Yesterday I just happened to be listening to German NDR news radio (during my after-lunch snooze) and heard an interview with meteogroup’sFrank Abel, one of Germany’s better known meteorologists.Regrettably I can’t post the German interview audio due to copyright reasons. But you can get an mp3 audio clip e-mailed to you by calling Frau Renate Genz-Kreher, at the Hamburg studios, Tel.: (+49) 40/4156-2788. Just pick up the phone – I’m sure she speaks pretty good English
The NDR newsman starts the interview with a list of dramatic weather events that have occurred in northern Germany recently, then questions Abel if these events were something we’d have to get used to. Abel answered (paraphrased):
Now that man-made catastrophic global warming has been exposed as a hyper-inflated problem, proponents are now scrambling to save their movement. Here comes global acidification (sounds much more menacing than climate disruption, doesn’t it?). Expect a flood of sewage media reports on this in the days ahead.
The Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) for Polar and Marine Research in the German Hemholtz Association is hosting a 4-day conference with more than 200 scientists from all over Europe expected to attend at Conference Center Bremerhaven. See details here. The AWI press release is titled:
Oceans acidify much faster than ever before in Earth’s history
In my last post I summarized the results of Ed Caryl’s analyses of stations far up in the Arctic, where temperature trends appear to follow the 60-year AMO cycle, and do not correlate at all with CO2.
Now I’ve been made aware that temperatures following the AMO are not exclusive to the Arctic. Blogsite digging in the clay has plotted temperatures from other cities located about the globe and came up with the same AMO sine wave trend, see below:
Guest writer Ed Caryl recently looked at 9 “rural” stations scattered over the Arctic: from Alaska, to Canada, to Northern Europe western Russia and Siberia, and found Arctic temperatures follow the AMO, and not CO2. Read here A Light In Siberia. It’s important to note that the 9 stations were selected because they appeared to be NOT influenced by man-made heat sources.
First, here’s the AMO going back more than 150+ years. The cycles are clear to see.
In attempting to keep A Light in Siberia as short as possible, the how and why of some points were not included. This led to some comments calling into doubt some of the results. I would like to clarify some of those points.
The choice of baseline period for the surface temperature anomaly map The 1933 to 1963 baseline for the surface temperature anomaly map was chosen for two major reasons. First, that period includes the peak of the last warm period before the present one. Second, that period was before most of the UHI warming took place for the arctic stations studied, making them show up on the map as red or orange grid-squares. The Arctic and Antarctic stations are highlighted. If you choose the modern warm period, 1979 to 2009, the baseline period includes much of the UHI warming, and the anomalies are much less pronounced.
The satellite temperature map shows the arctic warming Yes, it sure does. The reason is that the bottom of the AMO cycle was just prior to the beginning of the satellite measurements (1979). The arctic has been warming since then. If the satellites had been first launched in 1940 it would be a different picture. In 2050 it will be a different picture. These cycles are 70 years long, the biblical “three-score and ten”. Our main problems with studying climate are that we don’t live long enough to remember more than part of one cycle, and the satellite era has only been 31 years.
Alex Bojanowski at Germany’s online Der Spiegel reports here on a new paper appearing in Nature that shows climate change in the 1970s was caused by ocean cooling. Climate simulation models once indicated that the cooling in the 1970s was due to sun-reflecting sulfur particles, emitted by industry. But now evidence points to the oceans.
The USA has James Hansen, and England has Phil Jones. Germany now has Prof. Dr. Gerhard Adrian, the new President of the German Weather Service. His mission: to produce a trend to climate catastrophe as quickly as possible. Recently he said:
The average temperature in Germany has risen by in 1.1°C from 1881 to 2009. It could go up another 2 to 4°C by the end of the century.
We’ll have a completely whole new set of extremes to deal with; that’s the threat.
This is the new message from the once respected German Weather Service. Suddenly, doom and gloom are the forecast.
Inconveniently for Dr. Adrian, his own data and earlier statements made by German Weather Institutes seem to contradict his claims.
Arctic stations near heat sources show warming over the last century. Arctic stations that are isolated from manmade heat sources show no warming. The plots of “isolated stations” and “urban stations” below clearly illustrate the differences.
All the GISS temperature anomaly maps show the Arctic warming faster than the rest of the globe, especially northern Alaska and Siberia, but the satellite data shows a different pattern. See the 2 charts for 2009 that follow. The GISS surface map:
Don’t sweat the ice area statistics. The thickness (er, concentration) is much greater today, and we could even say the volume is likely more. Arctic temperatures above 80°N have been colder this summer and September. The ice area will rebound quickly, of course. I projected a 5.75 million sq km min. for 2011 a couple weeks back. I’m sticking to it.
Sadly the story now being told here at Jo Nova, and at WUWT, is becoming all too common in societies we once believed to be free, just and civil – where governments were originally set up to serve the people, and not vice versa.
We truly are living in precarious times. It’s illegal to take a bulldozer and to flatten a person’s property – but not when it’s a government Caterpillar called unrestrained bureaucracy.
Cattle ranchersMatt and Janet Thompson moved to Australia to live their dream of raising beef cattle. They got all the permits and approvals to do so. They invested millions.
But a hostile environmental bureaucracy used tyrannical tactics, and drove them to ruins. All they wanted to do was to work to feed the world’s hungry, to work their own property freely, to enjoy a portion of the hard-earned fruits of their labour.
Now, in just a couple of days, they will be evicted from their property, by a government that was originally set up to help and protect.
That government has failed them, and much worse. The Thompsons chances for success are not encouraging.
Perhaps the Thompsons may find a small amount of consolation in that their story will serve to further stoke the spirit and passion of free men, which has already been ignited in many parts of the globe and is spreading.
Environmentalism is neither about justice, nor even socialism, which seeks to redistribute created wealth. To the contrary, radical environmentalism is totally about preventing the creation of wealth to the point there’s nothing left to redistribute.
Der Spiegel reports on a paper in Nature written by Hans von Storch and Matthias Zahn claiming that elevated greenhouse gas concentration will lead to fewer North Atlantic storms by the year 2100. Der Spiegel writes:
Instead of 50 to 60, there will only be about half as many Arctic hurricanes, the scientists say.
After every big winter storm, e.g. like Kyrill, we get here in northern Germany, we always hear the media crow about how it is due to global warming. Now the opposite is claimed. We’re a long way from settled science, aren’t we?
The mechanism leading to the Nature paper’s claim is described in the abstract as follows:
This change can be related to changes in the North Atlantic sea surface temperature and mid-troposphere temperature; the latter is found to rise faster than the former so that the resulting stability is increased, hindering the formation or intensification of polar lows.
I can certainly buy that. But then the authors apply bold science.
In the Nature abstract it is written:
Now, in projections for the end of the twenty-first century, we found a significantly lower number of polar lows and a northward shift of their mean genesis region in response to elevated atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration.
The elevated greenhouse gas/lower number of polar effect is quite a hypothesis. The authors are assuming that more CO2 will lead to higher atmospheric temps and thus fewer storms. That’s awfully bold science.
But wait, it gets even bolder, Der Spiegel writes about the scientists:
Using computermodels, that also used the climate prognoses of the United Nations, the scientists have played out the development of the northern seas up to the year 2100.
Making a projection for the year 2100 with that methodology? Now that’s really bold. I’m doing all I can to rein in the sarcasm here. The authors then add:
Our results provide a rare example of a climate change effect in which a type of extreme weather is likely to decrease, rather than increase.
I haven’t read the full Nature paper, as it is behind a pay-wall. I just wonder where the authors come up with: “a rare example”. This is probably a case of: whose bread one eats, whose words one speaks, which one has to submit to when dealing with Nature and government funding.
There are actually many examples that warm climates are more beneficial than not. After all, who the hell wants to go back to a little ice age, let alone a big one?
Why not just leave the crap out? I’d have no problem with a paper presenting a couple of if-then hypotheses, like:
1) If temperatures rise, our dynamic models show that there will be fewer storms.
2) If the temperature drops, then there will be more storms.
Leave the global warming faith and religion out of it.
“With green technologies, you’ll save energy and money! The sun doesn’t send an electric bill!”How often have we heard it? Yet, we know firsthand here in Europe that the opposite is true. Subsidies for green energies, and the high cost electricity they produce, are already burning huge holes in the pockets of consumers. Electricity rates in Europe have skyrocketed over the last few years. The trend will only accelerate.
Government-mandated remodeling of apartment buildings and homes will cost trillions
Next, the German government intends to force buildings to have zero CO2 emissions by 2050. This will force many landlords to radically remodel existing apartment complexes, and to do so at a huge expense.
Many apartment units were built during the 1970s and are neither well insulated nor designed to save lots of energy. Back then, when energy was a human right, and not monopolized by mafia-like structures, it was cheap. Poorer people could afford it.
The energy concept of Angela Merkel’s coalition government decrees residential renovations that would cost trillions. Homeowner associations are sounding the alarms.
The report starts:
Berlin – Rental rates in the capital city could rise dramatically in the coming years. Instead of living space costing an average of Euro 4.60 (US$ 6.00) a square meter in Berlin today, it’s possible that it’ll soon cost up to Euro 13.70 per square meter – that would be tripling the rate.
That means today a family of four in Berlin pays an affordable $600.00 per month for a modest 100 m² apartment (utilities not included). But in just a few years, that family may have to pay an exhorbitant $1800/month plus the also soon to be much more expensive utilities.
Being unable to afford such exorbitant costs, families and low wage earners will have only one option left: to move under the nearest bridge. Call it human rights – euro style.
And what would all this added burden and misery on society’s most defenseless result in? Answer: a theoretical global temperature drop of a few thousandths of a degree.
The biggest driver in all this madness is Europe’s and Germany’s obsession with the notion that by going radically green, they can somehow gain the global moral (thus authoritive) high ground. Eventually, they think, this will allow them to preach the rest of the world on how to live.
Der Tagesspiegel writes:
Renovating old German buildings in the coming decades would cost immense sums of money. The German Union of Real Estate Associations (BSI) estimates the costs would reach Euro 2.6 trillion.
Of course, landlords and property owners would simply pass these costs along to tenants. So much for affordable housing.
One third of Germany’s CO2 emissions come from Germany’s estimated 40 million residences. According to a paper from Merkel’s government:
The federal government will accelerate the vigorous renovation of residences by using improved and continuous aid.
Energy has to become a human right again
It’s time that access to cheap energy be made again a human right. It is there, and it is plentiful. Humans have a right to use it so that they can live in comfort. It is immoral to deny humans that right. And it is tyranny to do so using the lie of catastrophic global warming.
It’s September and so it’s the time of the year for ritual bed-wetting here in Europe among the alarmist media and environmental activists, all triggered by the annual arrival of the Arctic sea ice minima.
No matter where one looks, one finds horror stories of “unprecedented” Arctic ice melt and implications of grave consequences in the major media outlets.
Yet, it’s not enough to report only about melting sea ice. An additional instrument, extra shock, has to be found to emotionalize the event. This year that instrument is no longer the polar bear, trapped on a single tiny chunk of ice. That’s out. The new symbol of climate doom this year is the lovable walrus – odobenus rosmarus.
Practically every major German media outlet has reported on the “plight” of the poor walrus, “forced to flee” to the Alaskan beaches because of the “dramatic” ice melt. It’s the latest unprecedented event that’s proof of anthropogenic global warming.
The ice no longer suffices: in northwest Alaska tens of thousands of walrus have landed on the beaches. Satellite measurements show that the ice areas of the Arctic have again shrunk a lot this year. Now biologists fear that the heavy animals could crush each other.
And of course all the radio outlets, etc. have followed and parroted these reports in tones laden with drama.
IT’S A HOAX – NOTHING UNUSUAL
Relax. Walrus landing on the beaches is nothing unusual. Yes, the beaches in Alaska have been invaded by thousands of walrus. But it turns out that this is nothing unusual. The Tucson Citizen reports here that according to the The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
The largest concentrations are found near the coasts, between 70 degrees North and Pt. Barrow in the east and between Bering Strait and Wrangel Island in the west. Concentrations, mainly of males, are also found on and near terrestrial haulouts in the Bering Sea in Bristol Bay and the northern Gulf of Anadyr throughout the summer. In October the pack ice develops rapidly in the Chukchi Sea, and large herds begin to move southward. Many come ashore on haulouts in the Bering Strait region. Depending on ice conditions, those haulout sites continue to be occupied through November and into December, but with the continuing development of ice, most of them move south of St. Lawrence Island and the Chukchi Peninsula by early to mid-December.
In October? Why are they early this year? The Tucson Citizen also quotes the Alaska Fish & Game Department, which says that concentrations of walrus on beaches is not unusual.
Best known among the Walrus Islands is Round Island, where each summer large numbers of male walruses haul out on exposed, rocky beaches.” “Walrus return to these haulouts every spring as the ice pack recedes northward, remaining hauled out on the beach for several days between each feeding foray.
Even Wikipedia writes:
The rest of the year (late summer and fall) the walrus tend to form massive aggregations of tens of thousands of individuals on rocky beaches or outcrops. The migration between the ice and the beach can be long distance and dramatic. In late spring and summer, for example, several hundred thousand Pacific Walruses migrate from the Bering sea into the Chukchi sea through the relatively narrow Bering Strait.
How deranged must the media be to take normal behavior of wildlife, and to spin it into a phony tragedy in order to maliciously spread anxiety through the public? When are they going to learn that there are other alternative sources of information out there that are waiting to expose their shenanigans?
Update: Der Spiegel (English version) has a report on the US elections. This news magazine, which believes in the junk science of manmade global warming and the sustainability of socialism, now says:
German editorialists digested the news on Thursday and warned that both Republicans and Democrats were right to feel uneasy.
In the elitist established medía in Germany, “digested” is not the right word, Better and more accurate would be “vomited”. They are utterly horrified of and shaking at the thought of the American tea party movement and pro-life Palin.
After hearing Karl Rove out himself and his GOP Establishment yesterday, I realise that the GOP is still that snobby country club after all. Rove didn’t hold back attacking Christine O’Donnell for her financial problems and crapping all over her. Egads, voters – she’s like the rest of you other struggling Americans! You want her to represent you!
The GOP Establisment is hardly better than the condescending millionaire elitists on the Democrats side, Hollywood, James Cameron, Wall Street, Al Gore, media etc. – all preaching us to sacrifice, while they themselves live high on the hog.
The array of strategies the green-outside, red-brown-inside activists keep plotting never ceases to amaze me.
The latest comments come from Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer in an interview with George Stephanopoulus, and provide a window to another page of the enviro-Mein-Kampf playbook.
In the interview, Stephanopoulos asks Breyer, on burning the Koran, if the First Amendment ought to be rethought: Breyer replies:
Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death? It will be answered over time in a series of cases which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases.
So if Breyer had his way, the government would decide what a crowded theater is, and what gets trampled. Folks that would be a dangerous threat to free speech.
Keep in mind that the Supreme Court has already declared CO2 a pollutant that needs to be regulated. And now at least one Justice wants to declare certain types of speech as “pollutants”, and subject them to regulation.
So what’s the next step? Skeptics is a crowded theater?
Next they’ll be calling the planet a “crowded theater”and its inhabitants “the trampled”, and that certain kinds of speech lead to trampling in the crowded theater, earth. For example, those of us who express skepticism, or produce inappropriate science, could be deemed making speech that leads to death in the crowded theater earth.
Without our speech, the planet could be saved, after all.
Well, we’ve already been called “deniers”, the scourge of the planet, even bastards that ought to face Nuremberg-type trials for climate crimes. Be warned.
The Australian Bureau of Meterorology has just released its latest ENSO Report. It starts out with:
The La Niña event in the Pacific Ocean has strengthened further over the past two weeks. All computer models surveyed by the Bureau predict the La Niña will last through the southern hemisphere spring, with the majority indicating the event will persist into at least early 2011.
The graphic above shows the 30-day moving SOI has reached a new high, even already surpassing the peak reached in January 2008. The following graphic in the BOM report shows sub-surface temperature from May-August, with the cool water progressing to the surface.
The BOM writes:
In the central Pacific, the sub-surface of the ocean is more than 6°C cooler than normal for this time of the year, on a weekly scale.
La Niña depresses average global surface temperatures, which will soon show up in the months ahead in the monthly temperature statistics. Dr Roy Spencer’s site here shows surface temperatures now dipping below last year’s level.
Forecasters are busy revising their projections
Meanwhile, forecasters have been busy revising their earlier projections. Here’s the forecast made back on July 16, 2010, i.e about 2 months ago. The blue line dips to about -1.7.
Two months later, in their latest September 14 projections, the blue line now dips down to -1,9.
This La Niña is shaping up to be deeper than previously expected. Does that mean we’re headed for global cooling? No it doesn’t. This is just one ocean cycle. Maybe a few more EL Nino/La Niña flip-flops will tell us more, meaning we have to wait another 5 or 10 years.
All these nice graphs are available to you simply by clicking on the Climatic Indicators I have listed in my side bar. Lots of interesting stuff there.
On the surface, looking at warmist blogs and sites can be quite entertaining at times. But reading more closely between the lines, the entertainment always seems to turn into a surreal horror story.For the most rabid among the environmentalists, who strangely never seem to run out of funding, saving the planet means having to deny others life.
I happened to go to Al Gore’s site where he linked to a piece in Seed Magazine called Eating Away. It takes a look at growing human population, the agriculture needed to feed it, its consumption and impact on the planet.
Seed Magazine admits that the population growth rate peaked in the 1980s and that the world has gone from Baby Boom to Baby Bust, much of this trend owing to the education and empowerment of women, especially in developed countries.
But having population growth under control here and there is not enough. Poor countries still have exploding populations. Environmentalists worry about the extent the planet could sustain a population of 9 billion, projected to be reached by 2050. Continue reading America’s “10,000-Metric-Tonne Children”