Thursday 12 May 2022

THE WARMING TREND HAS WEAKENED OVER THE LAST 40 YEARS

 Yes, the good news is that "the warming trend of the last 40 years is weakening”, says German expert.

No Tricks Zone, 11 May 2022
 
By Professor Fritz Vahrenholt
 
During the energy crisis that has become visible in Germany and Europe over the past few months, things have gotten quieter about the supposedly imminent climate emergency. On the one hand, energy prices and security of supply have pushed the climate issue into the background. On the other hand, a weakening of the warming trend of the last 40 years is apparent.


 
The temperature curve of the satellite-based measurements of the University of Alabama UAH has been oscillating between -0.2 and 0.4 degrees for 20 years and seems to have remained stable since 2015, as shown in the next graph in the enlargement.
 

(Source: woodfortrees). The mean value is drawn in green- it shows a slightly decreasing trend since 2015. Why hasn’t this been reported?
 
What are the reasons for this stagnation?
 
CO2 concentrations in the air have continued to rise unabated. It is true that global annual CO2 emissions have been more or less constant for some years now, at 40 billion tons of CO2. Slightly more than half is absorbed by the oceans and plants, so that currently each year the equivalent of about 2.5 ppm CO2 is added to the air concentration. In 2015, there were 401 ppm of CO2 in the air; in 2021, there were 416 ppm. At this rate, by the way, we would never reach the IPCC’s scary scenarios of 800 to 1000 ppm in 2100.



No, the lack of warming must have other reason

What has been the amount of natural warming in the last 30 years?
 
And how big is the natural cooling in the next 30 years?
A change in global temperature can also happen naturally. We know that clouds have decreased by about 2% after the turn of the millennium, and that for the last ten years cloud cover has been stable at a low level. Second, there are oceanic temperature cycles such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation AMO, which increased sharply from 1980 to the beginning of this millennium (by 0.5 degrees, after all), has remained at maximum since then, and is now weakening slightly again (see next graph).
 


The United States Weather and Oceanographic Administration, NOAA, writes that the AMO can amplify anthropogenic warming in the warm phase and make it disappear in the cold phase. According to NOAA, the AMO is a naturally occurring change in North Atlantic temperatures that has occurred for at least 1000 years with alternating warm and cold phases of 20-40 years. Add to this the weakening solar radiation since 2008, and further significant warming beyond 1.5 degrees is unlikely in the next 30 years.
 
Sea ice melt has stalled
 
The stagnant trend of temperatures that has been observed for several years can also be seen in the halted decline in Arctic sea ice extent reported by the European Copernicus program in March (see next graph)



This is actually good news.

Wouldn’t it be time for climate researchers to bring these trends to the attention of politicians and the public? After all, politicians are currently readjusting the priorities of energy supply. While until last year’s price explosion and the aftermath of the Ukraine war it was apparently taken for granted that climate impacts would be the sole determining factor for energy policy, we are all now being made aware of the importance of security of supply and price trends.
 
However, German policymakers are still reacting inadequately. They believe they can solve the problem of self-generated energy shortages due to the double phase-out of coal and nuclear energy by simply building more wind farms and solar plants. It must always be remembered that in 2021 the share of wind and solar energy was just over 5% of primary energy supply (oil, gas, coal, nuclear, renewables). Even in a good windy year, it would not be much more than 6%.
 
Politicians do not have the necessary courage to repeal the coal phase-out law, to stop the nuclear phase-out, to lift the natural gas fracking ban and the ban on CO2 capture at coal-fired power plants. Not yet.

Gas-fired power plants like the one in Leipzig are still being built to replace coal-fired power plants with domestic lignite. Industry is already further ahead. Volkswagen has postponed the conversion of two of its own coal-fired power plants into gas-fired power plants indefinitely. This statement by CEO Diess was not widely reported in Germany, but it was abroad.
 
The U.S. government is also repositioning itself. John Kerry, the U.S. government’s climate envoy, for whom the 1.5-degree target was previously the sole political guideline, is now putting things into perspective and, in view of skyrocketing energy prices, saying that 1.8 degrees should be quite sufficient as a target. China, India and Southeast Asia, whose growth path is threatened by the price explosion, are practicing a renaissance of coal production.
 
That’s where we should listen when Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg says: “It’s unrealistic to bring global emissions to zero by 2050… a 2.5 degree world is still better than a 3.5 degree world.”
 
Let us reassure Mr. Marotzke: a 2.5 degree world will not be achieved in this century because natural variations in climate dampen anthropogenic warming. Had this been adequately accounted for in climate models, we would all have been spared much public panic and flawed policy decisions.
 
With best wishes
Fritz Vahrenholt
 
Professor Fritz Vahrenholt is a member of the GWPF's Board of Trustees.

5 comments:

  1. https://www.instagram.com/p/Cdd1MeROLfC/

    We are in a la Nina phase right now. I have noticed other deniers trying to sell the idea based on a very narrow view of select data.

    https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/oceans/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/GRAPHS/heat_content55-07.png

    Again its looking at the data you may want to believe rather than the reality. According to ocean warming, the reality is, there is no apparent slow down since 1985.

    Icing on the cake is I have been on No Tricks Zone in the past and very much a climate denier blog. I would be surprised to see them ever publish an honest peice on climate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Would you ever accept a piece on climate which disagreed with your own view?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why are you phrasing it as my point of view? I have showed the main stream on many points I have made. I have spent a great deal of time in teh past on the No Tricks Zone site. Pathetically bad science on there. Its just past experience with their truthrfullness about the science. Now its time for you to show that the ocean has slowed in warming also. According to the ARGO buoys, that is just not the case. The ocean is very steadily warming in spite of No Tricks Zone declaration.

      Delete
  3. Because you have stated that you agree with it. "Main stream" is not relevant to understanding in science. If a theory does not fit all the facts then no matter how popular it is, it is incorrect. As far as ocean warming is concerned it is so small that it would be undetectable with any ordinary thermometer. The surface in certain places can warm up, which is a natural phenomenon. The bulk of the ocean is so vast that it's temperature is hardly affected.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as ocean warming is concerned it is so small that it would be undetectable with any ordinary thermometer.


      That is a sad statement on your part. Over 90% if the global warming goes into the ocean, The amount of the energy in the ocean's increase is massive.


      www.usgs.gov › specific-heat-capacity-and-waterSpecific Heat Capacity and Water | U.S. Geological Survey
      Jun 06, 2018 · Overview. Water has a high specific heat capacity—it absorbs a lot of heat before it begins to get hot. You may not know how that affects you, but the specific heat of water has a huge



      https://4hiroshimas.info/


      I have in the past gone through simple calculations showing how this works. The earth's energy imbalance at one time was .45 watts per meter squared. It is now higher around 1 watt per meter squared.

      Delete

Climate Science welcomes your views/messages.