US Blizzards, Snowfalls Have Increased Since1950s, Surprising Global Warming Climatologists

On January 4 NTZ weekly contributor Kenneth Richard published a list of 485 papers dumping cold water on climate alarmism in 2017.

Looking through the list I find published papers showing that snowfall frequency has in fact increased over the the past 60 years!

Blizzard activity jumps fourfold

For example a paper by Coleman and Schwartz, 2017 revealed 713 blizzards over the 55 years with 57 federal disaster declarations resulting. Of these 57 declared disasters, more than a half have occurred since the year 2000.

The published scientific study also founds that “seasonal blizzard frequencies displayed a distinct upward trend, with a more substantial rise over the past two decades”.

It adds that the modeled increase in blizzard activity showed a “nearly fourfold upsurge between the start and end of the study period at 5.9 and 21.6 blizzards, respectively”. If the trend continues, then we would need to expect even more such blizzards.

In a another publication, Changnon, 2017 evaluated heavy 30-day snowfall amounts east of the Rockies in the United States during the period 1900-2016. The comprehensive data assessment identified 507 stations in this long-term climate study.

The author examined the top 30-day heavy snowfall amount and the average of the top five 30-day heavy snowfall amounts. The findings also surprised global warming scientists who warned earlier that snowfall would become less frequent as the globe warmed. The publications abstract reads:

The northern Great Plains, Great Lakes, Midwest, and Northeast experienced more top five periods [more snow] in the second half of the 117-year period [1958-2016], where most of the southern states experienced top five periods throughout the study period.”

Finally a study conducted by Hatchett et al., 2017 found a “winter snow level rise in the northern Sierra Nevada from 2008 to 2017”. Sea surface temperatures offshore California were observed to be related to snow cover.

New Paper: 1,407 Contiguous U.S. Temperature Stations Reveal NO WARMING TREND During 1901-2015

The Warming ‘Hole’ Myth

Non-Warming Regions Are More Rule Than Exception 

Earlier this month, the authors of a new paper (Partridge et al., 2018) published in Geophysical Research Letters promulgated the term “warming hole” to describe the cooling temperatures gripping most of the Eastern half of the United States from the late 1950s through 2015.

“We present a novel approach to characterize the spatiotemporal evolution of regional cooling across the eastern U.S. (commonly called the U.S. warming hole), by defining a spatially explicit boundary around the region of most persistent cooling. The warming hole emerges after a regime shift in 1958 where annual maximum (Tmax) and minimum (Tmin) temperatures decreased by 0.46°C and 0.83°C respectively. … [T]he seasonal modes also vary in causation. Winter temperatures in the warming hole are significantly correlated with the Meridional Circulation Index (MCI), North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). … We select only stations in the contiguous U.S. that have an 80% complete record from 1901-2015, resulting in 1407 temperature stations.”

Of course, by characterizing it as merely a “hole” in the global-scale warming over this period, this cooling has been portrayed as highly anomalous, an isolated exception to the trends that have encompassed the rest of the Earth.

But is this particular Eastern U.S. cooling trend truly an exception for this period?  From all appearances, no.  Large regions of the Earth have also cooled, or at least not warmed, in the last several decades.

Even a closer inspection of this “warming hole” paper (Partridge et al., 2018) reveals that not only did 124 temperature stations from the Eastern U.S. “warming hole” region show a cooling trend since the 1950s, but another 1,283 stations from the rest of the continental U.S. (mostly the Western half ) also did not collectively show a clear warming trend throughout the entire 115-year period.

In other words, 1,407 temperature stations from across the contiguous U.S. do not show any warming trend during 1901 to 2015.

About 1/3rd Of The Northern Hemisphere Cooled During 1990-2015

According to the IPCC, modern warming has a “global signature“, whereas past warming and cooling events such as the Medieval Climate Anomaly and Little Ice Age were not “globally synchronous”.

But if  modern warming truly is both global and synchronous, why are large regions of the Earth experiencing cooling — or at least non-warming — trends in recent decades?

In the Northern Hemisphere, for example, scientists (Kretschmer et al., 2018) have identified other “warming holes” in the temperature data for the 1990-2015 period.  About 80% of the contiguous U.S., Europe and much of Asia, including parts of the Arctic (Eastern Siberia), cooled during the 1990-2015 period.  These cooling regions may encompass approximately one-third of the top half of the globe.

“Despite global warming, recent winters in the Northeastern United States (US), Europe and especially in Asia were anomalously cold. Some mid-latitude regions like Central Asia and eastern Siberia even show a downward temperature trend in winter over the past decades (Cohen et al. 2014a; McCusker et al. 2016).”

In some regions that were depicted as warming overall during 1990-2015 in the graph above, there has been a cooling trend since the mid-2000s.

 Image Source: Smeed et al., 2018

Image Source: Cheung, 2017

Image Source: Yan et al., 2015

Much Of The Southern Hemisphere Has Been Cooling Since 1979

In the Southern Hemisphere, Antarctica has not warmed in the last 38 years.

Image Source: Climate4You

The Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica and extending into the South Pacific has been cooling since 1979 (Purich et al., 2018) .

Observed Southern Ocean changes over recent decades include a surface freshening (Durack and Wijffels 2010; Durack et al. 2012; de Lavergne et al. 2014), surface cooling (Fan et al. 2014; Marshall et al. 2014; Armour et al. 2016; Purich et al. 2016a) and circumpolar increase in Antarctic sea ice (Cavalieri and Parkinson 2008; Comiso and Nishio 2008; Parkinson and Cavalieri 2012). … The majority of CMIP5 models do not simulate a surface cooling and increase in sea ice, as seen in observations.”


So Why Do The Global Temperature Graphs Show Such Strong Warming In Recent Decades?

Global temperature graphs are made to look like they are burning hot all across the globe.

But the “data” that adds varying shades of red coloration to graphs of global temperature are largely just in-filled by computer models.  That’s a nice way of saying they’re mostly concocted, as there is no actual temperature data available in the regions of the globe (gray) where much of the Earth is allegedly sweltering.

Image(s) Source:

Southern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperatures ‘Mostly Made Up’

Dr. Phil Jones, overseer of the Climate Research Unit temperature data, even admitted in an intercepted e-mail that the sea surface temperature data in the Southern Hemisphere temperature record are “mostly made up”.

The Leaked Hide the Decline Conversations With Dataset Overseers

 “…you really ought to replace the values from 1961 onwards with observed [instrumental] temperatures due to the decline.”
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were” …. “Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures – another way of ‘correcting’ for the decline, though may be not defensible!”

Dataset Overseers ‘Hide The Decline’ In Temperatures By Changing Data

It is likely that the reason why today’s global temperature reconstructions show such strong warming in recent decades (and rather unremarkable rise in the early 20th century) is that they have been heavily adjusted to match climate model expectations.  The adjustments cool the past and warm the present to fit with the explosive linear trend in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

For example, the combined Hadley Centre and Climatic Research Unit (HadCRUT) data set — which is featured in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports — underwent a revision from version 3 to version 4 in March of 2012.  This was about a year before the latest IPCC report was to be released (2013).  At the time (early 2012), it was quite inconvenient to the paradigm that HadCRUT3 was highlighting a slight global cooling trend between 1998 and 2012, as shown in the graph below (using HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT4 raw data from WoodForTrees).

Graphs used by the IPCC depicting a slight cooling trend since 1998 would not be acceptable to policymakers wishing to emphasize the urgency of addressing dangerous global warming.  So, just in time for the 2013 edition of the IPCC report, about 0.1°C was added to the 1998-2012 HadCRUT trend.  The effect was to transform the slight cooling into what the IPCC called a “hiatus” from warming.  To achieve the removal of the slight cooling trend found in HadCRUT3, the more recent anomalies in HadCRUT4 were warmed up (by 0.1 to 0.2°C), whereas the past warmth (especially around 1998) was left intact.  The effect was to warm the present and cool the past.

Source: WoodForTrees

Artificially Removing 0.5°C From The 1880-1950 Warming

As recently as 1990, it was commonly accepted that there was pronounced warming of about 0.5°C between the data points 1880 and 1950.

Image Source: Pirazzoli, 1990

This 0.5°C rise in global temperatures between 1880-1950 (and 0.6°C between 1880 and 1940) can clearly be seen in the NASA GISS graph from 1987:

Schneider, S. H. 1989 The greenhouse effect: Science and policy. Science 243: 771-81.

By 2014, the 0.5°C of warming between the years 1880 and 1950 had been completely eliminated.  There is now no trend between those two data points.

Image Source: NOAA (2014)

What Warming Hole?

The portrayal of a globally-synchronous warming of the Earth with only small pockets of “warming hole” anomalies  is not supported by local and regional data reported in scientific papers.

There are not tiny, isolated holes of cooling in an otherwise uniformly-warming world.  These are gaping expanses of cooling…or non-warming.

Yes, some regions of the globe have been warming.  Some regions have been cooling.  And some regions remain trendless.

But in recent decades, the warming has not been global in scope.

Greenland, Antarctica And Dozens Of Areas Worldwide Have Not Seen Any Warming In 60 Years And More!

Guest writer Kenneth Richard provided in a comment an abbreviated list of locations across the globe that have not seen any warming over the past 60 years and more.

Yet many authorities at these locations are rushing blindly to curb rapid warming they falsely believe is taking place. Maybe they ought to look at the data for once before wasting billions trying to prevent something that isn’t even there.

For example the North Atlantic, an important region concerning global climate, has not warmed since the 1870s!

The North Atlantic was warmer 130 years ago than it is today. Source: de Jong and de Steuer, 2016.

Greenland as stable as ever

Greenland, a major concern of climate alarmists because it stockpiles enough ice to raise global sea levels some 6 meters, also hasn’t warmed in since the 1880s, as the following chart from Mikkelsen et al 2018 shows:

Antarctica: no warming in 200 years

The big sea level kahuna of course is Antarctica. If that huge block of ice ever melted completely, sea levels would rise some 60 meters! And thus submerge vast areas of lowlands worldwide (never mind it would take thousands of years at extremely higher global temperatures).

Yet According to Schneider et al 2006, there hasn’t been warming there in 200 years!

Antarctic temperatures in fact had been heading sharply south at the time the paper was published.

Himalayas: no warming in 300 years!

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research Director Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber once embarrassed himself by claiming the massive Himalayan glaciers would melt by the year 2030. But the following chart tells us that it might take just a bit longer:

According to a study by Thapa et al, 2015, the Himalayas recently have been cooling and the temperature there now is like it was 300 years ago! Don’t worry, when the year 2030 comes around, we’ll be sure to check to see if the ice is still there. In the meantime, do your best bearing all the suspense.

And so it goes region after region. So the next time the media and climate alarmists issue panicked warnings of rapid warming and melting ice caps, we need to ask ourselves: What the hell are they raving about? Are they okay?

The following is only an abbreviated list of places that have not cooled in a long time, and Kenneth says there are hundreds more like these. Many are from the results of very recent papers. Click on the links provided for the charts.

Since 1870s – no warming
Greenland – no warming
New Zealand – no warming
Antarctica – no warming
North Atlantic – no warming
Western Pacific – no warming
India/Western Himalaya – no warming
Pakistan – no warming
Turkey – no warming
Himalayas/Nepal – no warming
Siberia – no warming
Portugal – no warming
NE China – no warming
SW China – no warming
South China – no warming
West China – no warming
Southern South America – no warming
Canada (B.C.) – no warming
Canada Central – no warming

Since 1940s/50s – no warming
Northern Hemisphere – no warming
Arctic Region – no warming
Greenland – no warming
South Iceland – no warming
North Iceland – no warming
Alaska – no warming
New York – no warming
Rural U.S. – no warming
Northern Europe – no warming
Western Europe – no warming
Mediterranean Region – no warming
Finland and Sweden – no warming
East Antarctica – no warming
North Atlantic – no warming
Western North Atlantic – no warming
Brazil – no warming
SE Australia – no warming
Southern South America – no warming
Andes Mountains – no warming
Chile – no warming

If you live there, send them to your lawmakers and ask why they are wasting so much money preventing something that isn’t even happening.

Thanks to Kenneth Richard for compiling this handy list.

Surprise! Spiegel Online Slams Profiteering From Climate Alarmism… Munich Re Admits: “No Climate Signal”

Spiegel Online published two days ago an excellent article by science journalist Axel Bojanowski on the widespread “disinformation surrounding climate change” and the profit made from the hyping and exaggeration of weather extremes.

Examples cited are the Deutsche Bundesbahn (German Railway), the reinsurance industry, foremost Munich Re, and alarmist climate scientists such as Potsdam Institute’s Stefan Rahmstorf.

All have been playing it loose with the data on weather events and exaggerating (at times grossly) and with the aim of deriving profit, Spiegel reports.

“Foaming at the mouth”

Bojanowski’s piece has since found much praise and positive reaction for its content. For example high profile meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann tweeted (translation follows):

In English:

Grateful that via is allowed to correctly report on the science of climate change, and even if he’ll be confronted by people foaming at the mouth.”

Recently the Swiss meteorologist Kachelmann came under harsh attack from Potsdam scientist Stefan Rahmstorf and a leading German Green politician – for having the nerve to give the real facts on storm frequency and intensity on a television talk round that included Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber.

Seasoned journalist Michael Miersch also tweeted: “The best that I’ve ever read on the instrumentalization of climate change.”

German Railway: climate change as a cover for poor management

Bojanowski begins by describing how today the German Railway (Deutsche Bundesbahn) – once heralded for its outstanding punctuality and overall efficiency – has discovered how to use climate change to deflect blame away from its recent poor management, which over the years has often led to lousy service.

Over the years, the Bundesbahn has made the maintenance of its tracks a victim to cost cutting. Trees and vegetation along the tracks no longer get sufficiently cut back, and so it is common for routes to get blocked during stormy weather. What better excuse than climate change could the Deutsche Bahn have to explain all the disruptions?

Data in fact show no increasing trend in extreme weather

All the cancellations, service shutdowns and delays are of course due to ever increasing storm intensity and frequency, the Deutsche Bahn management likes to claim, and they get the full backing of the media, policymakers and alarmist climate scientists. Yet Bojanowski calls out these claims by the Bundesbahn for what they are: lame excuses based on hyped up science.

The Spiegel journalist writes that a number of scientists have shown that there has in fact been no increase in storm intensity and frequency in Europe, commenting:

That’s amazing, as many scientists anticipate fewer storms in Central Europe as a consequence of climate change.”

Munich Re bilking the public with climate hype?

Another industry caught hyping up extreme weather activity is the reinsurance industry, which insures regular insurance companies against major claims events. The reason for the added hype: justification for hefty premium increases, Bojanowski suggests.

Munich Re admits no real climate signal

One company Bojanowski cites is the world’s largest reinsurer, Munich Re, which annually publishes a report on “natural catastrophes”, in which the company likes to blame climate change, cite alarmist experts and claim there is today a “new normal”. When asked by Spiegel to comment concerning data showing that it isn’t really so, a climate expert from Munch Re was forced to admit:

The blanket statement that weather-dependent damages worldwide show a climate signal cannot be supported.”

So even the Munich Re knows their claims are hype, yet they continue preaching climate doom and gloom.

Bojanowski also accuses the reinsurers and alarmist climate scientists of “staying silent on claims from the scientific community that it’s all very much in dispute“.

The Spiegel journalist also describes how companies selling environmental products also shamelessly hype climate change in order to get municipalities and cities to invest more in climate protection and environmental systems. Such companies often pay (handsomely) alarmist scientists, such as those from the Potsdam Institute, to spread fear over a rapidly approaching climate doom.

Environmental companies spreading climate hype

Recently there was a panel of climate experts at the IFAT industrial trade fair for wastewater technology, which saw 3000 environmental companies participating. The panel held a “future dialog” dubbed: “Weather extremes – are we defenseless?” Bojanowski reports that the panel spoke of which weather extremes have been on the increase, but how they kept silent about this still being very much in dispute among climate scientists.

One panel member was none other than Potsdam climate alarmist/skeptic attack dog, Stefan Rahmstorf.

Unmentioned by the panel, Bojanowski writes, was the fact that the UN “could not detect any relationship between floods and storms and global warming“.

Shameless exploitation/hypocrisy

Unfortunately Spiegel — in its otherwise praiseworthy article — failed to mention two other parties who have a major stake in climate hype: the media (like Spiegel itself), who have profited immensely from spectacular climate claims, and politicians, who unabashedly exploit climate catastrophism to try to gain more control over society.

Spiegel has also shamelessly hyped climate change…front covers over the years.

And let’s not even bring up the wind and solar energy industry, where trillions have been committed in part based on gross climate alarmism of the sort Spiegel has long peddled (see Figure above).

Europe Facing Coldest March In Years, Global Surface Temperatures Cool…”Bad Times” For Warming Alarmists

Here at NTZ we are glad to see that German weather and climate blogger Schneefan is back from his hiatus and this week he presents a couple of interesting posts, here and here.

Cold to grip Europe for rest of month

First he writes that the latest weather models and patterns are now pointing to an extended winter this year for Europe. For example the 14-day forecast for Hanover shows frosty conditions ahead.

Also a recent run by the European weather model shows severe cold potentially gripping Europe in 9 days:

February 1°C cooler than normal

So far Germany has seen the first half of February come in almost 1°C cooler than normal, making it among the coldest in years, says meteorologist Dominik Jung of

Earlier projection was entirely wrong

According weather experts, March is also expected to be wintry and could be one of the coldest in years. That’s quite a turnaround given that the earlier CFS forecast made back in mid-January which showed blow torch temperatures cooking Europe in February:

The US National Weather Service (CFS) 2m surface temperature forecast made on 18 January, 2018, showed very warm conditions for February. That forecast has since been drastically revised.

La Nina dragging temperatures down

So why have we been hearing about so many harsh winter conditions all over the northern hemisphere this winter?

One reason likely has something to do with the fact that the globe has been cooling off substantially since the last El Nino ended in 2016. Currently we are now experiencing La Niña conditions:

Chart shows the weekly deviations from the mean for the El Niño-region 3.4 from May 2016 until the beginning of February 2018. Currently we find ourselves in the cool La Nina phase. Source: KNMI

Furthermore, the National Weather Service continues to show La Nina conditions persisting through most of 2018, which means a greater likelihood of a further cooling of the globe’s surface:

Over the past 2 years global surface temperatures as measured by satellites show steady cooling. Source:

Another longer term culprit suspected of being behind the cooling is the current solar cycle number 24, which has been abnormally weak over the entire current decade. The Cycle 24 was the weakest in 200 years. Low solar activity has been shown to lead to cooling surface temperatures.

Screenshot shows the number of spotless days on the sun up to February 14, 2018. Source:

Oceans cooling over past 3 years

Another sign that bodes especially ill for continued surface cooling is that the world’s oceans have been cooling. 71% of the earth’s surface is covered by water, which means these temperature changes will have significant impacts on the globe’s climate.

In January 2018 Ron Clutz reported at Science Matters on an unexpected phenomenon: the cooling of the global oceans over the past 3 years:

The chart below shows SST monthly anomalies as reported in HadSST3 starting in 2015 through December 2017.”

After a bump in October the downward temperature trend has strengthened. As will be shown in the analysis below, 0.4C has been the average global anomaly since 1995 and December has now gone lower to 0.325C.  NH dropped  sharply along with the Tropics.  SH held steady erasing the Oct. bump.  All parts of the ocean are clearly lower than at any time in the past 3 years.

For Reference:
Global SSTs are the lowest since 3/2013
NH SSTs are the lowest since 3/2014
SH SSTs are the lowest since 1/2012
Tropics SSTs are the lowest since 3/2012


The oceans are driving the warming this century.  SSTs took a step up with the 1998 El Nino and have stayed there with help from the North Atlantic, and more recently the Pacific northern “Blob.”  The ocean surfaces are releasing a lot of energy, warming the air, but eventually will have a cooling effect.  The decline after 1937 was rapid by comparison, so one wonders: How long can the oceans keep this up?”

Read the entire post at Science Matters.

“Bad times” for global warming alarmists

Ron also looks at the AMO ocean cycle. Schneefan summarizes it all in a nutshell:

Everything points to an imminent tipping of the AMO cycle. That’s going to pull global temperatures downward. For Rahmstorf and Co. bad times are starting.”


Another AGW Epic Fail: New Paper Finds Appalachians Have Been Dramatically COOLING Since 1910

A new scientific study says surface temperatures in the Northeastern U.S. (Appalachian Mountains) have undergone a significant long-term cooling trend since the early 20th century, complicating the detection of a clear anthropogenic global warming (AGW) signal for the region.

According to Eck (2018), the two coldest Appalachian winters since 1910 were recorded in recent years (2009-’10 and 2010-’11), and 9 of the 10 warmest winters occurred prior to 1960.

In the early 1930s, Appalachian winters were 4.7°C warmer than they have been during the last 30 years (1987-2017).

Several other recently-published papers also reveal a long-term cooling trend not only for the Northeastern U.S. (Eck, 2018), but the Southeastern U.S. (Rogers, 2013; Christy and McNider, 2016), the Central U.S. (Alter et al., 2017), and the Southwestern and Northwestern U.S. (Loisel et al., 2017; Steinman et al., 2016).

In other words, the regions in the continental United States that are less affected by urbanization biases and artificial instrumental heating may not be responding to “global” warming or to the rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions as climate models have suggested.

Eck, 2018

[A] majority (12/14) of the regions within the SAM [Southern Appalachian Mountains] have experienced a long-term decline in mean winter temperatures since 1910.   Even after removing the highly anomalous 2009-2010 winter season, which was more than two standard deviations away from the long-term mean, the cooling of mean winter temperatures is still evident.”
“Higher winter temperatures dominated the early 20th century in the SAM [Southern Appalachian Mountains] with nine of the ten warmest winter seasons on record in the region having occurred before 1960.”
The 1931-1932 winter season, the warmest on record, averaged 8.0°C for DJF [December-February], nearly 4.7°C higher than the 1987-2017 normal mean winter temperature of 3.3°C.”
“Despite the 2016-2017 winter season finishing with the highest mean temperatures (5.7ºC) observed in the SAM [Southern Appalachian Mountains]  since 1956-1957, there have been several years of anomalous negative temperature anomalies, with the 2009-2010 (0.3ºC) and 2010-2011 (1.2ºC) winter seasons finishing as two of the coldest on record for all regions.”

Central U.S. Cooling (-0.35°C) Since 1910

Alter et al., 2017

“In the central United States … observational data indicate that rainfall increased, surface air temperature decreased, and surface humidity increased during the summer over the course of the 20th century concurrently with increases in both agricultural production and global GHG emissions.”
From 1910- 1949 (pre-agricultural development, pre-DEV) to 1970-2009 (full agricultural development, full-DEV), the central United States experienced large-scale increases in rainfall of up to 35% and decreases in surface air temperature of up to 1°C during the boreal summer months of July and August … which conflicts with expectations from climate change projections for the end of the 21st century (i.e., warming and decreasing rainfall) (Melillo et al., 2014).”
“Thus, it seems that GHG emissions do not contribute greatly to the regional changes in summer climate that have been observed in the central United States.”

Southeastern U.S. Cooling Since 1890s

Rogers, 2013

Christy and McNider, 2016

Long-Term Cooling Trend In The Western U.S.

Loisel et al., 2017

Steinman et al., 2016

Greed Energy…Endangered Black Stork Nest Blocking Wind Park Construction Gets Criminally Destroyed

Conservationist/wind-energy protest group Rettet den Odenwald (Save the Forest of Odes) here writes that yet another endangered stork nest was recently destroyed at the forested location near a proposed JuWi wind park.

Controversy swirls over German wind park builder JuWi

Normally the clearing of forest land to make way for industry is required to undergo an extremely strict permitting process involving very detailed environmental impact studies. Violations are usually punished extremely harshly. But when it comes to wind parks in Germany, the fox in the henhouse often seems to rule. This also may be the case at a proposed JuWi wind park location in the area of Donnersberg (Palatinate).

Back in 2016 the existence of a nest at the location of interest was proven. The nest belonged to a pair of rare black storks that later gave birth to three offsprings that year, and to four more in 2017. Normally with such a nest in the area, obtaining a permit to clear away forest and to set up an industrial complex would be totally out of the question.

Rare and legally protected black stork nest gets allegedly destroyed in what is suspected to be a criminal attempt to clear the way for a wind park construction permit. Photo see: Rettet den Odenwald

According to Rettet den Odenwald, the nest belonging to the pair of rare black storks appears to have been recently willfully and criminally destroyed.

Earlier, local citizens had worked closely with authorities to stop the construction of five JuWi wind turbines, which had been permitted to be built right close to what later was discovered as the nest belonging to the pair of protected black storks. The black stork pair had been expected to return to its nest by early March to produce offsprings.

Tree and nest destroyed

But then on February 10, 2018, Rettet den Odenwald broke the tragic news: the tree in which the nest had been perched had been singled out and  illegally cut down “by unknown attackers” using a power saw, thus preventing the stork pair from returning and successfully nesting this year.

The obstacle blocking the construction of the JuWi windpark in the area was in effect disposed of.

Destroyed tree in the Forest of Odes (Odenwald). Home to the nest of a pair of rare, legally-protected black storks was illegally cut down. Conservationists and wind park opponents suspect foul play by the wind industry. Photo see: Rettet den Odenwald

Path “reopens for greed”

The conservationist Rettet den Odenwald site writes:

This lawbreaking allows the permitting process for the planned and halted wind park to now appear in a new light. … The lawful protection that was established by the provision of facts was illegally undone and thus has again reopened the door for the greed of those with a stake in the wind park.”

The outrage by conservationists and wind park opponents came swiftly and loudly. Already on February 12 Rettet den Odenwald issued a press release in which they demand the Environment Ministry to assure that no permit be granted in the event of such criminal acts and that they take swift action.

JuWi condemns destruction

In a press release, JuWi stated that it “condemns the criminal act in the harshest terms”. Moreover the press release adds: “JuWi is filing criminal charges against unknown perpetrators for violating federal nature protection laws”.

The latest in a series of criminal environmental destruction acts

This is not the first time that nests and homes for protected species located in proposed wind park areas have been destroyed in Germany. Der Spiegel has reported on this before, e.g. see here.

Also read “wind power mafia” destroys stork’s nest here.  

When it comes to saving the planet, wind parks seem to get away with everything nowadays. Often times wind turbines get installed right up close to residents and thus make them sick from infrasound, or they ruin idyllic landscapes, destroy biotopes, cause hazards in the North Sea, shred migrating birds, etc. Environmental concerns from citizens be damned!

As far as the wind park in Odenwald is concerned, don’t be surprised if its construction ends up getting permitted soon. Greed disguised as green always gets its way in Germany.

Powerful Opposition To ‘Energiewende’ Storms Into German Parliament… “Eco-Populist Voodoo”

Green energy opposition becoming formidable force in Germany

As Germany’s established CDU and SPD “mainstream” parties find themselves imploding, the smaller parties who oppose Germany’s out-of-control Energiewende (transition to green energies) are rapidly becoming a formidable force and making their presence felt in Germany’s national parliament like never before.

For example Germany’s FDP Free Democrats, who refused to forge a coalition government together with CDU/CSU and Green parties, have become increasingly vocal critics of Germany’s green energy scheme.

Politicians ignoring the concerns of its citizens

Last month in her first speech ever in the German Parliament, FDP parliamentarian Sandra Weeser slammed the struggling Energiewende and the latest signals to promote it even further.

In her speech Weeser points out that despite the rapidly growing green energy capacity being installed, the effort to reduce CO2 has failed, and what’s left is an unpredictable power grid that often produces energy when it is not needed (waste energy) and thus costing Germans hundreds of millions annually.

She also accuses the established politicians of ignoring citizens as they ruin Germany’s landscape with wind parks.

Interestingly it is often Green party voters who we find themselves among wind park protesters. In their daily lives these people are recognizing that what is being sold as green electricity in fact has nothing to do with being green. They are rejecting the industrial turbines in forests.”

Weeser then tells that the expansion of the green energies is totally out of proportion with the existing power infrastructure, and that even the most perfect grid will not be able to handle the volatile wind and solar energies.

Electricity “outrageously expensive”

Weeser also dismisses claims by the Green Party that wind energy is “the most inexpensive” on the market, asking them directly: “If that is really true, then why do they need subsidies? Why are we paying 25 billion euros annually for their feed-in?”

Green engineering debacle

Finally she mentions that an array of expert panels have determined that wind energy is not leading to more climate protection, but rather is only making electricity outrageously expensive. In her final comment, Weeser says:

Policymakers should set up the framework conditions, but please leave the engineering to engineers.”

Anti-wind/solar energy AfD soars to 15% in polls

Also Dr. Rainer Kraft of the Germany’s newly minted rightwing AfD party recently demolished the Energiewende in his first speech before Parliament in Berlin:

According to Kraft, the Parliamentary session on renewable energy requested by the Greens is welcome because it exposes their “incapability to comprehend the factual and physical interrelationships” of the subject.

Policy of a fool…eco-socialist economy

Kraft slams the government’s climate-protection approach of spending “15 euros to avoid 1 euro of damage” as apolicy one would expect from “a fool”. Adding: “there just couldn’t be less scientific understanding than that.”

Echoing Donald Trump’s ideas on international treaties, Kraft also sees them as being ruinous to German industry, and that the ultimate target of climate protection is to establish “an eco-socialist centrally-planned economy” and that climate protection is the “instrument” to bring it about.

He then labeled the Greens’ energy policy as “eco-populist voodoo”.

With so much going wrong with the Energiewende, the FDP and AfD today are having an easy time capitalizing politically on the issue and portraying the government and the Greens as inept.

Vocal green energy critics make up 25% of Parliament

According to recent polls, the FDP and AfD now combine to make up a quarter of Germany’s voters. And now that this anti-Energiewende voice is finally being democratically heard in Parliament and viewed by millions on television screens nationally, expect the traditional established parties to continue seeing the unheard of erosion among their disenchanted voter bases. Never has postwar Germany seen a political shift on such a massive scale.

Tipping point

Though 25% may not sound impressive, it is amazing when one considers that only a decade ago there was virtually universal parliamentary support for green energies. Those days are over.

And now as the failure of the Energiewende becomes ever more glaring, reaching the political tipping point on the issue of the Energiewende is just a question of a few more years.


The Epic Failure Of Glacier-Melt, Sea Level Rise Alarmism Continues To Bespoil Climate Science

 A Disgraceful Chasm Between Real-World

Observations & Climate Science Reporting

Injecting frightening scenarios into climate science reporting  has seemingly become a requisite for publication.

In a new Nature Geoscience editorial, a common scare tactic is utilized by the (unidentified) author so as to grab readers’ attention.

Nature Geoscience, 2018

The East Antarctic ice sheet is currently the largest ice mass on Earth. If it melted in its entirety, global sea levels would rise by more than 50 metres.

Wow.  50 meters.  That would be catastrophic.

But then we read about real-world observations for East Antarctica.  And they don’t even come close to aligning with the catastrophic scenario casually tossed into the editorial.

First of all, East Antarctica is not losing mass and adding to sea levels.  The ice sheet is gaining mass and thus removing water from sea levels. The surface mass gains have been occurring not only since 1800 (Thomas et al., 2017), but for the recent decade (2003-2013) too (Martín-Español et al., 2017).  Even the author of the Nature Geoscience editorial acknowledges this.

Nature Geoscience, 2018

The East Antarctic ice sheet may be gaining mass in the current, warming climate. The palaeoclimate record shows, however, that it has retreated during previous episodes of prolonged warmth.”

Not only has East Antarctica been gaining mass, the author goes on to say that it would take 100s of thousands to millions of years for Antarctica to even exhibit partial retreat.  So much for the “if it melted in its entirety” warning we read earlier.

In terms of immediate sea-level rise, it is reassuring that it seems to require prolonged periods of lasting hundreds of thousands to millions of years to induce even partial retreat.”

So if the editorial department at Nature Geoscience realizes that it would take 100s of thousands to millions of years to even witness a partial retreat of the ice sheet, is there any scientific justification for the inclusion of the sea-levels-would-rise-50-meters-if-East-Antarctica-melted commentary?  Since when do imaginary scenarios pass as science?

A ‘Staggering’ 9 Trillion Tons Of Greenland’s Ice Has Been Lost Since 1900!  That’s A Sea Level Contribution Of Less Than 1 Inch

It’s frightening to learn that the Greenland Ice Sheet has lost a “staggering9 trillion tons of ice since 1900, which is what the Washington Post warned us about in 2015.

It’s not frightening to learn that 9 trillion tons of ice losses actually amounts to less than 1 inch of sea level rise contribution from Greenland meltwater in 115 years.

Since a total sea level rise contribution of 1 inch in 115 years from the Greenland ice sheet isn’t scary, the author of the Washington Post article (Chris Mooney) finds it necessary to offer his readers a macabre thought experiment: What if that additional 1 inch of water sitting atop the world ocean were to be collected somehow and then dumped onto all the United States interstate highways?   Now that would be scary.  It would mean that 1 inch of sea level rise turned into 98 feet of sea levels rise (63 times over) in very same imaginary world where additional sea water is dumped onto U.S. interstate highways.

This is how the modern version of climate science works.

Below are a few more examples of glacier melt and sea level rise observations from recently-published papers casting doubt on the tragic, alarmist, and attention-seeking headlines that are so prevalent today.

1. ‘Pine Island Glacier Is The Largest Current Antarctic Contributor To Sea Level Rise’ – But Has ‘Not Shown Any Clear Trend Over 68 Years’ (1947-2015)

Arndt et al., 2018

Pine Island Glacier is the largest current Antarctic contributor to sea level rise. Its ice loss has substantially increased over the last 25 years through thinning, acceleration and grounding line retreat. However, the calving line positions of the stabilizing ice shelf did not show any trend within the observational record (last 70 years) until calving in 2015 led to unprecedented retreat and changed alignment of the calving front. … Despite the thinning and flow acceleration of PIG [Pine Island Glacier], and sustained, rapid thinning of the ice shelf over at least the past 25 years the position of the ice front had not shown any clear trend over 68 years of observations prior to 2015 (Bindschadler, 2002;MacGregor et al., 2012;Rignot, 2002).”

2. More Land Area Above Sea Level In 2014 Than In 1971 In The Tropical Pacific

Kench et al., 2018

“We specifically examine spatial differences in island behaviour, of all 101 islands in Tuvalu, over the past four decades (1971–2014), a period in which local sea level has risen at twice the global average (Supplementary Note 2). Surprisingly, we show that all islands have changed and that the dominant mode of change has been island expansion, which has increased the land area of the nation. … Using remotely sensed data, change is analysed over the past four decades, a period when local sea level has risen at twice the global average [<2 mm/yr-1] (~3.90 ± 0.4 mm.yr−1). Results highlight a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5 ha (2.9%), despite sea-level rise, and land area increase in eight of nine atolls.”

3. More Land Area Above Sea Level In 2015 Than In 1985 For The Entire Globe

Donchyts et al., 2016

“Earth’s surface water change over the past 30 years [1985-2015] … Earth’s surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas.”

 (press release)

Coastal areas were also analysed, and to the scientists’ surprise, coastlines had gained more land – 33,700 sq km (13,000 sq miles) – than they had been lost to water (20,100 sq km or 7,800 sq miles).
We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” said Dr Baart.  “We were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking.”

4. Greenland And Antarctica Combined Contributed A Total Of 0.59 Of An Inch To Sea Level Rise Between 1958-2014

Frederiske et al.,2018

5. ‘Recent Lack Of Any Detectable Acceleration In The Rate Of Sea-Level Rise’

Parker and Ollier, 2017

The loud divergence between sea-level reality and climate change theory—the climate models predict an accelerated sea-level rise driven by the anthropogenic CO2 emission—has been also evidenced in other works such as Boretti (2012a, b), Boretti and Watson (2012), Douglas (1992), Douglas and Peltier (2002), Fasullo et al. (2016), Jevrejeva et al. (2006), Holgate (2007), Houston and Dean (2011), Mörner 2010a, b, 2016), Mörner and Parker (2013), Scafetta (2014), Wenzel and Schröter (2010) and Wunsch et al. (2007) reporting on the recent lack of any detectable acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise. The minimum length requirement of 50–60 years to produce a realistic sea-level rate of rise is also discussed in other works such as Baart et al. (2012), Douglas (1995, 1997), Gervais (2016), Jevrejeva et al. (2008), Knudsen et al. (2011), Scafetta (2013a, b), Wenzel and Schröter (2014) and Woodworth (2011).”
“[T]he information from the tide gauges of the USA and the rest of the world when considered globally and over time windows of not less than 80 years […] does not support the notion of rapidly changing mass of ice in Greenland and Antarctica as claimed by Davis and Vinogradova (2017). The sea levels have been oscillating about a nearly perfectly linear trend since the start of the twentieth century with no sign of acceleration. There are only different phases of some oscillations moving from one location to another that do not represent any global acceleration.”
The global sea-level acceleration is therefore in the order of + 0.002  ± 0.003 mm/year², i.e. + 2 ÷ 3 μm/year², well below the accuracy of the estimation.”

Land Of The Rising Cold …Japan Sees One Of Its Worst Winters In Decades …Heavy Snow And Bitter Cold

A few days ago I posted on how brutal cold and snow were gripping the northern hemisphere from every direction. Prominently featured was the western Pacific country of Japan.

“Amazingly cold”

Not only had it been cold and brutal in January, but the story was the same already back in mid December as well, as Japanese skeptic blogger Kirye here tweeted:

Image cropped from Twitter

On December 10th, the Japanese blogger tweeted here:

This year early December in Japan amazingly cold throughout the country. In particular, the daily mean temperature in Sapporo city has been well below 1981-2010 average.”

Coldest October in 46 years

Already back in October Kirye had been tweeting of Japan getting started on the very cold side as she noted how Tokyo had seen its coldest October in almost 50 years:

October 2017 in Tokyo the mean monthly temperature was 16.8℃, the coldest October since 1971.”

In fact the cold in Japan started even well before October, 2017. Already in September Japan had had a colder than normal month when Kirye informed me that “Japan’s temperature anomaly for September, 2017, was -0.22C,” and then added she expected the coming winter to be “very interesting”.

And interesting it’s been.

Unusual cold and snow persisting in February

And now that we find ourselves well into February, there are still no signs of the brutal winter conditions letting up in Japan, let alone of the famous cherry blossoms making their debut any time soon.

According to the English language Asahi Shimbun here on February 8, seven people had been killed and public roads and services had been crippled “as record snowfall kept traffic at a standstill across much of the Hokuriku region of northwestern Japan.”

The Asahi Shimbun added:

Authorities said that 1,400 or vehicles got stuck from Feb. 6, creating a line that stretched about 20 kilometers.”

At her blogsite, Kirye reports here that so far this year 59 stations (out of 928 stations) in Japan marked an all-time temperature low in 2018. In Ohtake in Hokkaido Prefecture, for example, the mercury plummeted to – 24.9°C.

The Mainichi here reported of “cold air” and “heavy snow” along the Sea of Japan coast and added: “The city of Fukui in the region had over 130 centimeters of snow for the first time in 37 years.”

New Paleoclimate Findings Show Medieval Warm Period Across Africa And Arabia…Natural Climate Drivers

Paleoclimate data still spotty and incomplete, leaving climate models vague, uncalibrated and filled with uncertainty

Paleo-climatological data, used for the reconstruction of past climate from proxy records such as ice cores, tree rings, sediment cores etc., have not had adequate geographical coverage.

A comprehensive review of paleotemperature reconstructions paints a picture of warm onshore temperatures across Afro-Arabia between 1000 and 1200 AD.

Lake Tanganyika, Tanzania, where a sediment core was extracted. Credit: Andreas31, CC BY-SA 3.0.

For example although the Medieval Climate Anomaly has also been well documented in other parts of the world, there has been little data when it comes to the Arabian Peninsula and the African continent, which comprise about one quarter of Earth’s land surface.

Too often scientists reconstructing past climates have been overly eager in drawing far-reaching conclusions based only a few datasets, and attempted to adventurously apply them to neighboring regions or even globally.

Climate Anomaly in Africa and Arabia as well

Now a new paper published on here by Lüning et al. attempts to fill this data chasm. Their publication “correlated and synthesized the findings of 44 published paleotemperature case studies” from across the Afro-Arabian region and mapped the resulting trends of the Medieval anomaly’s central period of about 1000 to 1200 CE.

The paper is titled: “Warming and Cooling: The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Africa and Arabia”.

“Uncalibrated” and “vague” models

“Enormous data gaps exist,” wrote Lüning in an e-mail. “A high impact study program is needed to close these gaps. Paleoclimate information is essential to validate climate models, which otherwise are not calibrated and remain vague.”

According to their findings, paleotemperature reconstructions from these published case studies show “the Afro-Arabian region experienced climate perturbations, including an extended period of anomalously warm conditions, during medieval times. Because this Medieval Climate Anomaly represents the closest analogue to modern warming, it defines a crucial baseline by which modern postindustrial climate trends can be compared.”

Lüning wrote NTZ:

This work is based on a large numbers of valuable paleoclimate studies. We have mosaiced these data points together and found that the Medieval Climate Anomaly was characterized by warming in most of Africa and Arabia, therefore justifying the term “Medieval Warm Period” for the African land area. An exception was the southern Levant where its got cooler.”

In a nutshell, the findings suggest the majority of onshore Afro-Arabian sites also experienced warming during the Medieval Climate Anomaly, and thus the warming was not just a phenomenon confined to the North Atlantic and Europe, as some scientists have tried to suggest.

Outstanding resource

Lüning has spent years researching and compiling paleoclimate data, and as a result has produced a “Climate Reconstruction Map of the Medieval Warm Period“.

Link to solar and oceanic cycles

In some of the records in the newly published study the researchers found that cold spikes corresponded with periods of low decreased solar activity or declining ocean cycles. thus suggesting that solar forcing and changing ocean circulation are the most likely causes of medieval era climate change.

Lüning added:

Climate patterns never cover the whole globe, therefore it is important to first map out trends and understand the pattern distribution. Otherwise the meaning of purely mathematically stacked data series remains unclear.”

This study represents a step toward globally characterizing the Medieval Climate Anomaly, an improved understanding of which will help scientists refine global climate models and improve hind-casting.

Read more at Research Spotlight.

Europe Cooling…Weather Service Data Show Falling January Mean Temperatures Over Past 30 Years

Josef Kowatsch and Stefan Kämpfe at the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) here have been looking at temperatures in Central Europe, foremost Germany, over the past 30 years.

Heavy snow blankets Germany in January, 2018. Photo: Stefan Kämpfe

The German media like to say that Germany has been warming rapidly due to global warming, especially winter. Yet a look at the data tells a different story. Although January, 2018 was a mild one at a mean of 3.8°C, as measured by the German DWD national weather service, the overall January trend is COOLING.

The warm January, 2018, did little to curb Germany’s overall January cooling trend, as data from the DWD show. Kowatsch and Kämpfe have plotted the January data over the past 31 years along with the computed linear trend line:

Figure 1: January mean temperatures for Germany have been cooling over the past 31 years. Chart: Josef Kowatsch, based on data from the DWD.

This winter’s mild Central European weather has been attributed to a series of lows that have pumped in mild air from the Atlantic and kept much of Europe out of the ice box. Also heavy precipitation has been associated with the lows, and higher elevations have seen heavy snowfalls as a result — especially in the mountain regions and Alps.

Trend contradicts the CO2

Looking at different locations in Germany, the East German station of Erfurt/Weimar shows the same January cooling trend despite rising CO2 concentrations.

Figure 2: January temperature trend (blue) over the past 31 years  in Erfurt (316m elevation) compared to CO2 concentrations (green). Chart: Stefan Kämpfe.

This cooling has been occurring despite urbanization and added waste heat. Currently 100 hectares of building and asphalt are being added daily.

Substantial cooling at the high elevations

Getting away from urban areas, Kowatsch and Kämpfe looked at the mean January temperature atop Germany’s highest peak, the Zugspitze, and at Amtsberg in the East German Erzgebirge near Chemnitz.

The following chart shows the 31 year trend for the Zugspitze, some 2960 m above sea level:

Figure 3: January’s mean temperature on the summit of Germany’s highest mountain, Zugspitze, has trended significantly downward over the 31 years: from -8.3°C in 1988 to over -11°C in 2018 (using the linear trend). That’s about 1°C per decade! Chart source: Josef Kowatsch.

Urban heat island likely skewing the real cooling

Next we look at the station Amtsberg at the foot of the Erzgebirge in East Germany. Here over the past 30 years the mean January temperature has fallen modestly and shows no signs at all of any warming.

Figure 4: Rural station Amtsberg (blue curve) near Chemnitz is similar to the trend observed across Germany (red curve). Chart source: Josef Kowatsch.

Kowatsch and Kämpfe write that they believe the urban heat island (UHI) effect has not been adequately accounted for in the DWD data, and thus the cooling may actually be even stronger.

So if you’re looking for warming, you won’t find it in Central Europe — despite all the fake climate news you might be hearing.

20 New Papers Crush Claims Of A Man-Made Link To Arctic Climate Change, Glacier Retreat, Sea Ice

Anthropogenic Influence On Arctic Climate

‘Too Small To Be Detected’

Source: Haine, 2016

The evidence compiled in scientific papers continues to rapidly accumulate.

An anthropogenic signal in the regional Arctic climate is still too small to be detected.

Temperature, glacier melt, and sea ice changes are all well within the range of natural variation for the Arctic region.  The changes that do occur have identifiable origins that are unrelated to atmospheric CO2 concentrations or human emissions.

Below is a brief summary of some of the latest research that underscores the lack of connection between anthropogenic influences and climate-related changes in the Arctic.

Arctic Temperature And Ice Retreat Mechanisms

1. Arctic Warming Since 1990s ‘Dominated By Natural Variability’ (NAO)

Orsi et al., 2017

The recent warming trend in North Greenland  … We find that δ 18O [temperature/climate proxy] has been increasing over the past 30 years, and that the decade 1996-2005 is the second highest decade in the 287-year record (Figure 4). The highest δ 18O values were found in 1928, which is also an extreme year in GISP2 and NGRIP ice cores, and in a coastal South Greenland composite [Vinther et al., 2006; Masson-Delmotte et al., 2015], but the decadal average (1926-1935) is not statistically different from the decade (2002-2011).
The surface warming trend has been principally attributed to sea ice retreat and associated heat fluxes from the ocean [Serreze et al., 2009; Screen and Simmonds, 2010a, b], to a negative trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) since 1990, increasing warm air advection on the West Coast of Greenland and Eastern Canada [Hanna et al., 2012; Fettweis et al., 2013; Ding et al., 2014], and to an increase in the Greenland Blocking Index [Hanna et al., 2013]. These latter mechanisms could be dominated by natural variability rather than forced response to the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gases [Fettweis et al., 2013; Screen et al., 2014].

2. Arctic Ice Melt Since 1995 Due To Natural Cloud Cover Decrease, NAO

Hofer et al., 2017

Decreasing cloud cover drives the recent mass loss on the Greenland Ice Sheet … The Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) has been losing mass at an accelerating rate since the mid-1990s. … We show, using satellite data and climate model output, that the abrupt reduction in surface mass balance since about 1995 can be attributed largely to a coincident trend of decreasing summer cloud cover enhancing the melt-albedo feedback. Satellite observations show that, from 1995 to 2009, summer cloud cover decreased by 0.9 ± 0.3% per year. Model output indicates that the GrIS summer melt increases by 27 ± 13 gigatons (Gt) per percent reduction in summer cloud cover, principally because of the impact of increased shortwave radiation over the low albedo ablation zone. The observed reduction in cloud cover is strongly correlated with a state shift in the North Atlantic Oscillation promoting anticyclonic conditions in summer and suggests that the enhanced surface mass loss from the GrIS is driven by synoptic-scale changes in Arctic-wide atmospheric circulation. … Th[e] strong correlation between summertime NAO index and the MAR-based cloud cover could be used to forecast whether the observed reduction in cloud cover during summer, and the associated increase in GrIS melt, is likely to continue.

3. Geothermal Heat Flux From ‘All Over’ Greenland The ‘Primary Process’ Behind Temperature Changes

Rysgaard et al., 2018

The Greenland ice sheet (GIS) is losing mass at an increasing rate due to surface melt and flow acceleration in outlet glaciers. … Recently it was suggested that there may be a hidden heat source beneath GIS caused by a higher than expected geothermal heat flux (GHF) from the Earth’s interior. Here we present the first direct measurements of GHF from beneath a deep fjord basin in Northeast Greenland. Temperature and salinity time series (2005–2015) in the deep stagnant basin water are used to quantify a GHF of 93 ± 21 mW m−2 which confirm previous indirect estimated values below GIS. A compilation of heat flux recordings from Greenland show the existence of geothermal heat sources beneath GIS and could explain high glacial ice speed areas such as the Northeast Greenland ice stream. … Geothermal springs with source water temperatures above 0 °C have been found all over Greenland, especially around Disko Island in West Greenland, where several thousands of such springs have been identified. … Therefore, we assume that vertical turbulent mixing and GHF [geothermal heat flux] are the primary processes behind the observed salinity and temperature change.

4. Recent Winter Arctic Warming Driven By Planetary Scale Waves

Baggett and Lee, 2017

The dynamical mechanisms that lead to wintertime Arctic warming during the planetary-scale wave (PSW) and synoptic-scale wave (SSW) life cycles are identified by performing a composite analysis of ERA-Interim reanalysis data. The PSW life cycle is preceded by localized tropical convection over the Western Pacific. Upon reaching the mid-latitudes, the PSWs amplify as they undergo baroclinic conversion and constructively interfere with the climatological stationary waves. The PSWs [planetary scale waves] flux large quantities of sensible and latent heat into the Arctic which produces a regionally enhanced greenhouse effect that increases downward IR and warms the Arctic two-meter temperature. The SSW life cycle is also capable of increasing downward IR and warming the Arctic two-meter temperature, but the greatest warming is accomplished in the subset of SSW events with the most amplified PSWs. Consequently, during both the PSW and SSW life cycles, wintertime Arctic warming arises from the amplification of the PSWs [planetary scale waves].

5. Recent Canadian Arctic Warming (1988-1996) And Cooling (1997-2016) Driven By The AO

Mallory et al., 2018

The AO [Arctic Oscillation] has positive and negative phases that infuence broad weather patterns across the northern hemisphere (Thompson et al. 2000). For example, during the positive phase of the AO, atmospheric pressure over the Arctic is lower than average, which tends to result in warmer and wetter winters in northern regions as warmer air is able to move further north (Thompson et al. 2000; Aanes et al. 2002). …  From 1988 to 1996, the summer intensity of the AO was largely in the positive phase, with a mean value of 0.207 (± 0.135 SE), and this was a period of population stability or growth for each of the three herds that we examined here. In contrast, from 1997 to 2016 the summer AO has remained largely in the negative phase [cooling], with a mean value of − 0.154 (± 0.077 SE), and over this period the Bathurst, Beverly, and Qamanirjuaq herds declined in abundance. … We found that positive intensities of the Arctic Oscillation (AO) in the summer were associated with warmer temperatures, improved growing conditions for vegetation, and better body condition of caribou.

6. Greenland Glacier Retreat, Growth Linked To The NAO

Bjørk et al., 2017     

Changes in Greenland’s peripheral glaciers linked to the North Atlantic Oscillation … [W]e map glacier length fluctuations of approximately 350 peripheral glaciers and ice caps in East and West Greenland since 1890. Peripheral glaciers are found to have recently undergone a widespread and significant retreat at rates of 12.2 m per year and 16.6 m per year in East and West Greenland, respectively; these changes are exceeded in severity only by the early twentieth century post-Little-Ice-Age retreat. Regional changes in ice volume, as reflected by glacier length, are further shown to be related to changes in precipitation associated with the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), with a distinct east–west asymmetry; positive phases of the NAO increase accumulation, and thereby glacier growth, in the eastern periphery, whereas opposite effects are observed in the western periphery. Thus, with projected trends towards positive NAO in the future, eastern peripheral glaciers may remain relatively stable, while western peripheral glaciers will continue to diminish.

7. Arctic’s Polar Vortex Changes ‘Primarily A Result Of Natural Internally-Generated Climate Variability’

Seviour, 2017

Weakening and shift of the Arctic stratospheric polar vortex: Internal variability or forced response? … By comparing large ensembles of historical simulations with pre-industrial control simulations for two coupled climate models, the ensemble mean response of the vortex is found to be small relative to internal variability. There is also no relationship between sea-ice decline and trends in either vortex location or strength. Despite this, individual ensemble members are found to have vortex trends similar to those observed, indicating that these trends may be primarily a result of natural internally-generated climate variability.

Arctic Temperature Changes In Recent Decades

8. No Net Warming Since 1940s/1950s In Alaska, Subarctic North Atlantic, Siberia…Climate Trends Consistent With 50-90 Year AMO

Nicolle et al., 2018

Persistent multidecadal variability with a period of 50– 90 years is consistent between the subarctic North Atlantic mean record and the AMO over the last 2 centuries (AD 1856–2000). … In the North Atlantic sector, instrumental sea surface temperature (SST) variations since AD 1860 highlight low-frequency oscillations known as the AMO (Kerr, 2000).  …  The LIA is, however, characterized by an important spatial and temporal variability, particularly visible on a more regional scale (e.g., PAGES 2k Consortium, 2013). It has been attributed to a combination of natural external forcings (solar activity and large volcanic eruptions) and internal sea ice and ocean feedback, which fostered long-standing effects of short-lived volcanic events (Miller et al., 2012).

9. Greenland Has Been Cooling Since 2001

Westergaard-Nielsen et al., 2018

Here we quantify trends in satellite-derived land surface temperatures and modelled air temperatures, validated against observations, across the entire ice-free Greenland. … Warming trends observed from 1986–2016 across the ice-free Greenland is mainly related to warming in the 1990’s. The most recent and detailed trends based on MODIS (2001–2015) shows contrasting trends across Greenland, and if any general trend it is mostly a cooling. The MODIS dataset provides a unique detailed picture of spatiotemporally distributed changes during the last 15 years. … Figure 3 shows that on an annual basis, less than 36% of the ice-free Greenland has experienced a significant trend and, if any, a cooling is observed during the last 15 years (<0.15 °C change per year).

10. Greenland Has Been Cooling Since 2005

Kobashi et al., 2017 

For the most recent 10 years (2005 to 2015), apart from the anomalously warm year of 2010, mean annual temperatures at the Summit exhibit a slightly decreasing trend in accordance with northern North Atlantic-wide cooling.  The Summit temperatures are well correlated with southwest coastal records (Ilulissat, Kangerlussuaq, Nuuk, and Qaqortoq).

11. No Net Warming In Greenland For The Last 90 Years

Kobashi et al., 2017

Arctic Sea Ice Changes 

12. Arctic Sea Ice Expanding Since 1988 (Bohai Sea), AO & NAO ‘Primary’ Climate Factors 

Yan et al., 2017

Afforded by continuous satellite imagery, evolution of sea ice cover over nearly three decades from 1988 to 2015 in the Bohai Sea [North China] as a peculiar mid-latitude frozen sea area is reported for the first time. An anomalous trend of slight overall increase of 1.38 ± 1.00% yr–1 (R = 1.38, i.e. at a statistical significance of 80%) in Bohai Sea ice extent was observed over the 28 year period. …  Correlation with decreasing Arctic Oscillation (AO) index (r = –0.60, p < 0.01) and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index (r = –0.69, p < 0.01) over the study period suggested AO and NAO as the primary large-scale climate factors for Bohai Sea ice.

13. Arctic Sea Ice Oscillates…Not Significantly Lower Now Than In The 1940s

Connolly et al., 2017

According to this new dataset, the recent period of Arctic sea ice retreat since the 1970s followed a period of sea ice growth after the mid 1940s, which in turn followed a period of sea ice retreat after the 1910s. Our reconstructions agree with previous studies that have noted a general decrease in Arctic sea ice extent (for all four seasons) since the start of the satellite era (1979). However, the timing of the start of the satellite era is unfortunate in that it coincided with the end of several decades during which Arctic sea ice extent was generally increasing. This late-1970s reversal in sea ice trends was not captured by the hindcasts of the recent CMIP5 climate models used for the latest IPCC reports, which suggests that current climate models are still quite poor at modelling past sea ice trends.

14. Arctic Sea Ice Extent Only Slightly Lower Now Than During Little Ice Age, Much Higher Now Than Most Of Last 7,000 Years

Perner et al., 2018

[W]e find evidence of distinct late Holocene millennial-scale phases of enhanced El Niño/La Niña development, which appear synchronous with northern hemispheric climatic variability. Phases of dominant El Niño-like states occur parallel to North Atlantic cold phases: the ‘2800 years BP cooling event’, the ‘Dark Ages’ and the ‘Little Ice Age’, whereas the ‘Roman Warm Period’ and the ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’ parallel periods of a predominant La Niña-like state. Our findings provide further evidence of coherent interhemispheric climatic and oceanic conditions during the mid to late Holocene, suggesting ENSO as a potential mediator.

15. Solar Forcing Drives Arctic Sea Ice Trends, Sea Ice Higher Now Than Nearly All Of The Last 8,000 Years

Yamamoto et al., 2017

Millennial to multi-centennial variability in the quartz / feldspar ratio (the BG [Beaufort Gyre] circulation) is consistent with fluctuations in solar irradiance, suggesting that solar activity affected the BG [Beaufort Gyre] strength on these timescales. … Multi-century to millennial fluctuations, presumably controlled by solar activity, were also identified in a proxy-based BSI [Bering Strait in-flow] record characterized by the highest age resolution. … Proxy records consistent with solar forcing were reported from a number of paleoclimatic archives, such as Chinese stalagmites (Hu et al., 2008), Yukon lake sediments (Anderson et al., 2005), and ice cores (Fisher et al., 2008), as well as marine sediments in the northwestern Pacific (Sagawa et al., 2014) and the Chukchi Sea (Stein et al., 2017).

16. Southwest Greenland: Sea Ice Increasing Since 1930s, No Net Change In Temperature Since 1600

Kryk et al., 2017     

Our study aims to investigate the oceanographic changes in SW Greenland over the past four centuries (1600-2010) based on high-resolution diatom record using both, qualitative and quantitative methods.  July SST during last 400 years varied only slightly from a minimum of 2.9 to a maximum of 4.7 °C and total average of 4°C. 4°C is a typical surface water temperature in SW Greenland during summer.
The average April SIC [sea ice concentration] was low (c. 13%) [during the 20th century], however a strong peak of 56.5% was recorded at 1965. This peak was accompanied by a clear drop in salinity (33.2 PSU).

17. Arctic Sea Ice Trends Linked To The AMO, NAO, Sea Ice Lower Than Today During Medieval Climate Anomaly

Kolling et al., 2017     

[O]ur reconstructions reveal several oscillations with increasing/decreasing sea ice concentrations that are linked to the known late Holocene climate cold/warm phases, i.e. the Roman Warm Period, Dark Ages Cold Period, Medieval Climate Anomaly and Little Ice Age. The observed changes seem to be connected to general ocean atmosphere circulation changes, possibly related to North Atlantic Oscillation and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation regimes. Furthermore, we identify a cyclicity of 73–74 years in sea ice algae and phytoplankton productivity over the last 1.2 kyr, which may indicate a connection to Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation mechanisms.

18. Arctic Amplification, Sea Ice Loss Not Explained By CO2 Forcing

Kim et al., 2017

Understanding the Mechanism of Arctic Amplification and Sea Ice Loss
Sea ice reduction is accelerating in the Barents and Kara Seas. Several mechanisms are proposed to explain the accelerated loss of polar sea ice, which remains an open question. … [T]he role of upward and downward longwave radiations in Arctic amplification is vague and not fully understood.

[CO2 is not mentioned in the paper as a mechanism responsible for Arctic amplification or sea ice loss.]

Long Term Changes In Arctic Region Temperatures

19. Greenland 1°C to 3°C Warmer Than Now For Most Of The Last 8,000 Years

Kobashi et al., 2017

After the 8.2 ka event, Greenland temperature reached the Holocene thermal maximum with the warmest decades occurring during the Holocene (2.9 ± 1.4 °C warmer than the recent decades) at 7960 ± 30 years B.P.

20. Arctic-Wide Temperatures Warmer Than Now During The Medieval Warm Period

Werner et al., 2017

[S]tatistical testing could not provide conclusive support of the contemporary warming to supersede the peak of the MCA [Medieval Climate Anomaly] in terms of the pan-Arctic mean summer temperatures.

21. Northern Alaska Warmer During Medieval Times

Hanna et al., 2018

Here, we utilize one such sediment archive from Simpson Lagoon, Alaska, located adjacent to the Colville River Delta to reconstruct temperature variability and fluctuations in sediment sourcing over the past 1700 years. Quantitative reconstructions of summer air temperature […] reveal temperature departures correlative with noted climate events (i.e. ‘Little Ice Age’, ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’). … Reconstructed temperatures are generally coolest between 300 and 800 CE (Tavg = 2.24 ± 0.98°C), displaying three temperature minima centered at 410 CE (1.34 ± 0.72°C), 545 CE (1.91 ± 0.69°C), and 705 CE (1.49 ± 0.69°C). Temperatures then rapidly increased, reaching the warmest interval (800–1000 CE) in the approximately 1700-year record. During this interval, average temperatures were 3.31 ± 0.65°C, with a maximum temperature of 3.98°C.

PIK Potsdam Climate Institute Emerges As A Non-Credible Outlier When It Comes To Hurricanes

Hurricane activity trend declines significantly over the past 65 years

Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt posted here yesterday results showing that  hurricane activity has decreased over the past decades, despite all the hysteria we’ve been hearing from the usual suspects.

Data and studies show that Potsdam Institute thinly veiled claims that hurricanes are connected to man-made CO2 are spurious. Photo: Hurricane Isabel, NASA (public domain).

Taking a look at the recent literature, we find a paper authored by Ryan Truchelut and Erica Staehling appearing in the Geophysical Research Letters on December 8, 2017. They looked at the development of American hurricanes based on accumulated cyclone energy (ACE).

CO2 and hurricanes are not connected

The two authors found a statistically significant reduction in hurricane activity over the past 65 years. The relative inactivity of the past years (except for the very active 2017 season) was the most inactive phase of the examined time period. The abstract (emphasis added):

An Energetic Perspective on United States Tropical Cyclone Landfall Droughts
The extremely active 2017 Atlantic hurricane season concluded an extended period of quiescent continental United States tropical cyclone landfall activity that began in 2006, commonly referred to as the landfall drought. We introduce an extended climatology of U.S. tropical cyclone activity based on accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) and use this data set to investigate variability and trends in landfall activity. The drought years between 2006 and 2016 recorded an average value of total annual ACE over the U.S. that was less than 60% of the 1900–2017 average. Scaling this landfall activity metric by basin-wide activity reveals a statistically significant downward trend since 1950, with the percentage of total Atlantic ACE expended over the continental U.S. at a series minimum during the recent drought period.”

As CO2 in the atmosphere continuous to rise unabated, hurricane activity is decreasing. Obviously the two trends have little to do with each other.

Experts advise caution in assigning blame

Looking at the very clear body of facts, it is little wonder that the NOAA (via the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, GFDL) cautioned against linking the greenhouse gases and hurricanes in an official statement:

It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).”

Shrill in Potsdam

However in Germany, scientists scientists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) don’t accept the facts for what they are. For them t’s more important to be shrill and to set off alarms. For example in the wake of Hurricane Harvey, PIK scientist Anders Levermann gave a radio interview at Radio Eins on September 1, 2017. He said that when it’s warmer, more water vapour ends up in the air, and thus more rain and a hurricane with a flooding catastrophe in Houston. It’s just that simple, right? Then later in the interview Levermann added a “maybe”.

What Levermann committed here of course was an irresponsible misleading of the listeners. The clear decrease in hurricanes over the past 65 years contradicts his extraordinarily simplistic claims.

Poor urban planning

At the BBC the journalists were more serious with the subject, and did not stay silent regarding the complexity that is involved as it is known that a vast number of factors are at play. In Houston, for example, a blocking pattern was at work and thus led to a heavy rainfall over an urban area for a protracted time period. Anyone who claims that a part of the disaster can be attributed to man is unrealistically simplifying the system and ought to know better.

The answer to the question as to what the problem in Houston was is provided by an article by the BBC:

Climate change did not make people build along a vulnerable coastline so the disaster itself is our choice and is not linked to climate change.”

On ARD German public television, they too have gotten much more careful. TV meteorologist Donald Bäcker flatly dismissed the shot from the hip from Potsdam.

Forecasts thanks to link to AMO

In June, 2017, at the start of the hurricane season, Judith Curry and CFAN published a prognosis for the hurricane season. Here they anticpated an above-average hurricane activity season. They were right. If they are successful next year as well, then we’ll have an important forecasting method that will be of great use for society.

Other prognoses: Hurricanes have a certain development. Satellite photos allow the creation of storms to be tracked. But not all West African hurricane babies make it across the Atlantic and reach America. Tel Aviv University developed a model that allows us to determine which storms pose a risk and which ones will die off. Read the press release here.

Over the mid-term, hurricane activity can be forecast quite well because it is closely coupled to the Atlantic Multidecadfal Osciallation (AMO) ocean cycle, which has a periodicity of about 60 years. Michel de Rougemont reminds us in an essay appearing at WUWT.

Building in flood-prone areas is negligent

In Germany’s leading political daily FAZ of August 31, 2017, Winand von Petersdorff pointed out an important damage factor related to Hurricane Harvey. It was a man-made disaster in the sense that many homes and buildings had been built in classic flood-prone areas.

The enormous costs were foremost caused by the fact that the booming Houston metropolitan area, with its 6.5 million inhabitants, permitted building in grand style in areas where flooding and high water would occur.”

Bitter Cold In Every Direction…Harsh Winter Conditions Grip Northern Hemisphere As Globe Cools

Never mind the severe cold hitting the Super Bowl this year, or scientists lecturing us on global warming while their host resort Davos got buried in snow.

There’s been a lot of cold gripping all over the northern hemisphere this winter – much more than many of us expected. Europe has also joined in on the freeze-fest as the harsh winter spreads across the old continent and even into Africa:

Cold is forecast to keep Europe shivering this week. Image cropped from

Cooling globe

One reason for this could be due to the rapidly falling global surface temperatures  as recorded by satellite data. In January the global mean temperature anomaly dropped to +0.26°C, with the tropics (where most of the heat is found) posting a nippy -0.12°C anomaly, according to Dr. Roy Spencer.

Other cooling factors include the current La Nina and possibly the low solar activity playing a role. IceAgeNow here reported last July that solar activity was at its most rapid decline in 9300 years.


In Northern Europe cold winter are normal, but the recent forecast for the Finnish region of Lapland warned of temperatures down to -40°C. This Finnish website here writes:

Temperatures have been low all winter in Finnish Lapland, but the cold dip expected this week could see record-breaking extremes.”

Snow and cold are also forecast across UK as the Express here reports: “Britain set for FOOT of heavy snow NEXT WEEK in COLDEST freeze for decade.”

Spain, North Africa get frostbitten and snowed on

The wintry conditions will likely impact agriculture and the European food markets. here writes: ” The cold snap gripping much of the Spanish peninsula is likely to reduce the availability of vegetables and salads on the European market during the coming weeks.”

The extreme cold has even extended beyond southern Europe and into Africa! For example Southern Morocco saw snow for the first time. And so has the Canary island of Tenerife seen its landscape get blanketed with the white stuff.

Stunning Sahara snow

Also The Mail here reports snowfall in the Algeria – the Sahara Desert. Up to December 2016 it had not snowed there in 37 years. Now according to The Mail it has snowed 4 times since, and it’s the second time this year already. “Locals were stunned to see snow on the sand dunes in the Sahara Desert yesterday.”

Records in Japan

Japanese blogger Kirye here tweeted that minimum temperature dropped to -17.2 ℃ on February 2, 2018, in Ikarigaseki, Aomori Prefecture. “It is the coldest daily minimum temperature since records began on November 24, 1976! The previous record low was -16.6 ℃, set on January 18, 2014.”

Kirye also tweeted: “The minimum temperature in Fuchu, Tokyo dropped to minus 8.4 ℃ on January 25, 2018. It is the lowest daily minimum temperature since records began on December 15, 1976. The previous record low was minus 8.2 ℃, set on February 8, 1984.”

Moreover, Japan’s mean temperature anomaly for January 2018 was a chilly -0.22 ℃. Kirye writes that there’s been no warming trend for January from 1986 to 2018.

The English language NTV of Japan writes: “This winter’s harshest cold wave continues in Japan with freezing temperatures in central Tokyo recorded two days in a row for the first time in 55 years.”

Kirye adds: “The minimum temperature dropped to -3.1℃ on January 26 in Tokyo. It is the coldest daily minimum temperature for January 26 since 1965.”

Russian Snowmageddon…minus 67°C

As I already highlighted here earlier, a number of locations across the northern hemisphere are seeing surprising brutal winter conditions. Another example: media outlets have reported widely that Moscow just saw a record snowfall. Also read here.

And in the Siberian region of Yakutia, the temperature fell as low as minus 67 Celsius.

Australia and New Zealand

Even the southern hemisphere has not been spared. The here reports “many towns in south-east Queensland have experienced their coldest February day on record”  and that “Archerfield managed only 21°C and Coolangatta on the Gold Coast 21.6°C”.

According to a local meteorologist: “These are the coldest February days that we’ve ever experienced in those places and some of those records date back quite some time.”

Finally Ice Age Now here writes that Tasmania even recorded a “summer blizzard.”

That’s a lot of winter, snow and cold for a planet that is supposedly warming rapidly.


Shock Paper Cites Formula That Precisely Calculates Planetary Temps WITHOUT Greenhouse Effect, CO2

CO2 Climate Sensitivity So Low It’s ‘Impossible

To Detect Or Measure In The Real Atmosphere’

“In particular, formula 5 (and 6) as presented here, totally rules out
any possibility that a 33°C greenhouse effect of the type proposed
by the IPCC in their reports can exist in the real atmosphere.”
– Holmes, 2017

In a new peer-reviewed scientific paper published in the journal Earth Sciences last December (2017), a Federation University (Australia) Science and Engineering student named Robert Holmes contends he may have found the key to unlocking our understanding of how planets with thick atmospheres (like Earth) remain “fixed” at 288 Kelvin (K), 740 K (Venus), 165 K (Jupiter)…without considering the need for a planetary greenhouse effect or changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

The Greenhouse Effect ‘Thought Experiment’ 

Perhaps the most fundamental conceptualization in climate science is the “thought experiment” that envisions what the temperature of the Earth might possibly be if there was no greenhouse effect, greenhouse gases, or atmosphere.

Dr. Gavin Schmidt, NASA  

“The size of the greenhouse effect is often estimated as being the difference between the actual global surface temperature and the temperature the planet would be without any atmospheric absorption, but with exactly the same planetary albedo, around 33°C. This is more of a ‘thought experiment’ than an observable state, but it is a useful baseline.”

Simplistically, the globally averaged surface temperature clocks in at 288 K.   In the “thought experiment”, an imaginary Earth that has no atmosphere (and thus no greenhouse gases to absorb and re-emit the surface heat) would have a temperature of only 255 K.  The difference between the real and imagined Earth with no atmosphere is 33 K, meaning that the Earth would be much colder (and uninhabitable) without the presence of greenhouse gases bridging the hypothetical “heat gap”.

Of that 33 K greenhouse effect, 20.6 K is imagined to derive from water vapor droplets in the atmosphere (1,000 to 40,000 parts per million [ppm] by volume), whereas 7.2 K is thought to stem from the “natural” (or pre-industrial) 200-280 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration (Kramm et al., 2017).

As a “thought experiment”, the critical heating role for water vapor droplets and CO2 concentrations lacks real-world validation.  For example, the Earth’s oceans account for 93% of the planet’s heat energy (Levitus et al., 2012), and yet no real-world physical measurements exist that demonstrate how much heating or cooling is derived from varying CO2 concentrations up or down over a body of water in volume increments of parts per million (0.000001).  Consequently, the CO2 greenhouse effect is a hypothetical, model-based conceptualization.

And in recent years, many scientific papers have been published that question the fundamentals of not only the Earth’s hypothetical greenhouse effect, but the role of greenhouse gases for other planets with thick atmospheres (like Venus) as well Hertzberg et al., 2017Kramm et al., 2017Nikolov and Zeller, 2017 Allmendinger, 2017Lightfoot and Mamer, 2017Blaauw, 2017Davis et al., 2018).   The Holmes paper highlighted here may just be among the most recent.

‘Extremely Accurate’ Planetary Temperature Calculations With Pressure/Density/Mass Formula

Holmes has argued that the average temperature for 8 planetary bodies with thick (0.1 bar or more) atmospheres can be precisely measured with “extreme” accuracy — an error range of just 1.2% — by using a formula predicated on the knowledge of 3 parameters: “[1] the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, [2] the average near surface atmospheric density and [3] the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere.”

Holmes used the derived pressure/density/mass numbers for each planetary body.   He then calculated the planets’ temperatures with these figures.

Venus’ temperature was calculated to be 739.7 K with the formula.  Its measured temperature is 740 K.  This indicates that the formula’s accuracy is within an error range of just 0.04% for Venus.

Given Earth’s pressure/density/mass, its calculated temperature is 288.14 K using Holmes’ formula.  Earth’s measured temperature is 288 K, an exact fit.

Saturn’s calculated temperature is 132.8 K.  Its measured temperature is 134 K — an error range of only 0.89%.

The impressive accuracy of the formula is illustrated below in Table 1. and Figure 2.

Atmospheric Pressure/Density And Surface Temperature

In large part, the density of a planet’s atmosphere is a primary determinant of its temperature.   Planets with thick atmospheres are hotter.  Planets with thin atmospheres are cooler.  The further away from the surface, the less gravity/pressure there is and the cooler it gets.  And vice versa.

In general, the weaker the gravitational pull of a planet, the thinner the atmosphere will be. A planet with weak gravity will tend to have less mass and allow more atmosphere to escape into space. Thus the thickness or thinness of the atmosphere depends upon the strength or weakness of gravity. For example, the gravity on Jupiter is 318 times greater than Earth, and thus Jupiter’s atmosphere is much thicker than Earth’s. Gravity gets weaker the further away it is from a planet, so the atmosphere will be thicker near the surface.”

A facile illustration of the effects of atmospheric pressure on the surface temperatures of a planet like Earth can be found in the Grand Canyon, Southwestern U.S.  There, the North Rim is about 1,000 feet (305 meters) higher in elevation than the South Rim.  Interestingly, the North Rim is also about 9 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the South Rim due to the influence of atmospheric pressure/gravity.   The bottom of the canyon reaches temperatures 20-25 degrees warmer than the top.  The stark temperature difference is unrelated to the greenhouse gas concentrations for the two locations, nor is it connected to sunlight.   It’s the gravitational pressure that creates the heat divergence.

Subia, 2014

“Elevation and season of the year determine average temperatures at the the Grand Canyon. Elevations at top of the South Rim average around 7,000 feet. The North Rim averages about 8,000 feet. The higher the elevation, the cooler the temperature. At any given time, the North Rim will average 8-10 degrees Fahrenheit cooler versus the South Rim. … [T]he very bottom of the canyon can increase 20 to 25 degrees warmer than the top of the respective rims.”

Sensitivity To CO2 Concentration Changes ‘Extremely Low’

Holmes points out that the implications of his precise calculations for planetary temperatures necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is no need to have a greenhouse effect or greenhouse gases to bridge a hypothetical “heat gap.”  Instead, he writes that “planetary bodies with thick atmospheres cannot be mainly determined by the ‘greenhouse effect’, but instead most likely by an effect from fluid dynamics, namely, adiabatic autocompression.”

This effectively rules out the possibility that CO2 is a predominant climate driver.

In fact, Holmes’ calculation for CO2 climate sensitivity (doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration from 0.03% to 0.06%) is -0.03°C.

As he ostensibly understates in his conclusion, “This climate sensitivity is already so low that it would be impossible to detect or measure in the real atmosphere.”

Holmes, 2017

Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law

Points to a Very Low Climate Sensitivity


Presented here is a simple and reliable method of accurately calculating the average near surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies which possess a surface atmospheric pressure of over 10kPa [a thick atmosphere, 0.1 bar or more]. This method requires a gas constant and the knowledge of only three gas parameters: [1] the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, [2] the average near surface atmospheric density and [3] the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere. The formula used is the molar version of the ideal gas law.
It is here demonstrated that the information contained in just these three gas parameters alone is an extremely accurate predictor of atmospheric temperatures on planets with atmospheres >10kPa. This indicates that all information on the effective plus the residual near-surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies with thick atmospheres, is automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three mentioned gas parameters.
This formula proves itself here to be not only more accurate than any other method heretofore used, but is far simpler to calculate.  It requires no input from parameters previously thought to be essential; solar insolation, albedo, greenhouse gas content, ocean circulation and cloud cover among many others.
Given this, it is shown that no one gas has an anomalous effect on atmospheric temperatures that is significantly more than any other gas.
In short, there can be no 33°C ‘greenhouse effect’ on Earth, or any significant ‘greenhouse effect’ on any other planetary body with an atmosphere of >10kPa.

The Formula: An ‘Extremely Accurate Predictor’ Of Planetary Temperatures

[T]he hypothesis being put forward here is that in the case of Earth, solar insolation provides the ‘first’ 255 Kelvin – in accordance with the black body law [11]. Then adiabatic auto-compression provides the ‘other’ 33 Kelvin, to arrive at the known and measured average global temperature of 288 Kelvin. The ‘other’ 33 Kelvin cannot be provided by the greenhouse effect, because if it was, the molar mass version of the ideal gas law could not then work to accurately calculate planetary temperatures, as it clearly does here.
It is apparent that this simple formula calculates the ‘surface’ temperatures of many planetary bodies in our Solar System accurately (Figure 2).
Specifically, those which have atmospheres thick enough to form a troposphere (i.e. possessing an atmospheric pressure of over 10kPa or 0.1bar). These are: Venus, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Titan, Uranus and Neptune. All calculated temperatures are within 1.2% of the NASA reported ‘surface’ temperature (except for Mars, which is excluded because it has a much lower atmospheric pressure than 10kPa).
This accuracy is achieved without using the S-B black body law, or the need to include terms for such parameters as TSI levels, albedo, clouds, greenhouse effect or, for that matter, adiabatic auto-compression. All that is required to be able to accurately calculate the average near-surface atmospheric temperature, is the relevant gas constant and the knowledge of three variable gas parameters.

The Implications: CO2 Climate Sensitivity (-0.03°C) ‘Extremely Low’

Some reflection upon the simplicity and accuracy of these results will bring an unbiased person to the obvious implications of this work. These are that the residual (residual being the difference between S-B law results and actual) near-surface atmospheric temperatures on planetary bodies with thick atmospheres cannot be mainly determined by the ‘greenhouse effect’, but instead most likely by an effect from fluid dynamics, namely, adiabatic autocompression.
Another implication leads directly to the conclusion that the climate sensitivity to, for example, a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has to be operating instantaneously, and also must be extremely low. Under this scenario, the climate sensitivity to CO2 cannot be very different to the addition of a similar quantity of any other gas.
In particular, formula 5 (and 6) as presented here, totally rules out any possibility that a 33°C greenhouse effect of the type proposed by the IPCC in their reports [23] can exist in the real atmosphere. The reason is that the IPCC state in their reports that a 0.03% [300 ppm] increase in atmospheric CO2 (i.e. a doubling from pre-industrial levels) must result in a global temperature rise of ~3°C; (a range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C, which has hardly changed since 1990) [24]. This is the so-called ‘climate sensitivity’. Anything like this magnitude of warming caused by such a small change in gas levels is completely ruled out by the molar mass version of the ideal gas law.
Calculate for a doubling of CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 0.03% [300 ppm]:
Calculated temperature after doubling of CO2 to 0.06% ≈ 288.11K. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is ≈ 288.14 – 288.11 ≈ – 0.03K.
The change would in fact be extremely small and difficult to estimate exactly, but would be of the order -0.03°C. That is, a hundred times smaller than the ‘likely’ climate sensitivity of 3°C cited in the IPCC’s reports, and also probably of the opposite sign [cooling]. Even that small number would likely be a maximum change, since if fossil fuels are burned to create the emitted CO2, then atmospheric O2 will also be consumed, reducing that gas in the atmosphere – and offsetting any temperature change generated by the extra CO2. This climate sensitivity is already so low that it would be impossible to detect or measure in the real atmosphere, even before any allowance is made for the consumption of atmospheric O2.

World Leading Authority: Sea Level “Absolutely Stable”… Poor Quality Data From “Office Perps”…IPCC “False”

German-speaking readers will surely want to save the text of an interview conducted by the online Baseler Zeitung (BAZ) of Switzerland with world leading sea level expert Prof. Nils-Axel Mörner.

Photo right: Nils-Axel Mörner

Few scientists have scientifically published as much on sea level as Mörner has.

Yet because he rejects the alarmist scenarios touted by the media and alarmist IPCC scientists, the Swedish professor has long been the target of vicious attack campaigns aimed at discrediting him – yet to little effect.

Mörner, who headed of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics (P&G) Department at Stockholm University from 1991 to 2005, has studied sea level his entire career, visiting 59 countries in the process.

Sea level hijacked by an activist agenda

In the interview Mörner tells science journalist Alex Reichmuth that climate and sea level science has been completely politicized and hijacked by an activist agenda and has become a “quasi religion”.

According to the BAZ, recently Mörner has been at the Fiji Islands on multiple occasions in order “to study coastal changes and sea level rise”, and to take a first hand look at the “damage” that allegedly has occurred due to climate change over the past years.

IPCC is false

The Swedish professor tells the BAZ that he became a skeptic of alarmist climate science early on because “the IPCC always depicted the facts on the subject falsely” and “grossly exaggerated the risks of sea level rise” and that the IPCC “excessively relied on shaky computer models instead of field research.”

He tells the BAZ: “I always want to know what the facts are. That’s why I went to the Fiji Islands.”

“Very poor quality data” from “office perps”

Mörner also dismisses claims by the Swiss ProClim climate science platform who recently announced that the Fiji Islands are seeing a rapid sea level rise. According to Mörner the data were taken from poor locations. “We looked over the data, and concluded that they are of very poor quality” and that the researchers who handled the data were “office perps” who were “not specialized in coastal dynamic processes and sea level changes”.

Many of them have no clue about the real conditions.”

Sea level “absolutely stable”

Mörner tells the BAZ that sea level at the Fiji islands was in fact higher than it is today between 1550 and 1700. Coral reefs tell the story and “they don’t lie,” the Swedish professor said. He added he was not surprised by the data because “it is not the first time the IPCC has been wrong”.

Over the past 200 years: “The sea level has not changed very much. Over the past 50 to 70 years it has been absolutely stable”.

“Because they have a political agenda”

Not only is sea level rise due to climate change at the Fiji Islands exaggerated, but the same is true worldwide as a rule. When asked why are we seeing all the warnings from scientists, Mörner tells the BAZ: “Because they have a political agenda.”

Mörner warns readers that the IPCC was set up from the get-go with the foregone conclusion man was warming the globe and changing the climate: Mörner says: “And it is sticking to that like a dogma – no matter what the facts are.”

When asked if sea level rise poses a problem for the islands, Mörner answers with one simple word: “No.”

Strong evidence solar activity impacts sea level

The Swedish professor also tells the BAZ that the rates of water rushing into the ocean due to glacier melt are exaggerated and that thermal expansion of the ocean is minimal. Mörner adds:

Sea level appears to depend foremost on solar cycle and little from melting ice.”

Junk surveys produce “nonsense”

When asked by the BAZ why he became skeptical, Mörner recalls the “great anger” from an IPCC representative when he spoke at a 1991 sea level conference in the USA. He was surprised by the reaction, alluding to the fact that it is normal to have different views in science. And as the years followed, he became increasingly aware of the falsehoods made by the IPCC and the organization’s refusal to admit to them.

On the subject of publishing research results:

Publishers of scientific journals no longer accept papers that challenge the claims made by the IPCC, no matter the paper’s quality.”

In his decades long career, Mörner has authored some 650 publications, and he tells the BAZ that he has no plans to stop fighting. “No one can stop me.”

Near the end of the interview Mörner calls the claim that 97% of all climate scientists believe global warming is man-made “nonsense” and that the number comes from “unserious surveys”.

In truth the majority of scientists reject the IPCC claims. Depending on the field, it’s between 50 and 80 percent.”

Cooling over the next decades

Mörner also sees little reason to reduce CO2 emissions, and calls the belief in man-made climate change a religious movement driven by public funding.

In conclusion Mörner tells the BAZ that he thinks solar activity will likely decrease and that cooling will ensue over the coming decades.

Then it will become clear just how wrong the global warming warnings are.”

Bewildered Scientists…A Global Warming Crisis Fails To Appear: Sea Level Rise Grinds To A Crawl

Over the past months a spate of scientific papers published show sea level rise has not accelerated like many climate warming scientists warned earlier. The reality is that the rise is far slower than expected, read here and here.

Alarmist bedwetting by scientists over sea level rise proving to have been needless. Photo: PIK climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf. Source: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Rahmstorf FTP folder.

Scary scenarios abound

The latest findings glaringly contradict alarmist claims of accelerating sea level rise. For example the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) here wrote sea levels would “likely rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the current century”, due to global warming.

In 2013 The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) wrote here sea-level rise in this century would likely be 70-120 centimeters by 2100″ (i.e. 7 – 12 mm annually) and that 90 experts in a survey “anticipated a median sea-level rise of 200-300 centimeters by the year 2300” (i.e. on average circa 7 to 10 mm every year).

It’s important to note that the above scary figures given above are mostly based on computer simulations, where parameters are simply assumed by the scientists.

Evidence in fact points to deceleration

Using these modelled estimates, the globe should now be seeing a rapid acceleration in sea level rise. Yet no evidence of this can be found so far. In fact the real measured data show the opposite is happening: a deceleration in sea level rise is taking place.

Instead of the 7 – 12 mm annual sea level rise the PIK projected in 2013, a recent study appearing in the Geophysical Research Letters in April 2017 corrected the satellite measured sea level rise downwards from 3.3 mm annually to just 3.0 mm over the past 24 years – or less than half what PIK models projected.

Only 1.5 mm/year

Worse, satellite data measuring sea level have turned out to be far more complex and uncertain than one would wish, and evidence is piling up and showing that satellite data likely have been overstating sea level rise. For example when measuring sea level rise along coastlines (where people actually live)using tide gauges, the rise has even been far slower. Renowned Swedish sea level expert Axel Mörner published a paper in 2017 showing an observed sea level rise rate of only 1.5 – 2.0 mm/year.

Second half of the 20th century slower than in the first half

In another newly published paper by Frederiske et al. 2018 just this year, oceanographers estimate that global sea levels rose at a rate of only 1.42 mm per year between 1958 and 2014. That figure closely coincides with the results of Dr. Simon Holgate from 2007. According to the Holgate study: “The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003).”

The Holgate result was confirmed by another 2008 paper authored by Jevrejeva et al, which found the fastest sea level rise during the past 300 years was observed between 1920 – 1950 with maximum of 2.5 mm/yr.

In other words: global sea level rise has decelerated since the 1950s.

At less than 2 mm annually, sea level is rising at only one sixth of the 12 mm per year rate projected by the PIK in 2013.

New Scare Science: Global Sea Levels Rose A Staggering 3.1 Inches (1.42 mm/yr) During 1958-2014

Antarctica & Greenland Combined Added

0.59 Of An Inch To Sea Levels Since 1958

Graph Source: Grinsted et al., 2009

In a newly published paper, oceanographers estimate that global sea levels rose at a rate of ~1.42 mm per year−1 (1.32 to 1.52 mm/yr−1) between 1958 and 2014, a 56-year span that directly coincides with an unprecedented rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Frederiske et al.,2018

“For the first time, it is shown that for most basins the reconstructed sea level trend and acceleration can be explained by the sum of contributors, as well as a large part of the decadal variability. The global-mean sea level reconstruction shows a trend of 1.5 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 over 1958–2014 (1σ), compared to 1.3 ± 0.1 mm yr−1 for the sum of contributors.”

This rate (which scores between the estimated sum of sea level rise contributors and a reconstruction from tide gauge and satellite measurements) is similar to the reconstructed rate for 1954-2003 (1.45 mm/yr−1) estimated by Dr. Simon Holgate (2007).

Holgate, 2007   

“The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003).”

Extrapolating the annual rate of rise over the 56-year period (1958-2014), global sea levels rose 7.95 centimeters (cm) in total, or 3.13 inches during the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) era.

Negligible Polar Ice Sheet Melt Contribution To Sea Level Rise Since 1958

Of those 7.95 cm, just 1.17 cm (0.46 of an inch) of meltwater was contributed by Greenland Ice Sheet in 56 years, and the Antarctic ice sheet contributed just 0.37 of a cm (0.13 of an inch).

1958-2014 Sea Level Rise Neither Unusual Or Unprecedented

If 3.1 inches of sea level rise over a 56-year span does not appear to be either alarming or unprecedented, perhaps it’s because they are indeed neither — especially when one considers longer-term contexts.

As Holgate (2007) summarizes above, the ~50-year global rate of sea level rise was substantially higher (2.03 mm/yr−1) during the first half of the 20th century (1904-1953) compared to the post-1950s period (1.45 mm/yr−1 1954-2003).

In other words, since the 1950s, global sea level rise has decelerated.

The 1920 to 1950 period had rates of rise that were either higher or rivaled the rates of the more recent decades (using satellite altimetry modeling [3.4 mm/yr−1 ]). In fact, when the anomalous decadal variability is removed, the fastest rates of sea level rise occurred during the 1920 to 1950 period.

Jevrejeva et al., 2008

The fastest sea level rise, estimated from the time variable trend with decadal variability removed, during the past 300 years was observed between 1920– 1950 with maximum of 2.5 mm/yr.”

“The fastest sea level rise during the 20th century was between 1920 – 50 and appears to be a combination of peaking of the 60– 65 years cycle with a period of low volcanic activity (Jevrejeva et al., 2006; Church and White, 2006).”

Glacier Melt Contribution To Sea Level Rise Much Greater Before 1950

A graphical reconstruction featured in a new paper (Treat and Jones, 2018) affirms that the glacier melt percentage (and contribution to sea level rise) in the Canadian Arctic was significantly greater during most of the last several thousand years compared to the modern era.

Treat and Jones, 2018

“Rates of permafrost aggradation in peatlands generally increased after 3000 BP and were greatest between 750 and 0 BP, corresponding with neoglacial cooling and the Little Ice Age (LIA), respectively.”

The ice sheet  record for the 20th century also reveals that the glacier melt contribution to sea level rise was significantly greater during the 1920 to 1950 period than it has been since the ice melt contribution began decelerating (after the 1950s).

Gregory et al., 2013

Fernández-Fernández et al., 2017

“The abrupt climatic transition of the early 20th century and the 25-year warm period 1925–1950 triggered the main retreat and volume loss of these glaciers since the end of the ‘Little Ice Age’. Meanwhile, cooling during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s altered the trend, with advances of the glacier snouts.”

By 1946, this glacier had retreated almost 90% of the total recorded between the LIA maximum (1868) and 2005. … Just as in the glaciers described above, the retreat of the Eastern Tungnahryggsjökull from its LIA position was more intense during the first half of the 20th century, and in 1946 its snout was only 200 m from its current position.”

4 New Papers: Sea Levels Were Much Higher Than Now In Past Millennia

As the introductory global sea level graph above and several dozen sea level reconstructions published in scientific journals every year (2016 and 2017) demonstrate, global sea levels were about 1 to 3 meters higher than they are now during the Middle Holocene, or when CO2 concentrations were significantly lower (~270 parts per million).

These non-correlations between sea level rise and CO2 concentration would not appear to be consistent with the popular conceptualization that CO2 concentration variations are significant drivers of temperatures, glacier melt, and/or sea level rise.

After all, the 3.1 inches of sea level rise since 1958 does not even fall outside the range of natural variability.

He et al., 2018

Cooper et al., 2018

“With sea level stabilization a few metres above the present around 5.5 ka cal yr BP (Hein et al., 2016), the longshore drift system was reestablished and sediment accumulation in the littoral zone recommenced.”

Miguel et al., 2018

Hallman et al., 2018

Latest Data Show NO SEA LEVEL RISE ACCELERATION Since 1993…Coasts: Less Than 2 Millimeters Rise Annually!

Satellite Data Show No Acceleration In Sea Level Rise Over Past 25 Years

Image: NASA Earth Observatory  (public domain)

Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt today here are asking how sea level rise is doing because as have not heard much about it lately. A good place to start is at Climate4You. Strangely the data go only until December 2016. And if you look at the data from the source form the University of Colorado, we find the same. So what’s with 2017?

The Silence of the Sea Level Rise

Today we know that satellite data must undergo a number of steps before a sea level rise figure can be reached. In April 2017 a study appeared in the Geophysical Research Letters, where corrections were made. As a result the average sea level rise since 1993 was not 3.3 mm/year, but rather 3.0 mm per year. This was hardly music to the hears of alarmists.

And what was really peculiar was the headline appearing in Nature concerning the study:

Satellite snafu masked true sea-level rise for decades
Revised tallies confirm that the rate of sea-level rise is accelerating as the Earth warms and ice sheets thaw.”

Here Nature unabashedly covered up the lower sea level rise. Also all the natural variability of ocean cycles was ignored. The reality is that there is no sign of an increased rate, as Willis Eschenbach at WUWT calculated. That’s been confirmed by a NASA study appearing in November 2017 in the Journal of Geophysical Research (Beckley et al. 2017):

On the “Cal-Mode” Correction to TOPEX Satellite Altimetry and Its Effect on the Global Mean Sea Level Time Series
Comparison of satellite altimetry against a high-quality network of tide gauges suggests that sea-surface heights from the TOPEX altimeter may be biased by ±5 mm, in an approximate piecewise linear, or U-shaped, drift. This has been previously reported in at least two other studies. The bias is probably caused by use of an internal calibration-mode range correction, included in the TOPEX “net instrument” correction, which is suspect owing to changes in the altimeter’s point target response. Removal of this correction appears to mitigate most of the drift problem. In addition, a new time series based on retracking the TOPEX waveforms, again without the calibration-mode correction, also reduces the drift aside for a clear problem during the first 2 years. With revision, the TOPEX measurements, combined with successor Jason altimeter measurements, show global mean sea level rising fairly steadily throughout most of 24 year time period, with rates around 3 mm/yr, although higher over the last few years.

As is the case with the global warming hiatus, there is now scrambling going on for ideas to explain the lack of sea level rise.

A press release issued by the  National Science Foundation is floating the idea that volcanoes could be a reason. The idea ocean cycles might be playing a role obviously has not occurred to the NSF scientists.

Trust “taking a hit”

Vahrenholt and Lüning also write that with all the steps the satellite sea level data have to go through, it is “little wonder that trust in satellite measurements is taking a hit”. Mörner (2017) suggests putting less emphasis on satellite-based measurements and putting it more on coastal tide gauges (where people actually live). Tide gauges globally show a sea level rise rate of only 1.5-2 mm/year.

Also the future does not look anywhere near as bad as it is often portrayed. One reason is that scientists are anticipating increased snowfall over Antarctica, which stores huge amounts of water at the South Pole.

A few years ago Judith Curry stopped doing research and now consults companies and authorities on the subject of climate change. A number of clients have shown up at her door and asked her to submit a serious analysis of sea level rise over the recent decades and provide an estimate of what to expect in the future.

In a separate Part 2, Curry summarizes her findings:

The geological record for sea level rise provides important context for recent sea level rise. However, the uncertainties in the geological sea level  record are substantial, associated with sparse sampling, uncertainties in the proxy methods and uncertainties in the analysis methods. Is the 20th century sea level rise unusual? Sea level was apparently higher at the time of the Holocene Climate Optimum (~ 5 ka), at least in some regions. I have not seen an overall assessment of this, but there have recently been numerous publications providing local evidence for higher sea levels during this period. Whether or not sea level was higher during the Medieval Warm Period than current levels remains uncertain, and there is substantial disagreement among different reconstructions on the sea level during the MWP, with the Grinsted et al finding substantially higher sea level values during the MWP (around 1150 AD). Kopp et al. find the 20th century rate of sea level rise to be the highest in the last 27 centuries. However, since their data is barely resolved at 100 year time scales (with decimeter vertical resolution), I would not place  high confidence in their conclusion. Eyeball examination of Grinsted et al.’s Figure 7 shows possibly higher rate of sea level rise between ~1000 and 1100 AD. Overall, I find Kopp et al.’s analysis to be more convincing (apart from overconfidence in the relative rate of 20th century sea level rise). The pace of interesting and important paleo sea level rise research seems to have accelerated since publication of the AR5, I will be following this closely.”