Der Spiegel: Scientists baffled over halt in global warming

Posted: January 19, 2013 by tallbloke in Analysis, media, Natural Variation, Politics, propaganda, Uncertainty

Influential German daily newspaper der Spiegel has finally confronted the truth; Scientists are all at sea concerning the halt in global warming since 1997. This report by Pierre Gosselin from his excellent website notrickszone

Spiegel Ends Europe’s Climate Denialism…European Media Now Scrambling To Explain End Of Warming!
by Pierre Gosselin 19-1-2013

visit - and buy a mug or something.

visit – and buy a mug or something.

Spiegel has finally gotten around to conceding that global warming has ended, at least for the time being.

Yesterday Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski published a piece called: Klimawandel: Forscher rätseln über Stillstand bei Erderwärmung (Climate change: scientists baffled by the stop in global warming).

We’ve been waiting for this admission a long time, and watching the media reaction is interesting to say the least. Bojanowski writes that “The word has been out for quite some time now that the climate is developing differently than predicted earlier“. He poses the question: “How many more years of stagnation are needed before scientists rethink their predictions of future warming?

Bojanowski adds:

15 years without warming are now behind us. The stagnation of global near-surface average temperatures shows that the uncertainties in the climate prognoses are surprisingly large. The public is now waiting with suspense to see if the next UN IPCC report, due in September, is going to discuss the warming stop.”

The big question now circulating through the stunned European media, governments and activist organisations is how could the warming stop have happened? Moreover, how do we explain it to the public? To find an answer, Bojanowski contacted a number of sources. The result, in summary: scientists are now left to speculate over an entire range of possible causes. Uncertainty in climate science indeed has never been greater. It’s back to square one.

One explanation Spiegel presents is that the oceans have somehow absorbed the heat and are now hiding it somewhere. Yet, Bojanowski writes that there is very little available data to base this on, “there is a lot of uncertainty concerning the development of the water temperature. It has long appeared that also the oceans have not warmed further since 2003.” Spiegel quotes Kevin Trenberth concerning NASA’s claim that they’ve detected a warming of the oceans: “The uncertainties with the data are too great. We need to improve our measurements“.

Spiegel also writes that the missing heat may be lurking somewhere deep in the oceans. But here Bojanowski [Spiegel] quotes Doug Smith of the Met Office: “This is very difficult to confirm“. Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology suspects that energy has been conveyed to the ocean’s interior, but there’s a dire lack of data to even begin confirming this. Bojanowski writes over the current state of ocean data measurement: “Without intensifying the data measurement network, we are going to have to wait a long time for any proof“.

Scientists also suspect that the stratosphere may have something to do with the recent global temperature stall. Susan Solomon says the stratosphere has gotten considerably drier, and so warming at the surface may have been reduced by a quarter. But Bojanowski reminds us that under the bottom line, the scientists are pretty much without a clue; he writes:

‘However, climate models do not illustrate stratospheric water vapour very well,’ says Marotzke. The prognoses thus remain vague.”

Well then, maybe it’s due to aerosols from China and India blocking out the sun, some scientists are speculating, and ”thus weakening warming by one third“.  Spiegel writes that “If the air were cleaner, then climate warming would accelerate.” But aerosols have always been used in climate models to explain unexpected cooling, such as from 1945 to 1980.

In fact, all the explanations presented by Bojanowski above have already been thoroughly looked at in a book-  one year ago – by a pair of scientists: Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning. Last year much of the media ostracised them for floating such “crude theories”. A year later it’s indeed strange to see that their “crude theories” are now completely in vogue.

How does Bojanowski sum it up? “The numerous possible explanations do show just how imprecisely climate is understood.”

Read the rest here:

  1. clivebest says:

    This cloth, the “consensus” said, also had the special capability that it was invisible to anyone who was either stupid or not fit for his position.

    Of course, all the “important governing class” wildly praised the magnificent clothes of the emperor, afraid to admit that they could not see them, until a small child said:

    “But he has nothing on”!

  2. Scute says:

    A lot of these journalists, not to mention the scientists, must be concocting exit strategies as they lie awake at night- like moving to another publication to become health correspondent or tech reporter. The worst propagandists should be tracked and confronted in years to come. Not a witch-hunt; just asking them to set the record straight with a public apology.

  3. tallbloke says:

    Clive: They are beginning to realise that being bare-arsed in this weather is not good.

  4. Stephen Richards says:

    I am hoping, but not expecting, that when this climinologic activity is ended that the scientists involved like the UKMO, GISS, NOAA, NCDC etc are hauled in front of a supreme court and dealt with, not in the way that they got away with in the 60s and 70s, allowed to fade into the background and allowed to reappear in the future as AGW fanatics. No, not this time. I want them imprisoned. I want them punished beyond their wildest nightmares. I want revenge.!!

    I want scientists (I am one) to learn once and for always, that there is a price to pay for scientific advocacy and it isn’t going to be cheap.

  5. holbrook says:

    It is impossible for CO2 to overheat the planet as it’s ability to create heat is logarithmic therefore the IPCC “scientists” are having to now accept that a doubling of CO2 will only give around 1C of heat and another doubling will give less than one degree….far removed from the original scare stories. With us having had 75% of all the heat we will ever get from CO2 do not expect too much extra warming from the planet’s number one plant food. The scare stories still exist in as much that they insist positive feedback from clouds and water vapour will still overheat us.
    However they are clearly not allowing for negative feedback such as clouds, rain, volcanic ash etc.

    Prof Lindzen has explained that we will get cooling from extra clouds not warming Meanwhile
    Ms Slligo of the MET Office has covered herself by admitting volcanoes will compromise her warming predictions for this century.

    Criminal proceedings against the lot of them…IPCC scientists, politicians and the media are a must.
    They have screwed our economies, caused death by fuel poverty in industrial nations. Messed up eco systems with planting trees for bio-fuels and in doing so have reduced food supply by 6% with the added problem of higher prices. And this is being done to the poorest people on the planet..1.5 billion living in abject poverty…no fresh clean drinking water, sanitation and cheap power for those in need of it most.

  6. clivebest says:


    Well – It makes a change from claiming the sun shines out of their arses !

  7. tallbloke says:

    The shininess is all on their shoes and trouser seats. They *talk* out of their arses.

  8. Doug Proctor says:

    The Precautionary Principle will see the warmists through this year and a couple more. Unless the world starts to cool.

    I’ve wondered what people’s timeframe is for worry. Six months in our culture is something all of us not only can anticipate, but put into our active daytimers – holidays and the such. One year one and a half years, we use to plan for a trip we need to save up for, but all agree that that is a long time to hold back the present goodies for the future benefit. (College is 4 years or so, but we treat it not just one year at a time but a semester at a time, and it is our day-to-day social life that drives us, anyway.) Even the central planning economies found the 5-year Plan too long for success, as I’ve found it numerous times in large companies that use the 5-year plan (large American companies).

    So somewhere around 2 years we see as the extreme of what we can plan. Economies rise and fall within that time period without us suspecting. We go from singlehood to marriage, childless to child-rearing, health to death all within 2 years without the least sign of what is to come.

    And the reverse is true. What we thought would happen is ancient history, irrelevant except for the regret, on roughly the 2-year scale. We remarry. We are deep into a new job or company, and all previous loyalties are lost. Politicians of are not required to keep their promises of two years ago: things change beyond our possible ken in two years.

    So if the warnings of global disaster fall apart for two years, I think we’ll be on the other side. A threat that didn’t come to pass, thank goodness, they were trying their best. Whatever, now is now.

    Is Der Spiegel becomes one of many who say that the warming has stopped, if they keep saying that for 2 years, it will be over. That was the past, this is the present.

    “So what are you doing for me now?”

    So, end 2015: looking at the sun, looking at El Nino/La Nina, we can expect a drop in sea temperatures now, and if the sunspot number has even half of the Archibald effect he claims, in two years the temperatures will be, at minimum, stable.

    The warmists will be done. In influence, of course, not in salary. There would then be an intense need to REALLY understand the climate system, and all sorts of possible mechanisms to explore, and discuss and project ….

    And the IPCC could put out reports on “Cultural Avenues of Response to Future Climatic Variations”. Forever.

  9. gwarbu2000 says:

    Surely the science is settled. It has been said so many times.

  10. Hans Jelbring says:

    Local Climate Cooling Change observed outside Stockholm

    This might be off topic but it might be interesting, too.
    Below one factor deciding climate is described. It does matter where the temperature is measured for several reasons as Tim repeatedly has pointed out. Here it is described that the wind situation strongly affects the temperature some meters above the surface during winter time in northern countries.

    Everywhere the snow is white and the sun has been shining some hours and is about to rest for the day around 4 PM. The smoke from a few chimneys goes straight up and soon stops. There is virtually no wind at all. The tempererature is -17 C at the start of our drive to a dinner party about 10 miles away. We are passing two bridges to reach our goal and notice that the temperature is about minus 18 C when passing the second one. We started on one island, pass another one and is driving on the third one when the temperatur drops to -21 C passing a flat low field. One of us comments that this is mostly the coldest place when driving this distance. When arriving to our destination very close to the frozen snowy lake surface the temperature is -18 C.

    At one AM when driving back there is a light snowing and and a gentle wind. The temperature is -12 C all the way back home with no variations at all. The altitude of our journey might have changed from about +30 meter above sea level from start to about +5 m at the end. Topography plays a big role when measuring air temperature when there hardly is any wind. The land surface “produced” the cold air spot since cold dense air gently floated to the low altitude field and increased the effect of IR radiation from the surface. The temperature at the field fell below the one that was on top of a hill (+30 m) and also what could be measured at the surrounding snowy lake ice.

    This extra cooling effect is common in the hilly countryside up north where the temperature during winter often can be 10 – 15 C lower in a valley than a few hundred meter uphill and just a mile away.

  11. oldbrew says:

    One straw they might try to clutch on to is a monster El Nino asap. Seems unlikely though.

    Interesting spiel about Sudden Stratospheric Warming from a BBC weather man here.

  12. J Martin says:

    @ oldbrew

    Bob Tisdale might be able to speculate on that possibility. Given that we have a half height solar low, there might be a couple of graphs somewhere that might cast light on the likelihood of getting a monster El Nino or indeed any El Nino.

    Presumably there is no clear cut pattern relating El Nino’s to sunspots, I would guess what data we have doesn’t go back far enough, back to 1810 would be nice. Maybe there are some proxies that can give us historical data on El Nino’s / La Nina’s.

  13. oldbrew says:

    J Martin says: ‘Presumably there is no clear cut pattern relating El Ninos to sunspots’

    Related stuff here.

  14. A C Osborn says:

    I have noticed that more and more information is being released by NOAA that contradicts the CAGW and even the AGW meme.
    The world is slowly re-aligning itself with what we have always known.
    The last to do so will be the Politicians, if they ever do, there are too many TAX opportunities to let it go.

  15. tgmccoy says:

    Hans Jelbring- I live in smallish NE Oregon city (12,500 or so.) rural, farms, and Mountains
    surround it. I live about 20M above the floor of the Grand Ronde Valley in the protectes SW corner.
    The Airport sits on floor if the valley which is 24×20 or so KM airport is 10km from town.
    Airport has no large heat sources rural arport and all.My neighborhood has three large physical
    plants Hospital 2 blocks a large Grade school and a Large High School. and fve blocks away is
    Eastern Oregon University a huge physical plant. all add 5 to 10C in the winter time.. UHI is greatly under valued…

  16. Arfur Bryant says:

    A reserved ‘well done’ for Der Spiegel.

    The cAGW ‘hyped scare’ was born and raised with the help of media shills and political expediency. In the end, the demise of cAGW in Joe Public’s eyes must start with the about turn of the media. The politicians will have to swallow this reversal.

    One of the saddest aspect of this whole sham is that the media will win whatever happens. They sold stories based on the ‘the scientists tell us…’, and they will sell stories based on ‘how the scientists got it wrong’. A win-win for the media but at least Der Speigel have made a start.

  17. Gray says:

    The BBC’s Acting Director General, Tim Davie, spotted spreading salt from a municipal grit bin on Oxfordshire’s icy lanes this lunchtime. The BBC championing the fight against global cooling at last.

  18. Bloke down the pub says:

    This confirms at the 95% confidence level that climate scientists are convinced they know sod all.