Leading German Business Magazine Slams Climate Activists Attacking Valentina Zharkova …”Religious Warriors”

Here’s more fallout from the climate-religious attempts to suppress a scientist who dares to offer alternative ideas to global warming dogma.

Hat-tip Die kalte Sonne here.

Galileo silenced

On Augsut 16, 2016, in the German Wirtschaftswoche (Business Week) Cora Stephan looked at the dubious attempts to suppress and censor science.

Climate science that does not fit the global narrative
[…] No significant increase in the global mean temperature has taken place, a point that was even conceeded by climate scientist Mojib Latif, who is a follower of the greenhouse hypothesis. Yet no one is about to allow his research institute to be busted up, and especially not our ‘climate pope’ [Hans-Joachim] Schellnhuber. Also the ‘climate chancellow’ is well aware of the papal announcement of a climate catastrophe. The call on the guilty conscience of man is and remains a helpful instrument for rule in the sense of: if you do not do what you are told, then the world will come to an end. That not only works on children. No matter what ‘climate skeptics’ may tell us, with a bit of creativity every doomsayser brings reality in harmony with the theory. And the theory says that it is mankind that is causing a climate catastrophe with its emissions of CO2. Climate chancellor Angela Merkel here is infallible – even if recently she has had other things to worry about. […] Climatologists apparently attempted to suppress the publication of propositions [Zharkova’s]. They even refuse to exchange controversial ideas. Such behavior causes scientists to turn into religious warriors who feel automatically compelled to regard divergent opinions as blasphemy because articles of faith may never be falsified. What is correct? In all cases productive doubt, and always: The free exchange of ideas and hypotheses, the disentanglement of politics, morality and science. However foremost: the unconditional freedom of science.”

Read entire artcle (in German) at Wirtschaftswoche here.


German Scientists Slam Guardian’s Hyping Of A “Fringe Scientific Position” On Arctic Sea Ice

Arctic sea ice more stable than thought: once agin likely no new record melt

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(German text translated by P Gosselin)

On June 14, 2016, Swiss flagship daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) reported on an imminent record ice melt in the Arctic:

Record ice melt in the Arctic: ‘heat wave ‘ over Greenland
Arctic sea ice is headed for a new record summer minimum. The disappearance of the ice sheet can initiate decisive climatic events. Arctic sea ice is currently melting faster than the record 2012 year. According to data from the Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) the polar ice cover this May (completely frozen or with a sea ice concentration of at least 15 percent) was about 580,000 square kilometers less than 2004; that corresponds to the size of France. The total sea ice area is still at 12 million aquare kilometers, or about one and half times the area of Australia. A new minimum is forseeable.”

Continue reading at the Neuen Zürcher Zeitung.

Was the alarmism justified? Looking at the official data from the NSIDC (Figure 1), the dotted green line depicts the sea ice extent for the record melt year 2012, the red line depicts 2016. In the first half of this year the melt rate was in fact at a record pace. In July, however, the melt slowed down. The fact is: Since July 2016 there is a lot more sea ice than at the same time in 2012. In mid September, when the ice typically reaches its minimum, we will have the final result.


Figure 1: Arctic sea ice extent. Source: NSIDC

On August 19, 2016, NASA issued a press release that foresaw the failure of reaching a new record minimum:

NASA Monitors the ‘New Normal’ of Sea Ice

This year’s melt season in the Arctic Ocean and surrounding seas started with a bang, with a record low maximum extent in March and relatively rapid ice loss through May. The melt slowed down in June, however, making it highly unlikely that this year’s summertime sea ice minimum extent will set a new record. “Even when it’s likely that we won’t have a record low, the sea ice is not showing any kind of recovery. It’s still in a continued decline over the long term,” said Walt Meier, a sea ice scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “It’s just not going to be as extreme as other years because the weather conditions in the Arctic were not as extreme as in other years.” “A decade ago, this year’s sea ice extent would have set a new record low and by a fair amount. Now, we’re kind of used to these low levels of sea ice – it’s the new normal.”

This year’s sea ice cover of the Barents and Kara seas north of Russia opened up early, in April, exposing the surface ocean waters to the energy from the sun weeks ahead of schedule. By May 31, the extent of the Arctic sea ice cover was comparable to end-of-June average levels. But the Arctic weather changed in June and slowed the sea ice loss. A persistent area of low atmospheric pressure, accompanied by cloudiness, winds that dispersed ice and lower-than-average temperatures, didn’t favor melt.

The rate of ice loss picked up again during the first two weeks of August, and is now greater than average for this time of the year. A strong cyclone is moving through the Arctic, similar to one that occurred in early August 2012. Four years ago, the storm caused an accelerated loss of ice during a period when the decline in sea ice is normally slowing because the sun is setting in the Arctic. However, the current storm doesn’t appear to be as strong as the 2012 cyclone and ice conditions are less vulnerable than four years ago, Meier said.”

But curiously, the British daily The Guardian just a day earlier (18 August 2016) wrote that the Arctic sea ice was caught in the midst of a “death spiral”:

Time to listen to the ice scientists about the Arctic death spiral
The Arctic’s ice is disappearing. We must reduce emissions, fast, or the human castastrophe predicted by ocean scientist Peter Wadhams will become reality […] Because Wadhams says what other scientists will not, he has been widely slandered, attacked and vilified by denialists and politicians who have advised caution or non-action. But now he returns their fire, exhorting people to counter what he calls “the sewage flow of lies and deceit” emitted by the deniers. Above all, he says, people who study climate change should speak up and be prepared to risk the blighting of their careers and absence of honours. But he joins other climate researchers to cross lines that the public may still find unacceptable. He wants global action to find new ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere, and is not afraid of nuclear power – both of which answers can be swallowed – but he also argues for a colossal, global research programme in geo- engineering. […]”

It certainly is a strange “death spiral” when there hasn’t been an increased melting in 4 years.

Also the reminder that we should be listening much more closely to sea ice scientist Peter Wadhams also sounds comical, especially when one closely considers the earlier forecasting performance of the climate-alarmism-prone scientist. In the following chart we find 30 different estimates for last year’s Arctic minimum issued before the ice melt season began (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Estimate forecast for the 2015 Arctic sea ice minimum from 30 different scientific groups. Source: SIPN.

Result: By a huge margin Peter Wadhams comes in as a straggler in last place, miles away from the real value of 4.5 million square kilometers. How embarassing.

And we’re supposed to be listening more closely to Wadhams?

Scientific colleague Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading was outraged about how the Guardian could hype up this scientific fringe position. At Twitter he expressed his irritation:



It doesn’t surprise us that science fringe Wadhams gladly cooperates with the no lesser extremist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). Among others, Wadhams also appears in a publication together with Anders Levermann, who belongs to the hard core of the PIK climate alarmism group.


Glaring Falsehoods By German ZDF Public Television Aimed At Attacking Climate Science Skepticsm

As is the case in many countries, major media outlets are increasingly accused of having abandoned real investigative journalism, and rather have taken on the role of unquestioning propaganda mouthpiece for the state or a single political line. The following is an example in Germany.

German public television TV host/science journalist Harald Lesch (astrophysicist) attacks climate skepticism

By Carl-Otto Weiss, Physicist PhD


German public television science journalist Harald Lesch plays it loose with the facts to mislead the public. Image cropped from ZDF, Fair Use.

Many opposition parties in Europe, the GOP party in the US, as well as governments of various countries like Australia, Poland, etc. view “global warming” with healthy amount of scepticism, or even as a “hoax”.  In Germany the newly minted AfD protest party added to its programme that the party does not support so-called “climate protection” schemes. The AfD is to Germany what the UKIP is to the UK, i.e. a very inconvenient thorn in the side of the splintering euro-political establishment.

The AfD justifies its opposition to climate protection initiatives based on three factors: 1) all predictions of global warming rest solely on model calculations which have failed all tests, 2) there is no single scientific result published proving significant global warming by man-made CO2, and 3) there is a large number of publications definitely disproving any possibility of a sizeable influence of CO2 on the Earth’s temperature.

On ZDF German public television, Harald Lesch one-sidedly challenged the AfD’s climate science position. On the argument that the models are unsuitable for predictions, he stated bluntly:

No model that has not stood the test against measurements or experiments can be published in the scientific literature.”

Mr. Lesch, an astrophysicist, is surely familiar with scientific literature, and thus really must know that any number of model calculations are published without being tested by experiments/measurements. Every natural scientist knows this. Very often a model rests on a new idea or insight, something, which in itself is certainly worth publishing, and, consequently, gets published.

Thus Lesch’s statement is, to say the least, quite surprising. Would any experienced scientist really have no idea of the scientific publication process – even of his own field?

Readers may find it of interest that the AfD is right now the only political party in Germany that is expressly against action to “fight climate change”, and has been very successful in convincing plenty of voters, thus making the other parties very nervous.

Lesch in fact never contacted EIKE

Next Leach attacked the climate science critics:

It is always the same people who try to undermine the credibility of trusted experts.”

Here the trusted experts are in fact not trusted by everyone – rather only by much of the mainstream media, and of course the governments who happen to pay the experts.

Here Lesch points the finger at EIKE (European Institute for Climate and Energy), which operates the most widely viewed German speaking website (here) on issues concerning climate science and energy policy and is the only independent German association of scientists that discusses climate questions. Lesch added:

Of course I try to discuss this with them. I even tried to get in contact with them by phone, but they do not answer.”

This is untrue. A check among all EIKE members reveals that no EIKE member has ever received any inquiry from Leash in any way, shape or form. In return, however, EIKE requested the ZDF TV station to arrange contact with Lesch. Sadly the public-funded ZDF TV station refused to let EIKE contact Lesch.

ZDF refuses to give sceptics time

Requests for a public discussion between EIKE and the publicly-paid Mr. Lesch continue to go unanswered.


Related reading:

NTZ comment: The constant falsehoods aimed at diminishing dissenting voices indeed can get frustrating. However, it is only a matter of time before the media shoot themselves one time too many and end up bleeding to death on their own.


Uncovered: Incoherent, Conflicting IPCC ‘Beliefs’ on Climate Sensitivity

For going on 3 decades now, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports have estimated that the climate’s sensitivity to the doubling of preindustrial levels of CO2 (from 280 ppm to 560 ppm) may range between 1.5°C to 4.5°C due significantly to the assumed “dangerous” warming amplification from positive water vapor feedback.  Despite years of analysis, the factor-of-three difference between the lower and higher surface temperature range thresholds has changed little.  There apparently have been no breakthroughs in understanding the “basic physics” of water vapor amplification to narrow this range further.

The theoretical conceptualization for the surface temperature change resulting from CO2 doubling alone — without the “dangerous” amplification from  water vapor feedback — has also been in use, and unchanged, for decades.  Since the 1960s it has been hypothesized that if preindustrial CO2 levels were to be doubled to 560 ppm, the surface temperature change would amount to a warming of a non-alarming 1.2°C in the absence of other feedbacks.

Below are brief summaries from scientific papers (and the Skeptical Science blog) confirming that the IPCC and models claim doubling CO2 only results in 1.2°C of warming.

IPCC (2001) :

“[T]he radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration would be 4 Wm-2. To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of other changes”

Skeptical Science :

“We know that if the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere doubles from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million  by volume (ppmv) to 560 ppmv, this will cause an energy imbalance by trapping more outgoing thermal radiation in the atmosphere, enough to directly warm the surface approximately 1.2°C.”

Gebhart, 1967 :

“The temperature change at the earth’s surface is ΔT=+1.2°C when the present [CO2] concentration is doubled.”

Hansen et al., 1981 :

“The increase of equilibrium surface temperature for doubled atmospheric CO2 is ∼1.2°C.  This case is of special interest because it is the purely radiative-convective result, with no feedback effects.”

Lorius et al., 1990 :

“The radiative forcing resulting from doubled atmospheric CO2 would increase the surface and tropospheric temperature by  1.2°C if there were no feedbacks in the climate system.”

Torn and Harte, 2006 :

“An increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 275 to 550 ppm is expected to increase radiative forcing by about 4 W m2, which would lead to a direct warming of 1.2°C in the absence of feedbacks or other responses of the climate system”


IPCC: Dangerous future warming levels (3°C and up) are caused mostly by water vapor, not CO2

As mentioned, the IPCC authors have claimed that it is primarily due to the conceptualization of positive feedback with water vapor that the surface temperature response is projected  to reach the dangerous warming levels of 3.0°C and up as CO2 doubles to 560 ppm.

IPCC (2001) :

“The so-called water vapour feedback, caused by an increase in atmospheric water vapour due to a temperature increase, is the most important feedback responsible for the amplification of the temperature increase [from CO2 alone].”

In their 4th report, the IPCC acknowledged that humans have little influence in determining water vapor levels:

IPCC (2007) :

“Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour.”

The main reason why IPCC authors have asserted that water vapor will do most of the “dangerous” projected warming, while CO2 will contribute a much smaller fraction, is apparently because the greenhouse warming effect from water vapor forcing is “two to three times greater” than that of carbon dioxide:

IPCC (2013) :

“Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. The contribution of water vapour to the natural greenhouse effect relative to that of carbon dioxide (CO2) depends on the accounting method, but can be considered to be approximately two to three times greater.”

Even NASA agrees that water vapor and clouds together account for 75% of the greenhouse effect, while CO2 only accounts for 20%.


Carbon dioxide causes about 20 percent of Earth’s greenhouse effect; water vapor accounts for about 50 percent; and clouds account for 25 percent. The rest is caused by small particles (aerosols) and minor greenhouse gases like methane.”


IPCC: Positive water vapor feedbacks are believed to cause dangerous warming

It is curious to note that the insufficiently understood positive water vapor feedback conceptualization is rooted in . . . belief.  Literally.   In the third report (TAR), the IPCC authors actually used the word “believed” to denote how they reached the conclusion that 1.2°C will somehow morph into 1.5°C to 4.5°C of warming due to amplification from feedbacks.

IPCC (2001) :

“If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously, with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm-2. In other words, the radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration would be 4 Wm-2. To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.”

IPCC climate sensitivity estimates have been based on hypotheticals, or the belief that water vapor positive feedback will cause another 1.8°C to 3.3°C of “extra” or “dangerous” warming (to reach upwards of 3.0°C to 4.5°C).  CO2 alone only causes 1.2°C of warming as it is doubled from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.  Since when are modeled beliefs about what may possibly happen to global temperatures at some point in the next 100 years . . . science?

IPCC: Water vapor increased substantially since 1970 — but didn’t cause warming

If water vapor is the primary determinant of the “extra” and “dangerous” warming we are expected to get along with the modest 1.2°C temperature increase as the CO2 concentration reaches 560 ppm, then it is natural to ask: How much of the warming since 1950 has been caused by the additional CO2, and how much has been caused by the water vapor feedback that is believed to cause the extra, “dangerous” warming?

This last question arises because, according to the IPCC, there has been a substantial increase in the potent water vapor greenhouse gas concentration in the last few decades.  Specifically, in their 4th report, the IPCC authors claim there has been “an overall increase in water vapour of order 5% over the 20th century and about 4% since 1970“(IPCC [2007]).

Considering its abundance in the atmosphere (~40,000 ppm in the tropics), if water vapor increased by 4% since 1970, that means that water vapor concentrations could potentially have increased by more than 1,500 ppm in the last few decades.  The overall magnitude of this water vapor concentration increase is therefore more than 20 times greater than the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration (~70 ppm) since 1970.

But even though the IPCC claims that (a) water vapor will cause most of the “dangerous” warming in the future, (b) water vapor climate forcing is “two to three” times greater than CO2 forcing within the greenhouse effect, and (c) water vapor concentrations have increased substantially since 1970, the IPCC simultaneously claims that (d) CO2 has caused most — if not all — of the warming since the mid-20th century anyway.   In the 5th report, the IPCC’s “consensus” statement reads like this:

IPCC (2013, 2014) :

“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.”

For advocates of dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) projections, the “more than half” CO2 attribution apparently isn’t quantitatively strong enough.  After all, “more than half” could be interpreted as only slightly more than 50%.   To rectify this, Gavin Schmidt  — a primary overseer of NASA temperature adjustments — has calculated that the anthropogenic impact on climate has not  just been “more than half,” but more than 100%.   In a recent RealClimate blog entry, Schmidt  claims that humans have caused 110% of the global warming since 1950 — and that IPCC analysis (found in Fig. 10.5 in IPCC AR5) also supports an anthropogenic CO2 attribution of  “near 100%”.

Real Climate :

“The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar [in Fig. 10.5] (noting the 1𝛔 uncertainties). Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%. This easily justifies the IPCC claims of having a mean near 100%, and a very low likelihood of the attribution being less than 50% (p < 0.0001!).”


Conflicting IPCC climate sensitivity feedback suppositions

The IPCC believes that the climate’s overall surface temperature sensitivity to the doubling of preindustrial CO2 ranges between 1.5°C to 4.5°C, with the projected higher warming levels due primarily to amplifying water vapor feedback.  This conceptualization appears to be in conflict with other IPCC suppositions.

On one hand, the IPCC reports have claimed that (a) water vapor is much more potent than CO2 within the greenhouse effect, that (b) the bulk of the 3.0°C and up “dangerous” warming that is believed to occur in the future will be forced by positive water vapor feedback, and that (c) water vapor  levels have significantly increased in recent decades (by 4% since 1970).

On the other hand, (d) water vapor is claimed to have caused right around 0% of the warming in the last several decades.

Summarily, these conflicting explanations or suppositions about what can happen, what will happen, and what has already happened to the climate due to water vapor feedback beg the questions:

Why hasn’t the “dangerous” water vapor warming found in models “kicked in” during the last several decades, when water vapor levels have increased (according to the IPCC)? 

Since it reportedly hasn’t yet, at what point in the future will the “dangerous” water vapor warming projections found in modeling finally show up in the temperature record?

Considering how fundamental climate sensitivity estimates are to climate science, and ultimately to the direction of political policies and energy production and consumption, these questions deserve to be answered . . . with something more substantive than what the IPCC authors have long believed to be true. 

“Preach Water, Guzzle Wine”… Swiss VP Doris Leuthard’s Hypocrisy On 500-Day “Solar Impulse” Flight

The energy restriction that the global climate change movement is calling for is arguably about driving the masses back into the mud, and putting a small, elitist class into palaces.

Any study would show that global warming regulators, activists and scientists are the worst offenders when it comes to carbon emissions. Think Al Gore, George Clooney, Leonardo DiCaprio, Hillary Clinton (e.g. private jet for travelling just 20 miles), to name just a few. The most alarmist climate scientists are constantly flying and attending lavish conferences.

Leuthard_WikipediaI’d even say that the aim goes far beyond us serving them instead of them serving us, rather, at least for some, it’s mostly about forcing us to worship them at their feet. This green movement as we know it is in large part tyranny disguised as rescuing the planet. 80% of the science is pure BS.

Photo right: Doris Leuthard. Credit: Website of the Swiss Federal Chancellery. Permission here.

Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt deliver another prime example of climate arrogance in their latest post, where they write “Preach water, guzzle wine.”

The latest surrounds Swiss Vice President Doris Leuthard of the Christian Democratic People’s Party (CVP) and her in Abu Dhabi celebrating the completion of the around-the-world trip by sun-powered aircraft Solar-Impulse, which de facto was carried around the world.

The two German authors quote an except from an article by Markus Schär of the Swiss Weltwoche No. 30/2016, who writes:

Using the federal parliamentary jet, Doris Leuthard (CVP) flew to Abu Dhabi. She celebrated Bertrand ­Piccard and André Borschberg, who circled the globe in the monster aircraft ‘Solar Impulse’, which was accompanied a charter jet with a 65-man crew and mobile hangar inside, and that in only 425 days more than Jules Verne’s hero (‘Around the World in 80 Days’) back in 1872. A reporter from Blick [daily] was told by Leuthard that ‘Switzerland must somehow show the world how we can set up a world without fossil energies in the future’. (When asked the question why Abu Dhabi was the starting point and destination, she conceded that Switzerland was ‘simply no country for sunshine’). The Parliamentary jet emitted some 80 tonnes of CO2 just for one trip, the same as driving a car for 30 years. Leuthard’s own Federal Ministry for Commercial Aviation recommends against emissions, a ‘reduction of personal travel distances.’ And: “refraining from midsize and long journeys.’”

Of course people like Leuthard have no intention whatsoever of drastically scaling back their own lifestyles.

Power is not about equality, rather it’s all about creating glaring inequality.


Global Warming-Pushing Media, Governments Refuted…Antarctic Peninsula Is In Fact Cooling, Study Finds

British Antarctic Survey: Antarctic Peninsula has been cooling since 1998

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt

(German text translated/edited by P. Gosselin)

Climate skeptics have been accused over and over again of fabricating the climate warming hiatus of the past 15 years. A poor argument because the hiatus has been established as an area of research on which a number of scientific groups are working.

The latest study on the subject comes from a group of the British Antarctic Survey (Turner et al. 2016) that was published on July 21, 2016, in the journal Nature. It is a study on the warming hiatus of the Antarctic Peninsula. Yes, you heard it correctly – also here it appears there has been a hiatus.

The surprise is justified – as the German media and authorities claim on a regular basis that the Antarctic Peninsula is among the most rapidly warming regions on earth.

For example on the website of the German Environment Office Umweltbundesamtes (UBA) of July 23, 2013:

The climate of Antarctica
Antarctica is the driest and coldest continent on earth. Temperatures reach the freezing point in the west during the warmest month of January, otherwise they are far below the mean temperature of -55°C. Also Antarctica is impacted by global climate change and it is foremost warming at the Antarctic Peninsula more than the rest of the world. […] Only a few areas of the Antarctic Peninsula reach temperatures above the freezing point on a regular basis during the summer. However, it is the Antarctic Peninsula on the west side of the continent that is strongly hit by global climate change. No region on earth is currently warming faster. The temperature data of a research station on the Antarctic Peninsula run by Oak Ridge National Laboratory shows an annual mean warming of up to 2°C over the past 50 years. For the entire continent a warming of about 0.12°C per decade has been shown.”

John Turner and his colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) have combined and evaluated the temperature data from various research stations on the Antarctic Peninsula. Using the data it was possible to divide the trend into a warming phase of 1979-1997 and a cooling phase 1999-2014, the latter being the hiatus. The authors even write the result in the title of their Nature study:

Absence of 21st century warming on Antarctic Peninsula consistent with natural variability
Since the 1950s, research stations on the Antarctic Peninsula have recorded some of the largest increases in near-surface air temperature in the Southern Hemisphere1. This warming has contributed to the regional retreat of glaciers2, disintegration of floating ice shelves3 and a ‘greening’ through the expansion in range of various flora4. Several interlinked processes have been suggested as contributing to the warming, including stratospheric ozone depletion5, local sea-ice loss6, an increase in westerly winds5, 7, and changes in the strength and location of low–high-latitude atmospheric teleconnections8, 9. Here we use a stacked temperature record to show an absence of regional warming since the late 1990s. The annual mean temperature has decreased at a statistically significant rate, with the most rapid cooling during the Austral summer. Temperatures have decreased as a consequence of a greater frequency of cold, east-to-southeasterly winds, resulting from more cyclonic conditions in the northern Weddell Sea associated with a strengthening mid-latitude jet. These circulation changes have also increased the advection of sea ice towards the east coast of the peninsula, amplifying their effects. Our findings cover only 1% of the Antarctic continent and emphasize that decadal temperature changes in this region are not primarily associated with the drivers of global temperature change but, rather, reflect the extreme natural internal variability of the regional atmospheric circulation.”

Figure: Temperature curve of the Antarctic Peninsula since 1979 (black curve). The red lines depict the linear trends. The gray bars at 1998 mark the trend change from warming to cooling. Source: Turner et al. 2016.

Turner and his colleagues clearly show that a strong natural variability governs on the Antarctic Peninsula and that it goes far beyond the anthropogenic signal. The change from natural warming phases over to cooling phases is a well-known phenomenon that is shown by ice core studies on the climate development over the past 1000 years.

The BAS scientists warn of simplistic views on warming in the late 20th century. In addition to natural variability (ocean cycles) and CO2, here also the ozone hole could have played a role. The main part of the text in the study states:

The recent change in SAT [surface air temperature] trend can be set in a longer-term perspective through examination of regional ice core records. An ice core from James Ross Island, which is close to Marambio station, showed that the region experienced several periods of rapid warming and cooling in the last 1,000 years, and that the warming trend over the last 100 years was ‘highly unusual’, although not unprecedented. However, the period since the late 1970s includes the ozone hole, which is unique in the record.”

The warming rate of the Antarctic Peninsula indeed was high in the late 20th century, however according to ice core measurements, there was a 50-year interval when temperatures rose even faster than 1979-1997:

The Ferrigno ice core from the coast of West Antarctica shows a warming from the 1950s to the early twenty-first century that agrees well with the warming observed at Vernadsky. In the longer term, this record revealed marked decadal variability and, importantly, resolved a 50-year period in the eighteenth century when SATs increased at a faster rate than observed at Vernadsky over the second half of the twentieth century.”

The most important finding of the study: The alleged extraordinarily strong warming of the Antarctic Peninsula in the late 20th century is well within the range of natural fluctuations. The paper states:

Therefore all these studies suggest that the rapid warming on the AP since the 1950s and subsequent cooling since the late-1990s are both within the bounds of the large natural decadalscale climate variability of the region.

Also see the article at t-online by Andreas Lerg.


Scientists: Ocean Temps Vary ‘Robustly’ and ‘Near-Synchronously’ with Solar Activity

According to scientists, ocean temperatures have fluctuated up and down within a range of around 1 to 2°C for the last 1,000 years.

During the Medieval Warm Period (~800 to 1,000 years ago) ocean temperatures were as warm or warmer than they are now.  This centennial-scale warming occurred during a period of high solar activity, or during the Medieval Maximum.

During the Little Ice Age (1400 to 1900 AD), ocean temperatures plummeted relative to the Medieval Warm Period.  This dramatic ocean cooling occurred during several long periods of low solar activity – the Oort, Wolf, Spörer, Maunder, and Dalton Minimums.

During the Modern Warming Period (1900-present), ocean temperatures have risen again.  This warming has coincided with a period of very high solar activity, the Modern Grand Maximum.

Below are several papers indicating that ocean temperatures have risen and fallen for the last 1,000 years in concert with solar activity, including the 20th Century Modern Grand Maximum.  As Sejrup et al. (2010) cogently write in the conclusion of their paper:

“The associated decade- to century-scale variation of estimated nSST [near sea surface temperature] ranges from 1 to 2°C, significantly larger than expected based on thermodynamic considerations alone. We suggest that this is due to a solar influence on the regional modes of atmospheric variability which, in turn, control the poleward transport and temperature of warm Atlantic surface waters. Our findings beg the question of why such a clear connection has not been detected previously.”

The Medieval Maximum, Little Ice Age Minimums, and Modern Grand Maximum

Rigozo et al., 2001

“[I]n the last 1000 years solar activity displayed a Great Medieval Maximum, 1100 – 1250 AD, followed by a period of lower solar activity until the start of the 20th century. … The Oort, Wolf, Spörer, Maunder, and Dalton Minimums have been identified, as have the Medieval Maximum and the so-called Modern Maximum, starting near 1900.”

Zharkova et al., 2015

“The longest direct observation of solar activity is the 400-year sunspot-number series, which depicts a dramatic contrast between the almost spotless Maunder and Dalton minima, andthe period of very high activity in the most recent 5 cycles [1950s – 2000s], prior to cycle 24. … The records show that solar activity in the current cycle 24 is much lower than in the previous three cycles 21–23 revealing more than a two-year minimum period between cycles 23 and 24. This reduced activity in cycle 24 was very surprising because the previous five cycles were extremely active and sunspot productive forming the Modern Maximum.   We predict correctly many features from the past, such as: 1) an increase in solar activity during the Medieval Warm period; 2) a clear decrease in the activity during the Little Ice Age, the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum; 3) an increase in solar activity during a modern maximum in 20th century.”

Lockwood et al., 2009

“[T]he Sun has been unusually active over recent decades (Solanki et al. 2004; Vonmoos et al. 2006; Muscheler et al. 2007; Steinhilber et al. 2008). Solanki et al. (2004) used the 14C isotope abundance found in tree trunks and concluded that the Sun has been more active recently than at any time in the previous 8000 years and that it was as active as in recent decades for only 10% of the past 11000 years.”

Usoskin et al., 2014

[T]he modern Grand maximum (which occurred during solar cycles 19–23, i.e., 1950–2009) was a rare or even unique event, in both magnitude and duration, in the past three millennia. Except for these extreme cases, our reconstruction otherwise reveals that solar activity is well confined within a relatively narrow range.”

Wang et al., 2010

“It is seen that a very active period that began in 1920, the so-called ‘current grand solar maximum’, will probably end during 2011-2027 … The current grand solar maximum started in 1920 and lasted for eight 11-year solar cycles.”

Robust Correlation: Ocean Temperatures and Solar Activity

Sejrup et al., 2010   (Norwegian Sea)

Response of Norwegian Sea temperature to solar forcing since 1000 A.D.

“Here we present an exceptionally well-dated marine sediment sequence in the eastern Norwegian Sea which records 1–2°C variations of temperature in northward flowing Atlantic waters that are robustly correlated with various estimates of solar activity spanning the last 1000 years. The temperature and solar proxy variations appear to be synchronous within dating errors, which, together with the large amplitude of the temperature signal and its correlation into central Europe, suggests strong coupling of the regional atmospheric and oceanic responses to the Sun. … Lowest isotope values (highest temperatures) of the last millennium are seen 1100–1300 A.D., during the Medieval Climate Anomaly, and again after 1950 A.D. The largest and most sustained isotopic increases (coolings) are centered at ∼1500 A.D. and ∼1700 A.D., corresponding to the regional Little Ice Age. … The presence of medieval and 20th century warmth and Little Ice Age cooling in our records suggests a possible connection to known solar variations at these times (i.e., the Spører and Maunder minima and medieval and modern maxima, respectively). …  For the period after 1500 A.D., during which we have greatest confidence in the sediment age model, correlations with the various solar proxies range from ∣R∣ = 0.71 to 0.87 (all significant at >99%). … On balance, the observed relationship of nSST and solar proxies suggests a climate response to the Sun within the characteristic inertial timescale of the upper ocean, which is one to several decades. Recurrent, episodic volcanic forcing may also influence the ocean climate signal at this timescale, however, our results indicate that approximately 50–70% of the observed multidecadal to century-scale δ18O variation may be explained by solar forcing alone.”

Conclusion: “We have presented an oxygen isotopic proxy record of near-surface temperature of Atlantic waters from the area of their primary flow into the eastern Norwegian Sea and find that it is robustly and near-synchronously correlated with various proxies of solar variability spanning the last millennium. The associated decade- to century-scale variation of estimated nSST ranges from 1 to 2°C, significantly larger than expected based on thermodynamic considerations alone. We suggest that this is due to a solar influence on the regional modes of atmospheric variability which, in turn, control the poleward transport and temperature of warm Atlantic surface waters. Our findings beg the question of why such a clear connection has not been detected previously.”

Richey et al., 2007  (Gulf of Mexico)

“[C]entennial-scale sea surface temperature (SST) oscillations of 2–3 °C occurred during the past 1–2 [thousand years].  Two multidecadal intervals of sustained high Mg/Ca indicate that Gulf of Mexico sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were as warm or warmer than near modern conditions between 1000 and 1400 yr B.P. [before present] Foraminiferal Mg/Ca during the coolest interval of the Little Ice Age (ca. 250 yr B.P.) indicate that SST was 2–2.5 °C below modern SST.

Four minima in the Mg/Ca record between 900 and 250 yr B.P. correspond with the Maunder, Spörer, Wolf, and Oort sunspot minima, suggesting a link between changes in solar insolation and SST variability in the Gulf of Mexico.”

Dramatic Variation in Ocean Temperature During MWP, LIA

Bertler et al., 2011  (Southern Ocean)

“Here we present new data from the Ross Sea, Antarctica, that indicates surface temperatures were ~ 2 °C colder during the LIA, with colder sea surface temperatures in the Southern Ocean and/or increased sea-ice extent, stronger katabatic winds, and decreased snow accumulation.   The McMurdo Dry Valleys [Antarctica] were 0.35°C warmer during the MWP than during ME [modern era], accompanied by warmer conditions in the Ross Sea.”

Keigwin, 1996   (North Atlantic)

“Results from a radiocarbonated box score [in the North Atlantic] show that SST was ~ 1°C cooler ~400 years ago (The Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and ~ 1°C warmer than today in 1,000 years ago (The Medieval Warm Period).”

Rosenthal et al., 2013 (Pacific Ocean)

“We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters [0-700 m] were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades.”

Rosenthal 2013a

Newton et al., 2006  (Indo-Pacific)

[S]ea surface temperature and salinity records from the Makassar Strait, Indonesia, show a long-term cooling and freshening trend, as well as considerable centennial-scale variability during the last millenniumThe warmest temperatures and highest salinities occurred during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), while the coolest temperatures and lowest salinities occurred during the Little Ice Age (LIA).

Oppo et al., 2009 (Indo-Pacific)

“[T]he tropical Indo-Pacific warm pool (IPWP) represents a major heat reservoir that both influences global atmospheric circulation and responds to remote northern high-latitude forcings. Here we present a decadally resolved continuous sea surface temperature (SST) reconstruction from the IPWP that spans the past two millennia and overlaps the instrumental record.  Reconstructed SST was, however, within error of modern values from about ad 1000 to ad 1250, towards the end of the Medieval Warm Period. SSTs during the Little Ice Age (approximately ad 1550–1850) were variable, and 0.5 to 1 °C colder than modern values during the coldest intervals.”

Sepulveda et al., 2009 (Tropical Pacific)

“We observed two different regimes of climate variability in our record [Patagoina, Chile]: a relatively dry/warm period before 900 cal yr BP (lower runoff and average SST 1°C warmer than present day [Medieval Warm Period]) and a wet/cold period after 750 cal yr BP (higher runoff and average SST 1°C colder than present day). Relatively colder SSTs were found during 750–600 and 450–250 cal yr BP, where the latter period roughly corresponds to the interval defined for the Little Ice Age (LIA).”

Ran et al., 2011 (Greenland Sea)

“Warm and stable conditions with relatively strong influence of the Irminger Current on the North Icelandic shelf are indicated during the interval AD 940–1300, corresponding in time to the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). A considerable cooling at ∼ AD 1300 indicates the transition to the Little Ice Age (LIA) with increased influence of Polar and Arctic water masses deriving from the East Greenland and East Icelandic currents. An extended cooling period between AD 1300 and 1910 is characterized by approximately century-scale oscillations, with marked cold intervals at AD 1325–1375, AD 1460–1500, AD 1610–1670 and AD 1810–1910, separated by relatively mild spells. A two-step warming during the last 100 years is interrupted by three cool events around AD 1920, in the AD 1960s and in the late AD 1990s.”

Clinton Shuns Visit To Louisiana Flood Zone… Too Frail For The Heat And Humidity?

Too frail? Has Hillary Clinton shunned a visit to Louisiana because getting out and visiting flood victims would require her to spend extended time outside her fossil-fuel, air-conditioned comfort zone?

Hillary Clinton’s suspected major health issues refuse to go away as a political issue in this year’s election. The latest herehere and here.

Though claims that she may be “at death’s door” are certainly a stretch, her low frequency of appearances resembles a light workload one sees for a person in poor health.

A no-show in Louisiana

Yet another sign of poor health likely is Clinton’s absence from flood-stricken Louisiana. Heavy criticism has been launched at President Obama, who opted to play golf instead, but also at Clinton, who has mysteriously never shown up to lend support and let the victims know they are not alone. Moral support in times of crisis is crucial to the victims as they struggle to get back on their own feet.

How could Hillary not have shown up?

Trump is the only one who stepped up.

Not a picture of health

So why wouldn’t Clinton show up? Face it, the summertime climate in the Deep South region is hardly a favorable one for persons in poor health having to spend more than just a few minutes time outdoors fully exposed to the scorching heat and high humidity – away from their air-conditioned comfort zone. Hillary is probably unable to cope with it, and so was instructed by her doctor to just stay away. Especially the elderly and sick are advised to stay indoors and to drink plenty of fluids in times of heat.

And from appearance Clinton hardly projects a picture of health. She is pale, moves about cautiously, and often looks unsteady. She is also clearly overweight, and not just at the legs and hips, but at places where health experts agree are not where fat ought to be stored (visceral fat) – another sign of poor health.

Tucked away in air-conditioned comfort zone

A visit to flood victims would require Clinton to actually be out in the harsh elements, in full heat and high humidity for at least half an hour, something for which she likely is too frail to do. Trump, in contrast, was shown unloading supplies from a truck out in the burning sun and humidity. Clinton doing the same would be something her doctor would advise anyone in poor health not to do. Clinton sweating profusely and struggling to endure the heat would hardly make a good photo-op, and certainly not a heat stroke with cameras rolling.

To sick for a boat ride?

Clinton, who also claims to be a tireless warrior against man-made climate change and a champion of environmental protection, is also reported to have recently used her private jet and gas-guzzling SUV to travel a mere 20 or so miles. Ironically her protective, constantly air-conditioned comfort zones are powered in large part by fossil fuels, something she insists the rest of us should start learning to forego.

Martha's Vineyard

Image cropped from Google Maps

So why would she take a private jet to Nantucket instead of a boat?

Sure some people get queasy flying in an airplane, yet it is still in most cases far less turbulent than racing across the waves of the Atlantic in boat. The risk of sea sickness is much higher – especially when one’s health isn’t what it ought to be.

If Hillary Clinton is not up to visiting Louisiana, then she should issue a statement saying so. We could all understand and respect this. But instead, in typical Clinton style, she seems to cover it all up and insist she’s healthy. No one is buying it.


Austrian Solar Charts Expose “Small Sensation” …Fractures CO2 Warming Theory

What follows is a highly discomforting fact, and it’s not going to go away.

A small sensation goes unnoticed by the press: Solar activity indeed reached maximum value in late 20th century

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
(German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Previously it was constantly claimed that solar activity couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the warming of the late 20th century because both curves fully diverged from each other. As proof, the following charts from Wikipedia were used:

Figure 1: Comparison of global temperature, CO2 and solar activity. From Wikipedia. Source: Leland McInnes at the English language Wikipedia [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)], via Wikimedia Commons.

The problem

Solar activity is not made up merely by the shaky sunspots. The above figure is an update from 2014 and was provided by a user with a less than trustworthy name of “Kopiersperre”.

The updated curve for solar activity is available from the Austrian Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik (ZAMG) and research group PAGES:

Figure 2: Fluctuations in solar climate drive on millennial, century and decadal scales. Top: The 20th century had the strongest solar activity in 11,000 years (here 7000 years are shown). Middle: The powerful drive of the Medieval Period and the scant amount of solar drive in the following centuries, followed by the extraordinary jump to the current level. Bottom chart: Only when using the short-term scale do we clearly see the 11-year cycle (Fröhlich 2000 aktual., Wagner and others 2007). Figure source: ZAMG.

Figure 3: Solar activity over the past 400 years. White curve; Total Solar Irradiance (TSI); Yellow curve shows sunspots. Figure source: PAGES.

The great changes in understanding solar activity were illustrated by Matthes & Funke at the end of 2015 at a conference contribution on page 9 (old curve SATIRE-TS in red):

Figure 4: The new and old curves for solar activity during the past 165 years. Source: page 9 in Matthes & Funke 2015.

But it gets even better

The sun not only reached its maximum at the end of the 20th century, but was apparently stronger than at any time over the past 10,000 years. Matthes et al. showed this in a very recent publication in the journal Geoscientific Model Development Discussions in 2016:

Figure 5: Source: Figure 20 in Matthes et al. 2016

Mysterious retreat

By the way, the unusually powerful solar activity in the second half of the 20th century had been already reported on by Sami Solanki in Nature here more than 10 years ago. Afterwards he mysteriously retreated from the climate discussion. Is this perhaps the reason why solar scientists operate almost unnoticed below the media radar?

Discomforting questions

The unexpectedly strong sun casts especially discomforting questions that some would just prefer to dodge. Couldn’t the high solar activity have something to do with the 1980-2000 warming after all?

In any case, now no one can insist that the solar activity and temperature curves diverge and thus refute the relationship. The attribution has to be re-examined altogether. There is no alternative.


German Scam: “A Contribution To Rescuing The Climate” Is In Fact Just “A Multibillion Euro Business”

Germany’s largest circulation daily, BILD, recently wrote an article titled: The Multibillion Euro Madness With The Energiewende, which looks at the profound failure of Germany’s transition to renewable energies and the government bowing to the green energy lobby.

The BILD article refers to a recent German ARD public television documentary.

“Exploding costs”

BILD begins by bringing up the fact that many wind parks are built in places where there really isn’t that much wind to start with, and that in general “costs for the Energiewende are exploding” and it’s the landowners where the turbines are sited who are making money hand over fist. In the end the consumer picks up the tab for what many see as a rampant, crony-capitalist scheme that is benefitting only a select and elite few (who are already well off).

The result for the rest of the people are huge costs and no benefit of any type.

Bild writes:

Indeed what the lobby sold as a contribution to the rescue of the climate is foremost one thing: a multibillion-euro business!” 

Bild also cites examples of how the industry is corrupt to the very core, citing internal e-mails from Germany’s number 1 environmentalist group BUND and showing how the activist organization “is doing the lobbying work for the wind industry. Of bird species that are chopped up by rotating blades, it is best not to speak about it.”

Even the BUND director admits that many of its members are active in the wind industry.

Bild writes in bold letters:

Single mother Nina Albig has two jobs, her power bill has double since 2008: 90 euros.”

Nina Albig tells BILD that she’s desperate and has no idea where to get the money to pay for the high costs. BILD writes that the government’s idea to revamp the country’s spiralling-out-of-control Energiewende is a good first step, but that there’s one obstacle: “The Lobby”. BILD quotes a top Green party official Anton Hofreiter, who shouted at a demonstration that was in large part attended by employees of the green energy industry who were bussed in free of charge: “We need wind turbines to rescue or planet.”

In the end BILD reports that the government bowed to The Lobby and decided to further expand wind energy, thus ratcheting up the pain consumers are having to endure. BILD summarizes:

The consumers will be asked to cough it up. That means all of us.”


There’s No Observational, Physical Evidence That CO2 Heats Water

In examining the Skeptical Science (SkS) blog essay How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats the Ocean  written by Rob Painting (an “environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer” who has “researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years” according to his website bio), we learn that (A) the Sun heats the surface layers of the ocean; (B) the heat “trapped” by CO2 at the ocean surface cannot penetrate past the ocean’s hair-thin “skin” layer, meaning that this alleged CO2-induced heat doesn’t enter the ocean itself; and (C) we learn that no empirical observation or physical experiment confirms that CO2 heats the ocean waters, so assumptions about CO2 are necessarily derived using proxy experimental evidence (i.e., clouds) instead.

Let’s review each of these directly quoted points individually.


(A)  “Sunlight penetrating the surface of the oceans is responsible for warming of the surface layers.”

(B)  “Adding further greenhouse gases to the atmosphere warms the ocean cool skin layer, which in turn reduces the amount of heat flowing out of the ocean. … Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat in the atmosphere and direct part of this back toward the surface. This heat cannot penetrate into the ocean itself, but it does warm the cool skin layer, and the level of this warming ultimately controls the temperature gradient in the layer.  … Despite being only 0.1 to 1 mm thick on average, this skin layer is the major player in the long-term warming of the oceans.”

(C)  “Obviously, it’s not possible to manipulate the concentration of CO2 in the air to carry out real world experiments, but natural changes in cloud cover provide an opportunity to test the principle [that CO2 heats water].”

(A) The Sun heats the oceans’ surface layers

As for the first SkS point (A), indeed the Sun heats the oceans’ surface layers.  According to NOAA, the surface layer is referred to as the “sunlight zone” and extends to depths of 200 meters.  Further, the Sun directly heats the first 20-30 m of the ocean (the “shortwave attenuation depth”), and the Sun’s irradiance can deposit 2.0 K of heat (500 W/m-2) uniformly in the first 2 m of the ocean in a matter of 12 daylight hours.


This surface layer is also called the sunlight zone and extends from the surface to 660 feet (200 meters). It is in this zone that most of the visible light exists. With the light comes heating from sun. This heating is responsible for wide change in temperature that occurs in this zone, both in the latitude and each season. The sea surface temperatures range from as high as 97°F (36°C) in the Persian Gulf to 28°F (-2°C) near the north pole. The sea surface temperature also ‘follows the sun’.”

Zhou et al., 2015

The incoming solar irradiance, which is absorbed by the upper ocean, is the main energy source in the ocean heat budget, and hence strongly impacts the oceanic thermal structure, heat transport and the global circulations. Shortwave radiation is attenuated exponentially with depth. The attenuation depth (e-folding depth) depends on the wavelength and biogenic components of the water. Traditionally, the water types are classified Jerlov I, IA, IB, II and III (Jerlov, 1976). The shortwave attenuation depth (SWAD) in open oceans (almost Jerlov I) is about 20–30 m, and it decreases with increasing water turbidity, particularly in coastal regions.”

Siegal et al., 1995

“First, the penetration of solar radiation through the [Pacific warm water pool] mixed is large and is an important component of the [Pacific warm water pool] heat budget.  The cruise <Tr(z)> observations indicate that 9.8% of the incident solar radiation penetrates to a depth of 30 m

Fairall et al., 1996

On a clear day the Sun deposits an average of about 500 W/m2 of heat into the ocean over the 12 daylight hours.  Roughly half of this heat is absorbed in the upper 2 m.  In the absence of mixing this is sufficient heat input to warm this 2-m-deep layer uniformly by 2.0 K. …  Measurable warming occurs as deep as 20 m and may persist well past sundown.”

Magnitude of CO2 Radiative Forcing Insufficient to Heat the Oceans

It should be noted here that because CO2 concentrations have risen from 280 ppm to 400 ppm since 1750, the IPCC (2013) has assessed that the total amount of radiative forcing attributed to the CO2 change for the last 265 years combined is less than 2 W/m2  (1.8 W/m2).  According to Dr. Roy Clark, this 2 W/m2 of total forcing from CO2 since 1750 is clearly not sufficient to heat the ocean to any detectable degree.

Dr. Roy Clark

It is simply impossible for the observed increase in downward LWIR flux from a 120 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration to heat the oceans. The increase in flux from CO2 is nominally 2 W.m^-2 or 0.18 MJ.m^-2 per day. The oceans are heated by the sun – up to 25 MJ m^-2 per day for full tropical or summer sun. About half of this solar heat is absorbed in the first 1 m layer of the ocean and 90% is absorbed in the first 10 m layer. The heat is removed by a combination of wind driven evaporation from the surface and LWIR emission from the first 100 micron layer. That’s about the width of a human hair. In round numbers, about 50 W.m^-2 is removed from the ocean surface by the LWIR flux and the balance comes from the wind driven evaporation. The heat capacity of the cooled layer at the surface is quite small – 4.2 kJ.m^-2 for a 1 mm layer. This reacts quite rapidly to any changes in the cooling flux and the heat transfer from the bulk ocean below and the evaporation rate change accordingly. The cooler water produced at the surface then sinks and cools the bulk ocean layer below. This is not just a diffusion process, but convection in which the cooler water sinks and warmer rises in a complex circulating flow pattern (Rayleigh-Benard convection). This couples the surface momentum (wind shear) to lower depths and drives the ocean currents. At higher latitudes the surface area of a sphere decreases and this drives the currents to lower depths.”

In round numbers, the temperature increase produced by a 2 W.m^-2 increase in LWIR flux from CO2 is overwhelmed by a 50 ± 50 W.m^-2 flux of cold water and a 0 to 1000 W.m^-2 solar heating flux.  Over the tropical warm pool the wind driven cooling rate is about 40 W.m^-2.m.s^-1 (40 Watts per square meter for each 1 m/sec change in wind speed). This means that a change in wind speed of 20 cm.s^-1 is equivalent to the global warming heat flux. (20 centimeters per second).”

(B) CO2 heat “cannot penetrate into the ocean itself” — but it controls the heat in the skin layer?

According to the “basic physics” and “settled science” as understood by the dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) advocates at SkS,  the heat trapped at the ocean surface via the “blanketing” greenhouse effect is not capable of actually penetrating into the ocean itself or affecting ocean heat content directly.  Nonetheless, it is claimed that CO2 can control how much heat is contained in the skin layer, and the heat energy in the “0.1 to 1 mm thick” skin layer  is “the major player” in determining the heat content of the global oceans to depths of thousands of meters.

First of all, it is nonsensical to admit that the Sun predominantly determines the temperature gradient of the first 30 meters of the ocean, but yet is simultaneously incapable of modulating the temperature of the first few tenths of a millimeter of the ocean.   Not surprisingly, scientists have found that “solar heating overcomes the net upward longwave energy flux and warms the skin” of a body of water.

Wilson et al., 2013

[D]aytime skin effect was strongly influenced by direct solar illumination and typically had a mean of 0.5 K in the morning that decreased to 0.1 K by midday.…. [D]aytime solar heating stratifies the temperature profile of the surface. With this in mind the negative skin effect results from two separate processes: (1) intense daytime solar heating overcomes the net upward longwave energy flux and warms the skin, or (2) the right combination of low wind and solar heating creates a warm layer of water above the floating thermistor.”

Sun Heats Surface Ocean, Surface Ocean Heats Atmosphere

The main reason why the ocean skin is cooler than the waters directly below it is due to vertical heat flux, or evaporative processes.  The skin layer’s temperature is largely determined by the natural flux of warmer subsurface waters (heated by the Sun) rising to the surface from below.  In this way, atmospheric processes (the CO2 greenhouse effect as envisioned by modelers) do not exert control over internal ocean processes (surface heat flux) more than internal ocean processes exert control over atmospheric processes.  The heat flux is “almost always” from ocean to atmosphere, not the other way around .

Murray et al., 2000

Skin SST is typically 0.1 -0.5 K cooler than the immediate sub-surface water, although considerable variation in the skin-bulk difference has been observed (e.g. Donlon et al., 1999). This temperature difference is due to the vertical heat flux through the thermal boundary layer in the top millimeter of the ocean; net surface heat flux is almost always from ocean to atmosphere, resulting in a cool ocean skin.”

Minnett et al., 2011

“There is a strong diurnal [sunshine] component to the magnitude of these temperature gradients, as well as a dependence on cloudcover, which modulates the insolation, and wind speed, which influences the turbulent mixing. The surface skin layer of the ocean, much less than 1 mm thick, is nearly always cooler than the underlying water because the heat flux is nearly always from the ocean to the atmosphere

Ellsaesser, 1984

“The current eager acceptance of oceanic thermal lag as the “explanation” as to why CO2 warming remains undetected, reemphasizes that the atmosphere cannot warm until the oceans do.”

CO2 Unmentioned as an Important Heat Flux Variable

It should also be pointed out that the peer-reviewed scientific literature lacks references to CO2 as a “major player” — let alone a player at all — in the determination of surface heat flux, skin temperature gradient, or ocean heating processes altogether.   One would think that if CO2 is the primary variable in net ocean heat content changes it would at least be routinely referred to as such in scientific journals.  It isn’t.  Below are just a few examples of the many instances in which CO2 is not mentioned when discussing the key components involved the ocean surface heat flux processes.

Hsiung, 1986

The heat balance of the global ocean surface layer is calculated using bulk flux formulations. Maps of the long-term monthly and annual means of the net surface energy flux together with the four components of the total flux (latent heat flux, sensible heat flux, incoming radiation, and outgoing radiation) for the global oceans are presented. Incoming solar radiation and latent heat flux are the two dominant components that control net surface energy fluxes. Wind speed, cloud cover, and the gradient of specific humidity are the three most important meteorological parameters in determining surface flux.

[CO2 is not mentioned as a factor affecting heat energy fluxes, nor anywhere in the paper.]

Smith et al., 1996

Observations of the Infrared Radiative Properties of the Ocean …

“[I]t is necessary to understand the physical variables contributing to sea surface emitted and reflected radiation to space.  The emissivity of the ocean surface varies with view angle and sea state, the reflection of sky radiation also depends on view angle and sea state, and the absorption of atmospheric constituents such as water vapor, aerosols, and subdivisible clouds affect transmittance.”

[CO2 is not mentioned as an IR variable, nor anywhere in the paper.]

Ohlmann and Siegal, 2000

[I]n-water solar fluxes can vary by 40 W/m-2 within the upper few meters of the ocean (based on a climatological surface irradiance of 200 W/m-2) and that a significant portion of the variation can be explained by upper ocean chlorophyll concentration, solar zenith angle, and cloud amount.”

[CO2 is not mentioned as a factor affecting the heat flux variation, nor anywhere in the paper.]

(C)  No observational evidence or “real world” scientific experiment confirms CO2 heats water

Let’s emphasize this last point (C) by citing the exact wording once again:


“Obviously, it’s not possible to manipulate the concentration of CO2 in the air to carry out real world experiments, but natural changes in cloud cover provide an opportunity to test the principle [that CO2 heats water].”

Over at RealClimate (RC), the blog founded by the likes of Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, and William Connolley (among others), there is an essay written by Peter Minnett entitled “Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean”.   (This was the original blog essay on the topic that Rob Painting appears to have borrowed heavily from in writing for SkS a few years later.)  The RC version of the above quote looks like this:


“Clearly it is not possible to alter the concentration of greenhouse gases in a controlled experiment at sea to study the response of the skin-layer. Instead we use the natural variations in clouds to modulate the incident infrared radiation at the sea surface.”

So here we have explicit acknowledgement that the conceptualization of CO2 as a primary determinant of net ocean heat content variations is not rooted in observational evidence and experimental science.   It’s a conceptualization that has not been tested or subjected to falsification.

Observational evidence of the alleged physical process that says raising or lowering CO2 heats or cools water bodies is not required, apparently.   A controlled scientific experiment to test the presumption that CO2 is “the major player” in determining ocean heat content because it allegedly controls the temperature of the “0.1 to 1 mm thick” skin layer is also not required, apparently.  Climate science is apparently not like the other sciences.

Clouds and CO2: Apples to Apples?

SkS and RC claim that, because there aren’t any physical measurements or controlled experiments or empirical observations that can verify the CO2-heats-water assumption found in models, cloud cover changes can suitably be used as a proxy  for CO2 changes so as to “test the principle”.   But clouds and CO2 do not offer an apples-to-apples comparison in their long-wave or “greenhouse” function, nor in their magnitude of influence on radiation budgets.  That’s because clouds are far more powerful agents of radiative change when altered  (both in the shortwave and longwave) than CO2 concentrations are.

In their highly-cited paper entitled “Cloud Radiative Forcing,” Ramanathan et al. (1989)  conclude:

“The size of the observed net cloud forcing is about four times as large as the expected value of radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2. The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a CO2 doubling. … The greenhouse effect of clouds may be larger than that resulting from a hundredfold increase in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere.”

Even RC acknowledges in that variations in cloud have a far more dominant effect on ocean heat changes and radiation budgets than do variations (doubling) of CO2.  In the very same RC blog essay about why CO2 is predominantly responsible for heating the oceans, we read this:

“Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2)”

So if changes in cloud are acknowledged to be in excess of an order of magnitude more powerful than CO2 changes in affecting heat energy changes in the oceans, why is it that clouds are assumed to be suitable as a comparison variable when “testing the principle” that CO2 is “the major player” in the determination of net ocean heat changes?  Symbolically speaking, why are refrigerators being used as a proxy for apples?

CO2-Heats-Water Assumption: Physical Measurements?

Probably the most critical feature underpinning the authentic physical sciences is the ability to obtain real world measurements.   A fundamental question for those who are convinced that CO2 is the primary cause of net ocean heat changes would therefore be this:

If the air’s CO2 concentration was raised or lowered by +/-10 parts per million over a body of water, what heat changes will occur in that body of water at depths of, say, 1 m?   What are the observed physical measurements?  

Of course, no one has an answer to this question.  We don’t have the physical measurements because this CO2-heats-water process has been neither observed nor tested or subjected to falsifiable scientific experiment.   The models might calculate a suggested W/m2 radiative forcing value for each CO2 change, but the models are based on assumptions, not real world observation.

And contrary to SkS and RealClimate claims,  it would seemingly not be impossible to test the assumption that CO2 heats water bodies, and if so, by how much.  A physical experiment could indeed be carried out for purposes of providing at least some enlightenment on these questions with direct, non-proxy observational evidence involving both CO2 and water.  For example, consider this proposed physical experiment:

Find  or create two empty and identical glass-covered greenhouses (or other transparent buildings) that are located side-by-side, with neither structure affected differently by trees or shade or other outdoor environmental conditions.  Inside each building place matching containers (large, preferably) filled with the same amount of water in each.  Measure the baseline conditions of water temperature with precise thermometers, and measure the baseline CO2 concentration each building  — which will presumably be the same or similar in each.  In the first building (control), do not alter the internal natural CO2 concentration, but leave it at baseline (somewhere close to 400 ppm).  In the second building, inject incrementally increasing quantities of CO2 (e.g., 500 ppm, 1,000 ppm, 1,500 ppm) with a CO2 generator (which are used in greenhouses to stimulate plant growth).   Use a CO2 monitor (also used routinely in greenhouses) to measure and control the amount of CO2 contained in the experimental building.   After a specified time lapse, measure the water temperature change, if any, for both the control building and the building with added CO2 from identical depths and locations for each container.  Finally, reverse the process and incrementally draw down the CO2 injection in the experimental building while again gauging water temperature changes for each building.  

This experiment (or something similar) might provide at least some basic answers to the question of how much, if any, change occurs in a body of water as a consequence of changing the air’s CO2 concentration above it.

Do DAGW advocates even want to subject their assumptions to an achievable controlled physical experiment like this, though?  It’s doubtful they do.  The results might very well invalidate the CO2-heats-water assumption.

Met Office Climate-Aerosol Hypothesis Now Dead And Buried For Good, German Scientists Write

Ocean cycles instead of aerosols: Met Office hypothesis on North Atlantic refuted for good

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)

In April 2012 the German online news daily WAZ reported with vigor:

Climate: air pollution leads to droughts and cyclones
Air pollution enhances droughts in Africa and cyclones over the Atlantic. This is the finding of British climate scientists. Historical climate events therefore can no longer be attributed to natural climate cycles. […] “We have to rethink: A number of historical climate events such as  especially intense droughts in the Sahel region can no longer be attributed to natural climate fluctuations,’ Ben Booth and his colleagues of the Hadley Centre of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter wrote. Climate models up to now and also rules for aerosol emissions have to be changed in response to the new findings.”

Read more at derwesten.de.

This all concerns a paper by Booth et al. 2012. However their findings were met with substantial doubt from most fellow scientists (also see our blog posting “British Met Office claims aerosol overdose: I look at the world the way I want to see it“).

On June 6, 2016, the alarming model met its final demise. A team of scientists led by Jon Robson analyzed in the journal Nature Geoscience the climate development in the North Atlantic and were able to explain I full the temperature changes with the climate-internal Atlantic ocean cycles. The authors clearly explain that the aerosol hypothesis from Booth and his colleagues is thus invalid.

Yet, the German WAZ is silent on the new paper’s findings. Here is the abstract of the new paper by Robson et al. 2016:

A reversal of climatic trends in the North Atlantic since 2005
In the mid-1990s the North Atlantic subpolar gyre warmed rapidly1, which had important climate impacts such as increased hurricane numbers2 and changes to rainfall over Africa, Europe and North America3, 4. Evidence suggests that the warming was largely due to a strengthening of the ocean circulation, particularly the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation1, 5, 6, 7. Since the mid-1990s direct and indirect measurements have suggested a decline in the strength of the ocean circulation8, 9, which is expected to lead to a reduction in northward heat transport10, 11. Here we show that since 2005 a large volume of the upper North Atlantic Ocean has cooled significantly by approximately 0.45 °C or 1.5 × 1022 J, reversing the previous warming trend. By analysing observations and a state-of-the-art climate model, we show that this cooling is consistent with a reduction in the strength of the ocean circulation and heat transport, linked to record low densities in the deep Labrador Sea9. The low density in the deep Labrador Sea is primarily due to deep ocean warming since 1995, but a long-term freshening also played a role. The observed upper ocean cooling since 2005 is not consistent with the hypothesis that anthropogenic aerosols directly drive Atlantic temperatures12.


Deeply Cold North Atlantic, Weak Sun Could Lead To “Big Freeze” 2016/17 Winter …Like 1962/63!

German skeptic site wobleibtdieerderwaermung.de writes here on the upcoming Europe fall/winter and the unfavorable solar situation. What follows are some excerpts.


Cold North Atlantic – weak sun: Icy 100-year winter 2016/17 like 1962/63?

In the first months of 2016, the North Atlantic has been significantly colder that the comparable El Niño year of 1998, and solar activity is the weakest in 200 years.

As a result could the winter of 2016/17 be one of the worst in a hundred years, like 1962/63 in Europe.

The following chart shows a clear cooling of the sea surface temperatures (SSTA) in the North Atlantic (35°N – 67°N, 55°W-0°) for the months of January to July 2016, compared to 1998.

Die Grafik zeigt den Vergleich der Abweichungen der Meeresoberflächentemperaturen (SSTA) der ersten sieben Monate in den beiden El Niño-Jahren 2016 und 1998. Die großen lilafarbenen und blauen Flächen weisen auf negative Abweichungen des Jahres 2016 gegenüber 1998 im nördlichen Nordatlantik hin. Quelle:

The above chart shows the difference of the deviation from the mean sea surface temperature (SSTA) for the first seven months in both El Niño years 2016 and 1998. 2016 is far colder than 1998. Source: www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd.pl.

Currently the North Atlantic is also much colder than normal when compared to the WMO recommended 1981-2010 climate mean:

Die Grafik zeigt die Abweichungen der Meeresoberflächentemperaturen (SSTA) der ersten sieben Monate im El Niño-Jahr 2016. Die großen lilafarbenen und blauen Flächen weisen auf negative Abweichungen des Jahres 2016 im nördlichen Nordatlantik zum WMO-Klimamittel 1981-2010 hin. Quelle:

Source: www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd.pl.

What effects does the sub-cooled North Atlantic have, for example, on a negative North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), and on Europe’s upcoming autumn and winter?

First let’s take a look at the temperature deviation in Europe in fall 1998 and winter 1998/99, which saw a considerably milder North Atlantic as we presented earlier here! We wrote:

Instead, the fall of 2016 could be quite uncomfortable over large parts of Europe if it is like the fall of 1998…”

NOAA-Reanalyse der Abweichungen der 2m-Temperaturen in Europa im zweiten Jahr eines El Niño-Ereignisses wie 1983, 1998 und 2016. Die Durchschnittstemperaturen im Winter 1998/99 lagen in Deutschland und großen Teilen Europa überwiegend deutlich unter dem Durchschnitt. Quelle:

NOAA reanalyis of the 2m temperature deviation in Europe for the second half of the year of the powerful El Niño event such as 1983, 1998 and 2016. Fall 1998 temperatures over Germany and much of Europe were well below the international 1981-2010 climate mean used by the WMO. Source: www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd.pl.

Winter 1998/99 in Europe, however, was near normal:

NOAA-Reanalyse der Abweichungen der 2m-Temperaturen in Europa im zweiten Jahr eines El Niño-Ereignisses wie 1983, 1998 und 2016. Die Durchschnittstemperaturen im Winter 1998/99 lagen in Deutschland und Mitteleuropa weitgehend im Durchschnitt. Quelle:

NOAA reanalyis of the 2m temperature deviation in Europe for the second year of the powerful 1997/1998 El Nino, which is comparable to 2015/2016. Temperatures in winter 1998/99 in Germany and Central Europe were mostly near normal compared to the internationally accepted 1981-2010 climate mean recommended by the WMO. Source: www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd.pl.

North Atlantic is much cooler this year…

However the North Atlantic this year is much cooler than in 1998, and colder much deeper below the sea surface, as ARGO measurements show for a depth of 800 m:

Der Plot zeigt die Entwicklung der Wassertemperaturen von der Oberfläche bis 800 m Tiefe im Nordatlantik bei 59°N von 30°W bis 0°. Seit Beginn der Messungen im Jahr 2004 ist es bis zum Juni 2016 in allen Tiefen deutlich kälter geworden. Originaltext zum Plot:

The above chart shows the water temperature of the North Atlantic current down to a depth of 800m (extension of the Gulf Stream) at 59°N from 30°W to 0°. Since measurements began in 2004, the North Atlantic water has gotten much cooler at all depths. Original text on the plot: “Average temperature along 59 N, 30-0W, 0-800m depth, corresponding to the main part of the North Atlantic Current, using Argo data. Source: Global Marine Argo Atlas. Latest month shown: June 2016. Last diagram update: 7 August 2016.“ Source: www.climate4you.com/.

The reason for this are the multidecadal natural cycles of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which switched from a cold to warm phase in the mid 1990s, and then back towards a cool phase since 2010, as the following chart shows:

Der Screenshot zeigt den natürlichen zyklischen Verlauf der Temperaturabweichungen im Nordatlantik von 1948 bis 2010. Nach einem Tiefpunkt Mitte der 1970er Jahre erreichten die Temperaturen ab Mitte der 1990er Jahre - auch um 1998 - in einer Warmphase stark positive Abweichungen (rote Farben. Ab 2010 ist eine deutliche Abkühlung zu erkennen, die etwa 30 jJhre andauern dürfte. Quelle:

Screenshot of the AMO from 1948 to 2010. There’s been a clear cooling since 2010, which will last about 30 years. Source: stateoftheocean.osmc.noaa.gov/all/.

Conditions during the “Big Freeze” of 1962/63.

Let’s take a look at the winters that occurred during the start of the last cooling-off period of the AMO in the early 1960s.

At this time Europe experienced the “Big Freeze” of 1962/63, when temperatures from December 1962 to February 1963 were a whopping 8°C below the mean over Central Europe:

Die NOAA-Reanalyse der2m-Temperaturabweichungen (TA2m) im Jahrhundertwinter 1962/63 in Europa am Bginn einer kalten Phase der AMO. Quelle:

The Big Freeze of 1962/63 in Europe, which occurred at the start of the AMO cold phase. Source: www.esrl.noaa.gov.pl.

Low solar activity, QBO bode ill

The wobleibtdieerderwaermung.de site writes that solar activity also may bode ill for the coming winter: In 1962 solar activity was also strongly falling off, as it is now. In 2016 the solar activity is even weaker. A number of scientific publications show that periods of low solar activity are associated with harsh European winters.

Yet another factor boding ill for the coming winter is the so-called Quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) in the stratosphere above the equator. Read: Tropics Cool by 5 deg. F in One Week! (In the Stratosphere).

Mostly written by “Schneefan”
Translated by Pierre


Abundant Scientific Evidence That ‘Global Warming’ Is A Made-Up Concept

The conceptualization of “global warming” has become so entrenched in the lexicon that few give much thought to its dubious derivation.

Many assume that “global warming” actually means that all or nearly all of the globe is warming as a consequence of the “well-mixed” greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (i.e., CO2 concentrations have indeed reached right about 400 parts per million from the Arctic to Antarctica, or all across the globe).  In reality, however, only parts of the globe have been warming.  Large regions of the Earth have seen stable or falling temperatures in recent decades, or even dating back to the mid-20th century, when anthropogenic emissions have been claimed to have caused most climate changes.

The only means by which it could be said that we have had global-scale warming is to presume that only the overall net temperature difference counts – for all the regions of the world added together.   The regions of the world where it has not been warming necessarily do not count in the “global warming” conceptualization.

Let’s say that Greenland has warmed by 1.2° C since 1979, but Antarctica has cooled by -0.9° C since 1979. Would it be misleading to add these two regions together and claim that the poles have warmed by tenths of a degree in the last 37 years?   Yes, because one pole has not been warming, but cooling – even though both poles are subjected to the same atmospheric CO2 concentrations.   But this mischaracterization of temperature trends (effectively claiming that both poles have been warming when only one has) is precisely what is done in framing the “global warming” conceptualization.

As a prototypical example of “global warming” manufacture, consider  the recently published Riser et al. (2016) paper entitled, “Fifteen years of ocean observations with the global ARGO array” (below).  The 25 authors summarize the temperature changes in the 0-700 m near-surface layer for all the ocean regions combined since 1950.  They point out that the Pacific Ocean all the way “from Chile to Alaska” has cooled by -1° C during the last 65 years. Other parts of the oceans have warmed by 1° C to compensate.  And when all the cooling and warming regions of the oceans are added together, the warming regions barely win out, scoring a net gain of “nearly 0.2°C” since the mid-20th century.  So because the net temperature change has been slightly positive, it can technically (albeit misleadingly) be said that the global oceans have been warming.  This way, the large regions of the oceans that have been cooling can be buried and ignored, and the “global warming” conceptualization remains intact.

Riser et al., 2016

“Most regions of the world ocean are warmer in the near-surface [0-700 m] layer than in previous decades, by over 1° C in some places.  A few areas, such as the eastern Pacific from Chile to Alaska, have cooled by as much as 1° C, yet overall the upper ocean has warmed by nearly 0.2° C globally since the mid-twentieth century.”

Of course, when addressing periods of climate history, such as the Medieval Warm Period, the same advocates who now say modern warming has been global and synchronous insist that the evidence shows the Medieval Warm Period was only warmer than now in Europe, or in Greenland, but the rest of the world didn’t warm. This is false — hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers have documented evidence of warmer temperatures during Medieval times throughout vast regions of the Earth, including in Antarctica.   But if the standard is that the warming must be ubiquitous to “count” as global warming, then the modern era fails that standard miserably.    Because the globe is not warming.  Only some regions are.  Other regions haven’t warmed in decades, or have been, in fact, cooling.

Below is of highlighted summary of the scientific literature (over 30 peer-reviewed papers) documenting some of the regions of the world where there has been no detectable warming trend during the period of time that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been claimed to have dominated climate changes (generally since the mid-20th century).  As the scientists indicate, large portions of the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, and Southern Oceans have been cooling in recent decades.   There is also scientific documentation of recent (20th/21st century) cooling (or no long-term warming trend) in the southeastern U.S., Northern Europe, AntarcticaChina, Canada/Canadian Arctic, Western South America (Chile), South Africa, Greenland, Iceland, Antarctica, and the Arctic.   One has to wonder how and from where a large net “global warming” signal could have been obtained when there has been so much regional cooling.

Perhaps it can be explained why temperature changes since the 20th century have been called “global warming” caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions when large regions of the globe have not been warming, but cooling, for the last several decades.  Do uniformly rising CO2 concentrations cause cooling in some places, and warming in others — or warming in some decades, and cooling in others?  If so, what is the scientific basis for this selectivity?

Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, Southern Ocean Cooling

The “entirety” of the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean, as well as the eastern Atlantic, have been cooling below depths of 2000 m (“about 52% of the ocean lies below 2000 m”) since 1992.

Wunsch and Heimbach, 2014

Discussion: “Over the 20 yr of the present ECCO state estimate, changes in the deep ocean on multiyear time scales are dominated by the western Atlantic basin and Southern Oceans. … In those same regions, a longer-term general warming pattern occurs below 2000 m. A very weak long-term cooling is seen over the bulk of the rest of the ocean below that depth, including the entirety of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, along with the eastern Atlantic basin.


The eastern tropical Pacific Ocean has cooled since 1979.

Dong and Zhou, 2014

“[C]ooling trend in the eastern tropical Pacific sea surface temperature (SST) during 1979–2008”


The North Atlantic Ocean has cooled by -0.45° C since 2005.

Robson et al., 2016

“Here we show that since 2005 a large volume of the upper North Atlantic Ocean has cooled significantly by approximately 0.45 °C or 1.5 × 1022 J, reversing the previous warming trend. … The observed upper ocean cooling since 2005 is not consistent with the hypothesis that anthropogenic aerosols directly drive Atlantic temperatures.”


The Southern Ocean has been cooling overall since 1979 (by about -1.0°C), which has led to an increasing sea ice coverage not simulated by models.

Fan et al., 2014

Cooling is evident over most of the Southern Ocean in all seasons and the annual mean, with magnitudes approximately 0.2–0.4°C per decade or 0.7–1.3°C over the 33 year period [1979-2011].”

Purich et al., 2016

Through the sea ice-albedo feedback, models produce a high-latitude surface ocean warming and sea ice decline, contrasting the observed net [Southern Ocean] cooling and sea ice increase [1979-2013].”

Southeastern United States Cooling

The southeastern United States has been cooling since 1895.

Rogers, 2013

The 20th century cooling trend over the southeastern United States

“Portions of the southern and southeastern United States, primarily Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, have experienced century-long (1895–2007) downward air temperature trends that occur in all seasons.”


In Kentucky, there has been no statistically significant warming or cooling trend since 1950.

Chattopadhyay and Edwards, 2016

“[B]roadly speaking, mean annual temperatures in Kentucky have not demonstrated a statistically significant trend with regard to time [during 1950-2010].”


Alabama summer maximum temperatures cooled at a rate of -0.07° C per decade, or about -1° C overall, between 1883 and 2014.

Christy and McNider, 2016

Three time series of average summer daily maximum temperature (TMax JJA) are developed for three interior regions of Alabama (AL) from stations with varying periods-of-record and unknown inhomogeneities. The time frame is 1883-2014. … Varying the parameters of the construction methodology creates 333 time series with a central trend-value based on the largest group of stations of -0.07 °C decade-1 with a best-guess estimate of measurement uncertainty being -0.12 to -0.02 °C decade-1.”

Northern Europe Cooling

Temperatures in Scandinavia have been cooling overall for the last 2,000 years.  The recent warming, which peaked in the early 1940s and cooled thereafter, has been well within the range of natural variability and has not offset the overall cooling trend.

Esper et al., 2012

“Orbital forcing of tree-ring data”

NTZ Scandinavia Cooling


Britain has cooled by -0.5° C since the early 2000s.

Murray and Heggie, 2016

Britain has experienced a drop in temperature of about 0.5°C since the early years of the millennium at a time when world temperatures have remained virtually stable”


Northern Norway has been cooling since the 1940s peak.

Divine et al., 2011

“Thousand years of winter surface air temperature variations in Svalbard and northern Norway

NTZ Norway Cooling

Antarctica Cooling

The Antarctic Peninsula has been cooling since the late 1990s at a statistically significant rate.

Turner et al., 2016

Absence of 21st century warming on Antarctic Peninsula consistent with natural variability

“Here we use a stacked temperature record to show an absence of regional [Antarctic Peninsula] warming since the late 1990s. The annual mean temperature has decreased at a statistically significant rate, with the most rapid cooling during the Austral summer.”


East Antarctica hasn’t warmed in the last 200 years

Altnau et al., 2015

For East Antarctica, no general warming and increase in precipitation is found in surface observational data (Turner et al., 2005; Monaghan et al., 2006, 2008). … We conclude that, in the last 2 centuries, conditions in the interior DML [Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica] have been fairly stable and only weakly influenced by changes in atmospheric dynamics.” 


The Ross Sea (Antarctica) has cooled at a rate of -1.59° C per decade since 1979, with no overall warming trend since 1882.

Sinclair et al., 2012

Reconstructed mean annual temperatures show no significant change between 1882 and 2006 [for the Ross Sea, Antarctica]. However, a decrease in cold season [April–September (AMJJAS)] temperatures of −1.59° ± 0.84°C decade−1 (at 90% confidence) is observed since 1979.


The Antarctic continent as a whole has been cooling since the 1960s.

Doran et al., 2002

“[O]ur spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn. The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 °C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends.”

Yuan et al., 2015

“In this study, observed temperature records of 12 stations from Antarctica Island, Coastline and Continental areas are analyzed by means of detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA). … [W]e find .. most of the Antarctic stations do not show any significant trends over the past several decades”


Western South America (Chile) Cooling

Chile has been cooling since the 1940s.

de Jong et al., 2013

“Late Holocene summer temperatures in the central Andes…Chile”

NTZ Chile Cooling

China not warming

Temperatures in northwest China have not shown a warming trend in the last 368 years.  It was warmer than now in the 1600s and 1700s.               

Zhu et al., 2016

Conclusion: “Overall, the RLST [mean maximum temperature] variability in the NWSP [northwestern Sichuan Plateau, China]  might be associated with global land–sea atmospheric circulation (e.g., ENSO, PDO, or AMO) as well as solar and volcanic forcing.”

NTZ China Cooling


Glaciers in northwestern China have been stable to slightly advancing in the 21st century.

Wang et al., 2016

“‘Pamir–Karakoram–Western-Kunlun-Mountain (northwestern Tibetan Plateau) Glacier Anomaly’ has been a topic of debate due to the balanced, or even slightly positive glacier mass budgets in the early 21st century.

Holzer et al., 2015

Recent mass balance measurements indicate a slight mass gain at Muztag Ata in the Eastern Pamir [China].   [N]early balanced budgets for the last forty years. Indications of slightly positive trends after 1999 (+0.04 ± 0.27 m w.e. a−1 ) are confirmed by in-situ measurements.

Canada not warming

The Canadian Arctic (northeastern North America) was warmer than now in the early 1800s, and throughout the 1000 to 1200 AD period, with no significant warming trends outside the range of natural variability in the last 200 years.

Genarretti et al., 2014

“Volcano-induced regime shifts in millennial tree-ring chronologies from northeastern North America”

NTZ Canadian Arctic Cooling

British Columbia (Canada) temperatures have been stable, with no warming trend, throughout 1900-2010.

Pitman and Smith, 2012

“Tree-ring derived Little Ice Age temperature trends from the central British Columbia Coast Mountains, Canada”

NTZ Canada Cooling

South Africa not warming

South Africa‘s surface air temperatures have been stable for the last 200 years, with as-warm or warmer temperatures in the 1800 to 1860 period.  Temperatures warmed more rapidly (~1.5°C in 50 years) between 1720 and 1770 than they have at any time since.

Zinke et al., 2014

“Madagascar corals track sea surface temperature variability … over the past 334 years”

NTZ South Africa Cooling

Greenland cooled from 1940s to 1990s

Prior to the mid-1990s, Greenland had been cooling overall since the 1940s — a 50-year cooling trend despite a rapid increase in CO2 emissions during the 1940s to 1990s period.  It was only after the mid-1990s that Greenland temperatures began rising in concert with CO2 concentration increases.

Andres, 2016

“Reconstructions indicate that Greenland temperatures did not begin to follow hemispheric greenhouse gas warming patterns until the mid-1990s. This discrepancy indicates either that the warming hiatus was associated with internal climate variability, or that the simulations are missing processes important to Greenland climate.”

Chylek et al., 2004

“The Greenland coastal temperatures have followed the early 20th century global warming trend. Since 1940, however, the Greenland coastal stations data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend. At the summit of the Greenland ice sheet the summer average temperature has decreased at the rate of 2.2 °C per decade since the beginning of the measurements in 1987.”

Hanna and Cappelen, 2003

“Analysis of new data for eight stations in coastal southern Greenland, 1958–2001, shows a significant cooling (trend-line change −1.29°C for the 44 years), as do sea-surface temperatures in the adjacent part of the Labrador Sea”

Dahl-Jensen et al., 1998

The medieval warming (1000 A.D.) is 1 K warmer than the present temperature [in Greenland], and the LIA is seen to have two minimums at 1500 and 1850 A.D. The LIA is followed by a temperature rise culminating around 1930 A.D.  Temperature cools between 1940 and 1995.

As of 2007, the Greenland ice sheet still hadn’t warmed enough since the mid-1990s to exceed the warmth achieved during the 1920s and 1930s.  Added to the 1940s to 1995 cooling, Greenland has experienced a 70-year-long cooling trend.

Box et al., 2009

“Meteorological station records and regional climate model output are combined to develop a continuous 168-yr (1840–2007) spatial reconstruction of monthly, seasonal, and annual mean Greenland ice sheet near-surface air temperatures. The annual whole ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming.”

Iceland cooled between 1940 and the early 2000s

Hanna et al., 2004

“An Analysis of the Icelandic Climate since the Nineteenth Century”

NTZ Iceland Cooling

The Arctic cooled between the 1940s and 1990s

Kahl et al., 1993 

Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean in the past 40 years

“In particular, we do not observe the large surface warming trends predicted by models; indeed, we detect significant surface cooling trends over the western Arctic Ocean during winter and autumn. This discrepancy suggests that present climate models do not adequately incorporate the physical processes that affect the polar regions.

Conclusion: The lack of widespread significant warming trends leads us to conclude that there is no strong evidence to support model simulations of greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean for the period 1950-1990.  Our results, combined with the inconsistent performance of model simulations of Arctic climate indicate a need to understand better the physical processes that affect polar regions, especially atmosphere-ice-ocean interactions, ocean heat transfer and cloud radiative effects


There have been no net temperature changes in the Arctic Atlantic since 1940 (graph A), with abrupt cooling between 1940 and 1995 (graph B, far right).

Hanhijärvi et al., 2013

“Pairwise comparisons to reconstruct mean temperature in the Arctic Atlantic Region over the last 2,000 years”

NTZ Arctic Temps 1800

NTZ Arctic Cooling


Arctic sea ice extent anomalies (September melt season) have been essentially stable for the last 3,600 years

Zhang et al., 2015

NTZ Arctic Sea Ice 3600 AD to present

Brutal Wind Industry …Leading German Wind Energy Opponent Receives “Threats To Life And Limb”!

zu Guttenb...German public television ARD here has a report on how one of Germany’s leading environmentalists has been getting death threats because of his opposition to the destruction of forests by wind parks.

Enoch zu Guttenberg. Photo cropped from here.

According to the ARD, Enoch zu Guttenberg claimed:

I am getting even threats to life and limb, that is death threats: If you keeping talking so, then you won’t live past next week. Over the past two years I’ve gotten four or five of these threats to life and limb. Either I’d better shut up, or be beaten into silence. Most of the time the threats were made in block letters from headlines from newspapers.”

Enoch zu Guttenberg, who is also a symphony conductor, says the threats have usually come soon after comments made in public, opposing wind parks.

The ARD reports zu Guttenberg is a active protester of what he and many others view as “an unprecedented destruction of cultural landscape” and “a threat to endangered wildlife“.

Also the Berlin Journal here describes how zu Guttenberg “is up against a wind power lobby that would brutally ram through its business interests, as leading politicians have confirmed”. The Berlin Journal quotes top politician Michael Fuchs of Angerla Merkel’s CDU party, who commented at an ARD news show:

Never have I seen a lobby act so brutally and directed so much pressure on parliamentarians in order to push through their private interests. Here it comes down to massive economic interests. Totally massive economic interests.“

Also conomics and energy spokesman of the CDU/CSU fraction Joachim Pfeiffer spoke of the pressure bearing down on local politicians and how the wind power industry is acting “very aggressively”.

Death threats and the trampling of local opposition by “green energy” have very little to do with protecting the environment, and almost everything to do with an industry brutally doing whatever it can to make quick and easy money. Though disguised and being green, it’s crony capitalism at its worst.


Already Winter In Early August! Snow Falls Down To 2000 Meters In Alps

Yesterday I reported on the cold blast of polar air that had just frosted parts of Central Europe, surprising many Europeans as they stepped out of their homes early Thursday morning.

Apprarently it got so cold that it even snowed down to 2000 meters (as predicted already last week). Wednesday wetteronline.de here presented a series of photos of snowfall in the Alps.

Click here to view photos

Typically the 10th of August is near the hottest time of the year. But this year many citizens are asking what on earth happened to the summer. Is summer already over?

This is a strange development in view of predictions made 10 years ago and longer warning that many ski resorts faced the end of business due to a projected lack of snow in the wintertime – due to global warming.

Now it appears the ski season in some places could be almost year round!

Year-round snow would be first since 1989…

German skeptic site wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung.wordpress.com here reports that Germany’s highest peak, Zugspitze, remains as of 11 August covered in snow and ice this year, the first time this has happened since 2009:

August oder Dezemnber? Schon wieder Augustschnee auf der Zugspitze. Foto vom 10.8.2016, ca. 08.30 Uhr MESZ. Quelle:

Photo taken 10 August 2016. Source: http://zugspitze.de/de/aktuell/news.

The site adds that “should the snow cover remain throughout the summer of 2016, that would be the first time since 1989.

Europe’s August is projected to be a generally cooler than normal month. The US NOAA CFSv2 model projects a clearly cooler than normal August across northern Europe:

NOAA-CFSv2-Prognose der Temperaturabweichungen (2m) für Europa vom 11.8.2016 für den August 2016. Deutschland liegt - wie große Teile Europas auch - im unterkühlten (blauen) Bereich um -1,0 K Abweichung. Quelle:

Source: www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products.html

A cooler than normal August in Germany would make the month the third cooler-than-normal month this year, after March (-0.3 K) and April (-0.4 K).


Surface Frost Strikes Germany As Mid August Temperatures Shatter Old Records!

A blast of polar air swept across central Europe from Wednesday through Thursday, sending temperatures tumbling to record low levels for mid August in parts of Germany.

Camping im Schnee!

Photo: wetter.net (for illustration only)

Yesterday many locations saw new all-time mid August records set for the lowest “high” recorded, with many places failing to reach 15°C. Meteorologists called the cold for this time of year “unusual”.

Frost at the peak of summer!

German meteorologist Domink Jung wrote here yesterday that a number of German stations recorded surface frost, “and that in the middle of peak summer” and that “it was colder than Christmas day 2015”.

What follows are some early morning recordings measured at 2 meters above ground surface:

Bad Berleburg: 0°C
Carlsfeld: +1°C
Nürnberg: +2°C

Early morning readings a some locations at 5 cm above the ground surface:

Carlsfeld: -1°C
Braunlange: 0°C
Neuhaus am Rennweg: 0°C
Feuchtwangen: +1°C

Mid August has never seen such cold

Also Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann at his site writes of “new records: At these locations in mid August it has never been as cold as it is today!”

He adds:

The current air mass, where it could not be colder for this time of year, not only brought temperatures like those seen on Christmas day 2015 or 
record low temperatures
– but also today at a number of locations in northwest Germany the previously standing record lowest highs were broken. That means: The highest temperature for a mid August (what meteorologists call the second decade of the month from 11 to 20 August – a ‘decade’ meaning a 10-day period) had never been as low as they are today – since recording began.”

Frozen Hamburg!

For example, yesterday Hamburg saw a high of only 14°C, which was the lowest high since temperature recording began in 1891!

German national daily Die Welt here reports on “record cold for August” accompanied by “frost in central Germany“.

Not only this August has seen unusual cold, but so did last month – as we reported earlier here.

Opposite of what climate models projected!

This summer’s cold, wet weather flies in the face of climate model projections, which in 2003 predicted Central Europeans in the future would have to expect hot, drought-ridden summers. But since 2003, 12 of 14 summers have been normal wet or wetter than normal. See more here.


35 New Scientific Publications Confirm Ocean Cycles, Sun Are Main Climate Drivers

While news journalists and internet bloggers are busy headlining scary stories invoking the presumed causal link between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and floods and droughts and global warming, robust scientific evidence of naturally-forced climate change has continued to rapidly accumulate.

There is a claimed scientific “consensus” that climate changes in recent decades are only weakly influenced by natural factors, and instead anthropogenic emissions drive changes in precipitation patterns and temperature.  And yet scientists defiantly continue to publish papers in peer-reviewed journals that undermine this “consensus” opinion.

Variations in regional precipitation and temperature have long been determined to be strongly correlated with natural oceanic-atmospheric circulation patterns, or oscillations. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), and El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) have all been found to significantly influence changes in surface air temperature and rainfall (climate) on decadal and multi-decadal scales, and these natural ocean oscillations have been robustly connected to changes in solar activity.

Below are summaries of key findings from 35 recently-published peer-reviewed scientific papers, divided into two categories.  The first collection of papers establishes that (a) decadal and multi-decadal ocean circulation patterns (AMO, PDO, NAO, ENSO) have significantly modulated precipitation and temperature changes in recent decades, and the second collection of papers confirm that (b) natural ocean oscillations are, in turn, modulated by solar activity.

Natural Ocean Oscillations Drive Climate

Chen et al., 2016

Multiscale evolution of surface air temperature in the arid region of Northwest China [ARNC] and its linkages to ocean oscillations 

Compared with the reconstructed interannual variation, the reconstructed interdecadal variability plays a decisive role in the ARNC [northwest China] warming and reveals the climatic pattern transformation from the cold period to the warm period before and after 1987. Additionally, there were also regional differences in the spatial patterns of change trend in the ARNC temperature at a given time. We also found that the AMO and PDO had significant impacts on the ARNC [northwest China] temperature fluctuation at an interdecadal scale


Faust et al., 2016

A recent study of instrumental time series revealed NAO [North Atlantic Oscillation] as main factor for a strong relation between winter temperature, precipitation and river discharge in central Norway over the past 50 years. … The [NAO proxy record] shows distinct co-variability with climate changes over Greenland, solar activity and Northern Hemisphere glacier dynamics as well as climatically associated paleo-demographic trends.


Livsey et al., 2016

Spatial-temporal analysis of United States precipitation data from 1900 to 1999 indicates that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) primarily modulates drought frequency. Changes in the extended drought record correspond with timing of the Roman Climate Optimum, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age … AMO modulated drought in southern Texas for the last 3000 years.


Valdés-Manzanilla, 2016

Most of flood periods coincided with the warm phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). … Logistic regression showed that AMO index was the most correlated index with flood events. In fact, the odds ratio showed that floods were 1.90 times more likely to occur when AMO index was positive.


Yu et al., 2016

The interannual relationship between North American (NA) winter temperature and large-scale atmospheric circulation anomalies and its decadal variation are analyzed. … NA [North American] temperature is largely controlled by these three large-scale atmospheric patterns, i.e., the PNA [Pacific-North American pattern], ABNA [Asian-Bering-North American pattern] and NAO [North Atlantic Oscillation] .


Wang et al., 2016

Tree-ring-based reconstruction of temperature variability (1445–2011) for the upper reaches of the Heihe River Basin, Northwest China

Spectral analyses suggested that the reconstructed annual mean temperature variation may be related to large-scale atmospheric–oceanic variability such as the solar activity, Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO).


Krishnamurthy and Krishnamurthy, 2016

Introduction: On interannual timescale, El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is known to have a major impact on the Indian monsoon (Sikka, 1980; Rasmusson and Carpenter, 1983). … On decadal to multidecadal timescales, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the Atlantic tripole mode determine the variability of rainfall over India (Sen Roy et al., 2003; Lu et al., 2006; Zhang and Delworth, 2006; Li et al., 2008; Sen Roy, 2011; Krishnamurthy and Krishnamurthy, 2014a, 2014b, 2016b).


Liu et al., 2016

Drought variations in the study area significantly correlated with sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in North Pacific Ocean, suggesting a possible connection of regional hydroclimatic variations to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).


Diaz et al., 2016

Hawaiian Islands rainfall exhibits strong modulation by El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), as well as in relation to Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO)-like variability. For significant periods of time, the reconstructed large-scale changes in the North Pacific SLP field described here and by construction the long-term decline in Hawaiian winter rainfall are broadly consistent with long-term changes in tropical Pacific sea surface temperature (SST) based on ENSO reconstructions documented in several other studies, particularly over the last two centuries.


Qiaohong et al., 2016

Century-scale causal relationships between global drought conditions and the state of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans

In this study, the Granger causality test is used to examine the effects of ENSO, PDO, and NAO on global drought conditions. The results show robust relationships between drought conditions and the ocean statesENSO and PDO may reinforce each other to dominate climate variability over North America and northern South America. Climate variability in southern Europe and northern Africa may be forced by the concurrence of ENSO and NAO.


McCarthy et al., 2015

Decadal variability is a notable feature of the Atlantic Ocean and the climate of the regions it influences. Prominently, this is manifested in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) in sea surface temperatures. Positive (negative) phases of the AMO coincide with warmer (colder) North Atlantic sea surface temperatures. The AMO is linked with decadal climate fluctuations, such as Indian and Sahel rainfall, European summer precipitation, Atlantic hurricanes and variations in global temperatures. It is widely believed that ocean circulation drives the phase changes of the AMO by controlling ocean heat content.


Toonen et al., 2016

Multi-decadal and centennial variability in flood activity is recorded in extended series of discharge data, historical information and sedimentary records. Over the last six centuries that variability correlates with components of the Atlantic climate system such as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO).


Nagy et al., 2016

Results from a multiregression analysis of the global and sea surface temperature anomalies for the period 1950–2011 are presented where among the independent variables multidecade oscillation signals over various oceanic areas are included. These indices are defined in analogy with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index. Unexpectedly we find that a strong multidecade oscillation signal echoing the AMO is also present in the Western and Northwestern Pacific region. The results indicate that naturally induced climate variations seem to be dominated by two internal variability modes of the ocean–atmosphere system: AMO and El Niño Southern Oscillation


Laken and Stordal, 2016

When seasonal restrictions were added the results were similar, however, we found one clearly significant result: an increase in southerly flow of 2.6±0.8 days/month (p=1.9×10−4) during boreal summertime in association with El Niño. This result supports the existence of a robust teleconnection between the ENSO and European weather.


Zanardo et al., 2016

Investigating the relationship between North Atlantic Oscillation and flood losses at the European scale

The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is Europe’s dominant mode of climate variability. … We found significant correlations between the NAO signal and both the average annual loss (AAL) and the average seasonal loss (ASL) [due to floods], for all the countries analysed.


García-García and Ummenhofer, 2015

Multidecadal variability of the continental precipitation annual amplitude driven by AMO and ENSO

Here we show that continental precipitation annual amplitude, which represents the annual range between minimum and maximum (monthly) rainfall, covaries with a linear combination of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and low-frequency variations in the El Niño–Southern Oscillation on a decadal to multidecadal scale with a correlation coefficient of 0.92 (P < 0.01).


Dieppois et al., 2016

Furthermore, since the end of the 19th century, we find an increasing variance in multidecadal hydroclimatic winter and spring, and this coincides with an increase in the multidecadal North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) variability, suggesting a significant influence of large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns. However, multidecadal NAO variability has decreased in summer. Using Empirical Orthogonal Function analysis, we detect multidecadal North Atlantic sea-level pressure anomalies, which are significantly linked to the NAO during the Modern period.


Penalba and Rivera, 2016

The ENSO phenomenon is one of the key factors that influence the interannual variability of precipitation over Southern South America. The aim of this study is to identify the regional response of precipitation to El Niño/La Niña events [during 1961-2008], with emphasis in drought conditions. [W]e calculated the mean SPI [standardized precipitation index]  values for the El Niño and La Niña years and assessed its significance through bootstrap analysis. We found coherent and significant SPI [standardized precipitation index] responses to ENSO phases in most of the seven regions considered


Gastineau and Frankignoul, 2015

The SST [sea surface temperature] influence is dominated by the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO), which also has a horseshoe shape, but with larger amplitude in the subpolar basin. A warm AMO phase leads to an atmospheric warming limited to the lower troposphere in summer, while it leads to a negative phase of the NAO in winter.


Li et al., 2016

The twentieth century Northern Hemisphere mean surface temperature (NHT) is characterized by a multidecadal warming-cooling-warming pattern followed by a flat trend since about 2000 (recent warming hiatus). Here we demonstrate that the multidcadal variability in NHT including the recent warming hiatus is tied to the NAT-NAO-AMO-AMOC coupled mode and the NAO is implicated as a useful predictor of NHT multidecadal variability. An NAO-based linear model is therefore established to predict the NHT, which gives an excellent hindcast for NHT in 1971-2011 with the recent flat trend well predicted.


Solar Activity Drives Ocean Oscillations 

Yamakawa et al., 2016

This study attempted to determine the relationships between solar activity and SST [sea surface temperature]. Instrumental data from 1901 to 2011 revealed a significant positive relationship on a global basis.

Conclusion: The analysis of the relationship between variations in solar activity and SST from 1901 to 2011 indicated that sunspot numbers and SST were positively correlated in wide areas, with statistically significant positive correlations in many regions. … It is worthy of note that the highest coefficients at a 29-month lag were found in the relationships both between SSN [sunspot number] and PDO [Pacific Decadal Oscillation], and SSN and CP El Niño with statistical significance at the 99% confidence level, respectively.


Salau et al., 2016

Discussion of the Results: The results show that there is good connection between ENSO events and the changes in the background temperature and the precipitation in Nigeria. … Overall, the investigation shows a linear relationship between the solar radiation and the induced temperature, thus indicating that the observed variations in the temperature are mainly controlled by the insolation forcing

Conclusion: The outcome shows good link between the ENSO events and the Nigerian climate with the strongest agreement coming from the Niño 3 region of the Tropical Pacific. … The finding indicates that the primary driver of climate like the south-westerlies that brings monsoon into the country from South Atlantic Ocean, the north-easterlies that lead to Tropical dry climate in the North and the ITCZ, which is sandwiched between the air masses, could be affected by changes in ENSO events. According to the results, the major link between an ENSO event and changes in the temperature and rainfall in Nigeria is associated with shifts in the ITCZ position.


Liu et al., 2015

Modulation of decadal ENSO-like variation by effective solar radiation

Here, we show that the effective solar radiation (ESR), which includes the net solar radiation and the effects of volcanic eruption, has modulated this decadal ENSO-like oscillation. The eastern Pacific warming (cooling) associated with this decadal ENSO-like oscillation over the past 139 years is significantly related to weak (strong) ESR [effective solar radiation].


Katsuki et al., 2016

[W]e reconstructed the history of typhoon and storm-rain activity only for the interval AD 1400–1900. The record indicates that typhoon frequency throughout the Korean Peninsula varied in response to the state of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation. Typhoon variability was likely modulated further by the state of the East Asia summer monsoon (EASM) pattern, associated with variation in the magnitude of solar irradiance. During periods of minimum solar activity, such as the early Maunder Minimum (AD 1650–1675), typhoons struck the east China coast and Korean Peninsula more frequently because of a strengthened EASM.


Czymzik et al., 2016

Flood frequency in the River Ammer discharge record is significantly correlated to changes in solar activity when the flood record lags the solar signal by 2–3 years (2-year lag: r = −0.375, p = 0.01; 3-year lag: r = −0.371, p = 0.03). Flood layer frequency in the Ammersee sediment record depicts distinct multi-decadal variations and significant correlations to a total solar irradiance reconstruction (r = −0.4, p <  0.0001) and 14C production rates (r = 0.37, p <  0.0001), reflecting changes in solar activity. On all timescales, flood frequency is higher when solar activity is reduced. … [T]he significant correlations as well as similar atmospheric circulation patterns might provide empirical support for a solar influence on hydroclimate extremes in central Europe during spring and summer by the so-called solar top-down mechanism.


Malik and Brönnimann, 2016

We conclude that the positive relation between AISMR [All Indian Summer Monsoon Rainfall] and solar activity, as found by other authors, is due to the combined effect of AMO, PDO and multi-decadal ENSO variability on AISMR. The solar activity influences the ICFs [internal climate forcings] and this influence is then transmitted to AISMR. … We also find that there is statistical significant negative relationship between AISMR and ENSO on inter-annual to centennial time scale and the strength of this relationship is modulated by solar activity from 3 to 40 year time scale.


Lakshmi and Tiwari, 2015

The 11 years solar cycle acts an important driving force for variations in the space weather, ultimately giving rise to climatic changes. Therefore, it is very important to understand the origin of space climate by analyzing the different proxies of solar magnetic variability. The another most important climate variation is El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events, which impact the global oceanic and atmospheric circulations which thereby produce droughts, floods and intense rainfall in certain regions. The strong coupling and interactions between the Tropical Ocean and atmosphere play a major role in the development of global climatic system. … In particular, the El Niño, solar, geomagnetic activities are the major affecting forces on the decadal and interdecadal temperature variability on global and regional scales in a direct/indirect way. …. The 11 year solar cyclic variations observed from the several temperature climate records also suggest the impact of solar irradiance variability on terrestrial temperature …These findings suggest that there is possible strong coupling between temperature–ENSO and solar–geomagnetic signals.


Wang et al., 2016

The broad comparability between the HML paleo-proxies, Chinese speleothem δ18Orecords, and the northern hemisphere summer insolation throughout the Holocene, suggests that solar insolation exerts a profound influence on ASM [Asian summer monsoon] changes. These findings reinforce a model of combined insolation and glacial forcing of the ASM.


Tiwari et al., 2015

Invariably the splitting of spectral peaks corresponding to solar signal indicated nonlinear characteristics of the data and; therefore, even small variations in the solar output may help in catalyzing the coupled El Niño-atmospheric ENSO cycles by altering the solar heat input to the oceans. We, therefore, conclude that the Indian temperature variability is probably driven by the nonlinear coupling of ENSO and solar activity.


Salas et al., 2016

Water reservoirs in the main aquifer (Section III) and in the Santa Juana dam are highly sensitive to ENSO oscillation climatic patterns. The main climatic events that control this record are the El Niño and La Niña events. In addition, the climatic influence of the westerlies and the SE extratropical moisture were also identified. Spectral analysis identified the presence of a 22.9-year cycle in piezometric levels of the alluvial aquifer of the Huasco River. This cycle is consistent with the 22-year Hale solar cycle, suggesting the existence of a solar forcing controlling the ENSO oscillations.


Hassan et al., 2016

The various techniques have been used to confer the existence of significant relations between the number of Sunspots and different terrestrial climate parameters such as rainfall, temperature, dewdrops, aerosol and ENSO etc. Improved understanding and modelling of Sunspots variations can explore the information about the related variables. This study uses a Markov chain method to find the relations between monthly Sunspots and ENSO data of two epochs (1996–2009 and 1950–2014). … [P]erfect validation of dependency and stationary tests endorses the applicability of the Markov chain analyses on Sunspots and ENSO data. This shows that a significant relation between Sunspots and ENSO data exists.


Wahab et al., 2016

Understanding the influence of solar variability on the Earth’s climate requires knowledge of solar variability, solar interactions, and the mechanisms explain the response of the Earth’s climate system. The NAO (North Atlantic oscillation) is one of the most dominant modes of global climate variability. Like El Niño, La Niña, and the Southern Oscillation, it is considered as free internal oscillation of the climate system not subjected to external forcing. It is shown, to be linked to energetic solar eruptions. Surprisingly, it turns out that features of solar activity have been related to El Niño and La Niña, also have an significant impact on the NAO. NAO- has a related impacts on winter climate extend from Florida to Greenland and from northwestern Africa over Europe far into northern Asian region.


Bernal et al., 2016

 [A]tmospheric circulation over South America and monsoon intensity have been tightly correlated throughout most of the Holocene, both directly responding to solar precession. … We also detect periods where rainfall amount in northeastern and southeastern Brazil are markedly anti-phased, suggesting a north-south migration of SACZ, which it appears to be mediated by solar irradiance. 


Malik et al., 2016

In this study, we undertake another effort towards understanding the role of the Sun in changing or varying the Earth’s climate on seasonal to decadal time scale. We focus on effects of varying solar activity on All Indian Summer Monsoon Rainfall (AISMR) and try to investigate how much the prediction of AISMR on a seasonal to decadal time scale can be improved by considering the solar irradiance variability in climate models. … Further, in our analysis we have found strong statistical evidence of the influence of solar activity on AMO and AISMR. We have found highly statistically significant evidence that North Atlantic SSTs are positively correlated with TSI on annual (CC 0.46), decadal (CC 0.55) and multidecadal time scales (CC 0.42) during the period 1600-2000. Also AMO influences the Niño3 and AISMR.


Serykh and Sonechkin, 2016

Basing on a mathematical idea about the so-called strange nonchaotic attractor (SNA) in the quasi-periodically forced dynamical systems, the currently available re-analyses data are considered. It is found that the El Niño – Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is driven not only by the seasonal heating, but also by three more external periodicities (incommensurate to the annual period) associated with the ~18.6-year lunar-solar nutation of the Earth rotation axis, ~11-year sunspot activity cycle and the ~14-month Chandler wobble in the Earth’s pole motion.


Breitbart Writes Donald Would Be “Way More Beneficial To The Environment” Than Hillary

Rising conservative media star Breitbart here writes that “A Donald Trump presidency would be way more beneficial to the environment than a Hillary Clinton presidency“.

This could come as a bit of a surprise for some when you consider the turbo-level of economic growth and prosperity a Trump program would almost certainly usher in.

Yet, contrary to what anti-growthers may think, there are many reasons why high growth would be great for the environment. Number one manufacturing would relocate from dirty third world conditions (China, India) back to more modern and cleaner conditions in the USA. Making and buying locally are almost always better for the environment.

Number 2, prosperity also means more money for environmental clean ups.

Number 3: Money would finally pour into massively upgrading the USA’s crumbling and inefficient transportation system, which is plagued by traffic jams, inefficient networks and road conditions that lead to wasteful energy consumption.

Number 4, prosperous nations by far tend to have lower population growth.

Another big reason would be because the energy production systems proposed by Trump are far gentler on wildlife and nature than the industrialization of the wilderness by wind farms would be. Breitbart writes:

Consider just one example: the hundreds of thousands of rare birds and endangered bats slaughtered in the US every year by the wind farms that Hillary Clinton applauds (and will no doubt go on subsidising) and that Donald Trump loathes (and will no doubt starve of subsidies and cause to become as extinct as the Dodo).

As the Daily Beast recently noted, Trump’s hatred of wind farms is probably the most consistent and long-standing of all his political convictions.

They add:

Trump has a point. If you care about flying wildlife, bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes really are about the most pointlessly destructive form of power generation there is – as a series of recent studies shows.”

Continue reading here.

Of course Breitbart was too easy on wind technology. Wind parks in fact blight the natural landscape, disturb the often delicate hydrological systems in the areas they are located, lead to mass deforestation, and eco-system disruption if not outright annihilation.

And then there are also the huge social consequences of exorbitantly costly and unstable energy for the poor.


Solar Cycle 24 Continues To Be Weakest In Close To 200 Years, Climate Models Overstate CO2

The sun in July 2016, and the AMO

By Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Our sole relevant source of energy at the center of our solar system was quieter than normal in July for our current solar cycle (SC) 24. The entire cycle so far has only been 56% as active as the mean cycle.

And with a sunspot number (SSN) of 32.5 in July, it was only 42% as active as the mean for the 92nd month into the cycle. Compared to a month earlier (only 27%) it was a slight uptick:

Fig. 1: SC 24 until July 2016 (red) compared to the mean cycle, which is computed from the mean of the previous 23 cycles (blue), and SC5 (black) which was very similar in behavior.

The small upward hook arises from there being 5 spotless days in July, compared to 9 in June. After the record lame start of the cycle over the first 2 years, are we now experiencing a similar end as well?

Compared to the previous cycles, not much has changed since the month earlier:

Fig. 2: Accumulated sunspot anomaly from the mean (blue curve, Figure 1) for each cycle, 92 months into the cycle.

The red bar to the far right has been gaining in length in its downward direction over the past few months. Where will it end? There are still about 36 months remaining in the cycle, and most likely the bar representing SC 24 will continue to fall further. In our next report we will take a look again at the current polar fields, which are the first predictors for the upcoming cycle.


Due to time constraints, NTZ summarizes the main points pertaining to the AMO, the subject of the second part of Vahrenholt’s and Bosse’s post. Vahrenholt and Bosse present a figure that shows that the AMO likely has reached its positive maxima, and now may be headed downwards, which will have an impact on global climate over the coming decades.

 AMO since 1950 with annual mean values and 20-year smoothing (low pass: Loess).

Bosse and Vahrenholt write that the AMO has an impact on hurricanes and the temperatures in Western Europe during the summer: “Yes, that’s right. How warm our summers are depends in large part on the AMO.”

The following chart depicts the land surface temperatures of Western Europe:

Western Europe land temperatures (CRUTEM 4) with a 20-year smoothing (Loess).

The two Die kalte Sonne authors write that the AMO plays a role on global temperature and that climate models have not taken the powerful AMO adequately into account, citing recent scientific publications. They summarize:

Many climate models and prognoses were tuned using data from the period 1976 to 2005 and assigned the effects of the reoccurring AMO increase during these years over to CO2. Climate sensitivity, the effect of CO2 on temperature, is thus overstated by 30-50%. The temperature changes expected from CO2 are less.”