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

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

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

NASA_IgorJulia-GOES_full

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

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

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

Climate “subject to natural oscillation”

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

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

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

Reliable simulation for the coming decade

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

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

Keep reading to find out!

Latif admits models have been wrong

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

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

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

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

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

Model foresees “negative trend”.

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

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

The paper’s abstract presents the prognosis as follows:

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

That means “COOLING”!

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

Original paper:
Klöwer, M., M. Latif, H. Ding, R. J. Greatbatch, W. Park (2014): Atlantic meridional overturning circulation and the prediction of North Atlantic sea surface temperature. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 406, 1-6, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2014.09.001.

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

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

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

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

Not only that, the Kronen Zeitung writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boy, what a deal!

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

 

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

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

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

45:38 Craig Welch boasting:

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

What will happen during a new Maunder Minimum?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cooling climate in 21st Century

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

Jan-Erik Solheim:

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

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

And he adds at his conclusion:

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

Nicola Scafetta:

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

 

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

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

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

At the 2:54 mark Joe says:

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

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

SatSum_18_10_14 1

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

On the GISS claim, Joe says:

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

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

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

NWS “blowtorches” the US winter

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

NWS blowtorch winter

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

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

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

 

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

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

Photo: Dr. Wolfgang Thüne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thüne sums up:

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

 

How Many Millions More Do Governments Intend To Herd Into The Death Trains Of Junk Science?

The parallels are absolutely stunning…it’s all repeating in climate science.

To me this is a must watch. (If short on time, watch from 24:30 to 27:45).

History repeats. Like the lipid hypothesis, man-made global warming is fraud throughout.

The following chart at 36:18 mark tells it all:

Obesity

 

Expert Blasts Alfred Wegener Institute Ocean Acidification Claim: “Clear Falsification Of Scientific Facts”

Ocean acidification: The terrible little brother of global warming

By Dr. D. E. Koelle
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

The alleged global warming, which now has not taken place for 18 years, has just received a “terrible little brother”. It was high time to find such a brother, especially since the older climate sister was becoming so weak.

Here that little brother is the not unknown “ocean acidification”, which was recently elevated by the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) in a press release dated 8 October 2014 to being the new global danger that comes with “dramatic impacts” ,”costs in the billions” and the claim that the pH value today is dropping 10 times faster than in the past.

There was no word however that the ocean in fact is not “acidic” in any way. Rather with a pH value of between 7.8 and 8.1 it is clearly alkaline. This is a clear falsification of scientific facts (but the citizens won’t notice at all). If anything, when viewed objectively, a reduction in alkalinity has nothing to do with an “acidification”, which would begin at a pH value of 6.9.

Figure: CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the last 300 million years (Retallack) – completely without any anthropogenic impact.

Here the claim of the supposed pH value drop is hardly a serious one because there is no global pH measurement network that would allow such a claim to be backed up. Local datasets show a pH value fluctuation of +/- 0.1 points. What is confirmed is the fact that over 90% of the earth’s history, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was considerably higher than the very modest 400 ppm level we have today. The average over the last 300 million years was near 2000 ppm (see diagram from Retallack, which is based on changes in the stoma pores of Gingko plants). Neither the considerably higher CO2 levels over the earth’s history nor the maximum of 6000 parts per million has ever led to an “acidification of the oceans”.

If the claims of a damaging influence on coral reefs were true, then the corals would have died millions of years ago.

So just where is this kind of acidification supposed to come from? Approximately 11 Gt of CO2 (a third of the anthropogenic emissions) is taken up by the oceans, but it is ignored that at least the same amount (and there are also estimates of 20 Gt CO2 per year) getting stored as CaCO3 on the seabed. The complete CO2 circulation in the oceans is everything but known: large quantities of CO2 originate from hundreds of underwater volcanoes along tectonic plate boundaries – and without this, covering the huge need for CO2 by the underwater vegetation (assumed to be greater than even that on land) is not imaginable. The minimum pH values also do not occur at the sea surface, as is supposed to be the case with an atmospheric impact (as is falsely assumed by the IPCC report), but rather at approximately 1000 meters below the sea surface.

At the surface, the low pH values are measured in areas where the deep water currents arrive at the surface. The CO2 absorption from the atmosphere, which is supposed to cause an “acidification”, has to be considered in relation to the total amount of about 39,000 Gt CO2 that is already dissolved in the ocean. As here we are talking about 11 Gt CO2 per year, this is only about 0.028%!  Here already alone the natural impacts of annual ENSO activity and ocean currents with the temperature changes can be considerably larger.

Let’s hope that the AWI-conjured “little awful brother” soon disappears and that research in the field of ocean sciences gets back to being serious.

 

Austrian Daily Reports: “Huge Ice Growth Surprises Climate Scientists” … “Like One Not Seen In Decades”!

Antarctica_NASA PhotoThe Austrian online Kronen Zeitung here has an article about something most German-language media outlets have been too red-faced to report on: The sudden growth in polar sea ice.

The Kronen Zeitung opens with:

A huge growth in ice at the poles has surprised scientists and is casting questions. Is global warming taking a break? [...] For the prophets of climate change the new figures pose questions: At the poles of Mother Earth, in complete contradiction to prognoses of a complete polar melt, there is an ice growth like one not seen in decades.”

Almost the entire mainstream media has been quiet about this development. So it is refreshing to see that some media are reporting the “good” news that the planet is not warming alarmingly.

Antarctic ice growth “problem for penguins”

The Kronen Zeitung reports that Antarctic sea ice is growing at an average annual rate of 16,500 square kilometers since 2007. The case is pretty much the same for Arctic sea ice, the online Austrian daily reports.

The Kronen Zeitung also writes that the rapidly growing sea ice surrounding Antarctica is a “huge problem” for penguins, who need open water.

“Climate science turned on its head”

Moreover, the Kronen Zeitung mentions the surprise of the National Snow and Ice data Centre (NSIDC) in Colorado concerning the growth in the Arctic:

Scientists t the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder (Colorado) in any case have to admit that instead of a global warming, a global cooling is taking place. [...]

At the moment this development appears to have turned climate science on its head globally.”

The Kronen Zeitung then explains how the climate models have failed in that they predicted the very opposite to happen and that some scientists even desperately claimed that the measurements were wrong.

Max Planck scientists: “colder winters and cooler summers”

To explain what is happening, Kronen Zeitung turned to Professor Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin. Tsonis says there are many factors at play. “Currents, winds, precipitation and foremost the upper and lower water layers.”

At the end of its article, Kronen Zeitung explains how the recent slowdown in overall solar activity may be playing a major role on the climate.

For years few sunspots could be observed. Colder winters and cooler summers could once again be the consequences, Max-Planck scientists say.”

Reported or not, the polar sea ice is there, and it cannot be ignored.

Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne.

GISS Targeted Data Truncation And Tricks Alone Produce Half Of The Warming Trend Since 1880

It Is Even Worse Than I Thought!
By Ed Caryl

First, I must apologize for an error. In How Much Global Warming, I made an assumption about the old GISS file from 1999 that it was a global temperature file. I had missed the clear label on the file itself that it was surface stations only. As Bob Tisdale pointed out, I was comparing apples to oranges.

But when I found the correct land-only file to compare, I found the situation was even worse than I thought. Here is the correct comparison.

01010

Figure 1 is the comparison of land-only (surface stations) data from 1999 and the current data.

GISS has more than doubled the warming trend in their published data in the last 15 years. This has been done by ignoring the years before 1880, cooling the readings before 1965, and warming the measurements after 1965. They basically shifted the measurement period 14 years to the right, doubling the warming trend. Here is the difference plot:

Ed_2

Figure 2 is a plot of the difference between the plotted data in Figure 1.

It doesn’t take much data manipulation to radically change the temperature trend. Truncating the early 14 years and adding the recent 14 years was half the change, and “adjusting” the station records slightly furnished the rest.

Surface station data is subject to many error sources. First, when thermometers are read by eye, the readings are in whole degrees, and a judgment is made on the spot on whether the reading is the lower or the higher number. The condition of the weather shelter and the thermometer is a factor. Then when the reading is recorded mistakes can be made.

More mistakes can be made when that recording is transcribed at the central office. Then higher authorities get involved with adjustments for missing records and UHI. For all these reasons, trends of less than one degree per century should be taken with a whole shovel-full of salt.

My thanks to Bob Tisdale. His expertise and experience in analyzing ocean temperatures and GISS records allowed him to instantly recognize the data I used. This is an example of open peer review in the climate blogosphere.

 

Activists All Pissy About Water Consumption…Call For Urinating In The Morning Shower To Save On Toilet Water!

Germany’s popular daily Bild here reports on a pair of English environmental activists from the University of East Anglia in Norwich who have a novel idea on how to cut back on water consumption: Urinating while taking your early morning shower rather relieving yourself in the toilet bowl.

Also read here in English.

Bild writes that Debs Torr and Chris Dobson calculated that if their 15,000 classmates all did the same, enough water to fill 26 Olympic-size pools would be saved each year.

This is a rather strange idea for a country where rain and water are hardly in short supply. Let’s not kid ourselves. This is just the latest nutjob idea to regulate humans back to prehistoric lifestyles.

The activist students would like to see their “GoWithTheFlow” water savings initiative implemented nationwide across Britain. Thankfully the two leakers are not calling on making it mandatory. Bild writes:

Chris requests to be considerate of others. “When students share the shower stalls, then you should only do it when it’s okay for everyone.”

Thanks for asking.

My God, can you imagine how the shower would smell after a few months time? Who brought up these two slobs?

To me it’s truly mystifying as to why there would be any urgency at all “to save water” in a rain-drenched country like Great Britain, as if water is some kind of disappearing resource. Is civilization now at “peak water”?

Even here in wet, damp Germany there are constant calls by enviro-lunatics to not waste water. Granted some places have seen the local groundwater table drop due to agriculture and industry, and so I suppose in some areas there are legitimate arguments to do so.

However at many municipalities, city officals are begging for an end to all the water-saving madness. Wastewater from homes and businesses has dropped to dangerously low levels and put city sewage systems at risk.

Waste water levels are so low that solid waste material in wastewater systems ends up stalling and plugging the system. The water is simply too inadequate to keep everything flowing. Indeed municipalities are pleading: How about a “GoWithTheFlow” initiative for sewage systems!

A number of German public utilities are forced to regularly pump millions of gallons of additional water just to keep the system from breaking down, clogging up and rotting out.

And don’t expect this kind of proposal to be the last. Look for calls for composting as a way to save water for the “other business”.

 

Spiegel Sees Potential Climatic Cooling From Iceland Volcanic As Its SO2 Emissions Reach “Historic Dimensions”

Volcanic activity in Iceland has risen dramatically over the past few weeks.

Yet, thankfully, the big eruption many feared never materialized and signs show that the pressure has been subsiding. Good news, many among us may think.

Bárðarbunga_Volcano,_September_4_2014_Peter Hartree

Bárðarbunga Volcano, September 4, 2014. Picture taken by Peter Hartree , CC BY-SA 2.0.

Yet science journalist and geologist Axel Bojanowski at Spiegel warns that there’s still enough to worry about. According to Bojanowski concentrations of sulfur dioxide (SO2) have “never been higher since measurements began in the 1970s“. The amount of SO2 emitted by the recent volcanic activity is surpassed only by the “largest of eruptions”.

What’s more, Bojanowski adds:

Seldom does so much sulfur gas get into the air. It could even cool the climate.”

Photo number 12 of Spiegel’s spectacular photo series here is a NASA computer model simulation depicting the spread of the sulfur dioxide cloud over Europe. The growing concentration of sulfur dioxide is a reason for “more concern”, Spiegel reports. High concentrations of sulfur dioxide in the air are corrosive and pose a threat to human health. Bojanowski writes:

Gradually it is posing an additional threat: to the climate. The emitted amounts of gas have already reached historic dimensions, reports the country’s environmental authority, the Icelandic Environmental Agency. Daily up to 60,000 tonnes of SO2 are released from the lava chasm.”

Bárdarbunga has already emitted approximately two million tonnes of SO2. Only the largest eruptions surpass this amount.”

Bojanowski adds that although the SO2 haze in the atmosphere is not visible to the naked eye, it is seen by NASA satellite, and it extends over parts of Europe. SO2 is an effective sunblock that acts to cool the atmosphere. Spiegel also describes the Laki eruption of 1783 and 1784, which led to a marked cooling and European crop failures.

According to Spiegel, Bárdarbunga eruption and gas emission is nowhere near on the same scale as Laki, which spewed 122 million tons of SO2 into the atmosphere. But Spiegel compares Bárdarbunga’s 2 million tons of SO2 to other major 20th century volcanic eruptions: El Chichon (7 million), which was enough to cause cooling globally. Pinatubo spewed 20 million tons and cooled the planet by 0.5°C for two years.

Though Bárdarbunga’s SO2 so far has not been shot up into the stratosphere, Spiegel warns that “two factors could make the volcano’s impact detectable: At high latitudes such as those of Iceland, the stratosphere is several kilometers lower than in the tropics, thus allowing the gas to reach it more quickly. Also chasm eruptions such as those at Bárdarbunga produce hot air upward currents over the volcano, which can carry the gases up to the stratosphere.”

Note that the SO2 gas has been carried in the air over to the European continent. Though Bárdarbunga’s SO2 may not have any real impact on cooling the planet, it certainly will not help to warm it either.

 

Using 1999 GISS Data, Global Warming Trend Since 1866 Only 0.5°C Per Century!

SEE UPDATE HERE!

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

How Much Global Warming?
By Ed Caryl

We are told over and over again that the globe has warmed by 0.8°C since 1880 or 1850. Lately we have seen article after paper after publication that states this number in Fahrenheit, 1.44°F, because that sounds larger. But is this number correct? What is it based on?

GISS and Google “way-back machine”

Recently, a file from GISS in Google’s “way-back” machine came to my attention. This file of global temperature dates from 1999, before James Hansen became more rabid in promoting global warming. Here is a plot of the 1999 data, along with the current file from GISS:

Ed_1

Figure 1 is a plot of global temperature as published by GISS is 1999 versus the current publication.

Note that GISS has removed the data from 1866 to 1880, placing the beginning of their published data closer to the bottom of the early 1900s cool period. This changes the trend from 0.42°C per century to 0.66°C per century, a 50+% increase in the trend. This alone changes the warming from 0.6°C from 1866 to the present, to 0.8°C from 1880 to the present, resulting in the higher trend. Here is a chart of the difference between the two files.

123

Figure 2 is a plot of the difference between the two plots in Figure 1.

In Figure 2 we can see that the cool period around 1910 was cooled further by 0.2 degrees, but the cool period around 1970 was warmed slightly. They also minimized the cool 1880s and ’90s by warming those years by 0.1 to 0.2°C. So what was the real global temperature from 1866 to the present? I took the 1999 file and spliced on the satellite data from UAH from 1979 to the present, using the period of overlap from 1979 to 1999 as a baseline, avoiding the recent GISS adjustments. The result is this: Ed_2

Figure 3 is a plot of GISS global temperature from 1999 with UAH satellite TLT global temperature spliced on from 1979.

The trend in Figure 3 is half a degree C per century, with a total rise since 1866 of about 0.6°C. Because of the year-to-year variation, and the sparse station data in the early years, both the trend and the total rise have errors that are in the neighborhood of ±0.3°C. So the bottom line is that the warming since the mid-19th century is about 0.6°C ±0.3°C, or somewhere between 0.3°C and 0.9°C. Much of that warming, about 0.4°C ±0.2°C has taken place since 1980. But some of that is due to the cyclic nature of temperature.

The cycle from 1866 to 1940 had an amplitude of about 0.3°C, which, if extended to the present, means that the present temperature is at the peak of a cycle, or 0.15°C too high. This puts the total rise between 0.15°C and 0.75°C, or from almost nothing to something less than has been stated, with a center at 0.45°C. The recent solar maximum has also inflated the temperature. In the next 30 years, decreasing ocean cyclic temperature and a waning solar input will likely reduce the global temperature by about 0.4°C ±0.2°C, either back to the 1990s or to the 1960s. If the latter, there will have been no warming in the last 160 years.

 

Climate Change Dying As An Issue In German Media…Empty Seats Pack Hamburg “9th Extreme Weather Congress”!

This past week the 9th Extreme Weather Congress took place in Hamburg. Curiously this year there was very little coverage by the German media. Doing a Google search of the event turned up very few stories from the mainstream media.

9th ExtremWetterKongress 2014

Empty seats pack Day 3 of the Hamburg 9th Extreme Weather Conference, just minutes before starting. Source: here (11:12 mark).

The above photo is a snapshot from a Youtube video, just minutes before the start of Day 3 of the Congress.

Looks like the German media have grown fatigued by climate science in general and have sensed that something isn’t right with what the “experts” have been claiming. Record high sea ice, lack of hurricanes, low tornado activity, spectacularly failed climate models and bitter cold winters have a way of sobering them up.

Some German public television networks showed up on the first day, see here for example, but there too we see many empty seats – unusual given the opening first day hype.

Not a peep about Antarctic sea ice record

We begin to sense the media is feeling increasingly embarrassed about the climate issue overall. Any reminder of how they’ve been duped gets avoided altogether. Little wonder when Googling “rekord eis antarktis 2014“, we quickly find that the German mainstream media have totally ignored this year’s record high south polar sea ice event altogether. Too embarrassing! Besides, German viewers are totally bored by the climate issue.

Some small sites have reported the event, though. The online German weather site www.wetteronline.de writes that Arctic sea ice is “considerably greater than the record low year of 2012” and that the German Polarstern research vessel of the Alfred Wegener Institute “did not succeed in crossing the Northwest Passage of the American continent in the second half of August“.

Wetteronline.de also looked at the situation at the Antarctic, which this year smashed the all-time satellite era sea ice record. The site however, avoided the use of the word “record” and wrote:

…the sea ice around Antarctica reached 20 million square kilometers. Thus the 30-year maximum of last year was exceeded by about 0.4 million square kilometers.”

Of course this new satellite record high has baffled climate scientists, who are left stumped and only to speculate what is behind the unexpected trend. Wetteronline writes:

The reason for this, scientists suspect, among other factors, is a weakening sea current around Antarctica. Thus there is less mixing of the water masses which favours the growth of the sea ice.”

There’s no data to back this up, and so it just means the scientists don’t have a clue, are just shooting in the dark, and they should just say so.

Meanwhile, alarmist site Klimaretter presented its polar sea ice summary for 2014, but forgot to mention anything at all about the South Pole.

 

IPCC Models Fail Abominably In Projections of Northern And Southern Hemisphere Temperature

What follows is a modestly abbreviated version in English. The first part is the brief solar activity report, and the second part is about IPCC model failure.
==========================================

The Sun in September 2014. Attention: X-Flares!

By Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)The sun in September was considerably more active than in the previous months. The sunspot number was 87.6, which was 89% of what is typical in the 70th month into a cycle. The current solar cycle 24 (SC 24) began in December 2008. Figure 1 shows the current cycle compared to the mean of SC 1-23, and solar cycle no. 1:

Fig. 1: The current SC 24 is shown in red, the mean of the previous 23 cycles is depicted by the blue curve, and the current cycle SC 24 strongly resembles SC 1, which is shown by the black curve.

The current cycle resembles SC 1, and should it continue to behave like SC 1, a trailing off of activity cannot be anticipated anytime soon. Indications, however, do point to a longer than normal cycle. Japanese researcher Hiroko Miyahara and his team examined this in 2013 (Influence of the Schwabe/Hale solar cycles on climate change during the Maunder Minimum). They were able to show that the length of the solar cycle correlates with solar activity. “The mean length of the Schwabe cycle during the Maunder Minimum was approx. 14 years, and during the Medieval Warm Period the average cycle length was only about 9 years.”

The sun today is relatively active, though slightly below normal. On September 10 there was an X 1.6 – flare, a a high category explosion on the sun. Flare are designated as follows: C for common, M for medium, and X for strong. See the following image, Figure 2:

Figure. 2: X-flare on 10 September 2014. Source: solarham.net.

With such powerful explosions, material gets ejected from the sun, what is known as a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME). When such plasma strikes the earth’s atmosphere, it leads to polar lights and other effects. The strength of X 1.6 was too weak to have any massive impact on the earth’s atmosphere and magnetic field.

Models fail to project temperature

Now let’s take a detailed look at the warming scenarios of the earth’s surface temperature, this time taking local particularities into account:

 Fig. 3: The mean surface temperature since 2000 compared to the period of 1950-1980, Source: GISS

Most of the warming took place in the northern extra-tropics at latitudes between 25°N and 90°N. This is consistent with the expectations one would have with the effects of greenhouse gases.  However, let’s take a look at the temperature series of the northern hemisphere extra-tropic region. Here we also see a “pause” since about the year 2000.

Figure. 4: The temperature curve of the northern extra-tropics as to GISS.

Indeed the trend from 1983 to 2013 differs significantly (0.33 +/- 0.06 °C/decade) from the 2000 to 2013 period (0.09 +/- 0.14°C/decade), which is no longer a significant warming. This hefty deceleration has occurred even though greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise linearly unabated. We reported multiple times on what the reasons could be for thi.

How do models handle the problem of the asymmetry in warming that we observe between both hemispheres? A recent paper from 2013 by 4 authors of the universities of Berkeley and Washington led by Andrew R. Friedman examined the difference between the northern hemisphere (NH) and the southern hemisphere (SH), named ITA, and summarized what the newest models anticipated for temperature:

 Fig. 5: The temperature difference between the NH and SH determined with the CMIP5 models. Source: Figure 2 of the just mentioned paper.

The text of the paper describes: With today’s emissions scenario (close to the IPCC scenario named RCP8.5) there is a highly linear rise of 0.17°K/decade (Point 3, “future projections“ of the aforementioned paper).

But let’s do a reality check and compare it to the actual surface observations since 1900:

Fig. 6: ITA as GISS since 1900, (Data: GISS), Model (thick green curve).

The 1982-2013 period is indeed at 0.165+/-0.04°C/decade, but it has become significantly less. The 1998-2013 period shows a trend of only 0.055+/-0.067°C/decade – not rising significantly – and is barely 30% of what was registered since 1982. No one here can claim that the trend is “highly linear”.

The cause? One cause is offered up by the 2013 paper: The drop in the late 1960s was not replicated by the models and was likely caused by internal variability, very likely by the AMOC (see Fig. 8b of the paper), the authors maintain.

Also the steep rise after 1915 would be due to variability 1915 … and at least for a part of the rise beginning in 1985 – as we have often maintained at this blog.

So it remains: Reproducing internal variability has not been adequately possible by models up to now. The dependency of temperatures on the forcing by greenhouse gases is stronger in models than what it is in reality. The models overblow the anthropogenic impact and thus yield exaggerated prognoses for the future.