The Sun’s Impact On Earth’s Temperature Goes Far Beyond TSI – New Paper Shows

No surprise here. Just more inconvenient results for CO2 broken-record dogmatists.

New paper: GISS temps and solar activity

A recent paper published by the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar Terrestial Physics (74) 2012 87-93 and authored by Souza Echer et al. suggests that solar cycles, to a substantial extent, drive global temperatures, and that likely through amplification mechanisms.

Solar particles interact with Earth's magnetosphere. (Source: NASA)


The paper is titled: On the relationship between global, hemispheric and latitudinal averaged air surface temperature (GISS time series) and solar activity.

The authors decomposed average air surface temperature series obtained from GISS and sunspot number (Rz) from 1880 – 2005 to see if a correlation could be found. They performed a cross correlation analysis between band-passed filtered data around 11-year and 22 years.

Although the authors did not find a strong correlation with the 11-year solar cycle, they found a “very significant correlation” in the 22-year Hale cycle band. The abstract states:

A very significant correlation (Rz 0.57 to 0.80) is found in the 22 yr solar Hale cycle band (16–32 years ) with lags from zero to four years between latitudinal averages air surface temperature and Rz. Therefore it seems that the 22 yr magnetic field solar cycle might have a higher effect on Earth’s climate than solar variations related to the 11-yr sunspot cycle.”

Well then, can we not assume that if the 22-year cycles have an impact, also the 78-year, 210-year, and 1000-year solar activity cycles must have a “significant correlation” with the earth’s climate too? Already there are dozens of proxy records showing that this is precisely the case.

Recall that the CO2 warmists in their half-baked models stubbornly keep focusing only on total solar irradiance (TSI), which itself varies only about 0.1% over an 11-year cycle (and thus by itself is no real climate driver) and ignore all the other amplification mechanisms. Well, the results of this study, as do dozens of others studies, show you can’t do that. Like it or not – the sun is a real player. Eventually the CO2 warmists will have to admit this, as anyone with even just an inkling of intuition would do.

New paper: investigating the cosmic ray link

Obviously there are others who feel the same way when it comes to the role of the sun on the earth’s climate. Another paper just published at the same journal shows that other scientists are hot on the sun’s trail. Here Magee and Kavic in their paper titled: Probing the climatological impact of a cosmic ray–cloud connection through low-frequency radio observations suspect a solar mechanism and so propose a method of observation. In the abstract they write:

…in order to establish whether or not such a relationship exists, measurements of short-timescale solar events, individual cosmic ray events, and spatially correlated cloud parameters could be of great significance. Here we propose such a comparison using observations from a pair of radio telescopes arrays,the Long Wavelength Array (LWA) and the Eight-meter-wavelength Transient Array (ETA). These low-frequency radio arrays have a unique ability to simultaneously conduct solar, ionospheric and cosmic rays observations and are thus ideal for such a comparison.”

The direction of climate science and investigation is clear. The real discoveries will involve unraveling the solar mechanisms, and not baking simplistic, straight-line CO2-temperature models. With each new study, the CO2 warmists look more and more like broken records that keep repeating: CO2…CO2…CO2…CO2…

Obviously some scientists just aren’t clever enough to snap out of it.

Additional resources:


New Paper Shows Profound Urban Warming Impact

A new paper written by Maeng-Ki Kim, Department of Atmospheric Science, Kongju National University, and Seonae Kim of the Applied Meteorology Research Team, Environmental Prediction Research Inc. of Korea has been published by the Journal of Atmospheric Environment.The two scientists examined cities in South Korea and the urban heat island effect. Hat-tip: Dr. Ghana.

According to the abstract here (emphasis added):

The quantitative values of the urban warming effect over city stations in the Korean peninsula were estimated by using the warming mode of Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) analysis of 55 years of temperature data, from 1954 to 2008. The estimated amount of urban warming was verified by applying the multiple linear regression equation with two independent variables: the rate of population growth and the total population. […] The cities that show great warming due to urbanization are Daegu, Pohang, Seoul, and Incheon, which show values of about 1.35, 1.17, 1.16, and 1.10°C, respectively. The areas that showed urban warming less than 0.2°C are Chupungnyeong and Mokpo. On average, the total temperature increase over South Korea was about 1.37°C; the amount of increase caused by the greenhouse effect is approximately 0.60°C, and the amount caused by urban warming is approximately 0.77°C.”

According to their results, that means well over a half of the warming is caused by urban warming.

Why aren’t we surprised? Anyone who has read Ed Caryl’s very recent stories here at this blog and is familiar with Anthony Watts’s surface stations audit knows why.


Heated Thermometers? It’s One Way To Fabricate A Warming Trend

If your “Globe” Is Only 10 Meters From Your Door – It’s Warming!

By guest writer Ed Caryl

In A Recent Temperature History – Part 1, 22 stations in the midwest U. S. were examined. On an average, these stations were cooling slightly over one AMO cycle, from 1934 to 2000, but there was much variability. The greatest cooling was –0.76°C, and the greatest warming was 0.59°C. As these sites are all within a few hundred kilometers of each other, why the large variation? Was it population density? Or is it something else?

The towns in this group are all small, according to GISS under 10,000 population. The actual population was found to be from about 500 to just less than 7000, with one outlier at 24,900. The station distance from the center of that city is more than 7 kilometers, so GISS can be forgiven for that classification.

But perhaps it isn’t the surrounding population that counts, but simply the closest heated dwelling. To test that hypothesis, this author researched each station at the website, and found the distance from each measurement sensor (MMS) to the nearest heated building. For some it was necessary to go to Google maps using the latitude and longitude along with other clues, to find the information. For others it was necessary to estimate the distance from photographs. This information was then plotted in Figure 1.

Figure 1. This is a plot of the temperature trends for 22 mid-western U. S. stations versus town population (black) , and distance from the measuring instrument to the nearest heated building (pink and red), usually a residence.

As can be seen on the plot, town population made almost no difference to the trend. The dots are nearly completely random with respect to population. On the other hand, the distance from a heated dwelling made a much larger difference. The two coolest sites were more than 100 meters from the nearest building. Within the population limits of this study, the Urban Warming Influence is simply the distance to the nearest heated building, not the size of the city.

This phenomenon is the reason for much of the Arctic warming. Urban Warming in the Arctic, and indeed in the Antarctic, is an occupied-building-to-temperature-sensor distance problem. In the polar regions, the temperature differential between occupied buildings and the outdoor temperature sensors is much greater than in the temperate mid-west U. S., so the distance must be greater to avoid the UWI problem. But man doesn’t like digging long cable trenches in ice or permafrost (it’s like concrete!), or walking long distances in –40° weather, so the measurements are not done properly.

It is clear to this author that measured “Global Warming” is simply due to increasing nearby energy use and the temperature sensor proximity to the resulting heat. Of course if we all reduce our “carbon footprint”, this reduced energy use will surely slow “Global Warming”; but it will not be because CO2 emission is reduced, and it will result in all of us freezing.

German Veteran Journalist Maxeiner On Norfolk Police / DOJ Moves: “Something You’d Expect Against Chinese Dissdents”

German veteran journalist and publicist Dirk Maxeiner at his website is a bit shocked by the over-the-top, misdirected investigations recently conducted against sceptic bloggers and free speech in general. In his short piece:

Climategate On The Path To A State Scandal

Maxeiner writes:

This is the kind of thing you’d expect to see against Chinese dissidents. […] The British police and the American Department of Justice are conducting a coordinated action against climate bloggers. Supposedly it is an effort to find the source of the “Cimategate” e-mails.  In Great Britain the first blogger has been interrogated and his computers have been confiscated. Canadian and American bloggers have been informed that their e-mails have been searched. It is obvious that critical thinkers are now to be criminalized.

See here:
Washington Examiner

We can only hope all this backfires. Many people we now beginning to show more interest in the contents of the Climategate e-mails. Also for those e-mails that have yet to be posted in the internet. It’s possible that some real juicy ones are on the way. Perhaps this is making a few people very nervous.”

Boy – talk about officials being desperate and looking frustrated! No wonder that the IPCC wants to be above the Freedom of Information Act (i.e. be above the law).

This action sounds very much like what they did with Galileo – talk about the dark, spooky ages coming back.

Welcome to the next chapter of the Climategate saga. Obviously for anyone concerned about freedom of speech and open debate, now is the time not to be intimidated. Instead it is now the time to cover every single detail of this development and make sure our friends in the Senate and Congress become aware of this threat. If they think they can just get away with this kind of behaviour, then someone is making one serious misjudgement.

Hey, but who knows? Maybe us bloggers and all the sceptics out there will all be holding the next climate conference somewhere out in Siberia at some reopened gulag or something:  6th International Climate Conference – Siberia, Russia – June 2012 to June 2037.

Whatever happens, look to read more about this in the future. Pandora’s box has been opened.

Dirk Maxeiner is the author of the climate-catastrophe sceptical book: Hurrah, wir retten die Welt (Hooray we’re rescuing the world!). Every German ought to read this book.

Merry Christmas Everyone!

For Christmas I present to you my favourite Scrooge film – with Seymour Hicks. It’s a classic.

Let’s hope that the climate Scrooges among us, those who think that 6 billion people or more are “surplus population” and see only the dark side of everything, will open their hearts and minds for once, and stop being so pessimistic and morose about the future of our planet.

Note how both Scrooge and alarmists get mad when we burn coal and spend our money on consumerism, or advocate throwing people who think differently in prison.

If we can convert one Scrooge alarmist out there, then we can call this Christmas a success. But don’t let your expectations get to far ahead of you. The alarmists are truly a pessimistic, unhappy, and difficult-to-convert bunch. You have to view them as Nephew Fred views Scrooge.

Enjoy –


Temperature History (Part 2) – More On Muller’s Sloppy Job – Heat Source-Free Stations Tell A Different Story

By Ed Caryl

SH shows no warming!

In A Recent Temperature History, Part 1, the temperature trends for the contiguous United States were examined. In part 2, the rest of the world (as far as there is data) will be explored. Again, the selection criteria were: less than 10,000 population, and (as much as possible) a continuous record from 1940 or before to the present.

Ten stations were found in the Arctic and Siberia, six stations bordering the North Atlantic Ocean, and thirteen stations in the southern hemisphere, in South American, Australia, the south Atlantic, and south Pacific. All of these stations are well away from any population centers and are isolated or in or associated with very small towns and villages. No stations were found in continental Europe or Africa that met the above criteria. Station records at GISS either ceased in 1990, had a large gap during WWII, or both.

Figure 1. These are Arctic and Siberian temperature anomalies using 1930 to 1980 as the baseline period. The bold black trace is the average of these ten anomalies.

In the Arctic and Siberia we see the familiar pattern of warming in the first half of the 20th century, followed by cooling until 1970, then warming until recently.

Figure 2: The Arctic and Siberia average anomaly and a linear trend line from 1930 to the present. The trend is +0.33° C over the 80 years, or about 0.4° C per century.

The problem with the trend in Figure 2 is that it includes part of the earlier warming trend and only one cooling period. In Figure 3, the 66-year complete cycle is chosen, and there is no trend.

Figure 3. The Arctic and Siberian trend over the period 1943 to 2000.

The North Atlantic shows the same shape as the other Northern Hemisphere records.

Figure 4. There are six North Atlantic temperature anomalies. The bold black trace is the average of the six stations. Before 1900, only the Akureyi station on Iceland was active.

Figure 5. This is the North Atlantic average anomaly and the linear trend from 1930 to the present. The trend from the mid 1930’s to the present is flat.

In the northern hemisphere the temperature trend is a cycle, roughly paralleling the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Between the cycles of that oscillation, there is no trend. There may have been a trend in the 19th century of warming from the LIA, but that is now over.

The Southern Hemisphere

There are few stations in the Southern Hemisphere that meet the criteria for admission into this exclusive club. South Africa has none. Australia has three, two at airports, but not large airports. South America has four stations, the rest are on islands in the Pacific, and there is one in the South Atlantic. There were no stations in Antarctica before 1955. Most stations in Antarctica were established during the International Geophysical Year from July 1, 1957, to December 31, 1958. Still, there are five stations in the southern hemisphere that go back to the turn of the 20th century.

Figure 6. There are 13 Southern Hemisphere stations with long records. The baseline for these anomalies is, again, 1930 to 1980. The bold trace is the average anomaly.

In Figure 6, the Argentine Base Orcada on the South Orkney Islands in the South Atlantic provides much of the noise.

Figure 7: This is the Southern Hemisphere average anomaly with the linear trend line.

The notable thing about the southern hemisphere trend is that there isn’t any trend. The eye tries to detect a pattern of cooling early and a slight warming since 1930, but it would be about 0.1° C. If real, this may be half of the 200-year cycle discussed in the Lui et al paper, and here. But it might be urban warming creeping into the data. Some of the positive peaks coincide with major El Nino years, particularly 1891, 1982-83, 1997-98, and 2010. Over the last 50 years, continental Antarctica itself seems to be cooling slightly. See A Wind in Antarctica.

In the beginning, the exercise described in this two-part article was an attempt to tease out an accurate measure of global warming in order to determine CO2 sensitivity, the amount of warming we would experience if CO2 were to double. During the 20th century, CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to 390 ppm. This is about 40% of doubling. If doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere were to cause appreciable warming, we should see a measurable amount now. The climate sensitivity can be calculated from that amount. That number has now been found.

It’s zero.

Back To Petroleum! – BP Shuts Down Solar Business – “Also In Germany Solar Industry Faces Collapse”

Energy giant British Petroleum (BP) announced that it was shutting down its solar module business for good. In 2000 the corporation had announced that it would expand aggressively into promising renewable energies, and dubbed itself “Beyond Petroleum”.Today, according to the online leftist “TAZ” daily here:

Already last year the company shut down its own solar modules plants, and now also its business with project development is ended – 30 years after BP Solar was founded.

BP is the latest in the long string of failures that have swept over the solar industry recently. Massive subsidies by governments had caused a boom in solar installations, but with solar electricity costs still sky high, governments have recently cut back subsidies dramatically, thus making investment in solar modules less attractive. Massive competition from low-cost countries in Asia, including China, have led to plummeting prices and over capacity in solar module supply. The TAZ writes:

Annual production capacity is about 50 gigawatts, but the global demand this year is only about 21 gigawatts.”

This is certainly not good news for all the German solar plants that opened with much fanfare just few years ago, especially in East Germany – many with government support. These solar module plants were ballyhooed as high tech job machines and rescuers of the climate. Today you have to feel awfully sorry for the poor workers – duped again by bogus future scenarios and false promises.

Of course the German solar cell manufacturers are crying about “unfair trade practices” by Asian producers. You see, it’s not enough that their customers are opulently subsidized in the purchase of their solar modules, German manufacturers also want trade protection as well. Then the solar energy playing field would be level!

“It all comes down to reestablishing fair competition,” said Solarworld CEO Frank Asbeck. The TAZ also writes how things don’t look sunny for the German solar industry:

The solar industry in Germany faces a collapse. […] The Sarasin Bank puts companies Conergy, Q-Cells, Solar-Fabrik, and Sunways under the category of ‘endangered’.”

In summary, the very people who warned us of catastrophic global warming, climate change, global weirding, extreme weather events, also told us that solar energy was the future – the job machine! Indeed, just when everything solar is collapsing around them, many politicians are still cluelessly running around a preaching us the virtues of solar energy.

Don’t waste your breath telling these pols that global temperatures haven’t risen in over a decade.

Also also read more here at Bloomberg (The rest of the MSM is ignoring this embarrassment).

NEWS: German manufacturer Solar Millenium announces it is insolvent –Read at Der Spiegel!

A Recent Temperature History (Part 1 Of 2) – Richard Muller Does An Incomplete Job

By Ed Caryl

The recent issuing of four papers by Dr. Richard Muller, et al, has increased the on-line discussions of temperatures over the last decade. There are several claims in the first of these papers that deserve study:

1. “…The global land mean temperature has increased by 0.911 ±0.042 C since the 1950s…”

2. “The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) gives an operational definition of climate as the average weather over a period of 30 years (Arguez and Vose 2011).”

3. “No part of the Earth’s land surface shows appreciable cooling.”

These assertions will be addressed in the course of this article. For material, 83 locations were selected from the GISS database. In an attempt to limit urban warming affects and the “adjustments” applied by GISS, a strict selection process was used. The selection criteria were: less than 10,000 population, as much as possible, a continuous record from 1940 or before to the present, and no splicing of records. Fifty-six of these locations are in the U. S. in four regions. Twenty-two stations were in the mid-west, in Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa; fifteen stations in the north-west “inland empire,” eastern Oregon, Washington, and western Idaho; nine stations in the desert south-west, southern Utah and New Mexico; and ten stations in the south-east, Alabama and Georgia.

In the rest of the world, ten stations were found in the Arctic and Siberia, six stations bordering the North Atlantic Ocean, and thirteen stations in the southern hemisphere, in South American, Australia, the south Atlantic, and south Pacific. All of these stations are well away from any population centers and are isolated or in or close to very small towns and villages. These will be explored in Part 2.

For each station, a temperature anomaly was computed, using the average temperature from 1930 to 1980 as the baseline. This baseline was chosen because it is in the middle of the period for many of the records, and because it includes both a warm and a cold era. Figure 1 shows the result for the 22 stations in the U.S. mid-west.

Figure 1. This is the temperature anomaly from a 1930-1980 baseline for 22 mid-western small-town locations. The bold black trace is the average for those stations.

It can be seen that for this region, the highest temperature occurred in 1934, the next highest in 1921, and the third highest in 1931. The year 2000 was only the fourth highest in the twentieth century. Since 1930, the mid-west U.S. temperature trend has been cooling by about 0.1° C. (Figure 2)

Figure 2: This is the average anomaly and a linear trend plot from 1930 to 2011 for the mid-western U.S. showing about 0.15 degrees C cooling over that period. Since 2005 the cooling has been about 1.5 degrees C.

Figure 3. The Temperature Anomalies for 15 northwest U.S. stations. The bold black trace is the average anomaly for those stations.

In Figure 3, the trend for the last century has been warming, but taken in 30-year periods described at the top of this article, the first 30 years was flat, followed by a sudden warming, then cooling until 1980, then another sudden warming, followed by a sudden cooling since 2003. The warmest year was again 1934, almost a degree warmer than 1992, 1998, and 2003.

Figure 4: These are the temperature anomalies for 9 stations in the southwest U.S. The bold trace is the average temperature anomaly for the SW U.S.

In Figure 4, the situation is the same as the other regions: flat from 1900 to 1930, a sudden warming to the warmest year, 1934, cooling until 1980, warming to 2000, then cooling in the last decade.

Figure 5: Temperature anomalies in the SE region of the U.S. The bold black traces are the average anomaly and a linear trend line applied to that average.

In Figure 5, the trend for the entire 20th century has been cooling in this region by nearly half a degree C. The four warmest years are all in the 1920’s, 1921, 22, 25, and 27. The next warmest is 1933. 1998 and 99 are not even in the top 10.

If all 56 locations are averaged together, the trend is warming from the late 19th century to the late 1930’s. After that date, the trend is cooling until 1980, and then warming by the same amount to 2000. See figure 6, showing the temperature anomaly for all the U. S. locations examined, with a trend line from 1934 to 2000, one complete cycle of the 66-year peak-to-peak temperature cycle.


Figure 6: The average U.S. temperature anomaly for 56 rural stations from 1934 to 2000, with a linear trend line plotted. The trend over that period is about -0.06° C, or -0.074° C per century cooling.


Now, let’s revisit the claims by Dr. Richard Muller:

 …The global land mean temperature has increased by 0.911 ±0.042 C since the 1950s…”

Strictly speaking, that claim is true. But what is left out is that the same amount of cooling took place from the late 1930’s to the late 1950’s. The temperature is cycling with a period of about 66 years, with about one degree amplitude. Dr Muller is only looking at one-half of the temperature cycle.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) gives an operational definition of climate as the average weather over a period of 30 years (Arguez and Vose 2011).”

See 1 above. That definition is too short by at least a factor of two. There are many cycles seen in the temperature record. See this paper from the Chinese Science Bulletin. They mention 110, 199, 800, and 1324-year cycles; and their Fourier
analysis plot shows other cycles at 66 (one third of the 199 year cycle) and about 38 years. The 66-year cycle is clearly seen in the above plots. The 38-year signal may reflect the slower cooling part of the cycle followed by quicker warming. This author submits that any attempt to define climate as some time-average weather is a futile exercise.

No part of the Earth’s land surface shows appreciable cooling.”

Dr. Muller did not define appreciable, or a time period. For over 80 years, the SE and mid-west U. S. are cooling. Over the last decade, the U.S. and Canada are cooling. Anthony Watts here, and Matti Vooro here, have described this phenomenon. The so-called climate scientists must get over thinking that the linear trend over the last thirty years is telling them anything about the climate.

In Part II, the other (global) 27 rural and isolated stations will be analyzed.



Hysterical German Newspaper: Climate Protection “Question Of Life And Death”

Here’s something in line with yesterday’s post…how people can get caught up in mass hysteria (prerequisite: mass ignorance).Hat tip; DirkH

Germany’s online Süddeutsche Zeitung reports here on Environment Minister Nortbert Röttgen’s comments on the results of Durban.

Röttgen calls the outcome of Durban a “huge success”, yet “criticized global climate protection with clear words” in his offical government declaration. Obviously he isn’t happy with the “huge success”.

The following comments from Röttgen and the Süddeutsche Zeitung do not only confirm that mass climate hysteria has spread to the upper levels of the German government, but also to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, which quotes Röttgen:

…climate change is worldwide a central source of conflict and a ‘fundamental threat’ for more and more people.

Especially for people of island nations and desert regions, it is even a question of life and death. And that ‘we are are doing too little,’ Röttgen declared. ‘There is still a scary gap.’ Here it is a ‘question of humanitarian solidarity,’ that has to be committed to those who are impacted.”

In a nutshell – stop questioning the climate threat and start falling into line with the movement. Everything is at stake.

Of course, that is not true. It is hysterical. I wonder if Minister Röttgen or the writers at the Süddeutsche have ever read a single scientific paper on the subject of climate change. This climate “life and death” nonsense is what one typically hears from those who are either completely hysterical, or from people who maliciously spread hysteria.

While climate change is a matter of “life and death” for some, to me it is more a matter of sanity versus insanity, being informed versus being ignorant, or of being curious versus being just plain too lazy to get informed.

For journalists and environment ministers who would like to become informed, I recommend this: Die kalte Sonne.

Collective Mourning Hysteria Over Loss Of NK Great Leader Resembles Climate Hysteria

Today we have learned that a true champion and warrior in the fight against global warming and CO2 emissions has passed away, read, and see video here.

Kim Jong Il, The Great Climate Protection Leader Jr., died of a heart attack at the age of 69. No leader had done more in capping CO2 emissions, saving energy, and taking responsibility for rescuing the world climate than Kim Jong Il. See for yourself:

This North Korean society, led by the guiding hand of an all-knowing leader and class, is the perfect role model for true global warming activists. This is climate protection at its best. Has the IPCC put out a statement on the Great Climate Leader’s death?

James Hansen not long ago praised China‘s autocratic regime as a beacon of hope, for example. There, sustainable living could be decreed by law. No doubt Hansen, along with Gore, Schellnhuber, and their likes, are all deeply moved by North Korea’s exemplary social austerity, all benefiting the climate.

Hysterical collective mourning like hysterical climate fear in the west

When you get down to it, the propaganda methods used by North Korea to herd its people into a mass collective mourning are hardly different than those used by the extreme climate alarmists in herding people into climate fear today.

When I saw the images of people collectively weeping and sobbing hysterically in the Reuters report linked above or the clip that follows, it immediately reminded me of how collective hysteria has swept through the ill-informed – dis-informed – here in our society, people all drugged up with propaganda.

Isn’t the North Korean mourning hysteria eerily similar to the extreme weather hysteria we are witnessing today among the multitudes of kooks of our society today? The hysteria is in fact being fanned by the duped media, duped politicians, and leading “scientists”. When are people going to wake up from this trance?

Look at the kook warmists today – running around with carbon calculators, a copy of AIT at home, fretting about every gram of emitted CO2, worrying about the weather in 100 years, thinking every weather anomaly is caused by SUV-driving, changing their entire lifestyles thinking that it’ll render us nice weather.

My daughter today had to watch “The Day After Tomorrow” at the Gymnasium upper secondary school. The teacher thinks its real! Just like in North Korea. In a few months she’ll complete her A-levels and be out of that nuthouse.

In the meantime they have to be as dis-informed and nutty as those sobbing hysterically over the loss of a brutal tyrant.

UPDATE: Excellent documentary of life in Utopia.

German Climate And Energy Experts To Publish Controversial New Book – Reject Alarmism, Call For Reopening The Debate

A new book is coming out. Personally I believe it’s going to cause a political storm in Germany, if not Europe. It’s going to upset a large number of climate Scrooges and the profiteers of doom.

The book Die kalte Sonne, Warum die Klimakatastophe nicht stattfindet (The Cold Sun, Why The Climate Catastrophe Is Not Taking Place) seriously challenges global warming alarmism. The book is written by Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Deliveries start at February 22, 2012. But I’m told the date may actually be February 8!

The publisher is influential publishing house Hoffmann & Campe in Hamburg.

What compelled the authors to write the book?

In short, being trained scientists, they noticed stark contradictions between model projections and real-life observations. Nothing matched up, something was wrong with the science, the models, and the IPCC. They explain it in detail in the book and in layman’s terms. The German Amazon description writes:

The IPCC is sure: The climate warming is because of man. However, are the infamous climate gases really the primary driver of our climate? And why hasn’t it been getting warmer? Vahrenholt and Lüning have taken a close look at the various climate models during their research. They reach the conclusion that a part of the Earth’s warming of the last 150 years is because of a natural cycle that is predominantly controlled by the sun. The next decades are more likely to lead us to a slight cooling instead of a warming. This provides the time to rationally develop and expand renewable energy sources, and to carry out the energy transformation in an economically,
sensible and sustainable way.”

The book is up-to-date, and its content is well-researched – over 800 footnotes. Many of the cited sources are the most recent peer-reviewed scientific papers and findings. Also many of the well-known climate blogs and sites are cited as well. Some blogs are prominently featured, like Climate Audit, WUWT, and Real Climate. I had the privilege of reading the manuscript, so I’m familiar with the book’s content. I really wish I could spill more about it. The book concludes, paraphrasing:

 The IPCC is in error, the models are bogus, and the climate catastrophe is not coming. The climate debate has to be started anew.”

Die Kalte Sonne also features guest contributions by leading international scientists.

I think this book is surely going to change the minds of a lot of readers here in Germany, and hopefully lead to a new and rational discussion, which is so badly needed here. The authors make a powerfully convincing case that the science behind global warming alarmism is extremely shaky and dubious, and that the current, panicked energy transformation stampede cannot continue on its current path without something very painful happening.

The book also underscores that a transition to renewable energy source is essential and that we need to do it. But it has to be done rationally and in a sensible step-by-step approach. Only in this way will it be possible to make an energy transition that assures the needs of 9 billion people on our home planet are humanely met.

Why not order here and give a voucher for Christmas!

About the authors

Fritz Vahrenholt

Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt is a professor of chemistry at the University of Hamburg. He has been active in politics and renewable energy for 30 years. From 2001 to 2007 he was Chairman of the Board of wind turbine manufacturer REpower Systems, Since 2008 he has been the CEO of RWE Innogy, the renewable energies arm of German energy giant RWE. Vahrenholt was also a member of the council for Sustainable Development under Chancellors Gerhard Schroder and Angela Merkel.

Sebastian Lüning

Dr. Sebastian Lüning has a doctorate in geology and paleontology. He has been involved in the reconstructions of natural environmental changes for 20 years. He was a guest professor at the University of Vienna, and has received a number of awards for his studies and research. He is currently a geological expert for Africa for RWE Dea.

Two Thirds Of Germans Not Willing To Make Sacrifices To Protect The Climate. Most Don’t Fear It.

German site CO2 Handel here writes about a survey on the sentiment of Germans with regards to climate change and their will to do something about it.

It’s no surprise that a vast majority of Germans believe that man is profoundly changing the climate. The major media outlets feed Germans with a constant stream of climate doom & gloom, and rarely mention science that shows otherwise.

But what is surprising is the number of Germans who say they do not plan to change their lifestyles at all “to save the climate”. They agree that something has to be done to protect the climate, but they are not willing to make any sacrifices. CO2 Handel writes:

Two thirds (66 perecent) in a survey for Hamburg-based news magazine Stern declared that they would not do more for climate protection today than before.”

The survey also shows, despite the media bombardment of dire climate prognoses, that Germans are not afraid of a climate catastrophe.

Only 31 percent fear dramatic consequences for nature and environment (women 36 percent).”

A huge number are skeptical that governments will be able to stop climate change.

According to the Stern survey, 84 percent do not believe the goverments will be able to stop climate change.

And these 84% should continue to believe this, because climate change cannot be stopped. Anyone who claims it can is nothing less than a huge charlatan. That means 16% are completely duped and actually believe that the UN and IPCC can control the climate. Talk about utter ignorance.

If the survey says anything, it is that even if you do manage to convince the population, it doesn’t mean they are going to agree to make sacrifices. So, good luck in implementing climate protection policies in countries with high levels of skepticism. First you have to stop the growing trend of skepticism, then you have to convert their beliefs, and then you’ll have to convince them to make sacrifices, which is the hardest thing to do.

The survey was based on 1001 representatively chosen German citizens on December 1 – 2, 2011 . The margin of error is : ± 3%. The survey was conducted by Forsa, for Stern.

Not surprisingly, the major media outlets buried the survey results.


Global Warming Not Happening – Global Cooling Is Real And Now

By Matti Vooro

A quite recent headline in our news warned that “Regions must brace for weather extremes: UN climate panel”. Apparently this will be the after-effect of global warming caused by man-made greenhouse gases. We can expect more frequent extreme events such as the drought in Texas and the Thailand floods because of global warming, they said.

Figure 1


It is strange that the IPCC panel should link recent extreme weather events to global warming because quite simply there has been no global warming to speak of for 10-15 years now based on the official climate data from the governments of the world [US /NCDC, ENVIRONMENT CANADA and THE EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY. Recently US meteorologist Anthony Watts showed that the continental U.S. has not warmed in the last 10 years, and in fact has grown cooler in the summer and colder in the winter. The climate data numbers come from the National Climatic Data Center.

Not only have the US temperatures been flat for the last 10-15 years, but a similar pattern is happening in Canada. The Canadian national annual, summer and winter temperature departures from the 1961-1990 averages have been flat for 10-14 years when measured on Excel linear trend and based on Environment Canada’s own data. Comparing today’s winter temperature departure with that of the period 1961-1990 can be misleading since the 1961-1990 period was low or cool phase of the planet’s 60 year cycle and any comparison will always show warming not due to man generated global warming, but due to natural and regular changes (30 years of cooler weather followed by 30 years of warmer weather) in the planets climate pattern. It is like comparing summer temperatures with winter temperatures, the summer will always show warming.

Regionally 7 of the 11 regions reported by Environment Canada showed declining or flat winter temperature departures over the last 10 years. The average winter departure was about 2°C between 1998-2011. Only the Atlantic Coast, Northeastern Forests and Arctic Tundra, Mountains, and Fiords showed rising winter temperature departures. But the North Atlantic Ocean heat content is dropping and so is the Arctic Ocean’s heat content.

The Northern Hemisphere, North Atlantic, North Pacific and East Pacific SST Anomalies are all dropping. It will not be long before the Atlantic Coast and the Arctic regions will show similar cooling as the AMO goes cool or negative. North America is more likely see much cold weather during the next 20-30 years rather than global warming of 3-6°C as predicted by the IPCC. The recent severe winter weather along Alaska and the US east coast was just a sample of what may lie ahead. This cooling has been building for a decade now. So how can global warming be causing current and future extreme weather events when global warming as predicted has not been happening for a decade and is unlikely to happen during the next 30 years since the world 60-year climate cycle is heading for colder weather due to changing ocean surface temperatures and changes in deep ocean currents?

Ocean SST as measured by PDO, AMO, ocean heat content and ENSO cycles and pressure changes as measured by AO and NAO are all pointing to a future cooling planet. AMO has gone negative in November 2011 for the first time since early 2009. Time will tell whether this is just the normal seasonal dip or a long-term pattern. This cooler AMO, if sustained through the winter, could signify cooler weather for the US east coast and Western Europe. Several severe storms have already happened this fall on both sides of the Atlantic.

Here are two web references to support the above evidence of global cooling in North America: and

So why are we pouring all this taxpayers money to solve a the non-existing problem as currently defined when the world is near financial collapse and there are so many more pressing problems in our world today? Any prudent leader should see we need to change our priorities.

Further evidence of global cooling

The five following graphs illustrate the lack of global warming in US and Canada.


Figure 2

North American snow extent as reported by Rutgers University

The North American snow extent has been increasing for 5 years in a row since the Pacific Ocean SST pattern started to show cooler water as measured by PDO. Already the 2011-2012 winter snow extent is greater than that of 2010-2011 winter by some 60% by week 45. Snow extent levels are approaching the record levels of the late 1970s.


Canadian winter, summer and annual temperature departures from 1961-1990. Averages for the years 1998 -2011

The annual trend of the departures as shown below indicates a flat or slightly cooling trend, and not global warming at all. Yes they fluctuate but that does not mean the trend is warming.

Figure 4

Canadian winter temperature departures from 1961-1990. Averages for the years 1998-2011

Fi9gure 5

The winter cooling is especially apparent in the Canadian bread basket, namely the Prairie Provinces and their north half or the Northwestern Forests. Environment Canada reports in their Trend, Extremes and Current Season Ranking, 1948-2011[64 years] that the warming trend in these areas is 3.2 and 3.7 degrees C over the last 64 years. What is far more meaningful and not stated in their bulletins is that this area has been cooling for 10 years and very rapidly since 2006. The winter temperature departures dropped some 7°C between 2006 and 2009 alone and have been below or at the 1961-1990 averages for the last 3-4 years (see below). No wonder we are having all the spring floods from the extra melting snow in this area.

The cold winters are likely to continue and so are the floods for the next 20-30 years as the 60 year planetary climate cycle goes into its cold phase. We are having the winters like the previous cold cycle 30 years ago. Yet Environment Canada only talks about continuing global warming . on their web page. There is absolutely nothing about possible global cooling or warning to the Canadian public and businesses about possible flooding again, crop losses, infrastructure disruptions, etc from the pending weather.

Figure 6


In November, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO dropped to its lowest level since 1961 at -2.33. The 1961 level was -2.69. PDO  is an after effect of the ENSO signal and reflects a spatial pattern of the amount of cooler water in the north Pacific. Negative levels are accompanied by much cooler weather in the Northern Hemisphere especially in North America. This index started to go negative in 2007 and based on historical patterns, it could be negative for the next 20-30 years, signifying cooler weather for the same period. This has already been apparent the last four years in the North American weather – especially the winters.


Von Storch & Steyr: “UN Durban Climate Conference Was A Swan Song – Scientists Fixated On Conceitedness”

The online Der Spiegel yesterday published a piece by Hans von Storch, Director of the GKSS-Research Center in Geesthacht, Germany and Nico Stehr of the Karl-Mannheim-Professur for Cultural Sciences at the Zeppelin University in Friedrichshafen. The title:”The world of the the world-saving professors has failed

Their conclusion on Durban: “The conference in Durban was a disappointment; environmental policy is stuck. Climate scientists are to blame because they are fixated on conceitedness and missionary zeal for reducing CO2 emissions.” They add:

The UN Climate Conference in Durban was a swan song.”

The attempt by scientists to guide a successful climate policy has failed. […] The cause for this is a false understanding of the role of climate science and the simplification of the climate change problem.”

For years, science professors had taken on the role of saving the planet, their arrogance exploding faster than CO2 emissions in China. It wasn’t long ago that everything appeared to be in order for the climate scientists. Physicist and chancellor Angela Merkel even allowed herself to be advised by leading scientists of a renowned institute, one was even allowed to use the title: “Advisor to the Chancellor”. Von Storch and Steyr write:

 Their views were accepted throughout the world as fact and their suggestions taken as correct.

Politics was to be guided by science – the science of a few men. Since then climate policy has failed, and CO2 emissions have risen unabated.

They led to failed climate policy. The leading figures in climate science are now suffering from withdrawal syndrome because no one wants to listen to them any longer, let alone celebrate them.”

Citing James Hansen, von Storch and Steyr are calling for a new direction in climate communication policy, pleading that policymakers move away from “Hollywood scientists”, who are naively portrayed as playing the lead roles as “world rescuers”.

What’s needed, the two authors say, is a more open discussion and not “autocratic government forms as solutions to the climate problem” or “great transformations of society” backed by the authority of scientists.

Von Storch and Steyr write that all the scare-mongering has had a devastating impact. Claims that climate change will lead to climate wars, death, disease, refugees, etc. are “not only perceived as attempts by single groups of scientists to gain recognition and financing, but also lead to perceptions that everything is connected to climate change.” Von Storch and Steyr write:

This either gets understood as absurdity or leads to the acceptance of an inevitable fate.”

Von Storch and Steyr cite recent US surveys that show society no longer trusts scientists.

Factual discussions hardly take place between climate science, civil societal organizations, and politics. The acceptance of climate science as a competent, objective interpreter is disappearing.”

They conclude:

It’s time for scientists to devote themselves to science once again. The societal climate debate has to open up.”

If anything else can be concluded, it is that something has gone terribly wrong and that major overhauls of the entire process are long overdue and in dire need. And when Der Spiegel, who started this whole mess 25 years ago, starts bringing it up, then you know something is afoot.


Renowed Warmist Scientist Mojib Latif Says Humans Could Be Responsible For Only 0.35°C In 100 Years

Usually warmists screech that humans are 95% responsible for the recent warming, and that huge positive water vapor feedbacks will get involved in the future. So it’s not very often you hear a warmist admit that humans perhaps could be just half responsible for the warming of the last 100 years.This is what German climate expert Professor Mojib Latif said in an interview this morning with NDR public radio.


Forget all the obligatory “we’ve got to cut our emissions soon” stuff. When you look past that, Latif had a few surprises in his interview, mainly he’s keeping the door open that human GHG emissions may not be such a big problem after all. Call it the Great Disappearing Crisis.

1.15 mark: Latif says he sees no positive aspects coming out of Durban, thus confirming it was a failure (warmist point of view).

1.45 mark, Latif:

Durban failed. Durban was the 17th conference of this type, and one now has to ask if such conference make any sense.”

Interesting is at the 3:15 mark. The moderator even now admits that the seriousness of the greenhouse gas problem is actually disputed. This shows that even the media is repositioning. The moderator asks Latif what his view on climate is. Latif replies:

The fact is that there is climate change. The fact is that man is also at least 50% responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.”

50% responsible? If warming has been 0.7°C over the last 100 years, then according to Latif man’s share would only be about one third of a degree Celsius°. That would make a doubling of CO2 look awfully benign.

Latif is now a lukewarmer. Politically, he’s hot on renewable energy. But that’s a different topic.

Some readers will accuse me of twisting Latif’s words. Sorry, but 50% of 0.7°C is about a third of a degree. That’s major back-pedaling.


Durban Is Not Even Half-Baked. “The Appearance Of An Agreement Is Preserved.”

They put it in the oven for a minute, baked its outer surface only, put the frosting on, and called it a cake.

But once you sink your teeth into it, you find out it isn’t. In fact you wonder if they even put the mixer to the batter. That’s the Durban “deal”.

The TAZ comments:

…that countries will talk until 2015 and that they will obligate themselves beginning in 2020 to legally reduce emissions. Emerging countries like India and China have recognized this, but have gained time and sufficiently expanded the paragraphs to allow the real binding obligations to be undermined. The USA does not have to deal with anything until 2020.”

Der Spiegel writes:

“Greenpeace was disappointed. ‘The watered-down compromise coming from pressure by India and USA will not lead to an international binding climate treaty, but rather to a loosely binding agreement,’ said  Greenpeace climate expert Martin Kaiser. ‘The conference created a last-second loophole for the USA and fossil fuel industries with the help of India.’ Now another protracted negotiation process threatens.

Die Welt writes:

…the result can be interpreted according to one’s own preference. For those who stayed up late into night they can claim that at least a paper everyone can agree on resulted in the end. But the critics point out, and correctly so, that as far as content is concerned, no agreement that would actually limit the emission of CO2 was reached. The appearance of an agreement is preserved.”

The FAZ writes:

Now a new global climate treaty will be negotiated that will include for the first time climate targets for the United Nations and emerging countries such as China and India. Environmentalists complain about the too many loopholes in the agreement.”

Die Zeit writes:

By the year 2015 a legally binding contract is to be drawn up to limit warming to 2°C.

The circus will go on.


Der Spiegel: No Deal – Durban Sinks Into Chaos (It’s Over!)

We’re hearing about clandestine evil deals being made in Durban and that the UN may indeed emerge as the global Führer soon. Rubbish!

Der Spiegel reports here that Durban threatens to sink into chaos.

According to Der Spiegel, a new paper had been drafted overnight and included things like “warming will be limited to 2°C, even 1.5°C” and that “by 2050 greenhouse gas emissions will be cut back 50 to 85 percent compared to 1990″ and that developing countries “will be obligated to cut back projected emissions growth by 2020 by 15 to 30 percent”.

Rumours are out claiming they’re closing in on a deal and that our liberty is about to end. But fear not. Der Spiegel, who have well-embedded reporters in Durban, writes:

In any case, a deal will not happen. In paragraph 47 of the paper, which looks at financial aid for developing countries, it is stated: The payments will be ‘equal to the budget that the industrial country has for defence, security and war.'”

We all know that Europe does very little in defence and military. That would mean the US would have to pay just about everything. If Obama accepted this, it would be a Jonestown-scale political suicide by the US Democratic Party. Even the biggest leftists in the US could hardly fantasize such a massive transfer of wealth by a single country. The condition is a set-up to force the USA to reject it – and thus take the blame again.

Der Spiegel writes:

That passage will certainly be deemed as completely unacceptable by the US: The country would not only have to make the money it spends on defence available, but also additional billions that it spends on war. Just the Afghanistan operation costs the USA 100 billion per year.”

Dear readers – Durban has moved to Kooksville, and they just want to end this circus, blame the US, and go home. You’ll hear about a little something here, of a little deal there, some commitment here, etc. But in the end it’s all nothing.

Every year it’s the same. They draft something so unfair that the US can’t accept, then they all blame the US for the failure. I wonder why the US even bothers showing up at all.

The clowns are headed back home and the circus is moving to the next town.


Monckton Slam-Dunks Panicky Ocean-Acid-Head At CFACT Press Conference

Here’s a snippet from a CFACT news conference in Durban I find quite amusing.

Some British-accented girlie-guy, tree-hugger warmist ocean acidist (Felix von Geyer, Platts Emissions Daily) demands to know “who-the-hell” funds CFACT, and that CFACT comment on ocean acidification.

Lord Monckton gives the yuppie retread more of an education in 2 minutes than he probably ever got during all his years as an undergraduate student.

You can watch the entire CFACT press conference here.

You can watch the entire CFACT press conference here.

I wonder if von Geyer is ever going to realize what a fool he made himself out to be. The guy could have spared himself all the embarassment had he just changed his tone a bit and his words. But oh no. he had to come in there, filled to the nose with arrogance and conceit, and act like he has to lecture everyone else.

Some advice: If you’re a pathetically ignorant soul on a particular subject, then it is a good idea not to run around a pretending to be informed. People see right through it.  In this case we got a full body scan of von Geyer.

Worse, for the students, the guy teaches at Concordia University, Department of Political Science, in Montreal (when he isn’t busy globe-trotting). They’re going to learn from this guy?

If von Geyer’s question signfies anything, it is that the movement has abandoned CO2 gas and has now moved on to Co2 acid.


More Evidence (Again) It’s The Sun

A reader brings our attention to a paper published by the Quaternary Science Reviews, authored by Liang Chen, Karin A.F. Zonneveld, and Gerard J.M. Versteegh of the University of Bremen: Short term climate variability during “Roman Classical Period” in the eastern Mediterranean.This one is about a temperature reconstruction from Southern Italy going back 2000 years. The abstract states:

Climatic and environmental reconstructions based on a dinoflagelate cyst record from a well dated site in the Gulf of Taranto located at the distal end of the Po-river discharge plume have been established with high temporal resolution in order to obtain insight into potential forcing of short-term climatic and oceanographic variability in the southern Italian region during the “Roman Classical Period” (60 BC – AD 200).

So how much does the reconstruction say us humans and our CO2 emissions have warmed the planet since the Roman days? Here’s what the abstract concludes (emphasis added):

The dinoflagellate cyst association indicates that local sea surface temperatures which in this region are strongly linked to local air temperatures were slightly higher than today. We reconstruct that sea surface temperatures have been relatively high and stable between 60 BCeAD 90 and show a decreasing trend after AD 90.”

It was warmer back then!  Gee, did greenhouse gases cause the warming during the time of the Romans? What could it have been, we all wonder? Stop wracking your brains, the answer is:

Fluctuations in temperature and river discharge rates have a strong cyclic character with main cyclicities of 7 – 8 and 11 years.”

11 years? Now why does this number sound familiar? Could it have anything to do with a certain solar cycle that is very well known (at least outside of the IPCC)? The abstract continues:

We argue that these cycles are related to variations of the North Atlantic Oscillation climate mode. A strong correlation is observed with global variation in delta14C anomalies suggesting that solar variability might be one of the major forcings of the regional climate. Apart from cyclic climate variability we observed a good correlation between non-cyclic temperature drops and global volcanic activity indicating that the latter forms an additional major forcing factor of the southern Italian climate during the Roman Classical Period.”

Yet another reconstruction showing the sun at work. Today, however, the sun doesn’t do anything. At least that’s what the experts at the IPCC would like to have us believe.

Schellnhuber Awarded Order Of The British Empire “For Spouting Bullshit”, Ray Bradley And Phil Jones Write

Reader cementafriend provides us with a Climategate e-mail that reveals what warmists really think of their own science and fellow scientists.

In 3803.txt Jan2005, Ray Bradley writes he read that Schellnhuber was awarded the Order of the British Empire (OBE) and comments “how far standards have fallen”. Phil Jones agrees!

date: Tue Jan 18 07:43:29 2005
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: 2004
to: “raymond s. bradley”

We all agree on that !
I’ll have a look when back on Friday.

At 22:02 17/01/2005, you wrote:
Ok, thanks–see what I posted at [1]
I just read that Schellnhuber got an OBE!!!! I didn’t know you got those for spouting bullshit, but I guess that’s how far standards have fallen. Pretty amazing…

Speaking of falling standards, Al Gore and the IPCC got a Nobel Peace Prize for a crackpot movie and flawed climate reports respectively. So Schellnhuber is now in good company. Who is next? James Hansen?