German Geophysicist: “AGW Built On Failed Scientific Assumptions And Economic Speculations”

Challenging AGW on the Eve of Destruction

Guest essay by Uli Weber, Geophysicist, Germany

Since the G7-summit at Elmau Castle (2015) and the climate summit COP21 in Paris (2015) the declared political aim of all governments of the world is a global decarbonisation until the year 2100 to save our planet from anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The AGW-paradigm is allegedly supported by 97% of all climate scientists worldwide and global decarbonisation has even been recommended by religious leaders.

And recently, on the 22nd of April 2016, representatives from about 170 nations officially signed the Paris Climate Convention for global decarbonisation at the United Nations in New York.

But are we really been forced by future anthropogenic global warming to ruin our life-standards through such a complete disruption of our present technological basis?

Mainstream climate sciences held carbon dioxide (CO2) from the industrial use of fossil energies responsible to amplify the natural greenhouse effect until the earth becomes uninhabitable. Legions of AGW-protagonists worldwide, paid with billions of dollars from official scientific funds, private foundations, and environmental NGOs promote the public perception of an anthropogenic climate warming and call their AGW-Paradigm to be “settled science”. Furthermore, these protagonists claim “the debate is over” for their paradigm in an adverse interpretation of the true spirit of sciences and become supported by a biased majority of the public media.

Unprofitable scientific arts from outside climate sciences push themselves next to the meat-pots of climate-alarm with a rising number of papers from psychologists and historians which criticise the heretical influence from a scientific minority, slandered as “climate-deniers”, on the public recognition of AGW arguments. Recently, some climate active politicians even aim to silence “climate deniers” by trying to criminalize their scientific standpoint. Such independent climate scientists with diverging scientific results on global warming are performing their scientific work mainly with poor budgets or even on a free voluntary basis. And instead of a fair and open scientific debate about their arguments they usually become publicly denounced in their personal credibility while mainstream climate sciences try to exorcize them from the scientific community.

It seems today that the moral of sciences has become progressively infected from its well-paid trustees and their political and medial supporters by the virus of noble cause corruption aiming for a better carbon-free world in future.

Facing such aimed global decarbonisation to happen we may not forget that through the cultural evolution of mankind the available energy per capita has been repeatedly multiplied and has improved the standards of living for us all:

  • Stone Age (= small local villages): Available energy per capita was about the 3-6-fold of the basic human need.
  • Times of Agriculture (= advanced regional civilisations): Available energy per capita was about the 18-24-fold of the basic human need.
  • Industrial Times (= networked global city): Available energy per capita is about the 70-80-fold of the basic human need.

The industrial use of fossil energies since begin of industrialisation has sustainable increased the public health, our individual life expectancy, our common life standards, the general quality and availability of food, the public and individual transport, communications, and the affordable technologies for everyone.

That means our recent civilisation is existentially dependent on technologies fed by fossil fuels.

The basic principle of anthropogenic global warming could be easily understood by everyone without any scientific education:

The higher the atmospheric CO2 content rises the more will the global mean temperature increase.

Consequently, it is believed by an overwhelming majority of citizens in the industry nations that mankind’s consumption of fossil energies will cause anthropogenic global warming through the emission of CO2.

But is the feared relationship between CO2 and global warming really settled science?

The AGW-paradigm stands in fundamental contradiction to several scientific and economic facts:

  1. Missing reversibility of climate models: Computer models for the future climate progression are not even capable to simulate the natural climate backward to the beginning of systematic temperature records about the year 1850. This inherent imperfection of recent climate models proves that neither all parameters which influence our climate, nor their effective magnitude, nor their factual interaction are correctly implemented in the climate computer models. With these imperfect models climate sciences calculate the course of global temperatures far into future while politicians anchor their arguments for a global decarbonisation on such results.
  2. Climate sciences are incapable to separate the drivers of climate change: No quantitative separation between the factual contributions of natural and anthropogenic drivers to global climate forcing has been published to date. The measurements of global temperature data started around the year 1850, at the end of the historical “Little Ice Age” and begin of industrialisation. There must have been a natural rise of temperatures since then because this “Little Ice Age” has ended without manmade contributions. But in contrary, climate sciences account the whole temperature rise since on AGW with the argument of early industrialisation, although the rise of temperature was much faster than the global course of industrial development.
  3. Climate models ignore the influence of the natural solar cycles on global climate. The known solar cycles (Schwabe, Hale, Yoshimura, Gleißberg, Seuss-de-Vries, Dansgaard-Oeschger, and Hallstatt) with periodicities between 11 and more than 2.000 years are not included in future climate models. Argument is the small absolute variation of solar forcing through such cycles although these variations were definitely the only source for natural climate changes in our recent climate optimum before industrialisation. The finding of Svensmark, the nucleation of clouds from cosmic rays which are controlled by the magnetic field of the sun, is still ignored by mainstream climate sciences. This effect acts as a natural atmospheric amplifier for the variations of solar forcing through a reverse variance of the Earth’s albedo from the global cloud coverage, i.e. a weak sun causes more clouds and conclusively additional cooling. The CLOUD-Experiment at the Zurich CERN Institute has disproved the aerosol formation in present climate models by a factor of one‐tenth to one‐thousandth and found an enhanced nucleation from the Svensmark-effect up to a factor of 10. http://press.web.cern.ch.pdf Last access dated May 13th, 2012
  4. The well documented historical Medieval Warm Period (MWP) which preceded the “Little Ice Age” has been suppressed by the “hockeystick-curve” from Mann et al. in the IPCC TAR (report 2001), apparently to promote the AGW-Paradigm of a constant natural pre-industrial climate at “Little Ice Age”-average global temperatures. Since then, the “hockeystick” has been disproved while it’s still used as an important argument for AGW and the MWP was downgraded to a regional European phenomenon to comply further with the AGW-Paradigm. But in contrary, the analysis of hundreds of scientific papers worldwide by Luning and Vahrenholt proves that the Medieval Warm Period has truly been a global occurrence caused by natural solar variations and consequently questions the AGW-Paradigm vitally. Online atlas by Luning/Vahrenholt: kaltesonne.de/mapping-warm-period/

  5. Climate sciences deny the natural orbital cycles in their climate models and try to defend their simple linear relation between global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide. Recently, AGW protagonists reduce their view on the past climate succession even further to the second half of the 20th century and try to establish CO2 as the main paleoclimate driver. Already in the year 1924 Wladimir Köppen and Alfred Wegener, the discoverer of modern plate-tectonics, have published the scientific proof that the paleoclimate variability of the past hundred thousands of years is directly related to the orbital Milanković cycles. Reprint “Die Klimate der geologischen Vorzeit” (Bornträger 1924) with an English translation: https://www.schweizerbart.deDE
  6. Growing acidification of the oceans caused by anthropogenic CO2-emissions is feared to reduce the richness of marine species in future. Firstly, a specific quantity of CO2 could either act as climate active gas on global warming or could cause acidification being resolved in the ocean, not both at the same time. But usually, both effects are calculated with the maximum amount of anthropogenic CO2-emissions. Secondly, the maximum possible amount of dissolved CO2 is reversely proportional to the water temperature. Consequently, the warmer the water becomes the less CO2 could be resolved in the oceans and cause acidification. The delayed rise of the atmospheric CO2 content from increasing paleoclimate temperatures supports this causal relationship and is proven by ice-core analyses.
  7. A global sea-level rise from melting glaciers caused by AGW shall flood the Pacific islands and drown lowlands and harbour cities all over the world. A dramatic retreat of glaciers causing a sea-level rise of about hundred meters is a natural phenomenon at begin of interglacial warm times. It seems that marine ice masses are completely controlled by the sea-water temperature while terrestrial ice masses are bound to vertical variations of the global climatic zones. As temperatures are not constant within interglacial warm periods, the lower margin of terrestrial glaciers uses to fluctuate uphill when it becomes warmer and downhill when it becomes cold. Retreating glaciers often release ancient trees which are proving that their margins have been located far uphill in historic times. What we could recently observe at Greenland and the Antarctic Peninsula is a glacier retreat to higher altitudes and not a complete melting while at the same time the ice masses of East Antarctica are still growing further. Alarming satellite altimeter data for the sea-level rise of the open ocean are much more prone to errors from an exact correction of the local lunar tides, the local contribution of permanent water circulations, additional water masses driven by wind and local wave heights, and the actual local air pressure than the data from fixed costal gauges.     The usual coastal sea level gauge records show a global sea-level rise at a constant rate since Little Ice Age times without any AGW contribution and will probably continue to do so – if no purposeful corrections were applied in future…
  8. The “hiatus” of the global mean temperature rise, lasting about twenty years now, has already caused multiple adjustments of the original historic temperature data. Updated climate models use then to transfer the “missing heat” into the deeper layers of the oceans. Obviously, digital climate models couldn’t foresee the actual “hiatus” of the global mean temperature rise. But instead of improving actual climate models by altering their false initial conditions to comply with the factual measured climate succession, these climate models are permanently adjusted in their results to meet the outmoded earlier published climate forecasts. Questions remains how that missing heat could escape to deeper ocean layers without been recognized by the ARGO buoy network which is globally distributed over the oceans.
  9. Mainstream climate sciences restrict the effect of future global warming to the negative spectrum of their computer speculations and spread scientific horror scenarios about a manmade future global warming of about three degrees centigrade until the year 2100 into the public attention while every winter ten thousands of people die from cold. For the year 2014 about 40.000 winter deaths in Europe have been reported because people couldn’t pay their bills for electrical power.   http://www.focus.de/immobilien/energiesparen/energie-die-grosse-stromluege-warum-strom-zum-luxus-wird_id_5388458.html?fbc=fb-shares Last access dated April 9th, 2016
  10. Climate sciences claim that global decarbonisation follows the precautionary principle for the future of all mankind in avoiding AGW. The last major climate prophecy was published just in time before the COP21 Paris summit by well pampered minions of the Apocalypse: Anthropogenic CO2-emissions will prevent the next ice-age to happen – in 50.000 years! Is it truly the precautionary principle to save an endangered ice-age in 50.000 years from now? No, it’s genuine science-fiction when mainstream climate sciences ignore solid geo-scientific knowledge from some hundred thousand years of paleoclimate succession and extrapolate a lost ice-age in 50.000 years from their reduced retrospective of a few past decades. With the provision to save the world from its natural climate succession we are devastating our present economies and the future of our children and grandchildren. But what’s about the real global hazards that may endanger mankind’s future within the next 50.000 years, what’s about super-volcano eruptions, asteroid strikes, and the decline of the geo-magnetic field, what is the precautionary principle against these realistic threads?
  11. Renewable energies from sunlight and wind shall replace energy generated from oil, gas, and coal to avoid AGW through CO2 emissions. Recently, renewable energies could only be produced at uneconomic costs with huge subventions directly raised from the majority of consumers and hence indirectly generated from fossil-fed industrial production. To preserve our common standards of living and technology through a future global decarbonisation the required global energy amount must be fully replaced from renewable sources. There are numbers circulating in the media that global decarbonisation is affordable and executable until the year 2100. But the published investments to establish a complete renewable energy production do not even include the costs for the indispensable energy storages and new distribution networks to guaranty the energy supply through nights and windless times nor do they include the rising energy costs for almost every product to be supplied in future. From such rising costs at presumably decreasing production numbers national economies may suffer with less income for employees or even less employees at all. Question remains how the rising subventions for renewable energy shall be paid from decreasing industrial productivity.
  12. The landscape consumption in natural environments for renewable energy production from sunlight and wind is thousand to ten thousand times greater than the areal demand of equal productive conventional power plants. Question must be raised then what will happen through a future decarbonisation to our global natural resources.
  13. At the same time pressure is made on our industrial-scale agriculture to deteriorate to organic production without chemical fertilizers. Agricultural food production stands in competition with the land consumption for renewable energies. Through the ecological food-to-fuel program, i.e. the use of ethanol as a renewable fuel for cars, the effective agricultural acreage for global food production has already been decreased while millions of people worldwide still suffer from undernutrition and hunger. Consequently, the aimed global organic food production with a reduced per acreage productivity of farmland may not meet the demand of a further growing world population…

This synopsis provides evidence that the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming has been built on failed scientific assumptions and economic speculations.

Nevertheless, the prophets of AGW are still spreading their speculations of doom further like an anthropogenic mass madness promoting a wide bunch of divergent objectives against our present economic system which is based on the availability of affordable energy from fossil fuels. The deep religious belief in AGW remains their ultimate tool to destroy our present technical civilisation and to misdirect mankind into a brave new carbon-free world.

We are living now in a next age of cultural evolution, the Anthropocene, where the fundamental differences between scientific facts, personal opinions and religious faiths have become successively blurred while sated people seem truly believe one can slaughter the cow and still drink the milk.

The true global problem of mankind remains the steady increase of the world’s population and its supply with sufficient food and energy as well as the preservation of the global natural resources which are a heritage of us all.

Poverty in the Third World is basically caused by a lack of energy and democratic participation.

The only way out of this dilemma is a democratisation and economic development of the poor countries which would not be possible without fossil energies. Such development would prevent the world population to grow further as proven by the standstill of population growth in the industry nations since begin of industrialisation. Through a development process of the Third World the fossil energy consumption in the industry nations may be minimized at recent standards of living while the protection of the world’s natural resources could be successively improved.

But with their religious belief in AGW the elected and unelected political leaders all over the world, supported by fortune tellers from climate sciences, by biased mainstream media, by faithful heads of religions, and by misguided ecological NGOs and Malthusian foundations, have now decided that mankind shall take quite the opposite direction. Their roadmap into the urgently demanded global decarbonisation until the year 2100 may then cause a fall of democratic rights in the industry nations on the way into a sustainable global energy shortage with Malthusian perspectives for an agricultural Global Third World of organic smallholders. Or, to say it more clearly, in a carbon free world the majority of people worldwide, whatever their absolute number will be then, may work twelve hours a day in organic agriculture to produce one fourth of the present available energy per capita – just as it was in the good old pre-industrial times.

And now, on this eve of destruction, the majority of affected people stands silent aside while the apocalyptical riders of global decarbonisation are going to wreck the future of all mankind …

============================

Uli Weber is a geophysicist and author of the German language book: Climate hysteria is no solution.

 

How Climatologists Suddenly Turned On A Dime, “Shooed Away” Uncertainty To Promote “Scary Scenarios”

National Academy of Sciences (1975): “We do not know what causes…climatic change”

By Kenneth Richard

After having switched from warning the masses in the 1970s about imminent human-caused global cooling to warning the masses in the 1980s about an imminent human-caused global warming , the late Dr. Stephen Schneider suggested that, to avoid “potentially disastrous climatic change,” scientists should consider offering up “scary scenarios” so as to “capture the public’s imagination.”

Dr. Stephen Schneider via Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

Notice how Schneider confirmed that an essential element in garnering “loads of media coverage” and “broad based support” is to “make little mention of any doubts we [climate scientists] may have.”  Judging by media attention, this “strategy of advocacy” appears to have worked.  After all, a growing percentage of the populace is now familiar with the claim that we can determine there is a 97% scientific consensus that humans cause climate change by selectively counting (and excluding) abstracts from scientific papers.  In other words, expressing uncertainty or doubt about “disastrous climate change” caused by humans relegates one to classification with the claimed 3% fringe.

It didn’t used to be this way. Back in the 1970s and ’80s, or before there were strong government-sponsored incentives to link human activity to climate changes, it was still quite common for scientists to acknowledge that:

(a) climate parameters are extremely difficult to model because

(b) there are far too many unknowns in the climate system to determine cause and effect with confidence, and

(c) a discernable link between climate change and human activity is extremely difficult to establish.

For example, no less than the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) at one time definitively acknowledged that too little is known about the climate system to understand what causes climatic change. The summary of their position below is taken from the extensively-referenced 1975 NAS paper entitled “Understanding Climatic Change”. (National Academy of Sciences, 1975)

[T]he mechanics of the climatic system is so complex, and our observations of its behavior so incomplete, that at present we do not know what causes any particular climatic change to occur. … What we cannot identify at the present time is how the complete climatic system operates, which are its most critical and sensitive parts, which processes are responsible for its changes, and what are the most likely future climates. In short, while we know something about climate itself, we know very little about climatic change.

Aside from local climatic effects, such as those due to urbanization, these studies have not yet established the existence of a large-scale anthropogenic climatic impact (Machata, 1973). Like their numerical simulation counterparts, such studies are made more difficult by the high levels of natural climatic variability and by the lack of adequate observational data.”

By no means was this expressed climate agnosticism by the NAS rare during that particular time period. Scientists routinely published papers in journals in the 1970s and 1980s that acknowledged a lack of understanding with regard to the main causes of climate change or the inherent limitations in climate modeling. In fact, some scientists described projections of future temperature changes in response to human activities an exercise in “the blind leading the blind.”

Other scientists acknowledged that it is “practically impossible to isolate simple cause-and-effect relationships in the internal workings of the earth-atmosphere-ocean system” or, succinctly, that we “should admit at once that we do not know what are the basic causes of climatic change“.

However, by the 1990s, or with the advent of the the United Nations issuing the first two IPCC reports (1990, 1995), these we-don’t-know concessions by scientists had begun to dissipate. Expressing uncertainty or doubt about the dangerous climatic effects of carbon dioxide has become increasingly taboo.

Even the editor of the journal Science (Marcia McNutt) has herself recently (2015) written that, with regard to human-caused global warming, “the time for debate has ended.”  (Link: here). The uncertainty, doubt, and skepticism have essentially been shooed away, which has paved the way for “scary scenarios” to potentially “capture the public’s imagination” — just as Dr. Stephen Schneider had proposed.

With this contrast between then and now in mind, perhaps it would be interesting to read what scientists used to commonly write in scientific journals with regard to the immense uncertainties associated with climate change. Below  are several prototypical examples from the time period when expressing a lack of understanding about the causes of climate change was still considered acceptable — or before scientific advocacy was normalized.

—–

1. Barrett, 1978

In particular, detection of an anthropogenic influence through statistical analysis alone requires a long run of data of good quality and careful attention to measures of significance. It is most important to avoid the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that a trend of a few years’ duration or less, following some change in human activities, can be attributed to that change even when no sound physical causal relationship is evident. … While one must presume that natural climatic fluctuations result from the operations of the laws of physics and chemistry, it is practically impossible to isolate simple cause-and-effect relationships in the internal workings of the earth-atmosphere-ocean system. This is because all the processes are interconnected by multiple nonlinear positive and negative feedbacks.

2. Fletcher, 1968

What Causes the Global Climate to Change? No one has been able to explain why such climatic variations occur. They seem to be associated with variations in the vigor of the whole global atmospheric circulation, but why the global system varies is still a mystery. It follows that the fundamental problem in the study of climatic change is the development of a quantitative understanding of the general circulation of the atmosphere; and, since three-fourths of the heat which forces the atmospheric motion comes by way of the ocean surface, a quantitative understanding of oceanic heat transport and ocean/atmosphere heat exchange is especially vital. … An adequate theoretical basis has not as yet been developed for explaining the interactions of the global heat engine and for accounting for observed changes in climate. Causal relationships have been obscured by the multitude of factors operating and problems for investigation have often been ill-defined.  … [T]here are so many variables and degrees of freedom in the global system that specific cause and effect estimates in this regard are very uncertain.

3. Hare, 1971

It is discouraging to have to start by admitting that future changes in the atmosphere may be the result of the inherent instability of the atmospheric circulation, and not of environmental changes that we can detect, and perhaps control. … Explaining past climates and predicting future climates are complementary processes.  As Murray Mitchell pointed out, also at Boulder (Mitchell, 1968), we are miles away from explaining the past, whose record is so blurred that there remain open “many degrees of freedom for the construction of altogether new hypotheses.”   He laid stress where I shall place it today — on the view that explaining climatic variation must rest on an adequate theory of existing climate.  Until we can argue backwards and forwards in time from such a secure foundation we shall continue to be the blind led by the blind.

4. Gilchrist, 1983

Unlike some other pollutants introduced into the atmosphere by Man, carbon dioxide is naturally occurring and non-toxic. The direct effect of increased concentrations may be beneficial notably because it will tend to increase the rate of photosynthesis in plants. On the other hand, there may be deleterious effects through its influence on climate but this is still unproven and we cannot be certain whether, on a global scale, it will on the whole be harmful or beneficial. … The problem of determining the effect of increased carbon dioxide on climate is difficult, the more so because there are some essential aspects of the physical basis of climate that are not well understood

5. Catchpole, 1973

Sellers (1965, p. 198) regretted that while ‘the literature has been saturated with theories of climatic change . . . uncertainty is the only thing that is certain’. Crowe (1971, p. 471) conceded that although palaeoclimatology asks straightforward questions about the nature and causes of climatic changes, ‘the answers still largely elude us’. In the same year Flint (1971, p. 789) appealed that we should ‘admit at once that we do not know what are the basic causes of climatic change’.

6. Stewart and Glantz, 1985

[I]n the early 1970s the prevailing view was that the earth was moving toward a new ice age. Many articles appeared in the scientific literature as well as in the popular press speculating about the impact on agriculture of a 1-2°C cooling. … The causes of global climate change remain in dispute. Existing theories of climate, atmospheric models, and actuarial experience are inadequate to meet the needs of policymakers for information about future climate. In the long run, research may lead to reliable forecasts of climate. For the present, however, policymakers have no recourse but to heed expert judgments – subjective and contradictory though they may be – about future world climate and its effects on agriculture and other sectors of the economy.

7. Roberts, 1975

There are, of course, many different ideas about the origins of climate change. Many factors have been looked upon as potential causes: vulcanism, sea surface temperature changes, changes in CO2 content of the atmosphere, oscillations in Arctic ice and sea depth, and atmospheric turbidity changes due to manmade dust or wind-blown soil and sand. These theories, including the solar one, share the difficulty that they have not yet reached the stage where convincing experimental verification is possible.

8. Shutts and Green, 1972

Many theories about climate change are essentially untestable, but we can still develop a consistent model based on understandable physics—in fact the data cannot be interpreted without one. Shutts and Green believe there is some fundamental defect in all present models: it could be something physically improbable, like an unreasonable effect of tiny solar variations. More likely there is a fundamental lack in our appreciation of how very interactive systems behave.

9. Chaston, 1980

Much of the Northern Hemisphere experienced a dramatic upsurge in snowfall during the 1970s as compared with the previoius decades. … Whether the “Snowy Seventies” heralded the dawn of a major cooling trend or is merely a temporary anomaly is highly debatable.  One may ask fifty meteorologists for his/her opinion on climatic change and inevitably receive fifty differing opinions.  This is why meteorology is so exciting: even with relatively advanced computer programs and the complete set of equations of motion of the atmosphere, we are far from truly understanding the mechanics of Mother Nature.

10. Mac Cracken, 1982

Several recent studies have contended that the increase in CO2 concentrations since the start of the Industrial Revolution has led to identifiable climatic warming. Significant approximations and simplifications have had to be made, however, in order to isolate this supposed CO2 effect from the comparably large latitudinal and temporal temperature variations that may have been due to changes in volcanism, solar variability, other potentially identifiable causal factors, or natural fluctuations. To overcome the resulting uncertainties, data bases must be improved, diagnostic analyses and numerical models must more completely treat the spatial and temporal patterns and phase relations of the expected changes, and a careful search for a set of CO2-specific climate modifications must be undertaken.

11. Schneider, 1974

Unfortunately, knowledge of climate theory is still too primitive to trace reliably climatic cause and effect links, and therefore it is argued that large-scale climate modification schemes appear irresponsible.

12. Dyson, 1977

The magnitude of this negative feed-back effect of atmospheric CO2 upon itself depends on many ecological interactions which have yet to be disentangled. The effect could be negligibly small, or it could be as large as 3 x 109 tons of carbon per yr. In summary, there is insufficient evidence to decide whether the carbon content of the biosphere has decreased, increased or remained stationary in response to the manifold human activities of recent decades. There exists a huge literature attempting to assess or to prognosticate the effects of the increasing atmospheric CO2 on the climate of the earth. Such attempts are useful and necessary, but they run into formidable technical difficulties. Even the mean global temperature rise caused by a given quantity of CO2 is subject to great uncertainty: and the effects of CO2 on local and time-variable phenomena (which may be crucially important to agriculture and other human activities) are more uncertain still.

13. Oerlemans, 1982

Conclusion: This estimate is subject to a number of uncertainties. First of all, opinions about the effect of an increasing CO2 content of the atmosphere differ widely. It is generally accepted that a warming has to be expected, but its magnitude is subject to much debate. Even if we did know the effect of CO2 on climate, things would not be much clearer. The global carbon cycle is poorly understood and we are not yet able to predict (given the anthropogenic CO2 input) the content of the atmosphere for next centuries.

14. Meier, 1983

Should we expect a “threat of disaster” (Mercer, 1978) with sea level and climate in the next 50 years? The obvious answer is no; the complex ice/ocean/atmosphere system is not sufficiently understood. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet may be robust to rapid oceanographic or atmospheric forcing (Whillans, 1978). Unfortunately, we are not even sure whether its grounding lines are currently advancing or retreating, and we certainly do not understand how surges are triggered. Until such understanding is at hand, and atmospheric-oceanographic circulation models are developed that perform well at high latitudes, we can only watch what is happening.

15. Sachs, 1976

This test shows that patterns of climatic change can be resolved with increasingly greater detail but that ‘first causes’ of climatic change remain elusive.

16. Bryant, 1987

Conclusions: The scenario of a CO2-warming globe contains many uncertainties. The warming of the atmosphere is not an established fact, and even if it was there may be no need to invoke increased atmospheric CO2 or other ‘greenhouse’ gases as the cause when such warmings have been a part of our temperature time series historically.  … A common factor underpinning our uncertainties about a CO2-warming atmospheric scenario is that the Earth is not covered adequately with enough data points to evaluate the scenario conclusively.  Even where geophysical time series are available, they are clouded by the inherent fluctuations of their variances.

 

University of Deleware Penguin Panic Paper Exposed As Flawed… Used “Tricks”

Antarctic climate models fail to handle natural variability: Adélie penguins continue to appear

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

On June 29, 2016 the University of Delaware (UD) unleashed a climate penguin panic with its press release:

Penguins and climate change:
UD scientists report projected response of Adélie penguins to Antarctic climate change

It’s a big question: how is climate change in Antarctica affecting Adélie penguins? Climate has influenced the distribution patterns of Adélie penguins across Antarctica for millions of years. The geologic record tells us that as glaciers expanded and covered Adélie breeding habitats with ice, penguin colonies were abandoned. When the glaciers melted during warming periods, this warming positively affected the Adélie penguins, allowing them to return to their rocky breeding grounds. But now, University of Delaware scientists and colleagues report that this beneficial warming may have reached its tipping point. In a paper published today in Scientific Reports, the researchers project that approximately 30 percent of current Adélie colonies may be in decline by 2060 and approximately 60 percent may be in decline by 2099.”

That’s absolutely bitter. More than half of the penguins will be dead by 2099. In earlier times they benefitted from climate warming, but today heat is threatening to wipe them out. How has this come to be? The press release continues:

It is only in recent decades that we know Adélie penguins population declines are associated with warming, which suggests that many regions of Antarctica have warmed too much and that further warming is no longer positive for the species,” said the paper’s lead author Megan Cimino, who earned her doctoral degree at UD in May.”

Antarctica has warmed unusually over the past decades?

Unfortunately that is completely wrong, see here. Precisely on this subject a new paper by Jones et al. 2016 in Nature Climate Change tells us:

Assessing recent trends in high-latitude Southern Hemisphere surface climate
Understanding the causes of recent climatic trends and variability in the high-latitude Southern Hemisphere is hampered by a short instrumental record. Here, we analyse recent atmosphere, surface ocean and sea-ice observations in this region and assess their trends in the context of palaeoclimate records and climate model simulations. Over the 36-year satellite era, significant linear trends in annual mean sea-ice extent, surface temperature and sea-level pressure are superimposed on large interannual to decadal variability. However, most observed trends are not unusual when compared with Antarctic paleoclimate records of the past two centuries. With the exception of the positive trend in the Southern Annular Mode, climate model simulations that include anthropogenic forcing are not compatible with the observed trends. This suggests that natural variability likely overwhelms the forced response in the observations, but the models may not fully represent this natural variability or may overestimate the magnitude of the forced response.

Perhaps the penguin researchers should first take a better look at this paper as soon as it gets published officially. It becomes necessary to explain why the Adélie-penguins are even alive today because the Antarctic Peninsula was warmer than today many times over the past thousands of years. By the way, the last warm phase in Antarctica occurred as an effect of the Medieval Warm Period.

When one looks more closely at the University of Delaware paper, the tricks the penguin researches are using quickly becomes clear. For assessing the danger, a middle of the pack climate model scenario was not used. No, instead the absolute most grim model by the name of RCP 8.5 was used. It just could not be worse. It’s like being sure you’ll have a car accident on the way to work today.

We at this blog constantly have to make official complaints when the media simply take over press releases without checking, and thus promote climate alarm. Finally, there is some good news: It appears people have in fact gotten more careful, as a search for the report turned up no result. That’s very praiseworthy. The sole exception is the Internet platform wetter.de, who found it too much to resist – and took the bait.

 

The Poor Get The Shaft – Forced To Pick Up 7 Billion Euro Power Tab Of German Industry!

Here’s more proof that Germany’s scheme to shift over to renewable energy sources, the so-called Energiewende, is backfiring – this time socially.

German climate alarmist site “Klimaretter” (Climate Rescuer) writes here that Germany’s Energiewende has been unfair to consumers, but a real bonanza for some large power consumers.

Claiming competition disadvantages (and they are indeed real) big power consumers have cajoled policymakers to grant them exemptions from having to pay the renewable energy feed-in surcharges – now at more than 6 euro-cents a kilowatt-hour. The result is that these have ended up being passed on to the poor consumers, who are forced to pick up the huge tab in addition to paying their own surcharge fees.

Klimaretter writes:

Energy-intensive companies in Germany were exempted from paying 3.3 billion euros in 2014 and 3.4 billion euros in 2015 within the scope of the EEG Renewable Energy Feed-In Act.”

That’s about 7 billion – over the past two years, only.

It is estimated that some 2000 German companies were granted exemptions from paying these feed-in charges. One green politician, Julia Verlinden, commented that the way things are now, large power consuming companies are being rewarded for consuming more power. She told klimaretter that “companies even receive incentives to waste as much energy as possible in order to profit from extra discounts.”

In fact Co2 emissions by the German aluminium industry has risen from 733,000 tonnes in 2010 to 821,000 tonnes in 2014, klimaretter reports.

Verlinden adds:

Small businesses, private households or public services have to pay for the gifts to industry.”

This is yet another way the Energiewende has become the largest bottom-to-top wealth redistribution in the history of the planet. Currently German consumers are being burdened with over 25 billion euros annually to subsidize the Energiewende. The big profiteers are banks, Big Wind & Solar, and wealthy land and property owners.

For the extra billions of euros annually, the poor consumers have content themselves with a few theoretical hundredths of a degree less climate warming by 2050.

 

(All White) German ARD Television Jabs At GOP – For Lack Of Ethnic Diversity!

ARD German public television board has zero non-whites in nation that has millions of people of other ethnic origin.

ARD Vorstand

Photos: ARD, Fair Use.

Yesterday I happened to watch Germany’s ARD 8 pm news, and was a bit surprised by its reporting on the GOP Convention.

According to Wikipedia, the ARD is the “world’s largest public broadcaster with a budget of €6.5 billion and 20,616.5 employees”.

The ARD 8 pm news is in fact such an institution, that one of the first unwritten rules one learns when moving to the country is that you do not call anyone at their home between 8 and 8:15 pm because you risk disturbing them as they loyally watch their ARD evening news.

Over the years, however, the ARD has become glaringly one-sided politically, and an avid purveyor of political correctness. It can be argued that elements of elitism have long seeped into leading network heads over time, as is the case with much of the established German media.

Lately all-out Trump and GOP bashing has become a full-time sport not only at the ARD, but throughout the massive German public media complex. Hillary Clinton, the scandal-fraught Democrat candidate, gets a free pass.

White network labels Republicans racist?

What caught my eye yesterday was the degree of zealousness and lengths that the network went to, to portray the RNC in Cleveland as racially tinged, telling viewers near the 12-minute mark that only among the “overly white event” only 18 of the over 2472 delegates are black (skipping the fact that a number of minorities made speeches at the convention, and that the party in fact is ethnically diverse, i.e. see the original GOP candidate field).

Grotesquely distorted, blind journalism

The ARD’s portrayal of the GOP was a carefully crafted and designed to grotesquely distort and discredit the true spirit of the party.

As Germany takes in immigrants of other cultures and countries, and as the country over the past decades has changed to one of having a greatly increased share of minorities, one might think that by now, in the year 2016, at least the country’s flagship media board of directors, especially at the flagship ARD, would reflect the public it serves. But looking at their own boards, we see it is virtually all snow-white.

Of the 8 ARD top board members, see image above, zero are non-white:

The same is true of their other supervisory boards, whose structures I’m not going to get into. Here we see pure vanilla.

Things are not any better at ZDF, the other leading network.

Or at renowned centre-left weekly Der Spiegel.

In the USA any major organization of that scale with such a lack of diversity would have had their pants sued off long ago.

German media far less diversified than GOP

So what could the GOP possibly learn from the ARD on ethnic representation and diversity? Nothing….except for what one should not do. And what excuse does Germany’s media have for employing so few minorities? Silence.

It’s of low human character to go around accusing others of a practice that you yourself are far more guilty of doing, and it is equally deplorable to falsely and deceptively portray the USA’s other major party as intolerant and to imply it is racist. Stunningly there even appears to be 2 members of clergy on the board here.

All white. Perhaps the ARD should rename itself to AFD

The ARD and most of German media are the very last who should be preaching others on ethnic diversity. It’s disgusting and offensive that they are attempting to cast half of the USA’s political spectrum as being tainted with racism when they themselves cannot be bothered to place any minorities on their very own boards.

Moreover, when ones looks at the boards at most major German corporations, the story is much the same. The reality is that corporate Germany, which likes to fancy itself as progressive and hip, is at least 30 years behind the USA or Scandinavia on affirmative action.

Those German institutions and organizations, who seem to like branding others as intolerant, really first need to look at themselves before passing judgement.

ARD heads can click here.

 

El Niño 2016 Now History… “La Niña Coming: The Earth Is Cooling”

La Niña is coming: the Earth is cooling!

By Schneefan.
(Translated and condensed by P. Gosselin)

The warming El Niño weather phenomenon has been history since June 2016. The cool La Niña started in mid July 2016.

The daily anomalies in sea surface temperatures (SSTA) in the main Niño region 3.4 are now updated. In mid July it is in the La Niña zone at -0.74°K:

Der Plot zeigt die Entwicklung der täglichen SSTA zum international üblichen und von der WMO empfohlenen modernen Klimamittel 1981-2010 im maßgeblichen Niño-Gebiet 3.4 mit den Daten von NOAA/CDAS (Climate Data Assimilation System). Die SSTA lagen bisher mit bis zu -0,4 K knapp oberhalb der La Niña-Werte von -0,5 K und kälter, haben aber Mitte Juli die -0,5 K erreicht und unterschritten. Der Wert beträgt am 19.7.2016 = -0,74 K. Quelle: http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/

The plot above shows the daily SSTA with respect to the international climate mean of 1981-2010 in the main Niño region 3.4 with data from NOAA/CDAS (Climate Data Assimilation System). The SSTA reached and dipped below the -0.5°K mark in mid July. The latest value was -0.74°K (July 19, 2016). Source: www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/.

The following chart shows the current La Niña extending from the coast of Peru to the international dateline (180°):

Der CDAS-Index zeigt die täglichen globalen Abweichungen der SST. Mitte Juli 2016 schlängelt sich La Niña (blaue Farben) bereits gut erkennbar über weite Strecken des äquatorialen Pazifiks. Quelle: wie vor

The cold La Niña (blue at the equator) is shown developing. Source: www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/.

After a record warm February 2016 with an anomaly of +0.83°K using the unaltered UAH satellite data, the global temperature of the lower troposphere centered at 1500 meters fell by 0.49 K in June to +0.34°K, see the following chart:

Die UAH-Grafik zeigt die monatlichen Abweichungen (blaue Linie) der globalen Temperaturen der unteren Troposphäre (TLT) sowie den laufenden Dreizehnmonatsdurchschnitt (rote Linie) von Dezember 1998 bis Mai 2016. Wegen eines kräftigen global zeitversetzt wärmenden El Niño-Ereignisses ab Sommer 2015 gab es auch bei den unverfälschten Datensätzen von UAH nach Monats-Rekordwerten von November 2015 bis März 2016 nun im Mai mit einer Abweichung von 0,71 K einen deutlichen Rückgang um 0,36 K auf 0,34 K gegenüber dem Vormonaten Mai und April. Quelle: wie vor

UAH chart depicting monthly lower troposphere temperature anomaly (blue curve), along the 13-month smoothed moving average (red curve). Original text: “This gives a 2-month temperature fall of -0.37 deg. C, which is the second largest in the 37+ year satellite record…the largest was -0.43 deg. C in Feb. 1988. In the tropics, there was a record fast 2-month cooling of -0.56 deg. C, just edging out -0.55 deg. C in June 1998 (also an El Nino weakening year).“ Source: UAH Global Temperature Update for June 2016: +0.34 deg. C.

Finally, after months of disagreement, the major ENSO models are now almost in full agreement that La Niña conditions will start to take hold this summer, now that there is already a deviation of -0.7°K. See: http://www.bom.gov.au/Pacific-Ocean.

The ENSO model CFSv2 of the NOAA again looks totally confused, as it did in May. Today the ENSO monthly prognosis shows a broad scatter of +0.4°K to -2.2°K for January 2017, see following chart. That means: Nobody knows!

Der Plot zeigt die CFSv2-ENSO-Prognose von NOAA vom 17.7.2016 für die monatlichen SSTA im maßgeblichen Nino-Gebiet 3.4 bis April 2017. Das Modell scheint wieder mal sehr verwirrt, weil die Streuung der aktuellen acht Prognosen (blaue Linien) z.B. im Januar 2017 von +0,4 K bis -2,2 K reicht. Quelle: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/CFSv2SST8210.html

The plot shows the CFSv2-ENSO prognosis from the NOAA July 17, 2016, for the monthly SSTA in the Nino region 3.4 up to April 2017. Source: www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/html.

The energy content of the water down to a depth of 300 m at the equatorial Pacific continues to show a negative anomaly for July 2016 at -1.0°K and thus has been in the cold La Niña range of under -0.5°K.

Der Plot stellt den Verlauf der Temperaturanomalien bis zu 300 Meter unter Wasser im äquatorialen Pazifik dar. Die kräftigen positiven Abweichungen der warmen (orange) Downwelling-Phase einer äquatorialen Kelvinwelle haben Ende Oktober/Anfang November 2015 ihren Höhepunkt erreicht und gehen bis Mitte Juli 2016 in einer kalten Upwelling-Phase um mehr als 3 K deutlich bis um -1,0 K (blau) zurück: El Niño ist tot – La Niña kommt! Quelle: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/enso.shtml

El Niño is dead – La Niña is coming! Source: www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/enso.shtml.

It is therefore not expected that a significant cooling will take place in July this year. Dr. Roy Spencer (UAH) has already pointed that out here:

Just remember, the temperature anomaly can also temporarily rebound for a month, as it did in late 1998.”

However, it is already clear from the unaltered satellite data of the first half of this year: 2016 will not be a record warm year.

 

Energy Experts Warn German Renewable Energy Path Tantamount To Economic Harakiri

Energy experts Jürgen Großmann and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt wrote in an opinion piece in Saturday’s hardcopy edition of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) that renewable energies are expensive, costing 2 to 3 times more than conventional energy.

FAZ_Gmann_Vholt

FAZ: “Worry over transition to renewable energy”

The two German experts warn that any attempt the country makes to reach the target of 45% renewable energy by the year 2025 is tantamount to economic Harakiri.

28 billion euros annually

Already Germany’s budding Energiewende is costing German consumers and businesses 28 billion euros annually, or roughly an average of 300 euros for each household. These costs are driven in part by insanely high leasing costs that wind turbine operators pay to wealthy land owners –  and subsidies paid to growers of corn for biofuel.

Storage technology “prohibitively expensive”

Großmann and Vahrenholt also remind readers storage technologies are “prohibitively expensive” and offer no solution the problem of evening out the highly volatile wind and solar supply.

Sizzling power grids

Another major problem, the two energy experts comment, are the extreme uncontrolled power surges occurring on both sunny and windy days. In such cases the operators of over-fed, sizzling grids are forced to dump surplus electricity into the power grids of neighboring countries, which has the effect of upsetting both their grids and power generation markets. Another peculiarity is that wind park operators are routinely ordered to shut down, yet are paid for the power that never gets produced. German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel once said that other countries think it’s “crazy”.

Großmann and Vahrenholt, both former top energy executives, characterize the demands made by the influential German Greens to shut down the country’s coal power plants as naïve and simply unworkable, and call plans to install large wind parks near the Baltic Sea before constructing transmission lines to take the power to markets “nonsense”.

German reductions would be wiped out in just 3 months

The economics of the German renewables project also border on insanity. Vahrenholt and Großmann remind that all the CO2 reductions that are to be made by Germany would be wiped out by China’s massive growth in just a matter of three months, making all the pain and cost for nothing. China represents 29% of the world’s CO2 emissions, Germany only a paltry 2.5%.

Vahrenholt and Großmann conclude that Germany must return to rationality by getting back on a renewable energy path that is technicaly and economically feasilble, and not one that destroys the environment and economy, as is the case currently in Germany. They point out that Great Britain, Spain, Poland, Denmark and Italy have all scaled back their renewable energy development so as to not further overburden their consumers and industry.

New Study, Scientists: “20th Century Warming Not Very Obvious In Our Reconstruction”

New Paper: China temperatures warmer during the 1700s, linked to solar, volcanic, and AMO/PDO forcing

By Kenneth Richard

A new 368-year tree ring temperature reconstruction has established that regional (China) summer temperatures were warmer than they are now (2012) during the mid-1600s and early 1700s, and that the temperature variations can be linked to variations in solar activity, volcanic forcing (cooling), and natural oceanic-atmospheric oscillations (AMO/PDO).

The authors are intent on pointing out that it is “noteworthy that 20th century warming was not very obvious in our reconstruction.”  This “noteworthy” finding is mentioned four different times in the paper.

The lack of a conspicuous 20th century warming — and the warmer periods during the 1600s and 1700s — are clearly shown in the summer temperature graph below:

China_1700_1

Annual and 11-year smoothed regional July–August mean maximum temperature reconstruction (blue and red lines, respectively); superimposed is the 11-year smoothed instrumental record (pink line).

Zhu and co-authors also do not mention CO2 as a “possible forcing mechanism” in their extensive discussion of the causes of temperature variations for the last 368 years, probably because there is little to no correlation between the decadal-scale temperature variations (warming and cooling periods) and the precipitous rise in atmospheric CO2 during the 20th and 21st centuries.

Below is a summary of the key points from the paper Zhu et al., 2016:

A 368-year maximum temperature reconstruction

During the period 1875–1955, late summer temperature fluctuated less strongly than before or thereafter. In general, the average length of cold periods was shorter than that of warm periods. The cold period of 1869–1877 was the longest and coldest cool period had a mean of 17.63°C. The longest warm period extended from 1655 to 1668, and the warmest period in AD 1719–1730 had a mean of 20.37°C. However, we should point out that the rapid warming during the 20th century was not especially obvious in our reconstructed RLST.

[S]even cold periods and three warm periods were identified during the past 368 years (Fig. 4d). All the cold periods were during the Maunder (1708–1711) or Dalton (1818– 1821, 1824–1828, 1832–1836, and 1839–1842) solar minima periods, except for the cold periods of 1765–1769 and 1869–1877 (Eddy, 1976; Shindell et al., 1999), which indicated that RLST [mean maximum temperature] variations in the NWSP [northwestern Sichuan Plateau, China ] might be driven by solar activity (Fig. 7b). On the other hand, volcanic eruptions in the corresponding periods might also be a cooling factor (Fig. 7b). A longer cold period (e.g., 1820s–1840s) was interrupted by transient warming, thus forming a plurality of discontinuous short cold periods. Warm periods of 1719–1730 and 1858–1859 both had more sunspots (Eddy, 1976; Shindell et al., 1999) and lower volcanic forcing (Fig. 7b). The cold (1765–1769 or 1869–1877) and warm (1655–1668) periods were highly consistent with other studies (Fig. 7).

Possible Forcing Mechanism

Accompanied by significant peaks at 60.2 and 73 years, the continuously periodicities around 49–114 years in our regional temperature reconstruction might tentatively be related to PDO, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO; En- field et al., 2001) as well as solar activity (Eddy, 1976; Shindell et al., 1999; Peristykh and Damon, 2003; Raspopov et al., 2004; Braun et al., 2005). The AMO was an important driver of multidecadal variations in summer climate not only in North America and western Europe (Kerr, 2000; Sutton and Hodson, 2005) but also in the East Asia (Feng and Hu, 2008; Liang et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2011, 2015; Zhu et al., 2011). The 60.2-year peak associated with AMO demonstrated that multidecadal variations in late summer temperature in the NWSP NWSP [northwestern Sichuan Plateau, China ]  might be controlled by AMO.

[S]ignificant multidecadal- and centennial-scale cycles of our temperature reconstruction might include the signs of solar activity, such as the Gleissberg cycles (Peristykh and Damon, 2003), Suess cycles (Braun et al., 2005), Bruckner cycles (Raspopov et al., 2004), and Schwabe cycles (Braun et al., 2005). The Maunder (ca. AD 1645–1715) and Dalton (ca. AD 1790–1840) solar minima periods were generally associated with temperature depressions (Eddy, 1976), and the Damon (ca. AD 1890– 1920) solar maximum period occurred in a relatively warm period, which further confirmed that late summer temperature variation in the NWSP [northwestern Sichuan Plateau, China ]  might be driven by solar activity (Fig. 7b).

Conclusion

Overall, the RLST [mean maximum temperature] variability in the NWSP [northwestern Sichuan Plateau, China ]  might be associated with global land–sea atmospheric circulation (e.g., ENSO, PDO, or AMO) as well as solar and volcanic forcing.

 

“I Could Throw Up”…”Wind Power Mafia” Clandestinely Destroys Rare Stork Nests To Clear Way For Turbines!

German real environmental activist Andreas Kieling here at Facebook has posted a video showing the gruesome and sickening destruction of birdlife by windmills and tells of an alleged premeditated criminal dismantling of rare black stork nests by the “wind power mafia”.


The video is in German, but the pictures are of universal language.

At the start of the video Kieling shows 3 birds and 2 bats of various endangered species that he and his dog allegedly found in just 15 minutes at one single turbine. “That’s unbelievable,” Kieling announces. He is visibly disturbed by this.

The high profile activist believes that the number of birds killed is likely much higher, because many of the victims are soon dragged off by scavenging animals such as foxes during the night.

The birds have little chance against the wind turbines, as the blade tips travel at speeds of up to 270 km/hr. At the -3.15 mark:

That means a bird that flies in the vicinity underestimates this speed and gets cut to pieces, as is the case with this one.”

He adds that for bats it is not even necessary to be hit because the under-pressure created by the blade swooshing by causes the bats’ lungs to burst.

Also at the -2.38 mark Kieling explains that predatory birds also have no chance because they often fly with their heads looking down in search of prey, and so never see the high speed turbine blades. They end up getting “shredded”.

What’s really bad is that wind developers are planning even more, larger turbines close by.

“Wind power mafia” destroying stork nests

If things were not bad enough, Kieling tells of stork nests only 1000 meters away that were criminally dismantled, likely by the “wind power mafia” in order to clear the way for the new turbines. At the -2:05 mark he shows a large oak tree that was allegedly once home to a black stork nest for more than 40 years. He explains:

Suddenly the nest disappeared without a trace. The same happened to the secondary nest. The storks often have two nests. It was about 800 meters away. Also disappeared without a trace. The wind park is just about a kilometer away. And it is probably the reason for this.”

“I’m so angry I could throw up”

Kieling explains how storks like to build their nests on large trees located near streams, not up in the tree’s crown but on the fork of a large branch. The nests he says can grow to weights of up to 500 kg over 20 to 30 years, and thus the branch and nest can eventually collapse under the weight. At the -1.00 mark he explains:

But under this tree you’d find some remnants of the nest or the broken branch, and this is precisely not the case. Not for this tree, and not for the other tree. And in the neighboring town where I live, Ahrenberg, it’s the same – there’s been a black stork’s nest since a long time. This one here was the last black stork nest in the North Eifel area. In the meantime the number of storks has fortunately gone up again. But I ask myself just how concealed and hidden do these birds have to live before they aren’t bothered. What is happening here is criminal. This was done by professionals. In the forest, under the tree, there are no traces of anything. The tree branch fork is very much intact, but the nest is gone. The nest was dismantled. Likely it was done using aluminum ladders and the nest material was carefully scattered in the surrounding area in the forest. At the other nest the exact same thing. I’m so angered; I could throw up. What can you do – it’s a battle against the wind turbines.”

In the meantime not a peep of protest coming from WWF or other high profile environmental groups. Kieling’s frustration and sense of desperation are understandable. We can only wish him the best in the fight against this crony “wind mafia” and the deplorable politicians who look away.

 

German Power Giant RWE Risks Becoming “Largest Bankruptcy In German Business History”!

Germany’s “Energiewende” (transition to renewable energies) is threatening to cause widespread economic havoc.

Not only have almost every major solar manufacturing company in Germany gone bankrupt, leaving economic blight in its wake, now traditional power giants, which hire tens of thousands of skilled workers, are threatened by bankruptcy.

Today German flagship daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reports here that the country’s largest power company, RWE, now faces bankruptcy in the wake of the post Fukushima Energiewende, where the German government forced the immediate shutdown of nuclear power plants in a panicked reaction to the Japanese disaster.

For RWE this meant an immediate shutdown of some 25% of its assets. The FAZ writes that since Fukushima, RWE has lost a whopping 70% of its value.

The situation is hardly better at competitor E On, whose share price has fallen 58% since Fukushima.

The title of the FAZ article is “The last days of RWE” and writes that “Germany’s largest power producer has become a bankruptcy candidate“.

Currently RWE has “45 billion euros in long-term liabilities, 8 times its equity“, the FAZ reports.

The FAZ also writes that its British subsidiary company, which represents more than 20% of the company’s sales, is bleeding money as missteps resulted in hundreds of thousands of customers running from the power giant.

Another huge problem are that conventional power plants are losing money due to an oversupply from wind and solar power. The FAZ writes:

The rash installation of wind and solar power has led to an oversupply on the power market, with the wholesale price per megawatt-hour of electricity dropping by one half since Fukushima. The RWE management is thus implementing one savings plan after the another. Even the urgently needed investments in wind and solar energy have been slashed.”

The massive financial woes of the power giant could end up being “the largest bankruptcy in German business history“, reports the FAZ.

But in the end RWE is a power company that is to big to fail, and so the FAZ writes that if push comes to shove, the state will have to intervene and bail out the company. Otherwise there would be “chaos on the power market“. Once again the lowly consumers would be asked to reach ever deeper into their pockets.

That’s how the socialist system works in Europe: Socialize the pain, privatize the profits.

 

New Paper: Lower Arctic Sea Level Rise Estimated At Only 1.5 Millimeters Per Year!

A brand new paper is out on sea level, and guess what?

The findings show that sea level is going nowhere fast and that in the Arctic it is rising only half as fast as the much IPCC ballyhooed satellite altimetry measured 3.3 mm/year and accelerating rise.

Authors: Peter Limkilde Svendsen, Ole B. Andersen, Allan Aasbjerg Nielsen
Accepted manuscript online: 13 July 2016Full publication history
DOI: 10.1002/2016JC011685View/save citation

The paper’s abstract follows, with my emphasis added:

Stable reconstruction of Arctic sea level for the 1950–2010 period

Reconstruction of historical Arctic sea level is generally difficult due to the limited coverage and quality of both tide gauge and altimetry data in the area. Here a strategy to achieve a stable and plausible reconstruction of Arctic sea level from 1950 to today is presented. This work is based on the combination of tide gauge records and a new 20-year reprocessed satellite altimetry derived sea level pattern. Hence the study is limited to the area covered by satellite altimetry (68ºN and 82ºN). It is found that timestep cumulative reconstruction as suggested by Church and White (2000) may yield widely variable results and is difficult to stabilize due to the many gaps in both tide gauge and satellite data. A more robust sea level reconstruction approach is to use datum adjustment of the tide gauges in combination with satellite altimetry, as described by (Ray and Douglas, 2011). In this approach, a datum-fit of each tide gauges is used and the method takes into account the entirety of each tide gauge record. This makes the Arctic sea level reconstruction much less prone to drifting.

From our reconstruction, we found that the Arctic mean sea level trend is around 1.5 mm +/- 0.3 mm/y for the period 1950 to 2010, between 68ºN and 82ºN. This value is in good agreement with the global mean trend of 1.8 +/- 0.3 mm/y over the same period as found by Church and White (2004).”

No wonder global warming con-man Al Gore had no qualms about buying a beachfront home.

 

Europeans Stunned As Winter Strikes In Mid July! Snow Down To Only 1500 Meters …”Extremely Rare”

UPDATE: Some Swiss mountain passes “had to be closed”

Here in the north German flatlands, my wife this morning commented that it felt like fall this morning. Indeed it was a bit nippy outside.

As already forecast here, snow hit the German higher elevations, but with snow falling to as low as 1500 early this morning, so reports meteorologist Dominik Jung in a press release at wetter.net here.

Here’s an excerpt:
=======================================

Camping in the snow? What a summer!

Camping im Schnee!

Snow fell this morning down to elevations of only 1500 meters. Photo: wetter.net.

Wiesbaden (wetter.net) 14 July 2016 – have you ever thought of camping in the snow and in the middle of July? As warned already on Monday by wetter.net, this forecast came true in the Alp countries of Switzerland and Austria!

The snowfall elevation really dropped over night. In some places early this morning snowflakes were falling at 1500 meters.

For mid July such a low elevation snowfall is extremely rare. Clearly snow is not real unusual in June or late August at these elevations, but in July it is truly an unusual event to witness. This summer is not only behaving like fall, but even like winter.

Not only did snow fall in Switzerland, but also in Austria. The popular Großglockner high Alps pass was in parts covered by snow this morning. And it is still snowing. Most people were certainly expecting something totally different this summer vacation. Summer 2016 is doing whatever it wants.

Just days earlier in Austria the mercury were at levels between 30 and 35°C, but now it is snowing down to elevations of 1500 meters in mid July.”

============================

Jung writes that the cool weather has also gripped parts of Germany and is accompanied by heavy rains in the regions near Poland. The cause of the cold spell is a low situated over Poland.

Not only Switzerland and Austria were surprised by winter, but so were parts of northern Italy. Severe Weather at Facebook here also posted a photo of snow blanketing the Alps in Northern Italy yesterday, well below the tree line.

Incredible!

 

Study Shows Climate Extremes In Northern Germany Nothing New … Much Worst in The Past

Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne

A new study by German GFZ research institute finds that extreme climate change also happened in the past before humans began emitting CO2 in to the atmosphere. What follows is the press release (emphasis added).
======================================

Strong fluctuations in lake level reconstructed for Northern Germany

The lake level of the Großer Fürstenseer See in Neustrelitz (Mueritz National Park) fluctuated by a total of 8 meters in the past 10,000 years (photo: E. Dietze, GFZ).

27.06.2016: Over the past decades, the water level for lakes of the Northern German Lowland dropped in many places. This was often caused by human activities like the draining of soils for agriculture or settlements. A study of scientists from the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences now shows that there were much more drastic changes in lake levels occurring over the past thousands of years, especially before humans started to have an impact on the water cycle.

Research at “Großer Fürstenseer See“ at Neustrelitz (Müritz National Park) shows ups and downs in lake level of about four meters in either direction over the past 10,000 years. To compare: Since the 1980s the lake level lowered for about 1.30 meters. “In only a few millenia the lake area dropped by half or was threefold increased compared to todays extent”, explains first author of the study Dr. Elisabeth Dietze from the GFZ.

The study is published in the current edition of the scientific journal BOREAS.

For the study, scientists from the virtual German-Polish research Institute ICLEA investigated the lake taking samples from the sediment and using echo-sounding following a transect through the lake and compared the results with recent investigations of lake level changes. Their reconstructions of the lake level showed that a peak was reached about 5,000 years ago with a lake level of four meters above todays level. In contrast, about 6,400 to 9,700 years ago the lake level was about three to four meters lower than today.

A possible explanation may be a combination of climate change and changes in forest structure the scientists suggest. The early Holocene pine forests (the first forests after the ice age) had a high demand in water with a negative impact on groundwater recharge. In contrast subsequent deciduous forests contributed to groundwater recharge, e.g. by an increased trunk flow. This is also true for today, the GFZ hydrologists indicated. Because of a more humid middle and late Holocene the lake levels remained relatively high throughout the past 4,000 years. They were only impacted by humans since medieval times. Analyses of instrumental investigations from the region of the past 40 to 60 years indicate variations in climate as the main driving force: Precipitation deficits cause local lowering of groundwater tables. However, there are also significant correlations with forest structure, a study from 2012 by colleagues from the Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (Müncheberg) showed. Implications for the future are that more severe variations in lake level than detected so far can be expected. These will however not only be forced by climate change but also by future forest structure in the national park.

The new results show that changes in regional water cycle can be quite massive if one considers not only hundred but 10,000 years”, Ingo Heinrich says. He coordinates the regional observatory “TERrestrial ENvironmental Observatories – Northern German Lowland” (TERENO Nord-Ost). This platform was initiated to investigate local changes in water cycles and to better understand the impact of global change on regional scale.

Dietze, E., Słowiński,M., Zawiska, I., Veh, G., Brauer, A., 2016. Multiple drivers of Holocene lake level changes at a lowland lake in northeastern Germany. BOREAS. doi: 10.1111/bor.12190

——————-

>>More information on ICLEA

 

Folly: All Of Europe’s Wind Power Capacity Only Could Steadily Provide Enough Electricity For Tiny Belgium!

Swedish site klimatsans.com posted a chart presented by Rolf Schuster showing Germany’s and much of Europe’s total wind power generation over the first 6 months of this year:

Schuster-160706-EU-Vind-2016

Wind power production Germany and Europe. Chart by Rolf Schuster, from klimatsans.com.

The first thing one notices is wind power’s extreme supply volatility. In February wind production peaked at 75 gigawatts – enough to power all of Germany (for a few hours). Relying only on wind power, most of Germany would have been completely dark since late March.

Every month wind power fell multiple times close to zero, meaning that it would not even be possible to even power little Luxembourg.

And even if the technology existed to store the energy for a couple of days, the best all the installed wind power capacity in Europe could hope to consistently provide is some 15 gigawatts – which would be enough to power something on the order of Belgium only.

If power could be stored for an entire week, it would only be possible to supply only about half of Germany – the rest of the continent, France, Spain, Portugal, Benelux, United Kingdom, Ireland, Scandinavia, Greece, Austria, Switzerland, all of eastern Europe and the Balkan countries would have to go without.

This gives us an idea of how ridiculous the pursuit of 100% renewable energy supply really is.

 

Snow Forecast For Europe Later This Week …Meteorologist: “Extremely Unusual” For Mid July!

Some predictions just couldn’t be more wrong.

In the year 2000 some scientists claimed that snow and ice in the wintertime would become a thing of the past. Now today’s press release by German meteorologist Dominik Jung at Wetter.net here is forecasting snow in the mid Alps this week – at the peak of summer!

What follows is an excerpt of the linked press release from wetter.net:
=============================================

Chaos-summer enters next round: flash floods and snow in sight!

Wiesbaden (wetter.net) 11 July 2016 – Yesterday was the warmest Sunday of the year. At some locations temperatures of 35°C were reached. This week there could be snowfall. The southeast regions are threatened by flash floods and heavy rains.

Im Hochgebirge droht Schneefall!

Temperatures will plummet over the coming hours – especially in the Alps region. Instead of 20°C and sunshine at 2000 meters elevation, as seen yesterday, by Thursday values around 0°C will hit along with snowfall. Above 2500 meters we expect 30 cm of fresh snow. For July this is extremely unusual. As a rule there can be some cold snaps in June with snow at these elevations. But in July this is more an unusual exception. Travelers are advised not to drive to Switzerland this week. Under 2000 m elevation heavy rains, flooding and landslides are expected.

In southern Bavaria you have to be prepared once again for flooding. Here enormous rainfall amounts may occur. In the Bavarian Alps up to 14 cm of rain may fall, and directly in the Alps it could be up to 20 cm. Hiking in the high mountains definitely is not advisable.

By Thursday morning temperatures will be in the single digit Celsius range in some areas. This has absolutely nothing to do with peak summer.

Dominik Jung
Meteorologist and chief editor at wetter.net”

=====================================

Luckily by the weekend temperatures will rise back up to normal levels, Jung writes.

Photo credit: wetter.net

 

U Of Leipzig Meteorology Researcher Lashes At Skeptics Of Climate Prophecy 2050 And Beyond

End-of-world warnings are as old as civilization itself. Of the thousands of charlatans who have prophesized end-of-world scenarios over the past thousands of years, none obviously have come true.

So isn’t it only natural that sane people today would be a little, if not very skeptical of new announcements of a coming climate Armegeddon?

A few days ago I posted here how Prof. Dr. Marc Salzmann of the Institute for Meteorology at the University of Leipzig found in a study that “climate change so far has not had an impact on the average global precipitation amount” but that “this could change by the end of this century“. In a nutshell, climate doom gets postponed again!

His results of course point to that the many projections of doom from intense, global-warming fired storms are totally overdone and so, admittedly, I took the opportunity to chide climate science a bit.

My post did catch Salzmann’s attention and it obviously hit a raw nerve. In a comment here, he wrote:

You posted your own translation of a German press release on your website. It says: ‘It is also known that as a consequence of climate change, there are heavy rainfalls more often.’ In other words, the frequency of heavy rain events has already increased. The translation also says that ‘the Arctic is melting, temperature and sea level are rising, and every year a new record is reached with CO2 in the atmosphere’and that ‘precipitation has increased in some regions of the earth, but at the same time it has decreased in others.’ Yet, none of this worries you. Instead you take comfort in the finding that the global mean precipitation has not changed much. But you just hear what you want to hear and see what you want to see. In a few decades from now people like you will probably say that nobody had told them.”

I accept differences, but strange here is that Salzmann exposes some dogmatism he has concerning climate outcomes of the far future. In science everyone knows that dogmatism and excessive certainty concerning specific outcomes in complex, chaotic systems – decades out into the future – has in fact nothing to do with science. It’s crystal-balling. He gives the impression of being sure about a particular outcome for 2050 and beyond, i.e. things are going to get much worse. Nowhere does he mention nature’s cycles.

The other point I found peculiar is that he got emotional, and scolded me for being skeptical of the science and the dire projections of outcomes that are supposed to take place “in a few decades from now“. Salzmann obviously was perturbed that someone would have the audacity to play down the significance of short-term climate data, and ridicule projections decades in the future. For him it’s about faith and belief, and not about science.

Overall my advice is that Salzmann should focus more on his meteorology, first improving 7-day or 10-day forecasts, and leaving the 50-year climate crystal balling alone. In the least, he ought not lash out at those who doubt long-term predictions that greatly resemble religious prophecy.

 

Solar Cycle 24 Turns Unusual… Solar Polar Field Difference At Highest Level Since 1976

The sun in May and June 2016

By Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Our sun in May was normally active for the cycle. The mean sunspot number (SSN) was 52.1, which was 2/3 of the mean value for month number 90 into the cycle. The mean is calculated from the previously observed 23 solar cycles occurring since March 1755.

The sun quieted down immensely in June with a mean SSN of only 20.9. This means solar activity in June was only 27% of the mean solar activity observed for month no. 91 in all previous cycles. For the month it was a record, as never has month no. 91 of all the previous cycles been so low in activity. The old record low for month 91 was much more (SSN=39), occurring in Cycle No. 14, from 1902 to 1914.

In June 2016 a total of 9 days saw a single sunspot. This resulted in an impressive plunge in the chart:

Figure 1: Solar activity in the current Cycle No. 24 (red) compared to the mean of the previous 23 solar cycles (blue) and the similarly behaving Cycle 5 (black).

The following chart shows the deviation from the mean for the accumulated number of sunspots for each solar cycle, 91 months into each respective cycle:

Figure 2: Deviation from the mean value (shown by blue curve in Figure 1), for the accumulated number of sunspots up to month 91 for each cycle. Cycle 19 was the most active while Cycle 6 was the least active – 91 months into the cycle.

The current Cycle 24 is less active than Cycle 5 and 6 of the Dalton Minimum, which occurred from 1790 to 1830.

What can we expect in the future? We reported awhile back on the solar polar field and promised to keep you posted on the latest news. What follows is a chart depicting the data up to June 2016:

Figure 3: The smoothed mean value of the solar polar field (orange) and the difference amount between the poles (black) in Centi Gauss (cG).

Here we see that the mean value of the polar field is as high as the minimum of Cycle 23. Using the current reliable level of knowledge, this may be pointing that the coming Cycle 25 will be as strong as Cycle 24 in terms of sunspot activity.

However the difference in the polar field at 64 cG is at the highest level since recording began in May, 1976.

Looking closely at the black curve compared to the orange one in Figure 3, we note the following characteristic: Since the start of observation, never has the difference between polar solar field been above the mean for so long. Using a very precise time resolution (in the original data with 10-day intervals) we are able to see that the duration of this phenomenon in Cycle 24 so far is more than 3 times higher than anything registered in Cycles 21 – 23.

Could such a magnitude and long ongoing difference in the polar field have an impact on the future of solar activity? Could it be a sign showing that the “solar dynamo”, which is responsible for sunspot activity, has gone out of step? Time will tell.

 

Species Extinction Rate Plummets Whopping 96% During Warming, Elevated CO2

By Kenneth Richard

Last month, National Geographic and other news organizations ran the disheartening headline “First Mammal Species Goes Extinct Due to Climate Change1.

The small rat, whose only habitat was “a single island off Australia,” hasn’t been spotted since 2009.

Bramble-cay-melomy

Bramble cay melomy Melomys rubicola. In 2016 declared extinct on Bramble cay. Photo: State of Queensland, CC BY 3.0 au.

When scientists set up traps for the rodent in late 2014 to assess how many were left, they were unsuccessful in trapping any. Therefore, the conclusion is that the Melomys rubicola species is “likely” extinct. It is claimed to be the first mammalian casualty of human-caused global warming. Scientists warn there will be more. Many more. Many, many more.

Forecast: One million extinct species by 2050

It was only 12 years ago (2004) that National Geographic was alarming the public with the headline, “By 2050 Warming to Doom Million Species, Study Says”2. According to the article:

By 2050, rising temperatures exacerbated by human-induced belches of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could send more than a million of Earth’s land-dwelling plants and animals down the road to extinction, according to a recent study.”

The referenced recent study projecting more than one million species extinctions by the year 2050 was a paper published in the journal Nature by Thomas et al. (2003) entitled “Extinction risk from climate change3.  The authors based their conclusions on a species sample size of 1,103  in their study, claiming that between 15 and 35 percent of those species will be facing extinction by 2050 due to warming, which was extrapolated to over a million species disappearing on a global scale by the mid-21st century.

Consider that to reach one million species die-offs between 2003 and 2050, as the Thomas et al. (2003) authors projected, there would need to be about 200,000 species extinctions per decade, or about 20,000 species extinctions per year. An extinction rate that high would certainly be alarming — and catastrophic.

Forecasts of doom vs. observations

Interestingly, a single revelation from the Thomas et al. (2003) paper seems to undermine or even contradict the authors’ forecasts of biospheric doom. The very first sentence of the paper’s abstract says this:

Climate change over the past ~30 years has produced numerous shifts in the distributions and abundances of species and has been implicated in one species-level extinction.”

One species extinction in the previous 30 years, or since the early 1970s. One species extinction. Between the early 1970s and the early 2000s, instrumental datasets indicate that surface temperatures warmed by about 0.5°C. So the same authors projecting more than 200,000 species extinctions per decade during the next 4 or 5 decades have acknowledged that global warming only produced one species extinction in the previous 3 decades.

But it gets worse.

In 2012, BBC News published an article (“Biodiversity loss: How accurate are the numbers?4) indicating that only one species extinction – a mollusc – had occurred since 2000 (through 2012):

According to IUCN [International Union for Conservation of Nature] data, only one animal has been definitely identified as having gone extinct since 2000. It was a mollusc.”

So with the addition of the small rat species claimed to have disappeared, there have been a total of perhaps 3 species that have been lost in the last ~45 years. To reach one million species losses by 2050, the rate of extinction will now need to accelerate from less than one species loss per decade to about 300,000 species losses per decade during the next 34 years. That’s 30,000 extinctions per year, or 82 extinctions per day, between now and 2050.

Question: Does doubting the conclusion that we shall see an average of 30,000 species extinctions each year for the next 34 years qualify as “denying” peer-reviewed climate science if only 3 species may have disappeared in the last 4 or 5 decades?

Dramatically declining extinction rates with warming, high CO2

And it gets even worse for those peddling alarm. The same BBC News article had this to say about the recorded extinction rate since 1500:

It is possible to count the number of species known to be extinct. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) does just that. It has listed 801 animal and plant species (mostly animal) known to have gone extinct since 1500.”

So that’s a few more than 800 species extinctions since 1500. Of those, just 3 have occurred since rapid global warming resumed in the 1970s (following the 1940s to 1970s cooling period), or since CO2 concentrations have risen from about 325 ppm (1970s) to over 400 ppm (2016).

Analyzing these IUCN figures further, this would imply that during the 470 years between 1500 and 1970, when much of the globe was experiencing the coldest temperatures of the last 10,000 years (i.e., the 1500 -1900 A.D. Little Ice Age), and CO2 ranged between a “safe” 280 ppm and 325 ppm, there were an average of 17 extinctions per decade, or 1.7 extinctions per year.

1500 to 1970 = 800 extinctions, or 17 extinctions per decade, 1.7 extinctions per year

1970 to 2016 = 3 extinctions, or 0.7 extinctions per decade, 0.07 extinctions per year

We can conclude, then, that the species extinction rate has been 96% lower in the last approx. 45 years — when global warming has been rapid and CO2 concentrations have supposedly reached “dangerous” levels — than it was in the 470 years prior to 1970, when temperatures and CO2 were at cooler, “safer” levels.

It is doubtful, however, that National Geographic would ever run the headline: “Dramatic reduction in species extinction rates with global warming”, as this admission does not fit the doomsday narrative.

References:

  1. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/
  2. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/html 
  3. http://www.nature.com/nature/html
  4. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-1782689

 

EU Regulation Orgy Intensifies…Strasburg Votes To Regulate Lawnmower Emissions!

You wouldn’t be wrong to suspect EU elitist/establishment types fancy themselves as masterminds of some grand social-green, centrally-planned architecture.

Scotts Scott's 16 in. Walk-Behind Push Reel Lawn Mower

The future of EU lawn mowing. Image: Home Depot.

Lately they have been fuming from the ears over Great Britain’s audacious vote to ditch the whole Franco-German dominated project. The gall!

And ever since the British citizens surprisingly voted for a Brexit, the EU elitsts have been busy concocting a great number of ways to make the country regret it. There are two basic reasons for doing so: 1) to punish the British people, and 2) to send a signal to any other EU member who may be contemplating a similar break out.

EU elitists, intoxicated in their own arrogance, are having a difficult time fathoming how anyone could possibly reject what they believe to be brilliant plans for a grand European future – and even for the planet should ally Hillary get elected. They’re convinced that those rejecting their ideas either have got to be incorrigible right-wing populists, or are just too plain stupid to vote correctly. Too much democracy doesn’t work, they are sure.

Yet for many regular citizens it is clear why Britain turned its back.

Forget TTIP, immigration, bailouts, etc. for now. The latest news just out is another reason why some EU countries are toying with the idea of their own exit: The EU Parliament in Strasbourg has voted to regulate emissions by lawnmowers, and any vehicle’s used off-road, this according to the online Austrian Kurier.at here. It writes:

On Tuesday the European Parliament in Strasburg has agreed on emission limit values for combustion engines on machines that are not used in street traffic – in addition to lawnmowers it includes bulldozers, harvesters and inland boats. The limits will go into effect beginning 2018 and 2019.”

I don’t recall there being any public discussion about this topic whatsoever. This just gets done behind the scenes, out of the public’s eye. This latest show-legislation likely will only mean that people will have to use smaller lawnmowers, and spend more time doing the mundane chore.

The latest lawnmower regulation follows EU plans to crack down on hair dryers, kettles and toasters. Vacuum cleaners and light bulbs have already been dealt with. Up ahead we can expect, stoves, cookers, ovens, irons, fridges, freezers, dryers, washers, furnaces …the sky is the limit for EU regulators.

Today at least Brits can take heart. They’ll be allowed to cut their grass however they wish, and then still have time to enjoy the kettle-heated tea and toaster- baked toast at tea time.

EU citizens, on the other hand, will just have to go without.
=============================================

PS: Reader Ron Clutz puts it all in proper perspective: https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/dpuf

Angry Green Parliamentarian Fumes: New 10 H Rule Means “It’s Over For Wind Power In Bavaria”!

The online Munich-based Süddeutsche Zeiting here (SZ) reports that Bavaria’s recently upheld 10 H rule, which requires wind turbines to be set back away from residential homes a distance that is 10 times the turbine’s height, literally spells “the end for wind power” in the south German idyllic state.

The SZ writes:

At the state council offices in Bavaria in the first quarter of 2016, not a single application for a wind turbine was made in 2016.”

Moreover, insiders say that the same is true for the second quarter as well. This means that the construction of new wind turbine parks in Bavaria’s rolling hills landscape has literally been stopped dead in its tracks. Wind energy opponents and original environmentalists are cheering the development.

Green Bavarian parliamentarian Martin Stümpfig reacted angrily, claiming that “immense damage” has been caused (to the wind industry). According to the SZ, Stümpfig said:

This means it’s over for wind power in Bavaria.”

The highly controversial 10 H rule was passed by the Bavarian state government as citizens protested the blighted forests and natural scenery caused by the industrial turbines. The rule came under heavy fire from Greens and wind power proponents, who challenged it in court. But the court upheld the rule, read here.

The SZ writes that the 10 H rule is hitting wind power companies such as Ostwind very hard, writing that the company no longer sees “any perspective for wind power in the Freistaat“. The company is currently erecting 10 Nordex turbines each rated at 3.0 megawatts in the middle of a forest Windpark Reichertshüll.

Strangely the Ostwind site boasts of “biotope shaping and various species protection measures” within the project.

The SZ writes:

It is not only the largest forest wind park in Germany. ‘Rather also the last Bavarian wind project of this scale for the foreseeable future,’ says Ostwind managing director Rolf Bungart.”

Bungart puts the blame for the wind park approval halt in Bavaria squarely on the 10 H rule.

Good news: no more industrialization of the forest – at least in Bavaria. A large share of the local population are glad about it.