Analysis: Coinciding Maxima Of Three Natural Cycles Ends…Cooling Ahead As They Turn Negative!

Additional Thoughts On Natural Cycles 
By Ed Caryl

In Natural Cycles In A Random World Are Unmistakable…Future Holds Nothing To Fear, we showed plots of simulated temperature generated in Excel using the sum of three cycles and a random number generator.

Some commenters realized that if you averaged many runs, like the professional climate “scientists” do, the result would be the underlying cycles. Some realized that doing the averaging step is unnecessary, as the underlying cycles are simply three columns in the Excel file. Here is that plot.

Sum of Natural Cycles

Figure 1 is the sum of the three natural cycles, the 62, 204, and 1040-year cycles. The green rectangle outlines the historical temperature record, from 1850 to 2015. The blue rectangles highlight cold periods, the red rectangles the warm periods. The numbers are the beginning and end years for each period. Yellow highlights the future. 

Note that in figure 1, the cycles in the green rectangle follow the known temperature record. See figure 2, below. The rest of the plot, before the known period, reflects what we know generally about the Medieval Warm  Period and the Little Ice Age. I leave it to the reader to interpret the future.

Natural cycles and HADCRUT4

Figure 2 plots the natural cycles from figure 1 and the HADCRUT4 global anomaly index. The vertical offset is due to the HADCRUT4 baseline choice.

The three natural cycles are not, of course, as fixed in frequency or amplitude as in these Excel plots. As we go back in time, the climate that actually occurred will drift from these calculations. But we know that the Roman warm period occurred about a thousand years before the Medieval warm period, and that it happened with about a 200 year cycle imposed on it.

There are several papers that discuss 1470 ±500 year cycles. Those that occurred during the last ice age are labeled Dansgaard-Oeschger events. In the Holocene, they are called Bond events. The Bond events tend to happen at 1000 year intervals, thus the ±500 year error margin. Solar scientists refer to a thousand year plus Hallstaat Cycle that looks like the thousand-year cycle used here. Bond events and the Hallstaat Cycle appear to be the same thing.

During the last ice age there were also deeper periods of cold known as Heinrich events. These occur at approximately 10,000 year intervals. During the last ice age, these events tended not to be sine-wave in shape, but punctuated cold intervals. Bond events in the Holocene such as the 5.4 and 8.2 kilo-year events also appear as abrupt cooling followed by equally abrupt warming. Figure 3 is a plot of Bond events from Bond et al. data here. The last column “stacked” data was used for this plot. It is a combination of several proxies. The resolution is 70 years between points, so only the longer cycles are resolved. Both scales have been reversed to match figure 1.

Bond Events

Figure 3 is a plot of Bond events in the Holocene. The outlined area is the time covered by figure 1 up to the present. Down is cold, up is warm. The 70-year resolution captures only the longest of the warm and cold periods in the last one thousand years, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Wolf, Spörer and Maunder cold periods.

Carbon 14

Figure 4 is a plot of carbon-14 production at the top of the atmosphere. This plot is also from Bond et al. from the same source as above. The cold and warm periods are highlighted as in figure 1.

The 200 year cycles appear solar-based. The resolution in figure 4 is 10 years. Cold periods happen when 14C production is declining, warm periods when it is increasing. As 14C is produced by cosmic rays at the top of the atmosphere, there is a delay before it appears as captured carbon in living things.

If past temperatures are related to known solar and ocean cycles with increasing precision in the modern era, then future temperatures will also be related. The present warming is simply a Bond warming event just like more than a dozen similar and even more dramatic warming events in the last 10,000 years. The recent warming is simply climate following natural cycles. We are now at the peak of the sum of three cycles, each cycle also at a peak, a grand maximum. What follows will be cooling as all those cycles go negative.

NASA’s Temperature Data Fibbing … And Thomas Friedman’s Junk Renewable Energy Economics

Good to see that this NTZ site is contributing to articles on climate change and renewable energies by larger media outlets.

For example Charles Battig at the American Thinker here cited NoTricksZone in his report on Thomas Friedman’s editorial on the supposed “success” of Germany’s renewable energies. In his editorial, Friedman stupidly ignores all the glaring reports and data of Germany’s reneable energy failure, and tries to sell the entire mess as a grand success. In Battig’s words, “He knows how to put the proverbial ‘lipstick on a pig’.” And adds:

A recent German government report notes that Germany’s system ‘rewards the most inefficient plants, doesn’t contribute to protecting the climate, jeopardizes the energy supply and puts the poor at a disadvantage.’  A Nobel Peace Prize for this, Mr. Friedman?

Germany is building new coal power plants to replace the energy provided by nuclear power plants being shut down.  They are to be powered by lignite, a brown coal of low caloric content.  German’s newest and most energy-efficient gas turbine plants are forced into an uneconomical standby status as Energiewende  policies mandate the preferential use of wind and solar.  Thus, cheap lignite-powered plants are built and produce high levels of pollutants that are the exact opposite goals of the government’s green policies.

As for Friedman’s ‘stability of our planet and climate’ concern, he might console himself with the fact that the global satellite temperature record of the past 18 years and 5 months shows a statistically flat line, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen about 10 percent.

Three oinks to Friedman’s lipstick report. It is a green porker.”

NASA data alterations

Meanwhile, H. Sterling Burnett at the Heartland Institute here has a story on all the temperature data fibbing going on at NASA lately. Though he does not link to NTZ directly, the source of the information behind the tampering shenanigans going on in Switzerland is NTZ here, a story that was shared or liked more than 2000 times.

Burnett writes:

Science journalist Markus Schär of the Swiss news weekly Weltwoche discovered the Swiss Meteorological Service (SMS) tampered with its datasets as well.

For example, in Sion and Zurich, SMS adjustments resulted in a doubling of the temperature trend. Schär notes there has been an 18-year-pause in rising temperatures, even with data- tampering. As a result, Schär calls the adjustments a ‘propaganda trick, and not a valid trend.’

In light of significant urbanization resulting in an expanded heat island effect near many temperature gauges, Schär argues the adjustment of raw data to report higher temperatures than are actually measured is unjustifiable. ‘The corrections … appear so massive that they represent half of the entire temperature increase,’ said Schär.

Even with fudged data, governments have been unable to hide the fact winters in Switzerland and in Central Europe have become colder over the past 20 years, defying predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists.”

Also reporting on the Swiss data fibbing was Newsmax.

German Scientists Call Matthew England’s Attempt To Declare Climate Models “Robust” A Real Joke

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof Fritz Vahrenholt

It’s rather peculiar: None of the IPCC climate models projected the warming pause of the last 17 years. An real embarrassment.

Scientist Stefan Rahmstorf was devastated, and so publicly disputed that there even was a pause at all. Naturally this strategy cannot be successful over the long run. Then on April 23, 2015, a team of scientists lead by Matthew England published an article in Nature Climate Change, whose title finally and officially conceded the warming pause:

Robust warming projections despite the recent hiatus.”

The abstract reads:

The hiatus in warming has led to questions about the reliability of long-term projections, yet here we show they are statistically unchanged when considering only ensemble members that capture the recent hiatus. This demonstrates the robust nature of twenty-first century warming projections.

A wonderful strategy: 95% of all models are wrong (see the following figure from Roy Spencer), so simply take the remaining 5% of the models and, with them a single stroke of the pen, declare them “robust” and reliable in their ability to forecast. A real joke.

Lancet Medical Journal: Comprehensive Study Shows Cold Waves 20 TIMES MORE LETHAL Than Heat Waves!

Here’s another compelling reason why we should all be hoping that the earth will warm and not cool over the coming decades. (After all, there is no way the temperature is going to stay stagnant).

The print edition of yesterday’s UK Daily Mail has a short report on an international study on the effects of temperature on death rates. The comprehensive study was conducted by the Dr. Antonio Gasparrini of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It examined 74 million deaths in 13 countries.

Also read it at Science Daily (Can’t link because I’m writing from a mobile device – just Google it).

The result, The Daily Mail writes:

7.71 per cent of the deaths were caused by non-optimal temperatures. Cold was responsible for 7.29 per cent of deaths, while 0.42% were attributable to heat, according to the study, published by the Lancet medical journal.”

In other words, deaths from cold were some 20 times than those from heat.

What is interesting is that the study found that most of the deaths occurred when the temperatures were “moderately hot and cold”. This may be due to people underestimating the “moderate” anomalies, and thus failing to take the corresponding precautions. On extremely hot or cold days, on the other hand, the level of awareness is heightened due to media hype, and so people tend to behave accordingly, i.e. drink more fluids, or really bundle up.

Cold is the last thing we need

The study tells us one thing: Cold is the last thing we want to see, and any warming needs to be welcome. Unfortunately recent temperature data and climate trends bode ill, as a number of distinguished scientists are forecasting cooling over the coming decades due to ocean and solar cycles swinging into their cool modes.

Given the results of the study, which are obvious to most normal thinking people, one would need to be a total moron, or just plain mean-spirited,  to be rooting for cooling.

Germany’s Green Party Apologizes For “Massive Sexual Abuse Of Children”, Advocacy of Pedophilia …”Up To 1000 Victims”!

The title may sound stunning, and unbelievable, but it’s true.

It’s also appearing in the main media elsewhere.

Berlin’s leftist daily Online Tagesspiegel here reports comprehensively on the German Green Party’s troubled past involving it’s earlier advocacy of pedophilia and practice by some of its former leading members, see background here, here, here and here.

Green Party Chairwoman Bettina Jarasch has just publicly apologized for what she calls an “institutional failure,” Tagesspiegel writes, as a commission report on the matter has been presented. 

On behalf of the Berlin Greens, we ask for foregiveness,” said Jarasch.

The Tagesspiegel adds:

In the Berlin state association of the Alternativen Liste, the forerunner organization of the Green Party, there was massive sexual abuse of children.”

The Greens’ advocacy of pedophilia rights was part of the party’s platform in the 1980s and early 1990s as it pushed neo-liberal ideas like “free and open relationships”. It still remains unclear as to why the Germany’s top environmental party took so long to issue an apology.

1000 child victims of sexual abuse

The number of victims is not known. However one Green Party Berlin parliamentarian and author of the report, Thomas Birk, in March mentioned “up to 1000 victims”, though he said the figure was “speculative”. The report itself gives releases no figure.

Current Green party official Daniel Wesener said that there were at least two repeat offenders who were tolerated within the party, one was convicted in 13 cases.

Currently the child sex abuse within the Green party is now under investigation by a special commission. The Green Party leaders pledge their full cooperation and to provide compensation to victims who step forward.

According to the Tagesspiegel, the investigation shed light into an “abuse network” within the forerunner of the Green party, Alternativen Liste, which included at least three leading figures who set up a “youth center” in Kreuzberg recreational center.

According to witnesses, they abused numerous youths who had been recruited at elementary schools.”

Today Green Party officials insist that the abuse, however, did not take place within the party structure itself.

Though some media outlets such as the Tagesspiegel reported on the story, much of the German media has been pretty mute on the topic.

Spiegel Describes Circus of “Trickery” In Run-Up To Paris. Russia Wants To Curb CO2 Emissions By Increasing Them!

Spiegel journalist Axel Bojanowski has an analysis on the Berlin climate negotiations now taking place among the leaders of 36 nations who have the aim of laying the groundwork for a binding climate treaty in Paris later this year.

The title: “They’re tricking; they’re getting creative.”

Bojanowski calls it the “big climate show”. Although big delcarations are being made, behind the scenes “creative steps” and “tricks” are the real order of the day.


For example rich nations like France and Germany are climate grandstanding and promising to provide even more money to poor countries to help them fight climate change and switch over to renewable energy sources. But Bojanowski describes how no one appears to be really willing to make the hard compromises that alarmists are demanding. As a result countries are resorting to creative trickery to shirk real climate responsibility. For example climate insurances are to be set up in order to cover weather damages in poor countries, but not much else.

Ducking the real questions

Bojanowski writes, however, that the all-important and really decisive questions are being pushed to the sidelines, foremost:

How does the global community intend to curb the emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, which climate science says will result in considerable warming?”

Here the Spiegel journalist writes that it is still unclear for many EU countries how they will reach their stated targets. He also points out that it is unlikely the US Congress will vote for the government’s plan to curb emissions by 16% compared to 1990 levels. Especially unclear are also the plans for reductions from China, India and other developing countries.

One example of trickery comes from Russia, Bojanowski writes:

Although Russia has announced it wants to reduce emissions 25% by 2030 compared to 1990 – this is in fact trickery. Because of the collapse of its industry during the 1990s, the country is emitting only half as much CO2 as it did in 1990. That means with respect to climate targets, Russia intends to emit more CO2 in the future.”

And not less!

In Paris do expect the signing of a “binding international treaty”, but one that will be chock-full of non-binding requirements. The circus (which no one takes seriously anymore) thus will continue.

“There Are People Who Believe They See Unabated Global Warming In the 1/100°C Range” …Warming Has Ground To a Halt

Stefan Rahmstorf: No pause, anywhere!

[Translated by P. Gosselin)

“No pause, anywhere!” announced Stefan Rahmstorf in his latest article at KlimaLounge. And he added: “As our long-term readers know, there’s been a steady global warming since the 1970s, though it has been superimposed by the usual short-term fluctuations, it has not slowed down or accelerated by any significant means. […] As there has not been any slowdown, there has not been any pause or hiatus of any kind in warming.”

But this is easy to check over. To do this I’ve gotten the data on global temperature from the NOAA, plotted them and added the linear trends for the periods of 1970-2015, 1980-2015, 1990-2015, 2000-2015 and 2005-2015. (By the way, NOAA also uses the NASA GISS dataset for global temperature).


What is seen above is that the trend since 1970 has been in decline. The rise in the trend lines is becoming less and less., i.e. flatter and flatter. Meanwhile the global warming scientists have been telling us for year/decades that global warming would accelerate more and more as greenhouse gases increased.

In fact just the opposite has been true.

Here once again is the NOAA data in its original form from the NOAA site for the period of 1998-2015.


There are actually people who see in it an unabated global warming (in the range of 1/100 of a degree). Hard to believe. Yes, you only have to believe in it, and suddenly you’ll see it. It’s like the blotch images in psychology.

Leading Industry Expert Slams Germany’s Wild Foray Into Green Energies: “Unaffordable” … “Absolute Imbecility”!

The Germany-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) held another conference on climate and renewable energy last March. One of the speakers was Prof. Dr. Dieter Ameling, an expert in heavy industry. EIKE has posted his presentation.

In the presentation Ameling calls Germany’s Energiewende (transition to renewable energies) a real threat to industry, warning that the country faces a de-industrialization.

Already, Ameling reminds us, every day the Energiewende in Germany is progressing and that the damage already done is getting even worse and that “foremost it will soon be irreparable“.

Subsidies’ vast divergence from earlier projections

At the 5:15 mark he calls the German government’s 2022 targets for renewables “economic nonsense” and will result in “electricity getting continuously more expensive“.

His following chart shows a comparison of the German government’s projected green energy subsidies compared to that of reality:


The gray bars show the government’s projected annual subsidies in billions of euros. The blue bars depict the real skyrocketing subsidies. In 2014 the subsidies rose even further, to 23.6 billion euros. Chart: Dr. Dieter Ameling.

“Unaffordable” and “absolute imbecility”

The big problem, Ameling emphasizes, is the huge supply-volatility in wind and sun, which are totally weather-dependent. At the 9:35 mark the retired professor calls the German state of Bavaria’s energy-mix plan for 2022 as something that “cannot function“…”is unaffordable“, and “is absolute imbecility“.

The chart at the 11:20 mark shows how Germany has one of the highest electricity prices worldwide, more than double the rate found in USA, Canada, or Russia.

At the 13-minute mark another chart shows the huge gap in natural gas prices between Germany (10.7 cents per gas unit) and the USA (only 3.7 cents per gas unit). Thanks to fracking, gas prices in USA have tumbled while in Germany poor households barely can afford to heat their homes.

Germany’s skyrocketing electricity prices

At the 13:34 mark Ameling displays a chart showing Germany’s electricity price development:


Since 2000 the price of electricity in euro-cents/kwh in Germany has more than doubled! Currently a 4-person household is paying over 366 euros a year just for the green energy feed-in tariffs alone. Ameling warns that figure will continue to rise rapidly.

Exodus of industry leaving Germany, Europe

Later in the presentation Ameling shows how the energy-intensive industries such as cement, glass, steel, chemicals etc. are being hit hard by the skyrocketing energy costs. In Germany alone 3.5 million jobs depend on the steel industry. At the 19:03 mark Ameling warns that the exodus of industry “has already begun” with heavyweight companies such as ThyssenKrupp, Norsk Hydro, BASF, SGL Carbon and Voest moving operations abroad.

1 trillion euros!

How much is Germany’s Energiewende projected to cost? In 2013 former Environment Minister Peter Altmaier told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung it would cost Germans 1 trillion euros!

Ameling 3

At the end Ameling summarizes, announcing that the “Energiewende has failed” because it is simply too expensive and too volatile. The infrastructure that is needed to handle it is not even in place. Unless Germany radically alters the current direction of its Energiewende, Ameling says it will be “bye bye Germany“.

He ends the presentation with the following Friends of Science image, reminding us that CO2 is not even the driver of climate.


German Government Advisor Calls 2°C Target An Illusion…Climate Science “Led Around By The Nose”…”Reputation Damaged”

Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski interviews Oliver Geden, climate expert at the Berlin-based German Institute for International and Security Affairs – SWP. He is also an advisor to the German government.

2°C target “an illusion”

In the interview Geden calls the 2°C limit target “an illusion that has been fed by politicians and scientists“.

Geden tells Spiegel that scientists and politicians have calculated how much CO2 is allowed to be added to the earth’s atmosphere before the temperature climbs 2°C, but that they have dithered and dallied so much that theoretically no more CO2 emssions will be allowed globally by the year 2044. Thus the 2°C target is already a grand pipe dream.

“Very dubious” CO2 accounting tricks

In the interview Geden believes Paris will fall far short of what is necessary to reach the theoretical 2°C target, and

As a result the climate negotiators will use many calculation tricks which I think are very dubious.”

He expects policymakers to use tricks like “negative” future emissions from CCS technology, or growing trees. However Geden, a warmist and promoter of ending fossil fuels, calls negative emissions in the interview “political science fiction“.

Geden tells Spiegel that 500 million hectares of forests would have to added to the globe, an area equivalent to one and half times India!

Many developing countries would go into resistance if we demanded they stop using the land for food and to grow trees for stroring CO2 instead.”

The negative emissions calculations being put forth are in fact now so out of touch that Geden sarcastically tells Spiegel:

Scientists might as well just assume in 2070 green martians will land on earth as rescuers and suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere.”

Climate science reputation damaged

Bojanowski then asks Geden if all the carbon accounting tricks are hurting the reputation of climate science. Geden confirms that it is, reminding us that:

Five or six years ago it was consensus that greenhouse gas reductions of three percent annually were not realistic. But then emissions rose like never before – and suddenly the IPCC claims that six percent is doable. Precisely in a phase when CO2 emissions are rising liker never before the optimism is suddenly growing that drastic savings are possible. All this just to keep the 2°C story alive.”

Geden adds that scientists are forced to play along with the nonsense because they see the risk of getting less research funding.

The tendency is that those who supply the policymakers with the desired studies and models are better off.”

Science hubris

Geden also points out that “many climate scientists are idealists who wish to rescue the planet;..”

He believes that many scientists are suffering from “hubris” and actually “believe that the earth’s system is controllable“. He slams Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber’s WBGU which in 2011 “proposed a Great Transformation of Global Society to combat global warming”.

It was the first work since the fall of communism that called for the restructuring of the entire world according to a plan.”

Science being “led around “by the nose”

Joachim Müller-Jung at Germany’s flagship Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) writes a commentary on the “political fever” that has swept through the science community as the Paris Conference approaches.

Müller-Jung writes that “science is allowing itself to be led around by the nose by politicians and economists.”

Müller-Jung describes the 2°C limit as “utopian”.

DWD Weather Service Confirms No Verifiable Rise In German Tornado Activity Or Link To Global Warming!

Tornadoes are normally associated with the famous Tornado Alley of the US Midwest. But they also occur from time to time in Germany.

Nowadays the drama-seeking media are quick to report on any tornado event that gets recorded, and so often there’s the mistaken perception that their frequency is rising (of course due to man-made weather brewing). Moreover the media have no qualms about their readers and viewers making that erroneous leap in thought.

Earlier this month Germany was hit by some relatively severe tornado activity. In Augsburg earlier this week 150 homes were damaged by a twister. The media naturally put the topic on center-media stage.

Flagship daily Süddeutsche Zeitung [South German News], SZ, even conducted an interview with the DWD German National Weather Service on the subject of tornadoes and what might be their cause. Over the recent years the DWD has become a rather avid activist and promoter of the man-made global warming theory. But in the SZ interview, the DWD was refreshingly fully honest, and resisted blaming German tornado activity on climate change.

First the SZ asked DWD meteorologist Lars Kirchhübel about how tornadoes are formed and why they are so dangerous. Then about halfway through the interview the topic switches to the impacts of climate change on tornadoes: The SZ asks, “Are they becoming more frequent in Germany – and are they a consequence of climate change?”

The SZ gives us the DWD’s reply:

Tornadoes are not forming more frequently than earlier, we are simply made more aware of them says DWD expert Kirchhübel. Between 20 and 60 tornadoes are know each year in Germany. It has been only over the last few years that those involved have recorded them with their mobile devices, and so thus enhance the people’s perception.”

And on whether there is a discernible trend linkíng tornado activity to global warming, Kirchhübel tells the SZ that the dataset is too short and that there has been no discernible trend so far. He adds:

Also a clear relationship with climate change is not verifiable.”

About a week ago NoTricksZone posted another report on German tornado activity here, and it found that the trend is actually downward for the past 15 years, and not “no trend”:

DWD_tornado frequency

Number of confirmed tornadoes in Germany since 2000. Trend has been significantly downward over the past 10 years. Source: DWD.

Top Econ Professor Says Germany’s Renewables “Already Reached The Limits”…Country Risks “Gambling Away Its Prosperity”!

German online here reports on the opinion recently expressed by Prof. Hans-Werner Sinn, Director of the renowned Munich-based ifo-Institute for Economic Research, regarding Germany’s attempted move into renewable energies, primarily solar and wind power.

Currently about 25% of Germany’s energy supply is “green”.

At a conference of experts in Berlin Sinn is quoted by Dow Jones as saying that the installation of “renewable energies in Germany has already reached its limits” because there is just nowhere near enough storage capacity available to balance out the sharp and volatile supply spikes of wind and solar power.

Sinn also ridiculed the idea of using electric cars as a means to store the green energy, calling the notion a “PR gag”. He added that 159 million BMW i3 vehicle would have to be put on the streets, i.e. thus nearly tripling the number of cars currently on the streets. A preposterous solution.

On using green energy to produce gas, Sinn calls it a horribly expensive alternative that would cost about 24 cents per kilowatt-hour; Russian natural gas by comparison is only 3 cents per kilowatt-hour, he says.

It would get expensive very rapidly,” Sinn warned.

Currently Germany’s Ministry of Environment is proposing the investment of 1 trillion euros for a new energy supply system. Sinn calls that idea “a monstrous gamble with an uncertain outcome“, and one that harbors “a real risk” of Germany “gambling away its prosperity“.

So how will German policymakers react to Professor Sinn’s assessment? Well, if they don’t heed his warnings, then there’s really no one left out there who may still be able to talk sense and reason back into the policymakers’ heads.

Should the policymakers ignore the warnings of the renowned Ifo Institute, then the only thing left is to learn it the hard, painful way. Knowing today’s German intellectual obstinacy of the elite class, the odds of that are better than even.

Natural Cycles In A Random World Are Unmistakable…Future Holds Nothing To Fear

By Ed Caryl

Recently, Roy Spencer posted a graph that appeared to be a data record of some kind for the last 100 years. Then he revealed that it was generated in Excel with a simple random number function. The graph showed details that resembled things like El Niño’s and La Niña’s, pauses, and sudden warming and cooling.

I decided to repeat his graph introducing cycles into the mix. We know that the climate follows ~60 (AMO ocean cycle), ~210 (de Vries or Suess solar cycle), and ~1000 year (un-named) cycles (approximately). The following is a graphic of what happens if these cycles are introduced into the random number generator. The graph extends to 1014 simulated years by month. The random number generator is constrained to + and – 0.5, and each month adds 0.9 of the value of the previous month. The cycles use the sine function (SIN()) with input from the fractional year value, multiplied by 0.1 to produce a 62 year cycle, 0.029 to produce a 215 year cycle, and 0.006 to produce a cycle just over 1000 years. For this last cycle the COS function was used to shift the cycle phase by 90 degrees. Each month, 1/40th of each cycle value is added along with the 0.9 of the previous month. This produces a graph that roughly resembles earth’s climate over the last 1014 years with extension to the next 200.

Simulated Climate 1014 years

Figure 1 is a simulation of the last 1014 years, with the applied climate cycles shown.

Zoom on last 214 years

Figure 2 is a magnification of the last 214 years from Figure 1. Blue is monthly data, black is the annual average, the red trace is the simulated AMO 62-year cycle.

Each re-calculation will completely change the data, but similar features always appear. In this iteration, an El Niño appears at 1999, that looks just like the real El Niño of 1998. We see a warming trend in the early twentieth century, and another in the late twentieth century, just like the real warming trends.

In figure 1, we see a Medieval Warming period and two periods of Little Ice Age. A minimum is seen that resembles the Dalton Minimum of the early 1800s, and the cool 1910s and 1970s appear. Even the cool Maunder Minimum appears in the correct place. Most of this result is not coincidence because the 62-year cycle is timed to match the real AMO, and the 204-year and 1000-year cycles roughly match real solar activity.

In this simulation, two successive warming periods very like the actual twentieth century warming periods, can occur from natural cycles alone, no extra “forcing” from CO2 is required.

So, what will the future bring? Now that we have this model, that reflects the past, as we know it, with general accuracy, can we project that into the future? Sure…this is just an Excel spreadsheet after all. I pasted on 200 more years. As I did so, Excel of course recalculated the whole table. So here is a second example of the last 214 years that it came up with, in case someone accuses me of “cherry-picking”. Note that we get much the same pattern of warming and cooling, with a couple of El Niño’s in approximately the right place in the last 20 years.

Zoom #2

Figure 3 is another calculation of the same period as in figure 2. The black trace is an annual average of the monthly data. All three cycles are shown.

Note the resemblance between figures 2 and 3. Each is a different calculation using different random numbers, yet the small addition of non-random sine wave cycles pushes the output into shapes that resemble the climate that happened in this period.

The next 200 years

Figure 4 is the future, as projected by our model. The black trace is an annual average of the blue monthly data. All three cycles are shown.

As you can see, the future holds nothing to fear. There will be a few El Niño’s in the next ten years, then a moderate cooling as we come off the peak of the 62 and 204 year cycles. There will be more of those in mid-century, as the AMO rises again, then more cooling for a period at the end of the century as both of those cycles bottom out. No extensive warm periods will appear until late in the twenty-second century, as both peak again.

This model is not new. On the side-bar of this blog, an illustration from Nicola Scafetta’s model is similar, with the addition of some shorter cycles. An earlier post on this blog from a paper by Prof. H. Luedecke and C.O. Weiss (cited above) also used a similar model. The chief addition is random “weather”.

No CO2 molecules were harmed in the generation of these graphs. Nor, for that matter, were they considered.

For those with Excel expertise, I have posted the file to Dropbox here.

Warming Defied…Data, Studies Show NO WARMING In Antarctica…Southern Ocean Cooling Down!

No warming in Antarctica. Southern Ocean Cooling Down
By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated by P Gosselin]

In Antarctica if a single piece of ice breaks off, the media worldwide go into a frenzy: How could it happen? That’s got to be climate change. Yes, global warming is striking Antarctica with full force and is rearing its ugly head. Every iceberg that breaks off at the edge of the ice sheet is a sign of climate catastrophe. Amen.

But also during pre-industrial times chunks of ice broke off regularly. This is how ice sheets work: Snow builds up on the continent and then gradually moves towards the coast. What’s new?

So just how much has Antarctica warmed over the last years and decades? One reads or hears very little about this in the media. Therefore we’d like to take this knowledge deficit as an occasion to look more carefully at the temperature history of the great white continent.

Paul Homewood once posted on the temperature development of the past 35 years, using the satellite measurements:

There’s been no detectable warming. It was cold earlier and it is cold today! No Trend.

Perhaps the thermometer at the Amundsen Scott Base at the South Pole has found warming? Based on GISS data, Paul Homewood generated the following curve:

Also in the region of the South Pole station there has been no detectable warming, and that over the past 50 years.

In the next step we leave the mainland and examine the ocean to see if it may have warmed around Antarctica. Bob Tisdale put together the temperature curve based on the KNMI Climate Explorer data:

Again we find no warming here as well. To the contrary the Southern Ocean has even cooled over the past 35 years.

In June 2014 Marshall et al. confirmed the cooling trend in a Paper in the Philosphical Transactions A. The abstract states:

In recent decades, the Arctic has been warming and sea ice disappearing. By contrast, the Southern Ocean around Antarctica has been (mainly) cooling and sea-ice extent growing. 

In the paper’s main section the authors add:

Over the last few decades, the two polar regions of our planet have exhibited strikingly different behaviours, as is evident in observed decadal trends in surface air temperature shown in figure 1. The Arctic has warmed, much more than in the global average, primarily in winter, while Arctic sea-ice extent has decreased dramatically. By contrast, the eastern Antarctic and Antarctic plateau have cooled, primarily in summer, with warming over the Antarctic Peninsula and Patagonia . Moreover, sea-ice extent around Antarctica has modestly increased.

Appearing in the same year in the Annals of Glaciology was a paper by Ekaykin et al., where the temperature development of Central Antarctica was reconstructed over the past 350 years. The researchers found characteristic 30-50 years cycles. Interestingly it was warmer than today back in the 1940s than today. The following is the paper’s abstract:

Multiple climate shifts in the Southern Hemisphere over the past three centuries based on central Antarctic snow pits and core studies
Based on the results of geochemical and glaciological investigations in snow pits and shallow cores, regional stack series of air temperature in central Antarctica (in the southern part of Vostok Subglacial Lake) were obtained, covering the last 350 years. It is shown that this parameter varied quasi-periodically with a wavelength of 30–50 years. The correlation of the newly obtained record with the circulation indices of the Southern Hemisphere (SH) shows that the central Antarctic climate is mainly governed by the type of circulation in the SH: under conditions of zonal circulation, negative anomalies of temperature and precipitation rate are observed, whereas the sign of the anomalies is positive during meridional circulation. In the 1970s the sign of the relationship between many climatic parameters changed, which is likely related to the rearrangement of the climatic system of the SH. The data suggest that during the past 350 years such events have taken place at least five times. The stable water isotope content of the central Antarctic snow is governed by the summer temperature rather than the mean annual temperature, which is interpreted as the influence of ‘post-depositional’ effects.

And when we look even further back in the past, we find more surprises. During the last interglacial, the Eem Warm Period of 130,000 years ago, it was 3.5 to 4.0°C warmer than today. This was reported by Parennin et al. in a publication appearing in February 2015 in the Climate of the Past Discussions.

On this matter a paper by Conway et al. appearing in 1999 in Science is interesting. Back then the authors recognized that the West Antarctic ice sheet shrank foremost during the mid Holocene, i.e. some 5000 years ago. The scientists suspect that the melting process started already during the early Holocene some 10,000 years ago and has continued on without any external influences until today:

Past and Future Grounding-Line Retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
The history of deglaciation of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) gives clues about its future. Southward grounding-line migration was dated past three locations in the Ross Sea Embayment. Results indicate that most recession occurred during the middle to late Holocene in the absence of substantial sea level or climate forcing. Current grounding-line retreat may reflect ongoing ice recession that has been under way since the early Holocene. If so, the WAIS could continue to retreat even in the absence of further external forcing.

Today we would like to conclude with a curious “discovery” On May 23, 2014. Spiegel Online brought us a frightening climate alarm story:

Ice melt: Irreversible chain reaction feared in Antarctica
[…] “A large piece of the ice cap in West Antarctica finds itself at a stage or irreversible retreat,” NASA scientist Eric Rignot of the University of California, Irvine. In the previous calculations by the IPCC concerning sea level rise the phenomenon was not adequately taken into account. In a study that was recently published in the “Geophysical Research Letters” the scientists lead by Rignot studied the retreat of all six large glaciers.”

Just awful…so, who brings us this terrible news? Does Eric Rignot really know what he’s doing? Hold on to your seat: Rignot is in fact not a climate scientist. He’s an electrical engineer…just in case someone complains later on that a non-Phd does not qualify anyone to participate in the climate discussion…

German Scientists Call Rahmstorf’s Selective Citing Of Literature “Embarrassing …Science-Ethically Very Unclean”

Science-ethically dubious: Stefan Rahmstorf silent on large body of dissenting Gulf Stream results in newspaper interview

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

There was an interview with Stefan Rahmstorf in the German daily Märkischen Allgemeine Zeitung (MAZ) on March 23, 2015:

A tipping element on which the globe’s future hinges
Climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf and his colleagues at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research have evidence of a further weakening of the Gulf Stream.”

That’s old hat. As we have already reported here, other teams of scientists unfortunately have been unable to find any such weakening of the Gulf Stream, and so Rahmtorf is pretty much standing all by his lonesome in the middle of nowhere. And that did not did not remain unnoticed by the MAZ, which persisted courageously:

MAZ: Climate skeptics such as former Environment Hamburg Senator of Fritz Vahrenholt characterized the weakening of the Gulf Stream as part of the natural cycles.

Rahmstorf: I’d be curious to see evidence of that – unfortunately Herr Vahrenholt has published practically nothing in the scientific literature. We also looked for natural cycles and have determined that there have not been any significant fluctuations over the past 1000 years.

True, Fritz Vahrenholt did not publish anything on that topic. But others have to a great extent and Vahrenholt quoted them. This is how science works: You do not need to research everything yourself, rather you turn to the large research networks and peer-reviewed literature. Notable here are for example studies from the University of Rhode Island, NASA, University of Heidelberg, University of Hamburg. The scientists in Hamburg have just recently shown natural cycles. It is quite amazing that suddenly Rahmstorf is unable to recall any of these studies and prefers to indulge in some Vahrenholt-bashing. Apparently the MAZ also found his excuse hardly helpful and continued to persist:

MAZ: Climate scientist Mojib Latif also does not believe in the currently diminishing speed of the Gulf Stream.

Rahmstorf: The current weakening has also been confirmed by other studies. We simply track the stream with the help of proxy data further back in time. In a 2004 study fellow scientist Latif used temperature differences from the North and South Atlantic in order to determine the speed of the stream. Here it was not taken into account that we had an aerosol blocking of the sunlight because of air pollution in the northern hemisphere. This effect cannot be so clearly separated from that of a change in the stream; thus we have refined his methods.

Who believes? Rahmstorf here is peddling to a newspaper his very one-sided view as the supposed consensus within the science field. Embarrassing and science-ethically very unclean. That’s a shame.


It seems Rahmstorf may have a growing habit of not playing cleanly. -PG

New Paper On Atolls: “There Has Been A 7.3% Increase In Net Island Area Over The Past Century”!

What else can be said about all the doom and gloom nonsense from UN scientists surrounding the atolls and sea level? A new paper that is just out should make them red with embarrassment.

This new paper tells us that the atolls are doing just fine and are gaining in area! Read the paper’s abstract that now follows.

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.”

Don’t you just love it when observational data clash with hysterical crystal ball model projections?

Global Warming Scientists Perish In The Arctic …A Lethal Publicity Stunt In Servitude Of Sensationalist Science?

On the folly scale, the following story is right up there with the Antarctic Ship of Fools.

Unfortunately this one ended in a terrible tragedy.


Global warming researchers Marc Cornelissen and Philip de Roo believed to have perished in the Arctic. Photo Twitter.

The online Spiegel here reports that two Dutch researchers, Marc Cornelissen, 46, and Philip de Roo, 30, are assumed to have died in the Arctic. “They wanted to collect data about the melting ice cover.”

According to Cornelissen’s Twitter site, the pair began their expedition in late March. By early April they has set off on skis across Arctic sea ice accompanied by a husky. They had been posting daily reports at Twitter.

ResoluteAt times Cornelissen tweeted of unusually warm temperatures and even posted audios claiming to be skiing in shorts.

On April 29 things took a turn for the worse and the pair sent out an SOS while traveling near Bathurst Island, approximately 200 kilometers north of Resolute Bay.

On April 30 Cornelissen’s Twitter site posted that the two were missing.

Spiegel writes that it is suspected that one of the pair fell through “thin ice” and that their situation went unknown for a week. A Canadian search party found one body but the other member of the party remains missing. It is assumed that he has perished. Only the husky dog survived.

The site Cold Facts here posted a report stating that the ice conditions there were “very poor”. The two researchers are said to have been experts in their fields. Question: Why were the two trekking on ice conditions described as “very poor”? Shouldn’t experts know better?

Also it needs to be asked if the decision to send out two researchers on foot in dangerous and highly unpredictable conditions was a grossly negligent one. Who approved this? Today modern satellite altimetry and aerial instrumentation can measure ice conditions more far accurately, safely, and efficiently. Why send out two men on foot on thin ice when the Arctic melt season is well under way?

Personally I think the expedition smacks more of a piss-poorly judged publicity stunt by activists, and much less a scientific expedition to explore the unknown. This looks to be highly dim-witted and reckless adventurism in servitude of sensationalist science. There needs to be an independent inquiry into this accident.

Negligence in harsh conditions often carries a lethal price. Unfortunately some of us still have to learn the hard way.

Mean Cosmic Radiation Over Past 8 Years Highest Since 1958 …Current Solar Cycle Weakest In Almost Two Centuries!

The Sun in April
By Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated, edited by P Gosselin]

The sole real source of energy for our planet also was also below normal in April: The sunspot number (SSN) was 54.4. Taking the average of the previous 23 cycles, that is only 70% of what is average for this month into the cycle.

Compared to March activity rose some 46%. These short-term changes however are usual noise in the overall signal, which says the entire activity since the current cycle began has been only 53% of the mean value since 1750.

Figure 1: Current solar cycle 24 (red), the mean solar cycle (blue) and the similar solar cycle  no. 7, which took place from 1823 to 1833 and was the last in the Dalton Minimum.

The comparison with solar cycle no. 7 could see increasingly large deviations in the months ahead, as solar activity increased markedly, as depicted by sharp peaks of the black line in Figure 1. Such a development appears highly improbable for solar cycle no. 24. What follows is a comparison of all cycles:

Figure 2: The accumulated solar cycle sunspot anomaly for all cycles 77 months into the cycle. The current cycle began in December 2008.

Figure 3: The speed of the solar wind, which impacts the Earth’s upper atmospheric layers, has fallen off since the early 1990s. It is expressed as the geomagnetic Ap Index. It is a measure of the sun’s impact on the Earth’s magnetic field. Source of the image: Climate4you.

Not only the Earth is impacted by the solar winds, but also the entire sun’s surroundings far out in space. The heliosphere reacts to the stream of particles from the sun. When it is weaker – as is the case during times of solar minima – more cosmic radiation from the Milky Way can penetrate into the Earth’s atmosphere. This is measured here on Earth, e.g. in Moscow since 1958:

Figure 4: Changes in cosmic radiation

During the solar sunspot number maxima (compared to 2000) the solar wind is stronger and thus reduces cosmic radiation by up to 20% when compared to the minima in activity. The current cycle (maximum is already over) is bringing only about an 8% reduction. Over the entire period since 2006 there has been significantly more cosmic radiation than any such period since 1958.

Another factor involved with solar activity is UV radiation. It strongly depends on the sunspot number because the ultraviolet radiation is produced in the areas near sunspots. Unlike the other visible ranges of the spectrum, sunspots in UV images appear brighter than the surrounding areas. Although UV radiation mainly has an impact in the stratosphere, there are top-down effects that lead to impacts to the troposphere.

The signals for solar activity all continue to point to “very low“. We can all wait with suspense to see what impacts the low solar activity will have.

Original German version here.

Energy Physicist Implores NOAA To Return To Credibility… “Get Out Of Adjusting Business”!

Response to NOAA’s claim adjustments are improvements
By Mike Brakey

The email from NOAA’s Derek Arndt confirms that they conducted a massive rewrite of U.S. data in 2014. He also confirmed that the 1913 Maine climate data was indeed lowered a whopping 40F as noted in my article, Black Swan Climate Theory.

My response is based on actual unadjusted temperature data from the Lewiston-Auburn area of Maine, which I secured from a local source and provided in prior emails. (I have attached that data and links to the websites the data was extracted from).  As shown in Chart 1, between 1895 and 1937, the Lewiston-Auburn region (Zone 19 in Chart 2) was typically ¾0F warmer than Maine’s overall state average, based on NOAA data I downloaded in 2013.


Chart No. 1 & 2.

This data is the black line on Chart 1. I would expect the Lewiston-Auburn area to be slightly warmer than Maine as a whole because it is in southern Maine. Based on the 2013 data, Maine’s average temperatures were about ¾0F colder or less than those for Lewiston-Auburn during the period from 1904 to 1939, and again from 2008 through the present.

The green shaded area shows what the NOAA data would have looked like if that ¾0F difference had remained constant through 2015.  Looking at the year 1913, I might agree with Mr. Arndt that they had an error and I would understand a temperature correction of approximately  ¾0F, but not 40F.

Contradictory data

I am suspicious of the NOAA data, both the original from 2013 and the revised, between 1940 and 2008 because the Maine average temperatures are so significantly less than those for the Lewiston-Auburn region. The other oddity is that there was a downward trend in temperatures for Lewiston-Auburn starting in 1998. However, both sets of NOAA data show temperatures rising for the state of Maine during that same time period.

As well-intended as I believe most NOAA associates likely are, I implore NOAA to please make available the plain, unexciting, unfiltered temperature data (as typified by the green line in Chart 1 above).  If the RAW temperature data is always made available, I would be happy to entertain any theories and projections NOAA or IPCC wishes to make…as long as we all know the true base line (similar to what we have for the green line in Chart 1 with Lewiston-Auburn historical temperature data).

In conclusion, I implore NOAA to return credibility to its website, by getting out of the statistical smoothing and adjusting business and by just providing the scientific community with the basic unfiltered temperature data at all of its site locales. Let’s stay away from all the havoc created between Charts 3 and 4.

Chart no. 3 & 4.

Watch the entire series of YouTube videos on how I found the NOAA adjustments.

Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research (PIK) Study Finds Natural Factors Are “Underestimated”!

I got a big kick out of the press release that follows below, published by the hopelessly alarmist PIK.

Three times it uses the word “however” to tell readers that things really aren’t like what they just wrote in the sentence before.  The emphasis in the press release is my own.

University of Giessen: Natural Temperature Fluctuations in Antarctica Underestimated
By Dr. Sebastian Lüning, Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt

What follows is a joint press release from the Justus-Liebig-University in Gießen (JLU), the Potsdam-Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the University of Hamburg from 16 April 2015:

Climate change in Antarctica: Natural temperature variability underestimated – Cold spell superimposes man-made warming
04/16/2015 – The Antarctic ice sheet is one of the tipping elements in the climate system and hence of vital importance for our planet’s future under man-made climate change. Even a partial melting of the enormous ice masses of Antarctica would raise sea-levels substantially. Therefore it is of utmost importance to provide sound knowledge on the extent of anthropogenic warming of the ice-covered continent. A new analysis by German physicists shows that the uncertainties in the temperature trends over Antarctica are larger than previously estimated. ‘So far it seemed there were hardly any major natural temperature fluctuations in Antarctica, so almost every rise in temperature was attributed to human influence,’ says Armin Bunde of Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (JLU). ‘Global warming as a result of our greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels is a fact. However, the human influence on the warming of West Antarctica is much smaller than previously thought. The warming of East Antarctica up to now can even be explained by natural variability alone.’ The results of their study are now published in the journal Climate Dynamics.

The melting of Antarctic ice shelves is not only influenced by warming air but also by warming oceans, causing ice loss at the coast. However, as there are no sufficient long-term records for Antarctic ocean warming yet, the study focuses on air temperature trends. In collaboration with Hans Joachim Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Christian Franzke of the Cluster of Excellence ‘Integrated Climate System Analysis and Prediction’ (CliSAP) of Hamburg University, the physicists of JLU Armin Bunde and Josef Luderer were able to show that there are major and very persistent temperature fluctuations in Antarctica.

‘The climate in Antarctica, just like the global climate, tends to be distinctly persistent by nature – it remains in certain temperature ranges for a long time before it changes. This creates a temporal temperature structure of highs and lows,’ explains Christian Franzke. ‘A low, i.e. a longer cold period, will be followed by a longer warm period, and this natural warming has to be differentiated from the superimposed anthropogenic warming,’ adds Armin Bunde. The scientists did not only analyze data from individual measuring stations but also generated regional averages. The results show a human influence on the warming of West Antarctica, while this influence is weaker than previously thought. However, the warming of Antarctica altogether will likely increase more strongly soon.

For several years temperatures in Antarctica, but also globally, have been increasing less rapidly than in the 1990s. There are a number of reasons for this, e.g. the oceans buffering warmth. The study now published by the German team of scientists shows that man-made global warming has not been pausing – it was temporarily superimposed and therefore hidden by long-term natural climate fluctuations like in Antarctica. ‘Our estimates show that we are currently facing a natural cooling period– while temperatures nonetheless rise slowly but inexorably, due to our heating up the atmosphere by emitting greenhouse gas emissions,’ explains Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. ‘At the end of this natural cold spell temperatures will rise even more fiercely. Globally, but also in Antarctica which therefore is in danger of tipping.’  In fact, in March 2015 two Antarctic measuring stations registered high-temperature records.

Article: Ludescher, J., Bunde, A., Franzke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J. (2015): Long-term persistence enhances uncertainty about anthropogenic warming of West Antarctica. Climate Dynamics. [DOI: 10.1007/s00382-015-2582-5]

Link to the article:″

Remarks by Die kalte Sonne editors: An excellent press release which brings up the so far under-estimated importance of natural climate functions. The key sentence:

A low, i.e. a longer cold period, will be followed by a longer warm period, and this natural warming has to be differentiated from the superimposed anthropogenic warming,”

The last paragraph bears the signature of the PIK and was likely a requirement for a mutual press release with the other institutes. The desperate remark concerning the recent Antarctic record levels has little climate relevance. At the South Pole temperatures have been falling for more than 50 years.

NOAA E-Mail Confirms Large-Scale Rewrite Of U.S. Temperature Data In 2014 …”Improvements In The Dataset”

On Mike Brakey’s recent post on the NOAA’s 151 degrees of fudging of the temperature datasets for the state of Maine, one reader was “so incensed” that he e-mailed the NOAA and his congressman.

Well, he got a reply from Derek Arndt at NOAA, which he sent to Mike Brakey, who in turn sent me Arndt’s reply – which I post as follows:


In early 2014, we changed to a new version of the dataset upon which our US temperatures are drawn. The new dataset took advantage of a lot of older data that hadn’t been digitized (from paper) when the old dataset was constructed. It also took advantage of advancements in quality assurance that detect station moves, changes in observing practices, etc.

We began sharing with the community these upcoming changes as early as 2011:  In early 2014 we published a more complete methodological paper:

Vose, R.S., Applequist, S., Durre, I., Menne, M.J., Williams, C.N., Fenimore, C., Gleason, K., Arndt, D. 2014: Improved Historical Temperature and Precipitation Time Series For U.S. Climate Divisions Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. DOI:

Maine was one of the states that saw the biggest differences in temperature. This is probably why blogs focus in on it. In addition to the general reasons for changes that other states witnessed:

  • The new method used stations in neighboring Canada to inform estimates for data-sparse areas within Maine (a great improvement)
  • In the old dataset, the year 1913 was particularly problematic, resulting from a keying (transcription) error from many years ago that is now corrected. 1913 is often held up as evidence of “tampering” when in fact it is probably one of the biggest improvements in the dataset, and brings our value much more in line with what was observed at the time.

Thanks for contacting us. It is a privilege to serve you.