Foreword: Dr Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, authors of a new controversial skeptic book now hitting German bookstores, have asked me to post their response to comments made by climate scientist Georg Feulner of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in an interview by NTV television. Feulner insists that CO2 plays the major role in climate change and that the sun has little impact.
You can read about the new book just published in Germany that is causing an uproar in the German green establishment here. The response is so vitriolic that one is newspaper (TAZ) is headlining “Skeptics are like viruses“. Greenpeace Germany has now gotten into the act, denoucing Lüning and Varrenholt (formerly a champion of the global warming cause) as an Ice Cold Denier.
The website (in German) for the new book (that has become a bestseller on three outlets) from Lüning and Vahrenholt is here. An English version is also planned which I will announce at WUWT. Sincere thanks to Pierre Gosselin of notrickszone.com for translation. -Anthony
Georg Feulner of the PIK runs in circles
Guest post by Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
On the Germany television website Georg Feulner of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research comments on our recently published book “Die kalte Sonne”. As we have criticized his work in our book, we are not at all surprised by his rejection of our position.
First he disputes global warming has stopped for the time being. To do this he uses a special chart from a blog depicting a stepwise temperature development, which makes no sense for the particular topic at hand. The temperature plateau that we’ve had since the year 2000 is disputed by Feulner. However, the missing warming of the last 12 years is no fabrication made up by the authors of “Die kalte Sonne“. Anybody can plot it by going over to Woodfortrees.org. Or you can read up about it up in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, e.g. Kaufmann et al (2011). Even Prof. Ottmar Edenhofer of Feulner’s own Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research seems to see it the same way. Climate researcher Prof. Jochem Marotzke of Hamburg just confirmed it once again in a recent interview with the German TAZ daily (9 February 2012).
Next, Feulner tries to score points by using the 30-year climate rule. In some official definitions, climate is defined as the 30-year mean of weather. While this makes sense for some considerations, this rigid rule obstructs the discussion on the mechanisms that are involved in climate. It’s becoming increasingly clear that natural decadal cycles have been greatly under-estimated in the past. For example the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is characterized by a warm and a cold phase, each lasting 20 to 30 years. They have a significant impact on global temperature. Should that 30-year-climate window unfortunately get placed between both phases, then the trends get mixed up and we end up comparing apples and oranges. The corresponding “climate“ results end up depending more on the choice of the start point of the 30-year window and less on the real, shorter-scale temperature trends. Consequently, looking at 10-year temperature trends is not only legitimate, but it also makes sense.
In discussing the sun, Feulner attempts to show that in the event of an impending significant drop in solar activity to Dalton or Maunder Minimum-levels, which he foresees as well, no considerable cooling is to be expected. Here he fails to mention that he forgot to include any solar amplification in his climate models. This is essential because it is only with such solar amplifiers that one is able to explain the synchronicity between the sun and the temperature, with at least a 1°C pulsating climate development, over the last 10,000 years. The climate model used by Feulner cannot explain the past, and therefore naturally is not suitable for projecting the future. To explain the Maunder-Minimum 300 years ago, Feulner resorts to the dubious volcano joker. But this still does not explain the overlying fundamental problem that there is a good sun-climate coupling over the other well-documented millennial cycles of the last 10,000 years.
When it comes to the Svensmark solar amplification effect, whose existence is supported by much evidence in peer-reviewed literature (see Chapter 6 and Svensmark guest contribution on page 209 in “Die kalte Sonne”), Feulner simply pushes it off the table without providing a good argument. Not a word on the independent confirmations of the important sub-processes of the effect (e.g. Usoskin et al. 2004, Laken et al. 2010, Kirkby et al. 2011).
The NTV interview illustrates just how much Georg Feulner runs in circles with his arguments. The arguments he presents are weak. When will the Potsdam Institute get around to addressing the millennium cycles of the last 10,000 years? On page 68-75 of our book (“The sun’s impact over the last 10,000 years”) we find one of the most important keys to the climate discussion. Strangely not a single media report following publication of our book has looked into this. Day eight and counting.
Example for millennial climate cycles: Studies of dripstones in Oman for the period 7500-4500 BC show a high degree of synchronicity between solar activity and temperature development. Figure modified after Neff et al. (2001)
Related articles
- ‘Germany’s George Monbiot’ turns climate sceptic (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
- Two more scientists change sides in the AGW debate (hotair.com)
- Spiegel: ‘I Feel Duped on Climate Change’ (junkscience.com)
- Germany’s Top Environmentalist Turns Climate Sceptic (junkscience.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Very interesting times in Germany. Still a lot of work needed to change the political world, as long as people like Schellnhuber from PIK still is the scientific advisor of Angela Merkel on climate items. But this is a first step, a small hole in the dike… I never expected to see that within the next years. But it happened and can’t be undone! Once Germany starts, I am sure the rest of Europe will follow…
Why don’t Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt show cosmic rays and temperature during the past 50 years?
Cosmic rays have been flat and temperatures have risen. Why wouldn’t they show that? Disturbing.
That ‘step wise’ chart is an invalid statistical technique and could be modified to show a step wise decrease depending on the end points selected. If that’s the best Dr Feulner can do, he’s really off the mark.
Looking forward to reading the English version of the book.
That’s a money quote, there.
What I’ve repeatedly found annoying was how when someone points out the flat temperatures over the past decade or so, one of the usual comebacks from the warmists is to deny it and point to the trend line for the past 30 years. Apples and oranges, as Luning and Vahrenholt point out.
The last graph is captioned “Figure modified after Neff et al. (2001)”
One modification made is that the y-axis of the 2nd graph in Neff et al is not labeled “temperature” at all. In fact the paper itself says “The variation of the d18O signal is very unlikely to be directly related to temperature changes”. So how do Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt justify this modification?
Potsdam Institute on natural climate cycles, “Wir sehen nichts, nichts.”
Re Bill Marsh:
“That ‘step wise’ chart is an invalid statistical technique and could be modified to show a step wise decrease depending on the end points selected. If that’s the best Dr Feulner can do, he’s really off the mark.”
Surely the point of the chart is to show that globe warms in steps, not in a perfect line, so therefore a step or plateau is not evidence that the warming has stopped. The chart for example shows global temperature plateaued for a few years in the 80s but that didn’t herald the end of warming.
I have a very simplistic argument to share. If all of the CO2 were taken out of the atmosphere, what would happen to the global temperature? It most likely would drop a few degrees at most. Now, if the sun were taken away, what would happen to the global temperature? It would get very cold very quickly! Which has the most effect on the global temperature? By saying that sun plays a very small role in the global temperature makes no sense.
“Why don’t Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt show cosmic rays and temperature during the past 50 years?”
Probably waiting on Hansen to finish all of his temp ‘adjustments’. Could be a while.
Its at times like this , your reminding of the ‘religions zeal’ that some AGW proponents have, for like most religions ‘the cause ‘ is far harder on those [who] are ‘heretics’ that is those [who] fail to believe in the right way or have questioned the ‘the cause ‘, than they are on those that have never believed in the first place .
Lüning and Vahrenholt should be grateful we no longer live in the middle ages , for as ‘heretics’ they would have been burnt at the steak.
@nomnom Cosmic ray activity has been anything but flat. http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startdate=1964/01/13&starttime=00:00&enddate=2012/02/13&endtime=17:20&resolution=Automatic%20choice&picture=on Minimums were lower through 1991. Maximums were about the same up to this last cycle at which point they have begun to increase substantially. One can argue about the effect of the sharpness of the 1987 peak, but there is insufficient data in the series to say much about that. You could make an argument that fewer integrated cosmic rays over the period would lead to less overall cloud formation and a warmer planet. But that is just a hypothesis. Of course, you remember the declining temperatures into the 1970s, correct? The oncoming Malthusian ice age starvation and all from the ZPG folks.
nomnom, there are mutiple factors (read above) besides cosmic rays. The hypothesis would be that an increase in cosmic rays would lead to aerosols, leading to clud formation, etc. Obviously, changes in the midst of constant cosmic rays are due to something else, just as rising CO2 in the last 10-15 years is being counter-acted by some other effect or has little or no effect at all.
Now you know how it feels if they ignore you.
Vahrenholt:
For years, I disseminated the hypotheses of the IPCC, and I feel duped. Renewable energy is near and dear to me, and I’ve been fighting for its expansion for more than 30 years. My concern is that if citizens discover that the people who warn of a climate disaster are only telling half the truth, they will no longer be prepared TO PAY HIGHER ELECTRICITY COST for wind and solar (energy). Then the conversion of our energy supply will lack the necessary acceptance.
All I’m saying is that CO2 is a climate gas, but that its effect is only half as strong as the IPCC claims. Nevertheless, we still have to reduce CO2 emissions through WORLDWIDE EMISSIONS TRADING. And there are also other reasons to burn fewer fossil fuels. We don’t have that much coal, oil and gas left in the world, so we have to economize more. We also have to become less dependent on imports from totalitarian countries
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/quote-of-the-week-i-feel-duped/
I have a BIG problem with that
In the book there is nothing we don’t know. It’s all old stuff.
Professor Bob Carter 2UE Radio Interview 9.2.12
http://youtu.be/2v2anKkSDsU
talking about : Vahrenholt, windpower, cold Europe, global cooling, carbon tax Australia.
Great to have this posted here. Looking forward to comments. Given where they’re coming from and what they’re up against, I’m fairly confident that anyone seeking to easily poke holes in their basic accuracy or honesty won’t be able to.
You have no idea how vicious, vindictive and vitriolic the attacks are until you dare to question the prevailing wisdom. Bullying his not just a problem in our schools. I warned many over the years of the reactions they would get if they went public about disparities between ‘official’ climate science and their findings. Ernst-Georg Beck contacted me early and I warned him to be prepared. I warned Martin Durkin, producer of the Great Global Warming Swindle. He said he was used to negative reactions, but later told me he was surprised by the differences with his experience.
I often tell people to try it out. Announce to friends or in a social gathering that you don’t believe humans are causing warming or climate change and see what happens.
There are many explanations, such as the role of environmentalism as the new religion; the use of climate as a vehicle for a political agenda; selling your soul for funding; groupthink among the core people at CRU who effectively controlled the IPCC; and the threat of potential loss of professional standing. However, it will get worse as they are cornered trying to defend an indefensible position. Fortunately, the increasingly hysterical and nasty reactions make more people question what is happening and the entire debacle unravels. I have written often about this role of the extremists in defining the limits of a new paradigm, in this case environmentalism and its subset climate. The days of intellectual bullying on these issues at least are almost over.
Nice to see how polite and well behaved these two guys write. It will win them lots of “friends”.
Maybe there is hope, after all.
I havent read their book, but I hope they included the curve of page 6, here;
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/Ice-ages/GSAToday.pdf
Just looked at Die Kalte Sonne’s scores on Amazon.de. Unsurprisingly, it’s utterly polarised between 5-star reviews and 1-star, with the warmists (1 star) outnumbering the sceptics. There’s a similar split for CAGW and CAGW-sceptic books on Amazon’s US and UK sites.
This stuggle between rational folks and green apocalypse-merchants is far from over. The pseudoscience of global warmery is collapsing fast but their propaganda machine may endure for years to come.
@nomnom: The abstract on the original paper says:
“The 18O record from the stalagmite, which serves as a proxy for variations in the tropical circulation and monsoon rainfall, allows us to make a direct comparison of the 18O record with the 14C record from tree rings5, which largely reflects changes in solar activity6, 7. The excellent correlation between the two records suggests that one of the primary controls on centennial- to decadal-scale changes in tropical rainfall and monsoon intensity during this time are variations in solar radiation.”
So I guess that L&V are saying that rainfall and monsoon intensity (in that area) are proxies for temperature.
@ur momisugly nomnom,
It isn’t all cosmic rays that Svensmark believes cause the effect. IT is the High Energy galactic cosmic rays (different from the cosmic rays originating from the sun) that cause the effect. His book, “The Chilling Stars” is instructive and contains some interesting correlation work wrt high energy galactic cosmic rays and temperatures. The correlation is quite good (or at least a good deal better than the correlation between temperatures and CO2 at any rate)
“this rigid rule obstructs the discussion”
I doubt that anyone makes a rigid rule about 30 years. What is more important is statistical significance. Because without it, you are basing your argument on something that could have arisen by chance. It is something that you could expect based simply on past observed random fluctuations.
Sure, you can see negative trend segments at WoodForTrees. You can even look here to find them at a glance. But if you look here you’ll see a different picture. Almost all those trends are insignificant. You have to pick rather carefully a period ending in the cold year 2008 to find something significant. And time moves on.
nomnom says:
February 13, 2012 at 10:27 am
Why don’t Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt show cosmic rays and temperature during the past 50 years?
Cosmic rays have been flat and temperatures have risen. Why wouldn’t they show that? Disturbing.
————————————————
Solar activity has been the main climate driver, when short term influences are averaged over mutliples of ocean cycles, at approx. 70 years or 200 years.
Almost perfect correlation in North Atlantic over 9000 years
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf
Almost perfect correlation in the Alps over 9000 years
http://www.uibk.ac.at/geologie/pdf/mangini07.pdf
Perfect correlation in Oman
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
2 degrees drop looming + additional drop when AMO flips.
http://media.photobucket.com/image/austrian%20speleothem/neuralnetwriter/GlobalWarming/JK_Austrian_Speleothem.jpg
Tim Ball;
I have met very few people recently who believe in man-made global warming (here in the Netherlands). I must have bought up the subject probably 5 times to new people I met in the last 2 months, and not one of them believed in it.
If there has been no global temperature plateau this century, then why are climate scientists searching for reasons for the lack of warming?
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/candid-comments-from-global-warming-climate-scientists/
Occam’s razor says the correct answer is often the simplest one – the climate modelers have over-weighted CO2 and under-weighted natural variability, such as the sun.