July Data Rolls In…Consensus Of Datasets Agree: Warming Has Stopped… Global Temperature Firmly Stuck!

German website wobleibtdieglobaleerderwärmung (where’s the global warming – WBDGE) does an excellent job at analyzing and observing climate data and trends. German readers are recommended to bookmark this site.

In its latest post the site looks at the July results and the overall global temperature and sea ice trend. It finds that multiple datasets clearly show that our blue planet remains firmly stuck on its years-long temperature plateau.

The WBDGE summarizes:

UAH/TLT saw an anomaly of +0.18°C (previous month 0.33, previous year 0.24) ranking this July as only the 9th warmest of 37. See UAH V6.0 Global Temperature Update for July 2015: +0.18°C

RSS/TLT (preliminary): saw an anomaly of 0.20°C, (previous month 0.39) and is thus in very close agreement with UAH results. This would rank it as the 10th warmest of the 37 years of data so far.

Trend der globalen Satellitenmessungen (TLT) von RSS: Erwärmungs”pause” (grüne Linie) von Ende 1996 bis Juni 2015, negativer Trend (blaue Linie) von Januar 1998 bis Juni 2015. Quelle: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/
RSS TLT trend for global satellite measurements: Warming plateau (green line) since to June 2015, negative trend (blue line) from January 1998 to June 2015. Source: www.woodfortrees.orgd

The NOAA/NCEP/CFSv2 surface temperature at 2 meters, comes in at only 0.16°C (global 2m – http://models.weatherbell.com/temperature.php). This ranks it at a relatively uneventful 10 of 37 years. Image MouseOver Tool.

In summary here we see three heavyweight datasets showing and all agreeing on a protracted stalled warming.

Growing sea ice volume

Moreover the WBDGE site writes that Arctic sea ice has grown “strongly” over last year and that there has been no melting trend there in almost 10 years.

The WBDGE adds that there is about 2000 cubic KILOMETERS more sea ice than 3 years ago: https://sites.google.com/piomas.

How can anyone say global warming is happening and is real when temperatures have long stalled and sea ice is growing?

The WBGE site comments:

Also July of 2015, and thus the 19th year without any signfiant linear global warming,  – the question remains: where’s the global warming?

Despite these real facts there are still people who publicly deny the global warming pause that has been happening since 1996 […] or who want to calculate it away with obvious data falsifications.”

Michael Mann Blemishes Himself In Austria …German Scientists: “Can No Longer Be Taken Seriously”

German climate science critics Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, authors of the book: The Neglected Sun, have a comment at their ‘Die kalte Sonne’ site where they criticize Dr. Michael Mann for making reality-detached claims.

Hockey stick inventor Michael Mann makes himself look foolish in an ORF-Interview: “One thing they all have in common: The end of the curve have a steep rise”

(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

On May 25, 2015 Austrian public broadcaster ORF was compelled to present the inventor of the now fully discredited Hockey Stick chart (Figure 1) in an interview:

The temperature rise is unprecedented
The ‘Hockey Stick’ is the most well-known and controversial curve in climate science: It shows how massively man is impacting the Earth’s climate. Michael Mann is the creator of this chart: In an interview he explains how he arrived at his discovery.”

Nonsense. The curve is false, and so how can it show how much man is impacting the climate? This is a totally faulty logical performance by the Austrian ORF. Ten years later the error was uncovered and more realistic reconstructions were rolled out, for example one by Ljungqvist 2010 (Figure 2).

Figure 1: Hockey stick chart from 1998/2001.

Figure 2: Temperature reconstruction as to Ljungqvist 2010. RWP=Roman Warm Period, MWP=Medieval Warm Period, CWP=Modern  Warm Period, LIA=Little Ice Age, DACP=Dark Ages Cold Period.

It is already quite frightening the nonsense the ORF expects its audience to believe:

science.ORF.at: The Hockey Stick developed from being a level headed temperature curve to a real phenomenon in the Internet. What does the chart show?

Mann: We’ve been measuring the global temperature on the planet with thermometers for about 100 years. In this period the atmosphere warmed up about 1°C. If we want to know just how unusual this warming has been, then we have to look much further back in the past. This can be done only by evaluating the natural archives – tree rings, corals, ice cores and ediments, which help tell us how the climate in the past developed. This is precisely what we did at the end of the 1990s. The result from this: the most recent warming has been unprecedented. The temperature curve of the Hockey Stick begins about 1000 years ago and falls off during the Middele Ages until the so-called Little Ice Age. But starting in the 20th century, the curve suddenly shoots upwards. The temperature is now rising faster than ever before. That’s the blade of the hockey stick.”

Now take a look at Figure 2. Is the warming of the 20th century really unprecendented as Mann claims? Why was it as warm 1000 years ago as it is today? Now comes one of the highlights of the interview:

science.ORF.at: In the 2007 IPCC report in addition to your works there was also a dozen other papers from other teams mentioned. The temperature curves of your colleagues however do not always look like hockey sticks.

Mann: True, but there’s one thing they all have in common: The ends of all the curves all shoot steeply upwards.”

Ha ha. Mann here is right. But this is not what the issue is about. The warming after the LIttle Ice Age is recognized by everyone. Mann is being criticized for his depiction of the 1000-1900 A.D. period, which he claims was pretty much flat. Michael Mann today will not find a single one of his colleagues who supports that.

The ORF is not totally awful when it comes to this issue. They ask the question of all questions:

science.ORF.at: You just mentioned that the recent warming is unprecedented. However there have been periods in the Earth’s history that were as warm, and indeed without the impact of man. Why?

Mann: Of course that is true. Millions of years ago there was no ice on the Earth’s surface. Back then it was warmer than today. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was even probably five times higher than it is now. However that was the result of geological processes taking place on scales of 100 million years. Today’s changes on the other hand are one million times more rapid. It is not about the absolute temperature. It is about the enormous speed at which the temperature is changing. Natural adpatation at this speed simply cannot keep up. That’s worrisome because the seven billion people on this planet are dependent on a stable climate.”

One look at the temperature reconstruction of Figure 2 tells us: Michael Mann can no longer be taken seriously. The ORF had to have known this already. Going back millions of years and large timescales is completely unnecessary. Without blushing Mann simply denies the Medieval Warm Period. The ORF gives Mann a free pass and lets him get by. What an embarassment.

Joe Bastardi: “Heat Will Not Get Erased By Three Solar Cycles …July 2015 Not The Warmest

Joe Bastardi at his Weatherbell Analytics presents an excellent Saturday Summary that looks back at earlier El Nino events.

Today’s El Nino is being hyped and many are preparing to say that July 2015 will be among the warmest, if not the warmest, on record.

July 2015

Chart: NCEP

However the veteran meteorologist tells us in the video that according to NCEP at least 9 other Julys have been warmer, among them: 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008, and 2009.

According to NCEP, which Joe Bastardi calls the gold standard of temperature because it is based on real time measurement, comes in at 0.145°C anomaly.

What happens after the current El Nino will tell us a lot about the global warming trend, Bastardi says. Should the subsequent La Nina come in cooler than the previous ones, then global warmists will have a tough time explaining it.

Joe reaffirms that he thinks that the globe will cool modestly by 2030 and that the sun and oceans play a far greater role in climate than CO2 does.

But when it comes to the sun’s impact on global temperature he cautions that some are putting too much emphasis on solar cycles and that the coming low solar activity cycles will not play that large a role.

The heat is not going to get erased by 3 sunspot cycles.”

Sun Is “The Major Control On Climate Change,” Say German Scientists In New Book

Climate skeptic book “The Neglected Sun” by German scientists Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt is now

available in paperback

. Geologist George Devries Klein has published a book review at the blog of the Heartland Institute:

In both my opinion and experience, this book is by far the best book I have encountered and read on the issue of climate change and anthropogenic global warming. Anyone interested in this topic should read a copy. It’s that definitive.

The book is a translation of the German version, Der Kalte Sonne, published in 2012. Thus, some of the policy discussions are set in a German context. They do provide a glimpse of what could happen if similar policies are adopted elsewhere as one sees today in the UK.

Here are some critical things I learned from the book (this is an incomplete list):

  • The sun, including its magnetic cycles, and inner dynamics, exerts the major control on climate variability and climate change.
  • Six different cycles of solar activity are documented. The climate history of the earth, including the last 150 years, correlate closely with these cycles which range from 11 to 2300 years. Moreover, some are amplified long term by Milankovich orbital parameters.
  • The sun’s quantitative influence on climate change exceeds the influence of anthropogenic CO2, although the authors acknowledge that anthropogenic CO2 has a minor role to play in raising global temperatures (I concur with this interpretation). The supporting arguments are well-buttressed and convincing
  • The current temperature “Pause” is explained in terms of solar cycles and decreasing solar radiation. Likely, a period of cooling is ahead as solar radiation entering a diminished phase.
  • Chapters 5 (Has the IPCC really done its homework?), 6 (The misunderstood climate amplifiers), and 7 (A look into the future) provide the most detailed and accurate critique of the UN-IPCC’s reports I have read (I call it a withering dissection). Thus, projected future temperature increases are expected to be much less than the UN-IPCC infers and the climate ‘crisis’ is overblown far too much. These chapters are incisive.
  • The last two chapters deal with German climate and energy policy. They are instructive because the policies are failing, particularly as electricity costs have skyrocketed since implementation. This is becoming a universal problem.
  • A trivial (or perhaps not) fact I did not know. Before Angela Merkel became Chancellor of Germany, she was the minister of the environment. It appears she was co-opted by the green movement well before her rise to global prominence.

Summary recommendation: Buy this book. Our future may depend on it.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: George Devries Klein is a geologist who earned his MA from the University of Kansas and his PhD from Yale University in that field. He worked for Sinclair Research, Inc., and taught at the Universities of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Illinois @ Urbana Champaign. He is now Professor Emeritus, Geology, University of Illinois @ Urbana Champaign. Between 1996 and 2014, he was president of SD-STRAT Geoscience Consultants, Inc, a geological consulting firm in the petroleum field. He is now retired in Guam.

Back In Business!

After a few days being crippled, it looks like we’re back on track! I haven’t checked everything, but so far it looks to be in order. Permalinks are working and readers can once again comment.

Social media stud Markus S. put the NTZ house back in order and we’re even back to the original theme! Thanks Markus, you’re the best!

Will be posting later this evening. :)


New Social Sciences Paper Shows Climate Skepticism In Germany “Prominent In Public Opinion Polls”!

A new social sciences paper by Kaiser & Rhomberg on climate skepticism in Germany titled “Questioning the Doubt: Climate Skepticism in German Newspaper Reporting on COP17” has just appeared in the journal Environmental Communication.

The abstract reads (my emphasis)

“Despite numerous international studies on climate change, there is skepticism in the media and it is prominent in public opinion polls. This article focuses in particular on the framing of climate skepticism in Germany, a country that, in the main, is said to be convinced about climate change. By using a two-step content analysis of 379 news articles (print and online) we demonstrate that climate skepticism is present in German news media reporting on the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Durban, South Africa. We identify two overarching skepticism frames: skepticism about the phenomenon of climate change and about climate science. Our analysis further shows that climate skepticism is not exclusive to a specific political ideology, even though a newspaper ideology may influence how skeptical frames are being evaluated.”

Sadly, the paper’s biased tone is one of viewing climate science skepticism as being a threat that needs the attention of public policy. It writes in the conclusion (my emphasis):

“Also more global research on climate change skepticism is needed (especially in South America, Africa, the Middle East, Russia and to some extent Asia) to further understand what arguments are used to hinder the global fight against dangerous climate change (Schäfer & Schlichting, 2014).”

Here Kaiser and Rhomberg are running along with the academic herd, accepting the IPCC science at face value without question. Both openly and uncritically accept all the campus chanting that the skeptics are wrong. This blind groupthink is the sorrowful state of how academia works today in Germany.

Data Show No Danger To Pacific Atolls From Sea Level …”The Majority Have Enlarged”

Note: The NTZ site remains crippled due to WordPress upgrade from version 4.2.2 to 4.2.3.

New posts can only be viewed through the NTZ homepage. Reader comments function is also disabled by the recent upgrade. Sorry. It’s very frustrating for me as well.

As I’m not an IT guy, nor do I have time to devote to this problem right now, no solution is in sight. Now may be just as good a time to end the climate-blogging career (and just blame site assassins out to get me. /sarc)

Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt recently have had a long series of excellent posts on sea level rise. Not surprisingly they show there’s nothing to worry about on that front. At many locations worldwide sea level is not even rising.


In their latest post Lüning and Vahrenholt write: “Good news from the Pacific: Sea level in Kiribati shows no longterm increase over the past 20 years.”

Figure 1: Kiribati sea level trend 1994-2008. Source: Aung et al. 2009.

Moreover satellite measurements also show no trend for the period.

Figure 2: Sea level rise in the region of Kiribati based on satellite measurements. Source: University of Colorado.

Also Lüning and Vahrenholt write that no region in the atolls have been found where coastal erosion is occurring. What follows is the abstract of a recent paper (emphasis added):

Coral islands defy sea-level rise over the past century: Records from a central Pacific atoll”
The geological stability and existence of low-lying atoll nations is threatened by sea-level rise and climate change. Funafuti Atoll, in the tropical Pacific Ocean, has experienced some of the highest rates of sea-level rise (∼5.1 ± 0.7 mm/yr), totaling ∼0.30 ± 0.04 m over the past 60 yr. We analyzed six time slices of shoreline position over the past 118 yr at 29 islands of Funafuti Atoll to determine their physical response to recent sea-level rise. Despite the magnitude of this rise, no islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century (A.D. 1897–2013). There is no evidence of heightened erosion over the past half-century as sea-level rise accelerated. Reef islands in Funafuti continually adjust their size, shape, and position in response to variations in boundary conditions, including storms, sediment supply, as well as sea level. Results suggest a more optimistic prognosis for the habitability of atoll nations and demonstrate the importance of resolving recent rates and styles of island change to inform adaptation strategies.”

So why is sea level not behaving like the alarmists said it would? Lüning and Vahrenholt add:

Like in many other parts of the world, the Pacific ocean cycles play a roll in that they influence sea level in 60-year cycles. In December 2013 a team of scientists led by Jae-Hong Moon published on this subject in the Journal of Geophysical Research. The reported that the satellite data series since 1993 is much too short to allow the identification and computation of the effects of longterm ocean cycles.”

That paper’s abstract tells the whole story (emphasis added):

Multidecadal regional sea level shifts in the Pacific over 1958–2008
Altimeter data have significantly improved our understanding of regional sea level variability and trends, but their relatively short records do not allow either evaluation of the ocean state prior to 1993 or multidecadal low-frequency signals in the ocean. Here we characterize and quantify the multidecadal regional sea level rise (rSLR) and related ocean heat content in the Pacific from a non-Boussinesq ocean circulation model in comparison with data sets from altimeters, two sea level reconstructions, and in situ ocean profiles from 1958 to 2008. We show that the rSLR trends have undergone two shifts, during the mid-1970s and in the early 1990s, with an east-west dipole pattern in the tropical Pacific. In each of these phases, rSLR accelerated on one side of the Pacific, but decelerated on the other side. The multidecadal sea level shifts can be explained by the dynamical (steric) upper-ocean responses to the surface wind forcing associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), with negligible contributions from internal (depth-integrated) ocean mass changes. Additional model experimentation further confirms that the Pacific wind stress trend over the recent two decades has played an important role in strengthening the rSLR in the western Pacific while suppressing the rSLR in the eastern Pacific. The climate-forced large-scale rSLR variability is likely to impose a long-term and uneven impact on coastal communities.”

German Climate Professors Confirm CO2 Climate Sensitivity Projections Seriously Exaggerated!

Note: The NTZ site remains crippled due to WordPress upgrade from version 4.2.2 to 4.2.3. Until the issue gets resolved new posts can only be viewed through the NTZ homepage. Reader comments function is also disabled by the recent upgrade.

At the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), retired climate scientist Hans-Joachim Lüdecke and two colleagues have responded to the Senate testimony given by Pat Michaels (video follows).

Video of Prof. Patrick Michaels before a Senate committee. Transcript here.

Lüdecke and his colleagues agree with Dr. Michaels’ assertion that the projected increase in the earth’s temperature from CO2 is getting smaller and smaller.

F. Gervais, C.O. Weiss and H.J. Lüdecke write at EIKE:

“Anyone who has been tracking the scientific journals on climate science has observed over many years that the supposedly expected temperature increase from CO2 has steadily been decreasing over the years.”

At EIKE Lüdecke and his colleagues provide the following chart from Landshape to back up the point:

CO2 sensitivity Landshape

The above chart from landshape.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/6921/ is a graphical compilation of published CO2 climate sensitivity results since 2000. The trend for a temperature increase from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (so-called climate sensitivity) has fallen from over 4°C to under 2°C today.

This means that all the assumptions and claims made by the IPCC in the past were based on hype and totally inaccurate results.

Gervais, Weiss and Lüdecke conclude in their EIKE piece:

We can now tell politcians that they can call off the warnings. There’s no chance of a global warming of more than 2°C .

The decrease in the projected temperature rise from CO2 will continue on its present trend. By 2025 the warming by CO2 will be close to zero. We can thus expect that the quality of the forecasts will increase to the point where they will actually reflect reality.”

The Mess At WordPress

There’s a huge problem not only with my NTZ site, but it appears to have affected thousands of other sites running with WordPress.

I need more time (which I don’t have) to muddle through this sh!t.  Sorry about the troubles.

Sarah Gooding best describes the WordPress situation:

WordPress 4.2.3, a critical security release, was automatically pushed out to users yesterday to fix an XSS vulnerability. Shortly afterwards, the WordPress.org support forums were flooded with reports of websites broken by the update. […]

User confidence in WordPress’ automatic background updates took a dent with the 4.2.3 release. Waking up to broken websites causes users to second guess automatic updates after being assured that maintenance and security releases would not include breaking changes.

When users get burned by automatic updates, in the end it doesn’t matter which party is at fault – whether it’s the core team or a theme or plugin. They simply expect updates to work and not break anything. Even in instances where a poorly coded extension may be at fault, the average user has no way of determining whether or not their active plugins follow WordPress best practices.

The aftermath of the most recent security release is one reason why many developers and users are still wary of automatic updates. Amir Helzer represents many other plugin developers who are eager to find better ways to work together with the core team to provide a better update experience for users. This is especially important for releases like this one where the Shortcode API changes directly affected users’ content. Hezler’s comment reaffirms the fact that development agencies, plugin developers, and core developers are all partners on the same team. It’s time to find better ways of working together to provide the best update experience possible for WordPress users.”



Germany’s Green Crime Wave…Components Being Stripped Off Solar Parks By Mafia!

German NTV public radio reports that solar systems are being hampered by yet another problem: Mafia plundering German solar systems. It’s turning out to be a huge problem, and NTV writes that the solar industry is keeping very quiet about it in order avoid negative publicity. NTV describes how thieves equipped with just a few simple tools are able to strip panels and the expensive power inverters rapidly under the cover of night. Hardest hit are systems installed outdoors in fields – solar parks. NTV describes the night-time theft of one solar installation where the thieves simply used bolt cutters to gain access through a fence to a field with thousands of panels: “They removed almost 200 modules, most likely loading them in one or several small cargo transporters, and disappeared.” The operation took probably less than 2 hours and the loss estimated at 42,000 euros. The thieves appear to be highly organized and the activity involves a black market network that extends to Italy, North Africa and Eastern Europe.  NTV writes it sometimes takes days before the solar system operator realizes part of the system has been stolen, noticing that electric output isn’t what is used to be. By then the thieves are long gone and the trail is cold. Security systems around the perimeter or GPS chips on each module are expensive, and so park operators are hesitant to install them because it takes already years before they start to see a return on their investment. NTV writes that operators are often afraid to inform the insurance companies of smaller thefts for fear of being forced to procure expensive security systems or else have their policies cancelled. NTV writes that damages from solar module theft in Germany runs in the tens of millions of euros annually. The problem is now so big that the German police has set up a special commission aimed at fighting back the solar criminals. Of course this further adds more costs for citizens who are already massively burdened by the high green electricity costs. The following German video from Bavarian BR Television shows how easy it is to steal modules in a matter of minutes, and reports on how one solar farm operator lost 200 panels valued at 40,000 euros. NTV writes that because of a lack of transparency, the Italian mafia is now in the business of running solar parks equipped with stolen components. “For this reason solar parks in Italy are being used to launder money.”

Germans Resoundingly Saying “No!” To Clearing Forests To Make Way For Wind Parks

A survey conducted by the German Emnid polling institute found that 79% of Germans reject the installation of wind turbines in forests. That’s the result of a survey commissioned by the Deutschen Wildtier Stiftung (German Wildlife Foundation).

Lowell Mountain Daniel F July 2015

Not only are there plans to disfigure and destroy forest regions in Germany, it is already a sad reality in Vermont (New England). Here an aerial photo of a portion of the Lowell Mountain wind park shows how the once natural mountain was blasted with dynamite and forests cleared and industrialized. Photo: courtesy of Daniel F.

When asked if they agreed with the statement: “For the construction of more wind energy, in general no forest areas should disappear or be cut down.”, 79 percent replied with: “I agree!” Only 11% agreed with: “for additional wind parks also forest areas should be cleared away or cut down.” The Emnid Institute survey also determined that the public’s interest in the issue of wind parks in forests is very high. Only 8% said that the issue did not interest them.

For the Deutsche Wildtier Stiftung, the Emind results prove that a large majority of the German population reject wind parks in forests. “Wind power at any cost must not be the result of the Engergiewende,” emphasized Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, Chairman of the German Wildlife Foundation. “The citizens of Germany do not want forests to become the victims of a one-dimensional climate policy.“ People think it is important to keep forests and biodiversity intact. Even 65% of those responding said: “In the case of any doubt, the construction of wind turbines must yield to the protection of birds and other animals”.

The thoughtless construction of wind energy in the forest is a serious threat. “Opening up forests to allow wind parks leads to the endangerment of rare species,” Prof. Dr. Vahrenholt criticized. Every year in Germany up to 240,000 bats are killed by wind turbine rotors. Although they are able to dodge the moving rotors, the negative pressure in the rotor’s wake causes the bats’ lungs to burst. Most of the domestic bats are on the endangered species list.

Bird species like the rare lesser spotted eagle, the red kite and the black stork are especially sensitive to turbines. For example half of the breeding population of the black stork disappeared in just 6 years at the Vogelsberg site in the state of Hesse after 125 wind turbines were constructed. Many predatory birds die in collisions with rotors.

“So far only the state of Saxony Anhalt has opted not to allow wind parks in forests,” says Prof. Vahrenholt. In German states with large forest areas, such as Baden-Wuerttemberg, Rhineland-Palatinate, North Rhine Westphalia, Hesse and Brandenburg, there are already decrees to allow the construction of wind parks despite regional resistance to them,” said Vahrenholt.

Moreover Emnid found that among those surveyed, wind energy in forests is not a matter of personal preference, but one of a greater good – namely forest as a space for life. On the question: “Would you feel disturbed about wind turbines in the forest?”, 43% answered with “yes”.

Minister Slams German Government’s Green Energy Reform Plan: “Nonsense…Little To Do With Reality”!

As more wildly fluctuating solar and wind energy is fed into the German power grid, the question of how to prevent blackouts has been elevated to urgent.

Germany’s weekly Die Zeit recently published an interview with Franz Untersteller, Environment Minister of the state of Baden Wurttemberg. He claims “electrical power supply will be tight“. The reason is because of the federal government’s latest energy reform plan.

Untersteller believes that Germany is headed on the wrong path and is in the process of repeating California’s 1990s blunders, which led to widespread rolling blackouts and a crippling of the Golden State’s power grid.

Currently Germany’s federal Economics Minister, Sigmar Gabriel is planning a reform of Germany’s electricity market. The aim, Zeit writes, is “to allow growth of the share of fluctuating power generation without the occurrence of blackouts whenever green electricity is lacking due to the weather“.

Untersteller thinks the federal government’s plan will lead to power shortages in some areas, in part as a result of the coming shutdown and/or mothballing of non-fluctuating nuclear and conventional power plants – in combination with the lack of power transmission lines to feed power in from north German offshore windparks. There is now an immediate need for a stable baseload power supply in southern Germany.

However Untersteller sees few investors willing to invest in back-up conventional power plants that can be switched on and off as needed according to fluctuating supply because of their complete lack of profitability: “Why would investors want to build such plants? [..] Talk to the managers of the energy business. Many of them are saying that the investment decisions they made a few years ago would not be made today because of the falling price levels on the spot power exchanges.”

Untersteller calls the federal government’s latest plan for installing reserve capacity using old brown-coal plants “nonsense” because they are unable to switch on and off quickly enough in response to wind and solar power supply fluctuations. Untersteller tells Die Zeit: “Old brown coal plants viewed technically are the crass opposite of flexible power plants.”

Moreover Untersteller is puzzled as to why Germany has opted to use solutions that have already failed in other countries, recounting a meeting he had with managers of Cailfornia power company PG&E:

“When I told them what the German federal government was planning, their eyebrows went up. California had a similar system, but only until the year 2000. They had blackout situations.”

As a solution to Germany’s power grid needs, Untersteller proposes a “focused capacity market“, where in a complicated process certain flexible and environmentally friendly capacities would be bid on and auctioned off with the aim of fulfilling the requirements for a reliable power supply in a market-oriented manner. It would be costly, but Untersteller says, “Supply reliability has its price“, i.e. the consumer would get stuck with the tab.

On the government’s current plan to reform the power market, Untersteller says that it is based on “ideal conditions – on conditions that in my opinion have very little to do with the daily reality in the energy business.”

NOAA Record June Heat Claims Dismissed! “In Independent Datasets We See Widespread Model Failures” Says Expert Meteorologist

NOAA conflict of interest? “The problem is that the same staff responsible for creating reports and running some greenhouse models are also responsible for the databases that validate the forecasts.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) June 2015 results are out and once again the government-directed institute is  claiming the globe is at a record high temperature while the other independent global temperature datasets are telling a very different story.

The NOAA claims that the global surface temperature reached a new all-time record high with an anomaly +0.88°C – the warmest since recordkeeping began in 1880!

However measurements taken by satellite Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) show that although June 2015 indeed was a warm month at +0.39°C, it was only the 4th warmest June ever, and more than 30 other earlier months have seen greater positive anomalies.

Satellite data (revised) taken by the University of Alabama in Huntsville UAH show that the June 2015 temperature anomaly was +0.31°C, a warm month but not the hottest June ever as three other June months were as warm or warmer.

Moreover plots of the RSS and UAH data continue to show that global temperatures have been flat for now close to 20 years:
wood4trees 2015

Chart: woodfortrees.org/

Even the Hadley Climate Research Unit (HadCrut) in England shows no temperature increase over the period.

Yet no one at the NOAA has gotten the idea that maybe their data and results have gone awry and that they’d be wise to look for what is causing it.

When asked what they thought of the NOAA June result, 2 expert meteorologists suggest that there’s probably more to it than faulty computational methodology and that it may have to do with scientists milking out the results they want.

When asked about the NOAA results, former Accuweather veteran meteorologist and now chief meteorologist at Weatherbell Analytics Joe Bastardi expressed serious doubts on the NOAA June results. In an e-mail he commented:

NCEP real time data, computed every 6 hours from model input shows no such thing. It is available to the public at weatherbell.com/temperature.php. […] How is it the NCEP data, where NCEP is a part of NOAA, show no such warming? […]Moreover using NCEP data May, 2015, was the NINTH warmist, not the first, and June looks like 5th since 1998.”


2015, NOAA’s NCEP data show no records occurring.

Long-time meteorologist Joe D’aleo was more blunt about the suspicious NOAA data, writing that there’s probably on conflict of interest where the climate modelers also happen to be the data-crunchers. D’Aleo wrote in reply to an e-mail inquiry (my emphasis):

The problem is that the same staff responsible for creating the reports about the climate (USGCRP, State of the Climate, EPA TSD, IPPC) and running some of the greenhouse models that project the scary scenarios (NOAA and downstream NASA) are also responsible for the databases that validate the forecasts. The actual data should be constructed independently of the forecasts with people who do not have a financial and personal interest in seeing their forecasts verify. Indeed we see in the independent datasets like the satellite and balloon based ones, widespread model failures.

There is a lot of control available for modelers to predict a desired result, and data source inconsistencies allow NOAA to be creative – and the result is a hybrid of data and models (with their adjustments like TOA, infilling and homogenization) to show whatever the puppet-masters in government require. It may be that some really believe in their science and work hard to mine the data, achieving a form of bias confirmation. In other cases it is ideologically or politically driven or a matter of job security.”no

Surprise – No Sea Level Rise At Tanzanian Coast Last 4500 Years…Seychelles Last 10 Years!

Tanzania’s sea level over the past 4500 years likely succeeded today’s level. Sea level at the Seychelles stable over the past 10 years

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P. Gosselin)

Global sea level is rising and rising  – and that has been so for the last 15,000 years. However there are indications that the rise was not continuous and that there have been phases where sea level was stable, and perhaps even dropped. That may have happened during the natural cold phases, which occurred about every 1000 years.

Using geological methods it is possible to reconstruct the sea level history. A group of scientists led by Sarah Woodroffe of the University of Durham in North England took a close look at the sea level in Tanzania and the Seychelles far off the east coast of Africa. In a first study that appeared in the May 2015 issue of The Holocene journal, Woodroffe and her colleagues reconstructed the fluctuations at the coast of Tanzania over the past 10,000 years. At first the sea level rose rapidly and reached a level 7900 years ago that is 3.5 meters below today’s level. 900 years later the sea level reached today’s level. After that sea level rise slowed down. It cannot be excluded that sea level afterwards did not exceed today’s current level. In the last 4400 years sea level dropped and then remained constant.

The following is the abstract of the paper:

“Radiocarbon dating of mangrove sediments to constrain Holocene relative sea-level change on Zanzibar in the southwest Indian Ocean
Mangrove sedimentary deposits are sensitive to changes in sea level and can be used to reconstruct mid- to late Holocene sea-level fluctuations in intermediate and far-field locations, distant to the former polar ice sheets. However, they can be difficult to date using 14C because mangrove sediment can contain mixtures of carbon of different ages. The two main potential causes of error are younger mangrove roots penetrating down through the sediment column and bioturbation by burrowing animals which moves carbon up and down the sediment column. Both processes may introduce carbon not representative of the age of deposition of the layer being dated. This study reports new 14C dates on organic concentrates (10–63 µm) from mangrove sediments from Makoba Bay on Zanzibar (Unguja) where previous bulk sediment 14C age–depth profiles contained inversions and were therefore less useful for relative sea-level (RSL) reconstruction. Dates on organic concentrates provide a more coherent sequence of 14C ages compared with those from bulk sediments. These new data provide an improved environmental history and mid- to late Holocene RSL record for this site. Our reconstructions show that RSL rose during the mid-Holocene and reached within −3.5 m of present by c. 7900 cal. yr BP. RSL slowed as it reached present at or shortly after c. 7000 cal. yr BP, with falling and/or stable RSL from c. 4400 cal. yr BP to present. We are not able to determine whether there was a RSL highstand above present on Zanzibar during the mid- to late Holocene. The RSL reconstruction agrees broadly with changes predicted by the ICE-5G geophysical model, which includes 4 m of ice equivalent sea-level rise between 7000 and 4000 cal. yr BP. Our new dating approach has the potential to provide improved chronologies with which to interpret sea level data from this and other mangrove environments.”

What a surprise: Over the last 4500 years sea level along Tanzania has fallen or remained stable. And what do the coastal tide gauges of the country say? Luckily there’s a gauge at Sansibar which has been delivering data since 1984 (Figure 1). No real long-term trend can be discerned for the past 30 years. Interestingly a cycle can be suspected, with a decline until 2000 and then followed by a rise. Today’s sea level was reached on multiple occasions over the last 30 years.

Figure 1 : Sea level development at the Sanibar coastal tide gauge in Tanzania. Source: PSMSL.

In a comparison study, Sarah Woodroffe’s team also examined the Seychelles, which are located at a distance far from the Tanzanian coast. At this remote location in the middle of the ocean tectonic lifting and sinking effects can be practically excluded. Also here the scientists found a very stable sea level for the past 2000 years. Within the framework of the reconstruction accuracy, it could be determined that during this period the sea level was never 2 meters below today’s level. However a sea level of a few decimeters over today’s level could not be excluded.

The paper appeared also in May 2015 in the Quaternary Science Reviews. The abstract reads as follows:

“New constraints on late Holocene eustatic sea-level changes from Mahé, Seychelles
This study provides new estimates of globally integrated ice sheet melt during the late Holocene (since 4 ka BP) from Seychelles in the western Indian Ocean, a tectonically stable, far field location where the necessary Glacial-Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) correction is small and is relatively insensitive to predictions using different Earth viscosity profiles. We compare sea level data from Seychelles to estimates of eustasy from two GIA models, ICE-5G and EUST3, which represent end-members in the quantity of global melt during the late Holocene. We use data from a range of coastal environments including fringing reef, present day beaches, fossil plateau and mangrove deposits on the largest island of the Seychelles archipelago, Mahé to reconstruct relative sea-level changes. Our data suggest that extensive coastal deposits of carbonate-rich sands that fringe the west coast formed in the last 2 ka and the horizontal nature of their surface topography suggests RSL stability during this period. Mangrove sediments preserved behind these deposits and in river mouths date to c. 2 ka and indicate that RSL was between −2 m and present during this interval. Correcting the reconstructed sea level data using a suite of optimal GIA models based on the two ice models mentioned above and a large number (c. 350) of Earth viscosity models gives a result that is consistent with the sedimentological constraints. When uncertainties in both model results and data are considered, it is possible to rule out eustatic sea levels below c. 2 m and more than a few decimetres above present during the past two millennia. This uncertainty is dominated by error in the reconstructions rather than the model predictions. We note, however, that our estimates of eustasy are more compatible with the EUST3 model compared to the ICE-5G model during the late Holocene (2–1 ka BP). Our evidence from Seychelles shows that the timing of when eustatic sea level first rose close to present is between the predictions of the two end-member GIA models presented here (4 ka BP for ICE-5G and 1 ka BP for EUST3). Using all lines of evidence currently available from Mahé we suggest that the eustatic contribution during the last 2 ka has been less than 2 m. This conclusion is drawn from a tectonically stable, far-field region that is relatively insensitive to earth and ice model uncertainties, and implies that global eustasy has been relatively insensitive to climate fluctuations over the pre-industrial part of the last 2 ka.”

Here as well we examine the coastal tide gauges. The Point La Rue station, which apparently has been inactive since 2012, shows an interesting trend. Sea level has not risen at all since 2002 (Figure 2).

Figure 2 : Sea level development at the coastal tide gauge Pointe La Rue at the Seychelles. Source: PSMSL.

What do the satellite measurements tell us? Also here we see there has been no sea level rise over the past 10 years! (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Sea level development in the region of the Seychelles based on satellite measurements. Source: University of Colorado.

Global Cooling…Current 2011-2020 Decade Running Colder Than Previous 2001-2010 Decade

So, where’s the warming?

Robin Pittwood at the New Zealand Kiwi Thinker here has posted an update on the climate bet for charity that NoTricksZone and its readers entered with a gaggle of global warming cultists, among them Dana Nuccitelli and Rob Honeycutt.

So far we are 4.5 years into the current decade and Robin tells us that it is running cooler using RSS and UAH satellite data, which Messieurs Honeycutt and Nuccitelli agreed to use.

Climate Bet, June 2015

Source: Kiwi Thinker.

Awhile back in comic fashion devout anthropogenic global warming believer William Connelly even demanded the terms of the bet be changed. So clearly we see panic setting in.

At his latest July 18 Saturday Summary here, Joe Bastardi presented the latest NCEP global temperature chart for the past 10 years, and here more confirmation that the globe has cooled off a bit.

ncep 2005-2015

Image cropped from Weatherbell Analytics Saturday Summary.

It really is tough to find warming anywhere outside of models. Joe, as polite as he is, is unable to hold back his ridicule of the warming claims.

Of course this year is an El Niño year and so we are going to see the gap close somewhat, or perhaps even see the current decade become a bit warmer than the last – for a little while. But as many readers here are familiar, cool La Niñas typically follow El Niños. Moreover the North Atlantic has turned cool and that will make the battle that much tougher for those betting on a warmer current decade.

Even if the warmists somehow did manage to pull it off, the trend would end up being far below what the models predicted and so it would be a very hollow victory that we could all live with.

Literature Review: Obama Administration’s Sea Level Rise Far Remote Of Mainstream Science. Natural Variability Unaccounted For!

U. of Southampton: We won’t know whether or not sea level is accelerating until 2020-2030. Mojib Latif: models must first take natural variability much more into account

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated and edited by P Gosselin)

Forecasts have long since fascinated man. There’s something mystical about looking into the future. The oracle of Delphi, a look into the crystal ball, reading tea leaves: indeed the error rate is high, yet that does not deter people from paying more money for more far-fetched predictions.

The ClimateChangePredictions.org website has taken on the task of putting climate change predictions on the test stand to see whether or not they have anything to do with reality. One nice example is sea level rise. Currently sea level is rising 2 – 3 mm per year, and if the trend remains stable, a sea level rise of 25 cm is expected by the end of the century. However this does not keep some attention-seekers from announcing much higher rises to the public. At the ClimateChangePredictions.org website here you will find a highly interesting list of prognoses.

Australian climate scientist John Church predicted 3 m by 2100. For others that figure is much too low, and we are threatened instead with 7 m – or even 100 m! We almost get the impression that the higher the bid, the better the chances of winning – at least that’s the impression we get from the media.

Serious studies show just how absurd the sea level rise bidding has become. Within the framework of a European research program supported by a total of 10 million euros, a consortium of 24 institutes investigated scenarios for future sea level rise. Participating among them was the Bremerhaven-based Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI). The main aim of the 2009 to 2013 ice2sea program was to quantify the melting of land-based ice masses. In May 2013 the researchers presented their Final Report (pdf here). The consortium of scientists concluded that the most probable scenario for sea level by the end of the century is a rise of only between 16.5 cm and 69 cm. That was a bitter disappointment for the alarmists in the field.

So what purpose do the alarmist prognoses serve? Some originate from government organizations, who use them to prop up their aggressive climate policy aims. In the USA the Obama Administration warned of a rise of a rise of 2.10 m by the end of the century – far remote of the mainstream science.

The most recent IPCC report also appears to have lost all contact to reality, which despite all the careful prognoses found in the scientific literature, claims there is a rising danger from sea level rise. Here people like to look 2000 years into the future, absolute nonsense when one considers the numerous poorly known sea level trends.

Who is finally going to blow the whistle on the shrill alarmists and their predictions of a coming flood? When prognoses are far beyond the fringes of the accepted range, it should cause us to stop, think and cast doubt on apocalypse forecasters. For the press they couldn’t care less and gladly view it as a convenient source of attention-grabbing spectacular climate stories.

Within the scientific community, however, scientists see the predictability of sea level far more critically. In March 2015 a group of scientists lead by Mohammad Bordbar – which also included Mojb Latif – published a study that took the natural variability of sea level into greater account. The abstract of the paper stated that we can no longer continue to ignore these processes. The paper appeared in Nature Climate Change. The abstract reads:

“Effects of long-term variability on projections of twenty-first century dynamic sea level
Sea-level rise1 is one of the most pressing aspects of anthropogenic global warming with far-reaching consequences for coastal societies. However, sea-level rise did2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and will strongly vary from coast to coast8, 9, 10. Here we investigate the long-term internal variability effects on centennial projections of dynamic sea level (DSL), the local departure from the globally averaged sea level. A large ensemble of global warming integrations has been conducted with a climate model, where each realization was forced by identical CO2 increase but started from different atmospheric and oceanic initial conditions. In large parts of the mid- and high latitudes, the ensemble spread of the projected centennial DSL trends is of the same order of magnitude as the globally averaged steric sea-level rise, suggesting that internal variability cannot be ignored when assessing twenty-first-century DSL trends. The ensemble spread is considerably reduced in the mid- to high latitudes when only the atmospheric initial conditions differ while keeping the oceanic initial state identical; indicating that centennial DSL projections are strongly dependent on ocean initial conditions.”

Natural variability currently makes it impossible to determine if the speed of sea level rise is beyond the range of natural variability. The University of Southampton also explicitly reports this in a press release dated 9 May 2014. It is necessary to first understand the natural processes and to account for them in the development of sea level rise before an anthropogenic signal can be identified and quantified. It’s indeed going to take another 5 to 15 years before scientists are able to decide whether or not sea level rise has accelerated in an unusual manner. What follows is the press release in its entirety:

“Back to the future to determine if sea level rise is accelerating

Scientists have developed a new method for revealing how sea levels might rise around the world throughout the 21st century to address the controversial topic of whether the rate of sea level rise is currently increasing.

The international team of researchers, led by the University of Southampton and including scientists from the National Oceanography Centre, the University of Western Australia, the University of South Florida, the Australian National University and the University of Siegen in Germany, analysed data from 10 long-term sea level monitoring stations located around the world. They looked into the future to identify the timing at which sea level accelerations might first be recognised in a significant manner.
Lead author Dr Ivan Haigh, Lecturer in Coastal Oceanography at the University of Southampton, says: “Our results show that by 2020 to 2030, we could have some statistical certainty of what the sea level rise situation will look like for the end of the century. That means we’ll know what to expect and have 70 years to plan. In a subject that has so much uncertainty, this gives us the gift of long-term planning.

“As cities, including London, continue to plan for long-term solutions to sea level rise, we will be in a position to better predict the long-term situation for the UK capital and other coastal areas across the planet. Scientists should continue to update the analysis every 5 to 10 years, creating more certainty in long-term planning — and helping develop solutions for a changing planet.”
The study found that the most important approach to the earliest possible detection of a significant sea level acceleration lies in improved understanding (and subsequent removal) of interannual (occurring between years, or from one year to the next) to multidecadal (involving multiple decades) variability in sea level records.

“The measured sea levels reflect a variety of processes operating at different time scales,” says co-author Dr Francisco Calafat, from the National Oceanography Centre. He adds, “One of the main difficulties in detecting sea level accelerations is the presence of decadal and multi-decadal variations. For example, processes associated with the North Atlantic Oscillation have a strong influence on the sea levels around the UK over multi-decadal periods. Such processes introduce a large amount of ‘noise’ into the record, masking any underlying acceleration in the rate of rise. Our study shows, that by adequately understanding these processes and removing their influence, we can detect accelerations much earlier.”

Co-author Professor Eelco Rohling, from the Australian National University and formerly of the University of Southampton, adds: “By developing a novel method that realistically approximates future sea level rise, we have been able to add new insight to the debate and show that there is substantial evidence for a significant recent acceleration in the sea level rise on a global and regional level. However, due to the large ‘noise’ signals at some local coastal sites, it won’t be until later this decade or early next decade before the accelerations in sea level are detection at these individual tide gauge sites.”

The findings of the study, funded by the Natural Environmental Research Council (iGlass consortium), are published in this months issue of the journal Nature Communications.”


German Media Silent On Planned Parenthood’s Dealings With “Unviable Tissue”, Süddeutsche Bemoans “Attack Campaign”


I’ve been waiting patiently for the German media to react to the explosive undercover video of a Planned Parenthood (PP) director, Deborah Nucatola, rolled by the Center for Medical Progress.

Warning – not easy to watch for people who even have just an inkling of compassion or any sense of humanity:

Sadly all this evil is happening now, and within the borders of the global “beacon of liberty and democracy”, of which I am a citizen, the United States of America.

It’s now been three days since the shocking video has been released and the reaction from the German media has been almost totally muted – just as I expected. Why? Here the predominantly center-left German media need time to carefully craft and spin the shocking story in a way that will not cause too much public disgust. They’ll get to it, though – dryly and curtly, and then rapidly move on to other things.

One major media outlet has gotten around and done a report on the PP video: the center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) here – penned by Claus Hulverscheidt. How did he spin it?

As expected Hulverschidt presents the video as something that is part of an orchestrated attack campaign on a reputable “health and family planning provider”, of course one led by right-wing “Republikaner” (a harsh derogative in Germany) such as Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina.

Hulverschidt bends over backwards to depict the PP franchise abortion organization as “not just some organization” but as a respective one “that has made a name for itself” in services like “family planning“, “cancer prevention” and “the search for health insurance for low income earners“. He writes of PP:

“Especially in large cities it enjoys great respect among women, is supported by celebrities such as actress Scarlett Johansson, and gets funding from the federal government in Washington.”

Hulversheidt claims that the damage done by the video is not so much because of what Deborah Nucatola says at the dinner table, but because of the matter-of-fact way she says it: one professional speaking to another in her field. Never mind Nucatola openly admits in the video that PP centers are harvesting baby parts, organs and tissue for profit (maybe not PP’s profit, but certainly that of its scrupulous buyers).

Hulverscheidt concludes his piece:

In any case she indeed does say that they are operating in an ethical-moral gray zone. But with the help of the tissue samples, there is the opportunity to achieve progress in the fight against incurable diseases like Alzheimer and Parkinson, which otherwise would not be possible.”

Sorry, but the generational cannibalization of the unborn to the tune of millions of lives is not the way to cure diseases. Only a hopelessly, morally bankrupt and twisted mind could think so. Also disturbing is that Hulverscheidt fails to even bring up a single point or argument on behalf of the defenseless unborn.

Also no surprise, given the leanings of the SZ: Hulverscheidt does not bother to provide a link to the video itself to his readers, probably in the hopes they will just believe his every spin and not bother watching and deciding for themselves.

He also fails to mention that even Planned Parenthood Director Gloria Feldt is disturbed by the video and denounced (through clenched teeth, no doubt) “what seems to be totally inappropriate.”

This circling of wagons around a pet issue and defining it as black vs. white is typical of the German media, especially also when it comes to climate change, for example.

The media providing cover for an organization as loathsome as PP tells me that there are still many dark undercurrents at work in modern Germany.

Shame on Germany’s media.

Full version here.

Central Germany’s Devastating Freak Flood of 1965…Back When CO2 Was Only 320 ppm.

Online weather site www.wetter24.de here today writes about the devastating Heinrichflut (Heinrich Flood) of 1965, back when CO2 was only 320 ppm, well below the often claimed “safe” level of 350 ppm that some alarmists like to have us think would bring us much less extreme weather.

Worst flood in the region’s collective memory

In 1965 the spring and early summer had been cool and wet. In the early afternoon on Friday July 16, 1965, in the central German region between Paderborn, Kassel and Gottingen, the skies darkened quickly and torrential rains fell. Within a matter of hours large areas became submerged under water. Rivers and streams swelled and swept houses, livestock and property away. 16 people were killed. It was the worst flood in the region’s centuries-long collective memory. Had the storm hit during the night, the loss of life would have been far worse, experts say.

The following aerial photos were taken the next day and show the aftermath of the July 16 flood:


Bad Karlshafen. Source: here.


Eberschutz. Source: here.


Imarshausen. Source: here.


 Karlshafen. Source: here.

Cold air trough formed between two air masses

What caused the freak weather of 1965?

According to Wikipedia in mid July 1965 a mass of warm air flowed northwards from the subtropics and collided with cold Arctic air flowing down from Scandinavia. On the backside of the warm air mass over northern France a so-called cold air trough formed and led to the warm becoming completely surrounded by the cold air. The warm air lifted above the cold air mass, leading to severe thunderstorms and torrential precipitation. The region’s hilly terrain and river valleys served to exacerbate the situation.

200 mm in 24 hours

In an area between Paderborn and Kassel and Fritzlar precipitation amounts of 100 mm fell in just 2 hours. In other areas between July 14 and July 17 up to 200 mm of rain fell in 72 hours. In Dalheim alone over 200 mm fell in 24 hours.

What does all this mean? It means that freak weather events are also common in times of low atmospheric CO2 concentrations and “global cooling”. It all gets down to weather and not climate. Weather catastrophes are not going to be prevented by practicing “green” rituals and CO2 voodoo.

Despite alarmist claims that weather extremes are becoming more frequent, objective observers see no trend change in extreme weather events in Germany or world wide.


“Alarming Results” From Fraunhofer Institute Study On Grid Overloading From Wind, Solar Power…Crippled Cities

As Germany piles on more sporadic energy from wind and solar into its power grid, stability concerns are growing.

Increasingly volatile energies like wind and sun are turning out to be more of an expensive nuisance rather than a benefit.

Researchers at the Germany-based Fraunhofer-Instituts für Optronik, Systemtechnik und Bildauswertung, Institutsteil Angewandte Systemtechnik (IOSB-AST) have studied the risk of grid overloads caused by renewable energies at the community level, the online Ostthüringer Zeitung (OTZ) writes here.

The result, reports the OTZ:

Already in just a few years power will have to be stored locally as well. […] And the answers in their study are, depending on the perspective, thoroughly alarming or spurring for policymaking and economy.”

According to the OTZ, a team of researchers led by Peter Bretschneider at the Fraunhofer’s IOSB-AST conducted a 3-year study, where they literally built a statistical mock-up city of 30,000 that included a downtown, residential areas, commercial district, solar installations and wind parks. “A total of 1847 residential and business buildings that included everything from grandma’s little house to office complex for public officials.”

And so that the mock-up city simulates what is typical today in Germany, it also had everything a town would expect to have with the current German feed-in act:

4456 ‘grid elements’, i.e. power lines, transformers, large points of consumption and feed-in systems, foremost photovoltaics on the roofs.”

Even the homes were provided with the thermal insulation that they are expected to have later on.

The OTZ continues:

Next the Fraunhofer scientists electrified their simulated city. Then using meteorological data they allowed the sun to rise and set, the wind to blow, the temperatures to change – just like in real life.”

Next they extrapolated outwards to the expected conditions of the year 2018 and 2023, leaving the local power grid unchanged and allowing more wind and solar energy to come online as expected from the provisions of the feed-in act. How did the city’s power grid fare? The OTZ tells us the shocking results, and they aren’t pretty:

Already today in the simulated city one of the 14 network nodes gets sporadically overloaded. In 2018 the impacted transformer comes under serious stress 22 days a year, and so does another transformer. Five years later three nodes are impacted by long-term frequent back-feeding of surplus solar energy in the medium-voltage grid. At least one cable in the area exceeds ‘the limits of thermal loading’. […]  ‘Yes, a transformer would be glowing – and the cable would go up in smoke,’ system engineer Sebastian Flemming explains the results in layman’s terms.”

The OTZ asks what this all means for the citizens? Flemming responds: “Blackout, for the entire city.”

In the wintertime this would be most inconvenient, and for some possibly even fatal.

Flemming adds that even if a blackout were averted, the wild frequency fluctuations in the grid would have “grave consequences” for many electrical appliances and systems. The OTZ writes:

None of today’s productions systems in the economy could function under such fluctuations, especially everything that is computer-controlled.”

In other words, it would not even take a blackout to cripple a city.

The OTZ then asks what can be done with the surplus electrical energy that will surely result from the wind and sun. Here once again the financially and technically unfeasible storage systems get brought up. Another solution mentioned is the conversion of the electricity into heat for supplying warmth to homes.

But the online OTZ daily writes that solutions appear to be a ways off, and so it warns:

Time is running out: According to the study, beginning in 2018, the first transformers are threatened with prolonged overloading.”

Do these findings of the Fraunhofer Institute surprise us? Not at all. It’s been known for a long time that the feed-in of solar and wind power leads to crazy, uncontrolled power surges in the grid. Supply stability remains the glaring problem that too many among us continue to deny.

Prepare for blackouts!

German Geologist: “Sea Level Rise Lagging Behind Projections” …No Detectable Acceleration!

Over the last couple of days at their Die kalte Sonne blog Geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning and professor of chemistry Fritz Vahrenholt have focused their attention on sea level rise.

On Monday they wrote a piece titled: “Sea level rise lagging behind expectations: Now only ‘data massaging’ helps.

In their post the two authors present a number of charts and cite many papers. In the end they conclude that sea level rise has not accelerated at all, despite what the media and a few alarmist scientists may otherwise claim.

Lüning and Vahrenholt write that sea level acceleration is the result only when one dubiously fudges the data:

What would you think if a soccer game ended with a score of 3:1, but the result later changed to 3:3?”

Today Lüning and Vahrenholt followed with another post on sea level rise, which shows that the methodology used at times by scientists to compute and project sea level rise leaves little to be desired.

What climate models have not taken into consideration up to now: Up to one third of the sea level rise traced back to ocean salinity

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated/ edited by P Gosselin]

For over one hundred years there has been a network of coastal tide gauges around the world that serve to measure the sea level. The hard data that is recorded play a decisive role in determining sea level rise. Because some coastal locations are rising and some are sinking, the corresponding vertical movement has to subtracted from or added to the tide gauge readings respectively. Using satellite measurements, today this can be corrected with reasonable accuracy. In March 2014 in a paper in the Geophysical Research Letters a team of scientists led by Guy Wöppelmann conducted a global revision of all GPS corrected coatal tide gauge measurements for the 20th century. The result is interesting: While sea level rose an average of 2.0 mm per year in the northern hemisphere, it was only about half as much in the southern hemisphere: 1.1 mm/year. What follows is the paper’s abstract:

Evidence for a differential sea level rise between hemispheres over the 20th century
Tide gauge records are the primary source of sea level information over multi-decadal to century timescales. A critical issue in using this type of data to determine global climate-related contributions to sea level change concerns the vertical motion of the land upon which the gauges are grounded. Here we use observations from the Global Positioning System for the correction of this vertical land motion. As a result, the spatial coherence in the rates of sea level change during the 20th century is highlighted at the local and the regional scales, ultimately revealing a clearly distinct behavior between the northern and the southern hemispheres with values of 2.0 mm/year and 1.1 mm/year, respectively. Our findings challenge the widely accepted value of global sea level rise for the 20th century.

The rise in sea level over the past 150 years is foremost attributed to the thermal expansion of the warmed water and the melt water from glaciers and the ice caps. But in November 2014 in the Environmental Research Letters Paul Durack showed that also ocean water salinity also contributed to sea level rise to a non-negligible extent. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory reported in a press release:

The team found that there was a long-term (1950-2008) pattern in halosteric (salinity-driven) sea level changes in the global ocean, with sea level increases occurring in the Pacific Ocean and sea level decreases in the Atlantic. These salinity-driven sea level changes have not been thoroughly investigated in previous long-term estimates of sea level change. When the scientists contrasted these results with models, the team found that models also simulated these basin-scale patterns, and that the magnitude of these changes was surprisingly large, making up about 25 percent of the total sea level change. ‘By contrasting two long-term estimates of sea level change to simulations provided from a large suite of climate model simulations, our results suggest that salinity has a profound effect on regional sea level change,’ Durack said. ‘This conclusion suggests that future sea level change assessments must consider the regional impacts of salinity-driven changes; this effect is too large to continue to ignore.

Attribution for the causes of observed sea level rise obviously is struggling with serious problems. No one has properly taken the changes in salinity into account.