German researcher says Global Warming is a dud

Scientists are puzzled as to why global warming has not risen in parallel with greenhouse gas emissions.


Climate experts have long predicted that temperatures would rise in parallel with greenhouse gas emissions. But, for 15 years, they haven’t. In a SPIEGEL interview, meteorologist Hans von Storch discusses how this “puzzle” might force scientists to alter what could be “fundamentally wrong” models. Here are excerpts from that interview.


SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven’t risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?

Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We’re facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?

Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.

SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?

Storch: There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…

Translated from the German by Ella Ornstein

Read more of this interview, conducted by Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

Thanks to V Hanson for this link


33 thoughts on “German researcher says Global Warming is a dud”

  1. if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…

    And make them predict accurately backwards in time as well as forwards. That is a useful test.

    They might also have to put some actual physics in which CO2 takes thermal energy and converts it into radiative energy half of which is radiated out into space. And how increasing temperatures at the surface result in proportionately less radiative feedback most of which comes from energy which has lest the surface through conduction and convection and latent heat of evaporation.

    Perhaps the surface and atmosphere might be regarded as a distributed black body?

  2. “SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…”

    Why would that be the case? If the science was honest and not intended to be deceitful, there would be no embarrassment if you are not right, just a desire to make it better. You are only embarrassed if you are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of humanity and get caught when the facts refuse to follow the forecast.

    • . . . . I can imagine there might still be the possibility of a little embarrassment, depending on how far off the mark the profession was . . . . .

  3. WHAT ??? “The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed.” ???

    Since when do scientists ASSUME factors in their data sets ? This is more proof that the climate models are flawed. Computers models are only as valid as the data used. Garbage in Garbage out.

    I have worked with the original Scrips model 25 years ago. The big flaw then was that Scrips could not account for CO2 uptake by coral, plants or the pH buffering effect of the worlds oceans. Simply using the results of CO2 buildup in a glass sphere. Garbage in Garbage out.

  4. LOL “That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…” Profession ? Experts ? In what ? ‘Models’ ? Lies ? Government grant-seeking ? ‘Climate Science’ is like Evolution – a theory and un-professional domain looking for facts and relevancy.

  5. Herr Storch – you see the light. Go toward the light. We are waiting for you in the light. As this realization that there is no global warming spreads, it will become crowded in the light.

  6. What a smart guy is this Mr. Storch!

    First, he suggests that we should be a herd of fools because we don´t know how Science runs and we trusted what they said about Global Warming.

    Second, he adds their models are relatively well, the problem is that those models don’t consider properly some triffling aspects of climate like oceans or clouds.

    Third, he doesn’t know why neither temperatures nor sea level are not rising, but of course he recommends building dikes.

    Third,

  7. yeah real embarrassing already, so they will keep lying through their teeth in the face of all realworld proof to the contrary thats its a sham and a fraud.
    pathetic ba**ards

  8. How could a insignificant gas like CO2 that makes up 399.77 ppm of the atmosphere possibly be a problem? If you don’t like the number , fine. Plant some trees and spread some rock dust around to make plant growth more efficient. As for the climate don’t worry, be happy. There is nothing you can do to stop climate change and all the laws and taxes won’t do one bit of good either except to make the powers that be rich and empowered at your expense and inconvenience.

  9. “…our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes…”

    I choose both of the above. This is another clear case of too much time in front of a computer and not enough time spent looking at facts. It is amazing to me that a scientist can ignore current and historical data in favor of magical thinking and superstition.

    • PS Read the linked-to article. It’s well worth it. This guy Storch sounds pretty level headed. The rest of the last line quoted above is:

      “SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…

      Storch: Why? That’s how the process of scientific discovery works. There is no last word in research, and that includes climate research…”

  10. The IPCC , the greenies , Barack Obama cs , the environmentalists are all falling for one and the same temptation : How important we human beings are ! This appears to be the era of unbrideld narcissm and the Bible is full with stories of its bad consequences and miseries this road will be taking us to .

    • And no to forget, how important and all-knowing they are themselves and how well they know how everybody else should live their lives…

  11. The rest of the world’s media seems to be waking up but the American people remain trapped behind a digital Berlin Wall of misinformation and lies produced by the Government-Media complex.

  12. Gee! Maybe the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ model is wrong?
    The GHE is a one dimensional, flux balancing, time independent model. That’s wrong on the first three counts. Then there is a total disregard for what we know about the troposphere. The tropospheric thermal gradient is mechanical. Born from the atmosphere being ‘gravitationally’ bound. Every higher level HAS TO HAVE greater gravitational potential energy whilst every lower state HAS TO HAVE greater kinetic energy in a reversible adiabatic, or isentropic system. Kinetic energy in a gas is thermal (kT= mv^2). The tropospheric thermal gradient is born of physical logic and is a mechanical, not radiatively driven system. The derived lapse rate is dT/dh= -g/Cp has no radiative concessions made yet describes the tropospheric thermal gradient as we observe. All atmospheres are similarly thermodynamic.
    Heat travels according to the thermal gradient. Now, that gradient has been set by ‘gravity’ as just discussed through the heat capacity as a function of pressure which includes the gas’s ability to do work or have work done upon it. Heat therefore travels from the surface, heated by the Sun through thermalised short wave with the atmosphere supporting a surface temperature through an adiabatic, isentropic equilibrium process. The lower the surface ‘occurs’ down the adiabatic profile the higher the planet’s ‘surface’ temperature with the whole being in equilibrium long term with to total of supportive energy sources. Clue, the surface pressure on Venus is 90+ bar! Pressure and temperature go hand in hand on an ‘adiabatic’ profile. The supportive flux for the Earth is 99.99% solar. The maximum surface temperature is supported by the ‘dry’ lapse rate which we see in desert regions. So without water, the ‘most powerful GREENHO– USE GAS’ we get the highest instrumental temperatures!

    The adiabatic lapse rate derivation and it’s measurable existence are totally ‘in the face’ of the unsupported rubbish of the popular statement that the Earth’s surface temperature is ‘raised some 33degC by ‘powerful greenhouse gases’. Fiction.

    • haha John the 1st, I like that last part:
      JP asks scientist Sebastian Mernild of the Glaciology and Climate Change Laboratory Center for Scientific Studies in Chile, who insists that ocean currents have taken the heat “down to the deep sea”.

      Once unthinkable just a few years ago, the European media and JP are now starting to admit the oceans are a poorly understood wild card in the climate equation after all. JP openly states, “The oceans are generally regarded as the big wildcard in the climate discussion.” Jylland Posten ends its 2-page feature story with questions and comments by Svensmark:

      How should ocean water under 700 meters be warmed up without a warming in the upper part? … In the period 1990-2000 you could see a rise in the ocean temperatures, which fit with the greenhouse effect. But it hasn’t been seen for the last 10 years. Temperatures don’t rise without the heat content in the sea increasing. Several thousand buoys put into the sea to measure temperature haven’t registered any rise in sea temperatures.”

  13. Dear Mr. Felix, the numbers are in for the 12/13 Mt. Rainier Snow Year, well kind of. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?wa6898 The total snowfall is 573″, however Jul, Aug, and Sept 2012 and Apr, May. and Jun 2013 snowfall totals are missing. Granted, these are the least snowy months. However, searching past forecasts’ reveals many snow storms were predicted during the “missing months”. So what was Mt Rainier’s snow total for the snow season 12/13 and did it set a record? Using the given total of 573″ and adding the averages for the missing months yields a total of 664″. Doubling of the averages of the missing months as there is evidence of above average snowfall for those months would 753″ and is not a record iceagenow.info/2012/06/14-inches-snow-mt-rainier-wa/

    • I live in Vancouver, Washington.

      We have had a great deal of Snow
      in the Cascades during 2013.

      We had snow as late as early July.

      We may have had close to 1000″ for the
      12/13 on Mt. Rainier.

  14. Major Danish Daily Warns: “Globe May Be On Path To Little Ice Age…Much Colder Winters…Dramatic Consequences”!

    The August 7 print edition of the Danish Jyllands-Posten, the famous daily that published the “Muhammad caricatures“, features a full 2-page article bearing the headline: ”The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age” followed by the sub-headline: “Defying all predictions, the globe may be on the road towards a new little ice age with much colder winters.”

    http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/09/major-danish-daily-warns-globe-may-be-on-path-to-little-ice-age-much-colder-winters-dramatic-consequences/

  15. LOL “The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.”

    And again: “That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…”

    And these guys are pros?

    Thanks for the Friday afternoon laugh!!

    • The theory of CO2 driving Climate Change was Rejected during the 30’s because it did not fit the pattern. It was not resurrected by the Scientific Community, it was resurrected by politicians and Extreme Environmentalist to curtail the use of Carbon Based Fuels. Programmer just wrote the software according to the specifications given to them.

  16. To think their still fabricating false or altered data and expect to get away with it. You would think they would have learned after the Email leaks a few years ago, or is it they think we’re that daft?

  17. Old Man Knowles who designed the (Au)Perth narrows bridge (amoung others), the first electricity generating nuclear power station (& others) and a windmill, once gave me some advice. In ’82 I was at Uni & was banging on about the threat of man-made warming and said, with his usual placatory manner, … “You might want to get some data to support your contention.”

    He would have ridiculed much of von Storch’s language in this article. Real scientists don’t do “assumptions” or “beliefs” as steve g has already pointed out.

    Just prior to his death this year, he lamented the absence of science education in British politicians saying that they obviously had no idea what he was talking about when looking at designs for a walk-away safe, super efficient high temperature, liquid helium cooled reactor for the UK.

    I suspect most world politicians are similarly out of depth with data and science on the met front and that cannot be helped by people like von Storch who display a sad dis-connect with scientific principals.

  18. Fundamental flaw…Herr Professor Storch, there is NO greenhouse effect! So CO2 levels are totally irrelevant, actually shown in the geo records. What part of “NO correlation of climate vs CO2” dont they understand.

  19. qui in italy l,inverno è stato grande..a differenza dei anni 90 decennio di crisi invernale specie sulle alpi…ukltimamente l,inverno rugge

  20. I don’t think there is anything wrong with the models, If you have an agenda you pick and choose what info you need and discard or hide the rest. The sad part of this is and believe me I’m a layman, respected scientists sold their souls to the devil for this lie perpetrated on us and someone should pay dearly for it.

    The sad part of all this is, now that the truth is
    s l o w l y coming out the MSM still does not do it’s job and protects the special interest groups and government liars.

  21. Climate experts have long predicted that temperatures would rise in parallel with greenhouse gas emissions. But, for 15 years, they haven’t.
    Of course CO2 was already going up significantly by the 1940s, even in the 1920s. And we were cooling from around 1940 to ~ 1977. There’s long been no correlation between CO2 and temperature. See the ultimate (3 minute) video debunking the warmists on CO2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&GGWSwindle_CO2Lag

  22. It’s simple their models have too much Political Science mixed into them, and not enough Natural Science. Plus their theories are BS from the get go.

Comments are closed.