According to an article in Die Zeit, Germans are threatened with additional energy price increases in the future. They expect prices to double permanently.
Image generated by dall e2
Germany’s municipal utilities expect a permanent doubling of gas and electricity tariffs for end customers. In view of lower wholesale prices, ‘municipal utilities naturally also want to lower tariffs and will do so as soon as there is room to maneuver.’ But he warned against false hopes, Ingbert Liebing, CEO of the Association of Municipal Enterprises (VKU), told the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung. ‘In our estimation, it will foreseeably amount to a doubling of gas and electricity tariffs.’ The crisis is no longer quite so dramatic, but not over, he said. Liebing did not name a time frame for the expected doubling of prices. Liebing rejected the accusation by consumer advocates that municipal utilities are now charging astronomical prices. ‘The current spot market and forward prices are not yet so favorable that this is already having a lasting price-reducing effect. For that, they would have to fall even further and, above all, permanently,’ he said.”
As producers or service providers have these price increases, consequently also other prices rise, not only the energy prices. Since wages and salaries are not rising at the same rate, these price increases mean that either savings will be depleted or consumers will cut back on other things. In any case, this is a heavy burden to bear, and it will have a significant impact.
Today we check in with Blackout News to find out the latest news on Germany’s green energy follies.
The latest is that the country’s increasingly green electric power grid is increasingly unable to handle the “climate friendly” electric mobility and heat pumps the German government is pushing.
Germany’s green power grid can’t even sustain green society. Photo image cropped here (for illustration only).
It’s widely known that Germany’s electric power supply has the grid constantly on the brink power outages, even blackouts. This is in large part due to the rushed phasing out of baseload coal and nuclear power while installing mass capacities of unstable a wind and solar power.
As Germany pushes the ever greater burdens onto the power grid, its government continues taking measures to weaken the grid rather than to bolster it.
Since Germany’s natural gas supply disruption has caused energy prices to skyrocket, homeowners and motorists are looking for alternative heating sources and modes of mobility. Little wonder Germans are looking more and more to heat pumps for home heating and electric cars for their mobility.
But there’s a problem, Black News reports: “The President of the Federal Network Agency is now calling for the forced throttling of heat pumps and charging stations.” This is because the power grid cannot cope with the added load.
“The head of the network agency, Mr. Müller, sees new risks for the supply of electricity and gas. Private individuals installing charging stations or pumps could overload local grids,” according to Blackout News. “To prevent this, the power of these devices could be throttled.”
The government wants to push electric cars and heat pumps, but the agencies are warning it’s not possible – because over the past 20 years Germany has wrecked it’s once extremely stable electric power supply, which by the way was responsible for a tiny, inconsequential fraction of the world’s CO2 emissions.
According to Müller, “there could be overload problems and local power outages if we don’t act”.
“The authority in Bonn considers low-voltage local networks to be particularly susceptible to disruptions.”
Müller also told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung that in critical times, heaters and chargers should not be completely cut off from the power supply. He promised that there will always be a minimum supply.
“The CEO of Düsseldorf-based energy company E.on, Thomas König, described the current power grid as being inadequate and called for the “quick expansion and modernization of local and regional power grids”.
Clouds, not greenhouse gases, are the decisive drivers of our weather, our energy status and hence also our climate. The need to get away from the over-simplistic idea of CO2 being the control knob
Demystifying “greenhouse gas” claims – Part 3
By Fred F. Mueller
In Part 1 we looked at the deplorable tendency of climate doomsayers to reduce the factual complexity and variability of parameters influencing our climate and declaring CO2 to be the only major control knob dictating climate development and other factors wilfully suppressed1).
In part 2, it was shown that the reality of radiation energy transfers in the atmosphere depends mainly on clouds, who can act as decisive inhibitors preventing sunlight from reaching the surface and/or as massive sources of infrared energy radiation down to earth.
Today in Part 3, we investigate some interesting professional meteorological findings backing the results of logical conclusions that can be verified by anybody using pricy DIY instrumentation and common sense in combination with some information available on the internet.
This proof of concept underscores the idea that clouds, not greenhouse gases are the decisive drivers of our weather, our energy status and hence also our climate.
The Hamburg weather mast
This is the 300-meter high broadcasting mast of the North German Broadcasting Co. located in the transition region between rural and urban land use, some 8 km outside the city center. The mast has been equipped with sophisticated meteorological instrumentation at several height levels, with the highest platform at 280 meters above ground. The station also has a separate 10-m mast and a standardized meteorological ground station as well as aggro-meteorological instrumentation monitoring the conditions from surface level to different depth levels down to -1.2 meter. It is run by the Meteorological Institute at Universität Hamburg in partnership with the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology. Operated since 1967, the station has been revamped with cutting-edge data acquisition technology2) in 1994. Continuous monitoring records are maintained since 1995.
Data are recorded at high rates and the corresponding values of most of them are updated on their website3) at fixed intervals. Additionally, continuous graphics for 2-day4) and 8-day periods are displayed on separate sub-pages. This also includes computed values such as sunshine duration, daily global radiation and the balance between incoming and outgoing radiation energy fluxes at ground level. Although the meteorological institute maintains a massive database of data records, these are not made available to the general public. Full access is limited to meteorological institutes and networks, exceptions may be granted to other researchers and professional users. This is all the more deplorable since it prohibits critical minds of the public from accessing data that have, after all, been assembled using taxpayer’s money.
Selected interesting data recordings
Fig. 2. Two-day recording of the global solar input density over the time of day from Jan.15th to Jan 17th, 2023 (red) compared to the theoretical max value (Graphic: Wettermast Hamburg).
Global solar energy input density is recorded as the sum of direct and indirect solar radiation from sunrise to sunset. In the 2- and 8-day graphs, the corresponding values are compared to a dome-shaped yellow curve representing the theoretical max value calculated for the current latitude and the sun’s position for the current date and the actual time of day. Several other values such as the daily integrated energy input are also put on display.
Clouds
Cloud cover is recorded with a ceilometer that differentiates between several superimposed layers, Fig. 3
Fig. 3. The ceilometer records the height and density of different cloud “floors” up to a height of 10.000 meters. 2-day recording from Jan. 15th, 2023 to Jan. 17th, 2023 (Graphic: Wettermast Hamburg)
Fig. 4. Computer generated diagram representing the coverage index of four different cloud floors on a 1/8 scale. Dark blue represents full cover of the lowest cloud layer and full white segments are clear sky conditions. 2-day recording from Jan. 15th, 2023 to Jan. 17th, 2023 (Graphic: Wettermast Hamburg).
Fig. 5. Additionally, cloud base temperature is monitored using an IR temperature probe, shown her combined with the computed cloud cover diagram. Recording from Jan. 15th, 2023 to Jan. 17th, 2023 (Graphic: Wettermast Hamburg)
IR radiation and radiation balance
Fig. 6. Recordings of the downwelling IR radiation (upper graph) and the computed total radiation balance at ground level from Jan. 15th, 2023 to Jan. 17th, 2023 (Graphic: Wettermast Hamburg)
The calculations performed to establish the values of the lower graph include the global solar radiation density recorded at ground level, the downwelling IR radiation emitted from above, an albedo value of 0.21 and the IR emissions upwelling from the ground calculated from the surface temperature under the assumption of a constant emissivity factor of 0.984. The website states that this calculation delivers fairly good values if the surface is covered by a green meadow but cautions this is not the case when there is a closed snow cover.
In this context, it should be noted that in situations with a high cloud cover index in conjunction with low-altitude clouds, the downwelling IR radiation flux density is matching values established using the simplified SB-equation described in Part 2 of this article fairly well. During times with higher clouds and lower cover values, the downwelling IR radiation intensity recedes by about 75 W/m2, leaving a residual level of around 225 W/m2. The examples shown below underscore the fact that the varying cloud cover has an enormous and highly variable influence on the energy flux balance at ground level. Due to the fact that the institute data base is not accessible to the public, all samples presented here were collected in January 2023.
Example 1: a day with a largely even energy balance
Fig. 7. Superimposed graphs of global solar radiation density (upper graph), downwelling IR radiation density (second graph), cloud cover index (blue) and the computed balance of the varying radiative fluxes from Jan. 15th to Jan. 17th, 2023. (Graphic: Wettermast Hamburg)
The decisive information of Fig. 7. is the lower graph showing the computed radiation balance at surface level. Despite the cloud cover receding slightly after 08.15 am on Jan. 16th, 2023, , the moderately high solar input from 8.45 am to 16.15 pm does not seem to push the daily total significantly into positive terrain. The increasing IR output from the thick cloud cover developing after around 22.00 pm largely compensates IR radiation losses from the surface until at around 8.45 am the next day. From then on, the sun is able to deliver considerable energy input. But with the cloud cover disappearing after 13.0 pm, the receding IR input from disappearing clouds tips the balance decisively into negative territory despite the sun continuing to weigh in. After sunset at about 16.15 pm, the negative trend reaches -75 to -80 W/m2.
Example 2: a day with a clear cooling effect
Fig. 8. This figure displays the continuation of the trend shown in Fig. 7. from Jan. 17th throughout Jan. 18th and into the 19th (Graphic: Wettermast Hamburg)
Fig. 8. shows that the high energy losses caused by upwelling IR radiation from the surface are not compensated for from downwelling IR radiated from clouds. This continues throughout most of the night until about 3.30 am on the 18th, when a moderate reappearance of clouds reduces the losses to some -55 to -65 W/m2. From 8.20 am on, moderately high input from global solar radiation piercing through a thinned cloud cover pushes the balance upwards to positive peaks reaching up to 100 W/m2. Note that the cloud cover was apparently not thick enough to produce a noticeable increase in downwelling IR radiation, which is consistent with the relatively high level of global solar radiation the clouds have let shine through. Fading input from the setting sun and losses from upwelling radiation due to a largely clear sky tip the balance into the red from about 15.10 pm with a rapid descent until about -70 to -75 W/m2 until about 22.15 pm. Then a slowly thickening cloud cover gradually reduces the balance losses until a jittery equilibrium is reached shortly after midnight. A stabilizing cloud cover then steadies the curve slightly in negative territory until the dawning sun drives it upwards again. Finally, a sharply downward trend from a combination of setting sun and fading cloud cover results in a very steep decline of the energy balance from 16.00 pm on. On balance, Jan. 18th has seen a marked cooling effect caused by a sometimes poor (and ill-timed) cloud cover.
Cloud effects are real and far stronger than those of “greenhouse gases”
This evidence strongly backs the thesis that the decisive role of energy exchanges in the system surface/ atmosphere has to be attributed to the interaction of clouds with the radiation energy fluxes in the system. Even in mid-winter, the variance within a day can span between +180 and –80 W/m2. Compare this total span of 260 w/m2 to the alleged +3.11 W/m2 attributed to the “forcing” exerted by the combined “greenhouse gases”. They differ by a factor of more than 80. And keep in mind that the values presented here have been collected in mid-winter, when all radiative fluxes are much lower than in the summer. Looking at these facts, it is really astonishing that in most discussions about the impact of water vapor on weather and climate, the role of clouds is simply ignored. Thinking of water vapor as a mere passive amplifying factor for CO2 is a twist of reality.
Global climate trends should be computed from local data
In this context, one should keep in mind that climate is not “global”. There are different definitions, e.g. for paleoclimate research, but usually, climate is understood to be the long-term weather pattern in an area, typically averaged over 30 years5). It is usually expressed by the median values of all relevant weather events in the given area over the agreed time period. More general conclusions should only be drawn based on data collected using a sufficiently dense network of meteorological stations ideally distributed all over the globe. Satellites are useful but cannot do the job alone: there are many essential values that cannot be recorded remotely from space with sufficient accuracy. Basing climate calculations on “median” values often extracted from simulations instead of taking into account the real local variations – such as e.g. globalized mean albedo figures instead of the values corresponding to the local cloud situation – is thus of rather restricted value.
As we have seen, the variations in the local energy status are a vital factor for assessing local meteorological changes. Air temperature changes at a height of 2 meters are largely a result of the underlying fact that energy levels of matter – be it air, soil or water – have been altered.
CO2 a pint-size climate driver
The real climate behemoths of the planet are the ground and the oceans, which store and release (and in the case of oceans also disperse) much higher amounts of energy than the thin air cover of our planet. Our current air-temperature-centered approach stems from meteorologists of e.g. the 18th and 19th century. These had neither the required modern scientific knowledge nor the necessary instrumentation to understand the real relations between energy, phase transformations, chemistry, physical chemistry and heat. This still influences our current weather and climate approach that is still too air-condition-centered. Science tells us that the thermal capacity of the oceans is about 1,000 times higher6) than that of the atmosphere, and soils also play a bigger role than air. For this reason air temperature at 2 metres is just a variable suited for weather forecasts. But when looking at long-term climate assessments, air temperature is just the tail unable to wiggle the big energy dog represented by the exchange of enormous energy quantities between the earth system and space.
This historical background explains why meteorological stations that are able to perform the recordings and computations shown here are still rare exceptions. The existing network should be upgraded in order to monitor the main factors impacting on local energy level changes. This would also be helpful in overcoming the current tendency to define fruitless “one knob for all” parameters while ignoring the way more powerful factors that really drive the evolution of our climate.
In the next parts, we will look at the variabilities and trends in cloud-sun interaction and current discrepancies with respect to rain.
Independent analyses from multiple independent sources indicate Arctic Siberia was 3 to 5°C warmer than today during the peak of the last glacial, or when CO2 levels were below 200 ppm.
Measurements from Antarctica’s ice sheet are almost invariably used to characterize both the global-scale atmospheric CO2 levels and climate for the last 10s to 100s of thousands of years.
But it is rather odd that Antarctica’s climate is considered globally representative (i.e., “global warming”) since there has been no warming here for the last seven decades.
Further, ice samples from Antarctica have CO2 values that range between 900 and 2900 ppm (Matsuo and Miyake, 1966) for the modern period (i.e., the 1960s). These values are far outside the range of the accepted modern global atmospheric values (~300 to 400 ppm).
If Antarctica doesn’t accurately record the modern CO2 values and climate trends, why should Antarctica’s paleoclimate history be regarded as globally representative?
Siberian Arctic was much warmer than today throughout the last glacial
Vegetation and tree records with specific warmth thresholds and associated ice-free temperature requirements affirm the Siberian Arctic climate needed to be “warmer than today by several degrees Celsius” about 25,000 to 18,000 years ago, or during the peak of the last glacial (Tarasov et al., 2021). This was a period when CO2 levels are said to have hovered around 180 ppm.
Scientists document ~5°C warmer glacial climates (July) than today throughout Northern Asia during these millennia:
“…reconstructed mean July temperatures above 12°C for most of the last cold stage [glacial] in the study area [throughout Northern Asia], where modern mean July temperatures are about 7°C”.
The widespread presence of grazing mammoths, horses, bison, deer, antelope, gazelle…in Siberia and Alaska and well north of the Arctic circle imply “year-round grazing grounds.” This requires warmer temperatures and more pervasive ice-free grass-grazing ranges than exist today.
Other scientists document a Siberian Arctic with “warmer-than-today temperatures (by up to 4 – 4.5°C)…between about 39 and 31 cal kyr BP” (Wetterich et al., 2021), or, again, when CO2 levels were alleged to have been in the low 200s ppm range.
Grass grew 300-350 days a year in the late stages of the last glacial in the Siberian Arctic. As mentioned above, this allowed horses, antelopes, and other large grazers (mammoths) to continuously reside at these high latitudes (Andreev et al., 2008).
Horses were grazing on Arctic grass year-round until as recently as 2,200 years ago. Today these regions have tundra climates. Grazers can no longer survive in the modern colder-than-the-last-late-glacial conditions.
The Siberian Arctic also had extensive birch forests 14,000 to 12,000 years ago. Birch trees were still growing in this region as late as ~3,700 years ago. Today these same regions are too cold for birch trees to grow.
Why is it assumed we can obtain accurate global-scale records of past climates from Antarctica when there is such a stark divergence in the timing and amplitude of Antarctica’s climate trends versus Arctic Siberia’s?
The mean temperature data for December, 2022, for the city of Tokyo, Japan and its Hachijō-jima island in the Pacific are now available from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA).
These data now allow us to look at the newest annual mean temperature trends for the two locations.
First we look at latest annual mean temperature plots for Tokyo since 1994:
According to the alarmists, the increase in CO2 is supposed to be heating up the entire planet. Strangely, using data from the JMA, Tokyo has in fact cooled modestly since 1994 – despite the urban heat sink effect from all the concrete, asphalt, steel and waste heat.
Also the December linear mean temperature trend for Tokyo has fallen more than 1°C since 1989:
Moving offshore to the Tokyo island of Hachijō-jima, away from all the massive urban heat island affects, we look at the newest mean annual temperature data going back to 1975.
In the first video: Alarmist sea level rise scenarios looking more unlikely…some Antarctic regions will see cooling…
The German Die kalte Sonne site, and then later Klimanachrichten now presents its climate and energy news videos in English at its new YouTube channel: World Climate News. Be sure to subscribe.
World Climate News presents the latest scientific results, featuring commentary on and analysis of peer-reviewed articles from well-known journals.
Even the IPCC disregards alarmist sea level projections
Concerning sea level rise, Potsdam climate researcher Stefan Rahmstorf and other far-out alarmists have warned global sea levels could rise up to “one meter ninety” before the end of this century. Yet, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) takes a different view. In its 5th State of the Climate Report of 2013, for example, it projects a sea level rise of just 53 centimeters for a scenario where CO2 emissions peak around 2040.
Brakes on sea level rise as some Antarctic regions expected to get colder!
The 2013 IPCC projection has now been backed up by René van Westen and Henk Dijkstra from the University of Utrecht. Their published results of a sea-level computer simulation in the journal “Science Advances” showed that the ocean around Antarctica is hardly expected to warm up and that regions are even expected to get colder by the end of the century.
Thus, according to the new calculations, the ice melt caused on the coasts of Antarctica is only a third of what earlier, lower-resolution simulations suggested.
Antarctic ice volume to reduce sea level rise 25%
The new model also expects more snowfall in Antarctica and the Antarctic ice mass is even expected to remain unchanged and stable overall this century. In this respect, Antarctica will probably make no contribution at all to global sea-level rise by 2100. This reduces the rise in sea level to be expected in this century by 25%.
While the old model assumed a sea-level rise of about 42 cm, it is now only 33 cm, i.e. 9 cm less. A value that is far removed from the dramatic scenarios of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
TORNADOES
No data supporting link between warming and tornadoes
When it comes to tornado activity, December 2021 saw a series of violent tornadoes in the southeastern USA. More than 85 people died. As expected, the usual suspects pointed the finger at man-made climate change, World Climate News reports in the video.
However, Andreas Friedrich of the German Weather Service, DWD, reminded in mid-December 2021 that there is currently no evidence that the series of tornadoes is related to climate change. This is supported by Chris Martz, who plotted the tornado statistics for the USA using data from the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) for the last 65 years.
The result? No discernible trend.
How will tornadoes develop in the future? According to Matthew Woods of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, tornadoes could become rarer but more violent. The bottom line is that the future remains uncertain.
Robust evidence from bison remains recovered from the Austrian Alps in 2020 and 2021 invalidate claims modern Alpine temperatures are unusually warm.
A new study suggests that from about 6000 to 1200 years ago European bison fed on deciduous tree/vegetation that grew at Alpine altitudes reaching around 800 m higher than they do today.
Known beech and oak tree growth warmth thresholds – the required number of days per year above a minimum temperature limit – thus affirm Austria needed to be 4-7°C warmer than now during this period (~2000 years ago).
“[T]he beech limit but also the forest line during the »wisent time« (6,000 to 1,200 years before today) was much higher and the average summer temperature had to be at least 3 to 6 °C higher than today. Remarkable is a palynological record (Ressl, 1980) from the shaft cave Stainzerkogelschaft near Lunz am See. Remains of wisent were found in the shaft (1,463 m, see Tab. 3). The clay with a skull fragment with horncores inside was examined palynologically. The dominating pollen were from alder (Alnus), oak (Quercus) and linden tree (Tilia). The oak boundary (boundary between colline and montane vegetation stages) today lies between 400 and 800 metres in the Northern Alpine Alps (Grabherr et al., 2004). Oaks (Quercus) at an altitude of 1,450 metres around2,000 years ago also indicate a climate approximately 4 to 7 °C warmer than today.”
A 4-7°C warmer regional Holocene temperature is warmer than other estimates of an Austrian summer temperatures “3.0 to 4.5°C above the modern value” (Ilyashuk et al., 2011).
Al Gore’s Davos meltdown, and how feasible hydrogen as an energy source really is
First here’s a look at how environmentally friendly, feasible and sustainable hydrogen really is, given that hydrogen fuel cells rely on supply of rare metals like platinum and iridium.
The following video presents all the relevant numbers for you:
Al Gore’s Davos lunatic meltdown
“Rain bombs” and “boiling oceans”…
The other story today is Al Gore’s lunatic rantings at the 2023 WEF meeting in Davos.
If you thought Greta had put on a show at the UN, look at the unhinged Al Gore in Davos, who is fundamentally calling for what amounts to a coup d’état led by the climate-apocalypse loonies.
In summary, Mr. Gore, and his Lord of the Flies-like radical followers at the WEF, are basically demanding a return to 18th century standards of living, but controlled by 21st century technology. They definitely would be happy with a year 1750 population, and even happier with a Big Brother tracking system watching your every move.
The alarmists are desperate, hysterical and it seems they’re sensing their cause is in reality unworkable and falling to pieces.
Despite all the claims of a “rapidly warming planet”, we know Antarctic sea ice extent has seen a rather impressive upward trend over the past 40 years, which tells us cooling is more likely at play.
Here’s southern hemisphere sea ice extent chart (up to 2017):
Antarctic sea ice has gained steadily over the past 40 years. Chart: Comiso et al, 2017
It’s not what you’d expect from a CO2-induced warming planet.
The Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) has collected temperature data from the Syowa station in Antarctica since 1977. Today we present the latest data, which now includes the year 2022:
Here we in fact see a modest long-term downward trend. There’s no detectable CO2 warming signal. The periodic warming and cooling cycles are likely related to oceanic cycles.
No warming along the Antarctic mainland coast
In 2019, we in fact plotted the data from 10 Antarctic stations scattered along the Antarctic coastline and operated by various countries. None of them showed any warming trend at all.
Where’s the warming? Other than the volcanic activity, there certainly hasn’t been any at the South Pole since the global warming hysteria began in the late 1980s.
Recipients of repeated COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations may have fully damaged their immune system’s capacity to protect them from severe effects from the disease. Each successive booster shot may actually worsen protection.
But now new mice research (Gao et al., 2022) provides damning evidence that continued COVID-19 booster vaccinations “negatively impact the immune response” and “fully impair the…neutralizing efficacy” of COVID-19 antibodies and memory.
Scientists warn that continuing the course of booster COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations may pose risks of “enhanced disease severity” for those re-infected with COVID-19 and thus the administration of boosters “should be preceded with caution.”
“Our findings revealed that repeated dosing after the establishment of vaccine response might not further improve the antigen-specific reactivity; instead, it could cause systematic tolerance and inability to generate effective humoral and cellular immune responses to current SARS-CoV-2 variants.”
In other words, health authorities have mandated young people get a shot that may fully impair their immune system’s capacity to protect them from the very variants the shots were intended to neutralize.
Climate science stance amounts to a gross misrepresentation of reality
The DIY way to demystify “greenhouse gas” claims
By Fred F. Mueller Part 2
Fig. 1. The sun and the clouds – here a thin cover of high clouds and some aviation chemtrails – are the main driving forces for the energy fluxes determining our climate. The “greenhouse gases” are – if ever – just a minor factor.
In Part 1, we looked at the deplorable tendency of climate doomsayers to reduce the factual complexity and variability of parameters influencing our climate by focusing on a single aspect – the so-called “greenhouse gases” – and among these on the declared most odious villain: CO2. Its content in the atmosphere is declared to be the one and only factor1) that determines our climate and hence earth’s temperature.
The efficiency of this one parameter is attributed to the power to restrain the currently positive planet-wide temperature trend to within + 1.5 °C, thus urging politicians to set a residual CO2 budget2) of 400 billion tonnes subdivided and allocated to each nation within narrow allowances. These national budgets are then again subdivided and enforced onto the different sectors of industry and the population with grave consequences for the welfare of society, e.g. cement and metal production, building and heating standards or private car use.
Any other variables affecting the energy budget of our planet such as water vapor, actually a much more potent “greenhouse gas” than CO2, are simply ignored by treating them either as constants or as mere amplifying factors. The influence of clouds – the other aggregate states of water in the atmosphere – is simply and willfully suppressed.
Interesting discrepancies with respect to clouds
One of the most striking methodical imprecisions (if not outright untruths) of current climate science is demonstrated when looking at Fig. 2, a diagram elaborated by NASA that purports to convey a realistic impression of the energy fluxes on earth’s surface and in the atmosphere.
Fig. 2. This representation of the energy flux densities on earth elaborated by NASA is misleading with respect to some decisive facts (Chart by NASA3), public domain. Note: This picture and the corresponding link have been withdrawn after completion of the article. In a subsequent part, the replacement graphic and its amendments will be treated in detail. Nevertheless, this graphic and its errors have been displayed for a prolonged time, thus warranting a suited discussion).
The chart is, to put it politely, a bit misleading when it comes to the role of clouds. In this graphic we see, from left to right, just three representations of clouds. The cloud symbol to the left does not absorb any energy; its only role is to reflect incoming solar radiation, together with the atmosphere and without detailing the share of both participants.
In the center, the cloud is an emitting-only entity (!) radiating 29.9 W/m2 towards outer space through the atmospheric window without any discernible energy input. And finally, the cloud symbol on the right is soaking up a constant power input of 86.4 W/m2 without any discernible output. For anybody having had a basic scientific education, this leaves question marks. And even if we piece together the different input and output figures related to clouds, we are left with an unexplained balance difference of +56.5 W/m2. This discrepancy warrants a certain degree of suspicion with respect to the presented role of clouds within the atmospheric energy fluxes.
Fig. 3. The sun’s global radiation input flow density over two days in July 2022 lying close to each other with strongly different cloud cover (Graphic: Author, own calculation with values taken fromKachelmannwetter4)
Clouds – an elusive yet decisive climate variable
To this end, we will look at clouds with a strict focus on macroscopic energy fluxes. Clouds are the result of the over-saturation of air with water vapor as a result of falling temperatures, resulting in the formation of microscopic water droplets or ice crystals inside an air bubble that is saturated to 100% with water vapor und contains a certain amount of aerosol particles that serve as seeds for the condensation. The main difference to air merely saturated to 100% with water vapor but containing neither droplets nor ice particles is that the pure water vapor is fully transparent while the cloud is visible and can displays an amazing variety of sizes, shapes and colors.
Cooling: clouds prevent sun’s energy from reaching the earth
In a first approach, we will omit all other aspects with the exception of the reflection, absorption and emission of light, be it visible or infrared. Contrary to water vapor that is reacting with Infrared (IR) photons exclusively in molecule-specific frequency bands, the tiny particles within clouds interact with all radiation photons just like any solid or liquid bodies. The particles deflect, break or reflect visible light, e.g. forming rainbows under certain conditions, and also absorb light of all wavelengths, as can be seen by the changing color of cumulus clouds that appear brilliant white at the top and become darker towards their bottom.
229 times greater than CO2
Due to their very different sizes and structures, their reflectance (also called albedo)5) – e.g. the fraction of incoming sunlight that will be reflected back into space – can vary between 10% for cirrus clouds and up to 90% for cumulonimbus clouds. In other words, a big cloud may prevent up to 90% of the incoming solar energy from reaching the earth’s surface. This means that during daytime, the ever-changing cloud cover of earth functions just like a variable lid or filter determining how much energy input we receive at surface level. The max difference of energy flux densities between these two days amounts to 715 W/m2, see Fig 4:
Fig 4. This graphic shows the absolute differences between the solar energy flux densities of July 2nd and July 7th, 2022 in the Konstanz region of Germany. The black line representing the 3.11 W/m2 attributed to the combined effect of greenhouse gases cannot even be discerned from the x-axis.
This max difference of 715 W/m2 is more than 229 times the 3.11 W/m2 attributed to the climate effect of the main greenhouse gases. In Fig 4, the corresponding black line can’t even be discerned from the x-axis. One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand this relationship. Everybody’s practical experience confirms the fact that a noticeable cloud cover will prevent ambient temperatures from climbing as high than would be the case in sunnier conditions.
Worse still for the narrative of “water vapor reinforcement” currently advanced by our climate science pundits, the cumulated solar input flux density for both days amounts to 7.2 kWh and 4.1 kWh respectively, while by comparison the 24-h-effect attributed to the greenhouse gases adds up to just 0.075 kWh. The difference between the solar input for both days is 3.1 kWh, a figure that is 40 times higher than the alleged climate sensitivity contribution of greenhouse gases.
Warming: clouds emit substantial quantities of IR energy
Furthermore, clouds do not only block enormous quantities of solar energy from reaching the soil by reflecting the related radiation back into space, they have another characteristic that can best be understood by assuming that when it comes to IR radiation energy: they behave like massive bodies (in reality, the exact mechanism is more complicated). Don’t be fooled by the fact that clouds seem to have no mass, hovering high in the air without losing height and being blown around at the mercy of the winds. Despite their apparent weightlessness, clouds have an important mass sometimes even exceeding one metric ton per square meter. This becomes obvious when their water content comes down to earth as rain. Just 50 mm of rain translate to a water mass of 50 kg/m2, and the corresponding clouds will usually continue their path towards the horizon without showing signs of thinning or fading away. A collection of extreme weather events assembled by the World Meteorological Organisation6) lists a 1-hour rainfall of 305 mm and a 12-hour rainfall of 1,144 mm, which translates to water masses of 305 kg and 1,144 kg per square meter of cloud cover.
These considerable masses of water above in the sky emit IR radiation characterizing their temperature in line with the physical law established by Stefan and Boltzmann7). On rainy days, the base of bad weather clouds often comes down to just a few hundred meters above ground. It has the temperature of the ambient air at this altitude, which can be estimated as being about 2-5 °C below the temperature at ground level (the air temperature usually drops by approximately 6.5 °C over a height gain of 1,000 m). Knowing the temperature of the cloud base thus yields the input for calculating the IR output flux density of the cloud towards the soil. This brings us to the first interesting DIY tip when trying to assess energy flows in the system earth/atmosphere for the given location, see Fig. 5:
Fig. 5. With modern infrared surface temperature sensing instruments (1) available in DIY shops, one can easily measure the surface temperature of the soil and of the base of clouds. (2)=soil temperature Jan. 13th, 2013, (4)=cloud cover overhead and (5)=the respective temperature value.
Assessing a cloud’s downward IR radiation
Sophisticated instruments enable meteorologists to accurately measure the downward IR emission flux density from clouds and other sources (such as the clear sky atmosphere without clouds, mainly containing water vapor, aerosols and greenhouse gases). At the same time, advancements in the mass production of IR thermometry has also given the public the ability to buy a fairly viable instrument for just a few dozen bucks at the local DIY shop (by the way, for measuring clouds, a model with a min temperature limit of about -50°C might be preferable to one limited to only – 20°C).
With such equipment, it is astonishingly easy to measure the temperature of the soil and the cloud base at the same place within just a minute or so, see Fig 5. Take care to measure directly on the soil (bare earth or short lawn) (2), since especially on hot summer days, stones, metals and asphalt (3) can reach temperatures exceeding soil levels by sometimes more than 10 °C. On the other hand, clouds that are too thin such as cirrus clouds (6) will not deliver valid readings. Avoid trying to measure individual clouds surrounded by clear sky since the instrument has a rather wide-angled input cone and will almost inevitably include portions of clear sky causing it to deliver an invalid reading.
Measuring ground and clouds should be performed as vertically as possible und always at the same date and time. On a side note, such IR thermometers can help you in your home in the winter to assess the quality of your outer wall insulation. Just compare the readings from inner and outer walls (or windows) or the values from the middle of your outer wall with those obtained from the corner where that most darned mold stain keeps reappearing despite the chemicals you used to combat it.
How to calculate IR energy flux densities from surface temperatures
Thanks to the availability of such simple and pricey means to measure soil as well as cloud base temperatures, even laymen can easily calculate two of the four main radiation energy flux densities that influence the energy balance at a given location. These “big four” are (1) the local global solar radiation8), (2) the upwelling IR radiation governed by the current surface temperature at ground level and (3) the downwelling IR radiation emanating from the cloud cover. The first figure can be obtained by scanning the homepages of your local weather stations for one that has the instrumentation to perform this task. Additionally, several other important energy transport mechanisms such as convection and rain have for now been left aside in order to facilitate the basic understanding of the energy fluxes determined by radiation, since in this chapter, we focus on the radiative mechanisms assigned to the so-called “greenhouse gases”.
Going forward, we first look at an easy way to assess factors (2) and (3). As already mentioned in Part 1, there are internet service providers such as Spectralcalc9) that can be freely accessed where one can input temperature values and instantly gets a figure (and ideally a graph) for the power flux density of the IR radiation emitted by a surface. (The results presented here were checked against figures published by a well-equipped meteorological station in Germany10). The differences were just in the low one-digit percentage range). When keying in the figures, keep in mind that in the relevant temperature range, emissivity values are very close to one and that the wavelength output boundaries should be set to 4 and 40 µm.
Furthermore, check if you have selected the correct temperature scale (°C or Kelvin). Using the values taken from Fig. 5, this gives us the energy flux densities shown in Fig. 6:
Fig. 6. Energy flux densities of IR radiation from the soil and from a compact cloud cover hovering probably some 800 meters above (Graphics: Spectralcalc9), author)
Just to again compare orders of magnitude, the downwelling radiation density of about 297 W/m2 emanating from the cloud is 95 times higher as the alleged “radiative forcing” effect of the main “greenhouse gases”.
(For readers wanting to perform such calculations themselves, Fig. 7. shows a simplified equation that will deliver reasonably accurate results):
Fig. 7. A simplified calculation for IR emissions delivering the flux density in W/m2
The decisive dual role of clouds
As has been demonstrated, the measurement results are not in line with the official climate science that largely exaggerates the influence of CO2 and the other “greenhouse gases” while at the same time withholding the decisive role of water in its disregarded aggregate states in the atmosphere, e.g. when it condensates to droplets ore ice particles forming clouds. This official stance amounts to a gross misrepresentation of reality as has been shown in this chapter.
Clouds dwarf the alleged contribution of “greenhouse gases”
Clouds play a dual role in the transfer of energy in the atmosphere. Putting aside for the moment energy transfer by other mechanisms such as evaporation/condensation and convection, we have seen that just by blocking sunlight input by day and emitting downwelling IR radiation by day as well as by night, clouds can act as coolant and heating agents transmitting or blocking energy in quantities that literally dwarf the alleged contribution of “greenhouse gases”. Another factor that also has to be taken into account is the blocking of the IR radiation earth’s surface is constantly emitting. Clouds can absorb a very high percentage of this radiation and re-emit a large portion of it back downwards, thus trapping it inside the system earth/atmosphere, a role some climate pundits attribute solely to “greenhouse gases”, as demonstrated by Fig. 8., see also the first chapter of this article11).
Fig. 8. The misleading cloud-free lead-in picture of the Wikipedia chapter about the “greenhouse effect” (Author: Efbrazil12), CC 4.0).
The climate reality is thus shaped to a large extent by a complex interaction of all functions of clouds – including downpour, convection, radiative warming and radiative cooling – in combinations that the currently available science cannot model and, even less so, credibly forecast.
Meteorological stations should urgently be upgraded
It should be noted that a given cloud can change its overall function from warming to cooling according to the time of day. These interactions should be monitored with sophisticated equipment that up to now, not many meteorological stations have at their disposal. Keeping in mind that climate is defined as the average course of weather conditions for a particular location over a period of many years, this implies that the existing networks of meteorological stations should urgently be upgraded with the necessary instruments, software and workforce training.
The next part will look at some interesting professional-level meteorological results underscoring the fact that clouds, not greenhouse gases, and energy balances, not air temperatures 2 m above ground are the decisive levers to assess changes in our climate.
It’s unavoidable: history shows that as technology develops, governments use it to control and monitor the masses. The latest are smart electricity meters.
But how could you not want them? There’s an energy crisis after all, and the intelligent meters will help us overcome this and help us use energy more efficiently and wisely. Why on earth would anyone resist that? It’s for the common good, after all. In times of crisis, there is no time for long discussions.
Draft law approved
Germany online site Blackout News here recently reported that the German cabinet has approved a draft law that will aim to digitize the country’s green energy transition and install smart electricity meters in every home.
Installation is planned to be mandatory from 2025.
The draft law: “Law to Restart the Digitization of the Energy Transition,” foresees the use of intelligent electricity meters. that will automatically transmit consumption to electricity providers.
“By 2032, the majority of households should have switched to the new technology,” reports Blackout News.
As Germany struggles today to supply electricity, the job of balancing out the grid will be made easier through the smart meters, lawmakers claim. “From 2025, installation is to be mandatory for consumers who use between 6000 and 100,000 kilowatt hours. By the end of 2030, 95 percent of these consumers are to be equipped with smart meters.”
Will be passed “in just a few weeks”
Economics Minister Habeck says the smart meters are necessary because: “The expansion of renewable energies and the greater use of electric cars in the transport sector and heat pumps in buildings require an intelligent link between power generation and consumption,”
“The law is therefore expected to come into force in just a few weeks.”
More costs for consumers, much less privacy
Of course, the intelligent meters are going to cost consumers. According to the Federal Environment Agency, “these meters consume an average of 26 kilowatt hours per year themselves”, will have a “significantly shorter service life” and need replacement “every twelve years on average”. Supposedly consumers will be able to save money via “flexible electricity tariffs”.
Critics warn that the data privacy of consumers will be infringed and face the risk of being hacked.
From citizens, to inmates
It’s the next phase to Big Brother, to be accompanied by central bank digital currencies, digital IDs, reduced private property rights, digitized health care, smart cars, censored media and full coverage surveillance facial recognition cameras watching your every move. We’ll soon go from being citizens of a country, to inmates of the planet. The cornerstones have long been laid, and the walls are rising quickly.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy
Recent Comments