Propagandus Horribilus – Polar Bears Are In No Real Danger

Al Gore and others have shamelessly exploited public ignorance about the polar bear in order to spread fear. Ed Caryl tells us why the polar bear will do just fine.
================================================

The Polar Bear
by Ed Caryl

The climate change “team” regularly invoke the polar bear as the “poster-boy” for the supposed danger in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

Figure 1: Female polar bear (ursus maritimus) near Kaktovik, Barter Island, Alaska. (Source: Wikimedia Commons).

Origin

The polar bear, ursus maritimus, is descended from the Brown Bear, ursus arctos. The genetic split took place sometime between 300,000 and 600,000 years ago, but the split was never fully complete. Polar bear mitochondral DNA (mDNA) is descended from a female brown bear, perhaps from Ireland, which dates back to the middle of the last ice age, 50,000 to 100,000 years ago. During that encounter, a male polar bear mated with a female brown bear. The subsequent offspring then mated with polar bears, and the mDNA from that female spread across the population. That suggests that population pressure on polar bears doesn’t necessarily happen only when it warms up, but also when it gets very cold. Both conditions reduce the first-year sea ice that makes prime habitat for the seals that polar bears favor; cold covers it with glaciers and warm melts it.

There isn’t much genetic difference between polar bears and other brown bears. They can freely mate, and the offspring are fertile, indicating that they are the same species. The Latin name should be ursus arctos maritimus, similar to the grizzly bear ursus arctos horribilus. These “hybrids” happen often in the Canadian Arctic, and even have locally bestowed names, Grolar or Pizzly Bears. The environmentalists have decried these occurrences, claiming that it will lead to the demise of their favorite animal. In my opinion, this provides genetic diversity that has assisted survival in the past, and will in the future.

Diet

Like all bears, polar bears are omnivorous. They eat anything organic. Except for man, they are the apex carnivore in the Arctic. They hunt and eat everything, sometimes
including man-flesh, sometimes including their own species. After a meal of seal blubber, they will sometimes seek out grass for a salad. In the summer, when they are ashore, they do not starve. They will hunt birds, forage for eggs, hunt and kill caribou and small mammals, eat lichen, moss, and mushrooms, forage on shrubbery and berries in season, harvest kelp and other seaweed, eat fish, shellfish, and other sea invertebrates, as well as sort through man’s local garbage. They have been seen hunting sea birds and ducks by swimming under them and ambushing them from below. They hunt and kill beluga whales, narwhales, and walrus twice their size. Obversely, the only animal that can kill a polar bear is man. Most carnivores kill by strangulation; polar bears kill by crushing the skull of their prey in their jaws.

The polar bear population is always food-limited. If food is plentiful, mother bears can raise more cubs and the population increases. The Arctic is not a place where food is easily obtained, so it takes 25,000 to 50,000 square kilometers to support a bear family. If food is plentiful, bear density may be limited by male bear predation on cubs
not their own. Cubs, if readily available, are an easier kill than seals. In recent years, seal and bear hunting in Arctic Canada has been curtailed, increasing both the seal and bear population. Bears are not being hunted (except for about 500 a year by natives in Nunavut, and illegal hunting in Russia) so the only mortality is old age, disease, parasitism (primarily trichinosis), and starvation. On autopsy, all four causes of death look very similar. Because of some hunting, the bear population in Nunavut seems to be the healthiest, and may be growing despite the hunting, due to the increasing number of seals.

Habits and Habitat

In the spring, polar bears prefer hunting seals on first-year sea ice. At that time of year, seals are almost the only food source available, plus they are high in fat, a prime source of energy. The bears hunt seals by staking out a breathing hole. Seals may have several holes each, so hunting is primarily a waiting game. As the sea ice melts, bears turn to seal haul-out locations and seal pups. As the season further advances, other species such as walrus, belugas, and narwhales may become available. Ursus maritimus lives up to the Latin name with ability to swim long distances. The record for a female wearing a GPS color is over 600 km in 9 days, though the mean distance and time for the bears in this study was about 100 km over three days. One female bear was tracked from Prudhoe Bay in Alaska to Greenland. (Factoid: only female bears are collared, because of the male bear anatomy. Male bears have such a muscular neck that a collar won’t stay on.)

The mating season is in the late spring, blastocyst (fertilized egg) implantation is delayed until fall. Bears den-up in October and the one to three one-pound pups are born in November or December. Mother and cubs do not emerge until March or April. Dens are in snowdrifts ashore or, north of Greenland, in multi-year ice where pressure ridges form shelters. Polar bears don’t really hibernate, but they do sleep a lot when denned. They also fast during this period. A female polar bear can fast for up to eight months and still be capable of nursing cubs and hunting. Cubs stay with their mother for two years in the low Arctic and up to three years in the high Arctic. During this period the cubs learn to hunt from their mothers.

All the above is similar to grizzly bears. Grizzly bears also hunt seals on sea ice, and polar bears will hunt caribou on land, just like grizzlies. The differences are fairly minor: grizzlies have a fat hump that polar bears lack; polar bears have clear, hollow shaft fur that appears white, black skin and thick fur on their paws which grizzlies lack. Pizzlies tend to have the clear fur, with black around the nose and eyes, with a grizzly head shape. The clear insulating fur and black skin is an adaptation to the Arctic that minimizes heat loss when it is dark and maximizes heat gain when it is sunny. For a polar bear, high energy efficiency means fewer seals are required to live and reproduce. The clear fur also provides camouflage, but this is only an advantage when stalking seals on ice.

The polar bear population is food-limited, not ice limited. Polar bears wander over wide areas. They do not have a fixed territory. The population freely intermingle. If sea ice recedes in one area, bears move to where it remains. When it all melts, they move to land. If they find themselves on an island with no food resources, they swim to the next spot of land. In the Arctic, polar bears and humans compete. If the bear and human populations use up the food resources in an area, both populations move somewhere else, or limit reproduction.

The polar bear population may be near the historic high at 20 to 25,000 animals. In the 1950’s and 60’s, the population may have been as low as 5,000. Sea-ice extent is cyclical. Bears have withstood many cycles of sea-ice shrinking and growing, including previous interglacials. The polar bear population is in no danger.

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

Also read an excellent article here: polar-bears-polemics-and-climate-warming/

Meteorologist Dr. Wolfgang Thüne Calls Potsdam Institute’s Science “Pure Voodoo Magic For Spreading Fear Among The Public”

Dr. Wolfgand Thüne

As the science of the warmists gets exposed as woefully inadequate, slipshod and flawed, all they can do now is give each other awards in pompous ceremonies in an effort to generate a (fake) sense of achievement and contribution. They’ve been reduced to a pretend world.

One example is the Technical University of Berlin recently awarding Prof. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber an honorary doctorate. Schellnhuber is Director of the infamously über-alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and is chairman of the WBGU Advisory Council.

Last year Schellnhuber and his WBGU published a “masterplan” calling for the dilution of democracy worldwide and forcing societies to take up a highly restricted “sustainable path” that would keep the planet from reaching his nine mathematically concocted “dangerous tipping points”. In it he advocates indoctrination and “changes in awareness”.

Schellnhuber even once publicly stated that 1 billion people would be the ideal human population for the planet, which would be like eliminating all the world’s people except China and letting them have it all to themselves.

Schellnhuber, however, having clearly drifted from science to radical policy formulation and advising, is coming under increasing fire from number of scientists and critics.

For example, Dr. Wolfgang Thüne, a retired German meteorologist and member of the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) commented yesterday on Schellnhuber’s honorary doctorate:

That Professor Dr. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, the inventer of the “tipping elements”, is now being celebrated and awarded an honorary doctorate is amazing. But what’s even more amazing is that he received this from the TU Berlin for his ‘outstanding scientific achievements in the fields of climate impact research and policy counselling’. Did the TU Berlin, in its addiction to political attention, even stop to consider just how much it is damaging its excellent reputation among the professional world?

The climate science by Schellnhuber & Co. is pure voodoo-magic spreading fear among the public and reaching big time into the pockets of taxpayers.

The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) is senselessly wasting the money of taxpayers. ‘Climate protection’ is a scientific swindle because the weather is not something that can be protected.”

Thüne even demands that the PIK be shut down immediately.

That would be a small but effective step in preventing the national debt from getting out of control.“

Dr. Wolfgang Thüne is a certified meteorologist, who for years was a meteorology expert for ZDF television, and has written about the falsifiications and fraud surrounding the UN IPCC. He is the author of numerous books. His latest work is: “Prophets in the Struggle for the Climate Throne. How primal fear is used in the struggle for money and power.”

The latest German skeptic book exposes junk climate science and shady climate politics.

 

Sweden Records One Of Its Coldest and Wettest June Months Since Records Began In 1786

The English language Swedish online news site The Local.se/ reports on how the weather in Sweden has been so far during the month of June: wet & cold.

Chilly June hits Sweden. (Photo from Wikipedia, taken by Mark A. Wilson, Department of Geology, The College of Wooster).

According to the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI), temperatures have been well below average in June, at just 13.3 degrees Celsius. Normal is 15.2°C.

On June 2, the temperature in Stockholm rose only to 6°C, the coldest high in 84 years, read more here. Earlier in the month one town recorded a temperature of 6°C below zero – the coldest June temperature in Sweden in 20 years. Snow even blanketed parts of northern Sweden.

Normally in the month of June, the mercury rises to 25°C or more on just days 5 days on average. This June the mercury never reached that mark. In fact it didn’t even reach the 22°C mark. The high temperature for June in Stockholm was only 21.6°C. This is only the second time the temperature has failed to reach 25°C in June in 92 years.

What’s behind the unusual cool weather? An SMHI spokesman explains it to us:

Sweden’s climate has become both warmer and rainier because of global warming, and rainfall and storms have increased in recent years.”

I’m glad he cleared that up.

June has also been a very wet month. According to the SMHI, Stockholm recorded a record rainfall so far for the month: 145.8 millimetres, the most since records began in 1786.

 

Yet Another PV Manufacturer (Massively Subsidized By The DOE) Bites The Dust – “Just The Tip Of The Iceberg”

What follows is a press release from Longmont, Colorado-based Abound Solar (emphasis added): Read here!

Abound Solar is yet another government subsidized solar company that gets burned.

Abound Solar Press Release excerpt:

Abound Solar’s closure is an unfortunate but very real consequence of the continued slide in crystalline silicon (c-Si) pricing and the increased competition for limited global demand of solar modules,” said MJ Shiao, Senior Analyst at GTM Research. “Abound was still in the earlier stages of technology and commercial development and despite over $220 million in private investment and $70 million drawn from its $400 million U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantee, simply didn’t have the cost and downstream reach to survive in the tumultuous solar market.

Abound’s cadmium telluride (CdTe) product had little differentiation from First Solar and also suffered from lower efficiency,” said Shyam Mehta, a Senior Analyst at GTM. “Produced at lower scale and likely a higher cost, the chance for survival in the current market environment was always slim. Unfortunately, Abound and other module manufacturing closures including thin film and c-Si suppliers alike, is still just the tip of the iceberg. GTM Research forecasts at least 21 GW of PV module manufacturing capacity to retire by the end of 2015.”

For further comment from GTM Research, please contact VP of Research, Shayle Kann at kann@gtmresearch or by phone at +1 617 500 4216.”

Read more here. RINOs got in on the act too!

Abound also had support from the Republican side. Indiana’s GOP governor, Mitch Daniels, supported an $11.85 million tax credit for the firm, and “two Abound investors were major Republican donors who have given more than $100,000 to Republicans in the last few years.” according to reports in the National Review.”

 

Big Wind Protesters/Greens In Vermont Show Comical Side Of Their Thinking – Blind Leading The Blind

A few days ago I wrote here how green activists are (suddenly) horrified that the state of Vermont and Green Mountain Electric Company are defiling pristine mountain ridge-lines to make way for Big Wind, and thus are now protesting (and no longer supporting) wind parks in northeastern Vermont.

Scott Wheeler interviews 2 Big Wind protesters, who propose solar energy as a way to keep prices down in Vermont.

One of the leaders of the protest is Steve Wright, who with Stacey Burke, are shown being interviewed by Scott Wheeler at a sort of homemade TV station. There are some interesting parts that show how the green mind ticks (not very well, you’ll soon see).

Once a Big Wind fan, now an opponent!

At the 8:20 mark note how Burke says she was once enthusiastic about wind power on mountain tops, and now admits she had been too ignorant to know better.

When I first heard about the wind towers going up on Lowell Mountain, I actually thought, oh wow, how cool is that? […] Because I was ignorant of what was really gonna happen.”

Don’t you just love people who can’t make up their minds?

Intermittent wind can’t replace nuclear power, but solar can!

At the 13:00 minute mark, anti-Big Wind activist Wright is asked if wind towers could replace Vermont Yankee Nuclear power plant. His answer:

“The answer is no with a big exclamation point. There is no relationship between whether Vermont Yankee lives or dies and the placement of industrial wind turbines on Vermont ridge-lines, especially with Lowell Mountain. And the reason is that Vermont Yankee represents a kind of power source that is referred to as base load. That means it’s running all the time. It is always available. The wind doesn’t always blow, so therefore the turbine installations are referred to as intermittent power. Intermittent power cannot replace baseload power.”

So far so good. He’s right about that. But then listen to what he says just seconds later at the 14:55 mark after being asked how we could supply the GROWING need for power:

Our answer for the long term with Vermont, is to invest seriously in two approaches. One is solar, and two is aggressive action on efficiency. We can especially reduce the use of home heating fuels in that situation, thereby reducing our carbon emissions…”

Intermittent solar can work, but intermittent wind cannot? Who is he trying to kid? Solar, like wind, is also an intermittent supply. And it’s a heck of a lot more expensive. Maybe the sun shines at night in Vermont.

Wind energy is too expensive…the solution is solar!

At the 18:55 mark Wright is asked about the high costs of wind power for consumers: Listen to his ridiculous answer:

Actually what we’re trying to do is to save Vermomt rate payers money by having a more effective energy planning process and an effective long term energy plan in Vermont. The rates that will emerge, imposed on Vermonters, on customers, from wind projects are gonna be higher than basically anything we have functional right now. So the ratepayers are gonna get hosed by the high prices, high electrical prices the more aggressively wind energy is installed.”

Yet he above proposes solar energy, which is several times more expensive than wind! He proposes using solar energy to rescue Vermonters from high electricty prices. I wonder if he takes a hammer to his head to cure a headache.

I probably should be grateful for Wright and the protests, which do seem to be having an effect. But what Wright proposes instead of wind is much worse. Solar power? Get real.

Greens grateful that FOX NEWS covered the protests!

Finally at the 25:00 minute mark, they discuss media coverage of the Big Wind protests. The greens give kudos to (conservative) FOX 44…the only statewide media outlet to be present at a protest. Now I bet that’s something they didn’t expect.

 

German Pols Now Demanding Energy Welfare For Its Citizens – 800,000 Have Had Their Electricity Cut Off!

Energy poverty is sweeping over modern Germany like never before.

Flagship German newspaper Die Welt has an online report titled: Fast 800.000 Deutsche können Strom nicht bezahlen. In English: Almost 800,000 Germans cannot pay for electricity.

Green energy leaves Germans in the dark.

As Germany subsidies wealthy homeowners and businesses owners to install solar panels on their homes and commercial buildings, low income families living in rented apartments are getting stuck footing skyrocketing electric bills. Many can no longer afford to pay for electricity, and so the utilities are cutting off their power.

Indeed high energy prices are causing everything else to get more expensive as well – all this while the euro is threatened to collapse under the weight of massive debt due to financial ineptitude.

So it’s little wonder that German politicians are beginning to panic and coming up with really nutty solutions. Instead of scaling back the cause of the energy mess (government meddling in the energy sector) they are threatening to do the opposite: i.e. meddle even more – much more.

Aribert Peters, Chairman of the Bund der Energieverbraucher (Association of Energy Consumers) says that already 600,000 to 800,000 people in Germany have had their electricity cut off, all thanks to skyrocketing electricity prices due to friendly green energy. Spooked, a number of leading politicians and consumer advocates are now calling for financial assistance for low income households, i.e. energy welfare. Die Welt writes:

Energy companies should be obligated to offer the first 500 kilowatt-hours per household at a low rate, SPD (social democrat party) faction vice chairman Ulrich Kelber demanded in a strategy paper, which he wants to present to the SPD leaders.”

Peters of the Association of Energy Consumers, however, goes even further, saying there’s a need for a general cost exemption for the first 500 kilowatt hours consumed per year and household. The exemption should apply to all citizens.

Also the VdK Social Association of Hesse-Thuringia is demanding social tariffs. VdK chairman Udo Schlitt says that without a price rebate, more and more people with low incomes are going to have their power shut off. He proposes:

Therefore all power producers must be mandated to offer binding social rates by law.”

So in summary, here’s Germany’s latest energy plan: 1) Force power companies to buy exorbitantly-priced, inefficient and intermittent-supply green energy on one side, and then force them to give it away, or sell it at a low price, on the sales side!

How long can that go on before it all collapses?

Not only is electricity to be given away, DIE WELT also brings up another SPD scheme, one of course that the other parties will join in on:

Moreover, there should also be a billion-euro subsidy program so that, for example, energy saving refrigerators can be bought.”

There you have it. First the government took over the energy sector, and now we see it is moving in to take over private households. If this allowed to happen, then in 10 years Germany will no longer be recognizable.

You can think out the rest.

 

Research Council Of Norway Recommendation: More Research On Natural Causes Of Climate Change!

This just released prestigious report is not going to please the IPCC scientists. It calls for a profound change of course in climate research.

Snip of the report’s front cover.

The Research Council Of Norway has conducted a comprehensive evaluation (see right side bar) of the status of climate science in Norway and released their results. The document: Norwegian Climate Research – An Evaluation writes, “This evaluation provides a critical review of Norwegian climate research in an international perspective and recommends measures to enhance the quality, efficiency and relevance of future climate research.”

Hat-tip to Dr Sebastian Lüning and Dr. Jan-Erik Solheim.

In early 2011, the Norwegian Research Council (RCN) appointed a committee to review Norwegian climate research. The aim of the evaluation was to provide a critical review of Norwegian climate research in an international perspective and to recommend measures to enhance the quality, efficiency and relevance of future climate research.

Key findings of the report are found on page 22, and include the following (my emphasis):

Although the expressed political needs regarding science results primarily relate to the impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, there is also a need for increased research on the impact of human activity on land cover and land-use change, especially in relation to the albedo and the biogeochemical and hydrological cycles. Furthermore, a good understanding of the climate system cannot be reached without a dedicated effort to understand the contribution to climate change from natural climate processes. The geological history very clearly documents a strong climate forcing associated with solar variability, although the exact mechanism has not been identified. This should call for a coherent international effort, but surprisingly, the worldwide scientific effort to increase our understanding of the natural variations is very limited, and this is most probably related to the limited funding available for basic, not agenda-driven research. Therefore, in addition to implementing the recommendations of Klima21, this committee recommends an increased effort in research on the natural causes of climate change, in particular the activity variations of the sun, the mechanism of cloud formation, and the multi-decadal variations in ocean current systems.

2.1.1.7 Summary of key findings

Largely funded by RCN, Norway has developed internationally recognised top competency in many of the scientific disciplines that are necessary for understanding current climate and its development. In particular, the numerical comprehensive climate and Earth system models are highly regarded. Less effort has been devoted to studying and explaining the natural causes of climate change because these have been regarded as having a relatively minor impact on the climate system and global temperature compared with the effect of man-made greenhouse gasses. In setting priorities, Norwegian climate research is in harmony with the mainstream of international climate science, but, taking into account the strong competencies in a wide spectrum of disciplines, an increased effort to understand the basic natural climate processes could be advantageous for Norwegian climate research.

Moreover, page 9 adds that: “…more effort is needed to understand natural climate variability in order to better quantify the uncertainty in predicting future climate.”

Obviously the Research Council of Norway feels the climate models are inadequate and need a good dose of improvement and getting back to reality.

Clearly the report shows that more and more scientists are now realizing that a course correction is needed in climate research, and that the focus has to shift to natural causes.

 

California Sea Level Rise Is Slowing Down, Ignores The Modelers

By Ed Caryl

On Friday, June 22nd, 2012, the The National Academy of Science issued a press release titled, “California Sea Level Projected to Rise at Higher Rate Than Global Average; Slower Rate for Oregon, Washington, But Major Earthquake Could Cause Sudden Rise”. Just in time for Rio+20.

Figure 1: Arial photo of San Andreas fault in California Central Valley.

The press release was picked up by the Associated Press, and in turn, on Saturday the story appeared in newspapers all across the country, including my local paper, and most California papers. The press release breathlessly stated:

The committee that wrote the report projected that global sea level will rise 8 to 23 centimeters by 2030, relative to the 2000 level, 18 to 48 centimeters by 2050, and 50 to 140 centimeters by 2100. The 2100 estimate is substantially higher than the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s projection made in 2007 of 18 to 59 centimeters with a possible additional 17 centimeters if rapid changes in ice flow are included.

For the California coast south of Cape Mendocino, the committee projected that sea level will rise 4 to 30 centimeters by 2030, 12 to 61 centimeters by 2050, and 42 to 167 centimeters by 2100. For the Washington, Oregon, and California coast north of Cape Mendocino, sea level is projected to change between falling 4 centimeters to rising 23 centimeters by 2030, falling 3 centimeters to rising 48 centimeters by 2050, and rising between 10 to 143 centimeters by 2100. The committee noted that as the projection period lengthens, uncertainties, and thus ranges, increase.

The committee’s projections for the California coast south of Cape Mendocino are slightly higher than its global projections because much of the coastline is subsiding. The lower sea levels projected for northern California, Washington, and Oregon coasts are because the land is rising largely due to plate tectonics. In this region, the ocean plate is descending below the continental plate at the Cascadia Subduction Zone, pushing up the coast.

Extreme events could raise sea level much faster than the rates projected by the committee. For example, an earthquake magnitude 8 or greater north of Cape Mendocino, which occurs in this area every several hundred to 1,000 years with the most recent in 1700, could cause parts of the coast to subside immediately and the relative sea level to rise suddenly by a meter or more.”

Of course the newspapers picked the most extreme of the above numbers, stating a six inch rise by 2030, and three feet by 2100. I downloaded and read the entire paper, all 275 pages, including 15 pages of “boiler-plate” introduction, title pages, table of contents, Committee members names, etc, and 95 pages of references. The 150 or so pages of real content essentially repeated the above four paragraphs, ad nauseam, with supporting hyperventilation about extreme storms, cliff and beach erosion, and wetlands damage. Surprisingly, the last paragraph, and the last part of the title, on the possibility of an earthquake event, had the least discussion.

Willis Eschenbach was the first to respond to this drivel. By Saturday evening he had posted his response on WUWT here, pointing out the impossibility of the above projection, using the actual San Francisco tide gauge plot. Others, in the comments to his posting, added details. I will add a few more.

The geology of the west coast of the U. S. is dominated by two features. The southern coast of California is moved by the San Andreas fault. From Point Reyes north of San Francisco, to the Gulf of California, the coast is moving to the northwest at about 2.5 inches (6.3 cm) per year. There is very little motion up or down as can be seen in Figure 1 above.

North of Cape Mendocino, ground motions are dominated by the Cascadia Subduction Zone. The Juan de Fuca plate is sliding under the North American Plate. The bending of the North American Plate looks like a playing card being pushed at the edge: the edge bends down, but further back the card bends up, and further back yet, it bends down again. In the case of the Northern California, Oregon, Washington, and Southern British Columbia coasts, the edge is off-shore, the upward-bending part is the coast, and inland is bent down again.

Tide gauges reflect these motions. Crescent City is on the California coast just south of the Oregon boarder in the subduction zone, well north of Cape Mendocino.

Figure 2 is the sea level changes at Crescent City, California. Crescent City is rising at about 0.76 mm per year. In 75 years, there has been no significant change to that trend. Sea level rise will not be a problem to Crescent City.

Figure 3: Sea level anomaly at San Francisco.

The tide gauge at San Francisco has been at three locations. Early on it was at Fort Point, then at Sausalito, before moving to Presidio Park near the Golden Gate Bridge before the turn of the century. During the whole history of this gauge, the trend has been a rise of about 1.4 mm per year. But as you can see from figure 2, there have been four distinct periods with very different trends. Since 1980, including the El Niño of 1982, the trend has been flat or slightly down, at about -0.13 mm per year. This precludes any rise of 6 inches by 2030. The prediction should be between this trend and the last 115 year trend, or between a fall of about 0.4 cm (about -1/8th of an inch) and a rise of 5.6 cm (about 2.2 inches).

The last 30-year trend could be an artifact of local changes at San Francisco. To check that, two tide gauges further south were checked. Gauges around Los Angeles were avoided, because oil reservoir depletion and water injection, aquifer depletion and restoration, have altered coastal rise and fall much more than sea level changes. Instead, two tide gauges further south, La Jolla and San Diego, were examined.

Figure 4: Sea level changes at La Jolla, California.

 

 Figure 5: Sea level change at San Diego, California.

These two gauges roughly agree, with a long-term trend of about 2 mm/year rise, and a short term trend of about 0.6 mm rise. These would correspond to a rise of between 1.8 cm and 6 cm (0.7 inch to 2.4 inches) by 2030, hardly catastrophic. Extending these trends to 2100 would result in a 2 to 7 inch rise, far short of the National Academy of Science prediction.

Part 2
Oregon and Washington Sea Level

On the evening of January 26th, 1700, at 9:30 PM, the world ended! At least it did for many Native Americans on the coast of Oregon and Washington, and First People on Vancouver Island, British Columbia in Canada. A magnitude 9+ earthquake, lasting several minutes, knocked everyone standing off their feet, collapsed native long-houses, and made people motion-sick. Elders told the children to run for high ground. After spending a cold night in the hills, the children returned to find their villages totally gone. Whole tribes from Crescent City, California to Vancouver Island, were wiped out. Across the Pacific in Japan the next day, multiple waves came ashore:

It flooded farmed fields, ruined salt kilns, damaged fishermen’s shacks, ascended a castle moat, entered a government warehouse, drove people to high ground, and probably ran 2 kilometers up a river…. It wrecked houses not only by flooding them but also by starting a fire. It contained multiple waves that range in reported time from midnight until the following noon. The tsunami initiated a nautical accident in which were lost two crew members and tons of rice.”

We know the exact date and time because it took 10 hours for the tsunami to cross the Pacific and be recorded in Japan. We know what happened to Native Americans and First People in Canada from oral histories and archaeological evidence. The coastal elevation immediately sank five feet (1.5 meters). Drowned forest tree rings show death occurred between the 1699 and 1700 growing seasons. Some dead cedar snags still stand in inland wetlands on the Washington coast.

Similar events have happened 13 times since the eruption of Mt Mazama (Crater Lake) in Oregon 7770 years ago. The shortest interval between these events has been 390 years, the longest, about 1000 years. The next one could happen around 2100, or it could wait until 2700. For an idea of the devastation that will result, look to the Japanese tsunami of last year. It could be much worse because the fault that could slip is much longer and it is much closer to the coast.

Sea level rise is not a hazard on the U. S. Pacific coast. Mega-thrust earthquakes are the real hazard. Thankfully, on the Cascadia Subduction Zone, they are separated by hundreds of years. The National Academy of Science needs to look at real tide gauge data and do some real science.

 

University Of Wisconsin Antarctica South Pole Station Sets New Record Low: -100.8°F…Media AWOL

According to the University of Wisconsin, Madison here, on June 11, 2012, the South Pole Station measured a new record low temperature.

Antarctica weather station. Photo source: http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/aboutus/

The mercury dropped to -73.8°C/-100.8°F, breaking the previous minimum temperature record of -73.3°C/-99.9°F set in 1966.

Must be because of global warming!

Hat/tip: http://www.kaltesonne.de/

 

German Geologist: Global Temperature Sees Slowest Ben Santer-Type Rise Since Satellite Data Began, 0.04°C Per Decade!

Geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning’s and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt’s website looks at the NOAA’s and NCDC’s relentless search for new climate records with which to scare the public. But as they show, despite what these alarmists conjure up, the warming is not getting faster, period.

Figure 1: Temperature development of the last 33 years based on UAH satellite data. Source: climate4you.

We keep hearing scary claims like: “May 2012 was one of the hottest the globe has seen since records began!” or “CO2 in the Arctic hits 400 ppm level!” or “2011 was the warmest year with a cooling La Nina-effect!” are just some recent examples. In the USA, the picture looks the same, where the warmest May since 1895 was recorded (see Climate Central and WUWT).

But as Lüning and Vahrenholt explain, many of these records use arbitrary startpoints in the statistical record and are thus designed to create “a record”. It’s time to get back to science, they say.

A look at the global satellite temperature series shows that May 2012 is in no way anything unusual and fits right into the ongoing temperature plateau the Earth has been stuck at for quite some time now (see Figure 1). Lüning and Vahrenholt write:

It is quite amazing how stubborn this warming stop has been. Not one of the IPCC models had predicted this plateau. Also the hyped up temperature prognoses made by Hartmut Graßl and James Hansen have been shown to be far from reality, [read here, for example.]”

Ok, one could say that the temperature plateau is only 14 years long, and shouldn’t longer periods be considered? Here often the ominous 30-year rule gets applied. Somehow that’s considered okay. But luckily we also here have a development that’s good news. With each year the temperature plateau extends, the 30-year window shifts a step out of the strong warming period of 1977-1998. As a result a greater part of the plateau enters the calculation. Year by year the warming rates decreases.

But for many, 30 years are impractical. Satellite data have been around for only 33 years, for example, and here not much can be statistically calculated. Therefore, a group led by IPCC lead author Ben Santer once checked over which intervval length actually makes sense in order to find the man-made impact on temperature. They reached the result that it has to be at least 17 years.

And lo and behold we find a world record of a completely different type: Currently we are experiencing the lowest temperature rise of a 17-year series since satellite temperature data began. At the moment the warming rate is a minsicule 0.04°C per decade; this is an absolute record low. A few years ago the figure was up to 0.26°C per decade, i.e. more than six times higher.”

Gee, I wonder if we’re going to read that in the newspaper or any NOAA press release? Don’t hold your breath.

Figure 2: Currently we are experiencing the lowest temperature increase of a 17-year series since satellite data began. Source: dh7fb.

While some places like the USA are enjoying warm weather, the opposite is true in great Britain, which has seen weeks of cool, rainy weather. Lüning and Vahrenholt write: “The forecasts project that there will not be any noteworthy warm spell until at least September. Daily Express writes ‘Summer starts in September’.”

That takes us to another new record: the most missed “barbecue summers”!

Lüning and Vahrenholt conclude:

While alarmist pseudo-records can help to fill newspaper space and attract funding, the sense behind this selective approach has to be regarded with great skepticism.”

 

Vermonters Realizing They’ve Erred…Citizens Ramp Up Protests Against Big Wind

In the 5-minute video below, there are lots of statements made that are worth quoting.

Many are from environmentalists who now seem to realize something went horribly wrong. “Green yes, but not like this!”

One of my favorites is by Justin Lindholm at the 4:35 mark:

Maybe 10,000 years from now they’ll come around and wonder what went on here. […] Pads and pedestals look like sacrificial sites of some sort, and they are.”

10,000 years? The human species indeed can be frustratingly stupid at times, but not that stupid. I say give them less than a generation, 20-30 years tops. Already people are waking up, now even making protest videos against the madness. The protest is already getting into full swing.

I wonder how many of the environmentalists in the video were staunch supporters of these windmills in the beginning, before the heavy equipment rolled in and removed the mountain tops? I’d suspect most of them were. For example, see here at the 8:25 mark of this do-it-yourself TV.

Another part I find amusing is the one with activist Gaelen Brown near a home surrounded by panels at the 4-minute mark. Nothing like endowing the landscape with a little traditional Vermont charm! Sorry Gaelen, but that yard with the panels and home look god-awful ugly. I’m glad that house is not in my neighborhood. At least put the damn panels on the roof.

Dream eco-home? It looks more like a solar-powered guard tower for a prison. Other amenities: no windows facing south (or the panels are facing north), the roof cannot support very many panels, installed on the ground instead, and the sun hardly shines – which is typical in Vermont. Classic example of what the Big Green virus can do to someone’s mind. The architect of this beauty was definitely out to lunch. (Photo source: energizevermont.org video)

German readers should send this video to the leaders of Baden Wurttemberg and Bavaria, as they too appear to have been recently infected by the Big Green virus, which leads to clouded thinking and even to irreversible madness in some cases.

Finally, one last point on Gaelen’s remark about “cheap” solar panels. Today solar panel energy is still about 10 times more expensive than conventional electricity, and its forced ineffective use is one of the reasons other products like cement and glass are getting more expensive.

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

Also, state prosecutes journalist reporting the story for trespassing!

New 2.8 Million Year Reconstruction Throws Climate Science Into Disarray – Was Up To 5°C Warmer Than Today!

So much for the notion that today’s climate is “unusual”. It turns out that some earlier interglacials were much warmer than the current one and that the variations cannot be explained by greenhouse gases alone.

Source: Alfred Wegener Instutute

A new temperature reconstruction suggests that (NATURAL) feedback mechanisms and amplifiers had to be at play.

Der Spiegel here has the story on a team of German scientists led by Martin Melles of the University of Cologne. In 2008/2009 his team extracted a sediment core from Lake El’gygytgyn in northeast Siberia, 100 miles north of the Arctic Circle. The team extracted a 135-meter long sediment core from the lake’s bottom, analyzed it and produced a temperature reconstruction going back 2.8 million years.

What makes this core unique is the lake’s history. It was formed 3.6 million years ago by a meteorite leaving a huge crater. The crater filled with water to form the lake and year by year the bottom accumulated sediment. Because the lake was not covered by a glacier during the ice ages, it sediment core is complete and without holes. Each layer of sediment provides a record like pages in a diary.

What has the reconstruction revealed?

The scientists reconstructed the climate from this core and found some big suprises. According to Der Spiegel there were “some extreme warm periods in the Arctic that up to now had been unknown.”

Der Spiegel adds

The core from Lake El’gygytgyn shows a regular change between warm and cold periods in the Arctic – thanks to changes in the Earth’s orbit, fluctuating greenhouse gases and changing solar activity. However from the back and forth in temperatures and precipitation, some extreme events stand out: The scientists have compared two “normal” warm periods – the current one, which has been ongoing for the last 12,00 years, and another one 125,000 years ago, and compared them to the so-called super warm periods. These occurred 400,000 and one million years ago.”

How warm was it?

Der Spiegel reports on what the scientists found:

During the super warm times, the high temperatures were up to 5°C above the normal highs – that is at about 13°C. Moreover, about 600 liters of precipitation fell per square meter, about double what is normal. ‘For climatology, that’s worlds apart,’ Melles describes the differences. Around Lake El’gygytgyn, where today one finds tundra and little plant growth, green fir trees once grew. During these times, the scientists say, a large part of the Greenland ice sheet was gone.’

Also:

One sees a clear agreement between the super warm periods in the Arctic and the disappearance of the West Antarctic ice sheets,’ Melles says. Information on the retreat of this massive ice sheet was gathered from the ‘Andrill’ core in the Antarctic. It’s evaluation has shown that the West Antarctic was ice-free in warm times.

The question of course is what is the connection between the Arctic and Antarctic melting at the same time? Gee, that’s a tough one.

The Melles and his team speculate that melting water being conveyed by ocean currents, and thus coupling the two poles, could be a factor. Another theory they propose is that if sea level rises 5 meters or more, the water flow though the Bering Strait might be enough to warm the Arctic.

Amazing how what seems obvious eludes government-funded scientists. Maybe the connection is the sun?

The paper’s abstract adds:

Climate simulations show these extreme warm conditions are difficult to explain with greenhouse gas and astronomical forcing alone, implying the importance of amplifying feedbacks and far field influences. The timing of Arctic warming relative to West Antarctic Ice Sheet retreats implies strong interhemispheric climate connectivity.”

We all suspect that feedbacks and amplifiers are at play. But some scientists are doing all they can to ignore some of the mechanisms being proposed and supported by a growing body of evidence.

If there’s anything that can’t be ignored, it is that the study shows once again that scientists are more baffled than ever on how the climate really works, and so their models have to be considered accordingly.

 

German Press, Greenpeace Lament: “Rio+20 Was Finished Even Before It Started…Deflated, Exhausted Atmosphere”

The binding UN international treaty on limiting greenhouse gases and forcing “sustainable” living is dead.

Is anyone listening any more? UN briefing to, um, hardly anyone.

The world has once again been rescued (for the time being) from the real menace: radical environmentalism. We’ve done it. We’ve succeeded in dumping a load of sand into the machinery of the environmental movement.

But it doesn’t mean we can all go home and relax. They will of course be back, sooner rather than later.

It’s almost as if many countries woke up over the last months and realized this sustainability scheme just wasn’t going to work. Hardly any country was able to afford it. High costs – no benefiits. Most countries hung in there hoping to receive billions in free handouts.

According to CO2 Handel here, the German press agency, DPA, today writes:

The summit on sustainable energy development was actually over before it even started on Wednesday. That’s the impression many of the conference attendees have. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who weeks ago cancelled her visit, hardly regrets her decision.”

Even Barack Obama stayed away, avoiding it like the plague. No sense in coming to Brazil and being associated with yet another huge flop. According to the DPA:

‘It is an unusual mood. The atmosphere is completely deflated. State and national leaders can just forget about the text,’ said one delegation member who already on Tuesday evening wondered about the exhausted atmosphere in the ‘Riocentro’, of the gigantic conference centre in the Rios area of Barra da Tijuca.”

And that was already 12 hours before UN-General Secretary Ban Ki Moon spoke on Wednesday. German Greenpeace activist leader Martin Kaiser lamented: “The summit was was over before it even started.”

The DPA adds:

Tactics exaggerations, blocking, and forging alliances, are part of every summit drama. But somehow one had the feeling Rio+20 began already with the final act. WWF expert Alois Vedder fears: ‘The sustainability summit in Rio threatens to turn into a event for pure show’.”

Study Claims Human Obesity Now Threatens Global Climate…Points Finger At Lazy, Fat North Americans And Arabians

German online tabloid Bild today has an article about a study on obesity and its effects on the planet and climate.

Time for you to go on a climate-saving diet.

The study appeared in the journal of BMC Public Health.

Bild writes that increasing obesity does not only causes chronic ailments such as diabetes and cardio-vascular disease, but could develop into a climate-killer. Because of addiction to fat and obesity, CO2-emissions are higher than they should be.

The study Bild writes about says that if the planet had the same rate of overweight people as the USA does, it would be like having another billion people (emitters) on the planet. The study’s abstract writes (my emphasis):

In 2005, global adult human biomass was approximately 287 million tonnes, of which 15 million tonnes were due to overweight (BMI > 25), a mass equivalent to that of 242 million people of average body mass (5% of global human biomass). Biomass due to obesity was 3.5 million tonnes, the mass equivalent of 56 million people of average body mass (1.2% of human biomass). North America has 6% of the world population but 34% of biomass due to obesity. […} If all countries had the BMI distribution of the USA, the increase in human biomass of 58 million tonnes would be equivalent in mass to an extra 935 million people of average body mass, and have energy requirements equivalent to that of 473 million adults.”

Prof. Roberts sees a relation between weight and the population’s reliance on the automobile. Translating the Bild quote to English, Dr. Roberts says, “The average body mass index (BMI) is related to the level of per capita fuel consumption. It’s little wonder that Arabian countries appear on the list – the people eat, but move very little because they drive everywhere by automobile.“

I can see it now: dieting – to save the climate! Does anyone have Governor Christie’s e-mail address?

(Actually, I could lose few pounds myself – maybe tomorrow.)

 

What Are The Causes of Sea Level Rise?

Where Is All That Water Coming From?
By Ed Caryl

DirkH asked an interesting question in the comments to my last post: “It would be interesting to know how much of sea level rise is due to ancient aquifer depletion. Anyone got a number for that, in mm/yr?” The short answer (paper #1) is, about 0.77 mm/year for all anthropogenic causes.

Rusting ship hulks on what used to be the Aral Sea. Source: Wikipedia

But, this question deserves a longer post. The number above includes several anthropogenic sources of the extra water. Aquifer depletion is currently offset by dam impoundment,(see below), but there are several very visible, (but forgotten) sources of that extra water. Water diversion from rivers that flow into lakes and seas with no outlet to the ocean (endorheic lakes) are very important.

Examples include the Caspian Sea, Lake Aral or Aral Sea, Lake Balkhash, Lop Nur, Lake Chad, the Dead Sea, the Great Salt Lake, and many smaller lakes. As these lakes dry up, the diverted water eventually, through evaporation and rain, ends up in large part in the world’s oceans.

Figure 1 is the Aral Sea, 1989 on the left, 2008 on the right. Wikimedia Commons here.

As mentioned above, aquifer depletion is currently offset by dam impoundment. A paper in Geophysical Research Letters here (paper #2) describes the numbers. Quote:

Our results show that the contribution of groundwater depletion to sea-level increased from 0.035 (±0.009) mm yr−1 in 1900 to 0.57 (±0.09) mm yr−1 in 2000, and is projected to increase to 0.82 (±0.13) mm yr−1 by the year 2050. We estimate the net contribution of terrestrial sources to be negative of order −0.15 (±0.09) mm yr−1 over 1970–1990 as a result of dam impoundment. However, we estimate this to become positive of order +0.25 (±0.09) mm yr−1 over 1990–2000 due to increased groundwater depletion and decreased dam building. We project the net terrestrial contribution to increase to +0.87 (±0.14) mm yr−1 by 2050. As a result, the cumulative contribution will become positive by 2015, offsetting dam impoundment (maximum −31 ± 3.1 mm in 2010), and resulting in a total rise of +31 (±11) mm by 2050.”

Unfortunately, other papers don’t agree. This study (paper#3) says aquifer depletion results in 0.4 mm/year sea level rise, without mentioning dam impoundment. Another study (paper #4) says the aquifer depletion is 0.3 mm/year with impoundment at -0.4 mm/year leaving a net of -0.1 mm/year. Neither of these studies mention drying lakes and seas as a contributor.

They also don’t agree on the numbers for the various contributors.

Figure 2 is a chart using data from the four papers cited.

Papers two, three, and four don’t mention sea level rise from water diverted from land-locked lakes and seas. They also differ by more than their error bars. In the chart above, the “drying lakes” number is derived by subtracting paper one’s result from paper two’s total.

All four papers are behind pay-walls, so details not mentioned in the extracts, and any charts that might explain the ambiguities, are not available.

There is a lot of guess-work in the above papers. We really don’t know with any degree of certainty what the sources of the equally fuzzy sea level rise are. About all one can say is that sea level rise is coming roughly equally from man messing with the water, thermal expansion, and ice melting.

 

FOCUS Cover Story: Renewable Energy Threatens To “Ruin” Germany…”A Tsunami Of Costs”

While Ivy league pundits sit comfortably in their intellectually sanitized world of academia and discuss the possible virtues and boldness of Germany’s fast-track energy transition to renewable energy (80% less CO2 by 2050), Germany’s media, business and political leaders are now sounding the alarms for disaster.

FOCUS cover story title: “Energy End! Why it it unaffordable and threatens to ruin the country.”

This week’s cover story of Germany’s print news magazine FOCUS carries the title: Energy End. If you can read German, by all means pick up a copy.

One year ago Germany, in a fit of hysteria, ordered 8 nuclear power plants closed immediately and the remaining 9 closed by the year 2022. By 2050 it’s energy supply must be at least 80% supplied by renewable sources – costs be damned.

This has come to be knows as the German Energiewende or “energy transition”, roughly translated. And so the mad rush to renewable energy was on in earnest. Today, just a single year later, the high costs and insurmountable technical problems (we warned them) have spooked leaders and sparked a wave of uneasiness to sweep over the country. Even the once green media are waking up and sounding the alarms.

For example FOCUS reports in its story that companies will start refusing to pay the exorbitant feed-in tariffs to power companies in a bid to force the issue all the way up to Germany’s Constitutional Supreme Court in Karlsruhe. One business manager said:

Energy costs will be the big issue of [next year’s] federal elections.”

FOCUS writes that one year after the ordered shutdown of nuclear power, the readiness of Germans to accept switching over the renewable energy has collapsed.

A FOCUS survey found that 41% of Germans flat out reject paying one cent more for renewables. In East Germany, that number jumps to 52%. Only a small minority of less than 10% could imagine paying $25 a month more.

German leaders are spooked by the spiralling out-of-control costs and government seizure now spreading though the energy sector. Even leaders within the CDU, Merkel’s ruling “conservative” party, once a staunch proponent of renewable energies, are now speaking up – and loudly! For example FOCUS quotes:

Josef Schlarmann, Chairman of the Mid-Size Companies Association, CDU party:

The discussion about the energy transition has started, and no one can stop it now.”

Michael Fuchs, Vice Chairman parliamentary party, CDU economics politician:

In the energy sector we are moving slowly but surely to a completely centrally planned economy. We have to be damn careful.”

Arnold Vaatz, Vice Chairman of the CDU parliamentary party:

The renewable energy transition is going to cost us an incalculable sum of money, and in the end cost us our competitiveness.”

Hildegard Müller, Director of the Federal Association of Energy and Water Management:

A system of increasing goverment intervention is not economically sensible and is not affordable for consumers.”

Gerd Billen, Director of Federal Association For Consumer Agencies:

The citizens just don’t have an overview of what this trip is going to cost and where it is taking them.”

FOCUS reminds its readers that the big price driver is not “greedy” power companies, but government taxes and surcharges, which make up a whopping 45% of the price of electricity. In 1998 the 80 million or so Germans paid about €2.3 billion for various surcharges, taxes etc. on electricity. Today that figure is more than 1000% higher: €23.7 billion!

Not only the costs have become major obstacles, but also the technical feasibility of renewable energies is missing, especially wind and solar, which lack the infrastructure elements for taking the power to the markets that need them. These elements include power transmission lines, back-up energy systems for when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing, and power storage systems. Costs costs costs.

Schlarmann says: “What we have are highway bridges without highways.”

FOCUS then warns that Germany’s once super stable power grid, once a model of stability and reliability, is now on the brink of collapse. Even SPD (socialist party) honcho and Al-Gore-worshipper Sigmar Gabriel recently said Germany’s handling of its power system was as precarious as “operating on an open heart”. He added, “900 interventions to prop up the power grid in what was a relatively mild winter makes me nervous.”

It most certainly should. If next winter turns out to be a harsh one and the power fails and leaves citizens out in the cold, then there are going to be lots of angry people. Germany’s social powder is tinder dry.

FOCUS ends its cover story by quoting a citizen, Gisela Deckert: “I’m all in favor of renewable energy, but not like this.”

The voice of just one of millions of suckers who had bought into the false paradise promised by greens.

There was time in Germany when the idiot political leaders were more or less separated from the non-idiot leaders: in the days of East and West Germany. Since then guess who has taken over?

Also read:

Germany makes energy unaffordable
600,000-households without power
GERMANY’S FAILED TRANSITION

 

An Environmentalist Has Second Thoughts: “Cost Will Be Crippling, All Driven By Fear”

The UK Telegraph here has published a comment by Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, who together with geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning authored the skeptic book “Die kalte Sonne“, which was on the Spiegel bestseller for a number of weeks earlier this year. Hat-tip: Neil Jones via Facebook.


  Fritz Vahrenholt: “…if these models fail so dramatically in the past, how can they help to predict the future?”

Scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are quite   certain: by using fossil fuels man is currently destroying the climate and our future. We have one last chance, we are told: quickly renounce modern   industrial society – painfully but for a good cause.

For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory.   Recent experience with the UN’s climate panel, however, forced me to  reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report  was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These…” keep reading!

Data Show Sea level Rise Has Slowed Down Over The Last 7 Years

What Is Sea Level Really Doing?
by Ed Caryl

This is the second article I’ve written on sea level. For a review see A Level Look at Sea Level.

 Figure 1: Mean Sea Level, citation: Nerem, R. S., D. Chambers, C. Choe, and G. T. Mitchum. “Estimating Mean Sea Level Change from the TOPEX and Jason Altimeter Missions.” Marine Geodesy 33, no. 1 supp 1 (2010): 435. Source here.

Figure 1 above is the mean sea level according to the University of Colorado. According to their web site, the recent dip in sea level was due to the 2010 El Niño. This struck me as a bit strange, as the 1998 El Niño is clearly visible as a positive rise in that year, not a negative peak. Below is a plot of monthly Niño 3.4 index against a de-trended monthly sea level plot. Niño 3.4 data from here. The de-trend number used was 3.14 mm/year.

Figure 2 is a plot of the El Niño 3.4 index and a de-trended plot of sea level.

It is easy to see that the El Niño trace and the de-trended sea level trace line up well. It is also obvious that the recent flattening in sea level would have been seen earlier if not for the El Niño. The El Niño hid part of the drop in trend that really started in 2005. The El Niño was clearly not the cause of the drop, it hid the early part of the flattening trend.

Because the data overlies so nicely, we can subtract the El Niño effect from sea level.

Figure 3 is mean sea level with the El Niño 3.4 index (X2) subtracted.

Now the El Niño spikes are gone and we see a fairly smooth rise except for changes in the trend: flat in the first two years, a steady rise from 1995 to 2006, then a much slower rise since 2005 to the present. If we measure these trends we see this:

Figure 4 is the sea level plot of figure 3 with linear trends.

Sea level roughly follows global temperature because sea water expands when it warms and shrinks when it cools. In 1993, Mt Pinatubo caused a two-year period of cooling, which was reflected in sea level. By 1995, that effect had ended, and a ten-year period of warming began. In 2005, the warming ended (ignoring the El Niño peaks) and sea level advance returned to the lower long-term rise rate.

The University of Colorado (amid some controversy) has added a 0.3 mm/year “GIA correction” to the sea level trend data. Their explanation is that Glacial Isostatic movement has made the oceans deeper and wider (on average) resulting in increasing the capacity of the oceans to hold water. But all interest is in ocean level at the shoreline, not how much the oceans can hold. If the oceans can hold more water, the level at the shoreline will go down, not up.

Here is a quote from their web site, here.

In order to answer these questions, we have to account for the fact that the ocean is actually getting bigger due to GIA at the same time as the water volume is expanding. This means that if we measure a change in GMSL of 3 mm/yr, the volume change is actually closer to 3.3 mm/yr because of GIA. Removing known components of sea level change, such as GIA or the solid earth and ocean tides, reveals the remaining signals contained in the altimetry measurement. These can include water volume changes, steric effects, and the interannual variability caused by events such as the ENSO. We apply a correction for GIA because we want our sea level time series to reflect purely oceanographic phenomena. In essence, we would like our GMSL time series to be a proxy for ocean water volume changes. This is what is needed for comparisons to global climate models, for example, and other oceanographic datasets.”

We are not interested in ocean water volume, all interest is in level. We want to know when Al Gore’s beachfront mansion will be flooded. That is why we call it, “sea level,” not “sea volume.” Backing out the GIA “correction” results in the following chart:

Figure 5 is Figure 4 with the 0.3 mm/year GIA “correction” removed.

This result is even closer to the historic sea level trends seen by tide gauges. If the trend of the last seven years continues through the rest of the century, the total rise will be exactly 6 inches (15.25 cm) by 2100. Even if the rate returns to the rate of the previous ten years, the total rise will only be one foot (30.5 cm), hardly anything to fear. If the often predicted cooling over the next 30 or 40 years takes place, there may not be any sea level rise at all.

Al, you don’t need to sell your California mansion. But you knew that, didn’t you?

 

Hockey Stick Was Refuted Before Its Fabrication – Study Ignored – IPCC And Mann Took World On 10-Year Joyride

Geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt found a Japanese tree-ring temperature reconstruction from 1995, one that should have been heeded by the IPCC and Michael Mann before they took the world on a 10-year joyride in the stolen car of “climate science”.

Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age found far, far away from the North Atlantic, before the IPCC took the world on a 10-year joyride.

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

Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age as a local, North Atlantic phenomenon: Since when is Japan located in the North Atlantic?
By Sebastian Lüning & Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated with permission, copyright English text NoTricksZone)

Leading representatives of the IPCC tried for years to have policymakers and citizens believe the pre-industrial temperature history was more or less uneventful and was the ideal climate ondition that we should all strive to maintain. The warming of the 20th century, on the other hand, was completely unusual, something dangerous. However, as we now know, the page turned a few years ago and the notorious Hockey Stick chapter ended. The flawed curve was taken off the market and the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age reappeared.

As is often the case in history, it is in retrospect difficult to comprehend how this historical joyride could have happened to begin with. It started at the end of the 1990s with a doctoral thesis by Michael Mann, and did not end until about 10 years later – thanks to the discovery of the scientific scandal by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (see the book The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford). Today it is difficult to fathom how the main players and proponents of the Hockey Sticks are still able to act as experts and public opinion shapers.

One of the main excuses used back then was that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in Europe and North America were local phenomena. At other locations on the planet the temperature anomalies were more than evened out (e.g. Stefan Rahmstorf, Gerald Haug). For years we had to listen to their tales and we had to trust these “specialists” for better or for worse. Moreover, we paid them with our tax money so that they could deal exclusively with the climate and carry out the tedious work all this entails.

However, anyone who knew a little something about the scientific literature soon began to wonder. The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age as a local North Atlantic phenomenon? A nutty claim. Naturally these characteristic temperature fluctuations had been described for other parts of the world. Here we report on a case study from Japan which had appeared in the Geophysical Research Letters already in 1995, in other words, in the years before the Hockey Stick episode.

In the early 1990s, Japanese scientists Hiroyuki Kitagawa and Eiji Matsumoto extracted eleven tree ring cores from cedars on the South Pacific Japan island of Yakushima. The cores contained tree-rings going back some 2000 years. The researchers determined the carbon 13 isotope values and found the delta-13-C values fluctuated in a characteristic manner (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Temperature reconstruction for the South Japan island of Yakushima based on the C-13-isotopes. Attention! Temperature axis is inverted: cold temperatures are up and warm temperatures are down. Figure supplemented as to Kitagawa & Matsumoto (1995).

What did these fluctuations mean? Carbon-13 amount is influenced by a number of factors, among them temperature. The Japanese scientists calibrated the isotope development on trees of different elevations (and thereby temperature level) above sea level. Using this method they were able to come up with a formula that could be used for computing the temperature value using the isotope change. The results showed that temperatures over the previous 2000 years in South Japan fluctuated over a range of 5°C. The course of the temperature fluctuations takes on a shape that is very well known to us (see Figure 2). A clear millennium cycle is depicted. The cold period of the Migration Period, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and the Modern Warm Period are clearly recognisable. Moreover, this climate development is well documented in Japanese historical records.

Therefore, it is incomprehensible that with the clear Japanese data from the year 1995, the talk of a “local North Atlantic phenomenon” would go on for years after the data’s publication.

Figure 2: The same curve as Figure 1, but reinverted (up is warm, down is cold ) with the known warm and cold periods labelled. Völkerwanderungs-Pessimum = Migration Cold Period, Mittelalterliche Wärmeperiode = Medieval Warm Period, Kleine Eiszeit = Little Ice Age, Moderne Wärmeperiode = Modern Warm Period.

The two Japanese scientists even took it a step further. They carried out a detailed frequency analysis of their data and found characteristic cycles with periods in the range of several decades and centuries. Among others, they discovered a period of 187 years, which coincides with the known Suess/de Vries solar activity cycle. In a similar manner the 70 and 89-year Gleissberg-cycle was identified. In their results the authors saw a clear sign that the climate of the last 2000 years in southern Japan was predominantly influenced by solar activity fluctuations. The IPCC appears not to have been at all interested in the study. Indeed it did not fit with their climate catastrophe picture.

 

Sahara Climate Fluctuations Study Shows That Blaming Man For Climate Change Is “Completely Unscientific”

The Sahara is the world’s largest desert, one that geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning – having participated in scientific expeditions there over the course of a decade – is very familiar with. Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt recently wrote a post about a new study that examines climate cycles of the Sahara region throughout the Holocene.

Contrary to what many may believe today, the climate of the Sahara desert is far from being steady. Rather, it has gone through profound cyclic changes over the last 10,000 years. For example it was much greener 8000 to 5500 years ago, a time when it was teeming with wildlife.

What caused the “green Sahara”? The average temperature back then was approx. 1°C higher than today (with atmospheric CO2 concentrations 35% lower). The cause was likely the solar intensity maximum on the northern hemisphere due to the Earth’s orbital orientation (Milankovitch Cycles).

A warmer planet made the Sahara wetter in the past. Is that the case today? How have the Sahara and its neighboring regions changed over the recent years? Listening to the prophesies of some scientists influenced by special interests, you’d think man-made climate change was causing the Sahara to expand catastrophically.

But Lüning and Vahrenholt write that the real picture is entirely different (translated, edited excerpt from the German):

A New Sahel Drought Every 1000 Years – Long Before Industrial CO2

Bedouins in the Sahara report that they’ve seen unusually large amounts of rain over the last years. In a study that was authored by Jonathan Seaquist et al appearing in the journal Biogeosciences in 2009, using satellite data, they were able to show that photosynthesis activity in the Sahel Zone between 1982 and 2002 increased significantly. The living conditions of plants improved markedly during this time period.

There’s good evidence that the extreme, temporary dry phase in the Sahara/Sahel area beginning in the mid 1960s was driven by the rhythm of ocean cycles. These cycles led to a natural changeover between dry and wet phases on a scale of decades.

Added to this are the natural cycles that range in length from a few to many centuries. A US group of scientists led by Christopher Bernhardt from the US Geological Survey has taken a close look at the post-Ice Age history of drought periods at the north edge of the Sahara. Their results were published in May 2012 in the journal Geology. The study is based on a 28-meter sediment core extracted from the Burullus Lagoon of the Egyptian Nile. The scientists were especially interested in the younger, upper part of the sediment core, which covers the last 7000 years. Using the pollen composition from 74 single probes, Bernhardt and his colleagues were able to reconstruct changes in the lagoon’s vegetation, which ultimately reflected fluctuations in water feed-in from the Nile. Determining the age was done with the help of seven radio-carbon dating, which were compared to biostratigraphic fossil types.

As expected, the authors were able to show the warm-wet phases of the “green Sahara” in their sediment cores. Near the end of the green Sahara periods, the intertropical Convergence Zone moved southwards and summer monsoons weakened.

The climate suddenly began to fluctuate with a millennial frequency. The scientists found an entire series of very distinct phases of drought with little water feed-in by the Nile occurring 6000-5500, 5000, 4200 and 3000 before today. Interestingly, dry phases dominated at other parts of the globe at the same times, thus allowing us to assume a mutual driver was impacting over the globe and not just regionally. The scientists suspect that the intertropical Convergence Zone shifted globally. Some of the dry periods mentioned are known from historical reports from Egypt and the Middle East, and contributed to the collapse of large civilizations at the time.

Obviously the climate of the region over the last thousands of years was everything but stable. Significant fluctuations occurred and their pattern urgently needs to studied further. Only when the natural pattern and its driving factors are clear will it be possible to determine man’s industrial impact after 1850. Currently, however, every change occurring is being attributed to man, which is completely unscientific because of the evidence of strong pre-industrial climate fluctuations.

So what was the trigger of the repeating Nile dry periods of the last 7000 years? What exactly is behind the suspected shifting of the intertropical Convergence Zone?

Christopher Bernhardt and his colleagues left this point open. A comparison to the solar-driven millennium cycles, such as the one described by Gerard Bond of the North Atlantic and other places on Earth, bring us the first solid clues. The dry period of 6000-5500 years ago coincides with the cold period described by Bond and designated “Number 4“ – at a time when solar activity was especially weak. Similarly the dry period of 4200 years ago coincided with Bond’s low solar activity cold period “Number 3“.

Weak sun, low temperatures – little rain in the Sahel/Sahara? Actually that would fit with a strong sun – high temperatures – more moisture in the Sahel/Sahara.

If you consider the existing uncertainties in dating and simple linear age model, we could get some strong leads. More research in this area is urgently needed.

Figure 1: Drought periods in the Nile catchment area are indicated by the gray zones, During these times the amount of water in the Nile was reduced (peaks to the left in the curve), based on pollen analyses. Figure from Bernhardt et al. (2012).”