Sea Level Rise Alarm Turned Off? NOAA: “Absolute Global Sea Level Rise Is Believed To Be 1.7 – 1.8 Millimeters/Year”!

A short but extremely interesting post today. Hat-tip: reader Stuart.

It appears the NOAA also agrees that sea level rise is not happening any where near as fast as many among us would like to think it is. At its site here, it writes the following n(my emphasis):

The graphs compare the 95% confidence intervals of relative mean sea level trends for CO-OPS and global stations. Trends with the narrowest confidence intervals are based on the longest data sets. Trends with the widest confidence intervals are based on only 30-40 years of data. The graphs can provide an overarching indication of the differing rates of regional vertical land motion, given that the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year. Note that they are relative sea level trends, and are not corrected for local land movement. The calculated trends for all CO-OPS stations are available as a table in millimeters/year and in feet/century. A complete table of non-CO-OPS station trends are available as a table in millimeters/year and in feet/century.”

Hurry up and read it before this gets taken down! To be on the safe side I’ve cut out the location of interest:

NOAA sea level

The full URL is: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/globalregional.htm.

So many among us have severely criticized the various institutes for hyper-hyping the dubious, and some even say manipulated, satellite data showing a rise of over 3 – while tide gauges as the NOAA writes above indicate no such thing.

Expect this site to get wiped out.

German Handelsblatt: German Households Getting Crushed By Green Energies To The Tune Of 28 Billion Annually!

Here’s one for the stubborn clingers of green energies like wind and sun. German financial daily Handelsblatt here writes about the harsh reality of these so-called clean, free-for-the-taking energies.

In the earlier days of green energy (some 10 or so years ago, then German Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin famously claimed that the cost of wind and solar energy would be easily affordable – equivalent to no more than one scoop of ice cream a month. Environmentalists like David Suzuki once said in a video, “Hey man, it’s for free!” Nothing could be further than the truth.

The Handelsblatt concedes the real (painful) costs of green energy. It writes:

The costs of the Energiewende [transition to renewable energies] for power cosumers in Germany is now running at 28 billion euros annually. A household with a power consumption of 3500 kilowatt annually is thus paying 270 euros a year for implementing the Energiewende.”

That’s the result Germany’s Institute for Economy (IW) calculated on behalf of the Handelsblatt. North American readers should keep in mind that their household energy needs typically run two or even three times higher than the very conservative figure of 3500 kilowatt-hours a year used by the Handelsblatt, this due in large part to harsher winters and hotter summers.

Website The Irish Energy Blog here presents a chart depicting electricity cost as a function of installed sun and wind capacity for all European countries:

wind-strompreis_n

Chart source: irishenergyblog, by BP2015 and Eurostat

The relationship is totally clear: The higher the share of wind and solar power in the power generation, the higher the electricity prices for consumers.

The Handelsblatt cites one industry group representative, Carsten Linnemann: “The consequences of the Energiewende are developing into a dangerous competition factor because it is frightening investors and is costing jobs.”

There’s another sinister side to Germany’s careening Energiewende, the Handelsblatt writes. Because wind and solar power are given the right of way to the power grid over conventional fossil fuel generated power, the conventional plants are forced to run part-time at inefficient levels, which makes them unprofitable. The Handelsblatt continues:

A total of 57 conventional power plants are to be shut down, reports Bild newspaper on Monday, citing figures from the German Power Regulatory Board. That is nine more than at the start of the year. The reason, according to the plant operators, is the lack of profitability due to the Energiewende.”

Of course there will be some out there who will obstinately keep their heads stuck in the sand, and wish all of this wasn’t true.

 

German Media On The Prophets Of NASA: “Prophesizing Gigantic Floods” – 200 Years In The Future!

Pre-Paris hype

The German media have been buzzing some with the recent NASA publication warning of rising sea levels for the future, and that we need to be very worried.

Maybe I’m reading more into the lines than I should, but I get the feeling that the increasingly dubious NASA climate science organization is no longer being taken 100% seriously by some major German outlets, who have started to label NASA scenarios and projections as “prophecies”.

For example Germany’s normally politically correct, devout green NTV here has the article bearing the title: “NASA prophesizes gigantic floods“.

Prophecies are more the sort of things one typically expects to hear from prophets. The trouble today is that anyone who claims to be a prophet or to possess prophet-like powers almost always gets equated to being a kook, quack, or charlatan. Moreover being labeled a prophet doesn’t get you much respect either. So you have to wonder about the NTV’s choice of words for the title of its story.

Could NTV journalists really be so dim and naïve as to actually believe in climate prophets?

NTV writes of an organization that seems to fancy itself as having visionary power to see the end of the world. NTV tells us:

An unavoidable sea level rise of at least one meter in the coming 100 to 200 years is the result of the latest research data.”

The NTV report then cites NASA prophet Tom Wagner:

NASA scientist Tom Wagner says that when the ice sheets break down on each other, even the risk of a sea level rise of three meters over the coming 100 to 200 years is thinkable.”

Okay, these visions may be still a bit fuzzy, but the NASA scientists prophets know almost for sure they are out there. And again the prophecy of doom gets repeated at the end of the article by prophet Steve Nerem:

‘Things will probably get worse in the future,’ prophesizes Nerem as a result of global warming.”

Again this is the NTV using the word “prophesizes”.

Of course there are only a few teensy-weensy problems with NASA’s prophecies of doom. 1) The hundreds of coastal tide gauges show no acceleration in sea level rise and they show a rise that is much less than what has been measured by the seemingly poorly calibrated satellites, 2) polar sea ice has recovered over the past years, 3) polar temperatures have flattened, or are even declining, 4) global temperatures have flattened, and 5) there’s a growing number of scientists who are now telling us that we should be expecting global cooling over the coming decades.

Moreover, new Greenland data show growing ice (more on this tomorrow).

I’ll let the readers judge for themselves on whether NASA scientists are true prophets, or if they are behaving more like snake oil peddling charlatans.

Myself I’ve lost all respect for the space organization. It’s become a grossly distorted caricature of what scientific research is about.

200 years in the future… yeah, right!

Veteran New England Energy Physicist: “Who Should We Believe? Reality Or The NOAA?” …”Severe Cold Is Coming”!

What follows is a commentary on the NOAA by energy physicist Mike Brakey, also see here, here, here, and here.
==================================

Severe cold is coming

By Mike Brakey

On August 21, the Sun Journal printed NOAA’s “Earth’s Heat broke records in July” claiming the world has gotten hotter each and every year over the last century, and it is the fault of every human on this planet who inhales oxygen and exhales the evil pollutant, carbon dioxide (CO2). I took a deep sigh of relief and exhaled this condemned pollutant the following Monday upon reading, “Farmers’ Almanac forecasts another cold, nasty winter”.

How can two predictions be so far apart? Whom should we believe?

The tie-breaker might be the climate secret an ex-NOAA meteorologist and climatologist, David Dilley, discloses in his free, 49-minute YouTube video: “Is Climate Change Dangerous?” He explains the scientific principles of how climate is governed by natural global cycles that have been documented in clockwork precision over the last half million years. Cycles are predictable. Like the year 1800 in the last 230-year cycle, temperatures have recently stagnated for more than a decade. Volcanic eruptions by Iceland’s Bardarbunga (August 16, 2014-March 2, 2015) assure a continued cooling trend for the northern U.S., as suggested by Lewiston’s Farmer’s Almanac.

Rather than hold my breath and do nothing, I have rolled up my sleeves. Winter is coming! I’ll get an excellent return on my investment by winterizing my Maine home, no matter whose theory is ultimately proven true.

Common-sense Mainers can learn more by visiting David Dilley’s website. Just search for Videos of David Dilley-Is Climate Change Dangerous?

Michael Brakey

Gross Suppression Of Science …Former NOAA Meteorologist Says Employees “Were Cautioned Not To Talk About Natural Cycles”

Note: This has been updated to a sticky post (hence the dark background). New posts are below.

Former NOAA meteorologist David Dilley has submitted an essay below that has 2 parts: 1) How the government has been starving researchers who hold alternative opinions of funding, and 2) climate cycles show we are starting a cooling period.

Readers will recall that David Dilley is a 40-year meteorology veteran and the producer of the excellent video: “Is Climate Change Dangerous?“, which first was presented at NTZ. Since then the video has been viewed more than 10,000 times and the NTZ story shared in social media over 800 times.
==================================

DilleySuppressing the Truth – the Next Global Cooling Cycle

By David Dilley, former NOAA meteorologist

For over 15 years an inordinate proportion of government and corporate research grants have been awarded to universities for a single specific purpose: to prove human activities and the burning of fossil fuels are the main driving mechanisms causing global warming.

Unfortunately agendas by strong arm politics and the suppression of contrary views have become the primary tools used to manipulate the media, local and state governments (and in turn the general public) into believing what they want us to believe.

Many former research department heads, such as Dr. Reid Bryson (known as the Father of Climatology), openly state that research grants are driven by politics, and in order to receive a government grant you have to play the game. Topics for grants go with the political wind.

In the mid 1990s government grants were typically advertised in such a way to indicate that conclusions should show a connection to human activity as the cause for anthropogenic global warming. The result: most of the research published in journals became one-sided and this became the primary information tool for media outlets.

According to some university researchers who were former heads of their departments, if a university even mentioned natural cycles, they were either denied future grants, or lost grants. And it is common knowledge that United States government employees within NOAA were cautioned not to talk about natural cycles. It is well known that most university research departments live or die via the grant system. What a great way to manipulate researchers in Europe, Australia and the United States.

Disinvited, views suppressed

Not only governments manipulate, but so do some universities in order to protect their grants. A perfect example happened in 2012 when I contacted the Eagle Hill Institute in Steuben Maine USA to see if they would be interested in a climate change lecture. It should be noted that the institute has very close ties with the University of Maine. So I indicted that my lecture would involve information on natural climate cycles, and they responded saying, “That is fine.” Then In May of 2013 they asked me to speak at their lecture series on June 29th – an invitation that I accepted. They even consequently advertised the event and posted it on their online calendar.

All seemed well as I prepared for the lecture. But then came the manipulation and suppression of views. Just four days prior to the lecture, three people from the University of Maine viewed our web site (www.globalweatheroscillations.com). The next morning, just 3 days prior to the June 29th lecture, I received an email from Eagle Hill stating that my “lecture is canceled due to a staffing shortage”. Upon checking their web site, the calendar did show my lecture as being canceled, but carried the notation that “we hope to have a different lecture on the 29th”.

So what happened with the staffing shortage? A news service called “The Maine Wire interviewed the President of Eagle Hill, and he said that the University of Maine “felt some people in the audience may be uncomfortable hearing Mr. Dilley’s lecture”.

What did they want to hide from the public?

The IPCC and most anthropogenic believers want to maintain the belief that global warming during the past 100 years has been caused by human activity alone, and this is why most of their climate talks and lectures do not even mention prior global warming cycles.

The politically driven United Nations IPCC and United States global warming ruse will likely end up being one of the greatest scandals of the 21st century. If left unchecked it will continue to lead the world down a dangerous path that could jeopardize the lives of millions of people. Many have been led to believe the earth is heading into catastrophic global warming. Is this a political ruse, and will it likely blindside governments within the next few years? When it comes to climate, history does repeat itself.

Cooling has already begun

Alternating global warming and cooling cycles have historically occurred and ended like clockwork every 220 to 230 years, with nearly 4000 cycles occurring during the past half million years. The last global cooling cycle began around 1795, or about 220 years ago. If the time clock strikes on time as it has over and over again throughout history, the upcoming cooling cycle has already begun in the Arctic and Antarctic, as shown in my video, “Is Climate Change Dangerous?

Dilley_1Earth has experienced 5 global cooling cycles during the past 1,000 years (soon to be 6). The initial 20 to 40 years of a new global cooling cycle are historically the coldest period, and associated with the most rapid cooling (see attached graphic). If a large volcanic eruption occurs during this period, large amounts of sulfur dioxide will be emitted into the atmosphere with the cooling cycle being exacerbated by sulfate aerosols floating in the upper atmosphere (www.cas.org/science-connections/volcano). The sulfate aerosols are highly reflective and can cool the earth for 1 to 3 years, with the end result being a year of no summer in some regions of the world.

Major volcanoes during cooling periods

Of the past 5 cooling cycles dating back to 900 AD, 4 were associated with strong volcanic eruptions during the initial 15 to 25 years of the cooling cycles. The volcanic explosive index (VEI) for these eruptions were between 5 and 7 on a VEI scale ranging from 1 to 8. The last occurrence was in 1815, when VEI 6 Tambora erupted. The combination of this massive volcanic eruption occurring some 15 to 20 years into the new global cooling cycle was instrumental in causing the year of no summer in 1816. During the next several years, nearly one third of Europe perished from famine, plague and civil unrest. Back then the earth had a population of 1 billion to feed; today there are 7 billion.

Similar cooling cycles and eruptions occurred in the year 1600 when VEI 6 Huaynaputina (Peru) occurred about 20 years into the new cooling cycle. In 1350 Rangitoto (New Zealand) about 25 years into a cooling cycle, and in the year 834 Eldgja (Iceland) a great VEI 6 eruption occurred about 25 years into the new cooling cycle. The current global warming cycle is now ending.

Shouldn’t governments around the world be preparing for a major event that is by far more dangerous than any warming cycle could possibly be?

The Emissions Certificate Grand Scam. Spiegel: “The Money-Printing Machine” …”Three Quarters Led To Higher Emissions”!

The online Spiegel (SPON) here has a highly critical story on the scam of climate protection emission certificates and their trading.

The German renowned weekly writes that it may have sounded like a good idea in earlier times, however: “it often enriched only business dealmakers. A study now shows just how brash the tricks were on international climate projects.”

Emissions certificates are yet another classic example of how politicians, scientists and activists passed themselves on as experts on how to curtail emissions when it fact they had no clue and failed to think through the concept. As a result they created an embarrassing disaster that enriched a few swindlers and ended up creating the opposite of what they aimed for. Earlier critics were simply ignored or dismissed as fossil fuel hacks.” Now we are seeing that the “hacks” were right.

Emissions may have risen an estimated 600 million tonnes

According to Spiegel, the Stockholm Environment Institute commissioned the governments of Austria, Switzerland and Finland to study the effectiveness of the Joint Implementation (JI) climate protection instrument, which was the brainchild of Kyoto Protocol architects. The results of that study are now available, and they are extremely embarrassing to say the least.

Spiegel writes that the study shows “how messed up” the JI projects were:

About three quarters of the certificates led to even higher emissions.” […] Through the JI mechanism, global greenhouse gas emissions may have risen an estimated 600 million tonnes.”

The reason for the increase, Spiegel explains, is because many countries issued emissions certificates without even cutting back on any emissions. They were simply printing paper and selling these sheets of paper for real and big money. Countries that bought the certificates then used them to just emit more greenhouse gases. Naturally some few, select people in the middle ended up making big money.

Spiegel cites a result of the study:

About 73 percent of the emissions rights that the researchers studied resulted from measures that could have been carried out without the trading of certificates. ‘That’s printing money,’ says Vladyslav Zherzherin, a co-author of the study.”

At one point in its article Spiegel even writes of “absurd consequences” of the JI rules involving projects in Russia, for example some companies there increased their production of climate gases “in order to get good payments for curtailing them.”

In the meantime Russia has stated that it will not sign on to a new Kyoto Treaty, and so the money-printing machine there has stopped.

According to Spiegel, as a consequence the authors of the study are now calling for “an effective international monitoring of the transfer of emission permit” as part of a new deal in Paris.

What can we gather from all this? There still remains tonnes of easy money to be made in the climate scam. You just need to be connected to the right people.

Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball On 97% Consensus: “Completely False And Was Deliberately Manufactured”!

Ball, Dr. TimCanadian climate scientist Dr. Tim Ball recently published a new book on climate science: The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science. What follows later (below) is a short interview with Dr. Ball.

“Government propaganda” …”corrupt science” 

In the book Ball writes that the failed predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), coupled with failed alarmist stories such as the complete loss of Arctic sea ice by 2013, are making the public increasingly skeptical of government propaganda about global warming. People were already skeptical because they knew weather forecasts, especially beyond forty-eight hours, were invariably wrong, and so today more people understand there is no substance to global warming claims and that it is based on corrupt science. Now they are asking: Who perpetrated the deception and could a small group of people deceive the world?

In his book The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science” Dr. Ball explains who did it and why.

Ball was among the earlier dissidents and as a result he became the target of media articles and false information promoted by a scurrilous website funded by a chairman of a large environmental foundation. He was a real threat because they couldn’t say he wasn’t qualified.

Dr. Ball has been the subject of three lawsuits from a lawyer operating in British Columbia. For the first one, he decided to avoid the expense of a challenge and so he withdrew what he had written. Then, within nine days, he received two more from the same lawyer suing for defamation because of harsh criticism he made of a climate scientist. At that point, he and his family decided they had to fight back.

As Ball carries on his legal battle he maintains that climate deception continues and that the public is paying a high price for completely unnecessary energy and economic policies based on the pseudoscience of the IPCC. Not to mention the social devastation of communities devastated by job losses.

“Their last effective chance”

Dr. Balls say the rhetoric and stream of misinformation increases as the perpetrators, now including the Pope, build up to their last effective chance to influence an increasingly skeptical world. When the Global Warming theme failed, they tried Climate Change. The Climate Change theme has failed, so now they are trying Climate Disruption as defined by President Obama’s science Czar, John Holdren—all to justify expensive government programs. The impetus for a global carbon tax and global governance represent the central theme of a climate conference scheduled for Paris in December 2015, the United Nations Climate Change Conference or COP21.

INTERVIEW

What follows are some questions that Dr. Ball kindly answered:

What scientific reason do you think CO2’s role is far less?

Water vapor is 95% of the total greenhouse gases by volume, while CO2 is approximately 4%. The human portion is only 3.4% of the total CO2. They try to claim CO2 is more effective, but it’s a false claim called “climate sensitivity”. The number the IPCC use for sensitivity has constantly declined and will reach zero.

What factor has been the most responsible for the warming over the past 25 years?

The same factor as it has always been, changes in the sun. The IPCC dismiss the sun because they only look at variation in radiative output, but that is only one of three ways the Sun affects global climate.

What do you think the global temperature will do over the next few decades?

Decline. The major short-term control of global temperature is variation in the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field. As it varies it determines the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the Earth. The cosmic radiation creates cloud in the lower atmosphere and it, like a shutter in the greenhouse it determines the sunlight reaching the surface and therefore the temperature.

What do you think of the claimed “97% consensus”?

It is completely false and was deliberately manufactured by John Cook at the University of Queensland. There are more detailed analyses of the corruption but this is the best layman’s account. www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how honest have the major climate institutes been with the public?

-10. If they knew what was wrong it is deliberate and criminal. If they didn’t know they are grossly incompetent. 

Other comments by Dr. Ball:

The biggest problem for the public is they can’t believe that an apparent majority of scientists seem to support the IPCC science. The simple answer is, very few are familiar with the science. They, like most of the public, assume other scientists would not distort, manipulate, or do anything other than proper science. When scientists find out, they are shocked, as exemplified in German meteorologist Klaus-Eckert Puls’s comment:

“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data—first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”

 

The North Atlantic Ice Age No One Wants To Acknowledge: “Record Snow” In Sweden In August …”Never Seen So Much Snow At This Time”!

Sweden residents can’t remember seeing so much snow in August since the 1960s. Villagers can’t remember there’s ever been so much snow left at this time. “It should have been gone by now but it’s not.” “More snow than bare ground.”

Without end the public have been hearing about the above normal temperatures in Europe this summer. But all this talk has been misleading. When someone drives your face down only millimeters away from a gravel surface, then unsurprisingly the whole world starts looking like gravel. This is the tactic used by the media lately.

It turns out of course that the warm European summer has been limited more to central and southeastern Europe. The media refuses to talk about what has been going on over a vast North Atlantic region spanning from Greenland to Great Briatain, and across Scandinavia.

Luckily German website wobleibtdieerderwaermung (wherestheglobalwarming) give us the rest of the picture.

It turns out northern Europe has been downright frigid this summer, and the future looks pretty bleak.

The German site writes:

The cold summer that has gripped foremost northern and western Europe in 2015 has resulted in record snow heights on the mountains surrounding the Swedish winter sports resort “Klimpfjäll” in the southernmost part of the Lappland province, as WeatherAction News Blog reports.”

Schneerekord im August 2015 auf dem schwedischen Berg

Record snow in August 2015 on the mountains “Klimpfjäll” in Sweden. Image source: www.klimpfjalladventure.com/.

The older residents in the mountain region can’t remember seeing so much snow in August since the 1960s. The mountains have an elevation of 1400 to 1600 meters, i.e. similar to Denver.

WeatherAction News Blog reports on Sweden this summer:

A very unique situation, say the residents in the area.

The approaching autumn, and still do not have the snow melting away on the mountains. Villagers in Klimpfjäll cannot remember there ever been so much snow left at this time.

‘I’ve plowed this since the 60s and this much snow has never been there. It should have been gone by now but it’s not,’ says Agne Eliasson in Klimpfjäll.”

Swedish Västerbotten site here reports:

Snow drifts in the low mountain should normally be gone now. Go towards the Norwegian border to the west at 1100 meters altitude, then there is more snow than bare ground.”

Of course the icy August cold is not limited to Scandinavia.

Iceland sees coldest summer in 20 years

Earlier NTZ reported here that Iceland had been experiencing one of its coldest summers in 20 years.

Met Office meteorologist Páll Bergþórsson suspected already in April 2015 that the cold was not an isolated event, but the start of a significant cold period.

If this holds, expect this to have major implications on Arctic sea ice in the years ahead.

Record cold in Great Britain

Also Paul Homewood reported at his site that Ireland and Great Britain are experiencing a cool summer of 2015. wobleibtdieerderwaerming writes that Great Britain saw some of its coldest July nights in many years. Southern England saw an overnight low of only 1°C, which was the coldest measured temperature ever observed on the first of August.

Scotland sees “hats, scarves and gloves” – in July!

The Scotsman here reports of “hats, scarves and gloves in July in one of the most dismal summers in living memory. It adds: “It’s the second time this month snow has been forecast.” Remember, it’s the peak of summer!

The Mail here writes that in the Scottish Highlands there are more remaining snow patches than have been seen for 20 years.

Approaching the North Atlantic Ice Age

Unfortunately the data do not support the notion that these are mere temporary weather developments. Rather experts are warning that it may be the start of an unpleasant cold pattern with serious consequences for Europe – a continent that has (foolishly?) rushed into preparations for warmer long-term temperatures. For years a number of meteorologists and climate experts have been warning that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) was beginning its cooling phase and that this would usher cooler temperatures.

North Atlantic sea surface temperature data have been worrisome. They show that June and July of 2015 have seen the lowest temperature in 14 years:

Die Grafik zeigt Abweichungen der Meeresoberflächentemperaturen (SSTA) im Nordatlantik mit den tiefsten EWerten seit 14 Jahren im Juni und Juli 2015. Quelle:

North Atlantic sea surface temperature anomalies using the WMO 1981-2010 climate mean. Source: www.climate4you.com/.

The next few years will tell us whether or not that trend will continue, or be reversed. Experts are less than optimistic.

 

Study: German Scientists Conclude 20th Century Warming “Nothing Unusual” …Foresee “Global Cooling Until 2080″!

The Die kalte Sonne site here features a worrisome essay by German climate scientists Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, Dr. Alexander Hempelmann and Carl Otto Weiss. They carefully examined climate changes of the past and have found that the recent changes (of the last 40 years are nothing out of the ordinary and that we need to worry about a global cooling that will persist until 2080.

They published 2 papers on the subject in the journal European Geophysical Union (EGU) [2], [3]. According to the 2 scientists, climate is often cyclic. The first study appeared in February 2013 and it examined six of the longest existing thermometer data series recorded in Europe, as well as one dataset from an Antarctic ice core and another from a data series extracted from stalagmites. The datasets were covered the period of 1757 – 2010.

The second publication appeared in February 2015 and it examines the past 2500 years.

The last 2500 years

The analysis of the past 2500 years involved data from tree rings, sediment cores, stalagmites, etc. A plot of the data yields a climate operating with cyclic behavior.

Figure 1: Temperature changes of the past 2500 years (with linear regression). 

Compared to the maxima and minima of the past, the current minima and maxima show that there is nothing unusual happening today. The scientists say today’s temperature changes are within the normal range. The German authors write: “Especially the 20th century shows nothing out of the ordinary.”

Figure 2: Sinusoidal representation of solar activity and 3 proxy datasets. Red: solar activity using 10Be proxy, Sine period = 208 years, correlation 0.68. Green: Büntgen data series [4], Sine period= 186 years, correlation 0.49. Brown: Christiansen/Ljungqvist  data series [5], sine period = 189 years, correlation 0.58. Blue: Cook data series [6], sine period= 201 years, correlation 0.41.

Global cooling next 60 years

The German scientists write that one result of the well established cyclic behavior over the past 2500 years is that it is justified to assume that the De Vries / Suess solar cycle will continue in the future.

They write that this means that “global cooling is to be expected over the next 60 years (Figure 3)“.

Figure 3: Sinusoidal behavior shown from the datasets by Christiansen/Ljungqvist [5] (brown) and Büntgen [4] (green) together with the Antarctic series [7] (blue) confirms that the De Vries / Suess cycle acts globally and that cooling is to be expected for the future.

“No trace of aperiodic effects”

Lüdecke, Hempelmann and Weiss also examined the oldest existing thermometer datasets going back some 250 years [2] taken at the locations of Kremsmünster, Vienna, Prague, Hohenpeißenberg, Munich and Paris. Their study also included ice cores and stalagmite datasets, which the scientists say “show exclusively periodic climate changes in fine detail. There is no trace of aperiodic effects, such as from the continuously rising CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (Figure 4).”

Figure 4: Central Europe temperature (black, smoothed, agrees with the Antarctic temperatures) and the sum of the 6 strongest cycles (red), as found with the cycle analysis of the black curve. The perfect agreement between red and black shows that non-cyclic impacts (such as the steadily increasing atmospheric CO2) play no role for the temperature. Only the cycles correctly reflect the measured temperatures.

Globe may cool to 1870 levels!

The German trio of scientists says the 0.7°C of warming occurring since the late 19th century is the result of the increase in the De Vries / Suess solar cycle and that the well-known oceanic AMO/PDO oscillations can also be seen. “These two cycles practically determine by themselves the earth’s temperature.”

The scientists add that the “pause“ in global warming is caused by the AMO/PDO, which has been on the decline since 2000. The De Vries / Suess solar cycle allows a general cooling up to the year 2080 to be predicted and that the global temperature will reach a level last seen in 1870.

“Results have been confirmed”

Strong doubts will certainly be fired at the findings by Lüdecke, Hempelmann and Weiss. But they remind us that in the solar physics literature other authors have already used their findings and arrive at practically the same conclusions (see the footnotes at the end of their two papers). The three German scientists sharply criticize the IPCC for refusing to acknowledge the sun as an obvious driver of the global climate.

Finally the German scietists say that in view of the increase in CO2 seen thus far, 50% of the temperature increase expected to happen by 2100 should have taken place by now – if such a CO2 warming were true. The scientists say that the way things stand now, if the CO2 effect were real, the future warming up to the year 2100 could be at most 0.7 °C.

Literature

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovi%C4%87-Zyklen

[2]  H.-J. Luedecke, A. Hempelmann, and C. O. Weiss:  Multi-periodic climate dynamics: spectral analysis of long term instrumental and proxy temperature records, Clim. Past 9, 447 – 452 ( 2013 );  http://www.clim-past.net/9/447/2013/cp-9-447-2013.pdf

[3] H.-J. Luedecke, C. O. Weiss, and H.Hempelmann:  Paleoclimate forcing by the solar De Vries / Suess cycle, Clim. Past Discuss. 11, 279 (2015);  http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/11/279/2015/cpd-11-279-2015.pdf

[4] U. Büntgen et al., Science, 331, 4. Feb. 2011

[5] B: Christiansen and F. C. Ljungqvist, Clim. Past., 8, 765 – 786 (2012)

[6] E. R. Cook et al., Clim. Dynam., 16, 79 – 91 (2000)

[7] W. Graf et al., Ann. Glaciol., 35, 195 – 201 (2002)

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

 

Simulation: German Physicists Warn Of Blackouts From Smart Meters …Power Market May Be “Wild, Chaotic And Fidgety”!

A few weeks ago the University of Bremen put out a damning press release on smart meters, which are intended to save power and to balance out supply and demand.

Scientists at the University of Bremen looked at how markets and the power grid would react to their use. Since 2010 these smart meters have been mandatory for new buildings and for those being renovated. The meters are designed to recognize the lowest electricity rates and thus allow programmable appliances to switch on automatically.

The press release writes:

Scientists at the Institute for Theoretical of the University of Bremen, however, are expressing doubts that the approach will actually deliver what it promises – namely reducing power fluctuations in the grid. They simulated a market that uses intelligent power meters and have reached a surprising result: The intelligent power meters will produce an artificial power market that – as is the case with all markets – that can also produce bubbles and even crashes. The Bremen physicists published their results in the largest and oldest physics journal of the world, the Physical Review of the American Physical Society.”

As more and more solar and wind energy gets fed into the European power grid, the power fluctuations have become more pronounced. The smart grid and meters are intended to even out the fluctuations. The University of Bremen press release writes that when the wind blows, the extra power added to the grid will make the prices fall and thus lead to more appliances turning on to take advantage of the low rates. For example a homeowner will have the possibility of programming his washing machine to turn on as soon as a certain low price level is reached. Thus theoretically the market will be ruled by the economic law of supply and demand. Sounds good.

But Professor Stefan Bornholdt of the Institute for theoretical Physics of the University of Bremen sees major obstacles and warns that it will not be that simple, saying “the standard theory of supply and demand is however incomplete when a huge number of consumers compete at the same time for the best price.“ Their computer simulations show things likely will not happen like as they should. The press release writes:

They simulated the competition between consumers with the computer and discovered that in this newly created power market segment things could become ‘chaotic, wild and fidgety’ – just like in the financial markets.”

They provide an example:

‘When there is little power in the grid and the price as a result is high, then washing will simply be put off. But that cannot be the case forever because washing is a basic necessity,’ explains Stefan Bornholdt. ‘The more preprogrammed machines you have waiting for their start, the greater the potential demand rises: A demand bubble forms.’ And it pops as soon as the price again drops a bit more: Because many consumers will suddenly start countless washing machines all at once because they will have reprogrammed upward because of they will have reached their threshold of pain with backed up washing needs. ‘This will spark a collective avalanche mechanism that will burden the power grid extremely – blackouts due to unexpected overloads cannot be excluded,’ says the Bremen physicist.”

The team of physicists says that the massive use of new intelligent power meters was “a hasty decision that had been poorly thought through“.

 

New Study On 20th Century Sea Level Rise Signals That IPCC 21st Century Projections May Be Grotesquely Overblown

Germany’s University of Siegen issued a press release on a recent study conducted by climate scientists. It turns out that natural oceanic cycles indeed do play a far greater role on sea level fluctuations than first believed.

Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne.

Therefore, because the factors were not correctly considered in the past, we can immediately conclude that the scary projections made by the IPCC for the 21st century were falsely calculated and are thus likely grotesquely exaggerated.

What follows is the University of Siegen press release, which I’ve translated in English.
=========================================

Natural Sea Level Fluctuations Underestimated

University of Siegen study shows: The effects of natural ocean cycles on sea level changes is greater than first believed

Scientists all agree that global mean sea level rose by 14 to 21 cm since 1900. Up to now everyone assumed that the largest part of the rise was connected to man-made climate change. However a new calculation by a team of scientists led by German scientist Dr. Sönke Dangendorf of the Water and Environment Institute (fwu) of the University of Siegen now shows the causal uncertainties are much greater than previously assumed. The effects of natural ocean cycles on sea level is thus greater than first believed.

Dangendorf“The uncertainties on the causes of the observed sea level rise since 1900 published up to now fluctuate between 2 and 3 cm. Earlier about 90% of the sea level rise was attributed to anthropogenic effects, i.e. caused by man. These figures are based on the assumption that naturally caused fluctuations in the ocean last merely a few years, and thus explain only a very small part of the observed rise. The latest results however shows that the natural ocean cycles even can persist over decades or centuries. Therefore we can no longer exclude that natural fluctuations may have contributed up to ±8 cm to the observed sea level rise,” says Dangendorf (photo). The results have been published in renowned journal “Nature Communications”.

In its 5th assessment report in 2014 the IPCC summarized that ocean heating and melting of glaciers explain about 80% of the observed sea level rise since 1900. On the other hand the share by the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets over the said time period still remains uncertain. What’s clear is that neither ocean warming nor the glacier melting can be traced back 100% to anthropogenic effects. Eduardo Zorita, coauthor and scientist at the Helmholtz Center in Geesthacht, adds: “From earlier studies we know that a considerable share of the glacier contribution over the past centuries results from the Little Ice Age and only 50% are connected to anthropogenic factors. Due to insufficient measurements the man-made share of oceanic warming is known only over the past decades, where it reached about 90 percent of the entire warming. It is in any case improbable that the anthropogenic effect was more than 50 or 60% over the entire 20th century because the greenhouse gas emissions accelerated significantly during this period.

[It needs to be pointed out that man may be blamed for ocean warming only if it is proven that man was responsible for the overall global warming to begin with. This is hotly disputed as there is strong evidence of natural factors behind global warming.]

Tide gauges measuring the water level along the coasts are the main sources of data on past sea level changes. One problem these gauges have, however, is that in addition to the effects of oceanic warming and glacier melt they also measure local wind-induced mass redistributions. It’s a fact that these fluctuations dominate the sea level signal over short timescales. Dr. Alfred Müller, coauthor and professor of mathematics at the University of Siegen, argues: “Wind signals mask all long-term changes – not only those anthropogenic, but also natural ocean cycles. In the past this resulted in almost the entire sea level rise being attributed to anthropogenic effects.”

The scientists selected a new approach with which they analyzed the single components of the measured signal separately. As a result this allowed a more precise description of natural variability. “Using our methodology we reach the conclusion that the minimum anthropogenic part of sea level rise since 1900 is about 45%. This number is smaller than assumed previously, but in any case it agrees better with independent studies on single components (e.g. ocean warming, glacier melt),” Dangendorf summarizes. “Also if the values are less than previously assumed, it is important to point out that a significant part of the rise is attributable to anthropogenic effects,” says Dr. Jürgen Jensen, coauthor and professor of hydromechanics and water engineering at the University of Siegen: “For this reason, and in order to minimize the uncertainties in future projections, it is extremely important that we better understand the individual components as well as the natural and anthropogenic factors.”

Reference:
Dangendorf, S., Marcos, M., Müller, A., Zorita, E., Riva, R.E.M., Berk, K., Jensen, J. (2015): Detecting anthropogenic footprints in sea level rise, Nature Communications, doi:10.1038/ncomms884

Photo credit: University of Siegen

Top German Scientist Bluntly Criticizes Splinter Branch Of Science Attempting To Hijack Global Policymaking!

At his Klimazwiebel website, Hans von Storch, a climatologist for more than 40 years and a director of the Institute of Coastal Research for over 20 years, writes of how last June at a symposium in Nottingham he was asked to comment on his view of the role of science in society.

A dean of German climate science, von Storch has long been a vocal critic of a cabal of climate scientists who are venturing beyond their fields and attempting to seize the role of deciding policy for society. He maintains that scientists are simply not qualified to run the world, even though many have deluded themselves into thinking that they are. Lately a limited group of climate scientists have been demanding a rapid and radical transformation of global society.

Von Storch warns that science is always on the verge of error: “Scientific knowledge represents a resource for the public, in making-sense of complex developments and perspectives, in decision making.” He also says that science must always “be prepared to revise its understanding when new observations arrive, or if contradictions in the present understanding are unveiled“.

He warns against dismissing those who challenge science: “Attempting falsification is a necessary step to add plausibility of scientific knowledge”.

He warns of the consequences of abusing science to promote personal agendas: “…by renouncing attempts of falsification, by failing to implement the scientific method (and norms a la Merton), by using the knowledge for the promotion of specific societal interests, this capital science is spent“.

Von Storch says scientists should not venture beyond their fields because in truth they are “Fachidioten” [nerds], a German term for “narrow specialists, i.e. nerd”, and that scientists should not let their arrogance get the best of them. He says these nerds “know their narrow field particularly well; their understanding of other fields, which are also of great importance for a societal problem, {but that it] is as good as that of as any hairdresser, taxi-driver and journalist“.

The veteran German climatologist reminds us that scientists are also just normal citizens and so they “should not use the capital of science as an argument supporting own preferences“. He describes an environment where some scientists are abusing their status and how the public “is getting ‘resistant’ to the cacophony of newest scientific claims that this-or-that catastrophic development if this-and-that is not done“.

He says there is a need for “improving the relationship between science and policy” and that science needs to be “re-scientized” and policy needs to be “re-politicized”.

On the role of science in society, Hans von Storch writes

Science is supposed to provide best explanations of complex developments, independent if these explanations support one political preference on another. Policy, on the other hand, is supposed to take decisions, with all consequences for all aspects of the real world, which are acceptable for the public – in terms of values, preferences, and perceptions.”

In other words, scientists, like everyone else, have the right to express their opinions on issues, but they must avoid actively deciding policy, and threatening terrible consequences if policymakers decide otherwise.

At the end von Storch says “Different scientific quarters provide constraints for different components of the real world. Eventually, however, political decisions are balancing societal preferences and values, and the role of science is and must be limited“.

Read his comment in full here.

 

Study Results Showing Phytoplankton Coping Far Better Than Expected Embarrass Greenpeace!

Phytoplankton coping better than expected with ocean acidification

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof: Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated, edited by P Gosselin]

Five years ago Greenpeace painted climate doom and gloom on the wall. Supposedly ocean acidification was posing a threat to the phytoplankton and thuswas a danger to the food supply for all sea life. In addition to its importance for nourishing sea life, the tiny algae are also one of the most important producers of oxygen. Estimates peg its contribution to the oxygen content of our atmosphere somewhere between 50 and 80 percent. Moreover they absorb huge amounts of carbon dioxide.

In July 2010 Sibylle Zollinger of the Greenpeace website warned:

Climate change: ocean acidification damaging plankton.
For a second time, this summer Greenpeace traveled to the Arctic together with independent scientists. In one of the biggest European experiments, researchers from 12 nations investigated the consequences of ocean acidification over the past 6 weeks. Their conclusion: rising greenhouse gas emissions are having an unexpected powerful impact on plankton. […] At the so-called Mesokosmen – the world’s largest test tube – various degrees of ocean acidification were simulated. Greenpeace ship Esperanza will be bringing it back to Kiel this week. How is sea life in the Arctic coping with the lower pH value? What has been changing in the ecosystem? These were the questions that the largest collection of data concerning ocean acidification is seeking to answer. The results will evaluated and interpreted over the coming weeks. The first results, however, already show huge impacts: The phytoplankton, for example the diatom, is reproducing more slowly when the ocean is acidic Because these plankton are at the very bottom of the food chain, this may have massive consequences for the entire food supply and for the ecosystem.”

It is a good thing that scientists are looking into this. But what is not so good is that Greenpeace already announced “results” from the scientific expedition before any data had been evaluated and interpreted. This is an unscientific approach. Naturally there is a desire to produce big headlines, especially when the expensive Greenpeace ship was made available to the scientists. But that does not mean that proper scientific procedure can be thrown overboard and the title of a press release can claim a result that is not even at hand.

This is especially dubious because since then robust results have become available, and they happen to point to the opposite picture of what Greenpeace hastily claimed. On July 10, 2015, the University of Edinburgh announced the research results in a press release: the phytoplankton have a a far better ability to adapt to rising CO2 concentrations than what was previously assumed. A team of researchers led by C-Elisa Schaum grew more than 400 generations of the tiny algae under CO2 conditions that are projected to be seen in the year 2100. Here the plankton performed splendidly. The paper appeared in the ISME Journal of the Nature family of journals.

Here’s the press release from the University of Edinburgh:

Algae to cope well in climate change

Marine algae with a key role in supporting life on Earth may be better equipped to deal with climate change than expected, research shows.

Scientists investigated the likely future impact of changing environmental conditions on ocean phytoplankton, a microscopic plant that forms the basis of all the oceans’ food chains. Phytoplankton is important for absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, while generating much of the oxygen needed to sustain life on Earth. The study grew phytoplankton at the high carbon dioxide levels predicted for the year 2100 and beyond. The algae was allowed to evolve through 400 generations, with some exposed to varying levels of CO2 and some kept at constant CO2 levels.

Researchers found that phytoplankton exposed to fluctuating CO2 levels was better able to cope with further changes in conditions, compared with algae grown in stable CO2 levels. The finding suggests that populations of the algae will adapt more to the varied conditions expected in future than was previously thought based on experiments at stable conditions. Scientists found however that the algae developed in changing CO2 conditions evolved more and were smaller than those grown in stable conditions. These factors may impact on how well marine animals can feed off phytoplankton, and how efficiently the algae is able to take carbon out of the atmosphere and sink to the deep ocean.

Plankton in some regions of the ocean may evolve more than others under global climate change, because some regions of ocean are currently more variable than others. The studies, published in the International Society for Microbial Ecology journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society B, were supported by the Royal Society, the European Commission, and the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance.

Dr Sinead Collins, School of Biological Sciences: “Predicting how populations of ocean algae will respond to changing ocean conditions is difficult, but these results suggest that populations from highly changeable environments are better placed to deal with additional environmental change than previously suspected.”

For Quality Life, Health And Virility, Ignore The Decades-Long Scientific Medical Consensus On Nutrition

UPDATE: Some have been claiming that I’m on a so-called paleo-diet. But that is not accurate. I guess I may be on something that resembles to a significant extent a paleo-diet, but it is not. I eat a fair amount of dairy products, which cavepeople didn’t eat. I thought the following was interesting: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-paleo-diet-has-it-wrong-cavemen-did-eat-carbs-2015-08-18.
==================================

Something totally different today, but I think it will surely benefit some readers here who are not yet aware. If it changes the life of just one person, then it’s worth it.

Many readers know that I changed my diet some 15 months ago – as a result of a paper that was published last year and a video DirkH posted in a comment.

In a nutshell, all the national dietary guidelines promoting the low-fat, high-carb diet (yes, all endorsed by a universal medical scientific consensus) have been dead wrong for decades. In turns out that saturated fat, meat and eggs are in fact not dangerous – rather they, and many other often demonized foods, are in fact healthy and essential for good health.

You can’t go anywhere today without seeing suffering

So what has been the result of our modern, western enlightened populations being fooled decades long into thinking that low-fat, high-carb diet is healthy? Just look around you. Today we are seeing an unprecedented, mass-scale epidemic of heart disease, obesity, diabetes and cancer. You can’t go anywhere without seeing people in public who are dragging themselves around and suffering immensely. Sadly many children are now severely afflicted.

Today I am convinced that at least half of the pharmaceutical industry owes its existence to this decades-long nutrition disinformation, one that I believe they have been actively complicit in promoting. A lot of executives and doctors should have been locked up long ago.

Tens of billions made with Viagra

Many readers here are grown men, and so I thought this site and the excerpts that follow would interest them. There’s nothing to buy here – it’s free information – and I agree with the dietary recommendations they make 100%. Big Pharma does not want you to know it. They want to pump you up with statins, beta blockers, Viagra, anti-depressants, etc. etc. etc.

So gentlemen, here you go. The site writes:

1. “Losing body fat, especially belly fat, is a primary method for increasing testosterone naturally.”

Losing fat is easy. Simply switch to a high-fat, low-carb diet. Carbs make you fat, and not fat. See below.

2. Strength training gives you many benefits: stronger muscles; a higher metabolic rate; a leaner body; and a higher testosterone level. Exercising large muscle groups has been shown, through studies, to increase your testosterone levels.”

Moreover:

3. “…you’ve been inundated with misinformation about cholesterol and fat. A testosterone-friendly diet will seem to fly in the face of everything you’ve heard from your doctor, the federal government, the American Heart Association, and every magazine health article written for the past four decades. …your doctor, the federal government, the American Heart Association and every magazine health article is wrong. Your body produces all the cholesterol you use, and the bulk of what you eat goes straight through you.

Here’s another shocker: fat DOES NOT make you fat. Because everyone purporting to be a diet expert has said, ad nauseam, to restrict your calories, fat has gotten the same bad rap as cholesterol. Fat is higher in calories, per serving, than most foods; however, your body NEEDS high quality fat to be healthy.”

Saturated fats are not the Devil’s spawn, either; naturally saturated fats are necessary for your body to produce hormones, and these hormones are necessary for proper metabolic processes to occur.”

The next one is the toughest, but is very important: Stay away from “healthy whole grain” bread!

4. The tinkering with genetics has led to some bad side effects, with the worst one being the grains make you overeat. Also, a high-carb diet is usually high in processed carbs, so they are death to your blood sugar and a ticket to type II diabetes.”

The site summarizes:

5. “These methods of natural ways to boost testosterone will increase your health overall, and give you back the energy you had when you were in your teens and twenties, as well as giving you back your libido.”

I’ve received some e-mails from some readers who told me of the vast improvements in health they have seen since they’ve changed their nutrition, and I think they will second me on all this. My diet, which now consists mainly of Kerrygold butter, cheese, eggs, meats, vegetables berries, fruits, etc. (and very little in the way of grains) has led me to lose the 20 lbs of excess weight I had been carrying around, my blood pressure to be back to normal, and my energy levels to multiply. So all the claims made at the linked site all ring true.

Give it a try. Not only will you appreciate the immense health improvements, but so will your better half.

Must see:

The Oiling of America
ILLUMINATI Food Creating CRIMINALS
A/Prof. Ken Sikaris
Fat Chance: Fructose 2.0

Not only Big Pharma has been rotten on this, but also Big Food has played an equally devious role in the current health crisis.

 

NASA: Sahara Dust And “Below Average Sea Surface Temperatures” Putting The Brakes On Hurricanes

At the online Spiegel magazine here science journalist and geology major Axel Bojanowski features his “Photo of the Week”, which this week shows a dust storm blowing across the East Atlantic off the African Sahara.

Dust Storm off Western Sahara

The above photo is provided by NASA Earth Observatory, taken by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra satellite. It shows dust sweeping off the coast of Western Sahara and Morocco on August 7, 2015.

NASA writes that this is just one of several outbreaks of Saharan dust that have occurred over the Atlantic this summer. The US space agency adds this is even a positive effect on the hurricane season, in combination with another factor (my emphasis):

While several factors influence hurricane formation, some research suggests that plumes of dry Saharan dust may help suppress storms over the Atlantic Ocean. In a recent update to its hurricane outlook for the Atlantic Basin, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center said a below-normal season appeared even more likely than it did in May. A strengthening El Niño, an atmospheric environment conducive to strong wind shear, and below average sea-surface temperatures in the Atlantic were cited as the primary factors limiting hurricane development. Dust outbreaks were not included as a factor because of their unpredictability, according to reporting by The Palm Beach Post.

Not only is the Saharan dust playing a role on dampening the Atlantic hurricane season, it is also transporting rich nutrients that are fertilizing the ocean, the Canary Islands and even the Caribbean and South American jungle, Spiegel writes.

 

Wind Turbine Chops Off Beak Of White Stork …Injuries So Severe It Had To Be Euthanized

Bernd Atzenroth of central Germany’s online Märkische Allgemeine Zeitung (MAZ) reports on how a stork had its beak and main feathers chopped off by a wind turbine blade. So severe were the bird’s injuries that the animal had to be euthanized.

Photo of gruesomely injured bird

According to the online news site, the town of Struck is the location of a wildlife rescue center where injured animals are brought in for care.  Sadly the MAZ writes: “On Friday it was a stork, but it could not be treated – that’s how bad the injuries were.”

The site features a photo of the gruesomely injured bird. If you’re looking for a poster-child for depicting the hazards of wind turbines to wildlife, this is it.

The MAZ describes the reaction of the directors at the wildlife rescue center:

Angie and Uwe Löblich of the wildlife rescue center in Struck are used to seeing a lot. But the appearance of a stork that had been delivered to them on Friday left them speechless. We were struck with horror to see that the white stork was missing almost half of its beak, likely it had been chopped off by a nearby wind turbine.’ Also the left main feathers were missing. ‘The beak and the main feathers had been cleanly chopped off, and there is no doubt that it must have flown into a wind turbine,’ Angie Löblich is certain.”

Nature conservation groups playing down the hazard

One might think that nature conservation groups would be alarmed and outraged by the incident, especially in view of the fact that worldwide wind turbines kill an estimated millions of birds and bats annually. But this is hardly the case. For example Germany’s flagship nature conservation group NABU plays down the problem, maintaining that it is small compared to the hazards created by automobiles. According to the MAZ, NABU continues its staunch support of wind energy and believes the problem can be solved with planning.

Rare, protected species falling victim

The MAZ writes that this stork was hardly the first victim and describes a crane having part of its head chopped off, and of multiple birds dying at the rescue center or having to be euthanized shortly after their arrival. Included among the victims of wind turbines are rare and protected birds such as the honey buzzard, goshawk and Red Kite.

“We Are Now Starting To See A Dramatic Cooling In The Arctic”, Says Former NOAA Meteorologist …”Extremely Cold” From 2025 To 2050!

Trillions are being spent on the completely wrong scenario, an independent veteran meteorologist implies. Instead of warming, we need to worry about the coming 125-year cool period, which has already begun.

A former National Weather Service (NWS) meteorologist has spoken out in a just released 49-minute video that looks at climate change and what lies ahead.

DilleyThe recent cold winters and expanding polar ice caps are ominous signs of a global cooling that has already begun, maintains David Dilley, now President and Founder of Global Weather Oscillations, Inc. Claims of warming have not been properly founded.

Photo right: David Dilley, Global Weather Oscillations

Dilley has forty-two years of professional experience in the meteorology and climatology and many publications. He was with NOAA for twenty years. Not only is the government wrong with its claims of a coming warming, Dilley accuses the federal government of fiddling with global temperature data with the aim of producing a false picture of what is going on.

In his must-see video presentation dubbed “Is Climate Change Dangerous?“, he examines the many drivers and factors behind climate change and why we need to focus on the real problem of a coming cooling.

Here are the points he makes in the video:

1. The 18+ years temperature pause is real. (4.09)
2. Natural cycles are behind the current pause.
3. Ice cores show CO2 lags temperature. (5.00)
4. 7000 years ago there was 50% less Arctic ice. (8.20)
5. The 1000-year cycle is real. (9.20)
6. Planet has been cooling over past 10,000 years. (9.34)
7. Natural cycles are driving our climate. (10.04)
8. Shows cooling from 2023 to 2150.
9. Current warming is perfectly natural.
10. Milankovitch cycles driving large-scale cycles. (13.00)
11. Gravitational forces can bulge Earth’s core by 1.4 km (15.35)
12. Gravitational forces impact global temperature (17.20)
13. Warming and cooling both begin at the poles (17.48)
14. Arctic warming/melt was caused by warm ocean pulses (19.50)
15. “Now starting to see a dramatic cooling in the Arctic“. (22.50)
16. “Arctic is cooling rapidly now. Rapidly!” (24.06)
17. Both poles are cooling rapidly now. (25.05(
18. Poles don’t show signs of warming. (26.30)
19. Western drought and Eastern cold due to 26-year cycle. (27.55)
20. Polar vortices due to Arctic/global cooling. (29.25)
21. Lunar cycles correlated with warming/cooling cycles. (31.30)
22. Rapid global cooling by 2019. (32.00)
23. “Temperature fiddling” are “more political than anything”. (32.56)
24. “Could be the biggest scientific scandal ever”. (33.20)
25. IPCC using “estimated temperatures”. (34.00)
26. How the government manipulated, rewrote data. (36.00)
27. “This is temperature fiddling.” Not the truth. (36.45)
28. NASA, NOAA’s “politically driven press releases”. (37.00)
29. Met Office calls NOAA’s 2014 claim untrue. (38.00)
30. Major data fiddling, cheating by NOAA. (39.50)
31. “The 97% consensus is bogus”. (41.00)
32. John Cook cooked the consensus data. (41.30)
33. 85% meteorologists say climate change is natural. (42.20)
34. Global cooling is the real danger. (43.20)
35. Volcanoes and cooling often correlated. (44.00)
36. Crop failures from cooling “very likely”. (45.45)
37. “Extremely cold” from 2025 to 2050. (46.36)
38. Global cooling next 125 years. (47.00)
39. “The cooling is coming”.

Recovery Day

I just got back to Germany earlier today after spending 2 weeks out in the states. The overnight transatlantic flights after such a period always give me major jetlag. I’m not the type that sleeps on planes and I don’t cope well at all with the time shifts.

Lots of photos here to tell you what I’m feeling right now. I’m struggling just to keep awake, which I plan to do until 9 pm. I have to keep moving outside in the fresh air. If I sit down for even just a couple of minutes, the exhaustion floods in.

So, no blogging today. Be back tomorrow!

The Heinrich Böll Foundation’s Aversion To Debate

Dr. Sebastian Lüning’s and Professor Fritz Vahrenholt’s “Die kalte Sonne” site here bring us a perfect example illustrating how debate losers like to handle debate: simply declare it over and walk away. (Translated and edited by P Gosselin)

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

The Heinrich Böll Foundation runs a climate blog called “Klima der Gerechtigkeit (Climate of Justice). Author Lili Fuhr writes regularly there on topics like “James Hansen predicts much higher sea level rise over the coming decades: 2°C more is much too much!” or “Pope opposes emissions trading in climate protection”. In the reader comments there really isn’t much going on. Perhaps there’s a very strict moderation in place? Indeed at the site it is stated:

We are beyond whether climate change is taking place and whether it is caused by man. It is aseptic to continue this debate. Now it gets down to having a discussion on what is the best way to combat it [climate change].

Following the Boll Foundation’s logic we’d also lead an aseptic debate. This saddens us naturally because we are convinced that climate is changing, and that this always happened in pre-industrial times. Perhaps readers would like to inject a little life to Lili Fuhr’s blog and leave a few comments? Here you can go to her blog. Kalte Sonne chief Editor Sebastian Lüning tried, and within 50 milliseconds a reply page appeared bearing the message: “Spam deleted”. That’s what we call an especially rash and consequential comment oderation..

 

 

Global Temperature Stuck 18 Years And 7 Months, “Oceans To Bring Cooling Phase in Near Future”

Just a quick post today, German site wobleibtdieglobaleererwaermung here writes that whenever one observes a number of datasets, they have one thing in common: There’s no detectable CO2 warming, and there”s verzylittle out there suggesting the warming will continue.

Most temperature datasets don’t show warming, sea ice doesn”t show it, lower troposphere temperature data do not show it, snow cover data don’t show it, historical climate cycles do not show it, and on goes the list.

wobleibtdieglobaleererwaermung now tells us that “the global satellite measurements by UAHv6 now show a warming ‘pause’ of 221 months spanning from March 1997 to July 2015, which is over half of the satellite record, which began in January 1979: (36×12+7 = 439 months/2 = 219.5 months).” See their first figure.

Even the current El Niño has not been able to stop the pause up to now. And once again the “Super El Niño” is struggling. True the current ElNiño is expected to end the warming pause, but only temporarilly as the expected subsequent La Niña 2016/2017 will compensate and once again continue extending the warming pause, possibly well beyond 20 years.

The gaping divergence continues

Even a slight trend warming would not be enough to salvage the global warming theory wreckage. The wobleibtdieglobaleererwaermung site reminds us: “The unfalsified measured global reality since 1990 continued to diverge again from the IPCC model projections again in July 2015“, see their second figure.

Moreover realistic estimations of global temperature development tell us to expect the opposite in the future (cooling), says wobleibtdieglobaleerderwaermung:

‘…Because of the thermal inertia in the climate system, formost the heat capacity of the ocean, the current temperature stagnation will turn into a cooling phase in the near future.’ Source: 2015 SO xxx Cf-Klima – Berliner Wetterkarte.”