Hug 2013

The one-page article "The Climate Models are Failing," by Heinz Hug, appeared in the February 2013 issue of the German journal NACHRICHTEN AUS DER CHEMIE, Volume 61, Issue 2, page 132. WOS:000325946300008. An English translation is here.

The title of the journal, or magazine, translates as Chemistry News. Perhaps it is like our American Chemical and Engineering News. Even though the Web of Science lists these two among its peer-reviewed journals, much of what they contain does not appear to be peer-reviewed. For example, Hug's article appears on a page headed "Pro und Contra." Nothing is said there about it being peer-reviewed and I suspect it was not, but instead is an opinion piece. But since the Web of Science counted it, so did I.

Here is the opening paragraph from the translation:

“According to our calculations, in the coming years, it should get warmer by leaps. But we do not trust that prognosis. Because the simulations should also have been able to predict the current standstill of the temperature increase – which did not happen.” That according to the climate researcher Jochen Marotzke of MPI-M in Hamburg, according to the Spiegel [magazine] of 9/2012. The reasons why climate models fail are obvious.

Hug goes on to repeat the long-debunked argument that "
There is already so much CO2 in the atmosphere, that in many areas of the spectrum the absorption [Aufnahme] by CO2 is nearly complete, and additional CO2 does not play any role,"[ref. 4]

The final paragraph reads,

"It is quite evident that there is no correlation between the atmospheric CO2 concentration and water evaporation. The latter does not
depend on CO2 but on the water temperature. That, in turn, depends primarily on the screening by clouds which depends on the incoming cosmic radiation which varies with the rhythm of the solar magnetic field, [ref. 7]. This also explains why, without the action of IR-active trace gases there was both a Roman and Medieval climate optimum, [ref.8]."

Thus Hug attributes global warming to cosmic radiation, another claim that has been roundly debunked, see here.