Climate models – at best – are gross over-simplifications of the chaotic layer of atmosphere around the earth in which climate and weather manifest themselves. Solar effects, the effects of clouds, of volcanoes, of aerosols, of sulphur compounds, of ocean currents and of the winds can only be crudely modelled. There is no evidence that man-made carbon dioxide has any significant impact on weather or climate. No one really knows when and how ice ages come and go. The models use fudge factors galore and each only represents the imperfect understanding, the prejudices and the biases of the modeller. And yet IPCC and governments have got so caught up in their own smug rhetoric about the science being “settled” that they prefer to believe the model results even when they are “inconsistent with reality”.
P Gosselin reports on a new article by Michael Odenwald in the magazine “Focus” (in German).
Gosselin writes:
More cracks like never before are appearing in Germany’s climate alarmism.
Global temperatures remaining flat over 15 years, defying model projections.
Not long ago global warming science was considered settled here. So much so that climate protection has long since been institutionalized. Now it’s all starting to look like a very expensive mistake. The threat of a spectacular crumble is becoming real.
Michael Odenwald of warmist news magazine FOCUS has written a status report on global warming science: “Global Warming: “A Matter of Standpoint.
As the title suggests, the dispute depends on how one looks at the data, and so the science is becoming more unsettled than ever. German media is beginning to report on the growing number of contradictions.
As Odendahl describes, the big dispute raging today is whether global warming is continuing, or if it has stalled. According to HadCRUT4, global temperature has remained constant from 1997 to 2011. FOCUS writes:
However, [David] Whitehouse explains further, the IPCC had predicted a temperature increase of of 0.2°C per decade because of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. But this warming has not occurred. ‘We are now at a point where temperature stagnation is dominating the climate development. One cannot ignore that, even if is not 30 years,’ Whitehouse believes. ‘It is now time for the IPCC and the scientific community to recognize the temperature stagnation as reality.“
FOCUS author Odendahl then adds:
With this, it is becoming very clear that the scientific debate over the greenhouse effect is not yet over.
David Whitehouse’s argument points to the failure of climate models to make predictions of any value.
FOCUS consulted Jochem Marotzke, Director of the warmist Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg concerning the reliability of climate models. To his credit, Marotzke admitted that the models aren’t what they are cracked up to be, and that the science is far from clear. FOCUS (emphasis added):
Whitehouse points out that climate simulations, like those carried out at the Hadley Climate Research Unit, indeed show periods of stagnation lasting up to a decade. In the models they occur about every 80 years. However, none of the simulations up to now have shown a pause of 15 years. Also the models that run on the super-computers of the Hamburg Climate Research Centre also show such plateau phases. ‘The physical causes are still unclear, and our simulations show them occurring at other times. Thus the models are not consistent with the current observations.’ admits Jochem Marotzke, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg.”
…….
And Michael Odenwald concludes his article with this quote from Goethe’s Faust
Here now I stand, poor fool, and I am just as wise as before
Tags: climate change, climate models, global warming, IPCC, Jochem Marotzke, Max Planck Institute
The k2p blog 