Slew Of Recent Published Findings Show Man’s Share Of Arctic Ice Melt Grossly Exaggerated, And Uncertain!

Half a dozen recent papers show that man’s responsibility for Arctic ice melt has in reality been grossly exaggerated and that Arctic sea ice science is fraught with far greater uncertainty than we are often led to believe.

One paper even notes that Arctic sea ice decline could be over.

Alarmists often claim that almost all of the global warming occurring over the past 50 years is almost completely due to human activity, i.e. the burning of fossil fuels” Here they ignore the high levels of solar activity over the course of the entire 20th century and the warm phases of the oceanic cycles experienced over the past decades.

With such an obvious sloppy scientific approach, it is of course little wonder climate science is met with so much skepticism.

Arctic exaggerations and uncertainty

Two days ago Kenneth Richard posted on a number of papers that do show that man’s attributed share to Arctic warming has indeed been wildly overstated, and that estimates are fraught with great uncertainty. They also show ocean and solar cycles very much at play.

Arctic temperatures have been steady over the past decade. Image Source: Climate4you

As Kenneth wrote, the instrument-bare Arctic has been (mis)used to fudge global temperatures upwards. However other scientists have recently shown in half a dozen papers that only about 50% of the warming and sea ice losses for the Arctic region may be anthropogenic and that the rest of the warming and ice declines are attributed to natural factors.

The real figure is probably even less than 50%, which is a far cry from being completely due to man, as is often claimed.

Substantial portion “naturally driven”

According to Kenneth’s research that is based on a short review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, there appears to be widespread agreement that a “substantial portion” of post-1979 Arctic-wide climate changes are naturally driven.

A scientific report by Indrani Roy appearing in Nature, March 2018, for example assigned about half of the blame for the Arctic melt of the past 15 years to natural factors. The paper itself implies that the estimate harbors uncertainty when it stated that 50-60% of the ice loss “is likely” caused by anthropogenic factors.

Here the anthropogenic factors also include soot, which is different from GHG effects. One could thus have an easy time arguing that the figure for CO2 greenhouse gas warming is less than 50%, even far less.

Looking back only to 1979

In another published paper by Qinghus Ding et al also appearing in Nature, the authors attributed the “recent” rapid Arctic ice melt over northeastern Canada and Greenland “around 50%” to natural variability.

Once again uncertainty is implied by the word “around”. Also the authors examine the ice conditions going back to only 1979. Surely if they looked back further, the natural factors would look even stronger.

Only “approximately” half due to man

Next a paper by Jennifer E. Kay and co-authors appearing in the Geophysical Research letters (2011) looked at Arctic sea ice going back only to 1979 and it too attributed “approximately half” of the melt to “internal variability”.

That’s a far cry from man being almost 100% responsible for the melt we often here from the media. And again, skeptical scientists would have an easy time arguing that the man-made share is significantly less. Many scientists have done so already — pointing to solar activity and powerful oceanic cycles.

Scientists playing down the huge uncertainty

It’s important to recall that datasets from the Arctic are scant at best, and have huge voids. Rough guesses are the best scientists could possibly some up with under such circumstances. Yet, too often do the authors come across as being “pretty sure” when in fact that’s impossible.

“49%” responsible

But some scientists do let the great scarcity of data interfere with their certainty. In another paper (2015) appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the authors found that internal variability “might be” 49% responsible for the September Arctic sea ice decline since 1979, and then stated that the sea ice trend could actually see a hiatus in the future.


A Nature paper by Quighus Ding and co-authors (2017) found: “Internal variability dominates the Arctic summer circulation trend and may be responsible for about 30–50% of the overall decline in September sea ice since 1979″.

And maybe not.

Greenland anthropogenic melt too small to be detectable

Finally Kenneth presented a 2016 paper by Thomas Haine appearing in Nature, where he found that the anthropogenic melt from the Greenland ice sheet “is still too small to be detectable”.

Soon: Natural factors dominate

And in a Geophysical Research Letters publication by Soon, it was found that natural factors such as solar activity greatly overpower the effects of man-emitted CO2. See chart here.

Green Failure: German Solar Industry Crashes And Burns…Solar Jobs See Blood Bath!

Michael Kruger at German skeptic site Science Skeptical here writes about how solar energy indutry in Germany has disintegrated spectacularly.

What follows are 4 charts that show us some shocking trends, and how in reality the German solar industry has seen a bloodbath that can be rated as one of the worst in a long time. The reality is that Germany’s green revolution is far from being a model for the world.

Solar share of electricity falls

The first chart shows solar energy as a share of gross electricity production:

Share of German electricity produced by solar power fell in 2016. Chart: Statistica

The chart above shows the share of solar energy of total electricity production peaked in 2015 and the trend has since levelled off.

Subsidies and investments get slashed

In the next chart, the rate of the addition of new solar power production systems has plummeted. In 2012 over 7000 megawatts of new solar capacity were added.

German solar boom crashed into a wall. Chart: Bund der Energieverbraucher.

But in 2012 the boom ended abruptly as new laws on feed-in rates were enacted in order to keep the solar energy supply from going out of control. In 2017, only 600 megawatts of new capacity were expected to be added. That’s a 90% drop!

The crash in new installations of course are the direct result of massive cutbacks in subsidies and investments in solar facilities, as the next chart shows:

Chart: Bund der Energieverbraucher

As the above chart depicts, feed in rates guaranteed to solar panel operators (Förderungen) fell from a whopping 49.2 euro-cents per kilowatt-hour in 2007 to just 12.7 cents today.

Although solar systems are generally much cheaper, they are much less attractive as investments. While 19.5 billion euros were invested (Investitionen) in solar systems in 2010, only 1.58 billion euros were invested in 2016!

The solar jobs bloodbath

Finally the fourth chart depicts the number of jobs (Arbeitsplätze) in the German solar industry. Here we clearly see a bloodbath.

The number of jobs in the solar industry peaked at some 110,900 in 2011, before crashing spectacularly thereafter. In 2015 there were only 31,600 jobs – a roughly 70% plunge. This naturally was a bitter disappointment for the roughly 80,000 people who lost their jobs, but once had been promised a bright, green future by politicians who had touted a grand master plan.

Moreover, almost every single major German producer of solar systems has gone insolvent.

Kruger summarizes at Science Skeptical:

The solar transformation has failed. Investors are flocking away in droves because of the cancelled feed-in tariffs/subsidies. New additional installations are hardly taking place. The first installations are now being taken offline and the share of solar power in Germany has fallen under 6 percent. The power consumers, who ended up footing the bill for the solar expansion, will however no longer have to pay as much.”

Prominent Japanese Scientist Reiterates: “Sun Is Main Climate Driver”…Manmade “Global Warming A Hoax”!

Skeptic climate science news also from Japan

I’ve been regularly bringing you climate and energy news from Germany, with Kenneth in USA posting on the latest science.

Now NoTricksZone is happy to report we are also working with skeptic Japanese climate blogger Kirye, who runs KiryeNet. This means we’ll also be occasionally presenting skeptic news out of Japan in English.

For example in last Tuesday’s post Kirye delivered the key parts on the Arctic Freezamageddon. Our aim is to provide more of such posts in the future.

Views from other countries like Japan are always extremely useful. There really isn’t any global climate science consensus. It’s fraudulent to claim that there is.

Last year KiryeNet here reported on prominent Japanese scientist Dr. Takeda Kunihiko (image right) making an appearance on a popular entertainment/information TV show, where he presented another view on climate change before a national audience. He called manmade global warming was “a hoax”.


Prominent Japanese Scientist Tells National Audience Global Warming Is A Hoax

By Kirye

Just over a year ago on a popular TV program called ‘HONMADEKKA!? TV’ that was broadcast on January 4, 2017, Chubu University Professor Kunihiko Takeda told the audience: “In 2017 finally it will be exposed that global warming is a hoax.”

The show also reported that “CO2 in the early times of the Earth was 95%; now it’s 0.04%”. The discussion round took place between Dr. Takeda, actress Kiriko Isono, comedians Kosugi, and Yoshida, and host Sanma Akashiya. What follows is the English transcript of the pertinent segment:

Dr. Takeda:
“At last it will be exposed that global warming is a hoax in 2017. A skeptical person who is critical of the EPA will become the new administrator of the EPA. That is scheduled. Therefore, that is for sure.”

“Isn’t the earth warming?”

Dr. Takeda:
“Of course it is not.”

“I think I heard that the Antarctica and the Arctic are melting.”

Dr. Takeda:
“The Arctic ice is melting, Antarctica ice is increasing.”

Sanma Akashiya (the host):
“The earth has a good balance.”

“Really? Even if the total of the ice in the Arctic and the Antarctic remains unchanged from the past, it is over when one of the poles become ice-free, right?”

Dr. Takeda:
“No, no. Originally, by reason of the distance with the sun, it is normal that there is no ice on the earth. Though as you know that there is the so-called the ice age. The ice age is when there is snow which cannot melt even in summer. So we are in an ice age now.”

Sanma Akashiya (host):
“Do you think that the water will flood (when the Arctic becomes ice-free)?”

“I think so!’

Sanma Akashiya (the host):
“Hey you, when the ice in the glass has melted, does the water overflow?”

Mr. Yoshida:
“It doesn’t overflow.”

Dr. Takeda:
“Mr. Sanma Akashiya and I remember studying the principles of Archimedes during the junior high school days. He and I are right.”

Dr. Takeda was also once featured as a prominent skeptic by CFACT:

And Dr. Takeda once commented:

CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference, one way or another… Every scientists says this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”

Other fascinating quotes by Dr. Takeda here.

Clearly there is no consensus when it comes to climate science. Consensus is not formed by dismissing those who dissent.

New ‘Consensus’ Science: HALF Of 1979-Present Arctic Warming & Ice Loss Is Natural

Climate Scientists Recant

Only 50% Of Recent Arctic Warming & Sea Ice Loss Is Human-Caused

Image Source: Climate4you

The Arctic region was the largest contributor to the positive slope in global temperatures in recent decades.

Consequently, the anomalously rapid warming in the Arctic region (that occurred prior to 2005) has been weighted more heavily in recent adjustments to instrumental temperature data (Cowtan and Way, 2013; Karl et al., 2015) so as to erase the 1998-2015 hiatus and instead produce a warming trend.

Meanwhile, other scientists have been busy determining that only about 50% of the warming and sea ice losses for the Arctic region are anthropogenic, or connected to the rise in CO2 concentrations.

The rest of the warming and ice declines can be attributed to unforced natural variability.

Based on a short review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, there appears to be widespread agreement that a “substantial portion” of post-1979 Arctic-wide climate changes are naturally driven.









Swiss Climate Institute Director: “Absurd” To Call CO2 “Pollutant…Main Culprit Behind Climate Change”

A new research institute in Switzerland set to rock the climate science boat…will investigate natural causes of climate change. Director calls claims CO2 the main driver and a pollutant “absurd”.

Swiss institute director and climate scientist Hans-Joachim Dammschneider says natural factors in large part behind recent climate change. Photo credit: IFHGK

The Swiss Basler Zeitung (BZ) reported on April 13, 2018, that a new research institute opened at Lake Aegeri in Switzerland last year: the Institute for Hydrography, Geo-ecology and Climate Sciences (IFHGK), which will focus on the natural causes of climate change.

Contrary to the other government-funded institutes, the IFHGK focusses on the natural causes of climate change: the Institute for Geo-ecology and Climate Sciences wishes to show that CO2 is not necessarily the main driver behind global warming and thus goes against the alleged broad consensus among mainstream researchers, the Baseler Zeitung writes.

A real climate scientist

The new institute, founded at the start of 2017, is located in Oberägeri, Switzerland is directed by Hans-Joachim Dammschneider. who according to the BZ explained:

Unlike many others who speak on the subject of global warming, I’m actually a climate scientist.”

The institute consists of scientists who work on a volunteer basis and operates on a shoestring. Decisive in the founding of the institute was Dr. Hans-Joachim Dammschneider’s encounter with Dr. Sebastian Lüning, who together with Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt wrote the Spiegel bestseller “Die kalte Sonne“,  which upset German mainstream climate science. Lüning also runs the Die kalte Sonne climate site, where he posts daily.

Looking at climate science with “calm, common sense and reason”

Dr. Lüning, a geologist, long ago concluded that the mainstream climate scientists have navigated themselves into a dead end. Dammschneider told the BZ that the institute will look at the issues with “calm, common sense and understanding.”

Dammschneider, who considers himself a climate realist, says that it is absurd that CO2 has been designated a pollutant and that the substance is mainly to blame for es climate change. Dr. Dammschneider is a leading German expert in the field of geography, climate research, oceanography and geology.

The BZ reports that already Dammschneider has published some papers in their own publication series and that he specializes in the field of periodic temperatures changes of the oceans, which have a direct impact on the atmosphere. He told the BZ:

The atmospheric temperatures tend to correspond with the oscillations of the oceans and are subject to a comparable pattern.”

Today’s warmth “not unique”

The German-born researcher believes it is essential to record these changes and to see if the climate changes are normal, or if they only have existed since man started burning fossil fuels.

His research and the findings of Sebastian Lüning for the North African region show that during the period of the year 1000 to 1200 A.D. it was similarly as warm as it is today. The BZ writes:

The works of Lüning and his team show that during this period very optimal climate conditions predominated. They also indicate that today’s warm period is not unique.”

The fear to dissent

On the future success of the institute, the BZ writes that Dammschnei­der is aware that it’s going to be a long and difficult road, saying that “young climate scientists as a rule cannot afford to question asserted truths if they do not want to endanger their careers. Thus the new climate science skeptic institute will have to rely on support from independent scientists and retired professors who are free to speak without the fear of harsh consequences.

Funding needed

The BZ writes that the institute is working to gain public attention, but is in need of funding. However: “business sponsors look promising, and so it hopes to employ some workers,” the BZ reports.

Concerning the widespread alarmism over man-made climate change, Dammschneider told the BZ:

Sooner or later they will have to soften the positions they’ve held so far.”

Read the entire story in German at the Basler Zeitung

Arctic Freezamageddon…Sea Ice Volume Surges 3 TRILLION Cubic Meters Since Early March!

Using a comparison, Japanese skeptic blogger Kirye at KiryeNet drives home how “the real Arctic sea ice volume is much higher than in 2008.”

Source of images: DMI:

Using images and data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), Kirye put together and posted a comparator showing the immense March/early April sea ice volume increase the Arctic has seen since 2008. It totally defies the panicky claims of a “melting” Arctic, she tweeted.

You can see the animation comparator Kirye put together in action here at Twitter.

Arctic sea ice volume surges a whopping 3000 cubic kilometers since March 1st. Chart: DMI.

Kirye comments that although we have not once seen alarmists’ climate predictions come true, they continue to threaten us with sea ice doom.

Amid rapidly growing Arctic sea ice volume, they continue to cling to the claim it’s melting. That’s irrational.

Media hyperbole

Yesterday Anthony Watts posted here on the Arctic, remarking that the media claims of earlier this year of an unprecedented Arctic warmth had much more to do with hyperbole than with reality. Lately the Arctic has been a generous source of fake news from the global mainstream media giants, all claiming something that is not real, or making something that’s happened many times before look “unprecedented”.

Warm 12°C temperature spikes more than 70 times!

Back in January, 2016, I wrote here how “the Washington Post screamed bloody murder that the North Pole was in meltdown as temperatures at that singular location rose some “50 degrees above normal”, making it sound like this event had been an unprecedented phenomenon.

For that post I had gone back and examined DMI data Arctic temperatures above 80°N latitude going back some 58 years. Here’s what I found:

And examining all the years since 1958 we see that a temperature spike of some 12°K or more in a matter of a few days (during the November to March deep winter period) occurred more than 70 times! And over 100 times for spikes of 10°K and more.”

Once again, hat-tip: KiyreNet.

In 2015, Climate Scientists Wrecked Their Own CO2-Forced ‘Polar Amplification’ Narrative

CO2 emissions exert no detectable effect on Arctic, Antarctic temperatures. The Arctic region is no warmer in recent decades than it was some 80 years ago, or before CO2 emissions began rising significantly.

Graph Source: Mikkelsen et al., 2018

According to the IPCC, the Arctic and Antarctic regions warm more than the rest of the globe — a phenomenon branded as polar amplification.

Further, it is conclusively stated (with “high confidence”) that this enhanced polar warming occurs largely in response to increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Image Source: IPCC AR5 

A 2015 Scientific Paper Affirms CO2 Forcing Is ‘Weak’ To Negligible At The Poles

In late 2015, four climate scientists published a groundbreaking paper (Schmithüsen et al.,[2015]) in the highly-regarded Geophysical Research Letters scholarly journal.

Although obligatorily insisting their research did not undermine the main tenets of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory at one turn, the authors nonetheless landed a devastating blow to the conceptualization of a CO2-amplified polar climate – and thus to the narrative that says the ice sheets and sea ice are melting primarily due to increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Schmithüsen and colleagues reached the conclusion that CO2-forcing is rather smalland even weak at the poles.  They found the planet’s tiniest warming signal from CO2 occurs for central Antarctica; they characterized the CO2-forcing for the Arctic region as “comparatively weak”.    For example, quadrupling CO2 concentrations over the Antarctic Plateau is poised to yield a net radiative forcing value of just 1 W m-2.

The authors even assert that increasing CO2 concentrations causes atmospheric cooling in some areas above the Antarctic continent.  They characterize this as a “negative greenhouse effect” due to the “increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth-atmosphere system”.

Key points from the paper are highlighted below.

Schmithüsen et al., (2015)



Warming From Increased CO2 Is Comparatively Weak For The Arctic Region

‘Polar Amplification’ From Increased CO2 Not Detectable For Antarctica

Consistent with the conceptualization that “polar amplification” from increasing human CO2 emissions has gone unrealized, the temperature records for the Antarctic continent do not suggest warming has occurred in recent decades.

Graph Sources: Climate4you, Miles et al., 2013, Turner et al., 2016

Increasing CO2 Emissions Has Exerted No Detectable Effect On The Arctic Region

Consistent with the conceptualization that “polar amplification” from increasing CO2 has gone unrealized, the temperature records for the Arctic region also do not suggest a discernible net warming has occurred in response to the rapid increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the mid-1940s.  The Arctic region is no warmer in recent decades than it was ~80 years ago, or before CO2 emissions began rising significantly.  This would support the conclusion that CO2 emissions increases have exerted no detectable effect on the Arctic region’s temperatures.

Graph Source: Hanhijärvi et al., 2013

Graph Source:  Hanna et al., 2011

‘Weak’ To Negligible CO2 Forcing At The Poles Lands A Devastating Blow To AGW Alarm

If the warming effect from increasing CO2 concentrations is only “weak” to negligible for both the Antarctic and Arctic regions, then the justification to endorse the most alarming tenets of the anthropogenic global warming conceptualization may be thoroughly undermined.

For example:

1. The decline in Arctic sea ice since the late 1970s may no longer be predominantly attributed to CO2-induced Arctic warming.

2. Mass ice losses for both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets in the modern era may no longer be predominantly attributed to CO2-induced polar warming.

3. The net ice melt contribution to sea level rise from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets in the modern era may no longer be predominantly attributed to CO2-induced polar warming.

4. The post-1980s temperature warming for the Arctic region (that has significantly affected the overall global warming trend) may no longer be predominantly attributed to CO2-induced Arctic warming.

In sum, affirming the Schmithüsen et al.,(2015) analysis leaves little room for continued insistence that rising CO2 emissions are a profound and existential planetary threat.

Update: A just-published paper, Flanner et al., 2018, cites the negative CO2 greenhouse effect conceptualization introduced by Schmithüsen et al.,(2015).  At no time do the authors challenge the relatively quite weak radiative forcing values (~1 W m-2) for the CO2 greenhouse effect in the polar regions as depicted in the colorized graph above.  Instead of challenging these very small CO2-forcing values for polar regions, the authors only challenge the less consequential concept of whether or not a cooling would occur at the poles in response to increases in greenhouse gases (GHGs) in general, and not CO2 in particular.   It would appear the weak CO2 forcing (W m-2) values for the polar regions as determined by Schmithüsen et al., (2015) are accepted by mainstream climate science.

EU Regulatory Madness …New Rules Enacted To Regulate Color Of Bread, French Fries!

…EU enacts law to regulate the color of potato and grain-based foods with the aim of protecting public from high cooking temperatures

Too dark! EU now regulating bread color from baking at too high temperatures. Photo credit: Fritzs, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.

The following should be a viewed as a shot across the bow concerning the extent and zeal to which the EU is capable of when it comes to regulation. Just imagine if they were given a free hand to regulate all things related to CO2 and climate change. It’s getting frightening.

I’ve gotten used to the high levels of regulation here in Europe, and it’s gotten tough to surprise me. Yet, EU bureaucrats never fail at finding new ways to do so.

Nanny state

The latest pertains to the color of bread. The most recent news on EU regulation is reported for example by the Austrian online Wochenblick here, which writes: “EU regulation: Effective immediately our bread is not allowed to be too dark”!

The risk, according to the EU, is acrylamide, a carcinogenic compound that can form on starchy food if the cooking temperature is too high (some studies suggest).

European nannies are afraid some people could get sick from eating overly dark bread.

Meanwhile, it’s business-as-usual for the obviously dangerous product sugar, whose consumption in Europe has reached dangerous levels with diabetes becoming an epidemic. But the days of unregulated sugar use may also be coming to an end. Regulating sugar would make sense.

Aim is to curb acrylamide from high temperature cooking

The dark-bread regulation went into effect last Wednesday, and appears to be a part of the regulation package to ban golden, crispy french fries as well.

Wochenblick reports that the regulation are for all products based on potatoes, grains, and also coffee. The EU intends to conduct food inspections in the future.

Regulating living down to the detail

The new highly intrusive regulations are the latest rules aimed at limiting coffee machines, restricting wood-burning stoves, vacuum cleaner power ratings, and lawn mower emissions, to name a few.

A Google search already shows that EU regulations for outdoor barbecues are likely in the works. Readers can look into that themselves to determine if that’s the case or not. Just imagine what that would look like.

The EU is only just getting started with all the regulation-mania.

More background here.


Journalism On Thin Ice…New York Times Misses Ton Of Recent, Positive Findings In Polar Bear Story

New York Times journalist Erica Goode misses a mountain of polar bear research, instead lets herself get swept up by alarmist polar bear activism.

The New York Times recently published an article penned by Erica Goode on the controversial Harvey et al paper, where 14 scientists (sophomorically) attacked polar bear researcher Susan Crockford and climate science skeptics.

If the Harvey publication makes anything clear, it is that its authors are deeply frustrated by the large share of the public who reject their alarmist climate science. But instead of looking at themselves and the mountain of blunders they have made in the past to see what they could improve, the Harvey scientists chose to lash out and blame their woes on mean-spirited “deniers”. The inconvenient reality, however, is that alarmist climate and polar bear science (and journalism) has not been clean, and at times it’s been outright sloppy, deceptive and shrill. That’s the real big reason skeptics have been so successful.

Sloppy biased journalism

So it is no surprise that Erica Goode at the New York Times sided up with the 14 scientists of the Harvey publication to attack the so-called climate “denialists” in her most recent article. Unfortunately Goode made the fatal journalistic error of failing to keep a healthy distance from the alarmist side and as a result was blinded from seeing the glaring mountain of scientific research showing polar bears are in fact doing fine.

As a result Goode’s work couldn’t have been sloppier.

 A mountain of recent scientific publications gets missed

The reality is that there are many polar bear scientists out there who have produced a considerable body of recent scientific findings, which show that the polar bear populations are in reality stable or even thriving. How could Goode have missed it?

Whatever the reasons, it appears to be to a classic case of journalistic negligence.

Had the seasoned New Times journalist done just the minimum of research one expects of even a beginner journalist, she would have discovered, for example, two very recent papers on polar bears published in the journals Ecology and Evolution and Polar Record, and many others. According to expert polar bear scientists (other than Dr. Susan Crockford) there is no evidence to support recent claims polar bears as a species are in grave danger due to climate change and thinning sea ice.

Somehow Goode allowed herself to be talked into the absurd idea that Susan Crockford is the only skeptic polar bear scientist out there, and so did not bother to check for others, so it seems. And the only crises we find are those from dubious computer-modelled 2050 scenarios.

1) York et al 2016

One scientific publication by York et al in 2016 found that given the paleoclimate record of a much warmer (+4 to + 7.5 °C) Arctic, there was much more reduced sea ice thickness and extent in the past relative to today. They concluded: “it seems unlikely that polar bears (as a species) are at risk from anthropogenic global warming.”

The authors wrote in their summary:

Considering both [observations from native populations] and scientific information, we suggest that the current status of Canadian polar bear subpopulations in 2013 was 12 stable/increasing and one declining (Kane Basin).”

We do not find support for the perspective that polar bears within or shared with Canada are currently in any sort of climate crisis.”

Why didn’t Goode contact these scientists and present their results? There are many other scientists who share Crockford’s view.

2) Wong et al 2017

Another published scientific paper by Wong et al., 2017, “Inuit perspectives of polar bear research: lessons for community-based collaborations”, the authors investigated Inuit observations. Here’s an excerpt of their findings:

Wong, a researcher at the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, and her team also found in early 80s, and mid 90s: “there were hardly any bears” and “there’s too many polar bears now”.

Also they noted: “Bears foraging for land-based foods have been reported in the literature prior to recent concerns over climate change (Russell 1975; Derocher and others 1993; Gormezano and Rockwell 2013a).” Also: “Observations of bears consuming garbage are not uncommon (Russell 1975; Lunn and Stirling 1985; Gormezano and Rockwell 2013b)”

More fuel for skeptics

One has to wonder if the activist Harvey team of scientists and the New York Times live in an alternative universe. It is precisely that kind of gross omission and one-sidedness that has been fuelling the skeptics over the years.

And there’s much more that they ignored.

Laforest et al., 2018

A publication by Laforest et al titled Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Polar Bears in the Northern Eeyou Marine Region looked at the perception of communities in Quebec on the prevalence of problem polar bears. Results: One-third of participants reported that polar bears will be unaffected by, or even benefit from, longer ice-free periods. A majority of participants indicated that the local polar bear population was stable or increasing.

Moreover they cited the fact that polar bears are capable of hunting seals in open water as a factor contributing to the stable body condition of the bears. and that none of the participants explicitly linked the effects of a warming climate to specific impacts on polar bears.

The publication also states that a recent aerial survey of the Southern Hudson Bay subpopulation found that the abundance of polar bears has remained steady since 1986 (943 bears; SE: 174) (Obbard et al., 2015).

11 more recent papers show bears survive without ice

Not long ago Kenneth Richard reported on almost a dozen papers showing that polar bears easily survived ice-free and far warmer conditions than those seen today or those expected by mid century.

Even more research shows that polar bear population is up 42% since 2004.

Russia “scientists know little or nothing” 

Goode’s non-researched article also mentions that “scientists know little or nothing” about the situation in Russia and other remote areas (and so it’s got to be bad?). If it is unknown, then how can one be either rationally alarmed or relieved about the situation there? Yet, given the positive situation from Canada and Alaska, there is no rational reason to assume all is bad in Russia.

New York Times’ image of bias

So what can we take home from this? Why did Goode ignore so much polar bear research, and why has she unconditionally lapped up everything handed down to her by the alarmist clique? We can only speculate it’s about activism.

Erica Goode and New York Times again shot themselves in the foot on this one and reaffirmed their reputation for bias.

Had Goode resisted getting distracted from the “us” versus “them” narrative and actually dug a little into the actual scientific results –  and the scientists behind them – like honest journalists do, she would not have produced such a piece of journalism.

70+ Papers: Holocene Sea Levels 2 Meters Higher – Today’s Sea Level Change Indistinguishable From Noise

Note: This post will remain an extra day…

More than 70 recent scientific publications show that there is absolutely nothing unusual about the magnitude and rapidity of today’s sea level changes. These academically peer-reviewed papers show that sea levels were on average 2 meters higher earlier in the Holocene than they are today.

Before the advent of the industrial revolution in the late 18th to early 19th centuries, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations hovered between 260 to 280 parts per million (ppm).

Within the last century, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen dramatically.  Just recently they eclipsed 400 ppm.

Scientists like Dr. James Hansen have concluded that pre-industrial CO2 levels were climatically ideal.  Though less optimal, atmospheric CO2 concentrations up to 350 ppm have been characterized as climatically “safe”.  However, CO2 concentrations above 350 ppm are thought to be dangerous to the Earth system.  It is believed that such “high” concentrations could lead to rapid warming, glacier and ice sheet melt, and a harrowing sea level rise of 10 feet within 50 years.

To reach those catastrophic levels (10 feet within 50 years) predicted by proponents of sea level rise alarmism, the current “anthropogenic” change rate of +0.14 of a centimeter per year (since 1958) will need to immediately explode into +6.1 centimeters  per year.  The likelihood of this happening is remote, especially considering Greenland and Antarctica combined only contributed a grand total of 1.54 cm since 1958 (Frederiske et al., 2018).

70+ Papers: Sea Levels 2+ m Higher 9,000-4,000

Years Ago While CO2 Levels Were ‘Safe’ (265 ppm)

(Click the link above or at the right side bar)

• Are Modern ‘Anthropogenic’ Sea Levels Rising At An Unprecedented Rate?  No.

Despite the surge in CO2 concentrations since 1900, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that global sea levels only rose by an average of 1.7 mm/yr during the entire 1901-2010 period, which is a rate of just 0.17 of a meter per century.

During the 1958 to 2014 period, when CO2 emissions rose dramatically, a recent analysis revealed that the rate of sea level rise slowed to between 1.3 mm/yr to 1.5 mm/yr, or just 0.14 of a meter per century.

Frederiske et al.,2018  “Anthropogenic” Global Sea Level Rise Rate (1958-2014): +0.14 of a meter per century

“For the first time, it is shown that for most basins the reconstructed sea level trend and acceleration can be explained by the sum of contributors, as well as a large part of the decadal variability. The global-mean sea level reconstruction shows a trend of 1.5 ± 0.2mm yr−1 over 1958–2014 (1σ), compared to 1.3 ± 0.1 mm yr−1 for the sum of contributors.”

In the past few thousand years, in contrast, sea levels in some regions rose and fell at rates of + or – 0.5 to 1.1 meters per century., which is 4 to 7 times greater than the change since 1958.

Hansen et al., 2016

“Continuous record of Holocene sea-level changes … (4900 years BP to present). … The curve reveals eight centennial sea-level oscillations of 0.5-1.1 m superimposed on the general trend of the RSL [relative sea level] curve.”

Other regions have also undergone profound sea level oscillations in the last few thousand years that far exceed modern changes.

Image Sources: Bracco et al., 2014   Whitfield et al., 2017    Strachan et al., 2014 
 Hein et al., 2014    Miguel et al., 2018

Modern changes aren’t even detectable on graphs of long-term sea level trends.


Image Sources: Dura et al., 2016   Bradley et al., 2016
 Scheffers et al., 2012  Kane et al., 2017

• ~15,000 – 11,000 Years Ago, Sea Levels Rose At Rates Of +4 to +6 Meters Per Century

Cronin et al., 2017   Global Sea Level Rise Rate: +4 meters per century (14,500 to 14,000 years ago)

Rates and patterns of global sea level rise (SLR) following the last glacial maximum (LGM) are known from radiometric ages on coral reefs from Barbados, Tahiti, New Guinea, and the Indian Ocean, as well as sediment records from the Sunda Shelf and elsewhere. … Lambeck et al. (2014) estimate mean global rates during the main deglaciation phase of 16.5 to 8.2 kiloannum (ka) [16,500 to 8,200 years ago] at 12 mm yr−1 [+1.2 meters per century] with more rapid SLR [sea level rise] rates ( 40 mm yr−1) [+4 meters per century] during meltwater pulse 1A  14.5–14.0 ka [14,500 to 14,000 years ago].”

Abdul et al., 2017   Global Sea Level Rise Rate: +4 meters per century (11,450 to 11,100 years ago)

“We find that sea level tracked the climate oscillations remarkably well. Sea-level rise was fast in the early Allerød (25 mm yr-1), but decreased smoothly into the Younger Dryas (7 mm yr-1) when the rate plateaued to <4 mm yr-1here termed a sea-level “slow stand”. No evidence was found indicating a jump in sea level at the beginning of the Younger Dryas as proposed by some researchers. Following the “slow-stand”, the rate of sea-level rise accelerated rapidly, producing the 14 ± 2 m sea-level jump known as MWP-1B; occurred between 11.45 and 11.1 kyr BP with peak sea-level rise reaching 40 mm yr-1 [+4 meters per century].”

Ivanovic et al., 2017  Northern Hemisphere Sea Level Rise Rate: +3.5 to +6.5 meters per century (~14,500 years ago)

“During the Last Glacial Maximum 26–19 thousand years ago (ka), a vast ice sheet stretched over North America [Clark et al., 2009]. In subsequent millennia, as climate warmed and this ice sheet decayed, large volumes of meltwater flooded to the oceans [Tarasov and Peltier, 2006; Wickert, 2016]. This period, known as the “last deglaciation,” included episodes of abrupt climate change, such as the Bølling warming [~14.7–14.5 ka], when Northern Hemisphere temperatures increased by 4–5°C in just a few decades [Lea et al., 2003; Buizert et al., 2014], coinciding with a 12–22 m sea level rise in less than 340 years [3.5 to 6.5 meters per century] (Meltwater Pulse 1a (MWP1a)) [Deschamps et al., 2012].”

Zecchin et al., 2015 Regional Sea Level Rise Rate: +6 meters per century (14,500-11,500 years ago)

“[M]elt-water pulses have punctuated the post-glacial relative sea-level rise with rates up to 60 mm/yr. [6 meters per century] for a few centuries.”

It has become more and more apparent that sea levels rise and fall without any obvious connection to CO2 concentrations.  And if an anthropogenic signal cannot be conspicuously connected to sea level rise (as scientists have noted), then the greatest perceived existential threat promulgated by advocates of dangerous anthropogenic global warming will no longer be worth considering.

70+ Papers: Sea Levels 2+ m Higher 9,000-4,000

Years Ago While CO2 Levels Were ‘Safe’ (265 ppm)

(Click the link above or at the right side bar)

Get Ready For the Big Sea Level Alarm Letdown!

Kenneth set to show in just minutes what a sham all the sea level rise alarmism really is. (Now busy setting the troll filter on high!)

NASA photo – public domain

Stay tuned! 🙂

Array Of Data Shows Atmospheric Temperatures In Free Fall, Ocean Surfaces Cooling Off

Schneefan at German weather and climate analysis site here brings us the latest on atmospheric temperatures.

First we note that the middle troposphere (7,500 meters) as measured by NASA has seen recently a sharp cooling off since the start of April:

The chart shows the daily mean temperature at about 7,500 meters altitude, i.e. middle troposphere (400 mb/hPa). Here we see that temperatures have dived (pink curve) and reached a near 17-year low for this time of the year. Source:

An enlargement shows a comparison to last year, last updated April 9, 2018.

Temperature at 7,500 m altitude have dived steeply since early April. Source:

Near surface temperatures sharply down

Also the global 2m surface temperature is showing a strong downward trend:

The plotted data have already been adjusted (falsified?) with the NASA/GISS factor, and so may actually be even lower. Source:

Should the cold temperatures persist, April, 2018, could fall below the zero anomaly for the first time since 2012, foremost with the UAH  satellite data. The following UAH chart shows lower tropospheric temperatures (1500) continuing their decline after the warm peak caused by the natural El Niño phenomenon:

Source: UAH Global Temperature Update for March, 2018: +0.24 deg. C

In March, 2018, lower tropospheric temperatures (1500m) over the oceans (71% of the earth’s surface) also saw a further drop:

Source: climate4you.

More cooling over the coming months

The following chart shows the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) 3.4 plot, i.e. the ocean surface temperature anomaly of the western equatorial Pacific region, since July 2016.


Much of the last 2 years has been in the globe-cooling La Niña phase (blue). And as satellite instrument temperatures tend to lag the El Niño temperature anomalies by some 4 months, further surface cooling is expected to show up in the satellite data over the coming months.

ENSO indicates more cooling ahead

The Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) is an indicator for the development of the easterly trade winds at the equatorial Pacific and thus tells us what’s ahead for the ENSO. Recall that the ENSO has a powerful impact on global surface temperatures. SOI values over +7.0 indicates La Niña conditions 2 months ahead, while an SOI under -7.0 points El Niño conditions.

Currently the following chart shows the SOI is at +13.7, which means the globe-cooling La Niña should continue on two months from now, and thus means cooler satellite measurements showing up 6 months later.

The Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) is currently at +13,7, thus pointing to La Niña conditions 2 months from now. Source:

Recently some scientists have postulated that the ENSO is impacted by solar activity, which currently is at a low (earth-cooling) level. The next solar cycle is expected to be a weak one, thus boding more cooling and tough winters ahead.

It’s got nothing to do with trace gas CO2.

If Stress Is A Killer, Then Why Do People In High Stress Countries Like Japan Live So Long?

It’s the food, stupid!

Something off topic today, and intended as food for thought. It’s my infrequent post on nutrition. Yes, I also would like my readers to be healthy and happy.

Stress, lifestyle, pollution are over-rated factors

In western societies, when asked why so many people are getting sick with chronic diseases today, and thus die prematurely, too many medical experts like to blame it on stress!, genetics, pollution, lifestyle, or just plain bad luck. So take my pills!

However, these often cited reasons are all too often bogus explanations designed to get you to accept horrendously costly treatments instead of opting for effective prevention. Prevention and cure, after all, are bad for Big Pharma’s bottom line. The big money is in lifetime treatment.

And in western societies, far too little is being done to drive home the point that the junk-food contaminated Western nutrition is the root cause of many chronic diseases and thus our food supply needs to be revamped radically and rapidly. If this were done, much misery and high costs could be spared.

Life-shortening disease often food-related

What a lot physicians won’t tell you is that many of these diseases are in fact nutrition-related and gradually emerge after years of poor quality (low-nutrient) diets. Many common chronic diseases could be prevented, or at least delayed by years, simply by eating high-nutrient foods. The most important thing you can do to live longer and healthier is to eat correctly, and to start doing so immediately.. Your doctor can tell you to reduce stress and to go for walks all he wants, but unless you wean yourself off the junk food, you’ll very likely end up chronically ill and forever connected to the miserable Big Pharma lifeline.

High stress Japan has highest life expectancy!

To illustrate how stress is an over-rated factor in causing chronic illness, one only needs to check out the countries with the highest life expectancies. Many happen to be high stress environments, like Japan and Europe. Of course stress is generally to be avoided, but is it really the big silent killer everyone makes it out to be? Statistics show us the answer is no. The big killer is junk food.

High stress, urbanized Japan No. 1 in life expectancy. Source: WHO.

Anyone who has ever visited Japan will tell you that most people there live in high-stress, urban environments and work among the longest number of hours annually. Most Japanese in fact do not spend their time meditating in harmonious Zen rock gardens.

Japanese and Mediterranen diets lead to long lives

Arguably the most important factor to Japan’s excellent collective health is its nutritional culture. Whereas in western culture many people stuff themselves with sugary, processed junk foods, snacks, sodas and sweets and bad oils, the Japanese diet is rich in vegetables, high-nutrient carbs, fish, fermented foods, antioxidant super-foods and green tea to name a few.

American (sick) lives simply dragged out by Big Pharma

But what about USA’s relatively high life expectancy? First, it really isn’t that high, and actually ranks a lowly 31st on the WHO list above!

And although the American diet is among the world’s most notorious, American’s do live about 80 years, and so food can’t be the big factor one might argue. Though Americans live relatively long, we need to keep in mind that huge numbers of them are plagued by chronic disease, and many are simply kept alive in a state of limited health or outright misery for years by Big Pharma. The average American today spends some $10,000 annually on health care alone.

Here’s what some countries spend on health care per capita:

The USA spends the most by far on health care, yet does not even make the Top 30 on the list for life expectancy. On the other hand, high stress, urbanized Japan spends near the OECD average on health care, yet has the highest life expectancy. Italy also sees a good life-expectancy-to-healthcare-spending-ratio, arguably in large part due to its health Mediterranen diet. Chart: OECD Data: Health resources – Health spending.

A longer life at a fraction of the healthcare cost

Also we note that poorer Mediterranean countries such as Greece, Cyprus, Spain and Malta spend a mere fraction on healthcare of what Americans spend, yet live longer. It’s the food that makes the difference.

Big Junk driving Big Pharma

According to statista, the U.S. pharmaceutical market represents over 45 percent of the global pharmaceutical market, valued at around 446 billion U.S. dollars in 2016.

With that kind of spending, the country should be way up the top of the list for life expectancy, but at a lowly 31st place it’s not even close to the top. One reason is because bad American junk food is creating sickness and thus a big demand for health care. Big Junk is feeding Big Pharma.

To live longer and healthier, good food is the key. Eat healthy, and the rest will take care of itself.

New Paper: Seismic Changes Signal 95% Probability Global Temps Will Hit 1990s Levels By 2019

Mid-Ocean Seismicity Portends Global Cooling

Image Source: Viterito, 2016

Since the peak of the 2016 El Niño warming event, global temperatures have fallen by a little more than 0.3°C.

Image Source:

According to a new paper published in Environment Pollution and Climate Change by Dr. Arthur Viterito, changes in seismic activity from the Earth’s high geothermal flux areas (HGFA) are “a significant predictor of global temperatures (p<0.05) but CO2 is not (p>0.05) (Table 1).”

An Overview Of The HGFA→Climate Link

Last year, Dr. Viterito succinctly explained the processes connecting high geothermal heat flux areas to the climate system.

 Viterito, 2017

“Namely, increased seismic activity in the HGFA (i.e., the mid-ocean’s spreading zones) serves as a proxy indicator of higher geothermal flux in these regions. The HGFA include the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the East Pacific Rise, the West Chile Rise, the Ridges of the Indian Ocean, and the Ridges of the Antarctic/Southern Ocean.”
This additional mid-ocean heating causes an acceleration of oceanic overturning and thermobaric convection, resulting in higher ocean temperatures and greater heat transport into the Arctic. This manifests itself as an anomaly known as the “Arctic Amplification,” where the Arctic warms to a much greater degree than the rest of the globe.”
[J]umps in HGFA seismic activity can amplify an El Niño event, a phenomenon referred to as a SIENA or a Seismically Induced El Niño Amplification.  Accurately predicting two of these amplified El Niños (i.e., the 2015/2016 event plus the1997/1998 episode) is an important outcome of the HGFA seismicity/temperature relationship.”

New Paper: By 2019, Global Temps Will Drop To Mid-1990s Levels

In a new paper, Dr. Viterito has continued using seismic pattern analysis to formulate a very precise near-term temperature prediction: Global temperatures will continue their ongoing descent to about -0.47 °C below the 2016 peak by the year 2019.

Viterito, 2018

“A striking development for this experiment is that 2017 marks the first three-year decline in HGFA seismic activity since 1979 (Figure 2).  Furthermore, the 2017 HGFA seismic count is 49% lower than the study period’s peak frequency in 2014, the year of the last “Super El Niño”. When viewed within the context of the entire time series, the 2017 dropoff mirrors the jump in HGFA seismic activity experienced in 1995, albeit in the opposite direction. The 1995 “tipping point” was significant as global temperatures spiked in lockstep two years later, followed by a 21-year ‘plateau’ in both global temperatures and HGFA seismicity, a.k.a. ‘The Pause’.”

“It is important to note that a two-year lag is factored into the analysis: The 1979 HGFA seismic frequency is paired with the 1981 global temperature, the 1980 HGFA frequency is paired with the 1982 temperature, and so forth, for the entire series.”
“It is reasonable to conclude that this recent “gapping down” may be a tipping point towards cooler global temperatures. Using HGFAseismic frequencies as the sole predictor of global temperatures going forward, there is a 95% probability that global temperatures in 2019 will decline by 0.47°C ± 0.21°C from their 2016 peak. In other words, there is a 95% probability that 2019 temperatures will drop to levels not seen since the mid-1990s.”
Image Source (Top): WoodForTrees

Climatic Cycles Globally…Spitzbergen Weather Records Show It Was Just As Warm 70 Years Ago!

Hey, we just saw something similar from Japan.

On Spitzbergen it was as warm 70 years ago as it is today

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

Newspapers like to write about heat and melt records in the Arctic, which supposedly had never happened before. That really sparks fear among the citizens. However an examination of the facts regularly brings amazing things to light, for example weather records from a German station on Spitzbergen during World War 2 for the period of 1944-1945.

In the journal International Journal of Climatology Rajmund Przybylak and his colleagues evaluated the data. Summary: Back then it was similarly warm as it is today. Abstract:

Air temperature conditions in northern Nordaustlandet (NE Svalbard) at the end of World War II
This article presents the results of an investigation into air temperature conditions in northern Nordaustlandet (NE Svalbard) based on meteorological observations made by German soldiers towards the end of World War II (1944/1945) and 4 months after its end. Traditional analysis using mean monthly data was supplemented by a detailed analysis based on daily data: maximum temperature, minimum temperature and diurnal temperature range. The latter kind of data made it possible to study such aspects of climate as the number of “characteristic days” (i.e., the number of days with temperatures exceeding specified thresholds), day‐to‐day temperature variability, and duration, onset and end dates of thermal seasons. The results from Nordaustlandet for the warmest period of the early 20th century warming period (ETCWP) were compared with temperature conditions both historical (the end part of the Little Ice Age) and contemporary (different sub‐periods taken from the years 1981–2017) to estimate the range of warming during the ETCWP.

Analysis reveals that the expedition year 1944/1945 in Nordaustlandet was, in the majority of months, the warmest of all analysed periods, that is, both historical and contemporary periods. The study period was markedly warmer than 1981–2010 (mean annual −6.5 vs. −8.4 °C) but colder than the periods 2011–2016 (−5.7 °C) and 2014–2017 (−5.8 °C). The majority of mean monthly air temperatures in the ETCWP lies within two standard deviations of the modern 2014–2017 mean. This means that values of air temperature in the study period lie within the range of recent temperature variability. All other thermal characteristics show changes in accordance with expectations associated with general warming of the Arctic (i.e., a decrease in diurnal temperature range and number of cold days, and an increase in number of warm days). The latter days were most common in the ETCWP.”

Hot Days Near Tokyo Today Not More Than 70 Years Ago…No Trend Since 1926!

First a note:

If you haven’t already picked up a copy of the The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change, please do get your hands on one.

According to its author Marc Morano, people have been snatching them up and a third printing has started. The book even made the Amazon top 100 best selling books for awhile.

It also ranked first in a number of categories. In his book, NoTricksZone gets mentioned 4 times and even took up one full page at one spot!

So now on to today’s post…

Less heat days near Tokyo

As in Germany, a heat day in Japan is defined as one reaching 30°C or higher.

And according to the manmade CO2 theory, global temperatures are supposed to be rising rapidly and hence we should be seeing many more “heat days” than say 50 or 100 years ago.

Yet Japanese blogger Kirye presents data over Hachijo Island, out to sea east of Tokyo, a location shielded from the urban heat island effect, which tell us that more heat days is not the case at all:

On Hachijo Island, Tokyo, the number of days over 30℃ has not trended since 1926. Source:

Examining the above chart, we see that the number of “heat days” since 2000 is a bit below that of the period from 1940 to 1960. Note the cool 1970 to 1990 period, which likely can be explained by natural oceanic oscillations.

Another chart Kirye provides at Twitter breaks it down in more detail:


Kirye writes, when looking at the past 111 years, the trend in Hachijo Island’s number of days over 30℃ from 1906 to 2017 “denies the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis” and that it does not support the myth of a widespread man-made climate change.

No trend in the city of Tokyo

Also the last 24 years in the city Tokyo show no trend, and even a declining trend since 2010:

Data source: Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA)

What follows is the month-by-month breakdown, May to October:

Data Source:

Urban heat island

Kirye also presents here a comparison of the Tokyo and Hachijo Island temperature course over the past 111 years. Note urban Tokyo has risen while the island off the coast has risen only very slightly:

Data source: JMA

Urban heat island effect? Kirye notes:

The mean daily maximum temperatures for Tokyo and Hachijo Island differed by more than 2C with the early trend during the period from 1907 to 2015, but temperature difference of close to 0.7C with the trend in the latter period.”

Top Climate Scientist: CO2 Model Assumptions “Invalid”…”Natural Climatic Variations Dominate”!

The addition of an esteemed Norwegian climate scientist to the London-based GWPF will help bring some sobriety back to a science that has all too often been immersed in alarmism.

The London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently announced Professor Ole Humlum of Norway was joining its Academic Advisory Council.

This brings another persuasive voice to the influential think tank.

Dr. Ole Humlum is a former Professor of Physical Geography at the University Centre in Svalbard, Norway, and Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Oslo. He is a member of the Norwegian Scientific Academy for Polar Research. Photo: GWPF.

The GWPF appointment is a move that climate science critics say will deliver some much needed sobriety to a science that has too frequently found itself immersed in activism, hysterical projections and alarmism.

In the wake of his appointment, Prof. Humlum answered some questions on climate science posed by NTZ via social media.

Sea level rise projections overblown

Concerning global sea level rise, Prof. Humlum believes the planet will see only “8-15 cm rise by the year 2100”. And though most scientists agree man is warming the planet through CO2 emissions by burning fossil fuels, Prof. Humlum wrote that the figure for CO2 climate sensitivity is completely in dispute.

Natural factors at play, modest cooling ahead

On what has driven the climate change observed over the past 40 years, Prof. Humlum wrote that it goes far beyond just CO2 and that the sun, clouds and oceans have played huge roles. Over the coming decades he thinks the planet will cool, but that “it won’t be dramatic”.

Concerning whether the 20th century warming has led to more weather extremes today, he answered: “No, not according to statistics known by me.”

“Natural climatic variations dominate”

He summarized:

On the global scale natural climatic variations dominate over effects caused by man. Climate models often claim to incorporate natural variations, but this is not correct, as can be shown by statistical analyses. Thus, the argument that only by assuming a large effect of CO2 can climate models reproduce global climate change since 1950 is invalid.”

Bringing expertise to climate science

Prof. Humlum has authored or co-authored some 100 publications on climate related topics. Few scientists are able to claim having such a broad and valuable interdisciplinary knowledge that Professor Humlum possesses. His specialties include:

  • Glacial- and periglacial geomorphology
  • Landforms derived from bedrock weathering, with emphasis on rock glaciers
  • Reconstruction of Quaternary ice sheets, glaciers in the North Atlantic region
  • Historical and modern climatology of the Arctic and North Atlantic region
  • The impact of climate on societies the North Atlantic region
  • Comparison and integration of different climate proxy series
  • Numerical modelling in geomorphology
  • Mapping Arctic and Antarctic surface temperature changes
  • Modelling natural cold-climate geomorphic processes and -hazards
  • Permafrost and periglacial processes
  • Physical geography of Svalbard
  • Snow avalanche risk in Svalbard

A Kind Request…

Dear Readers,

Please let’s leave the name-calling aside. It really does not make any positive contribution at all. We all feel the frustration in the debate as we have two sides entrenched with only a few people daring to take a position between all the flying arrows.

From now on Kenneth and I will be simply deleting any comment with name-calling and schoolyard accusations. Concerning “lies”, show the person it’s a lie and then just move on. If that person wishes to continue believing it, then let them. It’s really not your problem, but their own.

Trolling also of course will be deleted.

Smile everybody 🙂


Ex-NOAA Climate Scientist: ‘No Role Of CO2 In Any Significant Change Of The Earth’s Climate’

Solar Magnetic Field, Cosmic Rays/Clouds → Climate

CO2 Has A ‘Zero Net Effect’

Dr. Rex J. Fleming, a former  NOAA climate scientist who earned both his Master’s and Ph.D in meteorology, has published a new paper in the Environmental Earth Sciences journal that details the lack of an identifiable causal relationship between CO2 concentration changes and Earth’s temperature changes.  He suggests “there is no propensity for CO2 to store heat in a systematic way over time to produce a climate change effect”.

Image Source: American Meteorological Society

Dr. Fleming introduces an alternative “theory of climate change—due to the Sun’s magnetic field interacting with cosmic rays”.   He theorizes that the Earth’s temperature has warmed in the modern era as a consequence of the strong solar activity during the 20th century  (the Modern Maximum) shielding cosmic ray intensification and thus reducing decadal-scale cloud cover, which leads to warming via an increase in absorbed surface solar radiation (as illustrated here by Ogurtsov et al., 2012 and detailed by Avakyan, 2013McLean, 2014, and others).

Dr. Fleming further proposes that the Earth may cool as it slides into a Solar Grand Minimum in the coming few decades (~2030) due to a predicted decline in the solar magnetic field and concomitant cloud cover increases seeded by cosmic ray intensification.

Key points from the paper are categorized below.

An Updated Review About Carbon

Dioxide and Climate Change

Fleming, 2018


“The results of this review point to the extreme value of  CO2 to all life forms, but no role of  CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate. … There is no correlation of CO2 with temperature in any historical data set that was reviewed. The climate-change cooling over the 1940–1975 time period of the Modern Warming period was shown to be influenced by a combination of solar factors. The cause of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age climate changes was the solar magnetic field and cosmic ray connection.  When the solar magnetic field is strong, it acts as a barrier to cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmosphere, clouds decrease and the Earth warms. Conversely when the solar magnetic field is weak, there is no barrier to cosmic rays—they greatly increase large areas of low-level clouds, increasing the Earth’s albedo and the planet cools. The factors that affect these climate changes were reviewed in “Solar magnetic field/cosmic ray factors affecting climate change” section. The calculations of “H2O and CO2 in the radiation package” section revealed that there is no net impact of CO2 on the net heating of the atmosphere. The received heat is simply redistributed within the atmospheric column. This result is consistent and explains the lack of CO2 correlations with observations in the past. The current Modern Warming will continue until the solar magnetic field decreases in strength. If one adds the 350-year cycle from the McCracken result to the center of the Maunder Minimum which was centered in 1680, one would have a Grand Minimum centered in the year 2030.”

It’s Not CO2

CO2 Changes Lag Temperature Changes

“Ice cores with sufficient vertical resolution (time resolution) have provided 420,000 years of data from Antarctica indicating that the temperature changes preceded the corresponding CO2 changes. An American team found the time lag (due to ocean mixing) of CO2 behind temperature of several hundred years. The oceanic reservoir of CO2 is far greater than that of the atmosphere. When the oceans are warm, they outgas CO2, and when the oceans are cold atmospheric CO2 dissolves into the oceans (Fisher et al. 1999).”

“A subsequent study in 2003 by a French team indicating that deglaciation was not caused by CO2 which lagged the temperature by 200–800 years (Caillon et al. 2003). A third efort by Russian scientists arrived at the same conclusion, where the estimated delay was 500–600 years (Monin and Sonechkin 2005). This was claimed to be 420,000 years of data with indisputable evidence that CO2 concentrations of the atmosphere are the effect of global temperature changes and not their cause (Chilingar et al. 2008).”

Water Vapor Dominates

“The concentration of CO2 is considered to be uniform over the atmosphere at 400 ppmv. The concentration of water vapor varies from a maximum of 40,000 ppmv (Hong Kong) to the lowest measured value of 4 ppmv in the upper stratosphere. A value for water vapor at one km is estimated to be 11,000 ppmv, so the ratio of mass of H2O/CO2 at one km is approximately 11,000/400=27.5. Comparison of the absorption coefficients over the full range of 1.5–18 µm gave the result: CO2/H2O=~5.5. Thus, water vapor dominates by the ratio of 27.5/5.5=5. … The volume of H2O at the one km level alone is capable of absorbing all the available solar heat at the surface, and does absorb five times that of CO2. All the heat adsorbed at the surface was fully redistributed vertically by all the molecules with the help of all the coefficients.”

CO2 ‘No Impact’, ‘Zero Net Effect’ On Temperature

“One can summarize these calculations as follows: whatever the “climate-change regime,” whatever surface heat from the Sun on any given day within that regime, that heat is fully absorbed and fully vertically redistributed throughout the troposphere—there is no propensity for CO2 to store heat in a systematic way over time to produce a climate change effect (as defined in the introduction).”

“Why does the integrated effect of CO2 have so little effect on the total temperature profile? The reason is that the Planck function change with height (temperature) is very strong in reducing the intensity of those relatively few lines with large absorption coefficients. Another reason is that the longwave radiation is diffuse which depletes the intensity rapidly over distance. The diffuse nature of the radiation also leads to the fact that the net radiation for a given level (that sent upward at the bottom of a layer, minus that sent downward at the top of a layer) further reduces the adsorbed CO2 radiation intensity.”

“Other so-called “greenhouse gases” (some with larger absorption coefcients, but all with signifcantly less concentration)  have their intensity quickly transferred upward and depleted by the same strong Planck function intensity change that applies to CO2 and H2O.  From the historical record and from these calculations one sees that the CO2 concentration had no impact on temperature It contributes low-level heating and allows upper level cooling for a zero net effect.”

It’s Solar/Cosmic Ray/Cloud Cover Changes

Solar Minimum, Maximum Periods And Climate

“A significant improvement in determining which Grand Minima are important for climate change came with the work of Sharpe (2008) using Jet Propulsion Laboratory DE405 ephemeris data providing the results in Figs. 10 and 11. His C-14 data from Stuiver et al. (1998). The results confirm the reason for the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age (1300–1850) with its three separate Grand Minima (Spörer Maunder, and Dalton).”

“Since the Little Ice Age, a strong Sun is revealed by both Be-10 and C-14 decreases. The total magnetic flux leaving the Sun (dragged out by the solar wind) has risen by a factor of 2.3 since 1901 (Lockwood et al. 1999). The strong solar magnetic field has shielded the Earth from cosmic rays and is the cause of the Modern Warming that has occurred through to the current time.”

Planetary Positions Determine Solar Grand Minima

“The synodic period (TS—two successive conjunctions of the same bodies) of two planets 1 and 2 is given by 1/TS=1/T1−1/T2 (with T1<T2). The sidereal periods for Uranus and Neptune are 84.02 and 164.79 years, respectively.  This gives TUN =172 years. This is the main driver seen in the angular momentum of the Sun about the SSB.  The relationship of when a solar Grand Minima occurs always involves these four giant planets in their relationship with the Sun and as depicted in Fig. 11—Uranus, Neptune and Jupiter together and Saturn opposite the Sun.”

Solar Cycle Length And Temperature

“The sunspot cycle has an average period of 11.2 years, but the length varies from 8 to 14 years. The length of a sunspot cycle (LSC) is an indicator of the Sun’s eruptional activity.  The Gleissberg (1965) cycle resulted from his smoothing of the time series of the length of the sunspot cycles (LSC) and a secular cycle of 80–90 years emerged.”

“Figure  7 is from Landscheidt (2003) where Gleissberg’s smoothed data were displayed. The heavy line is the smoothed LSC line and the light line is the land air temperature in the Northern Hemisphere. The heavy line agrees very well with the temperature and also with the temperature record […] with the cooling from 1940 to 1975. It appears that the atmospheric temperature is oblivious to CO2 concentration.”

“The range of the Sun’s orbital angular momentum about the SSB varies from near zero to only 25% of the Sun’s differential angular momentum driving the solar dynamo (Landscheidt 2003). Thus, the strength of the solar dynamo can outweigh the effect of the Sun/planet positions. Nevertheless, these results over this long period strongly suggest that the solar magnetic feld/cosmic ray interaction is the primary cause of major climate-change events over the past 9400 years of the interglacial period. The 35-year cool period within the current Modern Warming was an example where the Gleissberg cycle imposed only a modest impact on the existing strength of the magnetic feld that was in place. The current Modern Warming will continue until the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field declines.”

German Daily ‘Die Welt’ Announces: President Trump/USA “World’s Most Successful Climate Protector”

It turns out that the country that got attacked the most for backing out of the Paris Accord happens to be the one that reduced CO2 emissions the most last year, writes Die Welt’s energy journalist, Daniel Wetzel, who wrote:

Now the results are in: No country in the world saved more CO2 in 2017 than the USA. And it is because of the eco-effect.”

Top CO2 saver among a record emissions year

Wetzel cited the latest results of the International Energy Agency IEA, which also stated that global CO2 emissions reached a new all-time record high after having stagnated the three previous years. In 2017, global CO2 emissions rose a robust 2.1 percent – “due to strong economic growth,” Wetzel writes.

On USA’s impressive reductions, Wetzel called it “bizarre”:

Foremost a development emerged that was quite bizarre: Of all countries, the USA under President Donald Trump was the world’s most successful climate protector.”

“Green champions” fail to deliver

According to the IEA, the USA reduced CO2 emissions by 23 million metric tonnes, emitting 4.81 billion tonnes.

Meanwhile some of the world’s most vocal proponents of CO2 emissions reductions and supporters of the Paris Accord failed to reduce CO2 emissions at all. The European Union, which fancies itself a champion of green energies and moral beacon, actually saw its emissions rise by 46 million tonnes!

Also eco-pompous Germany, whose car industry cheated the world, has not reduced emissions some 9 years running:


Germany CO2 equivalent emissions, millions of metric tons. Source UBA.

It was the third year in a row that the USA reduced CO2 emissions, a result that Wetzel called “surprising”.

The reduction, according to Die Welt’s Daniel Wetzel, was attributed to the USA’s 17% energy supplied by renewable sources and that 20% of the electric power was produced by nuclear plants.

Trump’s great solar project

The news of Trump being the 2017’s best climate-saver did not go down well among climate activists. Germany’s alarmist site Klimaretter insisted that Trump had little to do with the development. Klimaretter claimed the good result from the USA was “due to the strong expansion in renewable energies. This occurred not because of Trump, but rather despite the President’s politics.”

Currently Trump is proposing the installation of solar panels on the wall along the border to Mexico, which would make it one of the largest solar power facilities in the country.