Coming Europe Winter: “Meteorologists Agree” It is “Going To Be Damned Cold!”…Early Siberia Snow Bodes Ill

When alarmist climate institutes roll out papers claiming global warming is going to cause severely cold winters, then you have to wonder if they know something is up and are acting preemptively to salvage their crumbling climate science, which not long ago predicted with high confidence balmy snowless winters.

A few reports have already come out indicating this winter could be a real doozy – at least for wide parts of North America. But now we are starting to see such reports popping up for Europe as well.

“Damned cold winter”

Now the Swiss online news site Blick here has an article warning of a “damned cold” winter. Blick begins:

Meteorologists and weather enthusiasts agree: This winter is going to be damned cold. Responsible for this is the early snow in Siberia.”

Blick describes how much of Siberia is already covered with snow, in some places by “up to a half meter”, and it’s only October. This claim is based on the latest NOAA snow cover data. The ECMWF also shows:

Siberian snow Nov 2 ecmwf_snowdepth_russia_41__4_(1)

Projected snow cover by the ECMWF. Much of Russia will be already covered by snow, providing the ideal breeding grounds for a powerful midwinter Siberian high. See

Early Siberian snow – already snow covered!

But what does that have to do with the winter weather in Europe? Blick explains:

The earlier that snow is on the ground in Siberia, the stronger a Siberian high develops. This blows icy winds also to us in Switzerland.”

Looks like Europeans will have to get used to Russia exporting bitter cold instead of gas. If things develop so, then things could get nastilly interesting for Europe and its winter energy needs. Not to worry though. The old continent has much green energy capacity, which will especially help out (in the springtime when the sun is high enough to power solar panels).

“Warmest year on record” sees early Siberian snow, forecasts of severe winter?

This cold winter development seems to fly in the face of one particular dataset, which claimed 2014 was on track to be “the hottest on record”. Swiss Radio here also reports on how Siberian snow can impact Europe’s winters:

The story is simple: the earlier snow covers the ground in Siberia, the colder it gets there at the start of winter. And the colder it gets in Siberia at the start of winter, the stronger and more powerful the Siberian high becomes in mid winter. And when the Siberian high is strong, then we get invasions of cold air masses. The winter will be cold.”

SRF adds that “one has to go back a few years” to find so much snow in Siberia this early. The SRF even links to a paper on the subject.

Massive Siberian snow also bodes ill for North American winter writes here as well:

The rapid increase of snow cover across Siberia in October usually leads to a potentially colder winter in the US due to a negative Arctic Oscillation. A negative AO will allow Arctic air to infiltrate the U.S and is one of the driving factors for snow lovers in the Northeastern U.S.”

Meanwhile, writes that the early Siberian snows are what is needed for “breeding bitter cold” and that Joe Bastardi says the current Northern Hemisphere snow cover for this time of year is the 3rd highest!

Finally Kirk Mellish writes that the “Eurasia snowfall is off to a record fast start, which is historically a harbinger of cold winters as shown by research by Dr. Cohen of MIT. It does not guarantee it, but makes it more likely.”

No one can know how the winter will really pan out, and other outcomes just can’t be ruled out. But one thing is sure: the present. And it is showing that the northern hemisphere winter is off to a really nasty start.

Also read


More Glacier Studies Confirm Roman And Medieval Warm Periods Were Just As Warm As Today

New studies confirm: Glaciers in the Alps already had “fevers” during the Roman and Medieval warm periods
By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated, edited, condensed by P Gosselin)

Everywhere activists and climate alarmists are claiming climate change is happening faster than ever and that the earth is dangerously approaching a tipping point. For example Greenpeace likes to say that the glaciers are actually the “fever thermometers” measuring the health of the planet and that their melting tells the story of inevitable total meltdown. For example in the Alps glaciers have receded by almost a half since the year 1850. Greenpeace writes:

Foremost since the 1990s the rate of melt has increased and is expected to rise over the coming years: Today’s melting is being caused by greenhouse gas emissions from 30 years ago.”

But is glacier melt really something new and unexpected?

Greenpeace uses the Alps as a telltale example. It is precisely there that we want to carry out a fact-check. Firstly one has to wonder why the glacier melt in the Alps began already way back in 1850 – when anthropogenic CO2 couldn’t have played any significant role. This was already determined by geologist Albert Schreiner in 1997 in his textbook “Introduction to Quatenary  Geology“ (p. 188, Fig. 91).

One finds even greater factual headaches when going back through the history of the climate for the last several thousand years. Already in earlier articles we wrote that the Alps glacier melted considerably during earlier warm periods.

The melt phases during the Medieval Warm Period 1000 years ago and during the Roman Warm Period 2000 years ago have been well documented (see our blog articles here and here. In April 2014 two more additional papers were published, which impressively confirmed the natural glacier dynamics.

In the Quaternary Science Reviews appeared a paper authored by a team led by Anaëlle Simonneau of the French University Orléans, which reconstructed the glacier movements in the French Alps over the last thousands of years. Here the scientists documented several glacier melt phases, which unsurprisingly included the Roman and Medieval warm periods (Figure1). What follows is an excerpt from the abstract:

Holocene palaeoenvironmental evolution and glacial fluctuations at high-altitude in the western French Alps are reconstructed based on a multiproxy approach within Lake Blanc Huez (2550 m a.s.l.) drainage basin.  […] periods of reduced glacial activities dated from the Early Bronze Age (ca 3870–3770 cal BP), the Iron Age (ca 2220–2150 cal BP), the Roman period (ca AD115–330) and the Medieval Warm Period (ca AD760–1160).”

Figure 1: Reconstruction of glacier activity in the French Alps. The glacier advances are shown in blue and melt periods in red. The scale is in 1000s of years before today. The Medieval Warm Period is at 1 (=1000 years before today), the Roman Warm Period is at 2 (=2000 years before today). Moreover: In the time from 6000 to 9000 years before today there was massive glacier melting. Source: Simonneau et al. 2014.

A second paper comes from Martin Lüthi of the University of Zurich, appearing in The Cryosphere. It contains a reconstruction of the Alps glacier history for the last 1600 years. Interestingly the seven examined glaciers show conditions during the Medieval Warm Period that were similar in length as today (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Length changes in Alps glaciers over the past 1600 years. The blue negative vertical bars depict advancing glaciers while the red bars represent retreating glaciers. From Lüthi 2014.

Despite these proven natural glacier cycles, Greenpeace Greenpeace predicts an early death and terrible consequences for the Alps:

Glacier scientists anticipate an almost complete melting in this century. There are 5000 glaciers in the Alps. When many of them are permanently melted, there could be a sensitive collapse in the water supply. Glaciers store drinking water.

A scary theory. However the glaciers are ignoring all the catastrophe predictions and even started to grow once again in 2013, see here. And in the Swiss Alps snow amounts since 2000 have unexpectedly been on the rise.

A look back at the climate history reveals that the alarmist stories for the Alps are nothing but a tempest in a teapot. It’s all happened before. Obviously the fear-mongers have failed to look beyond 150 years ago. How much longer can they keep this up without serious science pushing back?


Germany Says “Nein” To Vegetarianism To Save Climate – Green Party Abandons “Veggie-Day” Drive

The primary drive behind the Green Movement is the attempt to seize the power to control human behavior and to enforce it with a system of severe punishment and reward.

Human behavior can be modified to some extent, as long as the change is gradual, involves some reward and does not entail unreasonable sacrifice. But once you expect too much from the public, there’s a high chance of violent revolt and the movement backfiring.

Nikolaus Blome at Spiegel reports this is precisely what has happened to the German Greens recently in their attempt to reduce meat consumption by forcing the public to swallow a nationwide weekly “Veggie Day”, where every Thursday German public cafeterias would serve up only vegetarian dishes.

Spiegel last year wrote:

Veggie Day’ should link to the tradition of a meatless Friday and promote health, animal and climate protection, Green Party leading candidate Katrin Göring-Eckardt has pushed.”

The public reacted almost instantly and handed the Germans Greens a series of costly election day defeats. Criticism was harsh from all sides. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats blasted the food nannies, calling the agenda “paternalism” and a move towards a federal “republic of bans”. Even the German Communist Links Party warned of a “green upbringing dictatorship

What was meant to be a noble planet-rescue mission by the Greens, who thought they had tapped into a new trend sweeping across the country, turned into a political flop. Apparently Germans are not ready to part from their beloved national food icons: schnitzel and bratwurst. The German Green Party has since been forced to withdraw their “Veggie Day” from its political agenda.

Spiegel writes the Greens will be formally adopting a new position on nutrition. Spiegel writes:

In the new party program the following sentence will be included in early November: ‘What I eat and what I don’t eat shall be decided by my own taste.'”

In its online poll, over 56% of the more than 15,000 Spiegel readers who voted checked off:“Everyone should be allowed to eat as much meat as he she wishes”, while 21% checked: “Excessive meat consumption is responsible for climate change and the suffering of millions of animals.”

Goes to show: politicians may think they can shove whatever they want down the throats of the public, but in the end, more often than not, it just gets coughed right back up.


Climate Witchcraft Booms: Global WARMING To Cause More Severe Winters…But Green Energies Causing COOLING!

The global warmists are in a disarray vortex. Their science now insists that it is both cooling and warming – at the same time!

In the complex, convoluted and clashing parallel worlds of the global warming alarmists, everything is possible. Physical laws are bent, twisted, completely redefined, or ignored altogether with every passing day.

More of anything proves warming, as so does less of the same.

New paper from Japan forecasts colder winters

Despite the dozens of predictions of warming winters coming from the global warming alarmists just 5 years ago and earlier, they have recently turned on a dime and are now projecting cold, snowy winters because of global warming. This once again is being reiterated in a new Japanese paper and echoed by number one German alarmist site Klimaretter (Climate Rescuers).

Severe winter probability “will double”!

Klimaretter writes:

Global warming is leading to a contradictory effect: Already today the risk of a colder than average winter is higher than it was a few decades ago.”

Later it writes:

And this trend is expected to continue over the coming decades: The probability of more severe winters in Europe and North Asia will double because of climate change. This is what Japanese scientists are projecting in Nature Geoscience.”

Sound Orwellian? For the propagandist Klimaretter, no science is too absurd to believe – so long as it’s catastrophist. If a Japanese paper claims so or if the climate models of the Alfred Wegener Institute and the Potsdam Institute looking 50 years into the future say so, then it’s good enough for them (never mind these models have already got the first 20 years all wrong).

Green energy has stopped global warming?

Not only is global warming now responsible for the higher risk of cold winters, but also the recent warming pause (which proves warming) is now being attributed to a successful green energy revolution. Having a very hard time explaining the recent warming pause to the public and realizing that attributing it to warming is a tough sell to the public, a spooked UK Energy Minister Baroness Sandip Verma has just come up with a better explanation for the unforeseen pause: the green energy revolution is likely already having a cooling effect on the planet and is already saving it (never mind that CO2 concentrations and fossil fuel burning are rising unabated).

Unfortunately Verma’s explanation is just as absurd as the first one.

Medieval witchcraft and rain dancing

It’s increasingly obvious that government officials are becoming embarrassed by the unexpected global warming pause and are desperate to explain it without losing face. Like rain dancers and witches claiming their acts have produced the desired result, British pols are now asking us to believe that the act of erecting windmills and covering rooftops with solar panels has pleased the climate gods – and so the warming has stopped.

The real problem, however, is that the global warming alarmists are no longer able to get their stories straight and are falling over themselves in their panicked scramble to explain their already failed model predictions. While some claim that cooling is caused by a real global warming, others are admitting that the real warming has really stopped, and done so because of the green energies they’ve wisely introduced! The warmists are in disarray.

So it’s little wonder Weather Channel founder John Coleman calls it all “incredible bad bad science” and that Climate Depot calls it “Medieval witchcraft“.


Younger Dryas Analysis: No Evidence At All CO2 Drives Temperature…Paper Used Sloppy Data Methods

The Younger Dryas – What Happened?
By Ed Caryl

This article looks at a paper by Steinthorsdottir et al.

Was there a time in the last few thousand years when CO2 was as high or higher than today? Yes, there was, at the end of the last ice age during the Younger Dryas (YD) cold period.

What was the temperature during that time? It was much colder than now, as much as 12°C in Greenland.

Did the temperature go up when the CO2 level went up? No, it went down.

About 13,000 years ago, at the end of the last ice age, after two thousand years of warming, melting ice, and rising sea levels, there was an abrupt reversal; a cold period that lasted over a thousand years. The Younger Dryas is named for an alpine flower, Dryas Octopetala, the pollen of which is found in northern tundra areas during this time.

It is thought that the Younger Dryas (YD) was caused by the collapse of the northern ice sheets, changing the North Atlantic Overturning Currents. One theory is that the ice sheet collapse was triggered by a comet or meteor strike. The evidence is a layer of nano-diamonds (ND) that are found in North America and Europe at about the beginning of the YD. In that layer there are soot deposits and platinum group metals indicating an extraterrestrial source that caused large forest fires.

A recent paper, Stomatal proxy record of CO2 concentrations from the last termination suggests an important role for CO2 at climate change transitions, covers the YD period, and as the title suggests, claims a role for CO2 in the temperature changes of this period. The southern Sweden Dwarf Birch stomatal proxy record has a higher time resolution than the ice core CO2 records of this period, showing a higher variability with a resolution of around 100 years.

What follows is a plot of that period with their stomata data with two assumptions of the baseline Holocene CO2 value, the Greenland ice core temperature record, and a marker for the ND event.


(GISP2), with the nano-diamond event marked. Time is passing right to left. The orange points assume a 280 ppm Holocene baseline, and the red points assume a 300 ppm Holocene baseline. The red and orange dashes are the standard error bars for the corresponding measured points.The horizontal error bars indicate a ± 150 year uncertainty in the C14 dating for the stomata based on C14 error in Figure 2 here. The purple diamond and vertical line is the nano-diamond event at 12,877 ± 3.4 calendar years Before Present (BP) based on ice core annual layer data from Greenland.

It should be noted that the Greenland ice core dating is very accurate, as the annual layers have been counted. So the temperature dating and the nano-diamond layer in the ice are known to less than ± 5 years accuracy. Figure 1 indicates that the YD cooling began 100 years before the ND event. This paper claims a C14 age error of ± 55 to 60 years, but other calibration sources are far wider. An error of 150 years puts the CO2 spike within the era of the ND source. The CO2 spike is likely the result of large fires resulting from the comet or meteor strike.

The timeline runs like this, from the oldest event on the right, to the newest on the left:

14200 BP is the approximate time of meltwater pulse 1a, at about the time of the peak in the Bølling oscillation. (This date is not on this plot.) For sea level in this era see here.

13,600 Before Present (BP, from the year 2000), is a warm peak of the Bølling oscillation.

13,200 BP, is the coldest point of the Older Dryas cold period.

13,000 BP, is the warmest peak of the Allerød oscillation.

12,970 BP is the beginning of the YD cooling.

12,877 BP is the date of the Nano-Diamond event.

12,750 BP is the approximate date of the CO2 peak at about 400 ppm.

12,700 BP is the coldest point of the YD.

11,850 BP is the date of the lowest CO2 value at about 180 ppm and the approximate end of the YD. In the next 250 years, Greenland temperatures rose 12°C.

11,600 BP is the time of meltwater pulse 1b, at the peak temperature at the left on this plot.

Important points to be noted in this data:

1. The ND event did not trigger the ice sheet collapse. The ice sheet collapse happened 1300 years later. The dating of Meltwater Pulse 1b is 11,600 years BP, well after the ND event, and 1400 years after the beginning of the YD cooling.

2. The ND event DID trigger a massive increase in CO2, to 400 or 425 ppm, depending on the baseline used, that lasted for less than 40 years. Those values have standard errors of ± 1.2 ppm because the additional CO2 caused increased biomass, providing a larger sample.

2a. That increase in CO2 did not cause a warming period in the YD. It continued to cool after the ND event.
2b. That increase in CO2 lasted less than 40 years based on the time resolution of the stomata data. Thus large amounts of CO2 are not persistent in the atmosphere for a thousand years as some in climate science claim.

3. There is no evidence in this data that CO2 drives temperature. On this plot, CO2 and temperature tend to go in opposite directions more than in the same direction.

4. The paper does acknowledge that CO2 stimulates plant growth. Their paper states that organic matter in their core samples rose during the higher CO2 period from around 20% to a peak of 35%.

The Antarctic ice core CO2 data is very poor at resolving rapid CO2 changes. Here is the best resolution CO2 plot from Dome C in Antarctica. The large changes in the stomata data are not reflected in the ice core data. The average value is the same at about 240 ppm.


Figures 2a and 2b are the Dome C CO2 data. The red dot marks 12800 BP. Figure 2b is an enlargement of the YD time circled in 2a.

This paper made the usual assumptions that CO2 drives temperature, but they picked the Antarctic ice core temperature data that agrees with their assumptions instead of the much closer and more detailed Greenland ice core data that does not. They failed to investigate the large CO2 spike in their data that exceeds modern values in an era where humanity played little part in the world. Their assumptions forced them to miss the important facts that the stomata data revealed.


The Unending Pause: IPCC Scientist Prof. Mojib Latif Now Sees Global Warming Pause Extending To 30 Years!

Leading IPCC scientist Prof Mojib Latif extends the climate warming pause to 2025. Will it ever end?

From Sebastian Lüning’s and Fritz Vahrenholt’s “Die kalte Sonne” site here (translated by P Gosselin):

Not a week goes by without Mojib Latif appearing in the media. On September 29, 2014 the climate preacher appeared in α-Forum at Bavarian Radio. The pdf of the show is here. Interestingly in the interview Latif extends the warming pause to 2020 and even 2025. That’s another 11 years, which will easily take him well into retirement. Latif is a clever one. What follows is an excerpt from the interview:

BR: Curiously it is indeed despite the rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and also in the seas – we’ll talk more about this in more detail later – the global temperature has not risen lately. How does one explain this?

Latif: Well, this is really nothing unusual. That does not surprise climate scientists like me at all, as for us this is completely normal. When one takes a look at the development since 1900, that is the last 110 years, then we see that it has not always gone up. Rather it has progressed in waves. This is why it is necessary to look at long time periods. If we look at the entire time period, then it is impossible to miss seeing the rise. In 2008 in the journal “Nature” I myself predicted the pause: Back then it created a huge echo in the global media. I’m wondering why all of this seems to have been forgotten in the meantime.

BR: The reaction was also that some said that the thing with climate change indeed could not be so bad if the annual mean temperature also dropped again..

Latif: The reaction went in every direction. The reaction was, as you just formulated: ‘Everything can’t be so bad!’ But there was also great amazement that the temperature rise is not continuing even though greenhouse gases keep rising. In this study I expressly said that it does not mean that it’s all over, but that the temperature increase will rise even faster – starting in 2020, 2025.”


Latif claims that the pause “does not surprise” climate scientists like himself at all. Yet, 2025 would mean the pause lasting almost 30 years. It’s strange that not a single climate model predicted a 30-year pause. Latif is not surprised that 100% of the models will have been all wrong?


Natural Catastrophes Drop To 10-Year Low! Weather-Related Losses Mostly Due To “Cold Events”

German skeptic site “Die kalte Sonne” brings up an article at the online Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) that reports natural catastrophes worldwide have reached a 10-year low.

Anthony Watts also wrote on this earlier at WUWT.

The Süddeutsche Zeitung (South German Newspaper) writes:

Number of natural catastrophes in 2013 drops to a ten-year low
Over the past year the number of natural catastrophes dropped to the lowest level in ten years. This is reported by the “World Catastrophe Report 2014”, which the die International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement published in Geneva. According to the report 337 natural catastrophes were counted over the past year, almost half as many as the peak seen in 2005. The number of deaths was 22,452 and thus well below the mean of the decade of 97,954.

The results fly in the face of alarmist claims of man-made global warming causing more violent, extreme weather events.

In fact there has not been any warming in 18 years, and weather-related damage is increasingly due to cold events, as the world’s leading reinsurer Munich Re reported last July:

Economic losses plummet 56%

The statistics for natural catastrophes for the first half of 2014 have been marked by pleasingly low levels of global claims. Overall economic losses of US$ 42bn and insured losses of US$ 17bn to the end of June were considerably below the average for the past ten years (US$ 95bn and US$ 25bn respectively). “

And the reason for most of the damage:

Record North American winter, blizzards cause losses

The record winter in North America also caused significant losses, with extremely cold temperatures and heavy snowfalls over a longer period in many parts of the USA and Canada. The losses from various blizzards totalled around US$ 3.4bn. The most costly snowstorm was in the first week of January: losses for this storm alone totalled US$ 2.5bn, of which US$ 1.7bn was insured. In many instances the harsh winter also had a heavy impact on business, as companies were forced to stop production. At the end of January, a blizzard brought the Atlanta metropolitan area almost to a standstill, even though only a few centimetres of snow had fallen. Snow and ice made the highways impassable, as there was a lack of snow-clearing equipment for a city unused to such conditions.”

So we can add another one to the list of climate “science” now exposed as being purely bogus.

Biologist Dr. Philippe Henry Erroneously Assumes Pika Rodent Has Adapted To 6°C Temperature Change

By Ed Caryl

We continually see papers in the supposedly “scientific” literature that just assume climate change, usually warming, and then draw conclusions based in that assumption.

The media also does this. A recent example is a study documented on the BBC on North American pika, a small rodent that lives on rocky hillsides in the mountains of North America. The study area in this example was in British Columbia, Canada, in the coastal mountains and the northern reaches of the Rocky Mountains in Banff National Park.

The pika has neither adapted to 6°C climate change, nor moved to higher elevations. Shown above is the American pika with mouthful of dried grass. Sequoia National Park, CA. Dcrjsr – own work, CC BY 3.0.

Here are Dr. Philippe Henry’s assumptions:

I decided to study the American pika [pronounced pee-kah] along BC’s Coast Mountains because we have observed a six degree temperature change along an elevation gradient from sea level to 1500 meters where the pika lives…we know from previous studies of the pika that it is particularly sensitive to changes in temperature, which made it ideal for our study. The key for me is to have sustainable and safe interactions with wildlife as researchers. To me, there is a direct connection with this and UNBC’s status as Canada’s Green University.”

 What questions did Dr. Philippe Henry wish to answer when he set out on his research?

(1) Would the pika move from that habitat in flux?
(2) Would it stay and, if so, would it die off or find a way to adapt?

Here are the actual temperature conditions as measured at Banff National Park:

Ed_1 Banff

Temperature record by NASA GISS for Banff National Park (as measured at the townsite of Banff).

Note that the temperature increase as measured at the trend line is less than 1°C, and for the recent 30 years it has been cooling by about 0.5°C. There has certainly not been a 6°C temperature change, though there was one year in the 20th century at 0°C average temperature and one year of over 5°C average temperature, most years have been in the range of 2 to 4°C.

Dr. Philips discovered that the pika were not moving to higher elevations, so he decided that they are adapting in place.

And because of his assumptions, (and perhaps to protect his grant money) he could not allow himself the conclusion that the pika are quite happy right where they are because the climate is barely changing.


NASA’s 2011 Data Show “Blocking Events”, “Vortices” Far More Frequent When CO2 Was Under 350 ppm In 1950s!

Just a reminder of what NASA said three years ago: Polar vortices and blocking events were even more common in the 1950s when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

See second chart below!

The following is NASA’s 2011 explanation why (my emphasis).

Stalled Weather Systems More Frequent in Decades of Warmer Atlantic

Slow-moving winter weather systems that can lead to massive snowfalls are more frequent during the decades when the North Atlantic Ocean is warmer than usual, a new NASA study finds. The study demonstrates that the impacts of such systems, which are often fueled by an atmospheric phenomenon known as atmospheric blocking, go far beyond the atmosphere and can trigger changes in ocean circulation.

Blocking events occur when one of the jet streams —fast-flowing air currents traveling around the Earth in the upper part of the troposphere—pinches off large masses of air from the normal wind flow for an extended period. These kinks in the jet stream typically last at least five days but can persist for weeks. They can cause weather patterns to stall over one area and fuel floods, droughts, and other extreme weather events.

In the North Atlantic, atmospheric blocking centers generally form over Greenland and Western Europe. A blocking event that took place over Greenland in the winter of 2009-10 ultimately led to intense blizzards in the East Coast of the United States, in an episode popularly known as Snowmageddon.

A blocking event over Greenland led to intense blizzards in the East Coast of the United States in February 2010.

A blocking event over Greenland led to intense blizzards in the East Coast of the United States in February 2010. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra satellite captured this true-color image on February 11, 2010, after a second snow storm had hit the East Coast in less than a week. CREDIT: NASA MODIS Rapid Response Team/Jeff Schmaltz

Now, a team of researchers lead by Sirpa Häkkinen, an oceanographer at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., has reanalyzed atmospheric data from the 20th century and concluded that blocking events occurred up to 30 percent more often from the 1930s to the 1960s and during a period that started in the late 1990s and continues to the present.

At first, the researchers thought the increase in blocking events during these periods might be explained by a climatic phenomenon called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). The NAO fluctuates between periods of high and low atmospheric pressure, without a predictable pattern, and strongly influences weather in Europe and the United States.

“The NAO is the usual suspect for all atmospheric changes in the northern hemisphere,” Häkkinen said.

But since 1996, the NAO has been in an almost a neutral state, while blocking events have continued to be abnormally frequent, especially after 2000.

Häkkinen’s team then looked at how a cyclical series of natural changes in sea surface temperatures, known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Ocean Variability (AMV), was behaving in the decades when there were more clusters of blocking events. The AMV switches phases every few decades.

The researchers observed the frequency of blocked weather events in the North Atlantic –from the equator to Greenland– over the entire twentieth century and compared it to the evolution of ocean surface temperatures for the same area. They then removed the effect that global warming has on water temperatures, and found that decades with more frequent, recurring blocking events in the North Atlantic corresponded to those decades when the North Atlantic Ocean was warmer than usual, as it is now.

The number of winter blocking events (black and blue lines) correlates strongly with fluctuations in the temperature of surface waters in the North Atlantic Ocean (red line).

The number of winter blocking events (black and blue lines) correlates strongly with fluctuations in the temperature of surface waters in the North Atlantic Ocean (red line). For their analysis, the researchers removed the effect global warming has on water temperatures. CREDIT: Sirpa Häkkinen (NASA GSFC), Peter Rhines (University of Washington) and Denise L. Worthen (Wyle Information Systems/NASA GSFC)

The team also found that these short-term weather blocking events impacts beyond the atmosphere and may ultimately alter ocean currents.

A series of connected changes begin because clusters of blocking events can divert the normal track of the storms crossing the Atlantic, which in turn can alter the twisting motion that the wind has on ocean waters, or wind curl. Depending on how wind curl works, it can speed up or slow down the large, circulating currents in the ocean known as gyres. When a blocking event reverses the rotation of the wind curl, the winds push against the direction of the whirlpool-like North Atlantic subpolar gyre, slowing its rotation. A slower, weaker gyre allows subtropical waters that would normally be trapped in the whirlpool-like flow to escape and move northward.

These warmer and more saline waters then invade the subpolar ocean and cause a series of impacts,” said Peter Rhines, an oceanographer at the University of Washington, Seattle, and co-author of the new study. “They erode the base of glaciers, contributing to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. And the change in temperature and freshness of the waters can alter subpolar ecosystems, too.”

A better understanding of the linkage between the Atlantic Multidecadal Ocean Variability and blocking events could lead to better weather forecasts and improved seasonal predictions.

“For example, knowing that there’s going to be a potential for more blocking events causing more snowfall would not only help people prepare better for the winter; it would be useful with water resources management,” said Häkkinen.

Denise Worthen, a researcher with Wyle Information Systems/NASA Goddard Space Flight Center contributed to this study, which NASA funded.


Note how the second chart shows that blocking events were more common in the 1940s, 50s and 60s.

The recent warm-Arctic/polar-vortex claims obviously are nothing but a load of bull-manure designed to keep the AGW theory out of the fairy tale books.


IPCC Scientist Mojib Latif Sees North Atlantic Cooling Over Next Decade…Confirms Oceans Play Crucial Role

Step by step warmist scientists are no longer able to deny the fact that powerful natural oscillations do play a far greater role in climate than what they were allowed in climate models.

The GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel quietly issued a press release last week claiming that its scientists had found a method to improve climate forecasts and to tell how temperatures develop over the North Atlantic.


GEOMAR scientists see North Atlantic cooling over next decade. Photo: NASA

For the strength of a hurricane season, precipitation in West Africa, or winters in Central Europe – the surface temperatures of the North Atlantic are a decisive factor for all these developments. Geomar is realizing that they do indeed naturally fluctuate over periods of decades, in sync with the climate of the adjacent land regions.

A reliable forecast of North Atlantic conditions had been elusive because of a lack of recorded data. Now the climate scientists at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel describe in the international journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters the mechanism of these decadal oscillations of the North Atlantic surface temperatures and show that these have a high forecasting potential.

Climate “subject to natural oscillation”

For the climate and also for the weather in Europe, processes in the North Atlantic play a major role. The Gulf Stream and surface temperatures of the North Atlantic have profound impacts on the neighboring continents. The GEOMAR press release writes:

All these processes are subject to natural oscillations that play out over years, decades, or even centuries. ‘Concrete datasets often go back only a few decades,’ says climate scientist Professor Dr. Mojib Latif of GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel. ‘That’s why it’s very difficult to assess oscillations over longer time domains and to differentiate them from changes caused by man.“

Suddenly we see an admission from Prof. Latif here that natural factors do matter – and especially in models.

Reliable simulation for the coming decade

The press release then writes that the team of modeling experts at GEOMAR have succeeded in developing a “reliable simulation of the surface temperatures in the North Atlantic since 1900 and that allows prognoses until the end of the coming decade.”

That’s wonderful. Now we are all very curious what their new model foresees for the next ten years.

Keep reading to find out!

Latif admits models have been wrong

Professor Latif elaborates further on their new model, as opposed to the existing ones:

That’s new. Particular about simulation is that the existing climate models have deviated strongly from the surface temperatures.”

In a nutshell: The other models so far have been worthless.

The press release describes the North Atlantic Oscillation and its important influence on continental Europe’s weather and how the scientists have data on this going back to the middle of the 19th century. This allows the modellers to reconstruct North Atlantic surface temperature oscillations in a climate model and to make a prognoses for the future. Latif and his team suggest that the Gulf Stream plays a huge role on the NAO and that Europe’s weather is governed in large part by these oceanic cycles. Latif explains.

The coupling to the NAO allows a reliable reconstruction of the North Atlantic currents between the year 1900 and 2010, even though concrete data goes back only to 2004. The oscillations in the ocean currents mainly govern the surface temperatures, thus allowing them to be derived and even be calculated five years in advance.”

Model foresees “negative trend”.

So what does their model see? Latif tells, doing his very best to disguise what warmists certainly dread and do not want to hear (my emphasis):

Our model tells us that the phase with a rather high surface temperatures in the North Atlantic will continue also over the coming decade, however with a lightly negative trend.”

The paper’s abstract presents the prognosis as follows:

The present warm phase of the AMO is predicted to continue until the end of the next decade, but with a negative tendency.”

That means “COOLING”!

A stunning conclusion by Latif, even in its disguised form. Just two and half years ago Fritz Vahrenholt’s and Sebastian Lüning’s book Die kalte Sonne (The Neglected Sun) reached the same conclusion. Back then Latif, in a lapse of professionalism, publicly belittled the two authors. Perhaps Latif is now ready to apologize, and/or at least next time read the book first before firing criticism at its authors.

Original paper:
Klöwer, M., M. Latif, H. Ding, R. J. Greatbatch, W. Park (2014): Atlantic meridional overturning circulation and the prediction of North Atlantic sea surface temperature. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 406, 1-6,

How Not To Attract Foreign Investment: Sociologist Proposes 30-Hour Workweeks In Order To Protect Climate In Austria

I don’t have much time to spare today, so here’s a short one.

The German language, Austria-based Kronen Zeitung here has an online article on what sociologist Hubert Eichmann proposes to help save the climate: 30-hour workweeks for everyone in Austria.

Apparently Austria has been “hard hit” by climate change and so something really needs to be done about it. So Eichmann proposes a 30-hr work week to reduce productivity, which in turn would reduce CO2 emissions.

Not only that, the Kronen Zeitung writes:

Secondly commutes to work would be reduced as well and, thirdly, citizens would have more leisure for more environmentally protective behavior.”

Eichmann says for example that the “extra time would allow people to ride their bicycles to work instead of driving, and to separate their garbage.”

Also university Professor Jörg Flecker is also a supporter of the short workweek, and he advised policymakers to implement the reduced work-hours model.

Fortunately, the economic madness spawned by the obsession of rescuing the planet from fictitious manmade global warming has not fully infected the minds of politicians, at least for now. The Kronen Zeitung writes that Austria’s Ministry for Employment, Social and Consumer Protection views the plan of shortening the work week as “not achievable”. It seems the Austrian government still has enough sense remaining to realize that the 30-hour workweek would lead to less output, and thus also to lower tax revenues. That’s not what they want.

Moreover, which foreign company would be insane enough to set up shop in a country where the workers have an efficiency that is roughly equal to that of the average wind turbine? (30 hours/168 hours = 17.9%)

Income by Austrian workers would also necessarily drop by around 20%. What would the Austrian citizen get for all that sacrifice? The resulting CO2 savings theoretically would reduce global warming by something like 0.001°C by 2100!

Boy, what a deal!

Yes, some professors really are that dim. Hat-tip: DkS.


Amazing…AP Reporter Seth Borenstein Emphasizing Value Of “New Catch Phrases” To Hype Up Climate Stories!

For the media, at least for the AP’s Seth Borenstein, it’s not about presenting the science in a professional and balanced manner, rather it’s all about sensationalizing it and getting the editor to print it.
The good stuff starts at about the 7:30 mark.

Can we rely on this kind of obviously tabloid-quality journalistic practice?

45:38 Craig Welch boasting:

Nobody in my newsroom quotes people who don’t believe climate change is real that I know of. And if I find out about it, I will go talk to them myself, but I also work in a newsroom where my managing editor used to be an environmental reporter and so there’s never been, I mean, he understands what we are doing, so.”


As Warming Pause Extends To 18 Years, Climate Debate Intensifies. J.E. Solheim: “Cooler Climate” In 21st Century!

Forget all the claims the science is settled, as some smearing activists-in-a hurry are begging us to believe.

The fact is that the debate is just getting started and that the climate issue is very much undecided. The fact that warming has not occurred in 18 years, Antarctic sea ice is at record high levels, and that more than 97% of the climate models have been dead wrong have made life difficult for those insisting the debate is over.

Yesterday German skeptic site Die kalte Sonne here featured a debate in Holland between international skeptics and warmists. Clearly the debate is NOT over.

A new climate dialogue: How will the gaining solar inactivity impact the climate?
By Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Dutch science journalist Marcel Crok is far more successful at bringing climate scientists to a debate. He brings scientists from both camps regularly into discussions at the Climate Dialogue platform. On 15 October 2014 a new debate started on the question of: How much impact would a decades long pause in solar activity have on the climate?

What will happen during a new Maunder Minimum?

According to the latest IPCC report, AR5, the influence of the sun on our climate since pre-industrial times, in terms of radiative forcing, is very small compared to the effect of greenhouse gases.

According to some more skeptical scientists such a small solar influence is counterintuitive. The Little Ice Age, the period roughly from 1350 to 1850, in which winters on the Northern Hemisphere could be severe and glaciers advanced, coincided with the so-called Maunder Minimum, a period of supposedly low solar activity. In their eyes, the sun therefore still is a serious candidate to also explain a substantial part of the warming since pre-industrial times.

Sunspot records since 1600 suggest there has been a considerable increase in solar activity in the 20th century leading to a Grand Solar Maximum or Modern Maximum. However recently these sunspot records have come under increasing scrutiny and newer reconstructions show a much ‘flatter’ sunspot history. This challenges the idea of a Modern Maximum.

The current solar cycle 24 is the lowest sunspot cycle in 100 years and the third in a trend of diminishing sunspot cycles. Solar physicists expect cycle 25 to be even smaller than Cycle 24 and expect the sun to move into a new minimum, comparable with the Dalton or even the Maunder Minimum. Studying such a minimum with modern instruments could potentially answer a lot of the questions surrounding the influence of the sun on our climate.

We are very pleased that no fewer than five (solar) scientists have agreed to participate in this exciting new Climate Dialogue: Mike Lockwood (UK), Nicola Scafetta (US), Jan-Erik Solheim (NO), José Vaquero (ES) and Ilya Usoskin (FI).

The introduction and guest posts can be read online below. For convenience we also provide pdf’s:

Introduction What will happen during a new Maunder Minimum
Guest blog Mike Lockwood
Guest blog Nicola Scafetta
Guest blog Jan-Erik Solheim
Guest blog Ilya Usoskin
Guest blog José Vaquero

Here you can go to the climate dialogue Klimadialog. You can join in the discussion. This is an exemplary action that brings both sides to a table in a professionally moderated format. The Climate Dialogue web platform is supported by the Netherlands Ministery for Infrastructure and Environment.


Cooling climate in 21st Century

While warmists Lockwood, Usoskin and Vaquero stick to the position that the sun plays only a minor role in modulating the earth’s climate, the skeptic scientists have a very different view:

Jan-Erik Solheim:

Most of the warming in the 20th century is due to the sun.

According to the latest IPCC report, AR5, the influence of the Sun on our climate since pre-industrial times, in terms of radiative forcing, is very small compared to the effect of greenhouse gases. Figure 1 in the introduction (SPM.5 in AR5) is quite misleading, since it compares the TSI at solar minimum around 1745 with TSI around minimum in 2008. They are apparently the same. This covers the fact that the Sun has changed quite a lot in the time between.”

And he adds at his conclusion:

The sunspot cycle will be longer in 21th Century, indicating a cooler climate (Fig 5).”

Nicola Scafetta:

Figures 1-4 provide a strictly alternative message to the one proposed by the IPCC. The Sun must have contributed significantly to climate changes and will continue to do so.”


Bastardi Rips GISS Claims Of “Warmest September Ever” And NWS Forecast Of A “Blowtorch Winter”

It’s bad enough when the media indulge in sensationalism, but it is totally unprofessional when weather and climate institutes do the same.

In his latest Saturday Summary, veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi at Weatherbell Analytics goes after, rips US weather and climate agencies for poor, and often hyped forecasts.

At the 2:54 mark Joe says:

And that’s one of the big problems we have today. People that are here today are classifying things that happened before and changing everything that was recorded before.”

As an example Bastardi cites GISS in their dubious claim that September 2014 was the warmest on record, when clearly it was not. Bastardi shows that at least 7 or 8 other satellite-era years were warmer, such as 2003.

SatSum_18_10_14 1

Satellite measurement shows that September 2014 was a mere 0.195°C above normal. Image from Weatherbell.

On the GISS claim, Joe says:

All I’m saying is that there are several so-called reliable measurements of global temperatures and all you see these people doing that are making, screaming and yelling of the hottest temperature ever, is using one of the least reliable datasets. Their very own NCEP reanalysis shows something very different. So, again, there’s a lot of controversy in this. And what happens is that they scream this stuff out, and then they walk it back.”

Next Joe shows a chart (5:00) depicting global temperature over the last 10 years, which clearly shows it to be in decline.

The veteran meteorologist also calls out the over-hyped El Nino predictions made by the National Weather Service (NWS) last April. Six months later we see that the predictions were totally false. The AGW crowd, Joe says, bought it all up without question and that the predictions made in April were based on “busted models”.

NWS “blowtorches” the US winter

The incompetence of the US weather agencies doesn’t stop there. Other examples Joe presents include botched predictions of cyclone tracks, and the NWS dubious winter forecast calling for a “blowtorch winter”.

NWS blowtorch winter

US National Weather Service winter forecast blowtorches the US. Source: Weatherbell.

Though seasonal forecasts are tricky, Joe lays out in detail his reasoning why he thinks the other models are more reliable and why the NWS model “has troubles”.

Right now, Joe sees a cold winter for the eastern half of the USA, and so does the European model.


Veteran German Meteorologist Wolfgang Thüne Blasts “Fetch-And-Carry Stooge Journalism” …Hansen “Manipulated”

Thüne_Former German public television meteorologist anchorman Dr. Wolfgang Thüne has a harsh commentary on the state of climate science communication by journalism.

Photo: Dr. Wolfgang Thüne

In a nutshell Thüne claims journalism has failed in its ethical duty to inform the public on the climate issue and accepted the role of playing useful idiots and stooges on behalf of activist scientists.

Thüne begins by reminding journalists of the importance of being cautious about what they report, and “to not stand on the same the same level as the inventors and propagandists of the greenhouse effect and climate catastrophe“.

He calls on journalists to get back to more investigative journalism instead of swallowing without question everything institutionalized science feeds them.

The veteran meteorologist writes that fighting the weather and climate is a totally a futile endeavor, reminding that it is a natural chaotic phenomenon that cannot be fought by man:

A ‘global transformation’ and the creation of a ‘world government’ will do nothing to change the general circulation and weather variety of the earth.”

When it comes to climate catastrophes, Thüne calls them the Saturnalia of journalists. The climate catstrophe for German journalists was born on January 22, 1986 at the Hotel Tulpenhof in Bonn:

On this day the German Physical Society e. V. had invited journalists in order to present to them the ‘warning of the threatening climate catastrophe’. [...]

Explained was CO2’s role as a potential source of danger for global climate changes. The effect of CO2 was compared to the glass cover of a greenhouse that is ‘heated’ only by solar radiation. With a doubling of CO2 concentration, the temperature would increase 2°C in the tropics, 4°C at ‘our latitudes’ and about 8°C at the polar regions and cause a shift in the climate zones. If the ice floating at the Arctic and the ice on the Antarctic continent disappeared, then the sea level  would rise successively up to 60 meters.”

Thüne writes this is where journalists dropped the ball. He writes:

That would have been the ideal hour for critical journalism, however the journalists froze, intimidated by the wisdom of the physical science prominence represented by physics professors K. Heinloth (Bonn) and J. Fricke (Wurzburg). Not a single journalist dared to question the physicists about climate, which is statistically derived from weather and thus only depicts and reflects the historical weather change.”

Here Dr. Thüne writes that journalists in general have three choices when receiving news of an imminent catastrophe from experts:
1. Should they accept the information as is and distribute it, simply playing the role of fetch and carry.
2. Should they look at the supplied news critically, and check it out?
3. Or should they take it, and dramatize it to increase the effect on the public?

Unfortunately, Thüne writes, news magazine Der Spiegel chose the latter option in its August 11, 1986 issue, whose front cover donned a powerfully emotional image of a semi-submerged Cologne Cathedral. Here Der Spiegel grossly crossed the boundaries of responsible journalism in implying an upcoming Biblical wrath of God – brought on by the sins of man. Not only did Spiegel play the role of stooge for a dubious science, but had engaged in an orgy of sensationalistic journalism that would make even the shoddiest of tabloids blush.

The rest of Germany’s media unhesitatntly followed Spiegel’s example. Thüne writes that while the German Physical Society brought us the misnomer of ‘climate catastrophe’, it was Spiegel who popularized it.

To summarise, Thüne cites journalism experts H.-P. Peters M. Sippel:

Not the environmental movement, not the catastrophe – rather it was the warnings of scientists who publicly and politically exposed themselves who were the international godfathers of the climate debate.”

Thüne also adds that the American media also gladly accepted the fetch-and-carry role on behalf of an activist sicence, slamming James Hansen:

In the hot summer months the media over-proportionately reported on the greenhouse effect. Especially the hot summer of 1988 was used by James Hansen (NASA) to dramatize the consequences of the greenhouse effects and to manipulate the psychological climate of Congress.”

Thüne sums up:

More humility by journalists would boost their reputation when it comes to credibility.