151 Degrees Of Fudging…Energy Physicist Unveils NOAA’s “Massive Rewrite” Of Maine Climate History

UPDATE: Added below is the summary chart comparing the plot of the 2013 data to the 2015 new, altered data (Figure 2).

Fellow New Englander, engineering physicist and energy expert, Mike Brakey has sent a summary analysis of NOAA past temperature “adjustments” for Maine.
=====================================

Black Swan Climate Theory
By Mike Brakey

Here in the U.S. I have documented manipulations similar to those in Switzerland and other locations worldwide that NTZ wrote about yesterday.

Over the last months I have discovered that between 2013 and 2015 some government bureaucrats have rewritten Maine climate history between 2013 and 2015 (and New England’s and of the U.S.). This statement is not based on my opinion, but on facts drawn from NOAA 2013 climate data vs NOAA 2015 climate data after when they re-wrote it.

We need only compare the data. They cooked their own books (see numbers below).

Brakey_1

Figure 1: NOAA cooled the years of Maine’s past by an accumulated 151°F! (55,188 heating degree day units).

The last four months have been some of the coldest you might ever recall in our lifetime. So far 2015 is the fourth coldest in Maine’s history over the last 120 years. Data from 2013 confirm that so far – from January 1 to April 29 – 2015 has required 4249 heating degree days.

That rivals 1904, 1918 and 1923 over the last 120 years.

But when I recently looked at NOAA’s revised 2015 data, these last four months now would not even put us in the top twenty of coldest months. The federal government went into the historical data and lowered those earlier years – and other years in the earlier decades – so that they can keep spending $27 billion a year on pushing global warming.

They assumed no one would archive temperature data. But I did. My research indicated they used the same algorithm across the United States at the same time. Fortunately I had archived their data from 2013 for Maine and recently compared it to their 2015 data (see above table).

As an engineering physicist and heat transfer specialist, I have worked with heating and cooling degree days for forty years. It is alarming when one discovers multi-million dollar websites have been corrupted with bogus data because the facts do not match up with agendas.

It tremendously harms the industry you and I both work in. Worse, it harms the public. If the public knew the climate data facts indicated it was not getting warmer locally, and that it might actually be getting cooler, it would have all the more reason to insulate and become more energy-efficient in their homes.

I have put together a Maine history of climate temperatures in a narrated PowerPoint Presentation placed on YouTube titled, Black Swan Climate Theory.

Below is a brief sampling of my findings:

Brakey_3

Table 1: Sampling of findings.

So far 2015 Maine temperatures, as of April, are running neck-and-neck with the coldest years in Maine’s history: 1904 (40.6°F), 1918 (42.1°F) and 1925 (42.3°F). These temperatures cited come right from the federal government’s own NOAA climate data (from 2013). I archived them on my computer for future reference.

2015 so far among coldest on record

A BLACK SWAN event is forming in 2015 (following chart):

Brakey_2

Figure 2: Plot comparing the new, altered dataset to the 2013 dataset. Red curve is the plot of the 2013 dataset. The blue curve is the plot of the 2015 new, altered data.

Based on the first four months of 2015, there is an excellent chance 2015 Maine temperature might average, on an annual basis, well under 43.0°F. Not only have Maine temperatures been on a decline since 1998, we are now seeing temperatures reminiscent of the bitter turn of the early 1900s.

“Massive rewrite”

It appears NOAA panicked and did a massive rewrite of Maine temperature history (they used the same algorithm for U.S. in general). The new official temperatures from Maine between 1895 and present were LOWERED by an accumulated 151.2°F between 1895 and 2012.

“Out-and-out fraud”

In my opinion, this is out-and-out fraud. Why did they corrupt national climate data? Global warming is a $27 billion business on an annual basis in the U.S alone.

Brakey_4

Now NOAA data revised in 2015 indicate that 1904, 1919 and 1925 in Maine were much colder than anything we experience today. (See the scorecard above comparing the NOAA data that are 18 months apart). Note how for 1913 the NOAA lowered the annual temperature a whole 4°F!

For the balance of the years, as they get closer to the present, the NOAA tweaks less and less. They have corrupted Maine climate data between 1895 and present by a whopping accumulated 151.2°F.

Unfortunately NOAA is remaining true to that old saying, “Figures don’t lie but liars figure.”

A multi-million dollar website has been corrupted. I can no longer rely on the tax-payer funded NOAA for clean, unfiltered, climate data for my ongoing research.

Conclusion

I can no longer trust the climate data and energy information ultimately drawn from the U.S. government. Locally, I now have to determine if they got their data from NOAA.

This makes research a lot tougher.

Mike Brakey

Swiss Weekly Calls Temperature Rise A “Propaganda Trick” (Not A Trend) …”We Are Making A Warming”!

At the print edition of Swiss news weekly “Weltwoche”, science journalist Markus Schär writes that not only has the global temperature trend suspiciously been tampered with, but so have the datasets of the Swiss Meteorological Service:

WeWo

View of print Weltwoche article on global temperature “adjustments”.

To illustrate Weltwoche shows two datasets in its article from two different locations in Switzerland:

Swiss temperatures WeltWoche

The chart above shows the mean annual temperatures and trends for Sion and Zurich before (left) and after “adjustment” (right). The “adjustments” resulted in a doubling of the temperature trend.

At the start of the article Schär characterizes Thomas Stocker’s claim that the “so-called” 18-year global temperature pause is misleading information spread by “lobbyists” as scientifically invalid, and does so for three reasons: 1) It’s not “so-called” because datasets show there’s been no warming in over 18 years, 2) the pause is acknowledged by leading experts, and 3) IPCC experts have already acknowledged it, and have even come up with “over 50 explanations” to explain it.

Schär then focusses on the reports of temperature adjustments at various locations around the world that have led to a depiction of more rapidly warming global temperatures:

The Australian last year uncovered that state meteorologists adjusted an 80-year temperature series of Australia so that a cooling of 1°C per century was changed to a warming of 2.3°C.”

Schär also wrote of NASA’s dataset:

British science journalist Christopher Booker, who called the manipulation of temperature data ‘the biggest science scandal ever’, showed how among other things that the record value for 2014 came about because the responsible NASA institute had flipped the data trend for rural measurement stations in Brazil or Paraguay.”

According to Schär at Weltwoche, also Swiss temperature data have been adjusted to show stronger warming, calling the work a “propaganda trick, and not a valid trend“.

Schär calls into question the basis used for justifying the upwards adjustment, especially with respect to the fact that stations today are more urbanized and under influence of the urban heat island effect. He writes of the Swiss data:

It is correct that meteorologists homogenize their data, i.e. filter out external influences. But here the question is: How and with what intention are they doing this? […]

The meteorologist significantly lowered the data from the 19th century and strongly raised those of around 1980.”

The result, Schär writes; was a doubling of the temnperature increase rate. Schär also reports on how German meteorologist Klaus Hager earlier determined that the newer electronic measurement instruduced since the 1980s showed “on average 0.93°C higher temperatures.”

So why the upward adjustments when we have all the instrumentation and siting issues?

Schär writes that the Swiss meteorologists have rejected Hager’s claim that the new electronic instrumentation is delivering warmer temperatures, insisting that “the thermometers in the new automatic network are showing ‘slightly lower temperatures’ than those in the ‘poorly ventilated’ Stevenson screens.” Schär continues:

The corrections, however, appear so massive that they represent half of the entire temperature increase.”

Despite the data fudging by Swiss meteorologists (and those worldwide), no one is able to hide the fact that winters in Switzerland and in Central Europe have gotten colder over the past 20 years, defying predictions of warming made earlier by climatologists.

But that’s no problem for the climatologists, Schär writes.

Temperatures no longer have to rise in order to spread the fear of climate catastrophe. In the science magazine ‘Einstein’ on Swiss television, Stephan Bader of the Swiss Meteorological Service showed that winters in the Alps were getting cooler over the past years: But he also added that it was due to climate warming: Scientists at the Alfred Wegener Institute ‘suspect’ the cold snaps came from the melting of Arctic ice (which has stopped).”

Propaganda trick, anyone?

 

NoTricksZone WordPress Site Update: Facelift / New Theme In The Pipeline

Since last week the NoTricksZone site has been experiencing technical difficulties, which all seem to be rooted to WordPress version updates. The new updates just don’t seem to be working well anymore with the Hybrid theme I’ve been using for almost 5 years now.

Last weekend the site was down over 30 hours. This, according to the hosting company, was due to a “faulty htaccess file” in the new WordPress version, which the hosting company thankfully eliminated.

Then a few days ago I noticed the NTZ was not using the latest WordPress version, and so I updated the site to the newest available version: 4.2.1. Unfortunately since then the reader comments function has stopped working. Readers are able to write a comment, but the “Submit Comment” button is missing.

Other sites Using WordPress have had the same problem as well. Normally updates are supposed to improve the sites. Now they seem to be wreaking havoc instead.

Concerning the missing “Submit comment” button, there now appears to be a fix that takes care of the problem.

Unfortunately it involves editing the site code, something I’m very very wary of attempting because I’m not a programmer, and I’m not sure where the piece of code belongs. Surely there is the risk I’d makes things worse.

So for the time being, until I find someone who can safely repair the problem, it will not be possible for readers to leave comments.

Another solution is changing the WordPress theme. This is the one I’m leaning to. I’ve been using the current theme almost 5 years, and now is probably as good a time as any to change to a new, fresher one. I’ve looked into it, but here too the task does not look very straight forward and harbors the potential for major messiness. I’ve previewed several newer WordPress themes, and they all have no problems with reader comments. However, many of my sidebars (e.g. Archives, Blogroll, Categories, etc.) fail to appear in the preview. I need to look into this in greater detail.

In summary, readers have to expect changes coming to the site, and possible potholes along the way. Big Oil hasn’t sent any checks and I don’t have the luxury of bringing in a programming specialist.

Originally I started out doing this with the purpose of getting involved in the climate debate – and not the technical programming of WordPress sites, which now seems to be more and more frequent. If anyone out there has expertise in this and is willing to help out, send me an e-mail (see contact page).

 

Academics Seeking Power Over Global Policy Launch “Australian-German College of Climate & Energy Transitions”

Tony Thomas at the Australian online Quadrant site here has an excellent overview of who and what is really behind the far-out alarmist “science” coming from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK): “Die Grünshirts Parachute Into Parkville“.

Some excerpts follow.

On Hans Schellnhuber:

PIK was founded in 1991 by climate doomsday professor, Herr Professor-Doktor Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, who continues to lead it and seek for it world-changing powers. In an interview with Der Spiegel in 2011, Schellnhuber was asked: ‘Do you feel that the government’s abrupt change of course in relation to its energy policy is adequate?’ He replied (emphasis added):

‘No. It can only be the beginning of a deep-seated shift. The German Advisory Council on Global Change, which I chair, will soon unveil a  plan for a transformation of society. Precisely because of Fukushima, we believe that a new basis of our coexistence is needed.’ “

On Otmar Edenhofer:

One of his master plans for renewable energy involved, he said, a cost of ‘a mere twelve thousand billion dollars by 2030′ to put the world onto 75% renewable energy by 2050.

Someone’s calculated that USD12 trillion is about eight times the cost of World War 11. And Edenhofer doesn’t even mention the costs from 2030-50, or the untold billions spent already to deliver 0.3% renewable energy to the globe so far. Could Edenhofer have   triple-digit trillions in mind?”

On Stefan Rahmstorf:

In 2011 he was found by a German court to have made ‘untruthful assertions’ against a journalist, Irene Meischner, who had dared to criticize blunders in the IPCC (she was not even a sceptic).  He wrote on his blog that she had been dishonest, sloppy, had never read the IPCC report, and  had even plagiarized writings. Meischner stood up,  sued and won.”

On Dr Leena Srivastava:

…is Acting Director-General of the TERI think-tank, until February run by IPCC chair (now ex-chair) Rajendra Pachauri. The New Delhi police, who are taking a keen interest in the disgraced warmist, allege that the 74-year-old spent much of his final 15 months at TERI stalking a 29-year-old female staffer.

Read the entire piece here.

Incredibly even the Vatican has hitched its wagon to these individuals and their movement. The Church truly has been corrupted.

 

German DWD Weather Service’s Own Data Contradict Its Alarmist Claims Of “Uninterrupted Warming”

The DWD German Weather Service used to be a highly professional outfit. But over the last few years it seems to have been taken over by activists who have an agenda that is foreign to weather forecasting.

Statements released by the DWD over the recent years often contradict each other. For example in a recent press release the DWD claimed that the trend to a warmer climate remains uninterrupted, both globally and for Germany.

But this is in stark contradiction to the real global data which shows a stagnation approaching 20 years. Moreover the DWD’s own data on mean temperatures for Germany also show a clear stagnation. The warming trend is in fact interrupted:

P_1

Figure 1. Both global temperature and Germany’s annual mean temperature show interrupted warming. Chart: K.E. Puls.

Although 2014 saw a record warm year in Germany, the overall temperature trend over the last 17 years is one of cooling, as Figure 2 shows:

P_2

Figure 2: Germany’s annual mean temperature has been cooling over the last 17 years. Source: EIKE/K.E. Puls.

In 2012 the DWD wrote that the long term trend of rising temperatures was uninterrupted in both Germany and worldwide. But then just one year later, the DWD wrote in a May 7, 2013 press release (Hat-tip K.E. Puls):

The earth’s mean temperature has stagnated at a high level for 15 years…”

Is the temperature rise uninterrupted, or is it not?

On June 3, 2012, Gerhard Hofmann of the DWD confirmed on German public radio that the global temperature had not increased in 14 years.

Also Germany’s winters have also cooled over the past 28 years:

P_5

 Figure 3: German winters contradict Germany’s DWD national weather service. Source: Josef Kowatsch, using DWD data.

 Summer temperatures also have not been going up in Germany either:

P_6

Figure 4: Summer temperatures have been cooling over the past decade. Plot source: Josef Kowatsch; Chart K.E. Puls.

So where does the DWD get the idea that the climate warming has been uninterrupted? Answer: Certainly not from its own data.

 

Björn Stevens’ New Paper In Nature Has Kevin Trenberth Trembling…Lindzen’s Iris Sees Vindication

NOTE: I upgraded to the latest version of WordPress this morning. But now it appears readers are unable to leave comments because no “Reply” button is appearing. Will work on this….please be patient… -PG

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

Change in the climate debate? Climate models start converging towards reality
By Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated, condensed by P. Gosselin]

On many occasions we have brought up the discrepancies between observed global data and the values of the latest IPCC climate models (CMIP5) – see here and here. The model values simply diverged well above the observations. A chart by Roy Spencer made this clear:

Figure 1: The deviation of model values from satellite observations up to 2013, Source: Roy Spencer.

Recently Thomas Mauritsen and Björn Stevens, a clouds and aerosols modeling expert of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, examined the matter. In a very recent paper appearing in Nature Geoscience (hereinafter MS15) titled “Missing iris effect as a possible cause of muted hydrological change and high climate sensitivity in models“, they took up the actual situation (a somewhat difficult to understand press release on this can be read here).

1) Apparently the models overreact to the greenhouse gas effect. Recent papers also have found from the observations a significantly lower value for forcing. The climate sensitivity (ECS) for a very long-term period after an increase in greenhouse gas is determined to be on average 3.3°C of warming while the observations indicate a value of about 2°C.

2) The global hydrological cycle is not taken correctly into account in the models (too small).

There’s also another phenomenon: According to the models, the troposphere in the tropics was supposed to warm up much more than at ground level. But this is not being observed, and we’ve written about this in an earlier post “Houston, we have a problem: We can’t find the hot spot“.

Here the authors searched for an explanation for the discrepancies. Perhaps a cooling effect was missing in the models. They found an explanation: an old hypothesis from Richard Lindzen and his colleagues from 2001: The earth has an “iris”, a negative feedback where more heat is released when there is more warming than when the temperature is cool. This mechanism, according to Lindzen, acts in the tropics and in the subtropics. It is illustrated as such in the paper:

 

Figure 2: At higher temperatures there are more thunderstorms over the ocean and the area without high level clouds (dry and clear) expands further and thus allows more heat to radiate off into space (strong OLR) than when temperatures are lower, i.e. when the iris is smaller. Source: Figure 1 from MS15.

This “self-regulation” of the earth’s temperatures proposed by Lindzen of course was rejected by “mainstream” climate science. Chambers et al. wrote in the Journal of Climate 2002:

As a result, the strength of the feedback effect is reduced by a factor of 10 or more. Contrary to the initial Iris hypothesis, most of the definitions tested in this paper result in a small positive feedback.”

Kevin Trenberth and colleagues rejected the iris-theory in the Geophysical Research Letters in 2010:

…and their [Lindzen et al.] use of a limited tropical domain is especially problematic. Moreover their results do not stand up to independent testing.”

The authors of the latest Nature article obviously had not been impressed by Trenberth’s claim, and made the effort of integrating Lindzen’s iris effect into an advanced model. The result is somewhat surprising.

The Tropical Hot Spot

Figure 3: The temperatures in the atmosphere according to the models, Source: Figure S7 from MS15.

The increase in the tropical temperature trends between 7 and 14 km elevation in the model without the iris (Figure 3 left) and with the iris (right). The modeled hot spot with profound effect at about 10 km and above has disappeared…which is very much like what the observations have been telling us:

Figure 4: The hot spot in the models without the iris and the observations. Source: “Climate4you“. The 300 hPa atmospheric pressure corresponds to an elevation of approx. 8 km, the 200 hPa approx. 10 km above sea level. The measured trend (dark red or blue), the modeled trend in the model mean without iris is dotted red.

The impact of the iris effect on EC

Figure 5: Crossplot of the ECS with negative effect of iris as temperature rises. The red point is the ECS of the model without iris. The blue plots are the values for the ECS in various strengths of the Iris. Source: Figure 3a of MS15.

The iris shifts the ECS of the used models from 2.81 to 2.21. That’s 22% less sensitivity with respect to the warming effect by greenhouse gases. Also the discrepancy in the hydrological cycle (basically the increase in precipitation due to warming) could be resolved by taking the iris into account.

Even when the impression has been given here from time to time that we distrust models, we point out that precisely in climatology models can be very useful when they are fed with all the right information. We are not able to experiment with the atmosphere and so we have to rely on computers. It is essential that the models accurately reflect reality and do not produce a fictitious world that supplies catastrophe scenarios.

Climate models are extremely complex, and thus it is all the more critical that their programming be clean and that all the possible physical factors be correctly taken into account. The latest paper shows that modeling has taken a step in the right direction. It shows 22% less climate sensitivity due to the iris component.

Not everyone was happy to hear this news. Kevin Trenberth was quoted saying the following words (translated from the German):

The paper is poorly written and misleading. It wasn’t necessary to blow the iris horn.”

Trenberth seemed almost infuriated:

The authors even wrote it in the damn title.”

What fear has suddenly gripped the “climate establishment”? Could it be that among policymakers the word is out that the climate catastrophe has been called off?

Björn Stevens’ research results may go down as being the turning point in the history of climate science debate.

 

German Climate Physicist: Alternative Energy, Climate Are A “Religious Creed”…”Miles Away” From Openness

Yesterday approximately 15,000 coal miners turned out to protest the German government’s energy policy.

German Economics Minister Sigmar Gabriel announced earlier he intended to levy a CO2 surcharge on older coal power plants with the aim of shutting them down.

Lüdecke

Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke. Photo EIKE.

Before yesterday’s demonstration, German physicist and climate scientist and spokesman for the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, published a sharply-worded commentary here on the government’s anti-fossil fuel/nuclear power policy. As the introduction Lüdecke wrote:

Climate protection and the switch over to renewable energies were instilled in German citizens by state propaganda, green brainwashing and with the help of all of Germany’s mainstream media. The unconditional necessity to advance into alternative energies has become a religious creed. By historical and global comparison, such a thing happens the most easily here, time after time. The logic used by the politically interested parties every time appears to be infallible. [..]

The argument goes as follows: The rescue of the planet from a death by heat and the immediate shutdown of the irresponsible German nuclear power plants are essential. The question of whether this is really true is not be asked, let alone discussed.”

Lüdecke says, however, that public awareness over the madness of Germany’s energy policy is beginning to dawn and that he believes “now is the phase of sobering up, but unfortunately not yet one of reason.” Leading print media are beginning to soften their support for the so-called Energiewende as it now stands, he writes. As angry coal miners take to the street, and thousands of industrial jobs become threatened, it is becoming increasingly apparent something has gone awry.

Lüdecke thinks that the sobering-up process will take time because every political party has made green issues part of its platform. “Green is a very difficult color to wash away,” the German physicist writes.

Lüdecke then explains the primary disadvantage of renewable energy: their low energy density, i.e. meaning they require vast areas and that the major ones are weather-dependent. The German EIKE professor does not know how long the sobering-up process will take, citing the immense power of an array of lobbies behind the green movement.

Lüdecke also aims harsh words at Germany’s pompous and one-sided media:

Finally a word for the German media, here especially for the public TV and radio networks. They are rightly being compared by the current contemporaries to the conditions of former East Germany or even earlier times.”

At the political level, Lüdecke blasts the atmosphere of intimidation against people who have alternative views, who often are threatened with physical violence from radical leftists groups.

When it comes to openness, such as that proclaimed by French philosopher Voltaire, the German climatologist writes “in the dark media of Germany, we are miles away.”  He adds:

Factual discourse, connected with polite listening and taking the arguments from opponents seriously, is definitely not in fashion.”

Lüdecke describes Germany as a desert when it comes to independent reporting and expression of opinions.

 

No Sign Of Warming: Global Sea Ice Well Below Normal Only 4 Of Last 36 Years…Normal Over Last 2.5 Years!

NoTricksZone is finally back online after having been unavailable for some 32 or so hours.

Apparently a WordPress version update “had faultily written the htaccess file“, the host company has just informed me. Don’t ask me what that is supposed to mean.  At any rate, the problem seems to be resolved, and we’re well back in the “denial” business. :)

I’m short on time today and so this post will be a short one.

Awhile back I wrote a piece here about global sea ice. When one examines the chart objectively, one finds no sign of any global warming – assuming that it is an indication of global temperature as the warmists like to tell us (especially when sea ice shrinks).

global sea_ice_area_4 2015

Global sea ice shows no sign of any global warming. Source: arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/dpuf.

Again we note that sea ice has been normal for over 2 years now. Antarctica has been constantly above normal for a long period of 3 years – something that is unprecedented and a record since satellite measurements began.

And when one really looks honestly and objectively at the above chart above, we see that global sea ice has been markedly below normal only about 4 of 36 years: half of 2006, 2007, half of 2010, 2011 and half of 2012. That’s 3.5 years – but we can round it up to four whole years out of 36.

One could argue 2002 should be included, but the amount is not significantly below normal. In 2008 there was only a sharp but brief dip.  The last 4 years have seen a strong upward trend. Four years of course is too short to draw any conclusions (except when the ice melts).

The bottom line: Global sea ice shows no signs of a globe that is experiencing galloping warming.

 

Elitism: “17 Prominent Scientists” Express Contempt For Democracy…Demand Policymaking Power

By Dennis Ambler and Pierre Gosselin

One of the most worrisome aspects of the climate science movement, other than its outright fudging of data, is its unabashed contempt for democracy.

Yesterday a tiny group of “17 international scientists from world class institutions“, who are unhappy with the current development course of civilization because it has not been to their liking, released in a statement the elements of a global climate agreement, and “what needs to be done in order to meet the 2°C target.”

The 17 elitist “scientists” call themselves “The Earth League“.

Not surprisingly the statement calls for the fundamental reorganization of global human civilization and society.

Yesterday the ultra-alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) also published a press release about that statement from the “international alliance of prominent scientists“, which calls for “bold action by decision-makers to pave the way for a successful international agreement to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change“. The Earth League statement announces:

It is a moral obligation, and in our self-interest, to achieve deep decarbonization of the global economy via equitable effort sharing. This requires reaching a zero-carbon society by mid-century or shortly thereafter, thereby limiting global warming to below 2°C as agreed by all nations in 2010. This trajectory is not one of economic pain, but of economic opportunity, progress and inclusiveness.”

Such promises of zero-pain are not new. Ten years ago Germany’s Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin claimed the transition would “not cost citizens more than a cone of ice cream“. That cone of ice cream today has since exploded to 355 euros – each year – and CO2 emissions still haven’t dropped!

The Earth League’s statement coincides with Earth Day. Not surprisingly among its members is PIK director Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. The statement clarifies what an international climate agreement should achieve in Paris in December.

The scientists include Mario Molina of Centro Mario Molina, Jennifer Morgan of the World Resources Institute, Ottmar Edenhofer of Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Carlos Nobre of National Institute for Space Research (INPE) (and UNESCO), Lord Nicholas Stern of London School of Economics and Political Science, Johan Rockström of Stockholm Resilience Center and other authors.

People familiar with the PIK recognize that this is very much a “Schellnhubris” Potsdam initiative. Indeed it is amazing to see them claim “scientist” status for Jennifer Morgan, former WWF Climate Director and now a member of the Potsdam “Scientific Advisory Board”.  Her qualifications are in Political Science and “International Affairs”. Former World Bank economist Stern is chairman of the Grantham Institute at LSE and has also been on Schellnhuber’s Potsdam “Scientific Advisory Board”.

Edenhofer is also an economist and deputy director at Potsdam, although he is now named as Director of yet another new institution, the Mercator Institute on Global Commons, (that’s the air we breathe, in their book and it must be regulated so everyone gets their fair share. The West has had more than its fair share so we must recant and breathe less). He is famous for his quote that it is no longer about the science, but about wealth redistribution.

Rockström is a long term campaigner, an ecologist not a climate scientist and formerly at the Beijer Instituite which has merged with the Stockholm Resilience Centre. He is the vice-chair of the science advisory board at Potsdam and “he was also co-chairing the visioning process on global environmental change of ICSU, the International Council for Science.”

The Earth League does have a few scientists onboard, such as Sir Brian Hoskins, IPCC and Director of the Imperial College, London, Grantham Institute. He is also on Schellnhuber’s “Scientific Advisory Board”.

Another non-scientist is Leena Srivastava, deputy to the currently “on leave of absence” Rajendra Pachauri.

Of course none of these 17 “leading scientists” will ever admit their contempt for democracy, yet their demands tell us a different story. What their statement tells us is: Yes, citizens are allowed to elect their leaders, but the leaders must do what us elite “scientists” tell them. If that is not contempt for the democratic process, then what is? The PIK Press release writes:

The Earth Statement will be presented by Rockström and Schellnhuber at the 4th Nobel Laureates Symposium on Global Sustainability in Hong Kong “4C: Changing Climate, Changing Cities” hosted by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Asia Society Hong Kong (22-25 April) on Thursday – this will mark the beginning of outreach to leading decision-makers and thinkers.”

Welcome to the next wave of authoritarianism.

Weblink to the full Earth Statement and further information: www.earthstatement.org

Weblink to the Earth League: http://www.the-earth-league.org/

 

Solar Bubble…New Solar Installations Reach Low in Germany…Wind Turbine Loses Its Screws

The German renewable energy bubble has collapsed since the government rolled back subsidies for a variety of green energy sources such as solar and biogas in 2014. Especially for solar.

German alarmist website klimaretter.de here reports that solar energy installations have reached a new 8-year low. According to the BDI German Federal Power Agency, in February this year only 100 megawatts of capacity were installed. This is 11% less than what was installed a year earlier, and much less than during the heydays earlier in the decade.

In 2014 the German government reformed its EEG energy feed-in act with the aim of limiting the annual amount of added solar capacity coming online to between 2400 to 2600 megawatts. Last year not even 1900 megawatts were added, klimaretter writes.

As the solar industry collapses in Germany, it is however faring much better worldwide, with USA and China leading the way in adding capacity. Experts expect between 53,000 and 57,000 megawatts of solar capacity to be added globally this year.

Wind Turbine kaputtWind turbines losing screws

Meanwhile a wind turbine was temporarily shut down when nearby residents heard loud, clunking noises for days and then found several 4-inch, quarter-pound stray bolts on the ground in western Germany near the border to France (see photo at link that follows.

According to the online volksfreund.de site, a repair crew was dispatched to repair the problem. Apparently there was “damage to the brake system that serves to arrest the rotor blades”. One of the screws fell inside the blade and caused the racket.

The local environment ministry reports that the problem has been solved and there is no longer any danger to residents.

Good thing no one was near when the damn bolts fell out!

 

Beleaguered Industry: Wind Parks Coming Under Fire Due To Health Impacts From Infrasound…Danish Permitting Halts!

The debate on the effects of infrasound on the health of people and animals living near wind parks has been raging on with more intensity than ever – especially since Denmark unexpectedly halted the permitting of new wind parks due to “health concerns” from infrasound.

Infrasound is defined as low frequency sound under 16 Hz – below the threshold of human hearing. Wind farms are notorious for generating these potentially harmful sub-audible frequencies. It is said that infrasound can be sensed as pressure to the ears or to the stomach, or as a slight vibration.

There’s a Swedish report available on the hazard, click here. It calls for the legal framework for the creation of wind parks to be revised.

German NTV public television reports recently that in Denmark mink farm operator Kaj Bank Olesen from Herning is a neighbor to four large-scale wind turbines only 330 meters away. Olesen and other neighbors had protested the planning of the wind turbines, fearing negative consequences from their noise and shadows.

However the community rejected their claims, basing it on a lack of credibility. The turbines were installed. Now it seems that Olesen’s earlier fears may have had merit as he claims that the infrasound generated by the turbines are making the mink animals on the farm aggressive and is leading them to die. After one night he found 200 dead minks the next morning. The incident has since sparked the Danish government to take action. Permitting of wind parks in Denmark is now on hold.

The alleged health impacts from wind turbines have been making the news (0:55) in Germany as well.

In Schleswig Holstein, Germany, the Hogeveens have been forced to sleep and eat in their basement in a desperate attempt to find refuge from the maddening infrasound emitted by recently installed turbines near their home.

The wind industry and many government authorities deny there’s a connection between infrasound from wind turbines and health impacts on humans. Hermann Albers of a wind lobby group says there’s no connection between the turbines and the irritation sensed by those living close by, claiming that it is a “subjective” perception or that it’s “politically motivated”. In other words, people living close to wind turbines are just making it all up and they should instead just shut up and live with it.

The German government says it will study the matter further and consider if infrasound should be taken into consideration during the wind park permitting process.

In Australia a link has also been found between wind turbines and health in the so-called Cape Bridgewater report. Steven Cooper investigated the possible link, saying that availbale data so far is very small, but adds:

There’s definitely a trend. There’s definitely a connection between the operation of a wind form and what the residents were identifying as disturbances, and so it’s definitely open to debate as to what the cause or link is in terms of that data.”

Data from comprehensive studies are difficult to come by. Wind farms are reluctant to share their data with researchers, fearing unfavorable results and consequences.

The impacts from infrasound on human health will continue to be debated in the future. But other things are already sure and beyond debate: Wind farms are rapidly losing their attractiveness and support from the public due to their poor performance, hazard to birdlife, ruining of property values, and their blighting of the natural landscape.

An adverse connection to human health would be yet another large nail in the coffin of the now increasingly controversial wind industry.

Hat-tip: Wolfgang Neumann at Facebook.

Also read more here: www.climatedepot.com/danish-professor-sacked-for-highlighting-dangers-of-wind-turbine-noise/

 

Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: Today’s Weather Patterns Seen In The Past, Asks: “Has NCEP Suddenly Become A Denier?”

Most readers here know Joe Bastardi, the veteran meteorologist at Weatherbell who has a knack of getting his longer term seasonal forecasts correct far more often than not. In a reader comment he replies to warmists’ claims on ocean cycles, particularly to David Appell. I’ve upgraded his comment (with slight editing) as a post.

Question for David A: Is NCEP now a member of the vast denier conspiracy with their much more finely tuned grid that measures global temperature? Last year since the PDO decadal flip. Notice what happens after the warm ENSO event. With the AMO now turning cold, just where do you think temperatures will go after this ENSO event? But I am curious, has NCEP suddenly become a denier in the last 10 years? http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2005.png

The answer will be given to us in the next 20 years. I offered this several times on national TV over 5 years ago, simply watch the temperatures as the oceans complete their cycle, WELL DOCUMENTED BY SOMEONE WHO HAS A TRACK RECORD FORECASTING THE WARMING, AND RESULTANT HURRICANE PICK UP BACK IN THE 1970S, DR WILLIAM GRAY: http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf

And why doesn’t total global sea ice make a difference? It certainly did when it was running below normal several years ago. And why can’t we see if the hypothesis is correct, that the increase in temperature was a function of the natural cyclical warming of the ocean, which are reversing now. Another 10-15 years, given 20 years of busted hype, is not going to hurt. And why shouldn’t people be very suspicious, given statements like this from the leaders of this movement: http://www.c3headlines.com/html

So why would I not take these people at their words as to their true motives? As I have explained many times, climate is a TOOL for me to make my forecast. I am watching people ‘blame’ the Pacific for the very idea we used last year and this year to forecast a cold winter in the east, simply by using the same idea that we saw before. So it makes no difference to me. I will still use the methodology that people are discovering (the latest is the warm blob, apparently they are oblivious to 1917-1918, or the late 1950s, or 1970s, which Jerome Nemias wrote about many years ago. Do you know who Jerome Nemias is, David? But back to the easier question. Is NCEP, which clearly shows what is going on, now in the denier camp?”

 

German Energy Industry Group Sounds Alarm Over Energy Policy, Warns Of Future Power Shortfalls

There was a lot of emphasis on energy technology at this year’s Hannover Industrial Trade Fair, which took place just last week.

Fossil fuel plants unexpendable

Days ago German flagship daily Die Welt here reported that Germany’s energy industry is not happy about the recent developments in the electricity markets. Industry representatives warn that the Energiewende (transition to renewable energies) will not work without conventional power plants.

As mentioned earlier, Germany’s grand coalition government led by Angela Merkel increasingly finds itself struggling to maneuver to appease both industry on one side and Germany’s powerful environmental lobby groups on the other. As electricity prices continue their steep climb and grid stability crumbles, the government may soon find itself paying lip service to climate protection and nothing more.

Energy concept in “worrisome state”

According to Die Welt, Hildegard Müller, Director of the German BDEW industry association representing the energy and water utilities, said in a press release that Germany’s energy concept was in a “worrisome state“. She said “There is nothing in it that helps, but plenty that burdens.”

Other reports mention that Müller was uncharacteristically harsh with her criticism of the government’s tattered energy policy.

Fossil fuel capacity “melting away like butter”

Müller worries that soon there will not be enough conventional power plants operating to ensure a supply of power when wind and solar energy are absent. As companies are forced to buy up wind and solar power and to thus run their conventional power plants over increasingly shorter times, fossil fuel plants are becoming loss-intensive and so many power companies are planning to shut them down entirely. Die Welt reports:

According to figures presented in Hannover by the BDEW, the current over-capacity of conventional power plant facilities is melting away like butter in the spring sun.”

Lack of weather-independent power

Die Welt writes that 53% of planned new power plants are currently lacking an investment decision. So, the question arises: How soon can Germany expect trouble if energy policy fails to get back onto a sensible course? Die Welt writes:

Just after the shutdown of nuclear power plants concludes, in seven years there could be a lack of power plants that can operate independently of the weather.”

“Poorly thought out”, “thousands of jobs” at risk

Müller also calls the government’s plans to burden old power plants with additional charges “poorly thought out” and “politically motivated“. The industry fears the loss of thousands of jobs.

World Bank increases 3rd world investments in coal power

Meanwhile, as an aside, German alarmist site klimaretter.de here writes that even the World Bank refuses to divest from coal power plants.

In 2014, compared to a year earlier, the World Bank expanded investments in coal projects. […] New figures show that 3.4 billion euros in credits, subsidies and guarantees have flowed to fossil fuel projects in developing countries.

In other words, even if Germany does shut down plants, other countries will continue building them and CO2 reductions will remain as nothing  more than a pipe dream.

 

Growing Unrest: German Trade Union To Protest CO2 Plan That “Threatens 100,000 Jobs” And “Affordable And Reliable” Energy !

Germany’s powerful trade unions have long been major constituents of the country’s SPD social democrat party. But new CO2 reduction plans being drawn up by Germany’s Economics Ministry, headed by SPD chief Sigmar Gabriel, has the country’s mining, chemical and energy workers up in arms.

The IG BCE trade union representing a variety German energy employees is calling on its members to demonstrate in Berlin, on 25 April 2015.

Aufruf Demo Berlin

“We oppose!” Photo: Stefan Hoch, IGBCE

The planned protests further puts a German government in an increasingly awkward position as it attempts to appease both the powerful environmental groups, and the country’s influential industrial trade unions.

100,000 jobs at risk, “social blackouts”

Coal power plants supply approximately 45% of the country’s electricity demands. German online daily Die Welt here reports that the Economics Ministry has produced a concept paper calling for capping emissions of older coal plants, and subjecting excessive emissions to hefty fees.

The 125-year old IG BCE union claims the plan threatens 100,000 jobs – in regions where economies are already strained. “Ultimately the social blackout of entire regions threaten,” the IG BCE warn. It also says that scaling back coal power “puts an affordable and reliable power supply at risk“.

The IG BCE announces large demonstrations outside Chancellor Angela Merkel’s office in Berlin on April 25: The motto: “Enough, we oppose!

“Unrealistic” figures

Die Welt writes that the IG BCE had investment bank Lazard check over the draft plan. Lazard found that it is based on “unrealistically high power prices” for the year 2020.The prices projected for 2020 by the government will in fact be much lower, and thus means the plan would result in 85 to 95 percent of the power plants being unprofitable. The cap would literally mean the end of Germany’s lignite-fired power plants.

IG BCE commenter Thomas Rohde writes he will surely be attending the demo, and comments:

For too long we have believed politicians that an affordable energy supply and good jobs were worth it. The gods of climate protection have blindly run and sacrificed the guarantors of prosperity and value creation at the altar of CO2 reductions, much to the joy of other EU and industrial countries.”

Hat tip: Michael Limburg, EIKE.

 

AMO And PDO Directly Affect The Weather, CO2 Does Not

The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is defined as the variability of the North Atlantic sea surface temperature compared to the rest of the global ocean from 60°N to 60°S once trends are removed. The AMO high is usually seen off eastern Canada and north and east of Iceland. The AMO low has the pattern reversed. Compare those areas in Figure 1 with Figure 3.

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is defined as the difference between the Northwest Pacific surface and the eastern Pacific surface temperature north of the equator. Figure 1 and figure 2 show the two phases. Both the PDO and the AMO affect the weather in the Northern Hemisphere. Both show up distinctly on anomaly maps. The GISS anomaly map found here was used to produce these figures.

There are four ways these patterns can interact. Each of these four ways result in distinctly different patterns. Beginning with the most recent pattern, from last February, that buried New England in snow, when both the AMO and the PDO were high.

AMO PDO high

In Figure 1, the western Pacific north of 20°N is cool, and the eastern pacific off the West Coast of the U. S. is warm. This makes the Western U. S. very warm. The jet stream has a huge loop diversion north past Alaska and south over the eastern U. S. all the way to Florida. This is the pattern when both AMO and PDO are high.

In contrast in November 2011, when AMO was high and PDO was low, the pattern changes to Figure 2.

PDO low AMO high

In Figure 2, note that the Pacific temperatures are now reversed, the western Pacific is warm and the eastern Pacific off the U. S. coast is cool. This reverses the continental pattern with the West cool and the East warm. Note that the pattern over Europe and Asia is also reversed. This pattern filled the California reservoirs and buried Alaska in snow.

Figure 3 is the pattern when PDO and AMO are both low.

AMO PDO low

In Figure 3, both patterns were very low. Temperatures were very low over the entire Arctic and most of Canada and the northern U. S. This was during the ice age scare of the 1970s.

PDO High AMO low

Figure 4 illustrates the conditions just ten years later in February of 1981. PDO was high and AMO was still low. The western U. S. and all of Canada was warm and Europe was cool. Each land mass is responding to the adjacent sea temperature.

These cycles affect the food chain as well as the weather. Salmon stocks in the Pacific North-west rise during the cool phase of the PDO, and fall during the warm phase. In  similar fashion, Atlantic Salmon stocks follow the AMO, rising when the AMO is cool and falling when it is warm.

The recent spike in the PDO is temporary. The warm “blob” off the U. S. west coast will move south with the North Pacific/Japan/Kuroshio/California Current and be replaced by the cooler water behind it. The peak was reached in December and has fallen since then (as of March). The PDO data is available here. AMO data is available from NOAA, here.

As both the AMO and PDO affect Northern Hemisphere temperatures, and extremes are reached when both are in the same phase, it does make sense to combine them as I did in my last post on What Caused the Pause or Why Hate The Hiatus?

These cycles are weather. They can also be called natural climate cycles. They have nothing to do with CO2, and everything to do with driving many of the climate features that are gleefully pointed by climate alarmists. They determine the snowstorms, heat waves, floods and droughts pointed out by the alarmists as indications of “Climate Change”.