Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: Today’s Weather Patterns Seen In The Past, Asks: “Has NCEP Suddenly Become A Denier?”

Most readers here know Joe Bastardi, the veteran meteorologist at Weatherbell who has a knack of getting his longer term seasonal forecasts correct far more often than not. In a reader comment he replies to warmists’ claims on ocean cycles, particularly to David Appell. I’ve upgraded his comment (with slight editing) as a post.

Question for David A: Is NCEP now a member of the vast denier conspiracy with their much more finely tuned grid that measures global temperature? Last year since the PDO decadal flip. Notice what happens after the warm ENSO event. With the AMO now turning cold, just where do you think temperatures will go after this ENSO event? But I am curious, has NCEP suddenly become a denier in the last 10 years?

The answer will be given to us in the next 20 years. I offered this several times on national TV over 5 years ago, simply watch the temperatures as the oceans complete their cycle, WELL DOCUMENTED BY SOMEONE WHO HAS A TRACK RECORD FORECASTING THE WARMING, AND RESULTANT HURRICANE PICK UP BACK IN THE 1970S, DR WILLIAM GRAY:

And why doesn’t total global sea ice make a difference? It certainly did when it was running below normal several years ago. And why can’t we see if the hypothesis is correct, that the increase in temperature was a function of the natural cyclical warming of the ocean, which are reversing now. Another 10-15 years, given 20 years of busted hype, is not going to hurt. And why shouldn’t people be very suspicious, given statements like this from the leaders of this movement:

So why would I not take these people at their words as to their true motives? As I have explained many times, climate is a TOOL for me to make my forecast. I am watching people ‘blame’ the Pacific for the very idea we used last year and this year to forecast a cold winter in the east, simply by using the same idea that we saw before. So it makes no difference to me. I will still use the methodology that people are discovering (the latest is the warm blob, apparently they are oblivious to 1917-1918, or the late 1950s, or 1970s, which Jerome Nemias wrote about many years ago. Do you know who Jerome Nemias is, David? But back to the easier question. Is NCEP, which clearly shows what is going on, now in the denier camp?”


German Energy Industry Group Sounds Alarm Over Energy Policy, Warns Of Future Power Shortfalls

There was a lot of emphasis on energy technology at this year’s Hannover Industrial Trade Fair, which took place just last week.

Fossil fuel plants unexpendable

Days ago German flagship daily Die Welt here reported that Germany’s energy industry is not happy about the recent developments in the electricity markets. Industry representatives warn that the Energiewende (transition to renewable energies) will not work without conventional power plants.

As mentioned earlier, Germany’s grand coalition government led by Angela Merkel increasingly finds itself struggling to maneuver to appease both industry on one side and Germany’s powerful environmental lobby groups on the other. As electricity prices continue their steep climb and grid stability crumbles, the government may soon find itself paying lip service to climate protection and nothing more.

Energy concept in “worrisome state”

According to Die Welt, Hildegard Müller, Director of the German BDEW industry association representing the energy and water utilities, said in a press release that Germany’s energy concept was in a “worrisome state“. She said “There is nothing in it that helps, but plenty that burdens.”

Other reports mention that Müller was uncharacteristically harsh with her criticism of the government’s tattered energy policy.

Fossil fuel capacity “melting away like butter”

Müller worries that soon there will not be enough conventional power plants operating to ensure a supply of power when wind and solar energy are absent. As companies are forced to buy up wind and solar power and to thus run their conventional power plants over increasingly shorter times, fossil fuel plants are becoming loss-intensive and so many power companies are planning to shut them down entirely. Die Welt reports:

According to figures presented in Hannover by the BDEW, the current over-capacity of conventional power plant facilities is melting away like butter in the spring sun.”

Lack of weather-independent power

Die Welt writes that 53% of planned new power plants are currently lacking an investment decision. So, the question arises: How soon can Germany expect trouble if energy policy fails to get back onto a sensible course? Die Welt writes:

Just after the shutdown of nuclear power plants concludes, in seven years there could be a lack of power plants that can operate independently of the weather.”

“Poorly thought out”, “thousands of jobs” at risk

Müller also calls the government’s plans to burden old power plants with additional charges “poorly thought out” and “politically motivated“. The industry fears the loss of thousands of jobs.

World Bank increases 3rd world investments in coal power

Meanwhile, as an aside, German alarmist site here writes that even the World Bank refuses to divest from coal power plants.

In 2014, compared to a year earlier, the World Bank expanded investments in coal projects. […] New figures show that 3.4 billion euros in credits, subsidies and guarantees have flowed to fossil fuel projects in developing countries.

In other words, even if Germany does shut down plants, other countries will continue building them and CO2 reductions will remain as nothing  more than a pipe dream.


Growing Unrest: German Trade Union To Protest CO2 Plan That “Threatens 100,000 Jobs” And “Affordable And Reliable” Energy !

Germany’s powerful trade unions have long been major constituents of the country’s SPD social democrat party. But new CO2 reduction plans being drawn up by Germany’s Economics Ministry, headed by SPD chief Sigmar Gabriel, has the country’s mining, chemical and energy workers up in arms.

The IG BCE trade union representing a variety German energy employees is calling on its members to demonstrate in Berlin, on 25 April 2015.

Aufruf Demo Berlin

“We oppose!” Photo: Stefan Hoch, IGBCE

The planned protests further puts a German government in an increasingly awkward position as it attempts to appease both the powerful environmental groups, and the country’s influential industrial trade unions.

100,000 jobs at risk, “social blackouts”

Coal power plants supply approximately 45% of the country’s electricity demands. German online daily Die Welt here reports that the Economics Ministry has produced a concept paper calling for capping emissions of older coal plants, and subjecting excessive emissions to hefty fees.

The 125-year old IG BCE union claims the plan threatens 100,000 jobs – in regions where economies are already strained. “Ultimately the social blackout of entire regions threaten,” the IG BCE warn. It also says that scaling back coal power “puts an affordable and reliable power supply at risk“.

The IG BCE announces large demonstrations outside Chancellor Angela Merkel’s office in Berlin on April 25: The motto: “Enough, we oppose!

“Unrealistic” figures

Die Welt writes that the IG BCE had investment bank Lazard check over the draft plan. Lazard found that it is based on “unrealistically high power prices” for the year 2020.The prices projected for 2020 by the government will in fact be much lower, and thus means the plan would result in 85 to 95 percent of the power plants being unprofitable. The cap would literally mean the end of Germany’s lignite-fired power plants.

IG BCE commenter Thomas Rohde writes he will surely be attending the demo, and comments:

For too long we have believed politicians that an affordable energy supply and good jobs were worth it. The gods of climate protection have blindly run and sacrificed the guarantors of prosperity and value creation at the altar of CO2 reductions, much to the joy of other EU and industrial countries.”

Hat tip: Michael Limburg, EIKE.


AMO And PDO Directly Affect The Weather, CO2 Does Not

The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is defined as the variability of the North Atlantic sea surface temperature compared to the rest of the global ocean from 60°N to 60°S once trends are removed. The AMO high is usually seen off eastern Canada and north and east of Iceland. The AMO low has the pattern reversed. Compare those areas in Figure 1 with Figure 3.

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is defined as the difference between the Northwest Pacific surface and the eastern Pacific surface temperature north of the equator. Figure 1 and figure 2 show the two phases. Both the PDO and the AMO affect the weather in the Northern Hemisphere. Both show up distinctly on anomaly maps. The GISS anomaly map found here was used to produce these figures.

There are four ways these patterns can interact. Each of these four ways result in distinctly different patterns. Beginning with the most recent pattern, from last February, that buried New England in snow, when both the AMO and the PDO were high.

AMO PDO high

In Figure 1, the western Pacific north of 20°N is cool, and the eastern pacific off the West Coast of the U. S. is warm. This makes the Western U. S. very warm. The jet stream has a huge loop diversion north past Alaska and south over the eastern U. S. all the way to Florida. This is the pattern when both AMO and PDO are high.

In contrast in November 2011, when AMO was high and PDO was low, the pattern changes to Figure 2.

PDO low AMO high

In Figure 2, note that the Pacific temperatures are now reversed, the western Pacific is warm and the eastern Pacific off the U. S. coast is cool. This reverses the continental pattern with the West cool and the East warm. Note that the pattern over Europe and Asia is also reversed. This pattern filled the California reservoirs and buried Alaska in snow.

Figure 3 is the pattern when PDO and AMO are both low.


In Figure 3, both patterns were very low. Temperatures were very low over the entire Arctic and most of Canada and the northern U. S. This was during the ice age scare of the 1970s.

PDO High AMO low

Figure 4 illustrates the conditions just ten years later in February of 1981. PDO was high and AMO was still low. The western U. S. and all of Canada was warm and Europe was cool. Each land mass is responding to the adjacent sea temperature.

These cycles affect the food chain as well as the weather. Salmon stocks in the Pacific North-west rise during the cool phase of the PDO, and fall during the warm phase. In  similar fashion, Atlantic Salmon stocks follow the AMO, rising when the AMO is cool and falling when it is warm.

The recent spike in the PDO is temporary. The warm “blob” off the U. S. west coast will move south with the North Pacific/Japan/Kuroshio/California Current and be replaced by the cooler water behind it. The peak was reached in December and has fallen since then (as of March). The PDO data is available here. AMO data is available from NOAA, here.

As both the AMO and PDO affect Northern Hemisphere temperatures, and extremes are reached when both are in the same phase, it does make sense to combine them as I did in my last post on What Caused the Pause or Why Hate The Hiatus?

These cycles are weather. They can also be called natural climate cycles. They have nothing to do with CO2, and everything to do with driving many of the climate features that are gleefully pointed by climate alarmists. They determine the snowstorms, heat waves, floods and droughts pointed out by the alarmists as indications of “Climate Change”.


Alarmist Potsdam Institute Concedes: “Natural Variability Underestimated”…”WE ARE CURRENTLY FACING A COOLING PERIOD”!

By Dennis Ambler and Pierre Gosselin

Few institutes have been as adamant and dogmatic about man-made global warming as the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), headed by German climate doomsday professor, Herr Professor-Doktor Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber.


German climate doomsday professor Hans Schellnhuber forced to postpone climate doomsday scenarios due to natural factors, but insists warming is still happening, and it will be worse – at a later time in the future. Photo: PIK

The institute has long maintained that the science was settled, and was instrumental in formulating a master-plan for re-organizing global society and watering down democracy in order to avert the modeled disaster. Their master-plan calls for allotting more power to an elite group of “visionary” scientists – like to Herr Doktor Schellnhuber himself.

So today it’s all the more surprising that they are announcing a paper that concedes natural factors indeed are more powerful than the 0.01% CO2 atmospheric concentration added in part by humans over the last 150 years. This is a milestone for the PIK, which earlier claimed they could not find any real evidence of other factors driving the climate.

Their press release writes (emphasis added):

So far it seemed there were hardly any major natural temperature fluctuations in Antarctica, so almost every rise in temperature was attributed to human influence,” says Armin Bunde of Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (JLU). ‘Global warming as a result of our greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels is a fact. However, the human influence on the warming of West Antarctica is much smaller than previously thought. The warming of East Antarctica up to now can even be explained by natural variability alone.’ The results of their study are now published in the journal Climate Dynamics.”

They had us going there for a minute, but no, it isn’t a real admission they were wrong: global warming has been merely hiding behind natural variability as well as in the oceans, they insist.

The press release continues:

The scientists did not only analyze data from individual measuring stations but also generated regional averages. The results show a human influence on the warming of West Antarctica, while this influence is weaker than previously thought.

However, the warming of Antarctica altogether will likely increase more strongly soon.

Soon? How long are we to wait? Many are losing patience in their long wait for the promised catastrophe. Suddenly things look as if they are losing their urgency.

For several years temperatures in Antarctica, but also globally, have been increasing less rapidly than in the 1990s. There are a number of reasons for this, e.g. the oceans buffering warmth.

The study now published by the German team of scientists shows that man-made global warming has not been pausing - it was temporarily superimposed and therefore hidden by long-term natural climate fluctuations like in Antarctica.2

How do they know it’s temporary? From their models? Well, they have been wrong since day 1. Obviously there’s much more to the climate system than just trace gas CO2.

‘Our estimates show that we are currently facing a natural cooling period – while temperatures nonetheless rise slowly but inexorably, due to our heating up the atmosphere by emitting greenhouse gas emissions,’ explains Hans Joachim Schellnhuber.

‘At the end of this natural cold spell temperatures will rise even more fiercely. Globally, but also in Antarctica which therefore is in danger of tipping.”

The good Herr Dr. Schellnhuber never lets you down. Just be patient longer than we thought. The catastrophe that we promised is just taking longer to get here – but when it does, by golly, it’ll be a lot worse – you’ll all be sorry for not doing what we told you.

This is taking on comical dimensions.


Science Under Siege: Max Planck Institute Study Shows Climate Models Severely Overstate Warming

Hamburg-Based Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology: Aerosols Cool Less Than Previously Thought

By Sebastian Lüning, Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated, edited by P Gosselin]

In our book “The Neglected Sun” we wondered a lot about the cooling effect of aerosols that was assigned in the climate models. Aerosols are tiny dust particles and droplets that act to diffuse sunlight and thus as a rule act to cool the earth. But by how much? In Chapter 5 of our book we wrote:

According to the IPCC, the cooling effect of aerosols offsets about two thirds of the power of CO2. In the IPCC’s view, aerosols reduce the warming generated by all greenhouse gases by 45 percent. But the uncertainty is large – it could be 15 percent, or even 85%, because we have only modest to low level of scientific “understanding of the relationships.”

Today very few are aware that the climate models generate far more warming than what we really produced over the last 100 years. The IPCC strategy: All the surplus heat is cancelled by aerosols until the models “fit”. The cooling joker is thus badly needed in order to maintain CO2’s high climate sensitivity.

In March 2015 we saw some progress in the aerosol discussion. One of the authors of the latest IPCC report claimed that the range of uncertainty concerning the effect of aerosols on climate had been greatly reduced thanks to new research findings, and in the meantime there’s been a lot of talk that the cooling potential of aerosols indeed had been significantly exaggerated in the past. The real cooling value is actually at the lower limits of the range assumed up to now by the IPCC.

The most important and boldest claims come from Bjorn Stevens, one of the three directors at the Hamburg-based Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPIM). That paper appeared in the Journal of Climate. What follows is the paper’s abstract:

Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing
Based on research showing that in the case of a strong aerosol forcing, this forcing establishes itself early in the historical record, a simple model is constructed to explore the implications of a strongly negative aerosol forcing on the early (pre 1950) part of the instrumental record. This model, which contains terms representing both aerosol-radiation and aerosol-cloud interactions well represents the known time history of aerosol radiative forcing, as well as the effect of the natural state on the strength of aerosol forcing. Model parameters, randomly drawn to represent uncertainty in understanding, demonstrates that a forcing more negative than −1.0 W m−2 is implausible, as it implies that none of the approximately 0.3 K temperature rise between 1850 and 1950 can be attributed to northern-hemispheric forcing. The individual terms of the model are interpreted in light of comprehensive modeling, constraints from observations, and physical understanding, to provide further support for the less negative ( −1.0 W m−2 ) lower bound. These findings suggest that aerosol radiative forcing is less negative and more certain than is commonly believed.

In general one should be careful not to overuse the word “sensational”. But here the word is most suitable. Surprisingly the German media has been deadly quiet on this. A Google news search reveals that there has not been a single article written about the paper. Undesirable news that the media prefer not to make public?

The implications of the paper were immediately recognized within the scientific community. On March 19, 2015, Nic Lewis explained the paper’s far-reaching implications at Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit and Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.: Also the climate sensitivity gets further limited, and most likely is near the lower limit of the IPCC’s given range. Lewis’s calculations using the new Stevens value yield a most probable mean value for CO2 climate sensitivity (and indeed for the long-term “ECS”) of 1.45°C of warming for each doubling of CO2. The new total range suggested by Lewis ranges from 0.9 to 1.65°C per doubling of CO2. This is far below the IPCC’s latest range of 1.5 to 4.5°C per doubling of CO2.

Figure 1: Range of CO2 climate sensitivity according to calculations by Nic Lewis using the latest Stevens 2015 values. Source.

Bjorn Stevens was fully aware of the avalanche of reactions this would unleash. It is going to take awhile before his IPCC colleagues get over their indigestion and allow the new findings to flow into their modeling work. Until that happens, it is best to avoid any media storm. The MPIM intentionally did not issue a press release to announce the paper. As the English-language media busily discussed the logical consequences of the paper, the MPIM in Hamburg eventually found it necessary to put out a statement. On April 2, 2015, Stevens put out a statement saying that his paper only addressed aerosols and would not be appropriate for speculation on CO2 sensitivity. With it he buys himself a little public peace – for the time being. However the scientific community will not be able dodge the consequences of the paper over the mid to long-term.


Data Plainly Show No Correlation Between Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations And Global Sea Ice!

The poles, we are told, are supposed to be the tell-tale barometer of global warming. No place is supposed to warm up as quickly as the poles.

And because there are practically no thermometers to speak of at both the North and South poles, we need a better way of getting an idea of how temperature is behaving at these remote yet “sensitive” regions of our planet.

Because ice melts when it’s warmer and freezes when it’s colder, polar sea ice cover could act as a good measurement tool in place of the mercury thermometer. Not only does it indicate air temperatures, but also water temperatures beneath the ice. It can be argued that sea ice extent is indeed a better way of measuring overall temperature than mercury thermometers. Fortunately NASA has been taking satellite excellent photos of both poles since 1979 and thus we have an accurate record of sea ice spanning 35 years.

As CO2 rises, global warming is claimed to be enhanced, and thus the poles should be warming, disproportionately many scientists claim, compared to other regions like those located near the equator. We should see it in the global sea ice record.

The following is a plot of CO2 vs global sea ice extent since 1979:

CO2 vs sea ice

 Graphic formed by combining WoodForTrees CO2 plot and the U. of Illinois sea ice anomaly plot.

The above chart shows that today’s global sea ice is basically at the same level as it was 35 years ago, back when CO2 was below 350 ppm. Moreover the overall trend is flat. There’s no correlation. CO2 has not caused sea ice to melt like it has been claimed to do. Not even close! The melting that did occur was very short in duration, less than 5 years, from 2005 to 2008.

The whole scare of a polar meltdown has been nothing but a huge load of bovine manure. The whole thing has been nothing but widespread hysteria in the collective paranoid mind of a society fanned by high tech, highly funded swindlers and a complicit media class.

The whole global warming scare arguably has been a power grab by an elitist cabal of lying bureaucrats who have deluded themselves into thinking they have all the answers and solutions.

It’s high time that the new generation of politicians start calling it out.


Sustainable Postponements…Germany’s Alfred Wegener Institute Pushes “Ice-Free Arctic” Back To 2050!

In 2009 Al Gore predicted an ice-free Arctic by 2014. It never materialized – not even close.

Not to be outdone, John Kerry upped the ante and boldly proclaimed an ice-free Arctic by 2013. That too was utter nonsense.

In 2010 oceanography researcher Wieslaw Maslowski claimed: “Near ice-free summer Arctic might become a reality much sooner than GCMs predict“. This was reported in the press as “US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016“.

Louis Fortier, scientific director of ArcticNet, a Canadian research network, said the sea ice was melting faster than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

An earlier National Climate Assessment report wrote that models that best match historical trends project a nearly ice-free Arctic in the summer by the 2030s.

Other real experts were less dramatic with their predictions. For example in 2009 Overland & Wang predicted that there would be an ice-free Arctic in the summer by 2037. A 2006 paper by Marika Holland et al. predicted “near ice-free September conditions by 2040″. Tony Heller, a.k.a. Steve Goddard, has an entire list of ice-free Arctic predictions.

Postponed again to 2050

Now polar conditions have stopped cooperating, and sea ice looks poised to defy the projections. A couple of days ago I wrote here about how natural cycles are now aligning to lead to more sea ice cover over the next one or two decades, and that global sea ice levels are back to normal levels – a fact that the end-of-world obsessors are finding difficult to come to terms with.

The recent sea ice developments even have the government-funded alarmist institutes now in a state of anyxiety. Already we are beginning to see them push back the predicted date of an ice-free Arctic. The latest example come from Germany’s prestigious, yet alarmist, Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) for polar and ocean research – so reports Germany’s Deutschland Funk national public radio here in an interview with Christiane Habermalz, Arctic Ny Alesund station engineer of the AWI.

In the interview Habermalz insists that the Arctic is the “hot-spot” of global warming, and that sea ice is melting faster than expected (Fact: it isn’t at all). She claims that the Arctic is warming 1.3°C per decade, basing that on only two decades of data: from 1993 to present. She also did not hold back from giving the impression that the trend would continue unabated, but then adding:

…in any case during the Arctic summer more and more of the sea ice is melting further and there are increasingly greater ice-free zones. That is something that also the scientists here at Ny Alesund have said, and that when the melting of the sea ice continues the scenario of an ice-free pole by 2040/2050 is very likely.”

2050? That’s a far cry from what we’ve been hearing from other experts over the last years.

There are some interesting statements here. First Habermalz is implying that it will take a sustained 1.3°C per decade of Arctic warming for this to happen. But as most people who have read about the Arctic know, temperatures there go in cycles. The warm cycle has already reached its peak and so the temperature level there needed to melt the ice by 2030 will not be reached. Thus the 2040/50 ice-free scenario won’t happen as calculated by the AWI. (By ice-free, we mean over a number of years, and not a single outlier year, which cannot be excluded). The AWI knows it, and so now we are seeing a conscious postponement of an ice-free Arctic.

Of course expect the AWI and similar institutes to keep ringing the alarm bells, but at the same time quietly move the goalposts back as reality dawns.

Finally, what do the experts project this summer’s Arctic sea ice minimum to be this year? Joe Bastardi tells us at his Saturday Summary here at the 13:15 min mark:

2015 Arctic sea ice forecast

US government NCEP forecast for Arctic sea ice anomaly this year. Source: Weatherbell.

Obviously the AWI has gotten the message, and so now the Arctic horror predictions have been pushed back to a future time, one far enough into the future that by then everyone will have forgotten all the silly, hysterical predictions made during the 2000s.


Solar Cycle 24 Continues To Be Quietest In Almost 200 Years…Sun’s Polar Fields Weakest Since 1900

Although over the last 2 years the current solar cycle saw some activity, it recently has quieted down considerably and it continues on the path to being one of the quietest since observations began over 350 years ago. -PG

The Sun In March 2015

By Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt
Translated, edited by P Gosselin

Last month our sun gave a really sluggish impression. The sunspot number (SSN) was only 38.4: only 46% of what is normal at this time into a cycle for all the cycles observed since 1750.

Fig. 1: The current solar cycle 24 compared to the mean of all previous cycles (blue) and to solar cycle no. 1, 1755-1766, (black).

Comparing the individual cycles to each other further confirms that the current cycle is a quiet one compared to those we saw in the second half of the last century:

Fig. 2: Comparison of all the solar cycles. The figures represent the summed SSN deviation from the mean for first 76 months into the cycle, for all cycles. The current cycle so far is the 4th most inactive since observations began in 1750.

The current cycle is the quietest since solar cycle no. 7, which occurred around 1830. When it comes to the question of why, the polar magnetic fields of the sun are decisive. We reported on this in detail (see “The sun in Jaunary 2014 and news about the polar solar field“). Its been a few months since the last data recording and today we are 2 years past the suspected smoothed maximum. The polar fields went through the zero-point already in March 2013, as can be seen from the data from the Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO). There it can be seen that especially the north polar field is still barely established.

How does that compare historically?

Recording of data for the polar fields first began in the early 1970s, which means the time period is still too short to allow real comparisons to be made. But in a paper from 2012 the authors led by Andrés Muñoz-Jaramillo used the observations of solar flares made since 1900 as a proxy for the sun’s polar fields. The lead author of the paper kindly agreed to share the data with the authors of this article and so it is possible to compare the current relationships with the long-term series:

Fig. 3: The relative strength of polar solar fields since 1900.

Here it is clear to see that in the second year past the cycle peak, the polar fields have never been so weak. Consider that the strength of the sun’s polar fields during the solar sunspot minimum is a decisive indicator for the activity of the next solar cycle. A very recent paper by Robert Cameron and Manfred Schüssler confirms this.

We only need to be patient a little longer and to pay further attention to the ongoing development of the sun’s polar fields in order to attempt a forecast. The preliminary indications do point to a low level of activity and thus perhaps an even weaker solar cycle 25 beginning around 2022.


Clear And Gathering Evidence Of Cooling: Three-Year Mean Antarctic Sea Ice Highest On Satellite Record!

Now that it’s spring, it’s as good a time as any to look at polar sea ice. Climate scientists have told us time and again that global warming would first be been at the Earth’s poles.

Well, if that is true, then we need to start worrying about cooling.

In the Arctic the following chart shows a clear stabilization taking place over the past 8 years with an upward trend over the last five years:

Source: Cryosphere Today, Arctic Climate Research, University of Illinois

It needs to be pointed out that there are many factors impacting sea ice. Among them are ocean currents and cycles, and prevailing weather patterns. In summary, however, the once feared “death spiral” remains totally absent.

Had the past five years been centered about the -1.75 million sq km anomaly in the Arctic, then the warmists may have had a point. But that is not the case as the Arctic sea ice is close to 1 million square kilometers above the alarm level.

A number of high-profile scientists and meteorologists also are now projecting growth in Arctic sea ice over the next 10-20 years as major oceanic oscillations shift to their cooler phases.

Record-smashing Antarctica, warming totally AWOL

If you are a global warming alarmist, then the situation is even more confounding at the south end of the Earth. Especially at the Earth’s southern pole is warming totally AWOL.

Antarctic sea ice 4 2015


Because Antarctica is surrounded by water, trends there do behave differently then what goes on in the land-surrounded Arctic.

Consider the following stunning points about Antarctica:

1. Antarctic sea ice has been above normal for almost 3 years uninterrupted.
2. Three years uninterrupted above normal sea ice is unprecedented over the satellite record.
3. Record after record sea ice highs have been set during that period.
4. The trend for the last 10 years has been stunningly strong.
5. The long-term 30-year trend is strongly upwards.

From Antarctic sea ice trends, there’s absolutely no indication that there’s any warming going on down there. If scientists had been warning of cooling, they’d be having a much easier time today convincing the public.

Indeed Antarctica is the very place that AGW alarmist scientists don’t want anyone to look at. In fact today there’s almost no climate data they want you to see – only the “adjusted” surface temperatures that they themselves cook, manipulate and alter.

Global sea ice trend positive since 2006!

Finally charts and data on total global sea ice show absolutely no alarm. Global sea ice has been at a normal level for almost 3 years now. Overall the recent trend is upward, thus indicating cooling – and not warming:

Global sea ice 2015_4


The above global sea ice anomaly chart shows that there was a brief downward trend from 2004 to 2012, but that loss has since been completely wiped out. The overall trend since 2006 is upwards. In fact the mean of the last 2 years is as high as it was 35 years ago.

Don’t listen to the doom and gloom of the government bought climate scientists. You can look at the data yourself. A good place to do this is over at Anthony Watts’s sea ice page here.


Scientists On Trial? Retired Lawyer’s Blogsite To Examine Earlier “Predictions” Made By Climate “Experts”

38 Models_ Joe BastardiWe already have Climate Audit, but now it looks like we may be getting “Climate Scientists on Trial”. Here’s a site you’ll want to subscribe to, bookmark – or at least visit on a regular basis:

As the name says, it focusses on earlier climate predictions made by the global warming alarmists (and there have been many) and compares them to what really happened. The site is run by Ian Hipwell, a retired lawyer from Sydney, Australia.

I think Ian will be a real asset because in his profession one is often trained to hold people’s feet to fire. Many like to say or write things, but are they able to back it all up later on. After all people who listen to these experts often act and make decisions based on the things said, and thus may incur either benefit or major damage as a result.

Alarmist scientists have said lots of things in the past, and it’s time to go back and look at them. The approach could be something like: Mr. Scientist, 15 years ago you said snow and ice would be things of the past, yet we are now seeing record snowfalls and harsh winters. Which is the lie?

In an e-mail to me Ian has written that although he is not scientifically trained, he has “followed the climate change issue as a hobby for some years. It was the name calling by AGW supporters that first made me suspect that the case wasn’t as strong as we had been led to believe.”

He writes that his intention is “to invite people to consider that perhaps the science isn’t settled after all“. Yes, the jury is still out.

And because so many of the earlier predictions made over the past 40 years have been within the realms of absurdity, Ian writes that the blog will surely provide a fair amount of humor. Indeed. For us skeptics the earlier claims of snow being “a thing of the past” and the Arctic being ice free by 2014 still continue to be the source of much laughter.

I think having this kind of blog, which devotes effort on examining past predictions, is a great idea because this is what science really gets down to. After all if the observations contradict the hypothesis and predictions, then the hypothesis is simply wrong.


Recent Storm Over Europe Exposes The Lies Of The Energiewende…Is A Stable Grid A Thing Of The Past?

Fred F. Mueller at the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) here writes about how the storm that swept across Europe in late March exposed the lies of the German Energiewende (transition to renewable energies).

With the current rate of growth in renewable energy installations, Mueller writes that it’s just a question of time before the grid gets overloaded just by the renewable energies under certain weather conditions and that it will no longer be possible to dump the surplus  uncontrollably fed in power into neighboring power markets.

Mueller writes how at the end of March Germany saw a combination of high winds and lots of sunshine. During the recent storm there was lots of wind energy production accompanied by lots of solar power production due to large gaps in cloud cover.

According to German flagship national daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) the surplus energy led to massive costs to power consumers and double digit million costs for the power grid operators, who naturally will simply pass these costs along to the consumers. The situation in late March was so precarious that hundreds of wind turbines were ordered switched off.

The FAZ reports that a record amount of power was fed into the grid due to the strong winds and abundant sunshine: At 2:15 pm a total of 44 gigawatts of sun and wind energy were fed in, which equals the power output of 31 nuclear power plants.

EIKE author Rolf Schuster has compiled the data on installed solar/wind capacity in Germany as of the end of February 2015: a total of 78 gigawatts of capacity that comprises 40 gigawatts of wind and 38 gigwatts of solar. Had the storm hit later in the spring, the situation would have been even worse because more solar power would have been produced, probably another 10 gigawatts.

Rolf Schuster compiled the results of the storm in Table 1: Datum = date; Stunde = hour; Preis = exchange price; Menge = amount; Summe1 = sum 1; Summe2 = sum 2.

Table 1: The nominal exchange losses stemming from the negative prices on 29 – 30 March. Note: Every figure under 50 €/ MWh in reality means that most conventional power plants had to incur losses (Figures from EEX: Table Rolf Schuster)

According to the data in the hours leading up to the storm, power with a market value of almost 3 million euros had to be “given away for free” to foreign markets at negative prices. However, Mueller writes, that was only a small part of the costs. Grid operators wound up losing anywhere from 10 million to 60 million euros during a three day period. According to the FAZ, a total of 20.3 gigawatts of reserve capacity had to be used in order to stabilize the power supply in south Germany. Moreover hundreds of wind turbines had to be taken offline. Yet the affected windpark operators still got paid for the power they did not produce – as is required by Germany’s renewable energy feed-in act. These costs eventually get paid by the consumer.

This time the power grid withstood the overloading from the storm. But Mueller writes that whoever believes the worse is now behind and we all can sit back and relax with the knowledge the power grid can withstand anything, they are being terribly naïve. In Germany within the scope of the Energiewende, it is planned to install approximately 330 gigawatts of wind capacity and possibly 100 gigawatts of solar capacity by 2050.

The result, Mueller writes, is that already on moderately windy and sunny days the grids will become overloaded with “green power” because there is still no storage technology available. The physics is clear: this will inevitably lead to a “collapse in the power supply”. Here so-called “power autobahns” (major cross-country transmission lines), which certain profiteers of the Energiewende are trying to sell us as the wonder cure against the consequences of their own politics, aren’t going to help.

What Caused the Global Warming Pause or Why Hate the Hiatus?

Depending on which global temperature data one looks at, temperatures have not increased in the last 18 or so years. The reasons proposed have been various, ranging from natural cycles to increased aerosols, to heat escaping to space or the deep ocean.

Perhaps there are some other reasons that have not been considered. The following is a simple list, with illustrations. The list is divided into two sub-lists. Things that are natural and things that are anthropogenic or man made.


 1. It’s The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)

The AMO has been at the top of it’s warm phase since 1998. The index doesn’t get much higher than it is now. It can only go down from here. It was at a similar peak during the warm 1930s through the 1960s. It was negative during the cool 1970s. The peaks of the AMO tend to be flat for a couple of decades before flipping cool. We don’t know what drives the AMO. Data here.

2. It’s The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)

The PDO has been trending down since the early 1980s. It also was up during the 1930s and negative during the 1970s. The AMO and the PDO are the natural ocean cycles that climate scientists talk about. The PDO reached a peak in the 1980s and has been declining since. This index is volatile. The PDO has a huge effect on weather on the Pacific Coast of North America. Data here.

 3. It’s The AMO and PDO together

They are sometimes roughly added together. (Even though they are not measuring the same thing.) If one adds them together, it can be seen why the late 1930s were warm and the 1970s cool. The sum (green trace) reached a peak in 2000 and is now declining because of the declining PDO. (Computed by author.)

4. It’s the sun

SSN Average

The sunspot number (SSN) average has declined since the mid-1990s. One can see a cause for the 1970s cooling in the SSN, but not for the 1930s warming. The early 20th century cooling may have been caused by the low SSN around the turn of the century. The sun is excused for the recent pause because the total solar index (TSI) changes only by a fraction of a Watt/m2 over large changes in SSN. But other factors may be in play. (Source: WDC-SILSO, Royal Observatory of Belgium, Brussels.)

Oulu Neutron Count

5. It’s cosmic rays

The neutron count is an indicator of the cosmic ray flux at the top of the atmosphere. Here is the neutron count at Oulu, Finland since 1965. It is thought that cosmic rays seed cloud formation. Therefore high recent count is providing cooling clouds. Graphic downloaded from here, the Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory, University of Oulu, Finland.

SST & Albedo

6. It’s clouds and earth’s albedo

Albedo and cloud cover reached a peak in the 1998-2000 era, at the beginning of the pause. Clouds, especially high clouds, reflect solar energy. Each 1% of albedo change translates to 1 W/m2. There is another graphic of albedo from the EarthShine project, here. All the albedo data show a significant rise in albedo after 1998. The cosmic ray/neutron count may not match the albedo/cloud cover, but cloud cover really did increase. Graphic used by permission of Dr. J. Floor Anthoni, and seen here.


I mean by anthropogenic that man may have caused the pause by manipulating the temperature data. These manipulations seem to enhance the warming trend in support of politics, though the stated intent for many was to enhance accuracy. Here are some examples:

TOBs adjustments

7. It’s the time of observation (TOBs) adjustment

Observing times have been gradually changed from afternoon to morning hours. The bias from this adjustment was about 0.2°C for TMax and 0.25°C for TMin. This impacts the historic data, but also, this adjustment is now finished. Most measurement sites now use morning observing times and no more changes will be made, hence the pause. No more warming will come from this source. The TOBs adjustment is clearly visible in the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RAW AND FINAL USHCN DATA SETS graphic below, though it is only half of the total. Figure from here.

Difference between raw and final

8. It’s all adjustments including TOBs

This graphic shows the result of all adjustments: homogenization, sensor changes (CRS vs MMTS), and TOBs. Note also that the warming due to all these changes is about 0.5°C, much of the warming that is supposed to have taken place since 1950. Note that these changes went flat during the 1990s decade.  Note the similar shaped curve to the TOBs adjustment with a flat shape in recent times. There should be no more warming from this source. Figure from NOAA/NCDC here.

9. It’s the number of stations

Number of stations

Since 1980, the number of stations reporting temperature data has declined by half. Some of the decline was due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. This resulted in loss of data from the Russian high arctic and Siberia, among the coldest land stations in the Northern Hemisphere. Some of these stations have resumed reporting in recent years, but most have not.

Other stations in Africa and Asia were closed by newly independent former colonies. World-wide, many stations closed instead of being upgraded. On average the remaining stations are at lower elevations and in warmer, populated areas. This situation has now stabilized. Figure from NASAGISS here. A discussion of this problem is here.

These are nine possible reasons for the pause. One or two are sufficient. Nine is overkill.


Easter Blackout! Cologne Area And ‘Phantasia’ Amusement Park Lose Power 3 Times In 24 Hours! Green Energy To Blame?

If there is anything that I can say about the German power grid, it is that power outages have been very rare since I’ve been here. But lately the ones that do occur seem to be doing so far more frequently, and there’s been a lot of talk about grid operators having to constantly intervene to prevent blackouts – something they rarely had to do 10 years ago.

Today T-Online news site here reports that areas near Cologne, Germany blacked out over the Easter weekend. Amusement park Phantasialand lost power three times – in 24 hours!

Hat-tip: DirkH

T-Online writes of “power chaos” as electricity went out for 45 minutes on Sunday and blacked out twice yesterday.

The cause of the outages is being attributed to “technical faults” and a “power supply error”. Parts of the Cologne area, for example the city of Bruhl where the power utility is located, also lost power.

There’s no indication that the erratic green energies such as wind and sun are behind the Easter weekend blackout. My guess is that in this case they are not because the weather conditions were quite stable and saw no spikes of any kind. Yet German blackouts seem to be occurring more frequently as the capacity of sun and wind increases.

Blackouts beoming more common

In 2005 a late November snowstorm across northern Germany caused power transmission towers to collapse under the weight of snow and ice, knocking out power for hours and even days in some regions.

In November 2006 a large part of Western Europe was blacked out as power giant E.on miscalculated on how to handle 10,000 megawatts of wind energy flowing through the power grid. The English Wikipedia page fails to mention anything about the wind energy.

In November 2012 the power in parts of Munich went out due to “a defective line”.  Also read more here. Later a city utility spokesman said, “It is suspected to be a power spike that somehow got through.

Last year again in Munich during the busy Friday morning rush hour the power for 20,000 households went out because of a blown transformer station.

Germany’s power supply has become far more erratic and uncontrollable lately. The power chart for the last two weeks shows the tremendous power spikes that Germany’s power grid had to endure during recent stormy weather.

Agora MarApr 2015

Source: Agora

The above chart shows a major and sudden power spike occurring on March 29 and a super spike that went off the chart on March 31 when a massive 76 gigawatts of wind power got uncontrollably fed in at 1 p.m. How the grid operators went about handling this may be the topic of a later post.

One thing is clear: the situation on Germany’s power grid has gotten far more unstable. German center-left/green weekly Die Zeit here conducted an interview with power expert Frank Umbach. When asked the question of how reliable the German power grid is, Umbach told Die Zeit:

The situation has gotten considerably worse. […] All risk assessments on supply stability show a worsening.”

Moreover Umbach tells Die Zeit that Germany narrowly missed “widespread outages” three times since the country shut down 8 nuclear power plants in 2011 and increased dependency on wind and solar power.


Greens Humiliated! Whopping 92% Of Swiss Vote ‘No’ To Non-Renewable Energy Tax …”Historic Debacle”

Here’s the story the major mainstream media would prefer not to mention at all.

Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne site here.

At the online there’s a short report about a recent Swiss vote on a Greens-Liberals energy tax initiative. The result:

92 percent voted against the initiative that would tax the consumption of non-renewable energies such as oil, gas, coal and uranium instead of having a value added tax. According to the Greens-Liberals it would be an effective instrument for reducing energy consumption and for promoting renewable energies.”

In summary on a few fringe activists in Switzerland are interested in taxing reliable and still affordable fossil and nuclear energy.

The Swiss called the result “an historic debacle” and “the most massive slap up beside the head ever” that a citizens’ initiative has ever suffered in Switzerland. writes:

The failure was historic – no initiative has ever gotten a result of less than 10 percent.”

Die kalte Sonne comments on the result, reminding us that it was…:

…the most clear rejection by the citizens since the founding of the modern Swiss federal state in 1848. It is also notable that the parties who supported the petition for a referendum, “The Green-Liberals” and “The Greens”, were not even able to convince many of their own voters. Both parties together represent 13.8% of all voters.”

Die kalte Sonne also comments on the lopsidedness of the result, claiming that it is the sort that one is accustomed to seeing in “hardcore communist states”. Only this time the vote was free and offered a choice.