No September Warming In Greenland, Iceland In Over Two Decades…Arctic Sea Ice Stable Over Past Decade

Share this...

By Kirye
and Pierre

Today we look at some important September trends at stations in the far north Atlantic and Arctic sea ice extent and volume. Al Gore’s doomsday predictions fade into old memories


The September mean temperatures at the six stations in Greenland for which the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) has enough data are in and today we plot the chart going back 23 years.

Data: JMA

Four of six stations show a cooling trend, meaning Greenland winters are not shortening, but rather are tending to be beginning earlier. This doesn’t exactly support a Greenland that is rapidly melting.


Also September warming in Iceland appears to have stalled, or is even reversing. Plotting three stations for which the Japan Meteorological Agency has enough data, we see none are warming, with two cooling since 1995.

Data: JMA

Arctic sea ice

Finally we look at Arctic sea ice extent, now that we are well beyond the peak of the melt season.

Chart: NSDIC.

Obviously Al Gore’s doomsday ice free Arctic is nowhere near in site, and Arctic sea ice this year was among the highest in 10 years. Arctic sea has stabilized and is at similar levels seen earlier last century, meaning most is being driven by natural cycles.


Share this...

Cooked Up Consensus: Lynas et al “Should Rather Be Classified As Propaganda, Bad Science”…”Truly Brazen”

Share this...

Cooked up consensus…

Image: Copyright NoTricksZone

Martin Landvoigt writes on truth and consensus, climate models, the “fundamental and methodological difficulties” in climate science and how “hard, robust evidence is largely lacking” and so it’s “a matter of weakly substantiated opinions”.

Climate consensus and the climate

By Martin Landvoigt at Philosophieren für alle), Die kalte Sonne
(Text excerpt translated, subtitles added by P. Gosselin)

On this basis, the argument of the supposed consensus in climate science has been presented several times and repeatedly.

Numerous studies are supposed to prove this. In particular, the study: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature – John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce – Published 15 May 2013.

Cook et al 2013 refuted

Arguably the most influential study used by U.S. presidents and other top-level decision makers as evidence for climate policy. Nevertheless, it can be considered refuted:

Detailed analysis shows that only 0.5% (65 of the 12,000 abstracts rated) suggest that humans are responsible for more than 50% of the global warming up to 2001, contrary to the alleged 97% consensus amongst scientists in the Cook et al study. Citing fear mongering and faulty methodology Friends of Science reject the study and President Obama’s tweet as careless incitement of a misinformed and frightened public, when in fact the sun is the main driver of climate change; not human activity or carbon dioxide (CO2).

Friends of Science

Many articles and studies refute their approach and results. Including:

The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up
Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong

Richard Tol in The Guardian

Of course, the method used is also astonishing: studies published on the subject of climate change were examined. Therein lies the assumption that scientists who publish on the topic are the only authoritative experts. This method, which probably provides a ‘biased’ selection, also only highly dubiously suggests expert opinion. Wouldn’t a representative survey among experts have been the appropriate method? So too among meteorologists and other scientists working in many different capacities around weather and climate. In fact, there are such studies that show the picture in a much more differentiated way, yet still largely ignored.

Now a new study has been published: Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature by Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z Houlton and Simon Perry – Published 19 October. Will this study provide better and more up-to-date knowledge than the many studies that preceded it? Unfortunately, it does not.

The abstract does not specify what the consensus is supposed to be:

We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Lynas et al.

Naturally this leaves room for all kinds of assumptions: Does that 99% consensus really claim a strong, predominant or complete influence of anthropogenic factors? Or is it merely that there is a – quantitatively unnamed – human influence on the climate? The latter can be assumed since there are masses of articles doubting a dominating influence of those factors on the climate.

However, since the mentioned 3000 articles probably do not have exactly that question as a subject of investigation (only generic keywords were searched), it cannot be assumed that valid quantifiable investigation results are available here. The analysis of the text confirms this:

3.1. Results of random sampling
Our random sample of 3000 papers revealed a total of 282 papers that were categorized as ’not climate-related‘. These false-positives occurred because, even though the climate keywords occurred in their title/abstracts, the published articles dealt with social science, education or research about people’s views on climate change rather than original scientific work.

Lynas et al.

Little surprised then we have the classification:

Explicit endorsement with quantification
Implicit endorsement
No position

Lynas et al.

Source: Lynas et al. 2021

Less than 1% of the papers quantify the human influence on the climate

In plain language: only 19 out of 3000 papers examined quantify the human influence on the climate. The rest obviously do not make any quantifiable statements. And even from those 19 papers it is not analyzed how the influence was quantified. A quantification of 50% anthropogenic contribution would already be considered as evidence of the so-called consensus here, but in other contexts would already mean also contradiction to the IPCC and the verdict of climate denier. Although the 2104 papers are relevant and describe climate change, they do not even make implicit statements about human causation. Why not actually? To speak here of a far-reaching consensus of over 99% is truly brazen!

Only consensus: man has some impact

Therefore, the claimed consensus could only be that man has some influence on the climate. But the investigation does not even come up with that, although it would be a trivial statement. A similar consensus will be that the color of the cloudless daytime sky is blue. But this is completely irrelevant and does not justify political decisions, especially if they drastically change the living conditions of people. Correspondingly wrong is then also the conclusion:

The tiny number of papers that have been published during our time period which disagree with this overwhelming scientific consensus have had no discernible impact, presumably because they do not provide any convincing evidence to refute the hypothesis that—in the words of IPCC AR5—’it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century‘ [12], and, most recently in IPCC AR6—’it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land‘ [13].

Lynas et al.

How did it survive peer-review?

The entire paper had not even examined whether there was a consensus on “human influence being the dominant cause of the observed warming”. How could such wrong conclusions survive a peer review? This raises doubts about the value of peer review.

Nevertheless, it can be assumed that this study will continue to be used – without giving details – as proof of the scientific nature of climate protection policy. However, it is precisely this considerable effect that is probably intended and should rather be classified as propaganda and bad science.

Share this...

In A Few Days Clouds Affect Earth’s Radiation Budget By More Than CO2 Does In 270 Years

Share this...

Scientists continue to affirm the critical role of clouds in modulating the Earth’s energy budget, and, hence, the climate.

The total net forcing of the entirety of the CO2 influence on climate has been less than 2 W/m² since 1750 (Feldman et al., 2015).

Image Source: Feldman et al., 2015

On a per-decade basis, a 22 ppm rise in CO2 – realized about every 10 years in recent decades – is associated with a forcing of just 0.2 W/m² (Feldman et al., 2015), but only when the sky is clear of clouds. And cloud-free skies are rarely ever observed in the real world atmosphere, as “less than 10 percent of the sky is completely clear of clouds at any one time” (NASA, 2015).

The Cosmic Ray-Cloud-Radiation Budget Link Affirmed

In a new study published in a Nature journal climate scientists Dr. Svensmark and colleagues have determined that cosmic rays, or variations in ionization, are strongly linked to the formation of aerosols and clouds, and that “low liquid clouds are mainly responsible for the change in net radiative forcing.”

The decreases in ionization during cosmic ray minima have been observed to occur over 80% of the globe in a matter of days, with the primary responses over the Earth’s oceans. Thus, the response is global in scope.

The magnitude of the effect of solar activity is large, as “Earth absorbs almost 2 W/m2 extra energy within 4 to 6 days of the cosmic-ray minimum” according to the press release for this study. That is the same total net forcing impact in a few days that it takes CO2 270 years to exert.

Image Source: Svensmark et al., 2021

In polar regions, the impact of clouds is even more profound. Within just a few days the downwelling shortwave radiation can vary by as much as ±150 W/m² due to changes in cloud conditions (Djoumna et al., 2021).

Image Source: Djoumna et al., 2021

“Clouds may be the most important parameter controlling…the Earth climate”

Many more scientific studies published in 2021 affirm changes in cloud cover exert the most dominant impact on climate by modulating the Earth’s energy budget. Some of these papers are listed below.

Sfîcă et al., 2021

“The clouds represent a key element within the terrestrial climate system. In fact, clouds may be the most important parameter controlling the radiation budget, and, hence, the Earth climate (Hughes, 1983). This is related to the fact that clouds have a paramount importance in the radiation balance at global scale, especially due to their albedo (Ohring and Clapp, 1980).”

Kumar and Prasad Singh, 2021

“Cosmic rays affect cloud cover variation. Clouds reflect both the incoming solar radiation flux upward and the earth’s thermal radiation back to it. Thus clouds control thermal energy input to the lower atmosphere and establishes a link between cosmic rays and the terrestrial temperature.”

Clouds play an important role in modulating the heat budget of the lower atmosphere. We know that clouds acting as an opaque medium control thermal energy input to the lower atmosphere. So, one can expect a link between cosmic rays and cloud cover over the earth.”

Goldblatt et al., 2021

“Model runs corresponding to past climate show a substantial decrease in low clouds and hence planetary albedo compared with present, which contributes 40% of the required forcing to offset the faint Sun. Through time, the climatically important stratocumulus decks have grown in response to a brightening Sun and decreasing greenhouse effect, driven by stronger cloud-top radiative cooling (which drives low cloud formation) and a stronger inversion (which sustains clouds against dry air entrainment from above). We find that systematic changes to low clouds have had a major role in stabilizing climate through Earth’s history, which demonstrates the importance of physical feedbacks on long-term climate stabilization, and a smaller role for geochemical feedbacks.”

Voigt et al., 2021

[T]he presence of cloud-radiative effects shapes the circulation in the present-day climate in many important ways, including the width of the tropical rain belts and the position of the extratropical storm tracks. Cloud locking, in contrast, identified how clouds affect internal variability and the circulation response to global warming. This includes strong, but model-dependent, shortwave and longwave cloud impacts on the El-Nino Southern Oscillation, and the finding that most of the poleward circulation expansion in response to global warming can be attributed to radiative changes in clouds. We highlight the circulation impact of shortwave changes from low-level clouds and longwave changes from rising high-level clouds, and the contribution of these cloud changes to model differences in the circulation response to global warming. The review in particular draws attention to the role of cloud-radiative heating within the atmosphere.”

Clouds are a prime control of Earth’s energy balance, as they scatter and absorb shortwave radiation originating from the sun, absorb longwave radiation emitted by Earth’s surface and the cloud-free atmosphere, and themselves emit longwave radiation.”

Overall, cloud-radiative effects play important roles in shaping intraseasonal, interannual, and decadal modes of tropical climate variability. … Clouds, via their interactions with radiation, shape the atmospheric circulation and, consequently, regional climate.”

Ma et al., 2021

“Cloud acts as an important and uncertain factor in climate change prediction and simulation (Duan and Wu, 2006). It plays crucial roles in the Earth–atmosphere energy and radiation budgets. Warren et al. (2007) reported significant negative correlations between the summer total cloud amount and surface temperature in the North Hemisphere. The decreased total cloud amount contributes to warming over Tibet (Duan and Wu, 2006; Guo and Wang, 2012). Tang and Leng (2012) emphasized that clouds are an important local factor that adjusts the temperature variation in Eurasia.”

Clouds are an important factor that influence summer temperature via the energy budget and global hydrological cycle (Tang and Leng, 2013; Yang et al., 2020).”

“The correlations between summer skin temperature and cloud amount reveal that the summer skin temperature has an evident dependence on the cloud amount and varies in different clouds.”

“[S]ummer cloud amount is an important indicator for temperature variations, especially the MHCC. The decreased precipitation matches the reduced TCC. The summer precipitation in Tibet is primarily influenced by the cloud amount, especially HCC and MHCC.”

Warming and decreased precipitation in the past two decades are primarily related to cloud amount changes.”

Maillard et al., 2021

COD [cloud optical depth] variations therefore have a non-negligible impact on the surface radiative balance. For 0-60∘, for example, there is an approximately 200 W/m² difference in SWd [downwelling shortwave] between the optically thinnest and thickest clouds. This translates into a total shortwave cloud forcing that ranges between −20 and −60 W/m², assuming an albedo of 0.8 (typical of the N-ICE campaign April–June period). This range is significant when it is contrasted to the typical longwave forcing of ≈60 W/m²: even for 0-60∘, only the optically thickest clouds could contribute to cool the surface during the April–June N-ICE2015 campaign period.”

“The surface impact of Arctic clouds is also seasonally variable. In October and November, clouds warm the surface: 2 m temperatures associated with cloudless profiles are up to 8 K colder than those associated with profiles containing at least one low cloud.”

Share this...

Study: Volcanic Ash A Major Problem For PV Panels, (Never Mind Dust, Snow, Clouds, Darkness, Weeds)

Share this...

A recent volcanic eruption in Spain has led to one solar farm getting buried by a meter of volcanic ash

As you can imagine, it’ll take awhile and considerable expense to get that facility back online, if at all.

Volcanic ash is a major problem for solar panel performance. Illustration image – solar panel covered by snow. Copyright P. Gosselin

Not surprisingly, volcanic ash has a huge effect on the performance of panels – even when they are located far away from the eruption. This is in addition to problems like darkness, clouds, dust, hail, weeds, snow etc.

Hat-tip: Klaudia Ani at Facebook.

The German Helmholtz reported in 2017 on a study looking at the effects of volcanic ash on solar panels:

Volcanic eruptions produce great amounts of ash. The fine particles – often called tephra – can cross oceans affecting regions several hundreds kilometers away. Many Europeans recall, for instance, the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull (Iceland) in spring 2010. For safety reasons thousands of flights in Europe had to be cancelled. Impacts of tephra fall is a research field that is currently seeing an increase in attention and relevance. If deposited on photovoltaic (PV) modules, volcanic ashes can lead to significant loss in power production as shown in experiments at the GFZ. The eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull (Iceland) in spring 2010 and the subsequent ash cloud travelling to Europe probably resulted in significant power loss of the PV modules, write Edgar Zorn and Thomas Walter from GFZ. “The number of solar panels all over the world is growing rapidly. Given that volcanic eruptions are frequent the risk of negative impacts on this kind of energy production is rising“, says Walter. “This requires close tephra dispersion monitoring and PV maintenance strategies.“

Little is known about the effects of tephra fall on PV-elements. Therefore, Zorn and Walter conducted several experiments in the lab. They mounted lamps over PV-modules, electric current and voltage were recorded constantly. Then they put samples from the latest Eyjafjallajökull eruption on the modules by letting the tephra rain down from above. Fine ash had an even stronger effect on the PV’s power loss than coarser grains as it covered the light sensitive part more efficiently, the team reports in the Journal of Applied Volcanology. The more ash was put on the module the stronger the loss in power was recorded.

Fine ash has a stronger impact 

To assess the impact of the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption, data from the experiments were compared to data available from the volcanic event. Roughly 500 million tons of material was thrown into air. About 80% of the erupted material was tephra, only 0.2% reached Europe’s mainland, according to volcanologists’ estimates. Nevertheless, this amount was sufficient to reduce the PV power on the continent, say Zorn and Walter. Their calculations suggest the electrical power generated by PV-modules was reduced by up to 30%. There is evidence that PV-generated power was in fact reduced in the wake of the eruption but empirical data has yet to be investigated. Closer to Iceland, the eruption had the capacity to cause complete failure of all modules within 300 kilometers downwind from the volcano.

“These far-reaching effects are commonly not considered by the renewable energy production industry and may increase hazard exposure“, says Walter. He emphasizes the importance of tephra monitoring and maintenance – which means first of all cleaning – of the PV-installations to get the full power out of it.

Desert dust affects solar panels in Europe

But volcanic ash is not the only risk. Desert dust from the Sahara can also travel over far distances. On several days each year, particles from this region are blown to PV-elements in Germany. To investigate the effects, the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) started the project “PerduS“. In cooperation with the German Weather Service (DWD) and the forecasting company “meteocontrol” the researchers are currently examining how dust – as haze in the atmosphere and deposited on solar panels – affects the output of photovoltaic systems. The aim is to provide a more reliable forecast for the output of photovoltaic systems through a better prediction of the spread of dust.

27.02.2017, Ralf Nestler

Original study: Zorn, E., Walter, T., “Influence of volcanic tephra on photovoltaic (PV)-modules: an experimental study with application to the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption, Iceland“ in Journal of Applied Volcanology, 2016, DOI: 10.1186/s13617-015-0041-y

As if this “clean source of energy” didn’t have enough problems already.

Share this...

German Energy Prices “Going Through The Roof”, Supply Tightens As Leaders Botch Energy Policy

Share this...

Political energy mismanagement in Germany now risks inflicting tremendous pain on citizens as energy shortages intensify and prices skyrocket.  Coming winter of discontent?

Energy prices going through the roof

By Fritz Vahrenholt, first published at Tichys Einblick
(Translated/edited  by Pierre Gosselin)

Prices for natural gas, coal, oil and electricity have been rising massively since the middle of the year. The price of a kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity has almost tripled to 13 euro cents per kWh on the Leipzig wholesale electricity exchange.and the price of natural gas has increased fivefold.

Politics in Germany are not entirely uninvolved in the development of prices. The reasons are:

– Coal power phase-out between 2017 and 2021 throughout Europe and especially in Germany

– Tripling of CO2 certificate prices since 2020 from 20 to over 60 euros per ton of CO2. This also affects gas-fired power generation

– The switch from coal-fired power to more expensive gas-fired power

– Global increase in demand for gas as a result of the post-pandemic economic recovery

– Extremely weak German wind year from January to September 2021

Although Russia has delivered exactly the volumes of gas as ordered by gas importers, obviously not enough gas has been ordered, as even Chancellor Merkel admitted.


Electricity prices are also shooting up

Electricity prices for industry have tripled, and household electricity will rise from 31 euro-cent/kWh to around 40 euro cent/kwh. Well over half of the electricity price is taxes, surcharges and levies. There would be plenty of opportunity for the German government to reduce costs.

There won’t be electricity to power electric cars

Another serious problem will soon be the shortage of secure power generation because of Germany’s nuclear and the coal phase-out, which has already begun. Not only is this driving up prices. There will be risks of power supply outages during the winter, with possible targeted or involuntary shutdowns to keep the grid from collapsing.

By 2030, there will be neither power for a single additional electric car nor additional CO2-free power for industry. Never mind the heat supply.

Source:Fraunhofer ISE

Original article in German at Tichys Einblick

Share this...

German Energy Experts Warn Of Deindustrialization: “Saving World’s Climate From German Soil Is Illusory”

Share this...

German experts are warning new upcoming government that German energy woes are very serious. “Exploding prices”…”plant closures irresponsible”…”dramatic de-industrialization”…saving climate from German soil “illusory” 

Experts warn of Germany’s “illusory” global climate rescue fantasy. Photo copyright by P. Gosselin.

Germany’s national elections took place last month and currently the country socialist SPD, Greens and Freed Democrats are in negotiations to hammer out a coalition agreement. It’s expected that they’ll succeed in forming a new government led by the SPD’s Olaf Schultz.

One of the most pressing issues is Germany’s energy supply, where currently the country is in the adventurous process of phasing out baseload nuclear and coal generated power – a project the potential junior coalition partners The Greens want to see done by 2030!

To have any hope of doing so, Germany’s already massive wind energy capacity would have to be at least  tripled – meaning wind parks would have to be erected in forests and the countryside – a measure natural conservationists are vehemently opposed to.

Also German energy prices have been exploding, and action must be taken quickly to address the issue.

Germany’ wind protest group EnergieVernunft Mitteldeutschland e.V. recently published a catalogue of demands for the new upcoming government. What follows is the press release:(subheadings added)

Berlin, October 19, 2021: In light of the worrying gas and electricity price developments, climate and energy experts from the SPD, CDU, and FDP parties — as well as energy experts and representatives of associations — criticized Germany’s climate and energy policies while calling for a package of measures to address the IPPC’s recommendations to secure the energy supply base of the Federal Republic.

Exploding prices

‘Exploding energy prices and supply bottlenecks are above all a sign of shortage, and against this background the closure of the last six nuclear power plants in the next 14 months is irresponsible,’ says Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt (SPD), former Senator for the Environment in Hamburg. ‘Instead, the recommendations of the IPCC should be followed, i.e. the use of nuclear power and CCS technologies,’ Vahrenholt continued.

Dramatic industrialization

Former Economics Minister of Saxony-Anhalt Dr. Horst Rehberger (FDP) is also sharply critical of the German energy transition. He said it had ushered in a dramatic de-industrialization. ‘Inexpensive and secure energy is essential for competitive industry. Expensive and unstable energy supply forces companies to migrate to other countries that allow competitive production with coal and nuclear energy.’

‘Illusory’ climate policy

The fact that wind turbines are also ecologically highly problematic is explained by agricultural scientist Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Merbach (CDU). He also emphasizes that saving the world’s climate from German soil is illusory and that no nation will follow Germany’s go-it-alone approach to climate and energy policy.

‘A business-as-usual approach is an aberration. Because if not counteracted, unimaginably high price effects and large-scale supply restrictions will be the result,’ added power plant engineer and book author Frank Hennig.

On the path to failure

‘The climate and energy policy of the Federal Government is on the path to failure – due to the laws of the physics, economics  mathematical statistics,’  explains the speaker of over 1,000 citizen initiatives against wind power plants in the Federal Republic, Dr. Ing. Detlef Ahlborn.”

Share this...

GBR, Indian Ocean, South China Sea Corals Have Experienced No Obvious Modern Warming

Share this...

New temperature reconstructions using coral skeletons as proxies reveal there has been no apparent net warming in the Great Barrier Reef, central Indian Ocean, and South China Sea since the 19th century – or even in recent decades.

Coral skeletons can be used as proxies to reconstruct 1870s-present sea surface temperatures “throughout the Great Barrier Reef”. Evidence of dramatic warming aligning with the post-1940s rise in CO2 emissions is absent in the reconstructions.

Wu et al., 2021

Image Source: Wu et al., 2021

The central Indian Ocean is home to a large swathe of the Earth’s coral reefs. The amplitude of the positive temperature anomalies (Tmax) during El Nino events was the same (1.4°C) in 1830-1929 as it was from 1965-1995. Peak anomalies in the 1600s and 1700s were, however, about 0.9°C warmer (2.2°C) than the peaks in the 19th and 20th centuries (1.3°C).

Leupold et al., 2021

Image Source: Leupold et al., 2021

A decreasing sea surface temperature (SST) trend of -0.1°C per decade has been documented along the coast of Guangdong, east of Hainan Island, and in the Taiwan Strait in the northern South China Sea during the last 20 years (1997-2018).

Ma et al., 2021

Image Source: Ma et al., 2021

The modern non-warming trend in the northern South China Sea can be extended to 1980 when using fossilized corals (Sr/Ca) to reconstruct SSTs.

Jiang et al., 2021

Image Source: Jiang et al., 2021
Share this...

90% Vaccinated Senior Facility Sees “Massive” COVID Outbreak! And: COVID Alarmist Grabs Pfizer Cash

Share this...

“Massive Corona outbreak” at German senior care facility where 90% were vaccinated. 

At a German care facility for the elderly in Bad Doberan, near the Baltic port city of Rostock, 66 of its 83 residents  tested positive for Corona while seven died in the hospital, reports the Nordkurier here.

“The vaccination rate is over 90 percent among its residents and about 70 percent among staff, “reports the Nordkurier, citing the care facility director of the senior center, Jolanta Armbrecht.

“In the past two weeks, eight residents have been hospitalized and seven have died, six of them in connection with a Corona infection,” said the director. “There has been a massive Corona outbreak at our inpatient facility.”

The latest German outbreak casts doubts over the claimed effectiveness of the vaccines. Earlier in the year, vaccine makers like Pfizer and Moderna claimed vaccine efficacy of over 95%, which led a to a mass global rollout. Over recent weeks, however, vaccine makers have and authroities have been forced to make downward corrections, with some recent estimates dipping under 40 percent.

Prominent German COVID alarmist-virologist taking Pfizer cash

Meanwhile at Twitter, prominent German COVID alarmist virologist Dr. Sandra Ciesek posted on a recent article published in the journal Blood.

Here a conflict of interest (COI) is revealed:

As they say: “Whose bread one eats, whose words one speaks.”

Share this...

Parasitic Ingrate Journalist? Well-Paid German Public Television Director Ecstatic Over Painful Energy Prices

Share this...

The Japanese have a saying: “A satiated mouth quickly forgets its benefactor.”

Some would easily argue that this is the case with Detelf Flintz, a commentator and highly paid director at ARD German public television, which is funded in most part by legally mandatory license fees levied on every German household. Refusing to pay these fees could easily land you in prison.

Needless to say, Flintz enjoys a high and secured salary that the average public television fee payer could only dream of.

Energy price shock? “Good!”

Recently Flintz commented on the skyrocketing energy prices that we now see regular people across Europe struggling to cope with. You’d think you’d hear a little sympathy from privileged journalists like Flintz and the generously funded networks that pamper him. You’d be totally wrong.

In his recent commentary, Flintz snobbily stated on ARD television:

It’s there, the price shock. Good! Only when oil and gas are markedly more expensive, will we be able to get global warming under control. More wind and solar energy? We can’t wait that long, and so we should be happy that we are being forced to alter our consumer production, heat more sparingly. use less energy for the household, no short flights…”

Image cropped from tagesthemen

When he says “we”, he of course means “us” – and not him.

The comments unleashed a wave of outrage from the public. Yet the ARD sniffs and refuses to hear any of it. It’s time, after all, for the unwashed peasants to be put back where they belong – out fending for themselves in the cold mud.

German climate science critical site Die kalte Sonne comments:

The well-paid director Detlef Flintz (annual income approx. 120,000 euros + great benefits) is delighted about the rising energy prices. This is the only way for us to change our behavior. Us? With his salary, Flintz notices the rising prices about as much as an elephant notices the fly on its back, namely not at all. The fact that a large part of the population does not have such a salary does not even occur to him.

For every average wage earner, the energy price increases mean that savings have to be made elsewhere. While 30,000 euros for a new electric car may be a trifle for Flintz, for many people it is beyond their means. As an economist, Flintz should also know that the savings that now have to be made elsewhere have an impact on completely different areas of the economy. Every euro can only be spent once. But perhaps that’s too much for him to grasp.”

Perhaps Flintz should accept at 60% pay cut, that way he too would be forced to scale back his profligate consumption and energy use to a level that still would be higher than the average German public television fee-payer. At least then he would be taken a bit seriously.

Share this...

2001-2019 Warming Driven By Increases In Absorbed Solar Radiation, Not Human Emissions

Share this...

Three new studies affirm the increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds (albedo) has been the “root cause” of the positive Earth Energy Imbalance and global warming since the early 2000s.

Scientists (Loeb et al., 2021) have determined the rather uncertain positive trend in Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) from 2005 to 2019, 0.5 W/m² ±0.47 W/m² per decade−1, is “primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds.”

CERES satellite data indicate clouds and surface albedo account for 89% of the absorbed solar radiation trend in the 21st century, whereas anthropogenic greenhouse gases account for but a tiny fraction of the trends in combined absorbed solar radiation and greenhouse effect forcing (reductions in emitted thermal radiation) during this period.

This very small human emissions/greenhouse gas impact is represented by the red “Other” (“trace gases”) bars in the graph below. In emitted thermal radiation, graph (e) shows the greenhouse gas impact is effectively offset by the cloud influence; both factors are cancelled out by temperature changes. This leaves the increase in absorbed solar radiation shown in graph (d) due to natural variations in clouds and surface albedo (SFC) as the primary driver(s) of top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux forcing during the last two decades.

Image Source: Loeb et al., 2021

Other scientists (Dübal and Vahrenholt, 2021) have also concluded that the positive TOA net flux (+1.42 W/m²) from increasing downwelling shortwave (SW) facilitated by a drop in cloudiness has been the “major driving effect,” “dominating influence,” and “major heating cause” explaining the 2001-2019 ocean heat content increase (240 ZJ).

The authors note these CERES satellite observations “conflict with the assumption further global warming originates mainly from the LW [longwave] radiation capture caused by greenhouse gases, i.e., a decline in outgoing LW.” In fact, the LW or greenhouse effect impact has been negative; it has contributed a net cooling influence (-1.1 W/m²) over the last two decades.

Image Source: Dübal and Vahrenholt, 2021

The summarizing text from another new study (Ollila, 2021) bluntly asserts the substantial increase in downwelling SW radiation from 2000-2019 demonstrates “there are natural climate drivers that have rapid and significant temperature impacts exceeding the anthropogenic drivers,” and that any temperature increase since 2015-’16 “cannot be due to anthropogenic reasons.”

Image Source: Ollila, 2021

These newer studies affirming the  21st increase in absorbed solar radiation has driven modern warming are further substantiated by a 2020 Nature journal paper (Delgado-Bonal et al., 2020) extending the positive (+3 W/m²) cloud-albedo SW impact back to 1980.

[S]hortwave radiation is the main driver in the dynamics and plays a major role in the energy balance by affecting the longwave radiation field.”
Our research supports the idea that clouds and albedo, which ultimately determine the SW radiation, are variables of the utmost importance for current climate change, in agreement with previous research about the changes in stratocumulus or energy imbalance in the last four decades for example. An increase in cloud coverage of 0.1 would, on average, lead to a 7% increase in spectrally integrated global average reflectance of shortwave radiation.”

Image Source: Delgado-Bonal et al., 2020
Share this...

September Mean Temps In Northern Europe See Little Change Over Past Decades…Snow, Frost Arrive

Share this...

By Kirye
and Pierre

Today we look at September mean temperatures at the stations across northern Europe for which the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) have enough data. We find fall is not being pushed back as we should expect in a warming world.

The JMA has published the data for September and again we see a continuing warming hiatus.

First we look at the September trends from 6 stations in Ireland since 1991:

Data: JMA

In Ireland, three stations have warmed in September while three have cooled. Taken altogether, there’s been very little notable change – certainly nothing alarming is going on.


Next we look at Sweden September mean temperature trends using (unaltered) JMA data:

Data: JMA

Four of six stations in Sweden have seen a cooling September trend since 1997, long before Greta Thunberg was even born. Already back in mid September parts of Sweden got socked by up to 80 cm of snow!


Finally we look at the trends at 6 stations in Finland, going back close to 2 decades:

Data: JMA

Half of the stations in Finland have seen cooling and three have seen warming. Interesting is that the rural, far northern stations have warmed, while the southern stations where the larger cities are found have cooled. All in all, autumn over northern Europe is obviously coming right on time, without delay, like it used to do in the past.

Record early snow

Snow hit Finland early this year as well, already on September 14th. According to the online

Parts of Finland, including of metropolitan area of Oulu experienced on Tuesday, 14. September 2021 with the first snow of the season!

A snowstorm hit mainly Lapland and parts of the northern half of the country and on roads, several centimeters of snow layer appeared immediately after a few hours of snowing.”

It was the earliest snowfall in history for Vaala Pelso, in central Finland.

Share this...

Robert Koch Institute Latest Data: One Third Of Recent Age 60+ COVID Deaths In Germany Were Fully Vaccinated!

Share this...

Russian state German language RT news site here looks at just how effective the COVID vaccines have been in Germany over the last 4 weeks, citing data from official institutes, and finds the German government is misleading the public. 

Alarming number of COVID deaths in Germany are fully vaccinated persons. Cropped from RT here.

False promises

When Germans watch their ARD/ZDF German state public television networks, they are “informed” that the vaccines distributed in Germany are really effective and that the only people ending up in the hospitals with serious cases of COVID are the unvaccinated, who have become the latest misfits of society. Today the unvaccinated are being blamed for the country’s problems.

Politicians and leading media warned of a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” and that intensive care units were seeing more and more “younger unvaccinated people.”

Robert Koch Institute: Many sick and dying are fully vaccinated

But of course the data show the reality is very different. The vaccines in Germany are not working out to be anything at all like originally promised just a half year ago. A number of people are seeing serious COVID vaccine side effects. More and more “fully vaccinated” people are occupying hospital beds and a dying of COVID. Germany’s Robert Koch Institute (RKI) data confirm this.

In Europe, the vaccine situation has become so dismal, in fact, that Sweden, Iceland and Denmark have recently pulled certain vaccines off the market for certain age groups because of unacceptably high risks.

Rapidly rising breakthrough cases

Now Russian RT German-language news site reports on Germany: “One in three ‘COVID deaths’ in last four weeks was fully vaccinated.

In the latest RKI weekly report published on Thursday, all the way down the report on page 23, it is stated that over the past four weeks — from September 13 to October 10– there has been a “much higher proportion of so-called vaccination breakthroughs – with an upward trend,” RT reports. “55.4 percent, i.e. more than half of the symptomatically ill Corona patients in the over-60 age group had already been vaccinated twice.”

More than half fully vaccinated age 60 and up

“Among younger adults, the rate of “vaccination breakthroughs” recorded in this way was 31.6 percent. Overall, therefore, 35,079 of 100,039 COVID-19 patients with symptoms had been vaccinated twice in the past four weeks, or about 35 percent, or more than one-third,” reports the RT.

40% hospitalized are vaccine breakthroughs, age 60+

The recent figures fly in the face of claims made by media and government that the vaccines protect people against serious infections. “In the 60-plus age group, the federal institute counted nearly 40 percent of hospitalized Corona patients as “vaccine breakthroughs,” while among younger adults it put their share at 15.3 percent. […] One-third of Corona deaths were fully vaccinated.”

RT notes that the RKI itself debunks claims of “almost only unvaccinated” are in the intensive care units.  141 of 490 intensive care patients over age 60 were “vaccine breakthroughs” in the four weeks between mid-September and mid-October.

1/3 of deceased fully vaccinated

The RT goes on to note that “a total of 155 out of 480 deceased persons were fully vaccinated, i.e. 32.3 percent, or almost one third. In the 60-plus age group, in which the vast majority died, the proportion of ‘vaccination breakthroughs’ among the dead was as high as almost 35 percent.”

The RT also suggests that Germany’s Federal Ministry of Health is not playing honest with the figures it presents to the public, claiming the German Ministry of Health “is still propagating the figures from the first studies with which the vaccine manufacturers received approval at the end of 2020” and continues “to attribute 95 percent efficacy to Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines” although today this is clearly not the case.

Share this...

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy