Over the past 33 years, November mean temperatures in Tokyo have been declining slightly, though not significantly. At any rate, there’s been no warming!
Autumn in Tokyo
Next we look at the meteorological fall for Tokyo. Climate alarmism would have us believe that fall is getting warmer and thus squeezing out winter.
But that’s not the case. To the contrary, it appears as if winter is squeezing out fall a bit. Fall in Tokyo has been cooling since 1989!
Hachijojima
Moving away from the urban heat island of Tokyo and over to the rural Pacific island of Hachijojima, some 275 km off the Japan mainland, we plot the latest November data going back to 1947:
Here as well there has not been any warming in fall since 1975, according to the data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA).
This is the story at many other places across the globe. Other than the usual natural variability, nothing unusual is happening climatically. Even if it was warming, that’s natural too. It wouldn’t mean man is behind it.
Don’t believe for once all the climate crisis nonsense. They only want you to be afraid so that they can control you. It’s all fraud.
Here’s how the COVID government policy is working in Germany: They’re just jabbing in the dark with the delusional hope something will work, praying not too much carnage will result.
Just take the vax, it’ll protect you – maybe for decades, the media promised a lockdown-weary population early this year. You’ll be protected and things will get right back to normal. Get the jab!
Try the J&J – just one little prick! Oops, that didn’t work out so well. No worries, just top it off with an injection of the safer BioNTech instead. Take two shots if you started with it, and you’ll see 95% protection! That lockdown will end soon.
If you started with Astra Zeneca and didn’t die of a blood clot, yet had a rough time – well, sorry about that. Maybe better to avoid it later, so take the Moderna! Oh, that’s not quite working out, either, too many “very rare” adverse effects. Just top it off with BioNTech too, and then again 6 months later, and then again.
But that looks like it’s not gonna work out either, and so (if you haven’t died by now) you just got to keep taking more boosters. Meanwhile you’ll get to enjoy a few special privileges during the long lockdowns, which do occasionally get interrupted by brief spells of freedom.
And if you’ve become a bit concerned about safety and wish for something a little less dodgy, then not to fear! There’s another new soon-to be-approved vaccine that promises to be “even safer”. You see, it employs an old technology – hence the name Novavax! Here tiny particles are made from a laboratory-grown version of the spike protein of the coronavirus and act to coax the production of antibodies and T cells. Great chance it’ll offer years of protection and a return to the good old times. So give it a try when your next jab is due! If that doesn’t work at first, don’t give up – surely the following boosters will.
If you have already had COVID, then just wait six months and follow all the above.
So by now you might be asking: “Gee, how long will it take before we know for sure what works? No one knows! But c’mon, we can’t know unless we give it a try. Just keep trying, don’t give up! We’ll get there. Just throw it all in, trust the experts! Follow the science!
This is how it’s going. They’re just making it up as they go. Welcome to German public immunology.
For decades Great Barrier Reef (GBR) warming and coral bleaching have often been assumed to be driven by human greenhouse gas emissions and/or El Niño events. But a new study finds a much larger and more robust correlation between natural cloud cover modulation of solar radiation, shallow-water warming, and bleaching.
It has taken over 260 years for the net total radiative forcing from CO2 to allegedly rise by a grand net total of 1.82 W/m².
But a new study reveals that a commonly-observed 20% decrease in cloud cover over the GBR exposes this region to an additional 30 W/m² of direct solar radiation for weeks, months at a time. This dramatically warms shallower waters and, more importantly, the enhanced shortwave radiation perpetually exposes corals to UV bleaching.
“Lagged regional sea surface temperature (SST) is correlated with total cloud cover across the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) and direct shortwave cloud radiative forcing.”
“SST over the GBR is more highly correlated with the overhead cloud cover than the large-scale El Niño–Southern Oscillation signal.”
“Local-scale reduced cloud cover plays a crucial role in the shallow water warming over the GBR and the occurrence of thermal coral bleaching events.”
The author asserts that what is “widely believed” about human-driven coral bleaching is wholly wrong, as bleaching is “not a modern phenomenon” but a “normal way of adapting to changing water temperatures.” Coral bleaching has been recorded in the 1930s, 1860s (paintings), and 1570s.
“It is widely believed that coral bleaching is a phenomenon first observed less than 50 years ago. However, coral bleaching was first observed more than 150 years ago by Eugen von Ransonnet, during the period called the little ice age (ca. 1300 – ca. 1900).”
“Yonge already in 1931 found that living corals on the Great Barrier Reef were bleached after being exposed to high temperature (Oliver et al. 2009; Yonge and Nicholls 1931), and Kamenos and Hennige (2018) recorded the traces of coral bleaching in coral rock cores from the Great Barrier Reef back to 1575. So, coral bleaching is a phenomenon that always has existed as a normal way of adaptation to changing water temperatures, and is not a modern phenomenon.”
There is even evidence that coral bleaching is more likely to occur where water is cooler. For example, the Coral Triangle is 2-8°C warmer than surrounding “marginal” or “low-temperature” areas, but the cooler regions record more bleaching events than the Coral Triangle does.
“Such coral bleaching during the last decades is reported particularly from marginal lower-temperature areas of the entire distribution area of hermatypic corals (Goreau and Hayes 1994; Oliver et al. 2009; Burke et al. 2011). On the other hand it is generally not, or to a much lower extent, reported from the central area, the so-called Coral Triangle (Oliver et al. 2009; Burke et al. 2011; Ridd 2017), where the water temperature is around 2–8 °C higher and more stable than in the marginal areas (Tchernia 1980; Tomczak and Godfrey 2002).”
So, in sum, yet another claim about the unprecedentedness of modern warming and bleaching in the GBR and their alleged connection to human greenhouse gas emissions has been smeared by observational evidence.
A new, comprehensive Lancet study shows that far more people are being killed globally by cold weather than by hot weather.
Die kalte Sonne here looks at the impacts of temperature extremes on mortality. There’s no doubt that extreme weather kills more people. But the question in these times of “global warming” is whether or not warming is going to lead to more deaths.
A new publication in the renowned journal Lancet, by Burkart et al studied 65 million deaths in 9 countries occurring between Jan 1, 1980, and Dec 31, 2016 in relation to temperature effects.
The researchers found that 17 of the 176 categories for the cause of death “showed J-shaped relationships with daily temperature, whereas the risk of external causes (eg, homicide, suicide, drowning, and related to disasters, mechanical, transport, and other unintentional injuries) increased monotonically with temperature.”
The 17 causes of death with J-shaped curves (dependent of temperature) included heart disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, lower respiratory infection, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Using the data, the team of authors extrapolated the results to the entire global population and examined the year 2019.
Almost 20 times more deaths were attributed to cold than to heat in South Africa. Image: Burkart et al 2021, Lancet.
The authors estimate in 2019, “the average cold-attributable mortality exceeded heat-attributable mortality in all countries for which data were available.” Cold effects were most pronounced in China and in New Zealand.
In China a population attributable fraction (PAF) from cold effects was 4·3% (3·9–4·7) and the attributable rates were 32.0 deaths (27.2–36.8) per 100,000. But when looking at the heat effects in China, the PAF was only 0·4% and the attributable rates were 3·25 deaths per 100 000. In other words, cold death rates were about 10 times higher than heat deaths.
In South Africa, the authors attributed almost 20 times more deaths to cold than to heat (8372 vs 453)!
Cold definitely kills more than heat does by a long shot, and so warming would save lives. The study was sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Are these findings being blared out by the mainstream media? No, of course not. And why not? It’s because they don’t want people to know what’s really going on.
Data analyst Zoe Phin just posted some interesting, surprising results on global sea ice area.
Data sources like the National Snow and Ice Data Center show global sea ice has been” drastically decreasing for a long time” and so we need to panic and overhaul the entire carbon economy. We hear this daily in the media.
Surprising global sea ice area findings
But Zoe has analyzed what she characterizes as a “very legitimate source” of data from NASA, (here, or here). And according to her findings, the data from these sources suggest global sea ice loss is not as dramatic as some institutes would like us to believe it is. In fact there ‘s been a gain!
Zoe plotted the data going back 40 years, from 1982 to 2021, the “Global Sea Ice Area Fraction”, which “is a proportion of the entire Earth’s surface that is ice over water.”
Global sea ice area linear regression trend: From 0.03625 to 0.03631, which is +0.171%. Chart: Zoe’s Insights
“As you can see, about 3.6% (on average) of our planet’s area is covered in ice over water,” reports Zoe. “In the last 40 years, ice over water has INCREASED, and not decreased, as popularly claimed.”
According to Zoe, the observed increase is equivalent to ~30,600 km², or “roughly the size of Belgium”.
Northern hemisphere sea ice area has declined
The northern hemisphere has decreased, and this has gotten lots of attention from alarmists and the media:
Northern hemisphere linear regression trend: -15.707%. Chart: Zoe’s Insights
More than offset by southern hemisphere gain
However, the loss over the northern hemisphere has been more than compensated by the gains in the southern hemisphere, which we never hear about.
Southern hemisphere linear regression trend: +19.947%! Chart: Zoe’s Insights
How many of you have read this in the mainstream media?
The Greenland end-of-melt-season snowline should presumably be exhibiting a trend consistent with consequential Greenland ice sheet melt, especially an increase in the bare ice area. Yet, consistent with the recent non-warming trend for Greenland, there has been no statistically significant linear trend in these key climate change metrics.
The Polar Portal Arctic tracking website includes a snowline metric that “integrates the competing effects of melt (increasing snowline elevation) and snow accumulation (decreasing snowline elevation)” for the Greenland ice sheet. The overseers of these observational data acknowledge that snowline “provides a key holistic variable indicating climate change”.
And yet in the last 20 years of alleged “staggering” and “stunning, dangerous” Greenland ice sheet melt, there has effectively been no net change in this rudimentary metric.
Scientists have needed to admit that neither the end-of-melt-season snowline nor observations of bare ice extent “exhibits a statistically significant trend over the entire study period [2001-2017]” (Ryan et al., 2019).
The lack of any statistically significant trends in snowline or bare ice area is consistent with the flat to declining temperature trends for Greenland this century, or from 2001-2019.
Hanna and colleagues (2021) document “a cooling pattern over the last 6-7 years” for Greenland that has offset or overwhelmed any warming pattern from 2001-2012. Notice that the clear majority of temperature stations have been cooling in all 4 seasons since 2001.
The long-term Greenland temperature record also indicates no net Greenland warming not only in the 21st century but since the as-warm or warmer 1930s (Nagatsuka et al., 2021, Ballinger et al., 2021).
Perhaps Greenland will cooperate with the anthropogenic global warming narrative at some point in the future.
Yesterday we commented here that Germany will in fact be shutting down all the baseload power sources, which ironically kept the country from blacking out in 2021 because wind and solar power failed to deliver as expected.
“Disaster playing out”…”pretty crazy”
Bardland writes:
In just over a month, Germany will close 3 of its newest and best nuclear power plants and more than 4050 MW of electricity will disappear from northern Europe’s power grid. 4050 MW is equivalent to the average electricity consumption of all of Denmark.
It will put supply security further under pressure and them choosing to do so in the middle of winter is pretty crazy.
Not only will the 4050 MW of shut off nuclear power lead to more CO2 emissions, but it will cause much more pollution from the burning of biomass and fossil fuels. Next winter, Germany will close the last 3 nuclear power plants, also 4000 MW.
Anyone who has followed the energy and climate political debate, even superficially, over the last 10-20 years can see that Germany, Denmark and other ‘green crazy countries’ are doing it vigorously AGAINST what logic and science dictates.
We see a slow disaster playing out with The Greens in the lead role as the crazy villain, hell-bent in their eagerness to wipe out life and prosperity.
(PS. Buy warm clothes, food, water and candles, for the coming winter).”
On top of the baseload power shutdown madness, German Health Minister Jens Spahn said he favored a one-year complete lockdown of unvaxxed Germans. There’s definitely something in someone’s water.
The energy source that Germany moves to shut down, rescued the country from widespread blackouts in 2021.
Blackout News reports that more of Germany’s power is being produced by coal and nuclear fuels. In 2021, due to unfavorable weather conditions, wind and solar energy production plummeted in 2021 compared to 2020. “Germany’s power mix is getting dirtier.”
The figures were compiled by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Energiebilanzen (Working Group for Energy Budgets) and based on the first 9 months of the year. Compared to 2020, the first nine months of 2021 saw a 3.3% increase in primary energy consumption – mainly due to economic reco0very.
20% more coal power in first 9 months of 2021
But what surprised experts, Blackout News reports, were the sources of the energy: “Here, the largest increase in absolute terms can be seen in the coal-fired power plants that emit the most CO2. Hard coal consumption alone was 20 per cent higher in the first three quarters of the current year than in the previous year. Electricity and heat generation from hard coal increased by 28 percent.”
Lack of wind and sun, despite added capacity
According to Blackout News: “The working group attributes the high additional consumption of coal for energy generation compared to the same period last year to the unfavorable weather conditions for renewable energies. Wind power and solar plants delivered significantly less electricity compared to the same period last year despite higher installation capacity.”
The 2021 results further highlight the unreliability of green energies such as wind and sun as a source of stable energy, and remind that Germany’s plan to shut down its remaining coal and nuclear power plants will be far more difficult than the government appears to believe.
Renewables’s output plummet 16.1%
“In relation to total energy consumption, the share of renewables has decreased by a total of 16.1 percent compared to the previous year,” writes Blackout News. “Electricity generation by wind power plants fell sharply, by 18 percent for onshore plants and 14 percent for offshore plants.”
Solar energy fared even worse, producing only half as much as the year earlier.
To compensate for the missing wind and solar energies, both coal and nuclear plants had to take up the slack. Yet, these are the two conventional energy sources that the government aims to take offline completely by 2038 (nuclear by 2024!). A number a energy experts warn that this is a recipe for power grid disaster – especially as the German government moves to get more electric cars on the road.
Looming blackouts
Blackout News warns: “But if the government sticks to its plan to shut down the coal-fired power plants as planned, it is only a matter of time before the supply collapses. Therefore, prepare yourself in good time for a prolonged power blackout.”
Die kalte Sonne reports on a new aerosol study by Liu et al.
The results are a major blow to the high greenhouse-gas climate sensitivity modelers.
IPCC scientists have a favorite wild card they often use to explain serious model discrepancies: aerosols. Mysterious cooling events in the past are often explained away by aerosols from major volcanic eruptions, for example. They act to filter out sunlight.
According to IPCC climate models, the mean global temperature should have risen by 1.5°C since 1850 due to the higher CO2 concentrations. But best estimates show that it has instead risen by only 1.1°C. So what about the missing 0.4°C?
Naturally, the missing 0.4°C of warming since 1850 gets explained by the higher 20th century aerosol levels in the atmosphere – due to the burning of fossil fuels. Air pollution by man over the course of the late 19th century and entire 20th century are said to have dimmed the earth, and thus this explains the 0.4°C less warming.
Surprise: global aerosol emissions have been flat over past 250 years
But now results by a new study appearing in the journal Science Advances by Liu et al tells us that the forcing by aerosols had to have been overestimated by climate modelers. IPCC modelers insisted that 20th century aerosol concentrations were higher than during the pre-industrial times, and this is what kept the climate from warming by 1.5°C.
According to the scientists led by Liu, however, atmospheric aerosols in the preindustrial times were just as high as they were just recently. They were in fact more or less constant over the past 250 years. No change means it could not have been aerosols putting the brakes on temperature rise:
That’s a real embarrassment for the IPCC modelers. It means CO2 climate sensitivity has been overestimated.
Aerosol concentrations have changed very little
The above chart is the result they found from records of 14 Antarctic ice cores and 1 central Andean ice core. These tell us that “historical fire activity in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) exceeded present-day levels”. Forest fires back then were much worse, and so more aerosol emissions were greater than modelers believe!
“The results come as a real surprise,” reports Die kalte Sonne.
Significance: CO2 climate sensitivity overstated in models
The researchers found that instead of aerosols increasing during the 20th century, they likely in fact decreased by 30% over the 20th century! This means that aerosols could not have suppressed the warming by 0.4°C, meaning the climate sensitivity by manmade greenhouse gases has to be dialed back accordingly.
The models have got the aerosols all wrong.
Confirmed by previous study
The new findings are underpinned by earlier findings in a 2018 study by Hamilton et al, who also found “significantly increased aerosol concentrations in the pre-industrial atmosphere.”
“Stark contradiction” to model assumptions
“The high natural aerosol emissions of the preindustrial time are thus clearly a global phenomenon,” reports Die kalte Sonne. “The documented constancy of the aerosol total emissions are in stark contradiction to the assumptions in the IPCC climate models.”
CO2 warming effect has to be much less
“The consequences for the climate models could be enormous,” Die kalte Sonne adds. This means that CO2’s warming effect thus has to be much less. “The study tells us that the CO2 climate sensitivity indeed has to be in the lower range of the IPCC’s 1.5-4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2.”
At a time (October, 2021) when 90% of the new COVID cases in UK residents 60 or older are fully vaccinated, a German physician publishing in The Lancet asserts it is “grossly negligent” to suggest the vaccinated are not a relevant source of viral infection and transmission as he pleads for privileged Western societies to refrain from treating their unvaccinated minorities as subhuman.
The Lancet is perhaps regarded as the world’s most prestigious medical journal. So the stakes must be sufficiently acute for the journal’s overseers to allow Dr. Günter Kampf, a German physician, to publish a clarion call imploring non-discriminatory and humane treatment of the unvaccinated.
Evoking images of past racial and religious prejudices, Kampf pleads with Western societies – scientists and government officials – to refrain from gratuitously stigmatizing the unvaccinated.
“Historically, both the USA and Germany have engendered negative experiences by stigmatising parts of the population for their skin colour or religion. I call on high-level officials and scientists to stop the inappropriate stigmatisation of unvaccinated people, who include our patients, colleagues, and other fellow citizens.”
Dr. Kampf published another article in The Lancet, alternatively in Elsevier, explaining that it is “grossly negligent” to pretend the fully vaccinated are not relevant sources of COVID transmission.
For example, 89,821 of 100,160 (89.7%) COVID cases (age 60+) were in UK residents who were fully vaccinated from weeks 39 to 42 (October). Just 3.4% (3,395) of the new cases were in the unvaccinated 60 and older.
In Germany, the gap between the unvaccinated and vaccinated has been rapidly closing. The percentage of new cases in 60-and-older, fully vaccinated residents rose from 16.9% in July to 58.9% in October.
Actually, the rates of new cases in the vaccinated has recently overtaken the rates in the unvaccinated. UK residents 30 and older are about 1.2 to 2.2 times more likely to be infected with COVID if they’re fully vaccinated.
In weeks 41-44, 367,347 of 394,455 (93.1%) of new cases in UK residents 40 and over were fully vaccinated. And, sadly, 2,767 of 3,103 (89.2%) deaths in residents 70 and over were fully vaccinated.
Imagine government bodies requiring adults 30 and up to be injected with a COVID vaccine that makes it twice as likely they will be infected with COVID…and then stigmatizing those who haven’t been injected yet because they have declined the opportunity to increase their odds to get infected.
A poster from Hanover, Germany has inspired me to start a new page at this site: My Corona Diaries, 2020s Germany. I don’t need to tell what it reminds me of.
I’ll be posting there from time to time to give readers some insight on the madness that’s sweeping across Austria and Germany. They’re talking about forced vaccination for adults now, I guess wanting to go back to the days before the Nuremberg Code.
Hopefully I won’t be seeing the same fate as Anne Frank, but already I’m already thinking about how to hide, or escape.
Here’s Germany’s latest move against the now very hated unvaccinated, in Hanover:
Madness, hate and ignorance pervade over Christmas this year. Unvaccinated persons are forbidden to order food or drink at the traditional outdoor Christmas market in Hanover. “Whoever wishes to consume food or drinks must first provide proof of being fully vaccinated (geimpft) or being recovered (genesen). Passing on food or drink to persons who are neither vaccinated nor recovered is not allowed.”
Can you believe it? How small-minded can you get?
That’s how it all started with the Jews and gypsies in the 1930s. Following Austria, Germany is beginning to loose its bloody mind once again.
All that bottled up brown just wants to come gushing out.
The danger of blackouts in Europe is increasing, warns a German energy export. The result could be “numerous deaths “. Also, $10 a gallon not far off…
In a recent interview with independent journalist Boris Reitschuster, German energy expert Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt warns that the risk of as power blackout in Europe is increasing as baseload power gets decommissioned and more unstable renewable energies are fed in.
Larger blackouts would mean “numerous deaths” and that Germany’s neighbors would be “dragged into the abyss.” Particularly Holland, Belgium, the north of France and above all Austria would be affected.
Wind and sun are flopping
Vahrenholt describes Europe’s recent energy supply development, which is increasingly focused on weather-dependent sources such as wind and sun, as “dramatic”.
Currently grid operators are struggling to “keep the system running to the bitter end,” says Vahrenholt. Already aluminum and steel plants are being shut down. As energy supplies tighten, there’s a risk that cities will blackouts. Policymakers are “underestimating the problem”.
Worse, the seriousness of the situation is not recognized in politics and the media, so that there will be real impacts in the next one to two years, says Vahrenholt. He warns people will not put up with this much longer. “They told us otherwise,” they will say.
Energy shortages will fuel inflation
“They aren’t concerned about the climate at all, it’s about breaking away from being a highly developed industrialized country.” says Vahrenholt.
Ten dollars a gallon not far off
The energy shortages will also lead to considerable inflation, as is already evident at the petrol stations: “Two euros per liter of gasoline is not the end of the end of it,” warns Vahrenholt.
He warns energy is becoming more expensive and unreliable in Germany. “We will have to get used to power cuts.” And if Nordstream 2 doesn’t come: “the lights will go out in Germany.”
======================== Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt was Managing Director of RWE Innogy GmbH — the renewable energy sector — from 2008 to 2012. Until 2019, he was the sole director of the German Wildlife Foundation. Vahrenholt, who holds a doctorate in chemistry, has been an honorary professor at the University of Hamburg .
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy
Recent Comments