Renowned Economics Prof On Climate Model-Based Policy: No “Need To Be A Denier To Qualify It As Methodological Nonsense”!

The online Swiss Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) has published a commentary by renowned economics professor Silvio Borner, University of Basel, where he sharply criticizes climate models and basing political decisions on them.

Borner UBas

 Photo of Prof. Silvio Borner: Credit: University Basel, by Peter Schnetz

He compares climate forecasts to economic forecasts, where in both fields one runs into a myriad of unpredictable variables and complex, poorly understood interactions that make reliable forecasts impossible – even more so in climate.

When it comes to climate, Borner writes that it is a fact the current warming started before industrialization and that CO2 is “partly responsible” for the current warming – as scientifically accepted temperature reconstructions of the past show.

In his commentary he looks at the parallels between global economy and global climate, reminding us that we already know that there are huge margins of errors for even short-term forecasts. “They often err even on the algebraic sign“.

Interestingly, Borner writes that forcasting the climate system is even more difficult because “we do not know the unknown exogenic causal factors in advance nor are we able to control them politically“. He explains that economists have had (bitter) experiences in trying to forecast economies and that the climate system is an even more unfamiliar system. This is evident, he says, even from weather forecasts which “differ from model to model and are often wrong“.

On the usefulness of models, Borner says they are of value, but never “true” due to the numerous assumptions that go into them. He writes:

For these reasons, all the ‘doom prognoses’ concerning the limits of growth have all failed grandly.”

Due to all the unknowns in the climate system, and the extreme lack of understanding with regards to their interaction, Borner says it is “scientifically irresponsible to fix a relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming, and then calculate from that how much Co2 needs to reduced by 2030 in order to avoid a 2°C temperature rise.” He adds:

To qualify that as methodological nonsense, one does not have to be a ‘climate denier’.”

Borner believes that it makes sense to reduce CO2, “but not on the backs of the poor countries“. He favors a CO2 emissions certificate trading scheme. He concludes:

 It is enough to set down the right general framework conditions. State planning or investments lead to chaos.”

Take this from a renowned expert in economic modeling – one who understands that the climate system is even more complex, unpredictable and far less controllable. In a nutshell Professor Borner is warning that controlling the climate is a futile endeavor and that basing policy on climate models borders on folly.

 

DiCaprio’s Private Jet Junket Burned 30,000 Liters Of Fuel …Enough For 10,000 Cars An Entire Day!

Imagine an arsonist receiving the Fireman of the Year Award, or Satan being canonized a saint by the Vatican, or Hitler driving a tank into Oslo – to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize!

It all sounds utterly ridiculous, but unbelievably something about as nutty happened recently. Everywhere in the media we read how mega-filmstar Leonardo DiCaprio took his private jet over 12,000 kilometers – to pick up an environmental award! See here and here.

Gulfstream 450

Need to pick up an environmental award in a hurry? We’ve got the ideal private jet! Image cropped at www.gulfstream.com/.

While the millionaire Hollywood star jets-sets across the globe between stays at his mansions, awards and yachts, he likes to preach to the rest of the struggling world on responsible, humble and sustainable living.

DiCaprio’s Dilemma

Probably one of the most telling aspects of the affair is the decision process leading up to this junket. The award in New York City happened to coincide with the Cannes film festival – an event the California-residing Mr. DiCaprio obviously didn’t plan on missing. Yet, he really wanted that image-polishing environmental award as well. In a normal world a normal person in such a dilemma would have foregone one or the other. Indeed if the environment and climate were as important to Mr. DiCaprio as he likes to profess it is, he certainly would have skipped the star-studded Euro-Festival altogether, or if anything at least cut the Cannes fling short and picked up his award on the way back. That, after all, would have sent a clear signal that he is quite serious about the environment and that it precludes material things like Cannes. Remember DiCaprio’s own words:

Climate change is real. It is happening right now, it is the most urgent threat facing our entire species.”

The other option would have been to skip the environmental award, citing scheduling problems. But that would not have gone over well either. Doing so would have sent the message that having fun at Cannes was more important than the stinking environment and shown that maybe he wasn’t really sincere about the environment.

So you do what people like DiCaprio do in such a bind. You simply flaunt the very rules you profess, and you do both – even if it means clandestinely indulging in an orgy of fossil fuel burning and environmental rape. Besides, you can always offset later. It’s Leo first. Rules apply to us, but not to him.

DiCaprio took the private jet to Cannes, then back to New York to pick up the environmental award, and then shuttled back to Cannes. After that, who knows?

Enough fuel for 10,000 automobiles!

Just how much fuel did that particular 12,000-kilometer environmental round-trip junket consume? No one knows for sure, but we can estimate it. The round trip involved around 16 hours of flight time – if not more – in a longer range private jet, e.g. a Gulfstream G450, which has a fuel capacity of 29,500 lbs,  or approx. 16,000 liters. For the 16-hour long haul roundtrip, refueling once, such a jet would need close to 30,000 liters of fuel – fuel that gets burned right where greenhouse gases are claimed to be the most effective.

30,000 liters is a huge amount of fuel. A normal compact European car can travel some 600,000 kilometers, or some 30 years, on that amount. In a single day, 30,000 liters are enough fuel to power some 10,000 cars!

Clearly if you hold Mr. DiCaprio’s beliefs, private jets are the most environmentally damaging form of transport imaginable. They ought to be banned outright. Yet, Mr. DiCaprio saw no problem committing this mass environmental climate crime. What Leo wants, Leo gets. The environment be damned.

Interestingly the Gulfstream websites overviewing the various models do not include fuel consumption and CO2 emission ratings in order to let the jet-setting millionaires and Hollywood environmental activists know the damage they do to the environment. In Europe brochures and new car stickers clearly state the vehicle’s fuel consumption and CO2 emissions so that people can judge the alleged damage to the environment (er, never mind for now the recent scandalous car exhaust test manipulations).

Sorry, I forgot. Fuel consumption awareness and environmental protection are only for the little folks.

 

1959 Paper Shows Most Warming Before 1945 …Arctic Warmed 7.7°C, Sea Level Rose 8 mm/yr

The following clearly shows a complete lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature. Most of the 20th century warming occurred before 1945, and clearly was linked to natural factors at time the planet was emerging from the Little Ice Age.
====================================

Explosive (Non-Anthropogenic) Warming in the Early 20th Century

By Kenneth Richard

As Figure 1 depicts, human CO2 emissions were essentially flat during first half of the 20th century.

Cina_1

Yet, the world’s climate warmed dramatically throughout this period. For example notice how steep the rise in near-surface (0 – 20 m) ocean temperatures was between 1900 and 1945 according to Gouretski et al. (2012, Consistent near-surface ocean warming since 1900 in two largely independent observing networks).

Cina_2

As the Gouretski et al. (2012) graph indicates, near-surface ocean temperatures rose by about 1.2°C between 1900 and 1945. But then, in the next 65 years, between 1945 and 2010, the near-surface ocean only warmed by about 0.3°C in total, which includes a 30-year cooling trend (1945 – 1975).

If we compare the two trends, the early 20th century (1900 – 1945) near-surface ocean waters warmed at a rate of almost 0.27°C per decade, whereas the more recent period (1945 – 2010) only warmed at a rate of under 0.05°C per decade. Interestingly, it was the more recent 1945 – 2010 period that contained the rapid expansion of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, with rates rising from ~1 GtC/year (1900 -1945)  to nearly 10 GtC/year by 2010.

These warming (and cooling) trends in the near-surface ocean are the opposite of what would be expected if human CO2 emissions were the primary driver.

Sea level rose 8 mm/year between 1930 – 1948

What follows are some of the details of this dramatic early 20th century warming as documented by Princeton geologist Dr. Erling Dorf, a veritable expert on the subject. Notice from the summaries provided below that sea levels were observed to be rising at a rate of about 8 mm/year between 1930 and 1948 (6 inches in 19 years), which is more than double today’s modeled satellite altimetry rate (3.2 mm/year).

These early 20th century temperature and CO2 trends beg the question: What were the physical mechanisms that caused this dramatic global-scale warming, since anthropogenic CO2 emissions were both low (~1 GtC/year) and stable during this period?

Summary of the 1900 to 1950 warm period as described in Dr. Dorf’s (1959) “CLIMATIC CHANGES OF THE PAST AND PRESENT”.

  1. A 14°F (+7.7°C) warming in the Arctic (North Pole region) between the early 1900s and 1950, with ice-free ports 7 months out of the year rather than the mere 3 months per year that were common at the turn of the century.
  2. A 5°F (+2.8°C) warming in Antarctica.
  3. “Catastrophic” and “violent” wasting away of glaciers, with Muir Glacier retreating 2 miles (3.2 km) in 10 years.
  4. A snow line rise by 2700 feet (823 meters) in the Peruvian mountains.
  5. A 6-inch (15 cm) rise in sea level between 1930 and 1948, a rate of about 32 inches (+80 cm) per century and 8 mm/yr  (more than double today’s alleged rate per satellite altimetry [3.2 mm/yr]).  A 600% increase in the rate of sea level rise in the 1920s.
  6. Agricultural crop lines shifted 50 to 100 miles (80 to 161 km) northward, with 10-day longer growing seasons.
  7. Tree lines moved 65 feet (20 meters) up the mountains in Sweden.
  8. Many birds and mammals extended their habitats northwards; about 25 species of birds advanced from the south up into a warmer Greenland; codfish replaced seals along the coasts of Greenland, which led “Greenland Eskimos” to switch to cod-fishing rather than seal-hunting.

Excerpts from Dr. Erling Dorf, 1959:

CLIMATIC CHANGES OF THE PAST AND PRESENT

It has been observed, however, that the greatest temperature increases during the last hundred years have been in the Arctic regions. In Spitsbergen, only about 10 to 12 degrees from the North Pole, the mean winter temperatures have risen about 14° F. since 1910 (Willett, 1950). Ice-free ports there are now open to navigation about 7 months of the year as compared with only 3 months fifty years ago (Ahlmann, 1953, p. 32). If the warming trend of the north polar region should continue at its present rate, it has been estimated that the entire Arctic Ocean would be navigable all year long within about a hundred years. At the opposite end of the world, according to recent reports from the Weather Bureau (Wexler, 1958), the Antarctic region has undergone a rise of about 5°F. in average temperature in the last fifty years. There has been no appreciable rise, however, in the mean annual temperatures in the tropical regions of the world.

What have been some of the notable results of this warming trend during the last hundred years? Glaciers throughout the world have been melting away at a rapidly increasing rate. Brooks (1949, p. 24). the eminent British paleoclimatologist, stated that “Since the beginning of the 20th Century glaciers have been wasting away rapidly, or even catastrophically.” In the Juneau region of Alaska, all but one of the numerous glaciers began melting away as far back as 1765. Muir Glacier, for example, has retreated as much as two miles in 10 years. Baird and Sharp (1954, p. 143) have referred to the “alarming retreat of glaciers” in the Alaskan region; along the Pacific Coast of North America and in Europe they believe the glacial melting “appears to be progressing violently.” In the north polar region, measurements of melting of the ice islands in the Arctic Sea indicate an approach toward an open polar sea (Crary, Kulp, and Blarshall, 1955). In only a few regions of the world, such as the Pacific Northwest, are there any records of glaciers advancing during the past century, and these have been mostly since 1950 (Hubley, 1956). The warmer temperatures have also caused a general rise of the snow line throughout the mountainous regions of the world, even in the tropics: in northern Peru it has risen about 2700 feet during the 60 years.

Believed in large part to be the result of the melting of the world’s glaciers, sea level has been rising at a rapidly increasing rate, amounting to as much as a 6-inch rise from 1930 to 1948 (Marmar, 1948). This is about four times the average rate of sea level rise during the past 9000 years, as recorded by Shepard and Suess (1956). It should be noted that more than a six-fold increase in the rate of sea level rise occurred in the mid-1920’s at the same time there was a striking change in the rate of glacial melting in the north (Ahlmann, 1953, Fig. 11).

Changes in vegetation brought about by the warmer temperatures include the encroachment of trees into the subpolar tundra as recorded in Alaska, Quebec, Laborador, and Siberia. In the Canadian prairies the agricultural crop line has shifted from 50 to 100 miles northward as a result of the lengthening of the growing season by as much as ten days. In parts of northern New England and eastern Canada the birch trees have been dying off over large areas, and the spruces and balsams have begun to suffer as a result of the rise in summer temperatures. In Sweden the timberline has moved up the mountain slopes as much as 65 feet since 1930 (Ahlmann, 1953, p. 35).

In the animal world many southern types of both birds and mammals have been extending their habitat ranges northward as a result of the warming trend. The cardinal, the turkey vulture, the tufted titmouse, and the blue-winged warbler, as well as the warmth-loving opossum, have slowly moved their ranges into the northern United States. A good many central European species of animals have been shifting their ranges northward into Scandinavia, Greenland, Iceland, and the Faero Islands. Twenty-five species of birds alone are reported to have invaded Greenland from the south since 1918 (Jensen and Fristrup, 1950). Codfish from the Atlantic have replaced the seals in the waters along the coast of Greenland. It is reported that compared to a shipment of 5 tons of codfish from Greenland in 1913, the 1946 shipment had risen to over 13,000 tons; the Greenland Eskimos have become cod fishermen instead of seal fishermen (Kimble, 1950). Farther south tunafish have moved northward into the waters off New England, and tropical flying fishes have become increasingly common off the coast of New Jersey.

 

Germany’s Volatile Power Grid Spinning Dangerously Out Of Control …Prices Go Negative 25 Times In 2015!

The more volatile supply wind and solar energy that comes online in Germany, the more insane the market prices become. Too often the wind blows and the sun shines when power is unneeded, or they are simply AWOL when demand is high like in the wintertime.

Winbd sun May 2016

Germany’s wildly fluctuating wind and solar energy are creating grid and market havoc. Source: Agora.

Earlier this month Germany saw a spate of both sunny, windy days, thus leading to huge power grid surges during the Ascension holiday weekend, a time when many factories were running close to idled (see chart above).

Despite billions annually in subsidies, wind and sun still puny

And for a few minutes last Pentecost Monday afternoon – a holiday that saw very low national electricity demand – wind and solar provided almost enough power to cover all of the country’s electricity needs, reported Die Welt here. Leading Greens cheered, and proclaimed that coal and nuclear had not been needed for a time. But they cheered “too early” writes Die Welt’s business journalist , pointing out that market and technical conditions became dangerously precarious and that in total “electricity represents only 21% of Germany’s total energy need.”

While Germany’s installed solar and wind energy may be able to get fairly close to fulfilling total electricity demand for a few minutes in rare instances that weather and demand conditions are just right, their share of total primary energy is still depressingly measly. Die Welt puts it all in true perspective:

Despite billions in subsidies, ‘renewable energies’ wind and sun covered only 3.7% of Germany’s primary energy needs last year.”

Negative wholesale prices becoming rampant

Another debilitating feature of the weather-dependent renewable energies are the havoc they create on the electricity exchanges. Last week’s power grid overloading by wind and sun led to deep negative wholesale prices.

Spiegel here writes that the wholesale power price plummeted to -130 euros per megawatt (see blue curve in the right chart)! Literally, foreign consumers were being paid to take the power. (The black curve shows total German demand).

Moreover the phenomenon of negative wholesale prices (i.e. excessive power feeding uncontrollably into the grid) occurred a record 25 times in 2015, Spiegel writes. That was 4 times more often than in 2011.

Among the highest electricity prices in the world

With wholesale electricity prices dipping into negative territory, one might think that power must be very cheap for the consumer. Unfortunately this is not the case. At negative prices power companies lose money, and so are then forced to pass along these extra costs along to the end consumers. German consumers are paying close to €0.30 for each kilowatt-hour they consume – among the highest in the world.

The situation has gotten so alarming that leading politicians of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU conservative party are now demanding an end to subsidies for new wind and solar installations.

Denmark slams brakes on wind projects

Not only Germany is struggling with wildly fluctuating grid and market conditions, which are leading to massive costs and pain for consumers, but so is Denmark. Die Welt writes:

The situation has also led wind energy leader Denmark to a rethinking. Press reports say that Energy Minister Lars Christian Lilleholt has stopped the planned construction of five large offshore wind farms in order to protect consumers from large cost increases.”

 

German Scientists: Church Sacking Stems From “Unbearable”…”Intolerable”…”Unrestrained Climate Alarmism”

Fear mongering no longer pays: Climate alarmist John Church sacked by Australian government

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
Translated by P Gosselin (NASA image added by P Gosselin)

6m_Sea_Level_Rise_NASA

NASA image showing 6-meter sea level rise. Public Domain image.

Website ClimateChangePredictions.org has taken on the task of recording climate change forecasts in order to compare them to the real, observed developments. A nice example is sea level rise. Currently sea level is rising at about 2-3 mm per year, a trend that would mean about 25 cm by the end of the century. However that does not keep some from publicly trumpeting much higher sea level amounts with the aim of getting publicity.

You’ll find a very interesting list of all prognoses at the named website here. For example Australian climate scientist John Church projects 3 meters by the year 2100.

No room for “extreme, activist views”

With respect to this unbearable climate alarmism, the Australian government has pulled the emergency brake. While Church was on an expedition ship halfway between New Zealand and Antarctica, he was informed by Australian Research authority CSIRO that he was “potentially redundant” and that he would lose his position. That is an overdue signal that unrestrained climate alarmism is no longer tolerable. Society is entitled to balanced science. There must not be any room for extreme, activist views.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported on May 14, 2016:

Global sea-level expert John Church made to walk the plank by CSIRO
For John Church, a leading authority on sea-level rise caused by global warming, there was much that was fitting – and yet callous – about being sacked at sea. The veteran scientist was well into one of dozens of research voyages he had taken since joining CSIRO as a post doctoral student in 1979. His vessel, the RV Investigator, was midway between Antarctica and New Zealand and steaming north on the 170 degree longitude when he received Thursday’s call to tell him he was “potentially redundant”.

Read more: Sydney Morning Herald.

The sacking of Church is part of a large trimming down, which is seeing a wave of hundreds of scientists moving from the climate sciences over to other highly relevant science fields.

In Germany we are still a long way from that point. To the contrary the state-supported and climate activism-tinged IASS Institute Potsdam is searching a scientific staff member through an advert auf stepstone.de:

The Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies e.V. (IASS) in Potsdam is an institution supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung and the state of Brandenburg and is dedicated to an all encompassing transdisciplinary and international research of climate change, the earth system components and sustainability. More information at: www.iass-potsdam.de.”

 

Current Solar Cycle Now 3rd Weakest Ever Observed – Least Active Since Dalton Minimum 200 Years Ago!

The Sun in April 2016

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

The sun in April also was quiet in what has been so far a relatively calm solar cycle (SC). The sunspot number (SSN) was 38.0, which is 50% of what is typically normal for month no. 89 into a solar cycle. The impressive drop in activity is seen clearly in the following chart:

Figure 1: Sunspot activity since December 2008 for the current SC 24 is depicted by the red curve and is compared to the mean (blue). Over the past 4 months it has been very similar to SC 5 (black).

Also the divergence with respect to the sun’s polar field has increased. We reported on this in March. The south polar field is now close to 4 times stronger than the weaker northern field. Such a diverging development has never been observed at this stage into the cycle since observations began 40 years ago. We’ll continue monitoring this development and keep you informed!

Our monthly diagram which compares all the past observed cycles since 1755 now shows something special:

Figure 2: The accumulated sunspot anomalies from the mean for all cycles, 89 months into the respective cycle. The differences between each month for all cycles and the mean value (blue curve in Figure 1) is the source of the data.

Accounting for April 2016 (solar cycle month no. 89) it is clear that the current SC 24 is weaker in total than SC 7, which occurred from 1823 to 1833 during the so-called Dalton Minimum. Therefore our previous month’s suspicion that SC 7 would be surpassed has now been quickly confirmed as correct.

Currently SC 24 is now the weakest in close to 200 years, since SC 6.

 

“A Myth” …Spiegel Journalist Douses Alarmist Claim Alberta Fires Caused By Climate Change

Some alarmists are claiming that the devastating forest fires of Alberta (see NASA photo below) are the result of climate change, for example by the New York Times or the BBC.

Alberta mcmurray_oli_2016133 NASA

Credits: NASA Earth Observatory image by Joshua Stevens, using Landsat data from the U.S. Geological Survey

“A ritual”

Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski here decided to investigate this a bit more closely, and found that the data supporting such claims are “paltry” and that the claim itself is mostly “a myth”. He points out that the same is true with all the other recently alleged climate change-caused disasters, such as 5 Pacific islands sinking, the Syria conflict, hurricanes, etc.

In fact the practice of blaming climate change for natural disasters has been so widespread that Bojanowski, a geologist, now terms it “a ritual”.

Main cause: El Niño induced weather

The Spiegel journalist writes that the reason behind the fires was mainly an unusual, high latitude low which elevated temperatures 17°C above the mean and brought with it high winds which acted to fan the flames. The dry conditions leading up to a forest fire outbreak, Bojanowski reports, were due to the El Niño which disrupted global weather patterns.

Bojanowski next provides a chart depicting Canada forest fire activity over the past 25 years. The trend: no real increase in forest fire activity. If anything the overall trend for the number of fires is slightly downward. Though the area of the fires have jumped, Bojanowski suspects this may have something to do with more industry taking place in forests. Here he also cites results from Russian scientists.

“No evidence”

Bojanowki makes other points:

  • The IPCC sees no increased drought in Canada.
  • Models said wet regions were in fact supposed to get wetter.

On the claims climate change was to blame for the devastating forest fires in Canada, he concludes that “there isn’t any evidence for this claim“.

 

Veteran Meteorologist Forecasts “Epic Cold Temperatures” Over 2025 – 2060, Slowing Sea level Rise

Sea Level Prediction

By David Dilley – Global Weather Oscillations

As many are familiar, the warm peak of the interglacial cycle occurred about 7 thousand years ago, with progressively cooler 1,500 year warming cycles since then as the earth trends toward the next long-term glacial period.

Dill_01

Figure 1: Temperature of the Holocene Period.

Because the density and depth of the oceans around the world, changes in ocean temperatures lag behind a long-term inter-glacial cooling or warming trend by up to a few thousand years. This is partly due to the smaller 230-year cooling and warming cycles embedded within the long-term cycles.

Thus, until earth trends further toward the next glacial period, a continued trend in slow sea level rise could continue for another thousand years – although rises will become less and less as time progresses, or it may even stabilize and halt entirely within the next few years as the next 230-year global cooling cycle takes hold and earth continues to progress toward the next ice age.

The short-term 230-year Natural Climate Pulse 230 global warming and cooling cycles will be the most important aspect during the next 150 to 200 years. These cycles are controlled by the earth-moon-sun gravitational cycles and the solar cycles, which in-turn in combination with the warming and cooling – control fluctuations in sea level.

As seen in Figure 2, there have been 6 warming cycles during the past 1,200 years and the beginning and ending of each cycle occur like clockwork about every 220 to 230 years. The last warm cycle ended around 1780 and the year 2019 is approximately 230 years from this date.

Dill_2

Figure 2: Global temperature forecast by meteorologist David Dilley. The typical 72-year twin temperature peaks associated with a 230 year Natural Global Warming Cycles.

Just as important as the 230-year Natural Climate Pulse is the Solar Activity Cycles. As seen in Figure 3, solar activity has entered a new Maunder-type Minimum that should continue for the next 50 to 90 years.

Dill_3

Figure 3: The solar cycles since 1749 and the prediction is for a solar minimum to cause a cooling period about 200 years.

Like the Climate Pulse Cycles, these cycles also correlate with the approximate 230-year warming and cooling cycles.

Prediction and projection

Earth is now entering a Climate Pulse Global Cooling Cycle which will last between 100 to 200 years, and this will greatly stabilize or even reduce sea level rise. The coldest years of the upcoming Natural Climate Pulse cooling cycle will be from the year 2020 through 2220, and especially from 2025 through 2060 – a period that will likely see epic cold temperatures not seen since the early 1800s. The Arctic and Antarctic entered the cooling cycle around the year 2013 and the full effects will become noticeable on or after the year 2019.

The Arctic and Antarctic will realize dramatic ice restoration during this period, and ocean water will contract during this period due to the much colder temperatures and cooling of the oceans. GWO predicts a complete stabilizing of the sea level rise early in this period and likely very little or no sea level rise during the period from 2020 through 2200.

Conclusion: misleading science

Most sea level predictions that are widely distributed by government agencies and universities paint an alarming picture for coastal areas during the next 80 years and beyond. If sea levels actually rise as predicted by the United Nations Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), coastal areas of the United States and especially low lying areas and Ports would be very susceptible to the projected rises.

Politicized science

But extreme caution and doubt should be exercised with these predictions. The government grant system offers research grants to universities for the purpose of researching theories that may or may not be true.  Unfortunately this process has not been used wisely during the past 20 years, and sometimes abused by the university research programs.

Much of this begins with the lobbyists and bureaucrats in Washington D.C. and the United Nations. The lobbyists are infusing money into the university grant systems worldwide in order to promote money making agendas. If the universities and governments can be convinced that Climate Change has catastrophic consequences – special interest agendas can easily be put in place. But to do so, scare tactics are used by agencies to further these agendas. Unfortunately the university grant system has become the puppet to bolster the agendas on Climate Change issues. By using scare tactics fanned from poor science, ideas and facts can easily be misconstrued.

Fanning the fire is unfortunately done in several ways. After the lobbyists and special interest groups set the ground work to promote their special interest climate agendas, it then spills over to the grant system.  Once the grants are put forth, catastrophic yet often scientifically unfounded results spew from the universities to scientific journals.  Worse, young scientists must toe the line and continue to publish substandard research and findings – or they may not reach tenure.

References:

Nature Volume 531 issue 7596 Robert M. DeConto and Davie Pollard, Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, USA

United Nations Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the USGCRP National Climate Assessment

Natural Climate Pulse; David Dilley, CEO Global Weather Oscillations. Peer reviewed and published 2009, updated 2012; www.globalweatheroscillations.com.

 

German DWD Weather Service Gets Caught Again… “Ice Saints” In Fact Have Gotten Colder!

In Germany we keep hearing from some that spring in Central Europe is arriving earlier and earlier – due to climate warming.

Unfortunately the data do not support the claim at all, it turns out. Data over the past 25 years in fact show that spring has been arriving later, and not earlier.

Frost

Photo by: Asio otus – License: CC BY-SA 3.0

One anecdotal example showing that spring warming is not what it is often claimed to be is the trend regarding the Central European phenomenon called Eisheiligen – “Ice Saints“, a frosty period often occurring in mid May – typically around May 11 – 15. And this year is no different: this morning snow and frost are reported in many of Germany’s hilly and mountainous regions as a blast of cold air grips Central Europe.

Recently an official from Germany’s DWD National Weather Service told the press that the Ice Saints have been getting warmer over the last years, and immediately without question the German mainstream Truth Press ran the story.

But skeptics Josef Kowatsch and Dr. Sebastian Lüning weren’t sure about the DWD claim, and so decided to look into it. It turns out that quite the contrary is true: over the past years the Ice Saints have gotten colder!

Why is honesty so rare nowadays? And they wonder why some call them the Lügenpresse (lying press).

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

The May Ice Saints are getting colder

By Josef Kowatsch and Sebastian Lüning
(Edited, translated and condensed by P Gosselin)

The Ice Saints are the days occurring from May 11 – 15. According to old farmers a cold period occurs at this time and is colder than early May. So we ask: are these 5 days now warmer or colder? The reason for posing the question is a claim by the director of the DWD German Weather Service, Andreas Friedrich appearing in the der Neuen Osnabrücker Zeitung on 21 April 2016:

‘In the past years the Ice Saints have been rarer’. Meteorologist Andreas Friedrich of the German Weather Service has determined: ‘In the last years these cold snaps in May have been fewer…“

Last year Friedrich claimed the same at Focus. where he said the Ice Saints had become the Hot Saints. So we decided to take a closer look.

Because meteorologists consider climate to be the mean of 30 years of weather, we should therefore examine this time period. But first we look at the last 50 years, which is a rather lengthy time period. To do this we looked at the last 50 years of the Potsdam weather station, from 1966 to 2015.

Ice Saints of the last 50 years

The following diagram shows the temperature mean for May 11-15 at the Potsdam station from 1966 to 2015.

When we plot the average Ice Saints temperature beginning in 1966, we see a significant drop of -2°K. Two degrees of cooling is the opposite of warming and this contradicts the claim the Ice Saints are disappearing (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Over the past 50 years the Ice Saints May 11-15 period in Potsdam has shown a strong negative trend.

The Ice Saints of the last 30 years

Next we look at the past 30 years, which is the minimum time period needed to define climate. Over the past 30 years the Ice Saints have gotten significantly colder (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Temperature trend of the Ice Saints in Potsdam since 1985.

Ice Saints over the past 18 years

Especially over the recent years, according to DWD board member Friedrich, have the Ice Saints warmed up. True result: The reality is that for the past 18 years the Ice Saints have become much cooler in Potsdam (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Temperature trend for the Ice Saints over the past 18 years in Potsdam.

Conclusion:

Even going back 50 years is the may 11 – 15 Ice Saints period colder in Potsdam. That is a long-term downward trend. As one comes closer to the present, the downward trend increases, which is the exact opposite of the claimed “Hot Saints”. The scary reports coming from the German press on the supposedly warming Ice Saints simply do not hold any water when we examine the Potsdam data.

 

Climate Campaigner Beyoncé Exposed As Lavish Living, Slave-Driving Sweat Shop Labor Exploiter

British tabloid The Sun recently featured a story exposing hypocrisy by entertainment superstar Beyoncé titled: Sweatshop ‘slaves’ earning just 44p an hour.

The Sun article describes how a sweatshop, contracted by Philip Green’s Topshop, produces the high-end Beyoncé garments in Sri Lanka and employs “mostly young women from poor rural villages” who “can only afford to live in boarding houses and work more than 60 hours a week“.  In fact the seamstresses are paid so poorly that even a month’s wages cannot buy a pair of Beyoncé leggings.

Many fear losing their jobs if they speak up, and they see little chance of ever escaping poverty, the Sun reports.

That’s pretty sad given the extreme wealth Beyoncé enjoys. You’d think she’d see to it that the poor seamstresses would be paid a bit more for their grinding labor. Can she pass all the blame on to Philip Green?

And wouldn’t you know it? The jet-setting, lavish-living Beyoncé is also of course active in the fight against climate change, yet ignores her own huge carbon footprint. Last year she lent her support for a campaign with the United Nations “to fight inequality and raise awareness about climate change“.

 

FOIA E-Mails: Politically Inexperienced, Publicity-Hungry Scientists Get Burned In Political Arena

Unfolding is the latest chapter in the sad state of climate science and the tragic consequences scientists face when they decide to go political without having the experience to do so.

One has to wonder what these people were thinking when they expected dissenters to just roll over and waive their precious free speech rights.

A Virginia judge has ruled in favor of The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) in a Virginia Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against George Mason University, which was ordered yesterday to release documents and e-mails related to a group of scientists calling for the prosecution of organizations that promote manmade climate change skepticism – all under the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Full story here.

WUWT sees the scandal surrounding the controversy as one that is even more serious than the 2009 “Climategate” – an affair where e-mails exposed climate scientists exaggerating climate trends, manipulating the peer-review process, and skirting the freedom of information act.

A total of 5 PDFs have been released concerning George mason University, and with climate scientist Jagadish Shukla with a leading role.

Pages 1- 59
Pages 60-102
Pages 103-133
Pages 134-178
Pages 179-190

As one reads the e-mails, it quickly emerges that some of the involved scientists (unwittingly) meandered out of their academic realm, with which they are comfortable and familiar, and into a political one that is very unfamiliar to them. Their scheme was ultimately aimed at intimidating and silencing scientific dissent.

Odds “slim to none”

Early on they were even advised that their case was very weak, and probably best left aside. For example Ed Maibach admitted (000003) that they really didn’t have much of a case:

FOIA_1

Yet he seemed unable to resist the opportunity of getting “lots of media attention” (000006):

FOIA_3

Maibach even fancied front page coverage in the Washington Post. What harm could it do to try?

“New” in politics

We also see Shukla announcing (000003) how he decided to become politically active, that he was “new” at it, and wrote that the issue is more about politics than science:

FOIA_2

Moreover he added that he had a “dedicated activist” on board for the science-based, world-saving political endeavor on which they were about to embark:

FOIA_4

Clearly the political arena was a new one for scientist Shukla – one he seriously underestimated. Unfortunately he would soon find out, that at that the level he was entering, it was absolutely no place for political amateurs.

Threatening organizations and scientific dissenters with the powerful crime-fighting RICO Act was taken extremely seriously by dissenting individual scientists, bloggers, organsations etc. They in turn responded accordingly and moved vigorously to defend their rights against what they viewed as a serious fundamental human rights threat. Before too long revelations and allegations surfaced – and the arena became heated.

By early October, after serious allegations were made about Shukla’s salary and compensation, the blowback became too harsh. Shukla penned a letter (000033) backpedaling, claiming that their letter to IGES outlining their RICO effort was “misinterpreted” and that it “was not at all the case“:

FOIA_5

He asserted the scientists didn’t mean to send the message that by involving RICO they were trying to silence individual and blogger dissent. Their purpose, instead, was only to punish organizations that might be funding the dissent. Those on the other side saw it differently. Indeed, words do need to be chosen carefully.

Moreover in the letter Shukla claims “much published credible evidence“, giving the impression of a solid case. Yet recall how in July he was told (000003) by Maibach that they had little to go on, that the chances of the Department of Justice (DOJ) pursuing the case were “slim to none”.

As one reads all the e-mails, it becomes apparent that the scientists-gone-activist have really woven themselves into a real mess, now that they have been exposed.

It’s a painful way for scientists to learn that it’s better to stick to science – and to let the politicking to others.

In any case they sought publicity – and now they’re getting it.

 

Salby Sees Little CO2 Driving Mechanism …Skeptical View Of CO2 Science Is In Fact ‘Textbook Science’

SalbyBy Kenneth Richard

We routinely read from fellow skeptics that they wish Dr. Murry Salby’s research could be made available in written form, or perhaps in a peer-reviewed paper.

Indeed we do have access to his Youtube lecture research (at least a written summary of it) from an even better source than peer-reviewed paper: Dr. Murry Salby’s 2012 university-level textbook: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate.

Here is a pdf link to the full textbook written by a world-renown expert on atmospheric physics (he’s published several dozen papers in the scientific literature on the subject). We therefore can effectively say that a skeptical view of the CO2-dominated climate paradigm is actually textbook science, not “fringe” science for the “3 percent”.

Below I’ve compiled a short list of some of the written statements from the textbook (emphasis added):

(a) temperature changes occur first and lead to CO2 emission from natural sources (e.g., more ocean outgassing upon warming, more CO2 retention as the ocean cools), indicating that warmer temperatures are driving up CO2 concentrations significantly more than human activity or fossil fuels;

(b) CO2 only accounts for a small portion of the greenhouse effect relative to water vapor/cloud; and

(c) our presumptions about paleoclimate CO2 concentrations are probably inaccurate (too low and too stable), as significant temperature fluctuations would have caused wider fluctuations in CO2 concentrations than current proxy-based reconstructions indicate.

Page 546:

Together, emission from ocean and land sources (∼150 GtC/yr) is two orders of magnitude greater than CO2 emission from combustion of fossil fuel. These natural sources are offset by natural sinks, of comparable strength. However, because they are so much stronger, even a minor imbalance between natural sources and sinks can overshadow the anthropogenic component of CO2 emission.”

And page 249:

The vast majority of that [greenhouse] warming is contributed by water vapor. Together with cloud, it accounts for 98% of the greenhouse effect.” pg. 249

Page 249/50:

Surface temperature depends on the atmosphere’s optical depth. The latter, in turn, depends on atmospheric composition through radiatively active species. Water vapor is produced at ocean surfaces through evaporation. Carbon dioxide is produced by decomposition of of organic matter. These and other processes that control radiatively active species are temperature dependent.”

Page 253:

Revealed by natural perturbations to the Earth-atmosphere system, the sensitivity accounts for much of the observed variation of CO2 emission on interannual time scales (Fig. 1.43). It establishes that GMT cannot increase without simultaneously increasing CO2 emission – from natural sources.”

Page 253:

The results for the two periods are in broad agreement. Together with the strong dependence of CO2 emission on temperature (Fig. 1.43), they imply that a significant portion of the observed increase in r˙CO2 derives from a gradual increase in surface temperature.”

Page 546:

Warming of SST (by any mechanism) will increase the outgassing of CO2 while reducing its absorption. Owing to the magnitude of transfers with the ocean, even a minor increase of SST can lead to increased emission of CO2 that rivals other sources.”

Page 254:

The resemblance between observed changes of CO2 and those anticipated from increased surface temperature also points to a major inconsistency between proxy records of previous climate. Proxy CO2 from the ice core record (Fig 1.13) indicates a sharp increase after the nineteenth century. At earlier times, proxy CO2 becomes amorphous: Nearly homogeneous on time scales shorter than millennial, the ice core record implies virtually no change of atmospheric CO2. According to the above sensitivity, it therefore implies a global-mean climate that is “static,” largely devoid of changes in GMT and CO2. Proxy temperature (Fig. 1.45), on the other hand, exhibits centennial changes of GMT during the last millennium, as large as 0.5–1.0◦ K. In counterpart reconstructions, those changes are even greater (Section 1.6.2). It is noteworthy that, unlike proxy CO2 from the ice core record, proxy temperature in Fig. 1.45 rests on a variety of independent properties. In light of the observed sensitivity, those centennial changes of GMT must be attended by significant changes of CO2 during the last millennium. They reflect a global-mean climate that is “dynamic,” wherein GMT and CO2 change on a wide range of time scales. The two proxies of previous climate are incompatible. They cannot both be correct.”

These statements fully correspond with some of the main themes of his lectures.

Analysis Indicates The Real Cause of Recent Warming Is Not CO2

By Ed Caryl

I would like to thank a faithful warmist commenter for inspiring this research.

His claim for my mental state seen here, in The 85-year Pause, forced me to “put up, or shut up” on the subject of warming seasonality and the reasons for it. To that end, I added many more stations to my list to be examined, and plotted monthly data instead of just two seasons.

First, some discussion on CO2 warming theory, a subject on which this faithful warmist commentator claims some expertise. I searched the web for any illustrations of monthly downward long-wave radiation. I finally found them at ScienceOfDoom.com, here. Please click on the link.

Twelve different stations are shown, with modeled and observed month-of-year data. The data for each of these stations closely matches the local insolation (sunshine hours), with a maximum in the local summer, especially for polar and middle latitudes.

One would think, that with more downward IR in the local summer, and with increasing CO2, that the resulting warming would be in the summer also. That is not the case.

Some signal theory: electrical engineers, physicists, and technicians that have ever used a digital oscilloscope will be familiar with signal averaging. When a faint signal is synchronous with a larger signal, triggering the oscilloscope on the larger signal and averaging many times will bring out the faint signal even in the presence of large random noise. In this case, the annual CO2 warming signal synchronized with the months of the year in the presence of weather.

Based on the hours of daylight for each month, here is an example of what the CO2 warming should look like for Bismarck, North Dakota, and the stations around it:

Biismarck Sunshine

Figure 1: Number of sunshine hours per month for Bismarck, North Dakota, USA. The peak is in July, the low point is in November and December. The months of the year are numbered from January with two years shown. The source link is here. Click on Climate Data For Bismarck Airport.

For all the station data downloaded from GISTemp, I split the data into two sets: from 1947 to 1980, and from 1981 to 2015. I then computed the by-month average for each set, then subtracted the first set from the second. The result is the by month average warming between 1947 to 1980, and 1981 to 2015.

Here is the result for 8 stations in North Dakota, USA. The “adjusted” data was used for all plots. As GISS uses the same adjustments for all months of the same year, the other data sets would only move these plots vertically by small amounts without changing the shape.

North Dakota Warming

Figure 2: Warming by month for 8 stations in North Dakota. Two years are shown to show a full winter in the center of the plot. The months are numbered from January. These stations are all within a few hundred kilometers of each other, so show very similar trends. The dark red trace is the average. The peak is in January.

Note that the warming in North Dakota is completely out of phase with the sunshine hours, thus out of phase with any possible CO2 warming.

Thirteen Russian stations were examined in the same fashion. This area is supposedly warming faster than anywhere else according to the temperature anomaly maps from GISS. These stations are spread across the nation from Moscow to eastern Siberia. There was more variation here, so a plot of all 13 is a classic spaghetti diagram. Here is a plot of the 13 stations with the average highlighted in black. Moscow (Moskva) is in slightly bolder red.

Russia Warming

Figure 3: Plot of the average monthly warming for 13 Russian stations. Two years are shown. The months with the most warming are January, February, and March.

Where is the winter warming coming from? It is the wrong season for the cause to be increased CO2. I was not able to find energy usage for Russia, but here is the energy usage for the U.S.:

Energy Usage

Figure 4: Energy usage in the United States by month of the year. The top curve is the average energy usage after 1980; the bottom curve is energy usage from 1970 to 1980, the only monthly data available from the U. S. Energy Administration here.

Annual residential energy usage in the United States has quadrupled since 1949, and the variation shown above is primarily due to residential energy usage. Note the increase in usage in July and August, primarily from increased air conditioning.

Here are 12 more stations in the U. S. Midwest and South. The black line is the average.

Midwest Warming

Figure 5: Plot of the by-month warming in 12 locations in the US mid-west and south. 

In the US midwest and south, the least warming (slightly cooling) is in October. The peak warming is March. All the cities have peak warming between November and March, completely out of sync with any possible CO2 warming and in sync with residential heating.

These diagrams all show a large negative spike in either September (Russia) or October (in the US). Why should this be? These are the months where the air conditioners are turned off and the heating has yet to be turned on, thus they are the months with the least energy use.

There is no way that CO2 is causing this warming in the winter months. If CO2 was the culprit, we would see warming following the diagrams linked above on the SOD website. The back-radiation from CO2 is real. It just doesn’t have any effect, or the effect is offset by something else. Instead we see warming following energy use. We can keep the climate from warming. But it means freezing to death.

 

Peer Review Veteran: “Peer Review Has Lots Of Problems …Tends To Stifle Non-Dogmatic Thinking”

What follows is a comment by a PhD (wishes to remain anonymous) on the subject of peer-review. I’ve decided to upgrade it to a post (some editing).
============================================

Peer Review Is Not Magic

By The indomitable Snowman PhD

I usually don’t comment. But I noticed that NTZ attracted a new troll, who is just taking talking points from the support group sites and regurgitating them.

Marching

Peer-review often serves to prop up dearly held dogma.

I just couldn’t let the so often cited “holy peer review” thing pass because it’s long been a mess. Since with publication on climate science, one is required to support the dogma, or the very least not dare to question it, or risk getting fired or having your funding pulled (same thing).

I would say the appropriate term is “FEAR review”.

It’s funny to see comments from alarmists and the links to the sites they provide. Those “sites” are very often not information sites, but support groups for zealots who need to believe and to go there to get belief-support and talking points – and who then leave their bubble and mindlessly regurgitate it all later.

The “peer review” thing is one of those babbling points. As Ed Begley (in)famously said, “Don’t take it from me folks – take it from people with a ‘Ph.D.’ after their name.” Peer review isn’t magic and has lots of problems, and I say this as someone who has had regular contact with peer review for more than two decades – as an author, reviewer, and editor.

Peer review serves only to provide some minimal quality control – screening out things like bad grammar, weak background work on references and prior art, etc. It’s also an iterative process – a paper is reviewed and the reviewers have comments/thoughts for the author(s), and the process iterates – it’s actually very unusual for any paper to be “outrighted” – either accepted as-is or simply rejected outright.

It’s funny seeing the inflated claims made (by no-doubt non-participants), since the system was never built to provide the claims of infallibility that the non-participants ascribe to it. Some problems with peer review:

  • It’s time consuming, and everyone is busy. Reviewers are volunteers, and usually they are short on time (like everyone) and a request for a prompt review is one more thing on the pile.  (The best place to do peer review is in the passenger compartment of a commercial aircraft.)  So peer review tends to be quite cursory, even when intentions are good.
  • Too many academics – and they too often treat manuscripts as being a student’s dissertation and continually demand more analysis and MORE analysis; it’s amazing how much useful material never gets into the journals simply because someone wants more and more and MORE analysis/measurements done to (in the reviewer’s view) nail down every last detail to the n-th degree.
  • The process can be abused with intent – and this is true in ALL fields. Peer review tends to stifle non-dogmatic thinking (and the more academic the field, the more this happens). This doesn’t even have to be malevolent – dogma can become so entrenched that anything that disagrees is instantly branded as incorrect; given the number of dogmatic points in a wide variety of fields that have turned out to be totally wrong, you’d think that there would be interest in reforming the process, but that hasn’t happened yet.  And, unfortunately, the process is regularly abused to suppress opposing views – or views/ideas that are merely “competitive” to the reviewer’s views (or “side”).

I’ve actually seen numerous instances where the same (as always, anonymous during the review process) reviewers who blocked a paper from being published then state publicly that those opposing ideas are obviously wrong because “they were unable to get through peer review.”

This general problem is finally getting some attention – along with other problems with the actual realities of “science.” There’s an excellent-and-timely article that came out this month that’s worth reading in detail, which discusses “peer review” and other issues that are undermining the quality and usefulness of “science.”

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress

Take the time to read that whole article; it’s lengthy but worth it.

 

Fears of Global Cooling Very Real In 1970s …Scientists Devised Ways To WARM The Planet!

Some have been trying to whitewash history by claiming that fears of global cooling didn’t really exist back in the 1970s. Well, guest author Kenneth Richard shows that that was hardly the case at all. Fears of cooling were very real.
========================================

Scientists devised schemes to warm the climate in the 1960s-70s

By Kenneth Richard

During the 1960s and 1970s, there was widespread concern about a dramatically cooling climate, especially in the Northern Hemisphere.  For example, Starr and Oort (1973)1 determined there was -0.6°C of Northern Hemisphere cooling during the late 1950s to early 1960s alone. A throng of scientific papers were written about the observed global-scale cooling, a potentially imminent ice age, and how anthropogenic pollution may be contributing to the climate changes. The effects of CO2 were, at the time, thought to be less concerning. The paper below by Cimorelli and House (1974) was prototypical of the period.

Cimorelli and House, 1974:

Aside from such long-term changes, there is also evidence which indicates climate changes occurring in contemporary history.  Mitchell (1971) among others, claims that during the last century a systematic fluctuation of global climate is revealed by meteorological data. He states that between 1880 and 1940 a net warming of about 0.6°C occurred, and from 1940 to the present our globe experienced a net cooling of 0.3°C.

The effect of increasing global concentrations of CO2 is to increase the average global surface temperature. … As for increasing global concentrations of particulate matter, the opposite is true. Due to the backscattering characteristics of the particles an increase in the albedo occurs which produces a decrease in average global surface temperature. … Since it had been thought that the two effects canceled one another, their use as criteria for developing standards has not been considered. However, it has since been found that the rate of temperature increase decreases with increasing CO2 and increases with increasing particulates. Therefore, global particulate loading is of foremost concern. … Sellers (1973) has developed a climate model which quantitatively relates particulate loading to surface temperature. He has shown that an increase in man-made global particulates by a factor of 4.0 will initiate an ice-ageIn order that we safeguard ourselves and future generations from a self-imposed ice-age it is necessary that we effectively monitor global concentrations of particulate matter. … Their results showed that an increase by a factor of eight of global CO2 concentrations will produce an increase in surface temperature of less than 2°C, whereas increasing particulate concentration by a factor of four could decrease the mean surface temperature as much as 3.5°C. Therefore, as the global concentrations of both CO2 and particulates are increased, it is the radiative shielding effect of the particulates which plays the dominate role. … Ludwig and Morgan, 1970, predict that man’s potential to pollute will increase six-to-eight fold in the next fifty years. All of these studies point to the possibility, in the not so distant future, of man polluting himself into an ice age.

It was during this same cooling period — which has since been curiously erased in modern-day temperature graphs — that scientists and engineers were devising “schemes” to warm the planet by, for example, intentionally melting Arctic sea ice, or by using dams to redirect warmer waters into cooler regions.  The paper below (Fletcher, 1969) summarized some of these “schemes” to warm the planet and prevent cooling.

Fletcher, 1969:

The post-glacial warming culminated in the “climatic optimum” of 4000-2000 BC, during which world temperatures were 2-3°C warmer than they are now …Since the “little ice age” of 1650-1840, which climaxed the cooling trend from about 1300, a new warming trend predominated which seems to have reached a climax in this century, followed by cooling since about 1940, at first irregularly but more sharply since about 1960.

SPECIFIC SCHEMES FOR CLIMATE MODIFICATION

Ice Free Arctic Ocean The largest scale enterprise that has been discussed is that of transforming the Arctic into an ice free ocean. As was noted earlier this has been most carefully studied by the staff of the Main Geophysical Observatory in Leningrad. … It is possible that the capacity of present technology may be sufficient to accomplish this task. but this has not been established. Three basic approaches have been proposed (Fletcher 1965): (1) influencing the surface reflectivity of the ice to cause more absorption of solar heat; (2) large scale modification of cloud conditions by seeding; (3) increasing the inflow of warm water from the Atlantic.

Bering Strait Dam Soviet engineer Borisov (1959, 1967) has been the most active proponent of the much publicized Bering Strait Dam. The basic idea is to increase the inflow of warm Atlantic water by stopping or oven reversing the present northward flow of colder water through Bering Strait. The dam would be 50 miles long and 150 feet high.

Deflecting the Kuroshio Current The Pacific Ocean counterpart of the Gulf Stream is the Kuroshio Current, a small branch of which enters the Sea of Japan and exits to the Pacific between the Japanese islands. It has been proposed that the narrow mouth of Tatarsk Strait be blocked by a giant “water valve” to increase the warm inflow to the Sea of Okhotsk and reduce the winter ice there.

Of course, today’s version of anthropogenic climate change alarmism insists that dangerous climate warming is predominantly caused by changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Therefore, in contrast to the tendentious climate modification schemes proposed in the 1960s and 1970s, we are told we must make every policy attempt to cool the climate – or at least prevent more warming – by replacing fossil fuel energies and infrastructure with renewable energy sources like wind and solar.

And yet recent detailed analyses indicate that a calculated policy effort to significantly reduce CO2 emissions may be particularly inefficient and ultimately ineffective in preventing the projected dangerous warming. That’s because even if all the CO2 emissions reduction measures by agreeable nations were put into effect and adhered to through to the year 2100, the amount of reduced warming achieved would be less than -0.2°C over the next 85 years2, 3. Since the claims are that we may get 3.0°C and more of dangerous warming by 2100 even with these severe emissions reduction policies, a savings of just -0.2°C would not appear to be significant.

So what would be significant?

Consider the conclusions of Zhang and co-authors from a recently published (2016) paper (“The updated effective radiative forcing of major anthropogenic aerosols and their effects on global climate at present and in the future“). These scientists found that human aerosol emissions (“sulphate (SF), black carbon (BC), and organic carbon (OC)”) cooled planetary surface temperatures by a massive -2.53 K between 1850 and 2010. In addition, the authors conclude that if we continue to reduce aerosol emissions (air pollution) at the rate we have been in recent decades, this will consequently lead to a warming of 2.06 K by 2100 – a warming not significantly different than projections due to business-as-usual increases in CO2 emissions.

Below are excerpts from the Zhang et al. (2016) abstract:

The effective radiative forcing (ERF), as newly defined in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC AR5), of three anthropogenic aerosols [sulphate (SF), black carbon (BC), and organic carbon (OC)] and their comprehensive climatic effects were simulated and discussed, using the updated aerosol-climate online model of BCC_AGCM2.0.1_CUACE/Aero. From 1850 to 2010, the total ERF of these anthropogenic aerosols was −2.49 W m−2

From 1850 to 2010, anthropogenic aerosols brought about a decrease of 2.53 K and 0.20 mm day−1 in global annual mean surface temperature and precipitation, respectively. Surface cooling was most obvious over mid- and high latitudes in the northern hemisphere (NH). … Experiments based on the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 given in IPCC AR5 shows the dramatic decrease in three anthropogenic aerosols in 2100 will lead to an increase of 2.06 K and 0.16 mm day−1 in global annual mean surface temperature and precipitation, respectively, compared with those in 2010.

So if (a) anthropogenic aerosol pollution can reduce global temperatures by -2.53 K in 160 years with -2.49 W m-2 of forcing; (b) severe CO2 emissions cuts may only reduce surface temperatures by a modest -0.2° C in the next 85 years; and (c) 2.06 K of warming may occur if further cuts in aerosol pollution continue to accrue at the same pace of recent decades, this begs the question: Why are climate policies centered around reducing CO2 emissions instead of on the strategic management of aerosol emissions? Considering its alleged forcing strength or potential to induce warming and/or cooling, increasing or decreasing aerosol pollution would ostensibly be far more effective and efficient at modifying the climate than attempting to geoengineer our way to an optimum temperature with CO2 emissions policies.

Even more problematic for the dangerous CO2-induced global warming paradigm constructed in the last few decades is that an anthropogenic aerosol-forced -2.49 W m-2 cooling of -2.53 K between 1850 and 2010 would necessarily eliminate the capacity for anthropogenic CO2 forcing to have been the cause of the overall warming trend of about 0.8°C between 1850 and 2010.  After all, “basic physics” tells us – and even the IPCC and blogs like Skeptical Science agree – that even if we were to double the pre-industrial levels of CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 560 ppm (without feedbacks), the associated radiative forcing would amount to about 4 W m-2 , and this forcing would lead to a modest 1.2°C of warming 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

According to the IPCC (2013, Summary for Policy Makers), the accumulated anthropogenic CO2 radiative forcing (RF) was only about +1.8 W m-2 in total for the entire 1750-2011 period10 — a value considerably lower than the alleged -2.49 W m-2 of negative anthropogenic forcing (cooling) indicated by Zhang et al. (2016) for 1850-2010 due to aerosol emissions.   In other words, the presumed heat forcing from CO2 would not have been strong enough to overcome the radiative heat losses associated with anthropogenic aerosol forcing. The alleged anthropogenic influence on climate would necessarily have been one of net cooling, not warming, for the past few hundred years, and therefore the ~0.8°C of net warming since 1850 would have to have been forced by factors other than anthropogenic CO2. This would obviously be incompatible with the dangerous CO2-induced global warming paradigm that exists today.

A few years ago, a paper published in Environmental Research Letters (McClellan et al. [2012], http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034019/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034019.pdf) summarized the costs of geoengineering a cooler climate via stratospheric albedo modification. Specifically discussed was a proposal to pump millions of tons of sulfuric acid into the high atmosphere with a 20-kilometer pipe (which would presumably block sunlight and lead to surface cooling). About 45 years ago, an albedo modification scheme designed to warm the planet by melting Arctic sea ice was likewise assessed for feasibility. Considering the presumably much higher radiative forcing impact of artificially blocking more or less of the sun’s energy from reaching the surface (albedo modification), these “schemes” may actually not be quite as strange or outlandish as they might first appear. Especially if we compare the effectiveness and efficiency of “schemes” like this to that of CO2 emissions reduction policies, which have been shown to have even less of an effect on climate.

References

1. http://www.nature.com/nature.html:
“Between May 1958 and April 1963 the mean temperature of the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere fell by about 0.60° C.”

2. http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/Outlook.pdf
“Assuming the proposed cuts are extended through 2100 but not deepened further, they result in about 0.2°C less warming by the end of the century compared with our estimates, under similar assumptions, for Copenhagen–Cancun.”

3. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/full
“All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100. These impact estimates are robust to different calibrations of climate sensitivity, carbon cycling and different climate scenarios. Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades.”

4. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/.htm
“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.”

5. www.atmos.washington.edu/Hansen81_CO2.pdf
“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.”

6. www.atmos.washington.edu/ice-core.pdf
“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.”

7. www.skepticalscience.com/print=967
“If there were no feedbacks in the Earth’s climate system, physics tells us climate sensitivity would be 1.2°C for a doubling of CO2.”

8. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/pdf
“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”

9. www.yaleclimateconnections-global-temperatures/
“By itself, doubling atmospheric CO2 would increase global temperatures by about 1.2 degrees C. Even most of the scientists skeptical of the severity of climate change agree on this basic point.”

10. www.ipcc.ch/pdf/WGIAR5_SPM_en.pdf
“Emissions of CO2 alone have caused an RF of 1.68 [1.33 to 2.03] W m–2. Including emissions of other carbon-containing gases, which also contributed to the increase in CO2 concentrations, the RF of CO2 is 1.82 [1.46 to 2.18] W m–2.”

Major Blow To Wind Power …Bavaria’s Highest Court Upholds 10H Rule! Shoots Down Industrialization Of Idyllic Landscape

Environmental sanity prevails

Bavaria’s highest constitutional court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) has just upheld the southern German state’s hotly contested 10 H wind turbine permitting rule which has been in effect since February 2014.

The Court ruled that the requirement is indeed constitutional. Full story here.

Neuschwanstein

Bavaria’s highest court rescues the state’s idyllic landscape from wind turbine industrialization. Photo: Thomas Wolf, www.foto-tw.de, CC BY-SA 3.0 de.

The ruling represents a major landmark victory for wind energy opponents, who have been increasingly shocked by the rampant destruction of Germany’s countryside and natural landscape. They greeted the ruling with loud cheers.

Major setback for Big Wind

The Court’s decision marks a huge setback for the German wind industry, climate protection activists, and for the Germany’s once highly touted Energiewende as a whole.

The Bavaraian Green party reacted angrily to the Court’s ruling. According to BR24 leading Green Party official Eike Hallitzky tweeted:

10H remains amok energy policy. Us Greens are going to continue fighting for climate protection. With all our might!”

Wind turbine proponents were hoping to erect up to 4000 wind turbines in Bavaria, one of the country’s most fabled and idyllic regions and home to world renowned sights such as the Neuschwanstein Castle (see above).

The Court’s ruling sends a crystal clear message to the rest of the country, and to Europe: People have had it with watching their landscape being ruined today in order to maybe theoretically protect the climate of the year 2100.

After more than 2 years of legal battling, the Bavarian high court’s ruling was awaited with uncharacteristically high suspense from both proponents and opponents of wind energy. Wind energy supporters insisted the 10 H regulation violated the law.

Over the past months wind projects across Germany have been met with increasingly fierce opposition.

Under the 10 H rule, wind parks can be installed only if they have a minimum distance that is ten times the turbine’s height away from residential homes. That means a 200-meter tall turbine needs to be at least 2 kilometers away from the nearest residential area before it can be approved.

In Bavaria that would make the construction of most wind park projects virtually impossible.

German public broadcasting SAT1 BAYERN here wrote yesterday:

The opponents are not in any way old nuclear power protesters. Among the environmentalists there is bitter discourse, as the price for clean wind energy is the total industrialization of the landscape. […] . In densely populated Germany, open views of natural scenery are becoming rare. For this reason some CSU parliamentarians in the state parliament find the love for wind parks by the Greens rather peculiar.”

Germany has some 26,000 turbines in operation producing some 85 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity annually – which is less than the country’s remaining 8 nuclear power plants. SAT1 writes that wind turbines “are also no efficient form of energy generation, as a glance at the power business shows.”

SAT1 adds that without subsidies, most turbines would not even turn a profit.

In total Germany already pays out about 25 billion euros annually in subsidies for green energy. Nevertheless CO2 emissions have not dropped in 7 years. In other words: well over 100 billion euros have bought nothing.

SAT1 concludes on wind energy in Bavaria:

Clean energy supply with today’s technology is incompatible with the landscape that took 2000 years to form.”

 

Retired Professor On Germany’s CO2 Reduction Effort: “Totally Idiotic What We Are Doing”

Two days ago I wrote of an interview with physicist Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, published at the website of the German Employers Association (DAV) here, on the minimal role of CO2 on the world’s climate.

Lüdecke

German professor calls climate protection a “dangerous, undemocratic ideology”.

Due to the length of the interview I focused only on a part of it. Today I will write on the other important comments made by Prof. Lüdecke relating to climate models, Germany’s energy policy and the climate protection ideology.

Decarbonization “gross nonsense”

On the endeavor to “protect the climate” through cutting CO2 emissions, something often called decarbonization, Lüdecke calls it “gross nonsense” and tells us that a changing climate is “a law of nature“. He adds that there is no evidence that CO2 is “harmful to the climate” and that it strongly warms it”.

Lüdecke tells the DAV that strong warming is found only in models that use dubious assumptions and effects:

Whether or not these effects are based on reliable data is of no interest to the modelers. This is how one gets the temperature rise that one desires.  The only problem is that these models have not been able to reproduce the past. The climate models simply don’t work. They are wrong. Amazingly that does not bother the climate alarmists.”

The retired German professor also slams the media for uncritically blaring out every alarmists claim, no matter how foolish it may be, and shutting out reasonable voices. Whenever an alarmist prediction fails to appear, “a new one such as ocean acidification gets paraded out in the public“.

On Germany’s trillion-euro attempt to curb CO2 emissions, Lüdecke calls the effort “absurd”, claiming that the country’s share of global CO2 is only a tiny fraction of the total emitted globally, and that the government’s target would result in a temperature difference of “only a few thousandths of a degree over the next 20 years“. He calls it a “purely political agenda“, summarizing:

Factually it is therefore totally idiotic what we are doing.”

On sea level rise and ice melt, Lüdecke reminds us that sea level rise is happening at a perfectly normal range of 1 to 3 mm per year, depending on the data source, and that there is no evidence of anything alarming happening. To put things into there proper context, he tells the readers that it would take Greenland ice 5000 years to melt even if the temperature rose 5°C. “By then we’ll likely be already well into another ice age.”

Greenland temperature has dropped 2.5°C

A warming of Greenland is very unlikely, according to Lüdecke:

A scientific publication using data from ice core analyses show that the mean temperature of Greenland has fallen 2.5°C over the past 8000 years.”

Brutal dictator

On what is driving the climate alarmism, Lüdecke tells the DAV:

It’s all an ideology, a mixture of well-known Marxism, Nature Romanticism and the interests of powerful investors and politicians. […] not at all about good, but rather about a brutal dictator that wants to tell us which lights to use, that we’re no longer allowed to eat meat – in short, how we are to live.” […]

The aim of the eco-ideology is in reality another society – undemocratic and dictatorial. Ecology here is only an instrument. […]

Climate change is a dangerous undemocratic ideology.”

 

Global Cool-Down In The Works …Latest U.S. Scripps Institute Data Indicate Super-Charged La Niña!

Meteorologist Joe Bastardi at Twitter posted a chart from Scripps Oceanography Institute, which does put out some excellent work despite a fair amount climate science activism from a few of its scientists.

According to the Weatherbell meteorologist, Scripps has forecast a La Niña under -2.0 over five consecutive month, as the following chart shows:

Scripps ENSO May 2016

While it’s still questionable that the La Niña will arrive already this summer, there is rapidly diminishing doubt that it will be hitting the globe hard by wintertime. Joe adds:

The implication of the SCRIPPS forecast with the ONI is it would more than counter the recent strong el nino, over a multi year period”

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology writes here (April 26, 2016):

Eastern tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures have cooled significantly in the past fortnight, and are now approaching neutral levels. As temperatures under the surface are below average, more surface water cooling is expected. However the atmosphere is only slowly responding to these changes, and hence the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and cloudiness near the Date Line continue to fluctuate around El Niño thresholds.

Six of eight international climate models suggest the tropical Pacific Ocean will return to neutral levels within the next month. By September, seven of eight models suggest La Niña thresholds are likely. However, individual model outlooks show a large spread between neutral and La Niña scenarios.”

The following chart from Wikipedia gives an overview of all La Niña events occurring since 1900.

La Ninas since 1900

Source: Wikipedia here.

Note how in the above figure a lack of La Niña events persisted from 1976 to 1998, a time that saw the globe warm some 0.6°C. Since 1998 the frequency of La Niña events has increased with global temperatures remaining flat. Back in the early to mid 1970s, a time of frequent La Niña events, much of the media warned of a coming little ice age. For example in 1974 German Spiegel news magazine warned that the chances of warming were less than 1 in 10,000! A number of scientists sounded the ice age alarms, blaming it in part on sinful human activity.

By 1986, with La Niña events having been absent close to 10 years, Spiegel flipped and began its spectacular warnings of global warming, showing a semi-submerged Cologne Cathedral on the cover of a 1986 magazine. by 1988, James Hansen was before Congress prophesizing the end of the world.

Significant midterm climate cooling in the pipeline?

The oncoming La Niña in combination with weakened solar activity and a flip towards the cool phase by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) may soon be all working in tandem to set up months of global cooling ahead, which means a likely resumption in the overall global warming pause over the latter part of the current decade.

Global temperature over the years ahead will hinge in part on how frequently La Niña events occur.

 

Retired German Climate Scientist: “No Man-Made Signal Found” …”Climate Protection A Dangerous Ideology”

The website of the German Employers Association (DAV) has posted a comprehensive interview by Holger Douglas with physicist and climate scientist Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, concerning the role of CO2 on the world’s climate.

Photo: Professor Horst-Joachim Lüdecke

Lüdecke

Lüdecke, who has authored numerous climate science publications in climate science journals, is sure that the role of CO2 on climate is grossly overstated and riddled with alarmist hype.

Polar bear population “growing”

On polar bears, Lüdecke says there is “no trace” of the animal disappearing due to climate change and that the polar bear population has in fact been climbing. Moreover, the polar bear has been around for “hundreds of thousands of years“.

Climate sensitivity much weaker than assumed

On the subject of the greenhouse effect and radiation outwards into space, Lüdecke reminds that the climate system involves countless, poorly understood complexities, such as cloud cover and water vapor. In the interview he tells:

Water vapor is a very powerful greenhouse gas, and acts to enhance the warming effect. We call this feedback, as the warming is magnified more by it then it is alone by the radiation effect. But the other assumption claims: The opposite is correct! More water vapor in the air leads to more clouds that cool.”

On which effect is true, Lüdecke tells the DAV:

The theory of a feedback is not confirmed by measurements. According to the theory, the altitudes over the tropics at about 5 to 7 kilometers are supposed to be showing a clearly measurable heating zone that is referred to as the ‘Hot Spot’. No one has found it. Everything points to the pure radiation effect being weaker and not enhanced.”

No human fingerprint

The retired, independent physicist then tells the DAV that “man’s influence on the climate still cannot be filtered from the climate noise even today” and that today’s climate and weather changes are no different than what was observed hundreds of years ago, citing the IPCC itself:

There is not a single bit of scientific justification to claim: Here we are seeing unusual climate developments that can be only attributed to humans.”

Lüdecke suspects that the cyclic nature of climate natural climate change is caused mainly by the sun’s activity, naming the De Vries/Suess 200-year cycle and the 1500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle as examples.

He also confirms the recent “18-20 year” global warming pause and reminds us that in geological terms, the Earth today in fact finds itself in a ice age period, which is typically defined as one that sees the poles frozen over – as is the case today.

On proxies the retired climate scientist says that care has to be exercised in interpreting the data they yield. The DAQV asks whether there is a relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration. Lüdecke replies:

No, there’s nothing to see there.”

CO2 concentration in fact historically low

Lüdecke also points out that today’s atmospheric CO2 levels are in fact close to historical lows, and that elevated concentration bring a number of advantages to the ecosystems, foremost a greener planet with better plant growth.

Also, man’s CO2 emissions pale against those from the oceans and natural environment.

Ocean acidification “an alarmist myth”

On whether the threat of ocean acidification exists, Lüdecke dumps cold water on that claim:

No, ocean acidification is another myth of the alarmists. Every chemists you talk to on ocean acidification being a result of increasing atmospheric CO2 will roll his eyes. […]

Also the supposed sensitivity of corals to CO2 in sea water is an alarmist myth.”

“Dangerous, undemocratic ideology”

At the very end of the interview, Lüdecke comments on climate protection as a movement:

Here I allow myself to state very clearly: Climate protection has nothing to do with protecting nature. Climate protection is a dangerous, undemocratic ideology.”

In the next post, we will look at what Prof. Lüdecke says in the rest of the interview concerning climate models and the energy trend in Europe.

 

The 85-Year “Pause”

By Ed Caryl

Yes, you read that right. There has been NO warming in 85 years.

There are many surface land stations with records going back more than 100 years. Some records exist back to 1880 and earlier. GISS cuts the records off at 1880. There are many gaps in these records before 1930, and all the 20th Century warming occurred before then.

How do I know this? I scanned the GISTemp web site for locations with long records, that were as continuous as possible, with a variety of satellite brightness indexes. Because the U. S. Weather Bureau was especially diligent in setting up measurement stations, 60% in this study are U. S. Over the rest of the world it was very difficult to find stations with both long, continuous records, and a zero satellite brightness index. I stopped searching after finding a total of 50 stations.

The satellite brightness index is used by GISS as a proxy for population and thus a proxy for urban warming. It is then used to calculate the amount of “homogenization” to apply to cities and towns. Locations with a brightness index (BI) of 10 or less is considered “rural” and no homogenization correction is applied to those with zero brightness. However, Time of Observation (TOBs) and move corrections are still applied to these stations. GISTemp has downloadable temperature data for: Unadjusted temperature, Adjusted temperature (TOBs and move adjustments), Adjusted and Cleaned data (Cleaning removes data considered unreliable in some way) and Homogenized data. For the 50 stations, Unadjusted, Adjusted and Cleaned, and Homogenized monthly data were downloaded. Of these, 20 stations are considered rural, with a BI of 10 or less. 15 are towns with BI between 11 and 32, and another 15 are cities with a brightness index of more than 32. I attempted to select pairs or triplets of locations that had a large city with close by rural stations. This was easy in the U. S., with the high density of stations, but more difficult in the rest of the world where stations might be separated by hundreds of kilometers.

For all the 150 resulting temperature records, the linear trends for each from 1930 to the present was calculated using Excel. This gives the annual trend numbers in degrees C. Here are summaries of that data presented as bar charts for each group of locations, rural, medium sized towns, and large cities; the bars are for summer and winter data. Summer is June, July, and August in the northern hemisphere, and December, January, and February in the southern. Winter is the reverse of that.

Rural Trends

Figure 1 is the rural data. Unadjusted data indicates summer cooling at these stations since 1930. Even the adjusted and homogenized data indicate less than 0.125°C summer warming in 85 years. This is statistically NO warming in the summer. Winter warming is about 1° over 85 years. This may all be due to increasing population and home heating around these stations.

Town Trends

Figure 2 is for towns with BI from 11 to 32. For example, towns like North Platte, Nebraska, Godthaab-Nuuk, Greenland, and Bismarck, North Dakota. The Unadjusted summer trend is almost zero, with the adjusted and homogenized summer trends less than 0.4°/85 years. The winter trends are much higher at 1.36° in 85 years. All of the summer trend increase is due to adjustments; as is nearly half the winter increase.

City Trends

Figure 3 shows the big cities, like Tokyo and New York. It is expected that these locations would have high urban heat island affecting temperatures in summer and winter. Again, adjustments have increased both summer and winter temperature trends, though not as dramatically as for the smaller towns. Homogenization is supposed to correct for this, but has failed to do so for summer trends, and has only made the winter trend slightly less than the rural winter.

This has led to the strange result that medium size towns are supposedly warming faster than large cities by almost 50%.

All of the trend increase in the last 85 years is due to mankind’s desire to keep warm in winter. This inside warmth leaks out into the surrounding environment and is measured by the local weather stations. This, combined with tinkering with the data, has produced all the warming in the last 85 years. There is clearly no warming, and perhaps some modest cooling, in the summer, and all the winter warming is due to direct heating by mankind keeping warm. Shorter term trends, like the 70’s cooling, are due to natural cycles. There is no “hockey-stick”! No “Solution” is necessary.

Here is the list of the stations used. There are nine stations with negative annual temperature trends. They are highlighted in blue. Three of those are large cities. Five more have trends between zero and 0.0025°C/year. Most of those are rural.

50 Stations 150 Stations 2

There is more analysis to be done on this data for future articles.