Biologist Dr. Philippe Henry Erroneously Assumes Pika Rodent Has Adapted To 6°C Temperature Change

By Ed Caryl

We continually see papers in the supposedly “scientific” literature that just assume climate change, usually warming, and then draw conclusions based in that assumption.

The media also does this. A recent example is a study documented on the BBC on North American pika, a small rodent that lives on rocky hillsides in the mountains of North America. The study area in this example was in British Columbia, Canada, in the coastal mountains and the northern reaches of the Rocky Mountains in Banff National Park.

The pika has neither adapted to 6°C climate change, nor moved to higher elevations. Shown above is the American pika with mouthful of dried grass. Sequoia National Park, CA. Dcrjsr – own work, CC BY 3.0.

Here are Dr. Philippe Henry’s assumptions:

I decided to study the American pika [pronounced pee-kah] along BC’s Coast Mountains because we have observed a six degree temperature change along an elevation gradient from sea level to 1500 meters where the pika lives…we know from previous studies of the pika that it is particularly sensitive to changes in temperature, which made it ideal for our study. The key for me is to have sustainable and safe interactions with wildlife as researchers. To me, there is a direct connection with this and UNBC’s status as Canada’s Green University.”

 What questions did Dr. Philippe Henry wish to answer when he set out on his research?

(1) Would the pika move from that habitat in flux?
(2) Would it stay and, if so, would it die off or find a way to adapt?

Here are the actual temperature conditions as measured at Banff National Park:

Ed_1 Banff

Temperature record by NASA GISS for Banff National Park (as measured at the townsite of Banff).

Note that the temperature increase as measured at the trend line is less than 1°C, and for the recent 30 years it has been cooling by about 0.5°C. There has certainly not been a 6°C temperature change, though there was one year in the 20th century at 0°C average temperature and one year of over 5°C average temperature, most years have been in the range of 2 to 4°C.

Dr. Philips discovered that the pika were not moving to higher elevations, so he decided that they are adapting in place.

And because of his assumptions, (and perhaps to protect his grant money) he could not allow himself the conclusion that the pika are quite happy right where they are because the climate is barely changing.


NASA’s 2011 Data Show “Blocking Events”, “Vortices” Far More Frequent When CO2 Was Under 350 ppm In 1950s!

Just a reminder of what NASA said three years ago: Polar vortices and blocking events were even more common in the 1950s when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

See second chart below!

The following is NASA’s 2011 explanation why (my emphasis).

Stalled Weather Systems More Frequent in Decades of Warmer Atlantic

Slow-moving winter weather systems that can lead to massive snowfalls are more frequent during the decades when the North Atlantic Ocean is warmer than usual, a new NASA study finds. The study demonstrates that the impacts of such systems, which are often fueled by an atmospheric phenomenon known as atmospheric blocking, go far beyond the atmosphere and can trigger changes in ocean circulation.

Blocking events occur when one of the jet streams —fast-flowing air currents traveling around the Earth in the upper part of the troposphere—pinches off large masses of air from the normal wind flow for an extended period. These kinks in the jet stream typically last at least five days but can persist for weeks. They can cause weather patterns to stall over one area and fuel floods, droughts, and other extreme weather events.

In the North Atlantic, atmospheric blocking centers generally form over Greenland and Western Europe. A blocking event that took place over Greenland in the winter of 2009-10 ultimately led to intense blizzards in the East Coast of the United States, in an episode popularly known as Snowmageddon.

A blocking event over Greenland led to intense blizzards in the East Coast of the United States in February 2010.

A blocking event over Greenland led to intense blizzards in the East Coast of the United States in February 2010. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra satellite captured this true-color image on February 11, 2010, after a second snow storm had hit the East Coast in less than a week. CREDIT: NASA MODIS Rapid Response Team/Jeff Schmaltz

Now, a team of researchers lead by Sirpa Häkkinen, an oceanographer at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., has reanalyzed atmospheric data from the 20th century and concluded that blocking events occurred up to 30 percent more often from the 1930s to the 1960s and during a period that started in the late 1990s and continues to the present.

At first, the researchers thought the increase in blocking events during these periods might be explained by a climatic phenomenon called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). The NAO fluctuates between periods of high and low atmospheric pressure, without a predictable pattern, and strongly influences weather in Europe and the United States.

“The NAO is the usual suspect for all atmospheric changes in the northern hemisphere,” Häkkinen said.

But since 1996, the NAO has been in an almost a neutral state, while blocking events have continued to be abnormally frequent, especially after 2000.

Häkkinen’s team then looked at how a cyclical series of natural changes in sea surface temperatures, known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Ocean Variability (AMV), was behaving in the decades when there were more clusters of blocking events. The AMV switches phases every few decades.

The researchers observed the frequency of blocked weather events in the North Atlantic –from the equator to Greenland– over the entire twentieth century and compared it to the evolution of ocean surface temperatures for the same area. They then removed the effect that global warming has on water temperatures, and found that decades with more frequent, recurring blocking events in the North Atlantic corresponded to those decades when the North Atlantic Ocean was warmer than usual, as it is now.

The number of winter blocking events (black and blue lines) correlates strongly with fluctuations in the temperature of surface waters in the North Atlantic Ocean (red line).

The number of winter blocking events (black and blue lines) correlates strongly with fluctuations in the temperature of surface waters in the North Atlantic Ocean (red line). For their analysis, the researchers removed the effect global warming has on water temperatures. CREDIT: Sirpa Häkkinen (NASA GSFC), Peter Rhines (University of Washington) and Denise L. Worthen (Wyle Information Systems/NASA GSFC)

The team also found that these short-term weather blocking events impacts beyond the atmosphere and may ultimately alter ocean currents.

A series of connected changes begin because clusters of blocking events can divert the normal track of the storms crossing the Atlantic, which in turn can alter the twisting motion that the wind has on ocean waters, or wind curl. Depending on how wind curl works, it can speed up or slow down the large, circulating currents in the ocean known as gyres. When a blocking event reverses the rotation of the wind curl, the winds push against the direction of the whirlpool-like North Atlantic subpolar gyre, slowing its rotation. A slower, weaker gyre allows subtropical waters that would normally be trapped in the whirlpool-like flow to escape and move northward.

These warmer and more saline waters then invade the subpolar ocean and cause a series of impacts,” said Peter Rhines, an oceanographer at the University of Washington, Seattle, and co-author of the new study. “They erode the base of glaciers, contributing to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. And the change in temperature and freshness of the waters can alter subpolar ecosystems, too.”

A better understanding of the linkage between the Atlantic Multidecadal Ocean Variability and blocking events could lead to better weather forecasts and improved seasonal predictions.

“For example, knowing that there’s going to be a potential for more blocking events causing more snowfall would not only help people prepare better for the winter; it would be useful with water resources management,” said Häkkinen.

Denise Worthen, a researcher with Wyle Information Systems/NASA Goddard Space Flight Center contributed to this study, which NASA funded.


Note how the second chart shows that blocking events were more common in the 1940s, 50s and 60s.

The recent warm-Arctic/polar-vortex claims obviously are nothing but a load of bull-manure designed to keep the AGW theory out of the fairy tale books.


IPCC Scientist Mojib Latif Sees North Atlantic Cooling Over Next Decade…Confirms Oceans Play Crucial Role

Step by step warmist scientists are no longer able to deny the fact that powerful natural oscillations do play a far greater role in climate than what they were allowed in climate models.

The GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel quietly issued a press release last week claiming that its scientists had found a method to improve climate forecasts and to tell how temperatures develop over the North Atlantic.


GEOMAR scientists see North Atlantic cooling over next decade. Photo: NASA

For the strength of a hurricane season, precipitation in West Africa, or winters in Central Europe – the surface temperatures of the North Atlantic are a decisive factor for all these developments. Geomar is realizing that they do indeed naturally fluctuate over periods of decades, in sync with the climate of the adjacent land regions.

A reliable forecast of North Atlantic conditions had been elusive because of a lack of recorded data. Now the climate scientists at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel describe in the international journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters the mechanism of these decadal oscillations of the North Atlantic surface temperatures and show that these have a high forecasting potential.

Climate “subject to natural oscillation”

For the climate and also for the weather in Europe, processes in the North Atlantic play a major role. The Gulf Stream and surface temperatures of the North Atlantic have profound impacts on the neighboring continents. The GEOMAR press release writes:

All these processes are subject to natural oscillations that play out over years, decades, or even centuries. ‘Concrete datasets often go back only a few decades,’ says climate scientist Professor Dr. Mojib Latif of GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel. ‘That’s why it’s very difficult to assess oscillations over longer time domains and to differentiate them from changes caused by man.“

Suddenly we see an admission from Prof. Latif here that natural factors do matter – and especially in models.

Reliable simulation for the coming decade

The press release then writes that the team of modeling experts at GEOMAR have succeeded in developing a “reliable simulation of the surface temperatures in the North Atlantic since 1900 and that allows prognoses until the end of the coming decade.”

That’s wonderful. Now we are all very curious what their new model foresees for the next ten years.

Keep reading to find out!

Latif admits models have been wrong

Professor Latif elaborates further on their new model, as opposed to the existing ones:

That’s new. Particular about simulation is that the existing climate models have deviated strongly from the surface temperatures.”

In a nutshell: The other models so far have been worthless.

The press release describes the North Atlantic Oscillation and its important influence on continental Europe’s weather and how the scientists have data on this going back to the middle of the 19th century. This allows the modellers to reconstruct North Atlantic surface temperature oscillations in a climate model and to make a prognoses for the future. Latif and his team suggest that the Gulf Stream plays a huge role on the NAO and that Europe’s weather is governed in large part by these oceanic cycles. Latif explains.

The coupling to the NAO allows a reliable reconstruction of the North Atlantic currents between the year 1900 and 2010, even though concrete data goes back only to 2004. The oscillations in the ocean currents mainly govern the surface temperatures, thus allowing them to be derived and even be calculated five years in advance.”

Model foresees “negative trend”.

So what does their model see? Latif tells, doing his very best to disguise what warmists certainly dread and do not want to hear (my emphasis):

Our model tells us that the phase with a rather high surface temperatures in the North Atlantic will continue also over the coming decade, however with a lightly negative trend.”

The paper’s abstract presents the prognosis as follows:

The present warm phase of the AMO is predicted to continue until the end of the next decade, but with a negative tendency.”

That means “COOLING”!

A stunning conclusion by Latif, even in its disguised form. Just two and half years ago Fritz Vahrenholt’s and Sebastian Lüning’s book Die kalte Sonne (The Neglected Sun) reached the same conclusion. Back then Latif, in a lapse of professionalism, publicly belittled the two authors. Perhaps Latif is now ready to apologize, and/or at least next time read the book first before firing criticism at its authors.

Original paper:
Klöwer, M., M. Latif, H. Ding, R. J. Greatbatch, W. Park (2014): Atlantic meridional overturning circulation and the prediction of North Atlantic sea surface temperature. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 406, 1-6,

How Not To Attract Foreign Investment: Sociologist Proposes 30-Hour Workweeks In Order To Protect Climate In Austria

I don’t have much time to spare today, so here’s a short one.

The German language, Austria-based Kronen Zeitung here has an online article on what sociologist Hubert Eichmann proposes to help save the climate: 30-hour workweeks for everyone in Austria.

Apparently Austria has been “hard hit” by climate change and so something really needs to be done about it. So Eichmann proposes a 30-hr work week to reduce productivity, which in turn would reduce CO2 emissions.

Not only that, the Kronen Zeitung writes:

Secondly commutes to work would be reduced as well and, thirdly, citizens would have more leisure for more environmentally protective behavior.”

Eichmann says for example that the “extra time would allow people to ride their bicycles to work instead of driving, and to separate their garbage.”

Also university Professor Jörg Flecker is also a supporter of the short workweek, and he advised policymakers to implement the reduced work-hours model.

Fortunately, the economic madness spawned by the obsession of rescuing the planet from fictitious manmade global warming has not fully infected the minds of politicians, at least for now. The Kronen Zeitung writes that Austria’s Ministry for Employment, Social and Consumer Protection views the plan of shortening the work week as “not achievable”. It seems the Austrian government still has enough sense remaining to realize that the 30-hour workweek would lead to less output, and thus also to lower tax revenues. That’s not what they want.

Moreover, which foreign company would be insane enough to set up shop in a country where the workers have an efficiency that is roughly equal to that of the average wind turbine? (30 hours/168 hours = 17.9%)

Income by Austrian workers would also necessarily drop by around 20%. What would the Austrian citizen get for all that sacrifice? The resulting CO2 savings theoretically would reduce global warming by something like 0.001°C by 2100!

Boy, what a deal!

Yes, some professors really are that dim. Hat-tip: DkS.


Amazing…AP Reporter Seth Borenstein Emphasizing Value Of “New Catch Phrases” To Hype Up Climate Stories!

For the media, at least for the AP’s Seth Borenstein, it’s not about presenting the science in a professional and balanced manner, rather it’s all about sensationalizing it and getting the editor to print it.
The good stuff starts at about the 7:30 mark.

Can we rely on this kind of obviously tabloid-quality journalistic practice?

45:38 Craig Welch boasting:

Nobody in my newsroom quotes people who don’t believe climate change is real that I know of. And if I find out about it, I will go talk to them myself, but I also work in a newsroom where my managing editor used to be an environmental reporter and so there’s never been, I mean, he understands what we are doing, so.”


As Warming Pause Extends To 18 Years, Climate Debate Intensifies. J.E. Solheim: “Cooler Climate” In 21st Century!

Forget all the claims the science is settled, as some smearing activists-in-a hurry are begging us to believe.

The fact is that the debate is just getting started and that the climate issue is very much undecided. The fact that warming has not occurred in 18 years, Antarctic sea ice is at record high levels, and that more than 97% of the climate models have been dead wrong have made life difficult for those insisting the debate is over.

Yesterday German skeptic site Die kalte Sonne here featured a debate in Holland between international skeptics and warmists. Clearly the debate is NOT over.

A new climate dialogue: How will the gaining solar inactivity impact the climate?
By Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Dutch science journalist Marcel Crok is far more successful at bringing climate scientists to a debate. He brings scientists from both camps regularly into discussions at the Climate Dialogue platform. On 15 October 2014 a new debate started on the question of: How much impact would a decades long pause in solar activity have on the climate?

What will happen during a new Maunder Minimum?

According to the latest IPCC report, AR5, the influence of the sun on our climate since pre-industrial times, in terms of radiative forcing, is very small compared to the effect of greenhouse gases.

According to some more skeptical scientists such a small solar influence is counterintuitive. The Little Ice Age, the period roughly from 1350 to 1850, in which winters on the Northern Hemisphere could be severe and glaciers advanced, coincided with the so-called Maunder Minimum, a period of supposedly low solar activity. In their eyes, the sun therefore still is a serious candidate to also explain a substantial part of the warming since pre-industrial times.

Sunspot records since 1600 suggest there has been a considerable increase in solar activity in the 20th century leading to a Grand Solar Maximum or Modern Maximum. However recently these sunspot records have come under increasing scrutiny and newer reconstructions show a much ‘flatter’ sunspot history. This challenges the idea of a Modern Maximum.

The current solar cycle 24 is the lowest sunspot cycle in 100 years and the third in a trend of diminishing sunspot cycles. Solar physicists expect cycle 25 to be even smaller than Cycle 24 and expect the sun to move into a new minimum, comparable with the Dalton or even the Maunder Minimum. Studying such a minimum with modern instruments could potentially answer a lot of the questions surrounding the influence of the sun on our climate.

We are very pleased that no fewer than five (solar) scientists have agreed to participate in this exciting new Climate Dialogue: Mike Lockwood (UK), Nicola Scafetta (US), Jan-Erik Solheim (NO), José Vaquero (ES) and Ilya Usoskin (FI).

The introduction and guest posts can be read online below. For convenience we also provide pdf’s:

Introduction What will happen during a new Maunder Minimum
Guest blog Mike Lockwood
Guest blog Nicola Scafetta
Guest blog Jan-Erik Solheim
Guest blog Ilya Usoskin
Guest blog José Vaquero

Here you can go to the climate dialogue Klimadialog. You can join in the discussion. This is an exemplary action that brings both sides to a table in a professionally moderated format. The Climate Dialogue web platform is supported by the Netherlands Ministery for Infrastructure and Environment.


Cooling climate in 21st Century

While warmists Lockwood, Usoskin and Vaquero stick to the position that the sun plays only a minor role in modulating the earth’s climate, the skeptic scientists have a very different view:

Jan-Erik Solheim:

Most of the warming in the 20th century is due to the sun.

According to the latest IPCC report, AR5, the influence of the Sun on our climate since pre-industrial times, in terms of radiative forcing, is very small compared to the effect of greenhouse gases. Figure 1 in the introduction (SPM.5 in AR5) is quite misleading, since it compares the TSI at solar minimum around 1745 with TSI around minimum in 2008. They are apparently the same. This covers the fact that the Sun has changed quite a lot in the time between.”

And he adds at his conclusion:

The sunspot cycle will be longer in 21th Century, indicating a cooler climate (Fig 5).”

Nicola Scafetta:

Figures 1-4 provide a strictly alternative message to the one proposed by the IPCC. The Sun must have contributed significantly to climate changes and will continue to do so.”


Bastardi Rips GISS Claims Of “Warmest September Ever” And NWS Forecast Of A “Blowtorch Winter”

It’s bad enough when the media indulge in sensationalism, but it is totally unprofessional when weather and climate institutes do the same.

In his latest Saturday Summary, veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi at Weatherbell Analytics goes after, rips US weather and climate agencies for poor, and often hyped forecasts.

At the 2:54 mark Joe says:

And that’s one of the big problems we have today. People that are here today are classifying things that happened before and changing everything that was recorded before.”

As an example Bastardi cites GISS in their dubious claim that September 2014 was the warmest on record, when clearly it was not. Bastardi shows that at least 7 or 8 other satellite-era years were warmer, such as 2003.

SatSum_18_10_14 1

Satellite measurement shows that September 2014 was a mere 0.195°C above normal. Image from Weatherbell.

On the GISS claim, Joe says:

All I’m saying is that there are several so-called reliable measurements of global temperatures and all you see these people doing that are making, screaming and yelling of the hottest temperature ever, is using one of the least reliable datasets. Their very own NCEP reanalysis shows something very different. So, again, there’s a lot of controversy in this. And what happens is that they scream this stuff out, and then they walk it back.”

Next Joe shows a chart (5:00) depicting global temperature over the last 10 years, which clearly shows it to be in decline.

The veteran meteorologist also calls out the over-hyped El Nino predictions made by the National Weather Service (NWS) last April. Six months later we see that the predictions were totally false. The AGW crowd, Joe says, bought it all up without question and that the predictions made in April were based on “busted models”.

NWS “blowtorches” the US winter

The incompetence of the US weather agencies doesn’t stop there. Other examples Joe presents include botched predictions of cyclone tracks, and the NWS dubious winter forecast calling for a “blowtorch winter”.

NWS blowtorch winter

US National Weather Service winter forecast blowtorches the US. Source: Weatherbell.

Though seasonal forecasts are tricky, Joe lays out in detail his reasoning why he thinks the other models are more reliable and why the NWS model “has troubles”.

Right now, Joe sees a cold winter for the eastern half of the USA, and so does the European model.


Veteran German Meteorologist Wolfgang Thüne Blasts “Fetch-And-Carry Stooge Journalism” …Hansen “Manipulated”

Thüne_Former German public television meteorologist anchorman Dr. Wolfgang Thüne has a harsh commentary on the state of climate science communication by journalism.

Photo: Dr. Wolfgang Thüne

In a nutshell Thüne claims journalism has failed in its ethical duty to inform the public on the climate issue and accepted the role of playing useful idiots and stooges on behalf of activist scientists.

Thüne begins by reminding journalists of the importance of being cautious about what they report, and “to not stand on the same the same level as the inventors and propagandists of the greenhouse effect and climate catastrophe“.

He calls on journalists to get back to more investigative journalism instead of swallowing without question everything institutionalized science feeds them.

The veteran meteorologist writes that fighting the weather and climate is a totally a futile endeavor, reminding that it is a natural chaotic phenomenon that cannot be fought by man:

A ‘global transformation’ and the creation of a ‘world government’ will do nothing to change the general circulation and weather variety of the earth.”

When it comes to climate catastrophes, Thüne calls them the Saturnalia of journalists. The climate catstrophe for German journalists was born on January 22, 1986 at the Hotel Tulpenhof in Bonn:

On this day the German Physical Society e. V. had invited journalists in order to present to them the ‘warning of the threatening climate catastrophe’. [...]

Explained was CO2’s role as a potential source of danger for global climate changes. The effect of CO2 was compared to the glass cover of a greenhouse that is ‘heated’ only by solar radiation. With a doubling of CO2 concentration, the temperature would increase 2°C in the tropics, 4°C at ‘our latitudes’ and about 8°C at the polar regions and cause a shift in the climate zones. If the ice floating at the Arctic and the ice on the Antarctic continent disappeared, then the sea level  would rise successively up to 60 meters.”

Thüne writes this is where journalists dropped the ball. He writes:

That would have been the ideal hour for critical journalism, however the journalists froze, intimidated by the wisdom of the physical science prominence represented by physics professors K. Heinloth (Bonn) and J. Fricke (Wurzburg). Not a single journalist dared to question the physicists about climate, which is statistically derived from weather and thus only depicts and reflects the historical weather change.”

Here Dr. Thüne writes that journalists in general have three choices when receiving news of an imminent catastrophe from experts:
1. Should they accept the information as is and distribute it, simply playing the role of fetch and carry.
2. Should they look at the supplied news critically, and check it out?
3. Or should they take it, and dramatize it to increase the effect on the public?

Unfortunately, Thüne writes, news magazine Der Spiegel chose the latter option in its August 11, 1986 issue, whose front cover donned a powerfully emotional image of a semi-submerged Cologne Cathedral. Here Der Spiegel grossly crossed the boundaries of responsible journalism in implying an upcoming Biblical wrath of God – brought on by the sins of man. Not only did Spiegel play the role of stooge for a dubious science, but had engaged in an orgy of sensationalistic journalism that would make even the shoddiest of tabloids blush.

The rest of Germany’s media unhesitatntly followed Spiegel’s example. Thüne writes that while the German Physical Society brought us the misnomer of ‘climate catastrophe’, it was Spiegel who popularized it.

To summarise, Thüne cites journalism experts H.-P. Peters M. Sippel:

Not the environmental movement, not the catastrophe – rather it was the warnings of scientists who publicly and politically exposed themselves who were the international godfathers of the climate debate.”

Thüne also adds that the American media also gladly accepted the fetch-and-carry role on behalf of an activist sicence, slamming James Hansen:

In the hot summer months the media over-proportionately reported on the greenhouse effect. Especially the hot summer of 1988 was used by James Hansen (NASA) to dramatize the consequences of the greenhouse effects and to manipulate the psychological climate of Congress.”

Thüne sums up:

More humility by journalists would boost their reputation when it comes to credibility.


How Many Millions More Do Governments Intend To Herd Into The Death Trains Of Junk Science?

The parallels are absolutely stunning…it’s all repeating in climate science.

To me this is a must watch. (If short on time, watch from 24:30 to 27:45).

History repeats. Like the lipid hypothesis, man-made global warming is fraud throughout.

The following chart at 36:18 mark tells it all:



Expert Blasts Alfred Wegener Institute Ocean Acidification Claim: “Clear Falsification Of Scientific Facts”

Ocean acidification: The terrible little brother of global warming

By Dr. D. E. Koelle
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

The alleged global warming, which now has not taken place for 18 years, has just received a “terrible little brother”. It was high time to find such a brother, especially since the older climate sister was becoming so weak.

Here that little brother is the not unknown “ocean acidification”, which was recently elevated by the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) in a press release dated 8 October 2014 to being the new global danger that comes with “dramatic impacts” ,”costs in the billions” and the claim that the pH value today is dropping 10 times faster than in the past.

There was no word however that the ocean in fact is not “acidic” in any way. Rather with a pH value of between 7.8 and 8.1 it is clearly alkaline. This is a clear falsification of scientific facts (but the citizens won’t notice at all). If anything, when viewed objectively, a reduction in alkalinity has nothing to do with an “acidification”, which would begin at a pH value of 6.9.

Figure: CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the last 300 million years (Retallack) – completely without any anthropogenic impact.

Here the claim of the supposed pH value drop is hardly a serious one because there is no global pH measurement network that would allow such a claim to be backed up. Local datasets show a pH value fluctuation of +/- 0.1 points. What is confirmed is the fact that over 90% of the earth’s history, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was considerably higher than the very modest 400 ppm level we have today. The average over the last 300 million years was near 2000 ppm (see diagram from Retallack, which is based on changes in the stoma pores of Gingko plants). Neither the considerably higher CO2 levels over the earth’s history nor the maximum of 6000 parts per million has ever led to an “acidification of the oceans”.

If the claims of a damaging influence on coral reefs were true, then the corals would have died millions of years ago.

So just where is this kind of acidification supposed to come from? Approximately 11 Gt of CO2 (a third of the anthropogenic emissions) is taken up by the oceans, but it is ignored that at least the same amount (and there are also estimates of 20 Gt CO2 per year) getting stored as CaCO3 on the seabed. The complete CO2 circulation in the oceans is everything but known: large quantities of CO2 originate from hundreds of underwater volcanoes along tectonic plate boundaries – and without this, covering the huge need for CO2 by the underwater vegetation (assumed to be greater than even that on land) is not imaginable. The minimum pH values also do not occur at the sea surface, as is supposed to be the case with an atmospheric impact (as is falsely assumed by the IPCC report), but rather at approximately 1000 meters below the sea surface.

At the surface, the low pH values are measured in areas where the deep water currents arrive at the surface. The CO2 absorption from the atmosphere, which is supposed to cause an “acidification”, has to be considered in relation to the total amount of about 39,000 Gt CO2 that is already dissolved in the ocean. As here we are talking about 11 Gt CO2 per year, this is only about 0.028%!  Here already alone the natural impacts of annual ENSO activity and ocean currents with the temperature changes can be considerably larger.

Let’s hope that the AWI-conjured “little awful brother” soon disappears and that research in the field of ocean sciences gets back to being serious.


Austrian Daily Reports: “Huge Ice Growth Surprises Climate Scientists” … “Like One Not Seen In Decades”!

Antarctica_NASA PhotoThe Austrian online Kronen Zeitung here has an article about something most German-language media outlets have been too red-faced to report on: The sudden growth in polar sea ice.

The Kronen Zeitung opens with:

A huge growth in ice at the poles has surprised scientists and is casting questions. Is global warming taking a break? [...] For the prophets of climate change the new figures pose questions: At the poles of Mother Earth, in complete contradiction to prognoses of a complete polar melt, there is an ice growth like one not seen in decades.”

Almost the entire mainstream media has been quiet about this development. So it is refreshing to see that some media are reporting the “good” news that the planet is not warming alarmingly.

Antarctic ice growth “problem for penguins”

The Kronen Zeitung reports that Antarctic sea ice is growing at an average annual rate of 16,500 square kilometers since 2007. The case is pretty much the same for Arctic sea ice, the online Austrian daily reports.

The Kronen Zeitung also writes that the rapidly growing sea ice surrounding Antarctica is a “huge problem” for penguins, who need open water.

“Climate science turned on its head”

Moreover, the Kronen Zeitung mentions the surprise of the National Snow and Ice data Centre (NSIDC) in Colorado concerning the growth in the Arctic:

Scientists t the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder (Colorado) in any case have to admit that instead of a global warming, a global cooling is taking place. [...]

At the moment this development appears to have turned climate science on its head globally.”

The Kronen Zeitung then explains how the climate models have failed in that they predicted the very opposite to happen and that some scientists even desperately claimed that the measurements were wrong.

Max Planck scientists: “colder winters and cooler summers”

To explain what is happening, Kronen Zeitung turned to Professor Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin. Tsonis says there are many factors at play. “Currents, winds, precipitation and foremost the upper and lower water layers.”

At the end of its article, Kronen Zeitung explains how the recent slowdown in overall solar activity may be playing a major role on the climate.

For years few sunspots could be observed. Colder winters and cooler summers could once again be the consequences, Max-Planck scientists say.”

Reported or not, the polar sea ice is there, and it cannot be ignored.

Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne.

GISS Targeted Data Truncation And Tricks Alone Produce Half Of The Warming Trend Since 1880

It Is Even Worse Than I Thought!
By Ed Caryl

First, I must apologize for an error. In How Much Global Warming, I made an assumption about the old GISS file from 1999 that it was a global temperature file. I had missed the clear label on the file itself that it was surface stations only. As Bob Tisdale pointed out, I was comparing apples to oranges.

But when I found the correct land-only file to compare, I found the situation was even worse than I thought. Here is the correct comparison.


Figure 1 is the comparison of land-only (surface stations) data from 1999 and the current data.

GISS has more than doubled the warming trend in their published data in the last 15 years. This has been done by ignoring the years before 1880, cooling the readings before 1965, and warming the measurements after 1965. They basically shifted the measurement period 14 years to the right, doubling the warming trend. Here is the difference plot:


Figure 2 is a plot of the difference between the plotted data in Figure 1.

It doesn’t take much data manipulation to radically change the temperature trend. Truncating the early 14 years and adding the recent 14 years was half the change, and “adjusting” the station records slightly furnished the rest.

Surface station data is subject to many error sources. First, when thermometers are read by eye, the readings are in whole degrees, and a judgment is made on the spot on whether the reading is the lower or the higher number. The condition of the weather shelter and the thermometer is a factor. Then when the reading is recorded mistakes can be made.

More mistakes can be made when that recording is transcribed at the central office. Then higher authorities get involved with adjustments for missing records and UHI. For all these reasons, trends of less than one degree per century should be taken with a whole shovel-full of salt.

My thanks to Bob Tisdale. His expertise and experience in analyzing ocean temperatures and GISS records allowed him to instantly recognize the data I used. This is an example of open peer review in the climate blogosphere.


Activists All Pissy About Water Consumption…Call For Urinating In The Morning Shower To Save On Toilet Water!

Germany’s popular daily Bild here reports on a pair of English environmental activists from the University of East Anglia in Norwich who have a novel idea on how to cut back on water consumption: Urinating while taking your early morning shower rather relieving yourself in the toilet bowl.

Also read here in English.

Bild writes that Debs Torr and Chris Dobson calculated that if their 15,000 classmates all did the same, enough water to fill 26 Olympic-size pools would be saved each year.

This is a rather strange idea for a country where rain and water are hardly in short supply. Let’s not kid ourselves. This is just the latest nutjob idea to regulate humans back to prehistoric lifestyles.

The activist students would like to see their “GoWithTheFlow” water savings initiative implemented nationwide across Britain. Thankfully the two leakers are not calling on making it mandatory. Bild writes:

Chris requests to be considerate of others. “When students share the shower stalls, then you should only do it when it’s okay for everyone.”

Thanks for asking.

My God, can you imagine how the shower would smell after a few months time? Who brought up these two slobs?

To me it’s truly mystifying as to why there would be any urgency at all “to save water” in a rain-drenched country like Great Britain, as if water is some kind of disappearing resource. Is civilization now at “peak water”?

Even here in wet, damp Germany there are constant calls by enviro-lunatics to not waste water. Granted some places have seen the local groundwater table drop due to agriculture and industry, and so I suppose in some areas there are legitimate arguments to do so.

However at many municipalities, city officals are begging for an end to all the water-saving madness. Wastewater from homes and businesses has dropped to dangerously low levels and put city sewage systems at risk.

Waste water levels are so low that solid waste material in wastewater systems ends up stalling and plugging the system. The water is simply too inadequate to keep everything flowing. Indeed municipalities are pleading: How about a “GoWithTheFlow” initiative for sewage systems!

A number of German public utilities are forced to regularly pump millions of gallons of additional water just to keep the system from breaking down, clogging up and rotting out.

And don’t expect this kind of proposal to be the last. Look for calls for composting as a way to save water for the “other business”.


Spiegel Sees Potential Climatic Cooling From Iceland Volcanic As Its SO2 Emissions Reach “Historic Dimensions”

Volcanic activity in Iceland has risen dramatically over the past few weeks.

Yet, thankfully, the big eruption many feared never materialized and signs show that the pressure has been subsiding. Good news, many among us may think.

Bárðarbunga_Volcano,_September_4_2014_Peter Hartree

Bárðarbunga Volcano, September 4, 2014. Picture taken by Peter Hartree , CC BY-SA 2.0.

Yet science journalist and geologist Axel Bojanowski at Spiegel warns that there’s still enough to worry about. According to Bojanowski concentrations of sulfur dioxide (SO2) have “never been higher since measurements began in the 1970s“. The amount of SO2 emitted by the recent volcanic activity is surpassed only by the “largest of eruptions”.

What’s more, Bojanowski adds:

Seldom does so much sulfur gas get into the air. It could even cool the climate.”

Photo number 12 of Spiegel’s spectacular photo series here is a NASA computer model simulation depicting the spread of the sulfur dioxide cloud over Europe. The growing concentration of sulfur dioxide is a reason for “more concern”, Spiegel reports. High concentrations of sulfur dioxide in the air are corrosive and pose a threat to human health. Bojanowski writes:

Gradually it is posing an additional threat: to the climate. The emitted amounts of gas have already reached historic dimensions, reports the country’s environmental authority, the Icelandic Environmental Agency. Daily up to 60,000 tonnes of SO2 are released from the lava chasm.”

Bárdarbunga has already emitted approximately two million tonnes of SO2. Only the largest eruptions surpass this amount.”

Bojanowski adds that although the SO2 haze in the atmosphere is not visible to the naked eye, it is seen by NASA satellite, and it extends over parts of Europe. SO2 is an effective sunblock that acts to cool the atmosphere. Spiegel also describes the Laki eruption of 1783 and 1784, which led to a marked cooling and European crop failures.

According to Spiegel, Bárdarbunga eruption and gas emission is nowhere near on the same scale as Laki, which spewed 122 million tons of SO2 into the atmosphere. But Spiegel compares Bárdarbunga’s 2 million tons of SO2 to other major 20th century volcanic eruptions: El Chichon (7 million), which was enough to cause cooling globally. Pinatubo spewed 20 million tons and cooled the planet by 0.5°C for two years.

Though Bárdarbunga’s SO2 so far has not been shot up into the stratosphere, Spiegel warns that “two factors could make the volcano’s impact detectable: At high latitudes such as those of Iceland, the stratosphere is several kilometers lower than in the tropics, thus allowing the gas to reach it more quickly. Also chasm eruptions such as those at Bárdarbunga produce hot air upward currents over the volcano, which can carry the gases up to the stratosphere.”

Note that the SO2 gas has been carried in the air over to the European continent. Though Bárdarbunga’s SO2 may not have any real impact on cooling the planet, it certainly will not help to warm it either.


Using 1999 GISS Data, Global Warming Trend Since 1866 Only 0.5°C Per Century!



How Much Global Warming?
By Ed Caryl

We are told over and over again that the globe has warmed by 0.8°C since 1880 or 1850. Lately we have seen article after paper after publication that states this number in Fahrenheit, 1.44°F, because that sounds larger. But is this number correct? What is it based on?

GISS and Google “way-back machine”

Recently, a file from GISS in Google’s “way-back” machine came to my attention. This file of global temperature dates from 1999, before James Hansen became more rabid in promoting global warming. Here is a plot of the 1999 data, along with the current file from GISS:


Figure 1 is a plot of global temperature as published by GISS is 1999 versus the current publication.

Note that GISS has removed the data from 1866 to 1880, placing the beginning of their published data closer to the bottom of the early 1900s cool period. This changes the trend from 0.42°C per century to 0.66°C per century, a 50+% increase in the trend. This alone changes the warming from 0.6°C from 1866 to the present, to 0.8°C from 1880 to the present, resulting in the higher trend. Here is a chart of the difference between the two files.


Figure 2 is a plot of the difference between the two plots in Figure 1.

In Figure 2 we can see that the cool period around 1910 was cooled further by 0.2 degrees, but the cool period around 1970 was warmed slightly. They also minimized the cool 1880s and ’90s by warming those years by 0.1 to 0.2°C. So what was the real global temperature from 1866 to the present? I took the 1999 file and spliced on the satellite data from UAH from 1979 to the present, using the period of overlap from 1979 to 1999 as a baseline, avoiding the recent GISS adjustments. The result is this: Ed_2

Figure 3 is a plot of GISS global temperature from 1999 with UAH satellite TLT global temperature spliced on from 1979.

The trend in Figure 3 is half a degree C per century, with a total rise since 1866 of about 0.6°C. Because of the year-to-year variation, and the sparse station data in the early years, both the trend and the total rise have errors that are in the neighborhood of ±0.3°C. So the bottom line is that the warming since the mid-19th century is about 0.6°C ±0.3°C, or somewhere between 0.3°C and 0.9°C. Much of that warming, about 0.4°C ±0.2°C has taken place since 1980. But some of that is due to the cyclic nature of temperature.

The cycle from 1866 to 1940 had an amplitude of about 0.3°C, which, if extended to the present, means that the present temperature is at the peak of a cycle, or 0.15°C too high. This puts the total rise between 0.15°C and 0.75°C, or from almost nothing to something less than has been stated, with a center at 0.45°C. The recent solar maximum has also inflated the temperature. In the next 30 years, decreasing ocean cyclic temperature and a waning solar input will likely reduce the global temperature by about 0.4°C ±0.2°C, either back to the 1990s or to the 1960s. If the latter, there will have been no warming in the last 160 years.