Since 2005, Arctic Sea Ice Has Pivoted To A Slightly Increasing Trend, With No Detectable Arctic Warming

Arctic: 12 Years Of Sea Ice

And Temperature Stability

In the last 144 months, or since 2005, there has been no decreasing trend in Arctic sea ice.  In fact, there has been a slight increasing trend.


NSIDC Data – Graph Source: (2005.3-2017.3) or (Last 144 Months)

Since the 21st century began, nearly all of the increase in Arctic-wide temperatures occurred between about 2001 and 2005.   Since mid-2005, the Arctic temperature trend has stabilized, with no significantly detectable warming.

HadCRUT4 Data – Graph Source: climate4you

When viewed from a longer-term context, the current  Arctic temperature trends are not unusual.  In fact, the warmth of the last 12 years was matched during the 1920s to 1940s, with about 50 years of Arctic cooling in between.

HadCRUT4 Data – Graph Source: climate4you

Hanhijärvi et al., 2013

Yamanouchi, 2011

From a still longer-term perspective, not only are modern Arctic temperatures not unusual, they are still cooler than a significant portion of the last 8,000 years.

And not only is the current Arctic sea ice extent not unusual, there is still much more sea ice in modern times than there was during much of the Early Holocene, when the Arctic Ocean was sometimes ice-free during the summer months.

Spolaor et  al., 2016

“Researchers have found that 8000 years ago the Arctic climate was 2 to 3 degrees warmer than now, and that there was also less summertime Arctic sea ice than today.”

Jakobsson et al., 2010     

“The combined sea ice data suggest that the seasonal Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean.”

Jakobsson et al., 2014

“Several studies suggest that the Early Holocene (∼6000–10,000 years BP) experienced less summer-sea ice than at present. …. [S]ea ice during the Early Holocene potentially could have moved over to a seasonal regime with sea ice-free summers due to the insolation maxima the Earth experienced at that time.”

Funder et al., 2011

Arctic Sea Ice extent during the Holocene Thermal Maximum 8,000 years ago was less than half of the record low 2007 level. … Multiyear sea ice reached a minimum between ~8500 and 6000 years ago, when the limit of year-round sea ice at the coast of Greenland was located ~1000 kilometers to the north of its present position.”

Zhang, 2015

Hanhijärvi et al., 2013

Gajewski, 2015

Bonnet et al., 2010

Antarctic Climate Alarm Silenced: Ice Mass Stable, Recently Published Studies Show

The Good News: East Antarctic Ice Is And Remains Stable

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(German text translated, edited by P Gosselin)

In March, 2015 there was a climate alarm at German online news weekly Focus:

Climate warming
Gigantic Antarctic glacier is melting – Holland in an emergency: sea level rise threatens to rise 3 meters

Off the East Antarctic coast, researchers found two underwater valleys. They enable the inflow of warm sea water. beneath the largest glacier of the East Antarctic. That could explain the unusually rapid ice loss. Should the glacier collapse, sea level would rise dramatically.”

Could, would: Subjunctive speech is king. Are things really that bad with the Antarctic Totten glacier? We’ve looked at this at our site before. In May 2016 also Rud Istvan commented on this at Climate Etc. on an alarming paper publsihed at Nature by Aitken et al. 2016. He concluded:

The alarming estimates from this new Nature paper, particularly as represented by the media, are grievously wrong both with respect to the amount of and the rate of sea level rise that might be associated with melting of the EIAS Totten glacier. There is unjustified author spin in the press releases and author’s interviews. There are underlying bad assumptions never mentioned except by reference to a previously refuted [here] bad paper by Rignot. A tangled web of deceit, to paraphrase a famous poem.”

Perhaps it’s not a bad idea not to try to explain the whole globe by using a single glacier, as tempting as it may be. Just last month on May 5, 2017 the University of Bristol reminded us that East Antarctic ice has gown over the past decade, and has not shrunk.  Of course the university stated it in the more politically correct “not as strong as previously thought”. The press release follows:

New research shows growth of East Antarctic Ice Sheet was less than previously suggested
Scientists have known for over a decade that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been losing mass and contributing to sea level rise. Its eastern neighbour is, however, ten times larger and has the potential to raise global sea level by some 50 metres. Despite its huge size and importance, conflicting results have been published on the recent behaviour of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. A study led by a group of NASA scientists, that was published in 2015, suggested that this part of Antarctica was gaining so much mass that it compensated for the losses in the west. Determining what the largest ice sheet on the planet is doing is vital for our understanding of the factors that are influencing present day, and future, sea level rise.

To address this question, a team of scientists led by the University of Bristol and including the University of Wollongong, Australia have studied the problem by combining different satellite observations within a statistical model that is able to separate the processes related to ice mass changes over the continent. Professor Jonathan Bamber from the Bristol Glaciology Centre which is part of the School of Geographical Sciences, said: “We used similar data sets to the NASA team but added other satellite data from a mission called the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE) to help solve for mass gains and losses. “We then conducted different experiments, using similar assumptions made in the NASA study but found that in every experiment, mass loss from the west always exceeded gains in the east.” The researchers concluded that over the study period, 2003-2013, Antarctica, as a whole, has been contributing to sea level rise and that the gains in East Antarctica were around three times smaller than suggested in the 2015 study.

Paper: Constraining the mass balance of East Antarctica’ by A. Martin-Espanol, J. Bamber and A. Zammit-Mangion in Geophysical Research Letters. Plain language summary available at:

New studies on the East Antarctic further supports the trend of more ice. A team led by Morgane Philippe published a paper in 2016 in The Cryosphere which examined the coastal strip of the Dronning Maud Land. The result is already given in the title: The abstract:

Ice core evidence for a 20th century increase in surface mass balance in coastal Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica
Ice cores provide temporal records of surface mass balance (SMB). Coastal areas of Antarctica have relatively high and variable SMB, but are under-represented in records spanning more than 100 years. Here we present SMB reconstruction from a 120 m-long ice core drilled in 2012 on the Derwael Ice Rise, coastal Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica. Water stable isotope (δ18O and δD) stratigraphy is supplemented by discontinuous major ion profiles and continuous electrical conductivity measurements. The base of the ice core is dated to AD 1759 ± 16, providing a climate proxy for the past  ∼ 250 years. The core’s annual layer thickness history is combined with its gravimetric density profile to reconstruct the site’s SMB history, corrected for the influence of ice deformation. The mean SMB for the core’s entire history is 0.47 ± 0.02 m water equivalent (w.e.) a−1. The time series of reconstructed annual SMB shows high variability, but a general increase beginning in the 20th century. This increase is particularly marked during the last 50 years (1962–2011), which yields mean SMB of 0.61 ± 0.01 m w.e. a−1. This trend is compared with other reported SMB data in Antarctica, generally showing a high spatial variability. Output of the fully coupled Community Earth System Model (CESM) suggests that, although atmospheric circulation is the main factor influencing SMB, variability in sea surface temperatures and sea ice cover in the precipitation source region also explain part of the variability in SMB. Local snow redistribution can also influence interannual variability but is unlikely to influence long-term trends significantly. This is the first record from a coastal ice core in East Antarctica to show an increase in SMB beginning in the early 20th century and particularly marked during the last 50 years.

A paper by Vikram Goel et al further underpins the stability of the Dronning Maud Land ice. The paper discussed at the end of May 2017 in The Cryosphere:

Glaciological settings and recent mass balance of the Blåskimen Island in Dronning Maud Land, Antarctica
The Dronning Maud Land coast in East Antarctica has numerous ice rises that very likely control the dynamics and mass balance of this region. However, only a few of these ice rises have been investigated in detail. Here, we report field measurements of Blåskimen Island, an isle-type ice rise adjacent to the Fimbul Ice Shelf. Blåskimen Island is largely dome shaped, with a pronounced ridge extending to the southwest from its summit (410 m a.s.l.). Its bed is mostly flat and about 100 m below the current sea level. Shallow radar-detected isochrones dated with a firn core reveal that the surface mass balance is higher on the southeastern slope than the northwestern slope by ~ 37 %, and this pattern has persisted for at least the past decade. Radar stratigraphy shows upward arches underneath the summit, indicating that the summit position has been stable over at least one characteristic time of this ice rise (~ 600 years). Ensemble estimates of the mass balance using the input-output method show that this ice rise has thickened by 0.07–0.35 m ice equivalent per year over the past decade.”

Then on 16 June 2017 yet another paper by Pittard et al. appeared in the Geophysical Research Letters. It went along the same lines. The authors projected that the Lambert-Amery glacial system in the East Antarctic will remain stable also for the next 500 years, and possibly even grow in mass.

Future sea level change from Antarctica’s Lambert-Amery glacial system
Future global mean sea level (GMSL) change is dependent on the complex response of the Antarctic Ice Sheet to ongoing changes and feedbacks in the climate system. The Lambert-Amery glacial system has been observed to be stable over the recent period yet is potentially at risk of rapid grounding line retreat and ice discharge given a significant volume of its ice is grounded below sea level, making its future contribution to GMSL uncertain. Using a regional ice sheet model of the Lambert-Amery system, we find that under a range of future warming and extreme scenarios, the simulated grounding line remains stable and does not trigger rapid mass loss from grounding line retreat. This allows for increased future accumulation to exceed the mass loss from ice dynamical changes. We suggest the Lambert-Amery glacial system will remain stable, or gain ice mass and mitigate a portion of potential future sea level rise over the next 500 years, with a range of +3.6 to -117.5 mm GMSL-equivalent.”

German Green Minister President Blasts Own Party’s E-Car Target As “Nonsense”… “You Don’t Have a Clue!”

The following German Green Party national convention video is very amusing.

It shows a highly agitated Minister President of the state Baden Württemberg, Winfried Kretschmann, very angrily blasting his own Green Party’s “radical” call to eliminate fossil fuel cars in Germany by 2030 at a recent Green Party convention.

Kretschmann is clearly fed up with his party’s radical, ideological ideas.

Kretschmann today is one of the Green Party’s most prolific figures – the first Green Party member ever to become a state Minister, and that in a state that is considered a rather conservative one.

Ban fossil fuel cars by 2030

The video first features Green Party Chairperson Anton Hofreiter, a radical Green in just about every sense of the word, raging about the government protecting the evil auto industry, calling for radical measures against it and the elimination of fossil fuel cars by 2030.

At 0:32 we then see Kretschmann reacting in disbelief to the absurd demands made Hofreiter and the Green Party, and we see Kretschamnn explaining to a fellow Green Party Parliamentarian Matthias Gastel why the demand is so ridiculous.

As usual now comes Hofreiter with his wonderful story about Tesla. […] But just think about it for a moment. Imagine 5 million electric cars driving around. Where are they supposed to charge up?”

Then he explains to Parliamentarian Gastel how Germany is not even anywhere close to having enough charging stations to handle 5 millions electric cars.

At 1:18 he asks, becoming very agitated:

How is that supposed to work? You guys don’t have a clue!

Yet the people say that beginning in the year 2030, we can do all this. Those are idiotic target dates. If some asks: Explain to me how we are supposed to do this by this date, I can’t even begin to answer that. […]

We indeed have to figure out how it should work before spouting off radical statements. You can go ahead and do it. Do it! I don’t care! But then simply be happy with 6 or 8% [at the polls]. I used to be on the Party Advisory Board. I said it ten times: Okay, you can agree on that. But then be happy with 8 percent.” And then don’t go around complaining, and leave me alone! And do your campaign yourselves!

You guys always have something crazy in your head, without seeing the whole process. You can do what you want, but with myself as Minister President, I’m not playing along.”

Gastel ‘s resposnse to Kretschmann’s rant was almost as classic, and he let’s slip the true plot of the Green Party.

Winfried, the different roles at play here are clear to me. But we as a fraction in the German Parliament are serving our own clientel, and we are trying to expand it.”

At 2:37 the film switches to Green Party head Cem Özdemir, who claims the party is as unified as ever.

Expect the German Greens to remain at between 6 and 8 percent.


Arctic Warming Reverse! New Study Finds Winter Arctic Sea Ice “To Increase Towards 2020”

It is not uncommon to hear from Europe’s media that climate change is to blame whenever a weather anomaly occurs on the old continent. The reason for the climate change of course gets attributed to man and fossil fuel emissions.

Ocean drives

Therefore, it is all the more interesting that a new paper has just been published, telling us Europe’s climate is foremost driven by ocean cycles.

In a paper by Marius Årthun et al appearing in Nature Communication titled: Skillful prediction of northern climate provided by the ocean, researchers checked whether anomalous heat in the Gulf Stream’s northern extension provided predictability of northwestern European and Arctic climate.

Result:Variations in ocean temperature in the high latitude North Atlantic and Nordic Seas are reflected in the climate of northwestern Europe and in winter Arctic sea ice extent” and that “a significant part of northern climate variability thus can be skillfully predicted up to a decade in advance based on the state of the ocean“. No, not CO2.

New study shows that ocean cycles allow for “skillful prediction” of northern climate. Source: Nature Communication here.

Norway will cool

What does it mean for the immediate climate future? The paper’s abstract writes:

Particularly, we predict that Norwegian air temperature will decrease over the coming years, although staying above the long-term (1981–2010) average. Winter Arctic sea ice extent will remain low but with a general increase towards 2020.”

If the authors are correct, it’s obvious that for the next few years CO2 will not be able to prevent Norway from cooling and winter Arctic sea ice from growing. That means the ocean is a more powerful driver. The Arctic obviously is strongly connected to the oceans, much more so than some alarmist scientists would have us believe.

Winter sea ice rebound expected

The authors also make further interesting points that certainly should be a surprise to those stuck on rapid manmade warming and ice melt. For example the scientists found an influence of “poleward ocean heat anomalies on northern climate” and that it may be possible to make predictions for the region beyond decades.

They write: “Our sea ice prediction is furthermore in agreement with recent model results predicting a rebound in winter sea ice extent as a result of decreased poleward heat transport.”

According to the authors, he North Atlantic has been cooling recently, a trend which is “predicted to continue over the coming years” and that “a further cooling of Norwegian SAT [surface air temperature] might therefore be expected” beyond their prediction horizon.

Ocean variability exerts “strong influence”

The authors emphasize there is “compelling evidence that oceanic variability exerts a strong influence on northern climate on multi-annual timescales“.

The entire paper is available here.


2 New Papers Expose The Environmental Nightmare Of Wind Turbine Blade Disposal

Unsustainable: 43 Million Tonnes Of

Wind Turbine Blade Waste By 2050

“If the industry cannot come up with more sustainable manufacturing and disposal processes, public acceptance of wind energy would decline if the public becomes aware of these issues” – Ramirez-Tejeda et al., 2017

Despite an explosion in installed wind capacity since 1990, wind power had achieved just 0.39% of the world’s total energy consumption as of 2013.

Image Source

Germany has assumed a leading role in promoting the consumption of renewable energy.  And yet even in Germany the share of energy consumption from wind power reached only 2.1% in 2016.

Despite its extremely limited infiltration as a world energy source, it is assumed that a rapid expansion of wind power will ultimately be environmentally advantageous both due to its reputation as a “clean” energy and because of the potential to contribute to reduced CO2 emissions.

Recently, however, the austere environmental impacts and health risks associated with expanding wind energy have received more attention.

For example, scientists have asserted that wind turbines are now the leading cause of multiple mortality events in bats, with 3 to 5 million bats killed by wind turbines every year.   Migratory bats in North America may face the risk of extinction in the next few decades due to wind turbine-related fatalities.

Frick et al., 2017

“Large numbers of migratory bats are killed every year at wind energy facilities. … Using expert elicitation and population projection models, we show that mortality from wind turbines may drastically reduce population size and increase the risk of extinction. For example, the hoary bat population could decline by as much as 90% in the next 50 years if the initial population size is near 2.5 million bats and annual population growth rate is similar to rates estimated for other bat species (λ = 1.01). Our results suggest that wind energy development may pose a substantial threat to migratory bats in North America.”

Wind Turbine Blades Last 20 Years…And Then They Are Tossed Into Landfills

Besides reducing wildlife populations, perhaps one of the most underrated negative side effects of building wind turbines is that they don’t last very long (less than 20 years) before they need to be replaced.  And their blades aren’t recyclable.  Consequently, 43 million tonnes (47 million tons) of blade waste will be added to the world’s landfills within the next few decades.

Liu and Barlow, 2017

The blades, one of the most important components in the wind turbines, made with composite, are currently regarded as unrecyclable.  With the first wave of early commercial wind turbine installations now approaching their end of life, the problem of blade disposal is just beginning to emerge as a significant factor for the future. … The research indicates that there will be 43 million tonnes of blade waste worldwide by 2050 with China possessing 40% of the waste, Europe 25%, the United States 16% and the rest of the world 19%.”

Although wind energy is often claimed to provide clean renewable energy without any emissions during operation (U.S. Department of Energy, 2015), a detailed ecological study may indicate otherwise even for this stage. The manufacture stage is energy-intensive and is associated with a range of chemical usage (Song et al., 2009). Disposal at end-of-life must also be considered (Ortegon et al., 2012; Pickering, 2013; Job, 2014).A typical wind turbine (WT) has a foundation, a tower, a nacelle and three blades. The foundation is made from concrete; the tower is made from steel or concrete; the nacelle is made mainly from steel and copper; the blades are made from composite materials (Vestas, 2006; Tremeac and Meunier, 2009; Guezuraga et al., 2012). Considering these materials only, concrete and composites are the most environmentally problematic at end-of-life, since there are currently no established industrial recycling routes for them (Pimenta and Pinho, 2011; Job, 2013).”

In a new paper entitled “Unsustainable Wind Turbine Blade Disposal Practices in the United States“, Ramirez-Tejeda et al. (2017) further detail the imminent and unresolved nightmare of wind turbine blade disposal.   The environmental consequences and health risks are so adverse that the authors warn that if the public learns of this rapidly burgeoning problem, they may be less inclined to favor wind power expansion. Advocates of wind power are said to be “largely ignoring the issue”.  It’s an “issue” that will not be going away any time soon.

In light of its minuscule share of worldwide consumption (despite explosive expansion in recent decades), perhaps it is time to at least reconsider both the benefits and the costs of wind energy expansion.

‘Adverse Environmental Consequences’ For A Rapidly Expanding Wind Power Grid

Ramirez-Tejeda et al. (2017)

“Globally, more than seventy thousand wind turbine blades were deployed in 2012 and there were 433 gigawatts (GW) of wind installed capacity worldwide at the end of 2015. Moreover, the United States’ installed wind power capacity will need to increase from 74 GW to 300 GW3 to achieve its 20% wind production goal by 2030.  To meet the increasing demand, not only are more blades being manufactured, but also blades of up to 100 meters long are being designed and produced.”

The wind turbine blades are designed to have a lifespan of about twenty years, after which they would have to be dismantled due to physical degradation or damage beyond repair. Furthermore, constant development of more efficient blades with higher power generation capacity is resulting in blade replacement well before the twenty-year life span.”

Estimations have suggested that between 330,000 tons/year by 2028 and 418,000 tons/year by 2040 of composite material from blades will need to be disposed worldwide. That would be equivalent to the amount of plastics waste generated by four million people in the United States in 2013. This anticipated increase in blade manufacturing and disposal will likely lead to adverse environmental consequences, as well as potential occupational exposures, especially because available technologies and key economic constraints result in undesirable disposal methods as the only feasible options.”

Problems With Landfills

“Despite its negative consequences, landfilling has so far been the most commonly utilized wind turbine blade disposal method. … Landfilling is especially problematic because its high resistance to heat, sunlight, and moisture means that it will take hundreds of years to degrade in a landfill environment. The wood and other organic material present in the blades would also end up in landfills, potentially releasing methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and other volatile organic compounds to the environment.”

The estimated cost to put blade material in landfills, not including pretreatment and transportation costs, is approximately US $60 per ton. [A typical blade may weigh 30-40 tons].  In the United Kingdom, where landfilling organics is not yet prohibited, the active waste disposal cost (which includes plastics) is approximately US $130 per ton.”

Problems With Incineration

“Incineration of blades is another disposal method with potential for energy and/or material recovery. … Combustion of GFRP is especially problematic because it can produce toxic gases, smoke, and soot that can harm the environment and humans.  Carbon monoxide and formaldehyde have been reported as residue from thermal degradation of epoxy resin.  Another residue is carbon dioxide, which poses concerns regarding greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, about 60% of the scrap remains as pollutant ash after the incineration process, some of which is sent to landfills, potentially contaminating the sites. Possible emission of hazardous flue gasses is also among the issues with incinerating wind turbine blades.”

One key issue is that all these thermal processing techniques for wind turbine blades would also require fragmentation of the material into smaller pieces through mechanical processing before being fed into the reactors, increasing energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.”

Problems With Mechanical Processing

“Mechanical processing is a relatively simpler disposal method that consists of cutting, shredding, and grinding the material to separate the fibers from resins, so it can be repurposed. This process is energy intensive and produces small fiber particles with poor mechanical properties that can only be used as filler reinforcement material in the cement or asphalt industries. … The dust emitted in the grinding process of FRP creates occupational health and safety risks for workers. Inhalation, as well as skin and eye contact can produce moderate irritation to mucous membranes, skin, eyes, and coughing. Occupational exposure and prolonged inhalation of such particles have been found to produce alterations of the cellular and enzymatic components of the deep lung in humans, identified as acute alveolitis.”

Problems With Chemical Degradation

“The last method is chemical degradation, which consists of first mechanically reducing the size of the blades, then degrading them using a chemical solution. … Although no industrial-level chemical recycling of thermoset polymers has been done yet, some hazardous chemicals such as nitric acids and paraformaldehyde have been used in testing and development processes.  Occupational exposure to these chemicals can produce harmful respiratory diseases including potential nasal cancer, and dermal health effects.”

Advocates Of Wind Power ‘Have Largely Ignored The Issue’

“Few individuals and organizations recognize the problems inherently related to blade recyclability. This situation creates an obstacle for promoting policy interventions to solve these problems. As a result, manufacturers, wind farm operators, and advocates have largely ignored the issue, focusing efforts on promoting wind energy and addressing other issues such as negative impacts on wildlife and noise generation.”

“If the industry cannot come up with more sustainable manufacturing and disposal processes, public acceptance of wind energy would decline if the public becomes aware of these issues, inhibiting its growth as one of the main sources of electricity generation in the United States.”

Recent Studies Find Climate Models (Used By Policymakers) Are Way Off The Mark

Climate models overstate global precipitation by almost a half

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(German text translated/edited By P Gosselin)

Slowly people are realizing that not everything in the climate modeling world is as rosy as once claimed for years. It’s bit like the Tour de France, where racers were once celebrated as heroes, but later the doping reality came to light. Are we on the verge of the same realization in the field of climate modelling?

Recently we saw a worthwhile editorial in Nature, 3 May 2017, where the global warming hiatus and communication errors were admitted on both sides:

Increased scrutiny of climate-change models should be welcomed
The apparent slowdown in global warming has provided a spur for better understanding of the underlying processes. […] Some background: the El Niño weather event in 1997 and 1998 belched a great bolus of heat from the ocean into the atmosphere, a release that was entirely consistent with expectations — as was the heady spike in global mean surface temperature that followed. From the top of the Himalayas, the rest of Earth is downhill. And, in a similar way, the 1998 peak in temperature offered an easily visualized time that climate sceptics could cherry-pick as a starting point for a ‘hiatus’, ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in climate change. It’s true (of course) that the next few years saw a reduced rate of warming, or maybe even a slight cooling. And it’s also true that, soon after, some analyses showed that these observations were beginning to diverge from the suite of projections made by climate models. A few responses emerged. First: yawn — “This is nothing more than the sort of normal variability one should expect in the climate system, and models should not be expected to predict any specific dip or peak.” Second: hysteria — “Climate scientists have no idea what controls the climate system.” Third: interesting  — “Let’s figure this out.” Happily, most of the climate-science community adopted the third option. The result was a flood of publications on the topic, and the only half-joking suggestion that Nature’s publisher should launch a new journal called Nature Hiatus.

Continue reading in Nature.

Already in March 2016 Nature was looking at the topic:

Where climate models fall short
Climate models tend to overestimate the extent to which climate change contributes to weather events such as extreme heat and rain. Omar Bellprat and Francisco Doblas-Reyes at the Catalan Institute of Climate Sciences in Barcelona, Spain, used an idealized statistical model to compare the frequency of weather extremes in simulations with and without climate warming. Extreme events seemed to be more closely linked to climate change when the model was forced to run at low levels of reliability than when the model error was kept to a minimum. To account for models’ biased representation of climate variability, studies should rely on calibrated model ensembles, which are commonly used by weather forecasters, the authors suggest.”

There was also welcome realism in a press release from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in December 10, 2015. Climate models systematically overstated the increase in precipitation by 40%:

Climate models overestimate rainfall increases
Lawrence Livermore researchers and collaborators have found that most climate models overestimate the increase in global precipitation due to climate change. Specifically, the team looked at 25 models and found they underestimate the increase in absorption of sunlight by water vapor as the atmosphere becomes moister, and therefore overestimate increases in global precipitation. The team found global precipitation increase per degree of global warming at the end of the 21st century may be about 40 percent smaller than what the models, on average, currently predict. The research appears in the Dec. 10 edition of the journal Nature.

Evaluation of model-predicted global precipitation change with actual precipitation observations is difficult due to uncertainties arising from many sources, including insufficient spatial and historical data coverage. As an alternative approach, the team, made up of LLNL scientist Mark Zelinka and colleagues from the University of California, Los Angeles, including lead author Anthony DeAngelis, evaluated model-simulated global precipitation change through consideration of the physical processes that govern it.

The team found that the increase in global precipitation simulated by models is strongly controlled by how much additional sunlight is absorbed by water vapor as the planet warms: Models in which more sunlight is absorbed by water vapor tend to have smaller increases in precipitation. They demonstrated that model-to-model differences in increased absorption of sunlight were not controlled by how much their humidity increased, but by how much additional sunlight was trapped in the atmosphere for a given increase in humidity. Conveniently, this quantity can be measured from space, allowing the team to assess how well the models capture the physics controlling changes in global precipitation.

“This comparison with observations allowed us to see quite clearly that most models underestimate the increased absorption of sunlight as water vapor increases,” Zelinka said. “Because this acts as such a strong lever on global precipitation changes, the models are likely overestimating the increase in global precipitation with global warming.”

Paper: Anthony M. DeAngelis, Xin Qu, Mark D. Zelinka, Alex Hall. An observational radiative constraint on hydrologic cycle intensification. Nature, 2015; 528 (7581): 249 DOI: 10.1038/nature15770

There was also model failure in the simulation of wildlife space. The animals of the last ice age stubbornly resisted the requirements of the computer simulation and instead showed an expansion that was completely unexpected. Press release by the University of Oregon from November 2014:

Fossils cast doubt on climate-change projections on habitats
Mammals didn’t play by the rules of modeling on where they migrated to survive last ice age, says UO researcher

Leave it to long-dead short-tailed shrew and flying squirrels to outfox climate-modelers trying to predict future habitats. Evidence from the fossil record shows that gluttonous insect-eating shrew didn’t live where a species distribution technique drawn by biologists put it 20,000 years ago to survive the reach of glaciers, says University of Oregon geologist Edward B. Davis. The shrew is not alone. According to a new study by Davis and colleagues, fossil records of five ancient mammalian species that survived North America’s last glacial period point to weaknesses in the use of ecological niche models and hindcasting to predict future animal and plant habitats. As a result, Davis says, the modeling needs to be fine-tuned for complexities that might be harvested from fossils.

Ecological niches use modern habitat distributions and climate; hindcasting adds predictive power by adding major past climate shifts into the models. That modeling combination — as seen in a 2007 study led by Eric Waltari, then of the American Museum of Natural History in New York — had the short-tailed shrew surviving the last ice age in mostly Texas and the Deep South. Conclusions drawn in other studies, Davis noted in the new study, also are biased toward southern locations for ice-age surviving mammals of the Pleistocene Epoch. Short-tailed shrew, according to fossil records, did not live in the predicted ranges. Instead they lived across north central and northeast United States, closer to the glaciers and where they are widely found today.

“It’s almost as though it is living in all of the places that the model says it shouldn’t be living in and not in any of the places that the model says it should be living in,” said Davis, who also is manager of the paleontological collection at the UO Museum of Natural and Cultural History. “This suggests to me that whatever the model is keying on is not actually important to the shrew.” Nor to the American marten (Martes americana), two species of flying squirrels and the Gapper’s red-backed vole (Myodes gapperi), all of which lived mostly outside of predicted ranges, according to the fossil record. Northern (Glaucomys sabrinus) and southern (Glaucomys volans) flying squirrels, the Davis study found, shared a compressed geographic region. It may be, Davis said, that some species tolerate competition under harsh conditions but separate when abundant resources are available.

Davis noted that an important but under-cited 2010 paper on rodents by Robert Guralnick of the University of Colorado and Peter B. Pearman of the Swiss Federal Research Institute also showed problems with hindcast projections. Those for lowland rodents in the last ice age did not hold up, but those for a higher elevation species did. “Our findings say that we need to pay more attention to the potential problems we have with some of our modern methods, and the way that we can improve our understanding of how species interact with the environment,” said Davis, who added that his study was inspired by Waltari’s. “The way to improve our forecasting is to include data from the fossil record. It can give us more information about the environments that species have lived in and could live in.” The findings appear in the November issue of the journal Ecography. In a special section of the journal, the Davis paper is packaged with four papers on research initially presented in a symposium on conservation paleobiogeography in 2013 at a biennial meeting of the International Biography Society. The Davis paper is co-authored by Jenny L. McGuire, now at Georgia Tech University, and former UO doctoral student John D. Orcutt, who is now at Cornell College in Iowa.”

Paper: Edward Byrd Davis, Jenny L. McGuire, John D. Orcutt. Ecological niche models of mammalian glacial refugia show consistent bias. Ecography, 2014; DOI: 10.1111/ecog.01294

Surprise! Despite High CO2, 2017 Accumulated Cyclone Energy “Remains At Record Low Levels”

Global warming was supposed to inject thermal energy into the atmosphere, and thus spawn one super cyclone after another.  Yet observations refuse to cooperate with the alarmist hypothesis.

At Twitter Colorado State University research scientist Philip Klotzbach reports that 2017 global cyclone energy “remains at record low levels“:

Earlier on June 13 Klotzbach tweeted the following chart showing how this year has been running thus far:

Despite all the warnings that a warming globe would lead to harsher and wilder hurricane seasons, data show that the the opposite is more the case.

In fact the especially harsh June hurricanes occurred when CO2 were at rock bottom levels of 280 ppm, like back 131 years ago, in 1886. Klotzbach writes: “In 1886, 3 June hurricanes made U.S. landfall“. He added:

No other Atlantic season on record has had more than one June U.S. hurricane landfall.”

The following chart shows the 1886 hurricane season:

And to show that things were much worse during the cooler, low CO2 days of the past, Klotzbach tweeted on June 12 the following chart:

CSU atmospheric researcher Klotzbach: “14 Cat. 4-5 hurricanes made U.S. landfall from 1926-1969 (44 years). Only 3 Cat. 4-5 hurricanes have made U.S. landfall since (47 years).”

That 1926 – 1969 period was close to 5 times more active with powerful hurricane strikes than the recent 1970 – 2016 period.

At his Weekend Summary at Weatherbell, veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi shows us the wild hurricane activity back in the 1950s.

Bastardi: “Can you imagine if this happened again, the media would be going nuts.” Cropped from Weatherbell Weekend Summary.

But fortunately we are far from that level of activity – at least for now.

Surprisingly alarmist scientists refuse to bring up the real probability that a warmer world perhaps means milder cyclone activity, as many statistical trends indicate. Of course if the exact opposite were occurring, or even just repeating, scientists would be claiming that there’s unmistakable proof that rising global temperatures cause harsher hurricane activity.

The fact they are are not tells us that the global warming is not about science, but all about politics.


Scientific Papers Indicate Natural Processes Dominate Changes In Ozone Hole, Methane And CO2 Emissions

What If Human Emissions

Aren’t All That Influential?

We have been led to believe that we can control the size of the ozone hole and both methane and CO2 concentrations with our emissions.

We have also been led to believe we control weather patterns (storminess, droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes); we control tropospheric, atmospheric, surface, and deep ocean temperatures; we control glacier retreat and advance; we control relative sea level; we control whether or not over million species go extinct by 2050 . . . all by emitting more or less gaseous substances in our pursuit of energy and comfort.

What if we are overestimating our impact on the planet?  What if our gaseous emissions don’t really have anywhere near the impact we think they do?

What if we are too arrogant to even consider the possibility that the Earth cannot be “saved” by building more wind turbines and solar panels and recycling more plastic?

“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. ‘Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.’ And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet – we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet.”
“The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!”  — George Carlin

NASA: Montreal Protocol Not Responsible For Ozone Changes – Natural Meteorology Is

NASA Reveals New Results From Inside the Ozone Hole

“NASA scientists have revealed the inner workings of the ozone hole that forms annually over Antarctica and found that declining chlorine in the stratosphere [from reduced human emissions] has not yet caused a recovery of the ozone hole. …. [T]wo new studies show that signs of recovery are not yet present, and that temperature and winds are still driving any annual changes in ozone hole size. … The classic metrics create the impression that the ozone hole has improved as a result of the Montreal protocol. In reality, meteorology was responsible for the increased ozone and resulting smaller hole, as ozone-depleting substances that year were still elevated. The study has been submitted to the journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

“‘Ozone holes with smaller areas and a larger total amount of ozone are not necessarily evidence of recovery attributable to the expected chlorine decline,’ said Susan Strahan of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.”

Most Of The Measured Change In Ozone Is Natural, Not Anthropogenic

Hess et al., 2015

[A] large portion of the measured change [in ozone] is not due to changes in [anthropogenic] emissions, but can be traced to changes in large-scale modes of ozone variability. This emphasizes the difficulty in the attribution of ozone changes, and the importance of natural variability in understanding the trends and variability of ozone.

Introduction: “Lin et al. (2014) attribute decadal changes in the interannual Mauna Loa ozone record to shifts in circulation patterns. However, at other locations, ozone exhibits considerable interannual variability on decadal timescales that has not been adequately explained (e.g., Koumoutsaris et al., 2008). In many cases, this ozone variability is not easily ascribed to changes in emissions. For example, changes in emissions do not explain the baseline ozone trends at Mace Head, Ireland (e.g., Hess and Zbinden, 2013; Fiore et al., 2009), measured as strongly positive during the most of the 1990s but since leveling off (Carslaw, 2005; Derwent et al., 2007, 2013; Simmonds et al., 2004). In an analysis of ozone trends over Europe, Wilson et al. (2012) conclude that the impact of European precursor emission reductions was masked by other sources of unknown ozone variability. Analyses by Logan et al. (2012) and Cui et al. (2011) show that the measured ozone increases at Alpine sites over Europe during the 1990s followed by decreases after 2000 are not easily explained by changes in emissions or changes in lower stratospheric ozone. Pozzoli et al. (2011) conclude that changes in meteorology and natural emissions account for 75 % of ozone variability from 1980 to 2005, largely masking changes in anthropogenic emissions. On decadal timescales, ozone trends can depend sensitively on the exact time period examined (Cui et al., 2011).”

Ozone Hole Grew To (2015) Record Size Due To Natural Forcing

Ivy et al., 2017

Recent research has demonstrated that the concentrations of anthropogenic halocarbons have decreased in response to the worldwide phaseout of ozone depleting substances. Yet, in 2015 the Antarctic ozone hole reached a historical record daily average size in October. Model simulations with specified dynamics and temperatures based on a reanalysis suggested that the record size was likely due to the eruption of Calbuco, but did not allow for fully-coupled dynamical or thermal feedbacks. We present simulations of the impact of the 2015 Calbuco eruption on the stratosphere using the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model with interactive dynamics and temperatures. Comparisons of the interactive and specified dynamics simulations indicate that chemical ozone depletion due to volcanic aerosols played a key role in establishing the record-sized ozone hole of October 2015. The analysis of an ensemble of interactive simulations with and without volcanic aerosols suggests that the forced response to the eruption of Calbuco was an increase in the size of the ozone hole by 4.5 million km2.”

Due To Measurement Uncertainties, ‘Methane Emissions Might Not Have Increased Dramatically…After All’

Turner et al., 2017

“We conclude that the current surface observing system does not allow unambiguous attribution of the decadal trends in methane without robust constraints on OH variability, which currently rely purely on methyl chloroform data and its uncertain emissions estimates.”

[press release]

“[M]ethane emissions might not have increased dramatically in 2007 after all. Instead, the most likely explanation has less to do with methane emissions and more to do with changes in the availability of the hydroxyl (OH) radical, which breaks down methane in the atmosphere. As such, the amount of hydroxyl in the atmosphere governs the amount of methane. If global levels of hydroxyl decrease, global methane concentrations will increase — even if methane emissions remain constant, the researchers say. … When atmospheric concentrations of methane increase, it may not be correct to chalk it up solely to an increase in methane emissions

Recent Methane Rise ‘Biogenic’ – Fossil Fuel Emissions Not A Driving Factor

Nisbet et al., 2016

“The isotopic evidence presented here suggests that the methane rise [2007-2014] was dominated by significant increases in biogenic methane emissions, particularly in the tropics, for example, from expansion of tropical wetlands in years with strongly positive rainfall anomalies or emissions from increased agricultural sources such as ruminants and rice paddies. Changes in the removal rate of methane by the OH radical have not been seen in other tracers of atmospheric chemistry and do not appear to explain short-term variations in methane. Fossil fuel emissions may also have grown, but the sustained shift to more 13C-depleted values and its significant interannual variability, and the tropical and Southern Hemisphere loci of post-2007 growth, both indicate that fossil fuel emissions have not been the dominant factor driving the increase. A major cause of increased tropical wetland and tropical agricultural methane emissions, the likely major contributors to growth, may be their responses to meteorological change.”

IPCC Estimates Of Methane Emissions Overestimated, Not Distinguishable From Natural Background

Ruppel and Kessler, 2017

“On the contemporary Earth, gas hydrate is dissociating in specific terrains in response to post-LGM [last glacial maximum] climate change and probably also due to warming since the onset of the Industrial Age. Nevertheless, there is no conclusive proof that the released methane is entering the atmosphere at a level that is detectable against the background of ~555 Tg yr−1 CH4 emissions. The IPCC estimates are not based on direct measurements of methane fluxes from dissociating gas hydrates, and many numerical models adopt simplifications that do not fully account for sinks, the actual distribution of gas hydrates, or other factors, resulting in probable overestimation of emissions to the ocean-atmosphere system.”

The Domination Of Natural CO2 Emissions

Carey et al., 2017

“While scientists and policy experts debate the impacts of global warming, Earth’s soil is releasing roughly nine times more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than all human activities combined.”

Reich et al., 2016

Plant respiration results in an annual flux of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere that is six times as large as that due to the emissions from fossil fuel burning, so changes in either will impact future climate.”

Zimmerman et al., 1982

The estimated gross amount of CO2 produced [by termites] is more than twice the net global input from fossil fuel combustion.  As we noted above, termites process the  equivalent of about 28 percent of the earth’s NPP [net primary productivity, or plant energy].”

Harde, 2017

The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, [and] its fraction to the COincrease over the Industrial Era is 15%

Munshi, 2015

“[R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

Lowest Solar Activity In 200 Years Accompanied By High Northern Hemispheric Snow And Ice

Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt present their monthly solar activity report at their Die kalte Sonne site.

In May the sun was very quiet as sunspot number was a mere 18.8, which is only 36% of what is typical for the month this far into the cycle. Seven days saw no sunspot activity at all.

The following chart shows the current cycle, Solar Cycle 24 (red), compared to the mean of the previous cycles (blue) and the similarly behaving SC 5 (black).

It’s clear that the current cycle is significantly weaker than the mean and far weaker than the cycles we saw throughout most of the warming 20th century. So far there have been a number of signs indicating that upcoming SC 25 will also be a weak one. Historically periods of weak solar activity are associated with cooler periods and altered weather patterns.

The current cycle SC 24 has been so quiet that it is in fact the weakest since SC 6, which took place close to 200 years ago.

The above chart shows the accumulated monthly anomaly for each cycle this far into the current cycle. Bosse and Vahrenholt write that SC 24 has a chance, though a very small one, to overtake SC 5 and become the second weakest cycle since observations began in 1755.

Arctic sea ice remains stubbornly thick

Arctic sea ice has been surprising many observers lately because it has so far refused to melt like some predicted it would. Tony Heller here writes that the Northwest Passage is “blocked by very thick ice in the Beaufort Sea“. Latest sea ice extent chart shows sea ice extent being back into the statistical pack. There are even forecasts that point the melt season may be a slow one, see Weatherbell Weekend Summary.

Ice blocks Arctic study

Little wonder that a scientific global warming expedition to the Arctic had to be cancelled – due to excessive ice! James Delingpole at Breitbart reports: “Ship of Fools III – Global Warming Study Cancelled Because of ‘Unprecedented’ Ice“.

Dr. David Barber, lead scientist on the study, insisted that all the unexpected ice was caused by “climate change” — sort of like blaming obesity on a lack of calories.

Northern hemisphere snow cover well over normal

Also surprising in these times of “global warming” is that northern hemisphere snow cover is well above normal as of June 15, according to Environment Canada:

Snow cover over the northern hemisphere remains more than 1 standard deviation above the mean. Source: Environment Canada.

Greenland is also defying global warming. Kirye at Twitter tells us accumulated surface mass balance as computed by the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) is far above the mean:

Accumulated surface mass balance from September 1st to now (blue line, Gt). Source: DMI.

El Nino 2017 disappearing before arriving

At Weatherbell meteorologist Joe Bastardi reports that the forecast El Nino for 2017 has weakened considerably over the past few months. As what appears to be a curve from Scripps, the curve has gone from a powerful projected El Nino to a La Nina in just over the course of a couple of months (watch Joe’s Weekend Summary for the details).

Source: Cropped from Weatherbell Weekend Summary.

If the revised forecasts hold, a cooling globe over the coming months is likely.

What A Mess! Spiegel Reveals Scientists Don’t Know Real Temperature Of The Planet

The Germany-based European Institute For Climate and Energy (EIKE) alerts here that it is now obvious nobody really knows what the real mean global temperature is, and that claims that the planet is the hottest it’s been since measurements began are not making any sense.

In 1995 it was 15.4°C. Today we are told it is 14.8°C – a new record!

For decades it had been assumed that the globe’s normal 20th century mean temperature was 15°C. But suddenly this year it is reported all over the media that 2016 reached a new record: 14.8°C!

ZDF weather moderator Benjamin Stöwe announced in January, 2017, that at 14.8°C 2016 had been the “hottest year” since measurements began. It’s no typo. Image: ZDF

14.8°C in 2016?

In 1995 Spiegel and many others, citing James Hansen, reported that the global temperature had reached a “record” 15.4°C!

This led EIKE Vice President Michael Limburg to write: “The warmest year since the start of measurements is revealed to be significantly cooler than the 1995 mean value, which was 15.4°C.”

Readers by now are certainly asking themselves what the hell is going on here!

“Something astonishing”

It turns out that researchers of the Klimamanifestes von Heiligenroth put out a video that examines the absolute temperature value of the globe instead of the anomaly. And what they found in the literature, Limburg writes, “is something astonishing“:

The hottest year ever 2016 (14.8°C) is in fact 0.6°C cooler than 1995 (15.4°C)!

The video here sums up the history of the normal absolute global mean temperature, which for decades had been in fact assumed to be 15°C. Here’s the chronology of what literature kept stating in the past:

1896: Svante Arrhenius, 15.0°C
1975: Stephen H. Schneider, 15.0°C
1979: Christian Schönwiese, 15.0°C
1981: James Hansen, 15.0°C
1986: Spiegel, 15°C
1988: Hansen, NYT, 15°C
1988/1989: Der Spiegel, James Hansen, 15.4°C
1995: no publications found under 15°C.
1995: Spiegel, citing James Hansen, 15.4°C (see image below)

1995 global temperature: 15.4°C. Image cropped from Spiegel

2017: WMO, ZDF, Spiegel, 14.8°C (“record high”)

Up to 1995 the normal global mean temperature had always been assumed to be 15°C and its rise to 15.5°C was considered a sign of rapid warming.

Spiegel’s tangled web

After 1995 the chaos surrounding the determination of the absolute mean global temperature seems to begin, and no one knows what happened. Today the WMO and ZDF German television are suddenly telling the public that the global temperature in 2016 was 14.8°C, “a new record”!

Earlier in 2002, Spiegel reported a northern hemisphere mean temperature of 15.7°C. That was the last time Spiegel printed the absolute global mean temperature.

With all the confusion since 1995, Spiegel in its print edition in 2015 dropped altogether the absolute temperature and switched to using the mean temperature anomaly, and this time from a whole new data source: Japan Meteorological Agency. The main thing was to show readers a rapidly increasing temperatures, details and contradictions be damned.

Then on January 18, 2017, the online Spiegel too suddenly switched to the new 14°C base, proclaiming a new all time record of 14.8°C (in 1995 they reported 15.4°C)!

Image cropped from Spiegel online.

Unwittingly, Spiegel has in effect exposed the widespread confusion concerning absolute global mean temperature and the fact that it seems to have been rolled back 1°C, from 15°C to 14°C. It seems no one knows what it really is.

After Spiegel editor Marco Evers had been asked repeatedly by e-mail to explain what was going on, he tersely wrote back (see below) that he saw “no reason to pursue the correspondence further” and that they relied on “peer-reviewed literature, consensus documents from institutions like the IPCC, as well as NASA and the WMO“.

Obviously there’s complete confusion as to what the globe’s absolute mean temperature should be. Depending on the source, it is either 14.8°C (WMO), or 15.8°C (NASA). Here we are talking about a whole degree difference from institutions that claim the ability to measure global temperature down to a few hundredths of a degree.

Would the real temperature please stand up!

It’s such a mess that in its April 1, 2017, edition Spiegel even stopped showing a temperature chart altogether when reporting on the “new 2016 record”, choosing instead to simply bang on about the “hottest year ever”, the Klimamanifest video tells us.

Faking fake news

It’s little wonder some readers recently have been intensively questioning Spiegel over the huge discrepancy, especially at Twitter, where the German weekly refuses to provide an answer. Obviously the matter is highly embarrassing for Spiegel.

The climate reporting situation obviously has gotten so bad that when the media start faking fake news, the truth comes out!

Clearly Spiegel had been led around by the nose by a bunch of sloppy scientists for decades.


Almost 300 Graphs Undermine Claims Of Unprecedented, Global-Scale Modern Warmth

Hundreds Of Scientific Papers

Challenge ‘Global’ Warming

Recently, an article citing over 80 graphs from scientific papers published in 2017 — and another 55 graphs from 2016  — established that modern “global” warming is not actually global in scale, and that today’s warmth is neither unprecedented or remarkable when considering the larger context of natural variability.

Here, an additional 140 non-hockey stick graphs taken from papers published in 2015 and earlier have now been made available.  With this latest installment, graphical temperature reconstructions challenging the conceptualization of global-scale or unprecedented modern warming are rapidly approaching 300.

For those interested in perusing this growing body of scientific evidence all at once, a new page has been added to the NoTricksZone website.

Global Warming Disputed: 300 Graphs

The list is categorized by the year (or decade) of publication.  It will be updated as new temperature reconstructions are published or located in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.  Perhaps these pages can be used as a resource when challenging those who claim that modern temperatures are unusual, dangerous, or outside the range of natural variability.

Schneider et al., 2015

Stoffel et al., 2015

Soon et al., 2015

“[M]ost of the temperature trends since at least 1881 can be explained in terms of solar variability, with atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations providing at most a minor contribution.”

Thapa et al., 2015

[T]emperature in Central Asia and northern Hemisphere revert back towards cooling trends in the late twentieth century.”

Yan et al., 2015

Boldt et al., 2015

Matskovsky and Helama, 2015

“The DIRECT reconstruction reveals long-term cooling during the LIA [Little Ice Age, 1300-1900 AD]  and considerable warming during the MCA [Medieval Climate Anomaly/Medieval Warm Period, 800-1200 AD]. The 20th century marks a period of generally warm temperatures; however, the temperatures of the MCA were reconstructed to be warmer and the long duration of the former makes the MCA incomparable to the 20th-century warmth (Matskovsky and Helama, 2014).”

Munz et al., 2015

Wei et al., 2015

Sánchez-Sesma, 2015

Krusic et al., 2015

Jiang et al., 2015

de Frietas et al., 2015

Larsen et al., 2015

“Southern Greenland proxy-inferred atmospheric temperatures also peaked between ca. 7 and 4 cal. kyr B.P. at 2–4 °C higher than present, followed by a Neoglacial cooling reaching a minimum during the LIA [Little Ice Age] (Fréchette and de Vernal, 2009; D’Andrea et al., 2011; Axford et al., 2013). The second phase of ice retreat behind the present-day extent in southwest and south Greenland was from ca. 1.5 to 1 cal. kyr B.P.”

Naulier et al., 2015

Gajewski, 2015

Hou et al., 2015

Lake Qinghai also displays significant temperature oscillations in the past 3000 years, which may reflect an amplified response to volcanic and/or solar forcings [Stuiver et al., 1995]. The warm period peaking around 2 ka coincides with the Roman warm period, which is followed by cooling into the little ice age, peaking at about 500 years ago (Figure 2). The most distinct and unusual feature of Lake Qinghai summer temperature record is a temperature decrease of more than 4°C between 5 and 3.5 ka. Such temperature changes have not been observed in ice core records in Greenland and speleothem records in China and East Asia. Here we show, however, that this “unusual” feature is in fact prevalent in regional records.”

Loomis et al., 2015

Rebolledo et al., 2015

Kolansky et al., 2015

Esper et al., 2014

Rinne et al., 2014

Luoto et al., 2014

Yan et al., 2014

The results suggested that the mean SSTs around AD 990 (±40) and AD 50 (±40) were 28.1 °C and 28.7 °C, 0.8 °C and 1.4 °C higher than that during AD 1994–2005, respectivelyThese records, together with the tree ring, lake sediment and literature records from the eastern China and northwest China, imply that the temperatures in recent decades do not seem to exceed the natural changes in MCA [Medieval Climate Anomaly], at least in eastern Asia from northwest China to northern SCS.”

Gennaretti et al., 2014

Zinke et al., 2014

Bertrand et al., 2014

Silveira and Pezzi, 2014

Wunsch and Heimbach, 2014

A very weak long-term [1993-2011] cooling is seen over the bulk of the rest of the ocean below that depth [2000 m], including the entirety of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, along with the eastern Atlantic basin.”

Schneider et al. 2014

Böll et al., 2014

Caniupán et al., 2014

Rella and Uchida, 2014

Meyer et al., 2014

Eldevik et al., 2014

“Through the LH [Late Holocene], ocean temperatures [North Atlantic, Nordic Seas] are comparable to the present, but up to 1°C warmer

Elbert et al., 2013

Miles et al., 2013

Lecavalier et al., 2013

Saunders et al., 2013

Ault et al., 2013

de Jong et al., 2013

Rosenthal et al., 2013

“We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1°C and 1.5°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades.”

Hanhijärvi et al., 2013

“According to Chylek et al. (2009), the Arctic warming from 1900 to 1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the warming during the more recent decades and was highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting that the Arctic temperature variability is highly linked to the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation at various temporal scales.”

Butler et al., 2013

Massaferro and Larocque-Tobler, 2013

Bostock et al., 2013

Levy et al., 2013


Kylander et a., 2013

Antinao and McDonald, 2013

Esper et al., 2012

Delong et al., 2012

Pitman and Smith, 2012

 Cronin, 2012

Mulvaney et al., 2012

“A marine sediment record from off the shore of the western Antarctic Peninsula also shows an early Holocene optimum during which surface ocean temperatures were determined to be 3.5°C higher than present. Other evidence suggests that the George VI ice shelf on the southwestern Antarctic Peninsula was absent during this early-Holocene warm interval but reformed in the mid Holocene.”

Durantou et al., 2012

Sea surface temperature [Arctic Ocean] between ∼ AD 1885–1935 are warmer by up to 3°C with respect to the average modern temperature at the coring site.  For the period ∼ AD 1887–1945, reconstructed sea ice cover values are on average 8.3 months per year which is 1.1 months per year lower than the modern values.”

Kilian and Lamy, 2012

Li et al., 2011

Yamanouchi, 2011

Neukom et al., 2011

The reconstructed SSA [Southernmost South America] mean summer temperatures between 900 and 1350 are mostly above the 1901–1995 climatology. After 1350, we reconstruct a sharp transition to colder conditions, which last until approximately 1700. The summers in the eighteenth century are relatively warm with a subsequent cold relapse peaking around 1850. In the twentieth century, summer temperatures reach conditions similar to earlier warm periods.”

Divine et al, 2011

Liu et al., 2011

“Climate events worldwide, such as the MWP and LIA, were seen in a 2485-year temperature series. The largest amplitude and rate of temperature both occurred during the EJE [Eastern Jin Event (343–425 AD)], but not in the late 20th century. The millennium-scale cycle of solar activity determined the long-term temperature variation trends, while century-scale cycles controlled the amplitudes of temperature. Sunspot minimum events were associated with cold periods. The prediction results obtained using caterpillar-SSA showed that the temperature would increase until 2006 AD on the central-eastern Plateau, and then decrease until 2068 AD, and then increase again.”

Bird et al., 2011

Hanna et al., 2011

Shevenell et al., 2011

Govil et al., 2011

Ilyashuk et al. 2011

Shevenell et al., 2011

Godad et al., 2011

Saenger et al., 2011

“A prominent feature of this record is the ∼1°C warm anomaly that occurred between 1930 and 1950. … Carolina Slope SST does not exhibit the warming trend seen in the AMO since the 1970s suggesting that other factors also impact SST variability at our site.”

Ran et al., 2010

Yang et al., 2010

Bonnet et al., 2010

Sea-surface temperature (SST) estimates suggest warmer conditions than present (anomaly∼+2 °C) averaging at 7 °C in summer until 300 cal. years BP, although cooling pulses are recorded around 1700, 1500, 1200 and 800 cal. years BP. The last 300 years were marked by a cooling from 7.6 to 3.5 °C and sea-ice cover increasing up to 7 months/yr. … From 2500 to 300 cal. years BP, SSTs were relatively high with mean values of about 2 °C and 7 °C in winter and summer, respectively. Warm phases are recorded around 1900, 1600, 1320, 1120 and 325 cal. years BP, with an optimum centered at 1320 cal. years BP. After 300 cal. years BP, SSTs were significantly lower with mean values of about 0 °C and 3.5–4 °C in winter and summer, respectively. … The record of sea-surface conditions from core JM04 indicates warmer winter SSTs during the last 2500 years than the modern average. The only exception is the interval spanning from 250 to 50 years BP, which is characterized by particularly low temperatures both in winter and summer.”

Ran et al., 2010

Gerhard, 2004

Box et al., 2009

“Meteorological station records and regional climate model output are combined to develop a continuous 168-yr (1840–2007) spatial reconstruction of monthly, seasonal, and annual mean Greenland ice sheet near-surface air temperatures. The annual whole ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming.”


Saenger et al, 2009

Cook et al., 2009

Yadav and Singh, 2002

The 1945–1974 period was the warmest 30-yr mean period of the 20th century. However, this warming, in the context of the past four centuries, appears well within the range of normal limits. The 30-yr mean temperature anomaly for 1662–1691 (0.19°C) exceeds in magnitude (although not significantly, p = 0.23) the 1945–1974 mean (0.05°C).”

Renssen et al., 2009

Yadav, 2009

The decreasing temperature trend in late 20th century is consistent with trends noted in Nepal (Cook et al. 2003), Tibet (Briffa et al. 2001) and Central Asia (Briffa et al. 2001).

Rosenberg et al., 2004

Grudd et al., 2002

Schneider et al., 2006

Cook et al., 2006

von Gunten et al., 2009

Fan et al., 2009

Tyson et al., 2000

“The climate of the interior of South Africa was around 1°C cooler in Little Ice Age [AD 1300 to 1800] and may have been over 3°C higher than at present during the extremes of the medieval warm period [AD 1000 to 1300]. … It was variable throughout the millennium, but considerably more so during the warming of the eleventh to thirteenth centuries.  The lowest temperature events recorded during the Little Ice Age in South Africa are coeval with the Maunder and Sporer Minima in solar irradiance.  The medieval warming is shown to have coincided with … the Medieval Maximum in solar radiation.”

Doran et al., 2002

“[O]ur spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn.”

Cook et al., 2002

“This record is the longest yet produced for New Zealand and shows clear evidence for persistent above-average temperatures within the interval commonly assigned to the MWP [Medieval Warm Period]. Comparisons with selected temperature proxies from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres confirm that the MWP was highly variable in time and space. Regardless, the New Zealand temperature reconstruction supports the global occurrence of the MWP.”

Hanna and Cappelen, 2003

“Analysis of new data for eight stations in coastal southern Greenland, 1958–2001, shows a significant cooling (trend-line change −1.29°C for the 44 years), as do sea-surface temperatures in the adjacent part of the Labrador Sea”

Chuine et al., 2004

“Figure 1 [below] shows two early warm decadal fluctuations: one in the 1380s (0.72 °C) and one in the 1420s (0.57 °C), both above the 95th percentile. The warm period of the 1420s was followed by a cold period that lasted from the mid-1430s to the end of the 1450s (0.45 °C, under the 10th percentile). Our series also reveals particularly warm events, above the 90th percentile, in the 1520s and between the 1630s and the 1680s. These decades were as warm as the end of the twentieth century. The high-temperature event of 1680 was followed by a cooling, which culminated in the 1750s (under the 5th percentile) — the start of a long cool period that lasted until the 1970s.”

Menzel, 2005

Khiyuk and Chilingar, 2006

Hantemirov and Shiyatov, 2002

Drinkwater, 2006

Sano et al., 2005

“March–September temperature was reconstructed for the past 249 years, which shows a warming trend from 1750s until approximately 1790, followed by cooling until 1810, then by a gradual warming trend extending to 1950, and a notable cold period continuing up to the present. No evidence of a consistent warming trend over the last century or two commonly appearing in higher latitudes was found in the present reconstruction”

Etien et al., 2008

Box, 2002

“Temporal and spatial variability are analysed in Greenland instrumental temperature records from 24 coastal and three ice sheet locations. … The standard period 1961–90 was marked by 1–2°C statistically significant cooling.”

Bhattacharyya and Chaudhary, 2003

Moore et al., 2001

Summer temperatures at Donard Lake [Canadian Arctic] over the past 1250 yrs averaged 2.9 °C.  At the beginning of the 13th century, Donard Lake experienced one of the largest climatic transitions in over a millennium. Average summer temperatures rose rapidly by nearly 2 °C from 1195–1220 AD [+0.80 C per decade], ending in the warmest decade in the record (~4.3 °C).”

Fettweis et al., 2008

“The rate of warming in 1920– 1930 is the most spectacular as pointed out by Chylek et al. (2006). Finally, Greenland climate was colder around 1920 and, in the 1970s and 1980s. The temperature minimum (resp. maximum) seems to have occurred in 1992 after the Mont Pinatubo eruption (resp. in 1931). The warm summers of recent years (1998, 2003, 2005), associated with large melt extent areas (Fettweis et al., 2007), seem to be less warm than these of the 1930s, as also pointed out by Hanna et al. (2007). … The absolute minimum [surface mass balance] occurred around 1930 with a SMB anomaly near −300 km3 yr−1 . Secondary (minor) SMB minima appear to have occurred in 1950 and 1960, equalling the surface mass loss rates of the last few years (1998, 2003, 2006). … After the 1990s, the GrIS SMB decreases slowly to reach the negative anomalies of the last few years, although the summers of the 2000s were not exceptional compared to 70 yr ago

Goodkin et al., 2008

Huguet et al., 2006

Andersen et al., 2004

Richey et al, 2007

Jiang et al., 2005

Sepúlveda et al., 2009

Kim et al., 2007

Viau and Gajewski, 2009

Dupont et al., 2004

Masson-Delmotte et al., 2004

Weldeab et al, 2005

Birks and Seppä, 2004

Heiri and Lotter, 2005

Richter et al., 2009

Li et al., 2009

“The highest temperature was 22.7°C which was recorded at 1.01 cal ka BP. … Cooling period from 0.85 cal. ka BP to present. SST declined obviously in this period, with the maximum decrease amplitude of 2℃. … No global climate warming due to the greenhouse effect since the Industrial Revolution occurs in the study area.”

Tarasov et al., 2009

Yadav et al., 1997

The most striking feature of the present reconstruction is the absence of any warming trend in the 20th century

Dahl-Jensen et al., 1998

Leftist Fantasies Of Bloody Violence Now Becoming The New Reality

Note: Kenneth’s usual Thursday post will appear tomorrow

U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise was seriously wounded by a loony leftist gunman, who obviously had been driven over the edge by all the recent hate signals coming from a violence-inciting media.

However, all the left-wing environmental violence just didn’t start yesterday, or since Trump started his campaign. It has in fact been energetically brewing for years. We’ve been warning about it for a long time. Especially skeptics of alarmist climate science bear witness to this. For example an Austrian professor not long ago called for the execution of climate deniers.

Before that, in 2010, a video of pornographic violence produced by the 10 10 climate activism campaign and Richard Curtis fantasized of blowing up climate skeptics:

The message: people who refuse to accept global warming dogma need to be dehumanized, blown up and discarded with the trash. Today these disturbing fantasies of violence are becoming the new reality.

In 2007 Greenpeace featured an angry kid, who used highly threatening language aimed at adults who declined to agree to all radical carbon emissions reductions. Give in to our demands, or we’ll throw a tantrum like you’ve never seen.

That kid has since grown up, and we’ll note that none of his scripted “by the time I grow up” catastrophe scenarios have come to pass. Ironically the one prediction that has come true is that they “won’t be cute“. Today’s youth are resorting to a level of political violence and destruction not seen in generations.

Recently, Australian climate skeptic journalist Andrew Bolt was attacked as well. The list of attacks on skeptics is endless.

Severed heads, “blood in the streets”

On the political front, things have caught up and surpassed the viciousness we’ve seen in climate science. Far more disturbing was Grammy award-winning comedian Kathy Griffin holding up a model severed head looking like Donald Trump.

Yesterday Breitbart provided a list of 15 examples of celebrities envisioning violence against the GOP or President Trump.

Even former Department of Justice head Loretta Lynch hinted at “blood in the streets“.

Germany’s AfD party under constant violent attack

Leftist violence is not exclusive to the USA, but is worrisomely real in Germany. The right wing AfD party – a completely legal and totally legitimate party – has been physically attacked numerous times by leftist thugs. The media mostly ignores it all, and thus give the green light for the violence to continue.

Justice by thugs

In April one AfD politician was beaten with a board by a lunatically radicalized 18 year-old. Such attacks are often viewed with glee and snickers of delight in Germany. Alternative views and opinions are no longer tolerated in the land of “poets and thinkers”, where one can be in favor of intergenerational relationships, communism, Sharia law, etc. but must avoid expressing support for strong borders, Brexit or the US President.

Even hotels and establishments providing hosting services for AfD events are singled out and violently attacked. Die Welt here writes how one establishment owner had to shut down:

Doors were vandalized, tires punctured, horse manure sprayed: After massive threats an innkeeper in Schleswig Holstein closed his business. He had rented rooms to the AfD for an election campaign party.”

The list of attacks on the right wing party is long as well, and all carried out by radical leftists with the full blessing or tolerance of “mainstream” parties and media.

It’s time to call for a march of tolerance in Washington, and an end to the political posse that’s been unleashed by the left.


“Projections Made By Climate Models Wildly Exaggerated,” Scientists Say

Climate models in distress: Problems with forecast performance give cause to worry

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

The 2015/16 El Nino 2015/16 is over, and so are the celebrations by the climate alarmists. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the projections made by the climate models were wildly exaggerated. Already in April 2015 a Duke University press release stated that the worst IPCC temperature prognoses need to be discarded immediately:

Global Warming More Moderate Than Worst-Case Models
A new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records suggests global warming is not progressing as fast as it would under the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  

“Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,” said Patrick T. Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment. “But this could change.” The Duke-led study shows that natural variability in surface temperatures — caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors — can account for observed changes in the recent rates of warming from decade to decade. The researchers say these “climate wiggles” can slow or speed the rate of warming from decade to decade, and accentuate or offset the effects of increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. If not properly explained and accounted for, they may skew the reliability of climate models and lead to over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends.

The research, published today in the peer-reviewed journal Scientific Reports, uses empirical data, rather than the more commonly used climate models, to estimate  decade-to-decade variability. “At any given time, we could start warming at a faster rate if greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increase without any offsetting changes in aerosol concentrations or natural variability,” said Wenhong Li, assistant professor of climate at Duke, who conducted the study with Brown. The team examined whether climate models, such as those used by the IPCC, accurately account for natural chaotic variability that can occur in the rate of global warming as a result of interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors.

To test how accurate climate models are at accounting for variations in the rate of warming, Brown and Li, along with colleagues from San Jose State University and the USDA, created a new statistical model based on reconstructed empirical records of surface temperatures over the last 1,000 years. “By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the ‘big picture’ right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,” Brown said. “Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013.”

Further comparative analysis of the models revealed another intriguing insight. “Statistically, it’s pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections,” Brown said. “Hiatus periods of 11 years or longer are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario.” Under the IPCC’s middle-of-the-road scenario, there was a 70 percent likelihood that at least one hiatus lasting 11 years or longer would occur between 1993 and 2050, Brown said.  “That matches up well with what we’re seeing.” There’s no guarantee, however, that this rate of warming will remain steady in coming years, Li stressed. “Our analysis clearly shows that we shouldn’t expect the observed rates of warming to be constant. They can and do change.”

Paper: Patrick T. Brown, Wenhong Li, Eugene C. Cordero and Steven A. Mauget. Comparing the Model-Simulated Global Warming Signal to Observations Using Empirical Estimates of Unforced Noise. Scientific Reports, April 21, 2015 DOI: 10.1038/srep09957

Modelers like to pat each other on the back. Well modelled, dear colleague! Calibration tests using the past of course are all part of checking models. This in many cases starts with the Little Ice Age, which was the coldest phase of the past 10,000 years. When the models appear to reconstruct the warming since then, the joy runs quite high: Look here, everything is super.

The main driver of warming, however, remains unclear. Isn’t it logical that a re-warming follows a natural cooling? Is it a coincidence that CO2 rose during this phase?

More honest would be using calibration tests going back to the Medieval Warm Period  Only when the preindustrial warm phases are successfully reproduced can we say that the models are confirmed.

In 2015 Gómez-Navarro et al used the Little Ice Age trick. They began their test at 1500 AD. i.e. during the mentioned cold phase. The result is no surprise: The general trend is “confirmed”, but in detail it doesn’t work. Here’s the abstract from Climate of the Past:

A regional climate palaeosimulation for Europe in the period 1500–1990 – Part 2: Shortcomings and strengths of models and reconstructions
This study compares gridded European seasonal series of surface air temperature (SAT) and precipitation (PRE) reconstructions with a regional climate simulation over the period 1500–1990. The area is analysed separately for nine subareas that represent the majority of the climate diversity in the European sector. In their spatial structure, an overall good agreement is found between the reconstructed and simulated climate features across Europe, supporting consistency in both products. Systematic biases between both data sets can be explained by a priori known deficiencies in the simulation. Simulations and reconstructions, however, largely differ in the temporal evolution of past climate for European subregions. In particular, the simulated anomalies during the Maunder and Dalton minima show stronger response to changes in the external forcings than recorded in the reconstructions. Although this disagreement is to some extent expected given the prominent role of internal variability in the evolution of regional temperature and precipitation, a certain degree of agreement is a priori expected in variables directly affected by external forcings. In this sense, the inability of the model to reproduce a warm period similar to that recorded for the winters during the first decades of the 18th century in the reconstructions is indicative of fundamental limitations in the simulation that preclude reproducing exceptionally anomalous conditions. Despite these limitations, the simulated climate is a physically consistent data set, which can be used as a benchmark to analyse the consistency and limitations of gridded reconstructions of different variables. A comparison of the leading modes of SAT and PRE variability indicates that reconstructions are too simplistic, especially for precipitation, which is associated with the linear statistical techniques used to generate the reconstructions. The analysis of the co-variability between sea level pressure (SLP) and SAT and PRE in the simulation yields a result which resembles the canonical co-variability recorded in the observations for the 20th century. However, the same analysis for reconstructions exhibits anomalously low correlations, which points towards a lack of dynamical consistency between independent reconstructions.”

In January 2017 Benjamin Santer et al attempted to justify the validity of models. In the Journal of Climate they compared satellite data with the simulations of temperature over the last 18 years. The result: The models calculated a warming that was one and a half times more than what was measured in reality. Abstract:

Comparing Tropospheric Warming in Climate Models and Satellite Data
Updated and improved satellite retrievals of the temperature of the mid-to-upper troposphere (TMT) are used to address key questions about the size and significance of TMT trends, agreement with model-derived TMT values, and whether models and satellite data show similar vertical profiles of warming. A recent study claimed that TMT trends over 1979 and 2015 are 3 times larger in climate models than in satellite data but did not correct for the contribution TMT trends receive from stratospheric cooling. Here, it is shown that the average ratio of modeled and observed TMT trends is sensitive to both satellite data uncertainties and model–data differences in stratospheric cooling. When the impact of lower-stratospheric cooling on TMT is accounted for, and when the most recent versions of satellite datasets are used, the previously claimed ratio of three between simulated and observed near-global TMT trends is reduced to approximately 1.7. Next, the validity of the statement that satellite data show no significant tropospheric warming over the last 18 years is assessed. This claim is not supported by the current analysis: in five out of six corrected satellite TMT records, significant global-scale tropospheric warming has occurred within the last 18 years. Finally, long-standing concerns are examined regarding discrepancies in modeled and observed vertical profiles of warming in the tropical atmosphere. It is shown that amplification of tropical warming between the lower and mid-to-upper troposphere is now in close agreement in the average of 37 climate models and in one updated satellite record.”

See comments on this at WUWT.

Judith Curry reported on a PhD thesis in the Netherlands, where the author was involved with model results on a daily basis, which fired harsh criticism. An excerpt of the paper by Alexander Bakker:

In 2006, I joined KNMI to work on a project “Tailoring climate information for impact assessments”. I was involved in many projects often in close cooperation with professional users. In most of my projects, I explicitly or implicitly relied on General Circulation Models (GCM) as the most credible tool to assess climate change for impact assessments. Yet, in the course of time, I became concerned about the dominant role of GCMs. During my almost eight year employment, I have been regularly confronted with large model biases. Virtually in all cases, the model bias appeared larger than the projected climate change, even for mean daily temperature. It was my job to make something ’useful’ and ’usable’ from those biased data. More and more, I started to doubt that the ’climate modelling paradigm’ can provide ’useful’ and ’usable’ quantitative estimates of climate change.

After finishing four peer-reviewed articles, I concluded that I could not defend one of the major principles underlying the work anymore. Therefore, my supervisors, Bart van den Hurk and Janette Bessembinder, and I agreed to start again on a thesis that intends to explain the caveats of the ’climate modelling paradigm’ that I have been working in for the last eight years and to give direction to alternative strategies to cope with climate related risks. This was quite a challenge. After one year hard work a manuscript had formed that I was proud of and that I could defend and that had my supervisors’ approval. Yet, the reading committee thought differently.

According to Bart, he has never supervised a thesis that received so many critical comments. Many of my propositions appeared too bold and needed some nuance and better embedding within the existing literature. On the other hand, working exactly on the data-related intersection between the climate and impact community may have provided me a unique position where contradictions and nontrivialities of working in the ’climate modelling paradigm’ typically come to light. Also, not being familiar with the complete relevant literature may have been an advantage. In this way, I could authentically focus on the ’scientific adequacy’ of climate assessments and on the ’non- trivialities’ of translating the scientific information to user applications, solely biased by my daily practice.”

Read more at Judith Curry.

Leading Zoologist Slams Attacks On “Climate Skeptics”…Germany’s “Ministry Of Truth”

At the online Die Welt Prof. Josef Reichholf penned a commentary on climate science and the abuse by a German government attempting to act as a ministry of truth: “Quickly one gets labeled ‘climate denier’“.

Leading German zoologist Prof. Josef Reichholf slams data manipulations, German government acting as “Ministry of Truth”. Photo credit: Josef Reichholf, here.

The former Technical University of Munich zoologist/evolutionary biologist is considered among the top of his field. In his piece he first casts climate models into doubt, pointing out that temperature observations in fact diverge from the model projections. He sharply criticizes scientists who hold climate models as the truth and who fudge or cherry-pick the data so that they fit a predetermined outcome: “The data that fit are the right ones!”

Objective commentary “hardly possible”

He reminds that science entails skepticism, and if that is scorned, then something has to be very wrong with the science. Reichholf blasts the hostile environment in which skeptical journalists find themselves in Germany whenever they look at the data objectively. He writes:

An objective journalistic commentary here is hardly possible. Anyone who dares to do so risks being labelled a climate skeptic‘ or even a ‘climate denier’.”

Ministry of Truth

Reichholf slams Germany’s Ministry of Environment, which in 2013 defamed skeptical science journalist Michael Miersch (and other) in a government information brochure, where the Ministry wrote that they could not be trusted with climate science, portraying them as “spreaders of half-truths and misinformation“. He asks:

“Are we on the way to a Ministry of Truth?”

Reichholf concludes:

No office, also no federal ministry, can posses the dictatorial power over the progress of science. Critical journalism is needed here. Very much so!”


20 More New Papers Link Solar Forcing To Climate Change – Now 80 Sun-Climate Papers For 2017

Since 2014, 400 Scientific Papers

Affirm A Strong Sun-Climate Link

201780 Scientific Papers Linking Solar Forcing To Climate

2016133 Scientific Papers Linking Solar Forcing To Climate

201595 Scientific Papers Linking Solar Forcing To Climate

201493 Scientific Papers Linking Solar Forcing To Climate

The 20 Latest Sun-Climate Papers

“We confirm the occurrence of upcoming Modern grand minimum in 2020-2053 … [and] extremely incorrect prediction of the terrestrial temperature growth in the next century.” – Zharkova et al., 2017

1.     Gray et al., 2017     There are several proposed mechanisms through which the 11-year solar cycle (SC) could influence the Earth’s climate, as summarised by Figure 1. These include: (a) the direct impact of solar irradiance variability on temperatures at the Earth’s surface, characterised by variation in the total incoming solar irradiance (TSI); (b) the indirect impact of variations through the absorption of Ultra-Violet (UV) radiation in the upper stratosphere associated with the presence of ozone, with accompanying dynamical responses that extend the impact to the Earth’s surface; (c) the indirect impact of variations in energetic particle fluxes into the thermosphere, mesosphere and upper stratosphere at high geomagnetic latitudes; and (d) the impact of variations in the generation of ions by galactic cosmic ray (GCR) penetration into the troposphere. Although different in their nature, these four pathways may not work in isolation but their influence could be synergetic.”

2.     Zharkova et al., 2017     “Using a summary curve of two eigen vectors of solar magnetic field oscillations derived with Principal Components Analysis (PCA) from synoptic maps for solar cycles 21-24 as a proxy of solar activity, we extrapolate this curve backwards three millennia revealing 9 grand cycles lasting 350-400 years each. The summary curve shows a remarkable resemblance to the past sunspot and terrestrial activity: grand minima – Maunder Minimum (1645-1715 AD), Wolf minimum (1280-1350 AD), Oort minimum (1010-1050 AD) and Homer minimum (800 900 BC); grand maxima – modern warm period (1990-2015), medieval warm period (900-1200 AD), Roman warm period (400-10 BC) and others. We verify the extrapolated activity curve by the pre-telescope observations of large sunspots with naked eye, by comparing the observed and simulated butterfly diagrams for Maunder Minimum (MM), by a maximum of the terrestrial temperature and extremely intense terrestrial auroras seen in the past grand cycle occurred in 14-16 centuries.”
We confirm the occurrence of upcoming Modern grand minimum in 2020-2053, which will have a shorter duration (3 cycles) and, thus, higher solar activity compared to MM [Maunder Minimum]. … One of the examples of fitting incorrectly the oscillating function with a linear regression approach is shown by Akasofu (2010) (see her Fig. 9), when explaining the modern era recovery of the Earth from the little ice period and the incorrect use of a linear part of the temperature variations for the extremely incorrect prediction of the terrestrial temperature growth in the next century.”

3.     Harde, 2017     [A] naturally generated [CO2 emission] contributes more than 95% to the overall emission, and its generation rate and the respective absorption rate sensitively respond on global temperature variations. … [The] well known delayed response of CO2 and methane (CH4) to sea and air temperature changes (see, e.g., Petit et al. [2]; Monnin et al. [3]; Caillon et al. [4]; Torn and Harte [5]; Humlum et al. [6]; Salby [7]) are not considered in AR5. … As long as any natural variations in the CO2 concentrations are not accurately known, the ECS [equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling] cannot be used as a reliable indicator only for an anthropogenic global warming.”
The IPCC denies any noticeable solar influence on the actual climate, although strong evidence of an increasing solar activity over the last century exists (see, e.g., Hoyt & Schatten [8]; Willson & Mordvinov [9]; Shapiro et al. [10]; Ziskin & Shaviv [11]; Scafetta & Willson [12]; Usoskin et al. [13]; Zhao & Feng [14]; Soon et al. [15]). … From these studies we conclude that the measured temperature increase of 0.74∘ C over the time 1880–2000 and the observed cloud changes of −4% over the period 1983– 2000 can best be explained by a cloud feedback mechanism, which is dominated by the solar influence. Therefore, it seems quite reasonable to use a model mean of [climate sensitivity to doubled CO2] = 0.7°C, yielding a CO2 initiated warming of 0.3°C [1880-2000] and a solar contribution of 0.44°C [1880-2000].”

4.    Pande et al., 2017     “Ozone is a highly reactive, naturally occurring ingredient of the stratosphere that is produced from oxygen by sunlight.  It is one of the most important chemicals in both the stratosphere and troposphere.  Apart from absorbing the harmful ultaviolet radiation from the sun, it [ozone] also plays an important role in determining earth’s climate.  Solar variability affects ozone through radiative heating in atmosphere.  Solar UV radiation is absorbed by atmospheric ozone.  It is responsible for both the creation and destruction of ozone.  … The total ozone was found to be enhanced during magnetically disturbed conditions which are associated with peak solar activity periods.  Angell and Korshover (1976) concluded that there is nearly in-phase relationship between sunspot number and total ozone.”

5.     Le Mouël et al., 2017     [S]olar activity contains an important component that has undergone clear oscillations of  ≈90  years over the past three centuries, with some small but systematic longer-term evolution of “instantaneous” period and amplitude. Half of the variance of solar activity on these time scales can be satisfactorily reproduced as the sum of a monotonous multi-secular increase, a  ≈90 -year Gleissberg cycle, and a double-peaked (≈10.0  and 11.0 years) Schwabe cycle (the sum amounts to 46% of the total variance of the signal). The Gleissberg-cycle component definitely needs to be addressed when attempting to build dynamo models of solar activity. The first SSA component offers evidence of an increasing long-term trend in sunspot numbers, which is compatible with the existence of the modern grand maximum.

6.     Wen et al., 2017     “A warmer and wetter climate prevailed since ∼4800 a BP and was interrupted by a sharp cold reversal at approximately 3300 a BP that was likely caused by solar irradiance forcing, which resulted in a global cold climatic change and glacier advance.”

7.      Munz et al., 2017     “Decadal resolution record of Oman upwelling indicates solar forcing of the Indian summer monsoon (9–6 ka) … We use geochemical parameters, transfer functions of planktic foraminiferal assemblages and Mg /  Ca palaeothermometry, and find evidence corroborating previous studies showing that upwelling intensity varies significantly in coherence with solar sunspot cycles. The dominant  ∼  80–90-year Gleissberg cycle apparently also affected bottom-water oxygen conditions.”

8.     Allan et al., 2017     “Speleothem is now regarded as valuable archive of climatic conditions on the continents, offering a number of advantages relative to other continental climate proxy recorders such as lake sediments and peat cores. … [T]race elements in speleothems have the potential to provide high resolution insights into palaeoclimatic variability during the Holocene. A deeper analysis reveals several periods of significant rapid climate change during the Holocene (at 10.7-9.2 ka, 8.2-7.9 ka, 7.2-6.2 ka, 4.8-4.5 ka, and 3-2.4 ka BP), which are similar to the cold events detected from different natural paleoclimate archivers. A comparison between the geochemical analysis of Père Noël speleothem and solar activity (sunspot number) reveals a significant correlation. Spectral analysis methods reveal common solar periodicities (Gleissberg cycle, de Vries cycle, unnamed 500 year, Eddy cycles, and Hallstatt cycle). The geochemical analyses have the potential to prove that PN speleothem is sensitive to changes in solar activity on centennial and millennial timescales during the Holocene.”

9.     Woodson et al., 2017     “The last ca. 1000 years recorded the warmest SST averaging 28.5°C. We record, for the first time in this region, a cool interval, ca. 1000 years in duration, centered on 5000 cal years BP concomitant with a wet period recorded in Borneo. The record also reflects a warm interval from ca. 1000 to 500 cal years BP that may represent the Medieval Climate Anomaly. Variations in the East Asian Monsoon (EAM) and solar activity are considered as potential drivers of SST trends. However, hydrology changes related to the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variability, ~ shifts of the Western Pacific Warm Pool and migration of the Intertropical Convergence Zone are more likely to have impacted our SST temporal trend. …  The SA [solar activity] trends (Steinhilber et al., 2012) are in general agreement with the regional cooling of SST (Linsley et al., 2010) and the SA [solar activity] oscillations are roughly coincident with the major excursions in our SST data.”

10.     Li et al., 2017     “The main driving forces behind the Holocene climatic changes in the LYR [Lower Yangtze Region, East China] area are likely summer solar insolation associated with tropical or subtropical macro-scale climatic circulations such as the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), Western Pacific Subtropical High (WPSH), and El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO).”

11.    Chang et al., 2017     “The chironomid-based record from Heihai Lake shows a summer temperature fluctuation within 2.4°C in the last c. 5000 years from the south-east margin of the QTP [Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau]. … The summer temperature changes in this region respond primarily to the variation in the Asian Summer Monsoon. The variability of solar activity is likely an important driver of summer temperatures, either directly or by modifying the strength and intensity of the Indian Ocean Summer Monsoon. … We observed a relatively long-lasting summer cooling episode (c. 0.8°C lower than the 5000-year average) between c. 270 cal. BP and AD c. 1956. … The record shows cooling episodes occurred at c. 3100, 2600, 2100 and 1600 cal. BP.  This is likely related to the period defined as the Northern Hemisphere Little Ice Age (LIA; c. AD 1350–1850, equivalent to 600–100 cal. BP). These possibly relate to the 500-year quasi-periodic solar cycle. Cooling stages between c. 270 and 100 cal. BP were also recorded and these are possibly linked to the LIA suggesting a hemisphere-wide forcing mechanism for this event.”

12.     Lei et al., 2017     “The precipitation variability on decadal to multi-centurial generally always reflects changes in solar activity and large-scale circulation, e.g., the ENSO and the EASM [East Asian Summer Monsoon] (Chen et al., 2011; Vleeschouwer et al., 2012; Feng et al., 2014). [D]uring the MWP [Medieval Warm Period], the wetter climate in this region was consistent with more frequent ENSO events, stronger EASM and higher solar activity, whereas the opposite was found for the LIA. In particular, d13Cac fluctuations on multi-decadal to centennial scales is consistent with the changes in solar activity, with fewer dry intervals corresponding to periods of minimum solar activity within dating errors, which are referred to as the Oort Minimum (AD 1010-1050), Wolf Minimum (AD 1280-1340), Sporer Minimum (AD 1420-1530), Maunder Minimum (AD 1645-1715) and Dalton Minimum (AD 1795-1820). These results suggest that climate change in southeastern China is sensitive to ENSO and the EASM, which may be driven by solar activity.”

13.     Zhang et al., 2017     “The record suggests the summer temperature varies by ~2.5 °C across the entire period. A generally warmer period occurred between c.8500 and c.6000 cal yr BP and a cooling trend was initiated from c.5500 cal yr BP. The overall pattern broadly matches the summer insolation at 30N and the Asian Summer Monsoon records from the surrounding regions suggesting that summer temperatures from the southeast margin of the QTP respond to insolation forcing and monsoon driven variability on a multi-millennial time scale. Modifications of this overall trend are observed on the finer temporal resolution and we suggest that solar activity could be an important mechanism driving the centennial-scale variability. It may have a strengthened effect in the late Holocene when the monsoon influence weakened.”

14.     Luoto and Nevalainen, 2017     “Here, we use completely synchronized paleolimnological proxy-based records of air temperature and effective precipitation from two Scandinavian lakes with ∼2000-year sediment profiles. We show that the relationship between air temperature and precipitation (T/P ratio) is synchronous in both study sites throughout the records suggesting warm and dry conditions at ∼300–1100 CE and cold and wet conditions at ∼1200–1900 CE. Owing to the significantly increased air temperatures, the most recent T/P ratio has again turned positive. During the first millennium of the Common Era, the T/P mimics patterns in Southern Oscillation index, whereas the second millennium shows response to the NAO index but is also concurrent with solar irradiance shifts[T]he causes for the LIA [Little Ice Age [1200-1900 CE], are not well defined owing to its highly variable nature (Wanner et al. 2011; Luoto and Nevalainen 2016; Zawiska et al. 2017). Yet, in addition to a persistent strongly negative NAO index phase during the LIA, it was most likely forced by decreased solar irradiance (including Spörer, Maunder and Dalton solar minima), increased volcanic activity (aerosols), and changes in Atlantic Ocean circulation patterns (Grove 2001; Goosse et al. 2005; Wanner et al. 2011).”

15.     Li et al., 2017     “Correlations between paleotemperature records from the North Atlantic and solar activity suggest that changes in solar output may cause significant shifts in the climate of the North Atlantic region. To test the role of solar activity on summer SST at our study site in West Greenland, we conducted a cross-correlation analysis between our reconstructed summer SST record and a total solar irradiance (TSI) series. The results indicate that the maximum correlation coefficient (0.284) of summer SST [sea surface temperatures] and TSI [total solar irradiance] records is obtained at nearly zero time-lag (-6 time-lag), which means that variations in solar activity affected the summer SST variability in the study area. … A significant positive relationship between summer SSTs on the North Icelandic shelf and solar irradiance reconstructed from 10Be and 14C records during the Holocene was also demonstrated by Jiang et al. This finding is also supported by recent climate model simulations using the Community Climate System Model version 4 (CCSM4). The model results show a strong positive correlation between SST and solar irradiance in the pathway of the IC, indicating that a reduced frequency of Atlantic blocking events during periods of high solar irradiance promotes warmer and saltier conditions in the pathway of the IC due to stronger circulation of the subpolar gyre. … Spectral analyses indicate that significant centennial-scale variations are superimposed on the long-term orbital trend. The dominant periodicities are 529, 410, and 191 years, which may be linked to the well-known 512- and 206-year solar cycles. Cross-correlation analyses between the summer SSTs and total solar irradiance through the last 5000 years indicate that the records are in phase, providing evidence that variations in solar activity impacted regional summer SST variability. Overall, the strong linkage between solar variability and summer SSTs is not only of regional significance, but is also consistent over the entire North Atlantic region.”

16.     Orme et al., 2017     “The north-south index shows that storm tracks moved from a southern position to higher latitudes over the past 4000 yr, likely driven by a change from meridional to zonal atmospheric circulation, associated with a negative to positive North Atlantic Oscillation shift. We suggest that gradual polar cooling (caused by decreasing solar insolation in summer and amplified by sea-ice feedbacks) and mid-latitude warming (caused by increasing winter insolation) drove a steepening of the winter latitudinal temperature gradient through the late Holocene, resulting in the observed change to a more northern winter storm track.”

17.     Serykh and Sonechkin, 2017     “The global climate is a quasi-periodically forced dynamic system [1, 2]. In addition to the annual cycle of the heat transport from the Sun and the diurnal cycle of the Earth’s rotation, other external periodical forces exist, which are potentially able to cause climate fluctuations. The lunar and solar tides are such causes on the time scales of the order of one day. On the decadal scale, these causes are 11-year variations in the Sun spots (the Wolf cycle) and its double period manifested in the changes in the heliospheric field polarity (the Hale cycle). The existence of secular solar cycles is also possible (Gleissberg and Suess cycles found in a number of Sun spots). Calculations indicate that an approximately 180-year cycle exists in the rotation of the Sun around the center of mass of the Solar system. The authors of [3] suggest that it is related to the sequence of significant decreases in the solar activity in the last millennium known as the Oort, Wolf, Spörer, Maunder, and Dalton periods. Paleoclimatic evidence of climate cooling during these periods exists. We can conclude on this basis that the ONI [ENSO index] dynamics [are] governed predominantly by two periodical external forces (the annual heat transport to the climatic system from the Sun and the Chandler wobble of the Earth’s poles) and that the system is not chaotic. This fact indicates that a principal possibility exists for long-term (many years in advance) ENSO forecasts.”

18.     Kitaba et al., 2017     “The weakening of the geomagnetic field causes an increase in galactic cosmic ray (GCR) flux. Some researchers argue that enhanced GCR flux might lead to a climatic cooling by increasing low cloud formation, which enhances albedo (umbrella effect). Recent studies have reported geological evidence for a link between weakened geomagnetic field and climatic cooling. … Greater terrestrial cooling indicates that a reduction of insolation [solar radiation reaching the surface] is playing a key role in the link between the weakening of the geomagnetic field and climatic cooling. The most likely candidate for the mechanism seems to be the increased albedo of the umbrella effect.”

19.     Perșoiu et al., 2017     “Throughout the Holocene, the subterranean ice block in Scărișoara Ice Cave responded sensitively to changes in both winter temperature and moisture source. During this time period, winter temperature in ECE [East Central Europe] was mainly controlled by insolation [solar radiation] changes. The interplay between insolation variability, SST changes in the North Atlantic, and the influence of the lingering Laurentide Ice Sheet modulated the dynamics of large-scale atmospheric circulation.”

20.     Luthardt and Rößler     “The 11 yr solar cycle, also known as Schwabe cycle, represents the smallest-scaled solar cyclicity and is traced back to sunspot activity (Douglass, 1928; Lean, 2000), which has a measurable effect on the Earth’s climate, as indicated by the Maunder minimum (Usoskin et al., 2015). Global climate feedback reactions to solar irradiance variations caused by sunspots are complex and hypothesized to be triggered by (1) variation in total energy input (Cubasch and Voss, 2000), (2) the influence of ultraviolet light intensity variation on composition of the stratosphere (Lean and Rind, 2001), (3) the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation (Marsh and Svensmark, 2000; Sun and Bradley, 2002), and/or (4) the effect of high-energy particles on the strato- and mesosphere (Jackman et al., 2005). …  [L]ike today, sunspot activity caused fluctuations of cosmic radiation input to the atmosphere, affecting cloud formation and annual rates of precipitation

Trump Correct To Reject…Founder Of German Environmental Movement Calls Paris Accord A Bad Deal!

One of the founders of Germany’s modern environmental movement and a former renewable energies executive has publicly announced that President Donald Trump’s rejection of the Paris Accord is the right thing to do.

Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, a founder of Germany’s modern environmental movement, supports rejection of Paris Accord. Photo credit: Die kalte Sonne.

USA starts the CLEXIT

At his climate science critical website, Die kalte Sonne, Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt says the USA has de facto “begun the exit out of the Paris Climate Accord“, or CLEXIT, and that among world leaders at least Donald Trump comprehends that natural factors are at play in climate.

Moreover, Vahrenholt notes that upon really reading the Paris Accord for the first time, it is only now that the media have become surprised that it is not even a binding agreement, but instead one that only involves intentions by the rich countries to transfer cash to developing nations to the tune of $100 billion annually beginning in 2020.

He wonders why “neither Obama nor Merkel, Juncker or Macron have found it necessary so far to explain to their citizens the agreement burdens their own citizens to the benefit of no. 1 emitters China, and India“.

Vahrenholt calculated the 2030 per capita emissions China would be allowed by the Paris Accord:

In 2030 Europeans would have to lower their emissions to 4 tonnes per capita, while China’s would be allowed to rise to 14 onnes per capita and the USA would have to fall to 10 tonnes per capita. One has to ask, who signed, cheered and celebrated such an agreement and welcome it with tears of joy?”

Vahrenholt describes an agreement that is totally in favor of China, a country that plans to construct 368 coal power plants by 2020 while India plans to build 370. In his view the Paris Accord is a free ride for China.

Overall the Paris Accord will hardly have any effect on total emissions.

We can be happy that the American President Trump has seen this anachronism, and what on earth moved his predecessor to such a disadvantageous agreement?”

In Vahrenholt’s view the agreement is neither about the climate nor the environment, and that its real intention was made clear by Prof. Ottmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute in 2010:

Through climate policy we will de facto redistribute global wealth… One has to free himself of the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.”

Also the German professor of chemistry writes that European leaders cannot expect Trump to simply defraud his voters by not keeping his campaign promises, as controversial as some may be.

Vahrenholt, a member of the SPD socialist party, says Trump’s decision is nothing to criticize, and those who do criticize “either do not understand the mechanism of Paris, or have an interest in deindustrializing Germany and the bad USA.”

Vahrenholt also questions Germany’s Ministry of Environment (UBA) proposals to tax privately driven kilometers so that German citizens will finally stop driving and ride their bicycles more often, remarking: “There was once such a society: China 25 years ago.”

Overall Vahrenholt sees the Paris Accord as “practically dead” because “Trump’s most important announcement is a stop of all finances to the green climate fund, which was to be supplied with $100 billion beginning in 2020.” The USA’s share is 22%.

Vahrenholt also blasts the IPCC climate conference circuses of Cancun, Bali, Durban, etc..

The USA gave $55 million annually for this travelling climate circus to go to the most exotic locations of the world so that the Schellnhubers and Edenhofers of the globe could act like they were doing important things on the taxpayers’ dime.”

He cites Prof. Judith Curry. She wrote earlier this year (2017) that the IPCC climate models are not suitable to explain the causes of the 20th century warming or to forecast regional and global climate changes over decades, let alone a hundred years, and that they are not adequate for acting as a base for policymaking. Curry adds:

There’s growing evidence that the climate models are running too warm.”

Prof. Vahrenholt concludes his piece by advising EPA chief Scott Pruit to heed Curry’s recommendations.

Global Climate Policy Meets Its D-Day?…SPIEGEL: “CLIMATE ALLIANCE IS CRUMBLING”!

If we can believe Spiegel, it looks like the German political-climate blitz, led by Chancellor Angela Merkel, aimed at isolating and humiliating the United States, particularly President Donald Trump, appears to have run aground.

The Paris Climate Accord may be having its D-Day.

Image cropped from Spiegel here

According to the online English version of Der Spiegel,The German chancellor had been hoping to isolate Donald Trump on climate issues at the upcoming G-20 summit in Hamburg“, but a number of longtime US allies have decided that the overall relationship with America is more important than the flakey, UN-manufactured “climate crisis”.

Merkel’s international defeat

Spiegel writes that Merkel led the charge to try to get 19 countries of the G20 to turn against America and “make Trump a bogeyman of world history. A score of 19:1“.

Japan, in part due to obvious North Korean factors, is also hardly ready to upset its longstanding crucial Pacific ally.

No sooner did Merkel launch her climate anti-Trump campaign at the G7 summit did it begin to crumble, first because of pragmatism out of Canada, and then Great Britain. Merkel was not able get the six other countries of the G7 to make a statement against Trump. Spiegel sums up: “Climate policy is great, but when it comes to national interests, it is secondary.”

What’s left of the G7 attempt to isolate Trump is a lonely gaggle of Germany, Italy and France.

Spiegel summarizes it is “a defeat for Merkel” when it comes to climate policy and international leadership.

No mention of “climate” in G20 draft statements

Concerning the G20 meeting in Hamburg in July, there are already signs that the climate issue will also be secondary there as well. Spiegel writes how several drafts for joint statements have circulated and: “There isn’t a single mention of the climate in the document.”

Now that Merkel realizes her strategy to isolate Trump is not working, Spiegel writes that German government officials are now “eager to avoid turning the climate statement into an instrument of power politics” and that Merkel will likely to “retreat” to a role of mediator.

But it’s an election year and the race to bash and “to stand up to” Trump is as intense as ever. In polls Merkel’s CDU/CSU party currently holds a huge lead over the crumbling SPD socialist party, led by Martin Schulz. Merkel probably could even afford softening her anti-Trump stance.

Germany CO2 emissions reductions an embarrassment

Another factor that Spiegel did not bring up is that Germany’s climate charges against America in fact look ridiculous. How can anyone take Germany seriously on leadership in climate protection? This is a country that has not cut back its greenhouse gas emissions in 8 years and will completely miss its 40% reductions target by 2020.

Moreover, led by the Merkel government, Germany has massively slashed subsidies on green energies and the Chancellor’s pledge to put a million electric cars on the road by 2020 remains light years away.

Germany preaching America on cutting greenhouse gases is nothing short of a bad joke.


Zeke Hausfather Brings Real Climate’s CO2 Reduction Fantasies Back To Brutal Reality

It amazes me how activists and even highly educated scientists are clinging to the hope that global society is somehow still able to meet the junk-theoretical 2°C greenhouse gas emissions target.

And so I had to laugh when Zeke Hausfather at Twitter brought down two Potsdam, Germany, activist scientists from their fantasy world of radical CO2 reductions and back to brutal reality. Hausfather is right, we have to start getting real about things and how the world really works.

Time to wake up

Hausfather was reacting to a recent post by Stefan Rahmstorf and Anders Levermann over at Real Climate, where they seem to desperately hold on to the hope that the 2°C target can be reached – if we all sacrifice mightily. Unfortunately the only way that could happen is if governments declared a global state of emergency, called out the army and ordered everyone at gunpoint to cut massively CO2 emissions – to the absurd extent that would allow the theoretical 2°C target to be met. It almost feels like the two scientists would even accept that.

Yes, they say there’s a chance – if we reach peak emissions by 2020, and then if we all happily hop on our bicycles and eat a vegan diets thereafter.

Rahmstorf and Levermann write:

We will need an enormous amount of action and scaled up ambition to harness the current momentum in order to travel down the decarbonisation curve at the necessary pace; the window to do that is still open[x].”

Hasn’t anyone told Rahmstorf and Levermann that China and India aren’t going to change anything until 2030, at the absolute earliest (and that’s a big if)? Haven’t the two Potsdam scientists read the lax conditions in the Paris Accord?

Someone needs to sit the two scientists down and break the bad news to them: It’s already too late. The theoretical 2°C target is now pure fantasy. That point is long gone…assuming the CO2 theory is right to begin with.

“Strongly doubt any of the scenarios are remotely feasible”

I’m not the only one who is sure that the alarmists made the tactical mistake of placing the 2°C target goal posts way too close, but so is warmist Zeke Hausfather.

Here’s his reaction to the two German alarmist authors over at Twitter:

Looking at the chart above, if humanity had started cutting back say 25 years ago, it might have had a chance to reach that target. But as the chart shows, today it is only possible with ultra-drastic, state-of-emergency emissions cuts. Forget it – it’s not gonna ever happen.

I couldn’t resist, and so I left my comment (before it was taken down) in response to Zeke:


17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate Change

[T]he absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts.”  – Allmendinger, 2017

[G]lobal warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory.  The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers.”  – Blaauw, 2017

The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure.”  -Nikolov and Zeller, 2017

Allmendinger, 2017

The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory

The cardinal error in the usual greenhouse theory consists in the assumption that photometric or spectroscopic IR-measurements allow conclusions about the thermal behaviour of gases, i.e., of the atmosphere. They trace back to John Tyndall who developed such a photometric method already in the 19th century. However, direct thermal measurement methods have never been applied so far. Apart from this, at least twenty crucial errors are revealed which suggest abandoning the theory as a whole. In spite of its obvious deficiencies, this theory has so far been an obstacle to take promising precautions for mitigating the climate change. They would consist in a general brightening of the Earth surface, and in additional measures being related to this. However, the novel effects which were found by the author, particularly the absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts.”

Blaauw, 2017

“This paper demonstrates that global warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. This explanation is based on a simple model of the Earth’s climate system consisting of three layers: the surface, a lower and an upper atmospheric layer. The distinction between the atmospheric layers rests on the assumption that the latent heat from the surface is set free in the lower atmospheric layer only. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers. All variations in the energy exchanges can be expressed in terms of the temperature variations of the layers by means of an energy transfer matrix. It turns out that the latent heat transfer as a function of the temperatures of the surface and the lower layer makes this matrix next to singular. The near singularity reveals a considerable negative feedback in the model which can be identified as the ‘Klimaversta¨rker’ presumed by Vahrenholt and Lu¨ning. By a suitable, yet realistic choice of the parameters appearing in the energy transfer matrix and of the effective heat capacities of the layers, the model reproduces the global warming: the calculated trend in the surface temperature agrees well with the observational data from AD 1750 up to AD 2000.”

Nikolov and Zeller, 2017

Our analysis revealed that GMATs [global mean annual temperatures] of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. … The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure The hypothesis that a freely convective atmosphere could retain (trap) radiant heat due its opacity has remained undisputed since its introduction in the early 1800s even though it was based on a theoretical conjecture that has never been proven experimentally.”

Huang et al., 2017

“Various scientific studies have investigated the causal link between solar activity (SS) and the earth’s temperature (GT). [T]he corresponding CCM [Convergent Cross Mapping] results indicate increasing significance of causal effect from SS [solar activity] to GT [global temperature] since 1880 to recent years, which provide solid evidences that may contribute on explaining the escalating global tendency of warming up recent decades. … The connection between solar activity and global warming has been well established in the scientific literature. For example, see references [1–10]. … Among which, the SSA [Singular Spectrum Analysis] trend extraction is identified as the most reliable method for data preprocessing, while CCM [Convergent Cross Mapping] shows outstanding performance among all causality tests adopted. The emerging causal effects from SS [solar activity] to GT [global temperatures], especially for recent decades, are overwhelmingly proved, which reflects the better understanding of the tendency of global warming.”

Viterito, 2017

The Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming (CSARGW) demonstrated that increasing seismic activity in the globe’s high geothermal flux areas (HGFA) is strongly correlated with global temperatures (r=0.785) from 1979-2015. The mechanism driving this correlation is amply documented and well understood by oceanographers and seismologists. Namely, increased seismic activity in the HGFA (i.e., the mid-ocean’s spreading zones) serves as a proxy indicator of higher geothermal flux in these regions. The HGFA include the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the East Pacific Rise, the West Chile Rise, the Ridges of the Indian Ocean, and the Ridges of the Antarctic/Southern Ocean. This additional mid-ocean heating causes an acceleration of oceanic overturning and thermobaric convection, resulting in higher ocean temperatures and greater heat transport into the Arctic. This manifests itself as an anomaly known as the “Arctic Amplification,” where the Arctic warms to a much greater degree than the rest of the globe. Applying the same methodology employed in CSARGW, an updated analysis through 2016 adds new knowledge of this important relationship while strengthening support for that study’s conclusions. The correlation between HGFA seismic frequency and global temperatures moved higher with the addition of the 2016 data: the revised correlation now reads 0.814, up from 0.785 for the analysis through 2015. This yields a coefficient of determination of .662, indicating that HGFA [high geothermal flux area] seismicity accounts for roughly two-thirds of the variation in global temperatures since 1979.”

Hertzberg et al., 2017

This study examines the concept of ‘greenhouse gases’ and various definitions of the phenomenon known as the ‘Atmospheric Radiative Greenhouse Effect’. The six most quoted descriptions are as follows: (a) radiation trapped between the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere; (b) the insulating blanket of the atmosphere that keeps the Earth warm; (c) back radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface; (d) Infra Red absorbing gases that hinder radiative cooling and keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be – known as ‘otherwise radiation’; (e) differences between actual surface temperatures of the Earth (as also observed on Venus) and those based on calculations; (f) any gas that absorbs infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface towards free space. It is shown that none of the above descriptions can withstand the rigours of scientific scrutiny when the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics are applied to them.”

Song, Wang & Tang, 2016

A Hiatus of the Greenhouse Effect

In the last subperiod [2003-2014], the global averaged SULR [surface upwelling longwave radiation/greenhouse effect] anomaly remains trendless (0.02 W m−2 yr−1) because Ts [global temperatures] stop rising. Meanwhile, the long-term change of the global averaged OLR anomaly (−0.01 W m−2 yr−1) is also not statistically significant. Thus, these two phenomena result in a trendless Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect]. …  [A]remarkably decreasing Gaa trend (−0.27 W m−2 yr−1) exists over the central tropical Pacific, indicating a weakened atmospheric greenhouse effect in this area, which largely offsets the warming effect in the aforementioned surrounding regions. As a result, a trendless global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is displayed between 1991 and 2002 (Fig. 2).  … Again, no significant trend of the global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is found from 2003 to 2014 (Fig. 2) because the enhanced warming effect over the western tropical Pacific is largely counteracted by the weakened warming influence on the central tropical Pacific.”

Manheimer, 2016

[T]he actual data show that up to now fears of imminent climate catastrophe are not supported by data, or else involve processes occurring since long before excess CO2 in the atmosphere became a concern. Based on actual measurements and reasonable extrapolation of them, there is no reason why the responsible use of fossil fuel cannot continue to support worldwide civilisation. The argument to greatly restrict fossil fuel rests entirely on the theoretical assertion that at some point in the near future there will be a sudden and dramatic change in the very nature of the data presented here. If implemented, these would be sufficient to greatly upset the lifestyle of billions of people, and to further impoverish the already most impoverished parts of the world. …  [N]othing in the past suggests that future climate will be significantly different before mid century because of rising levels of CO2.”

Hertzberg and Schreuder, 2016

“The authors evaluate the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensus that the increase of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is of anthropogenic origin and is causing dangerous global warming, climate change and climate disruption. The totality of the data available on which that theory is based is evaluated. The data include: (a) Vostok ice-core measurements; (b) accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere; (c) studies of temperature changes that precede CO2 changes; (d) global temperature trends; (e) current ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere; (f) satellite data for the geographic distribution of atmospheric CO2; (g) effect of solar activity on cosmic rays and cloud cover. Nothing in the data supports the supposition that atmospheric CO2 is a driver of weather or climate, or that human emissions control atmospheric CO2.”

Mikhailovich et al., 2016

About the Influence of the Giant Planets on

Long-Term Evolution of Global Temperature

The observed variability of global temperature is usually explained through the decrease in the coefficient of the grayness of the Earth caused by increased content of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as CO2, i.e. by the anthropogenically caused increase in the greenhouse effect. The validity of such views raises some doubts, as their validity is based either on the results of the climate simulation, or on the results of the regression analysis, in relation to which the fullness of the used set of regression does not seem certain. At the same time, just the results of climate modeling do not seem to be quite reliable … The effects associated with the displacement of the center of gravity of the solar system under the influence of giant planets (Jupiter and Saturn) are discussed. Based on the hypothesis of parametric resonance in the variation of global temperature with disturbances in the photosphere shape and the Earth-to-Sun distance due to the oppositions of said planets, a regression model that explains the observed long-term evolution of global temperature is built. It was shown that residuals of the model are close to white noise, i.e. the [influence of planets] hypothesis almost entirely explains the effect of temperature increase for the period presented in the vernacular crutem3 database [1850-present].”

 Vares et al., 2016

… Earth’s Magnetic Dipole Intensity … Geomagnetic

Activity … Causal Source for Global Warming

“Quantitative analyses of actual measurements rather than modeling have shown that “global warming” has been heterogeneous over the surface of the planet and temporally non-linear. Residual regression analyses by Soares (2010) indicated increments of increased temperature precede increments of COincrease. The remarkably strong negative correlation (r = -0.99) between the earth’s magnetic dipole moment values and global CO2-temperature indicators over the last ~30 years is sufficient to be considered causal if contributing energies were within the same order of magnitude. Quantitative convergence between the energies lost by the diminishing averaged geomagnetic field strength and energies gained within the ocean-atmosphere interface satisfy the measured values for increased global temperature and CO2 release from sea water. The pivotal variable is the optimal temporal unit employed to estimate the total energies available for physical-chemical reactions. The positive drift in averaged amplitude of geomagnetic activity over the last 100 years augmented this process. Contributions from annual CO2 from volcanism and shifts in averaged geomagnetic activity, lagged years before the measured global temperature-CO2 values, are moderating variables for smaller amplitude perturbations. These results indicated that the increase in CO2 and global temperatures are primarily caused by major geophysical factors, particularly the diminishing total geomagnetic field strength and increased geomagnetic activity, but not by human activities. Strategies for adapting to climate change because of these powerful variables may differ from those that assume exclusive anthropomorphic causes.”

Easterbrook, 2016

CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2 has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2 causes global warming, then CO2 should always precede warming when the Earth’s climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2 lags warming by 800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing—warming always precedes an increase in CO2 and therefore it cannot be the cause of the warming.”

Chemke et al., 2016

The Thermodynamic Effect of Atmospheric

Mass on Early Earth’s Temperature

Observations suggest that Earth’s early atmospheric mass differed from the present day. The effects of a different atmospheric mass on radiative forcing have been investigated in climate models of variable sophistication, but a mechanistic understanding of the thermodynamic component of the effect of atmospheric mass on early climate is missing. Using a 3D idealized global circulation model (GCM), we systematically examine the thermodynamic effect of atmospheric mass on near-surface temperature. We find that higher atmospheric mass tends to increase the near-surface temperature mostly due an increase in the heat capacity of the atmosphere, which decreases the net radiative cooling effect in the lower layers of the atmosphere. Additionally, the vertical advection of heat by eddies decreases with increasing atmospheric mass, resulting in further near-surface warming. As both net radiative cooling and vertical eddy heat fluxes are extratropical phenomena, higher atmospheric mass tends to flatten the meridional temperature gradient.

An increase in atmospheric mass causes an increase in near-surface temperatures and a decrease of the equator-pole near-surface temperature gradient. Warming is caused mostly by the increase in atmospheric heat capacity, which decrease the net radiative cooling of the atmosphere.

[No mention of CO2 as a factor in warming the Earth-Atmosphere system]

Haine, 2016

“Notably, the three studies [Jackson et al., 2016 Böning et al., 2016Robson et al., 2016] report an absence of anthropogenic effects on the AMOC, at least so far: the directly observed AMOC weakening since 2004 is not consistent with the hypothesis that anthropogenic aerosols have affected North Atlantic ocean temperatures. The midlatitude North Atlantic temperature changes since 2005 have greater magnitude and opposite sign (cooling) than those attributed to ocean uptake of anthropogenic heat. The anthropogenic melt from the Greenland ice sheet is still too small to be detected.. And despite large changes in the freshwater budget of the Arctic, some of which are anthropogenic, there is no clear change in the delivery of Arctic freshwater to the North Atlantic due to human climate forcing.”

Ellis and Palmer, 2016

Conclusion: “[I]nterglacial warming is eccentricity and polar ice regrowth regulated, Great Summer forced, and dust-ice albedo amplified. And the greenhouse-gas attributes of CO2 play little or no part in this complex feedback system.”

Evans, 2016

The conventional basic climate model applies “basic physics” to climate, estimating sensitivity to CO2. However, it has two serious architectural errors. It only allows feedbacks in response to surface warming, so it omits the driver-specific feedbacks. It treats extra-absorbed sunlight, which heats the surface and increases outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR), the same as extra CO2, which reduces OLR from carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere but does not increase the total OLR. The rerouting feedback is proposed. An increasing CO2 concentration warms the upper troposphere, heating the water vapor emissions layer and some cloud tops, which emit more OLR and descend to lower and warmer altitudes. This feedback resolves the nonobservation of the “hotspot.” An alternative model is developed, whose architecture fixes the errors. By summing the (surface) warmings due to climate drivers, rather than their forcings, it allows driver-specific forcings and allows a separate CO2 response (the conventional model applies the same response, the solar response, to all forcings). It also applies a radiation balance, estimating OLR from properties of the emission layers. Fitting the climate data to the alternative model, we find that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is most likely less than 0.5°C, increasing CO2 most likely caused less than 20% of the global warming from the 1970s, and the CO2 response is less than one-third as strong as the solar response. The conventional model overestimates the potency of CO2 because it applies the strong solar response instead of the weak COresponse to the CO2 forcing.”

Gervais, 2016

Anthropogenic CO2 Warming Challenged By 60-year Cycle

Conclusion: “Dangerous anthropogenic warming is questioned (i) upon recognition of the large amplitude of the natural 60–year cyclic component and (ii) upon revision downwards of the transient climate response consistent with latest tendencies shown in Fig. 1, here found to be at most 0.6 °C once the natural component has been removed, consistent with latest infrared studies (Harde, 2014). Anthropogenic warming well below the potentially dangerous range were reported in older and recent studies (Idso, 1998; Miskolczi, 2007; Paltridge et al., 2009; Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009; Lindzen and Choi, 2009, 2011; Spencer and Braswell, 2010; Clark, 2010; Kramm and Dlugi, 2011; Lewis and Curry, 2014; Skeie et al., 2014; Lewis, 2015; Volokin and ReLlez, 2015). On inspection of a risk of anthropogenic warming thus toned down, a change of paradigm which highlights a benefit for mankind related to the increase of plant feeding and crops yields by enhanced CO2 photosynthesis is suggested.”

Germany’s Environment Ministry Blames “Cold Winter” For Stalled Fight Against Climate Warming!

Germany’s Federal Ministry of Environment (UBA) has released its latest annual Report of Indicators: DATA ON THE ENVIRONMENT 2017, which is designed to provide “a comprehensive overview of the environment’s status”.

Today’s post looks mainly at the climate and energy part of the report. One thing we can conclude from it: Germany is failing horribly to reach its emissions targets, as the following chart in the report shows:

German equivalent Co2 emissions fell from 1,251 million tonnes in 1990 to 906 million tonnes in 2016. However, there has not been reductions in 8 years. Source: UBA

Not surprisingly the UBA is in total dissatisfied with Germany’s progress on many environmental fronts, and the report reads like a thinly veiled anti-industry, anti-population growth manifesto. It sees major challenges in “climate change, the nitrogen problem, diminishing biodiversity, consumption of resources or the terrible ecological condition of our lakes and rivers, and including plastic in the oceans and seas”.

On climate change it summarizes:

Climate change is now all too obvious: 2016 was the warmest since measurements began. The 20 warmest years since 1850 have all occurred since 1990. The German federal government has set the target of reducing greenhouse gases 40% by 2020 compared to 1990. According to the latest numbers they have, however, risen over the past year. A cold winter and the rise of emissions from transportation were the cause. The current development doesn’t suffice for reaching the target.”

Ironically Germany’s failure to be on course to meet it’s anti-warming targets gets blamed in part on “a cold winter”, the report claims.

Also Germany’s consumption of primary energy also has not gone down since 2008, as the following chart shows:

Source: AGEB

Obviously, draconian measures will have to be taken if the country wants to hit its 2020 target.

It’s important to note that the first reductions are rather easy, as it simply entails avoiding wasting energy. But from now on it is going to require squeezing it out through expensive technical means and painful sacrifice.

And with Donald Trump dumping Paris Accord, a number of countries will probably have little incentive to cut back their energy consumption, and thus will only make it even harder for go-it-alone countries.

There is one success that Germany’s UBA can boast: Revenue pouring into state coffers from environmental taxes, fees and surcharges almost hit a new all-time record, reaching 58.2 billion euros (i.e. about 750 euros for each and every citizen).

Source: German Federal Statistics Office (2016)

So profitable can environmental protection be for the state.