are planning to waste billions of kroner on a virtual problem. The CO2 fear mongering is in all the newspapers and on national TV all the time. The press in Norway is totally brain washed and has no authority when it comes to climate issues. The stupidity has come very far in our oil-rich country.
please can some body in germany send the book to Gilliard prime minister of australia
Manfred says:
February 6, 2012 at 11:53 pm
Doug Cotton says:
February 6, 2012 at 9:40 pm
…Yes there will be slight cooling in the near future until about 2028, but we should still expect another 0.4 to 0.8 degree rise in the long-term trend before it passes a maximum some time in the next 50 to 200 years. Let’s not be accused of alarmist claims ourselves….
—————————————
Could you elaborate on that or give a link ?
___________________________
This has been discussed in previous posts – you should also see the WUWT article by Nicola Scafetta regarding 60 year cycles and the correlation with planetary orbits.
Briefly, there appears to be a ~1,000 year roughly sinusoidal cycle I will call the long-term trend. Yes there is some correlation with Solar activity, but it may be due to a common cause and there does appear to be a lag of about 50 years for Earth’s climate to follow. In the short term the correlation is not strong and the (superimposed) 60 year cycle is observed. This is discussed on my original site http://earth-climate.com
At the foot of the Home page of my newer site http://climate-change-theory.com is a revealing plot of the gradient of 30 year trends calculated monthly starting Jan 1900-Dec 1930. This shows a rate of increase (green line) of about 0.06 deg.C/decade back then, but this rate has now decreased to about 0.05 deg.C/decade, and, if the trend is sinusoidal and approaching a maximum within 200 years or so, I postulate that the gradient could be down to zero by about then, thus indicating a maximum in the long-term (~1000 year) cycle. Meanwhile, the next maximum in the 60 year cycle is expected in 2058 as it is actually about 59.6 years if caused by the Jupiter/Saturn resonance cycle which has that periodicity.
Sorry – he’s been tainted by the evil oil industry – used to work for Shell, according to his CV.
http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/66234/rwe/curriculum-vitae-prof-dr-fritz-vahrenholt/