No Future In Sight For Electric Cars, Says Toyota, German Auto Economics Professor

Another green pipe dream, electric cars, bites the dust.

A Reva i/G-Wiz charging in London. Photo source: Wikipedia – file from the Wikimedia Commons,, frankh (Flickr User)

CO2 Handel reports that Toyota, one of the leading hybrid car manufacturers, sees no future for the purely electric car.

There is still no business model that can succeed on the market,” said the spokesman of Toyota Deutschland on Tuesday. Instead, Toyota will focus more on hybrid models over the coming years.

Toyota wants to continue development and sell electric cars for field tests, but only to a few selected customers in the USA and Japan. No sales are planned for Europe at this time.”

The main problem with the electric cars is their lack of efficiency with the batteries, and there are no technical breakthroughs in sight.

Meanwhile, the Rheinpfalz daily here reports on the dismal sales of electric cars in Germany. Pure electric cars, charged by renewable energy, were once hoped to be the answer to the dirtier combustion engine and would herald in a new era of clean transportation. That is now looking more and more like a pipe dream.

The Rheinpfalz daily writes:

For years they dominated international car shows and were to seen everywhere in the media: electric cars. However up to now, they have been completely missing on one decisive place: the streets. In the first part of 2012, only 4541 electric cars were registered, and that in a total market of about 51.7 million vehicles.”

Once again, as is the case with some forms renewable energy, noboby in the free market is willing to give electric cars the time of day. Not even the fans in the media and government are buying them. For the money, they simply do not provide mobility solutions that people have come to expect.

The Rheinpfalz daily writes:

Because of skimpy demand, the French PSA concern is stopping both of its electric models: the Citroen C-Zero and Peugeot iOn. For the same reason, production lines will be stopped for the Ampera sister model the Chevrolet Volt at the end of the month.”

That means the German government can forget about reaching its lofty target of having 1 million electric cars on German streets by 202o.

“Nobody believes it’s going to happen,” says Ferdinand Dudenhöffer, a professor for automotive economics at the University of Duisburg-Essen, according to the Rheinpfalz.

The problem with electric cars is all the impracticality involved with charging them, their low range, and massive battery weight. The batteries themselves pose huge environmental challenges that every proponent refuses to take into account.

Worse, studies show that electric cars mean a limitation in mobility, and not an expansion. The infrastructure for charging electric cars is also plagued with problems. The Rheinpfalz asks:

Does the connection fit with my car? Can my charging cable handle the electric current load that is supplied by the charging station? For example, does the charging station supply 32 A while my cable can only handle 16A?

Other electric cars have also been shown to be unsafe, some catching fire.

Even the German government, probably the biggest proponent of electric cars on the planet (at least judging from all the promotional literature it cranks out) is snapping them up. According to the Rheinpflaz: “In 2012 the car fleet of the Federal Ministry for Transportation has only 2 electric cars and one fuel cell car. It has lots of electric bikes.”

Just more truth and reality about the great green pipe dream.


Veteran German Journalist: “Interest In The End-Of-The-World Waning Rapidly”…”High Level Of Public Wearout”

And that in Europe, no less!

Veteran journalist Ulli Kulke (DIE WELT) has a finger on the pulse of the climate issue in Europe. In his latest blog piece here, he tells us that the latest readings are barely detectable.

Public’s concern on end-of-world claims is worn out.  (Flood on Java (c.1865-1876) by Raden Saleh: Public domain graphic)

Recently the Climate Vulnerability Monitor, a public study on the impact of climate change worldwide, was released. Needless to say the report was chock full with doom and gloom scenarios, and pleas to world to act now to curb climate change.

It was supposed to thrust the climate change issue back to the forefront and to spur global leaders into immediate action. So what was Europe’s reaction to the Climate Vulnerability Monitor? Yawn.

Kulke writes:

Actually, the new, much ballyhooed study on the imminent end-of-the-world is not worth mentioning. We’ve seen too many of these over the last years, with one being more dubious than the other. At times one could almost feel pity for the authors because nobody really paid attention to them, at least not here in these parts, and that is significant. And all this despite the most super-horror scenarios for the coming decades when it comes to climate change, reaching the highest levels, the UN in New York, from the highest persons, including state and government leaders, also including various NGOs such as Oxfam.”

Recall that the report projects 100 million directly climate-related deaths by 2030, and a litany of other horrors should we fail to act. Yet Kulke oberserves that major media outlets in Germany hardly gave the report the time of day. One can only speculate on the reasons behind this. Perhaps the public has grown tired and unbelieving of the “climate catastrophe”, or perhaps the public is realizing that it’s about poor countries playing the victim role in a bid to push through a vast redistribution scheme (see video at the above link). Kulke writes:

One thing that’s clear is the high level of wearout that scenarios and visions of horror are having with the public.”

Crying wolf may work a couple of times, but after dozens of times, the messenger quickly diminishes and soon gets regarded as the town fool. The Climate Vulnerability Report authors are just the latest fools and nobody is listensing to them. There are other problems out there that are pressing – and real! The financial crisis, to name one.

Kulke sums it up:

No one is interested in the big study. Over the last few days, climate change has been mentioned in the papers more in relationship with the imminent threat to field mice and reindeer. At least that was something new. If it’s really true, that’s a completely different question. Next time.”


Coal Makes A Comeback In Europe – CO2 Not So Bad After All!

I’m short on time this week, but Benny Peiser brings our attention to the latest energy revolution: coal!

I guess CO2 can’t be that great of a problem after all. At the Christian Science Monitor:

While regulation limits coal power in the US, Hunt writes that the energy source is on the rise in Europe.

A funny thing is happening on the way to the clean energy future.  While the US government wages a regulatory war on coal fired generation, in Europe, the land of the oh so politically correct the drive for greenhouse gas emissions reduction is meeting a new competitor—reality!

The EU emissions trading scheme had fallen on hard times […] it was not the transformation some had hoped to achieve.

Then the Japan earthquake and tsunami sends Europe into a frenzy over the safety of nuclear power and Germany announced major closures of its nuclear fleet.  The Greens hoped killing off nuclear would give them a two-fer—less nuke and more renewables.

The German government policy is to encourage construction of 10 gigawatts of coal fired generation to displace aging nuclear plants and provide baseload backup for wind and solar power.  Worldwide coal plant construction grew 5.4% over the past year according to BP and now represents about 30% of installed capacity. …

Continue reading here.


500,000 New US Jobs By 2025 Thanks To Affordable Shale Gas – US Gas 75% Cheaper Than In Europe

Yesterday I wrote here how Europe, particularly Germany, is driving out industry with sky-high energy prices.

Will Europe deny its citizens a huge reserve of shale gas energy wealth? Looks that way. (Chart source:

What follows is what sensible energy policy looks like.

Reader Mick J. left a comment on shale gas that deserves to be bumped up to a post (my emphasis):

First, thank you for the site and the information it brings to us English speakers.

Perhaps this contrast published in March of this year will interest. How chemical manufacturer is returning to the US now that low gas prices resulting from Shale extraction has reduced prices.

Royal Dutch Shell announced this month that it chose a site near Pittsburgh for a facility to convert ethane from locally produced natural gas into ethylene and polyethylene. […] The planned ethane cracker would employ a few hundred workers.

It’s among nearly 30 chemical plants proposed in the U.S. in the next five years, […]. The projects would expand U.S. petrochemical capacity by 27% and employ 200,000 workers at the factories and related suppliers […]. As U.S. natural gas prices soared in the late 1990s, chemical makers moved overseas, laying off 140,000 employees,

…the U.S. has seen a natural gas boom in recent years, with producers using new drilling techniques to extract fuel from shale formations in Texas, Pennsylvania and other regions. U.S. natural gas prices, at slightly more than $2 per million British thermal units, are about 75% below Western Europe rates.

PricewaterhouseCoopers’ partner Robert Mc-Cutcheon estimates inexpensive natural gas could help U.S. manufacturers save $11.6 billion a year and create more than 500,000 jobs by 2025.”

Continue reading here.

Unless the European government wakes up from its climate-protection fantasy, there will be no need for anyone there to turn off the lights when leaving. They’ll be going out by themselves soon enough.

Also read: (h/t Anthony Watts)


Europe’s Environmental Destruction Madness Now Threatening To Demolish Beautiful, Scenic Crete

Anyone who has ever visited the island of Crete will tell you that it’s beauty simply cannot be expressed with words. That may soon change, tragically. The following video shows what Europe intends to do with this natural treasure: turn it into an industrial eyesore. Warning: may agitate you totally!

Crete Plug of Europe from politestv on Vimeo.

The heights of this environmental madness knows no limits. Hat tip: reader Kurt A.


Chemicals Industry Bosses And Labor Union Send Angela Merkel Warning Letter Over Skyrocketing Energy Prices

Chemicals make our lives immensely better. Without them, we’d be catapulted back to Stone Age, fully exposed to nature’s merciless brutality.

Trade union and chemical industry bosses in Germany warn Merkel of the consequences of high electricity prices. Source: Wikipedia, public domain photo

Processing chemicals, however, sometimes involves large amounts of energy. Therefore, in their quest to provide customers with affordable products, processing companies need affordable energy. Today this is no longer available in Germany, which has taken a blind leap into renewable energies. Now electricity rates are skyrocketing out of control.

Spooked, chemical processing companies and the labor unions in Germany have sent an urgent letter to Chancellor Merkel, so writes Der Spiegel here. Hat-tip: Karl Rannseyer at Facebook. Spiegel writes:

The letter to the Chancellor is anything but friendly: According to a newspaper [Handelsblatt] report, the chemicals sector has warned Angela Merkel of rising electricity costs due to the energy transformation to renewables – the competitiveness of the branch is at stake.”

The letter warns:

If the chemicals industry loses its competitiveness, not only Germany as an address for production and research will be at stake, but also the entire industrial network as a whole will be dragged into into a painful situation.”

The letter was signed by the President of the German Association of Chemical Industries (VCI), Klaus Engel; by the head of the Chemicals Trade Union IG BCE, Michael Vassiliadis; and the President of the Federal Employers Association for Chemicals, Eggert Voscherau.


Leading German Pollster Warns: Green Movement Has Shades Of Brown – Threatens Democracy In Germany

Those who have been monitoring the environmental movement in Germany over the years know that it is driven by an elitist, authoritarian and intolerant class of people who at times don’t refrain showing their contempt for democracy.

Now Manfred Güllner, the founder and director of one of Germany’s leading pollsters, the Forsa Institute, confirms our deep concerns as he speaks out on the green movement in an interview with Der Spiegel. Remind you that Güllner is the Prince of Pollsters in Germany.

Güllner has released a new book, and according to Spiegel he wrote that the “green dictatorship” threatens “the second attempt to firmly establish democracy in Germany”.

When pressed on this claim, the 71-year old Güllner defends it, saying that since the Federal Republic of Germany has been founded, he observes that democracy entails much effort for Germans, and reminds us that “sociologically speaking, the original nucleus of the movement stems from the Weimar period and today the green movement is in the same anti-modern segment of society, a radicalized part of the German middle class”.

In the interview Spiegel asks:  “You claim the greens scare the voters away from the voting booths, and that the shrinking voter turnout undermines democracy. Why do you say that?”

Güllner: In local elections, one sees a clear relationship: The higher the percentage of votes that the greens get, the lower the voter turnout. It’s also clear to see internationally. Over the last 30 years, nowhere in western countries has voter turnout dropped more than in Germany. At the same time, the greens have gotten especially strong here.”

He uses the southern industrial state of Baden Wurttemberg, which not long ago elected a Green Party governor, Winfried Kretschmann, as an example. Güllner tells Spiegel:

In Baden-Württemberg Winfried Kretschmann got only 16 percent of all eligible voters behind him, yet he was able to derive a mandate for a radical political change. No wonder that many people there do not feel represented.”

Güllner explains that the success of the greens is based on populist environmental issues, like who isn’t against a clean environment and peace? He adds:

The greens also have massive support from scientists and a large part of the German mass media. This media-scientific support give the greens an impact that is much bigger than what they really are.”

This is no exaggeration. Green activists, politicians and organizations are constantly interviewed as “experts” and “authorities” in the media. And they are rarely criticized.

Güllner ends the interview saying that the mainstream parties (CDU and SPD) have gotten too green, and that the green party needs to deflate its ego, as it is exercising a disproportionate amount of influence.


Germany Sends A Blaring Warning To The World…”Renewables Drive Is Turning Out To Be A Disaster”

Christopher Booker provides a sobering analysis of how NOT to manage national energy policy. Must read! Hat-tip mwhite.

Drugged up on green fantasies, duped by activist scientists, and arrogantly dismissing warnings, Angela Merkel and her CDU party lead the country to the brink of an energy disaster. (Photo credit:Ralf Roletschek)

Booker writes:

In fact, a mighty battle is now developing in Germany between green fantasists and practical realists. Because renewable energy must by law have priority in supplying the grid, the owners of conventional power stations, finding they have to run plants unprofitably, are so angry that they are threatening to close many of them down. The government response, astonishingly, has been to propose a new law forcing them to continue running their plants at a loss.”

Read it all here.

All the more reason to ignore this kooky Enquete Commission activist report impostering as truth.

Thanks Christopher!


German Parliamentary Enquete Commission Report Calls For “Consumption Limits, Fundamental Changes”

Europe, and especially authoritarian Germany, has passed numerous measures over the years to get people to change their behavior – all to protect the climate.

But the efforts are failing says a new Enquete Commission report to be issued Monday by the German Federal Parliament, and so its authors are now calling for more radical measures to curb the impact of human activity on the planet. The influential commission includes members from every party.

Latest Enquete report of global doom and gloom

The report was drafted by the Parliamentary Enquete Commission, which includes green enviro-zealots like Hermann Ott (Parliamentarian, Green Party) and Michael Müller (Parliamentarian, Socialist Party).

Ott writes that “technical solutions alone are not adequate” and thus proposes the implementation of consumption limits, and making energy and raw materials more expensive. The project group which wrote the report, according to Ott, says “global concepts for curbing the consumption of raw materials are essential”.

According to Ott, his team “has reached the worrisome conclusion that the ecosystem being overburdened is not something on the horizon, but has already occurred in some areas – and is already shown by climate change, species extinction and the burdening of natural cycles by excessive nitrogen fertilization. […] According to the consumption of resources and the pollution of the environment, 1.3 to 1.5 Earths are needed.”

Moreover, the Parliamentarians are calling for “a price signal”. They say that up to now the “atmosphere and oceans have had no price”.

Technology has failed to cut CO2 emissions

The report also finds that green products and technology will not solve our climate problems because of the so-called “rebound effect”. As new technology makes many things more energy-efficient, people just end up consuming more energy because they just run their appliances longer. For example energy saving lights require only a few watts, and so people now leave the lights on more longer. People also feel less bad about driving their hybrid car. In some cases, there’s the so-called “back-fire effect”, where the technology ends up causing more consumption and not less!

Therefore the report hints that far more drastic behavior control measures will be needed. Hello tyranny, size XL!

We’re headed for “self-destruction”

The online daily Die Welt quotes green leftist Michael Müller: “One of the findings of the report is that extending today’s trends leads to self-destruction. We have to fundamentally change our thinking.”

What Müller means here is that citizens need to ignore the scientific data and become as neurotically paranoid and obsessed with the end of the world as he himself is.

Müller is also the Chairman of the umbrella environmental organization Umweltverbandes Naturfreunde Deutschland (Environmental Association of Nature Friends Germany). He is also a contributor to the alarmist climate site “Klimaretter” (Climate Rescuers), and so fancies himself as a planet-saving hero.

Another challenge for climate and environmental protection, the report says, is that developing countries are striving to reach western levels of prosperity and are therefore consuming more and more resources. It seems this is now becoming intolerable for green neurotics.

It used to be that poverty and lack of development were the ills of the planet – now they are the ills of the planet.

Green tyranny gets a stern signal from the US Senate

Meanwhile the US Senate just sent a powerful signal to the enviro-kooks in Europe, which boil down to something like: Take your paranoid fear-mongering obsessions and stuff them. Indeed most of the world is pleased to hear that the Senate “unanimously passed a bill on Saturday that would shield U.S. airlines from paying for their carbon emissions on European flights, pressuring the European Union to back down from applying its emissions law to foreign carriers.”

John Thune:

The Senate’s action today will help ensure that U.S. air carriers and passengers will not be paying down European debt through this illegal tax and can instead be investing in creating jobs and stimulating our own economy.”

Claire McCaskill

It’s refreshing to see strong, bipartisan support for the commonsense notion that Americans shouldn’t be forced to pay a European tax when flying in U.S. airspace.”

Glad to see the US politicians are working to serve the people, and not the other way around, as is obviously the case in Europe.


Solar Influence On Winter Severity In Central Europe, Dispels Junk Claim A Warm Arctic Causes Cold Winters

We’ve been hearing a lot of bogus “model science” asking us to believe the preposterous notion that a warm Arctic and reduced sea ice there “could” lead to bitter cold winters across Europe and North America. In summary the new science insists warming leads to more cold. Now there’s a new paper out in the Geophysical Research Letters titled: Solar influence on winter severity in Central Europe, which tells us this is a load of BS.

The sun has a major impact on climate. And there’s no denying it: solar activity reached record levels over the 20th century. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported

The key points of the paper:

  • Freezing of the Rhine occurred from 1780-1963 regularly during sunspot minima.
  • Coldest winter continue to occur during sunspot minima even today.
  • This cooling is a regional phenomenon, but not a hemispheric signal.

The authors used historical reports of freezing of the river Rhine. They concluude:

The historical data show that 10 of the 14 freeze years occurred close to sunspot minima and only one during a year of moderate El Niño. This solar influence is underpinned by corresponding atmospheric circulation anomalies in reanalysis data covering the period 1871 to 2008. Accordingly, weak solar activity is empirically related to extremely cold winter conditions in Europe also on such long time scales. This relationship still holds today, however the average winter temperatures have been rising during the last decades.”

The cause of the rising average winter temperatures over the last decades will be attributed by some to greenhouse gases. But we have to recall that the sun not only undergoes 11-year cycles, but also, 22, 87 and 1000-year cycles. In happens that solar activity was at a very high level over the last decades, and so warming over the last decade, especially in combination with the warm phases of the PDO and AMO, should not surprise us at all.

As the paper says, the sun plays a major role, and so ignoring its cycles in models is just bad science. The tragedy of it all is that the solar cycles are known and they could be easily built into the models, which then in turn would gain immensely in value. But because they do not produce the desired results for activist scientists, they are left out and forcing tricks from other factors such as aerosols and volcanoes are used for explaining the inconvenient cool periods.


NOAA Data (Again) Shows No Acceleration In Sea Level Rise. “CO2 Climate Hypothesis Is In A Free-Fall”

Michael Krüger at Readers Edition writes about sea level data from the NOAA.


“We have to get used to the idea of a sea level rise of about one meter for this century,“ announced Prof. John Schellnhuber in 2008, based on new findings. Other researchers, based on model computations, even claim 1.5 meters by the end of the century. That of course far exceeds the prognoses of the IPCC. But what does real data tell us?

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has an interactive graphic at its “Sea Levels Online” page that provides the locals trends for sea level rise (see above). You can check the trends based on tide gauges and calculate when Al Gore’s beachfront house will be flooded. Looks like it’s going to take hundreds of years.

At most coastal locations, sea level is rising just 0-3 mm/year, which is 30 cm per century or less, i.e. in the lower range of IPCC forecasts. This is the case for the German North and East Sea coastal areas.

For the German North Sea port-city of Cuxhaven, the rise is approx. 2.5 mm/year. There are areas where sea level is actually dropping.

Interestingly in the northern Adriatic Sea (near Rovinj), sea level rise is a mere 0.5 mm/year, which makes media claims that Venice is sinking into oblivion due to sea climate change pure absurdity. The city is struggling with a sinking ground, and that has little to do with climate.

What’s more, a letter to the editor from EIKE meteorologist/scientist Klaus Eckard Puls appears in today’s daily OstSee Zeitung.

In it he writes about the prophesies of sea level doom and gloom – from the bedwetters, like the PIK, for example – and compares them to reality:

Nature is behaving completely differently from what the prophets would like to have us to believe. Global temperature hasn’t risen in 14 years, and instead even shows a decreasing tendency. Thus the CO2 climate hypothesis is in a free-fall. Moreover, the sea levels, which have been rising for 10 thousand years, show no acceleration whatsoever globally, in stark contrast to the IPCC prognoses. There are many locations where the sea level trend has slowed down, like at the North Sea.”


It’s The Soot Stupid! Leading Environmental Group NABU Says Soot Is 50% Responsible For Arctic Warming

With every passing year we get without global warming, CO2 loses more and more of its credibility as the cause for climate change. So what to do? Move on to another issue that will do just as well. Blame it on soot from automobiles and industry, and push for lots of regulation.

Black soot is responsible for 50% of Arctic warming.

Influential German environmental group Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU) is now demanding a greater focus on soot when it comes to climate regulation. NABU writes:

The dangers of soot particles and other air pollutants have not been strong enough issues in politics up to now. NABU Director Leif Miller: ‘Up to 50 percent of the warming in the Arctic can be traced back to the influence of soot particles. Thus these particles play a role in climate change that is just as important as greenhouse gas CO2,’ Miller added.”

When listening to Miller when it comes to the scale of potential regulation, soot, which comes from the burning of fossil fuels, becomes just as attractive as CO2. Defining soot as a problem would pave the way for the massive regulation of a broad swath of our society. Soot would do just fine.

In Central Europe transportation is the main source. Together with other pollutants, soot particles make up the group of ‘short-life climate drivers’. They force climate change similarly as much as CO2, but remain in the atmosphere much shorter. Their reduction would impact the climate much more quickly than a reduction of CO2.”

NABU transportation expert Dietmar Oeliger adds: “By combating a climate driver that has an immediate impact, we would gain valuable time in reaching our climate targets”.

This sounds like it’s straight out of Fritz Vahrenholt’s and Sebastian Lüning’s book “Die kalte Sonne”, who also advocate measures for cleaning up soot in developing countries as a far more economical way of slowing down Arctic warming. BUND writes:

The German government must pass a binding reductions target by 2020. All diesel soot sources must be outfitted with modern exhaust cleaning systems such as particle filters. In addition, it is also necessary to fundamentally think about alternative mobility strategies where the internal combustion engine plays a significantly lesser role than today.”

Together with environmental groups BUND, Deutsche Umwelthilfe and the Ecological Transportation Club of Germany (VCD), NABU has been pushing for stronger public awareness with its campaign: “Soot-free for the Climate”.

So even if CO2 turns out to have only a minimal or moderate effect on climate, it will still be necessary to massively regulate soot (fosselin fuels) in the relatively spic-and-span western industrial countries. Of course developing countries will be given a free pass here.

Whatever the outcome, it is nice to see that climate-factors other than CO2 are now being taken seriously by environmentalists.

And once the sun and oceans are considered, CO2 practically disappears from the warming equation. But with soot accounting for 50%, don’t expect the environmentalists to concede solar and oceanic cycles are playing a major role. Something has to be left for CO2.

All the blame has to be kept on fossil fuels.


EIKE Institute: “Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect Too Weak…Doubling CO2 Will Lead Only To 0.58°C Warming”

What temperature rise does a doubling of atmospheric CO2 lead to? Overall, the IPCC says anywhere from about 2 – 6°C, i.e. they don’t know.

Recently the Germany-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) posted an essay by Dr. Wolfgang Burkel, who concludes that doubling atmospheric CO2 will lead only to a 0.58°C of warming at the Earth’s surface.

What follows is a translation and summary of his essay.

Dr. Burkel’s calculation method looks at the energy balance directly at the Earth’s surface. Evaporative cooling of additional water vapor is so powerful that only 0.58°C of warming is enough for compensating a doubling of CO2 concentration.


Anthropogeníc Greenhouse Effect Too Weak For A Climate Catastrophe!
By Wolfgang Burkel

The greenhouse effect of CO2 is expressed by the formula: dF = 5.75ln(C/Co).

Figure 1: Logarithmic climate sensitivity of CO2.

Figure 1 shows that a doubling of CO2 concentration delivers an additional radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m², which in turn leads to an atmospheric warming of about 1°C, which is accepted by almost all scientists. The IPCC provides a figure of 1.2°C; Lüdecke and Link [2] calculate 1.1°C. Other sources provide similar values.

The problems begin when the results are carried over to the Earth’s surface. Suddenly the values diverge immensely. Even within the IPCC itself there is no agreement. See the following chart:

Figure 2: CO2 effect according to the IPCC AR4 2007.

First of all one sees that the values in the table appear as guesses, and are thus alien to any scientific method. The reason for this are the varying estimates of ‘positive feedbacks’, which are built into the politically dominated models. But logic does not support a positive feedback. How should a small warming of the atmosphere lead to a large warming at the Earth’s surface?

Why does one calculate a change in global temperature by taking a detour through the atmosphere? The result is useless because there is no consensus on what it means for the Earth’s surface.

Figure 3: Energy budget at the Earth’s surface and change through the greenhouse effect (in parentheses): Evaporation 84 W/m² (+4); Radiation 45 W/m² (-4) and convection 17 W/m² (+0). Absorbed from the sun 140 W/m² (+/- 0). Earth’s surface temperature: 15°C (+0.58°C).

Figure 3 shows the heat flux as part of the energy budget. What happens in the atmosphere or at the outer edge is insignificant for the energy balance. The energy at the Earth’s surface eventually finds its way out into outer space.

There’s a consensus on the magnitudes of the energy flux: evaporation is 84 W/m², radiation is 45 W/m² and convection is 17 W/m². A change in one is compensated by the others. Anthropogenic greenhouse effect reduces the energy flux from radiation. But then the temperature of the Earth’s surface rises until a new equilibrium gets established.

For calculating the warming, the dependence of the three above-mentioned transport mechanisms on temperature is used.


Evaporation of water removes heat from the Earth’s surface and transports it to the upper atmosphere, where it gets dumped as the vapor condenses. For the stability of the climate, this is of great importance because the evaporation heat is strongly dependent on the Earth’s surface temperature. With an average of 84 W/m², evaporation provides almost 60% of the heat transport from the Earth’s surface towards the upper atmosphere. We know that precipitation on Earth has increased over the last 100 years, and thus transports more heat back to the upper atmosphere, away from the Earth’s surface.

A warming of 1°C increases heat transport due to evaporation back to the upper atmosphere by 7.5%. At 84 W/m², that translates to 6.3 W/m² of additional cooling effect for the Earth’s surface. As we see, evaporation acts as a powerful brake against changes in climate.


About 70% of the long-wave radiation from the Earth’s surface is absorbed by the greenhouse gases. Direct radiation from the Earth’s surface into space is about 45 W/m². This value is reduced somewhat by the higher anthropogenic greenhouse effect. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration results in a radiation reduction of 4 W/m² (as mentioned earlier).

But radiation intensity is proportional to the 4th power of the absolute temperature. A warming of 1°C translates to 1.4%, or 0.63W/m².

There’s also a feedback from additional water vapour in the air. Using Figure 5 below, water vapor at its current concentration delivers a maximum 8 W/m² of radiative forcing.

Figure 5:  The effect of greenhouse gases on thermal radiiation.

And with 7.5% more water vapor, this yields an additional radiative forcing of 0.6 W/m². Note that Figure 5 shows that effect of various greenhouse gases greatly depends on the spectrum wavelength.

Figure 5 shows that the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is limited to a narrow long-wave range in the neighborhood of 14 microns, and is for the most part saturated.

Also additional water vapor has only a marginal impact.


As the Earth’s surface temperature rises, warm air travels up and transports heat to the upper atmosphere. Convection provides only about 12% of this outward heat transfer, and thus we will neglect it here.

Tallying it all up

Summary of changes in energy flux resulting from 1°C of warming:

Evaporation: +7.5% = 6.3 W/m²
Convection: (negligible)
Radiation: +1.4% = 0.63 W/m²
Feedback through water vapor: 0.6 W/m²

A warming of 1°C of results in an additional cooling effect of a total of 6.33W/m² because of mechanisms that transport heat away from the Earth’s surface and towards the upper atmosphere.

And we already know that doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration leads to a radiative forcing of only 3.7 W/m², see Figure 6:

Figure 6: Warming as a function of CO2 concentration. Doubling CO2 concentration leads to a radiative warming of 3.7W/m². A 1°C warming leads to a tarnsport mechansim effect of 6.3W/m².

Using Figure 6, the exact value for climate warming is 0.58°C.

How does this figure compare to the current discussion? This figure is in agreement with Lindzen and Choi of MIT [3]. These two scientists quantified the climate sensitivity at 0.5°C using satellite data, i.e. real observations and not dubious computer simulations.

Hermann Harde [4] found a climate sensitivity of 0.62°C using spectroscopic examinations and model calculations.


The minimal effect of CO2 on climate is not surprising. This is confirmed by both theory and by actual observations and measurements.


Vahrenholt “Provokes” Stocker By Calling Mann’s Hockey Stick “Fake” And Challenging IPCC

Today I thought I’d bring up one or two of the highlights of the Bern Debate between Fritz Vahrenholt and IPCC author Thomas Stocker. One highlight is Stocker getting all huffy and puffy about Vahrenholt calling Mann’s hockey stick a “Fälschung” (fake).

Bern Debate now on Youtube!

At the 4:50 mark Vahrenholt presents the infamous Michael Mann hockey stick graph and says “this graphic has been shown to be false, and was even in part faked”.

Then at the 14:50 mark, when asked why he went from being a warmist to a skeptic, Vahrenholt said he found too many things that didn’t fit and was surprised to discover that Mann’s stick was phony. Examining the science more closely, he found that many things just didn’t add up.

Having called Mann’s hockey stick a fake no less than three times in total, Stocker became indignant and accused Vahrenholt of provocation.

First off, there’s something I first have to get off my chest. Mr. Vahrenholt naturally has provoked in claiming three times that the climate curve by Michael Mann was fraudulent. That’s an accusation I vehemently reject. It’s an accusation that you cannot prove.”

At the 22:00 minute mark Vahrenholt got his chance and proved the stick was fake, summing up what Mann did in just a few sentences.

The fact of the matter is that the numerical models, the calculation operations which the IPCC relies on, are not able to reproduce the fluctuations of the past. We are talking about fluctuations on the order of plus or minus 0.5 degrees C. That’s not just something you can just leave off the table. The models are not able to completely depict reality. That’s the problem with the IPCC. The IPCC and its models cannot depict the clouds. And clouds have an awesome impact as you can imagine on the radiation and warming development of the Earth. And so that’s why it is somewhat interesting that you put yourself so massively behind Michael Mann, as he is cited in the Al Gore film where the curve is shown. This curve, has been forbidden to be shown by an English court without being accompanied by commentary because for the last 50 years he [Mann] noticed that his models with his tree rings are so wrong that he simply left them out. In his original curve they showed a cooling, and so that’s why he left them out! You can see in the e-mails how someone said “we have to hide the decline”, and others said ‘that’s a wonderful trick – let’s just tack on the thermometer record over the tree rings and no one will notice!’ So I find it interesting that you back Michael Mann. I know that Michael Mann later on had the Medieval Warm Period reappear.”

Vahrenholt then reminded Stocker there are numerous temperature reconstructions from all over the world and they all show cyclic temperature developments over the past thousand years.

Needless to say, the hockey stick was not brought up again during the debate.

At this point Stocker was out of arguments and countered (strangely) that he tallied up all the references in Vahrenholt’s book and found that 37.3% of them did not cite peer-reviewed literature, and therefore he found Vahrenholt audacious in challenging the IPCC reports.

Vahrenholt responded by explaining the difference between a book designed to communicate a message to the general public and a scientific assessment for policymakers:

That tells me what level you people operate at [laughter]. That’s a book that attempts to reach the people, a book that tries to convey the complex science. Of course I’ll also quote Der Spiegel; of course I’ll quote the NZZ when I want to explain how the debate stands in Switzerland. It is not a scientific body of literature that contains only scientific quotes. But of the 900 references, 600 are of original scientific sources. For the book to be interesting, it is necessary to quote Gerhard Schröder, and we quote Herr Schellnhuber, who said in 2007 – you can see it in Youtube – that in 35 years the Himalayan glaciers will be gone. You can go back and read it. Of course it is not a scientific source, but it is allowed.”

Now that’s killing two birds (Stocker and Schellnhuber) with one stone.

I expect a few members audience by now have picked up a copy of Vahrenholt’s and Lüning’s book, Die kalte Sonne, and that we’ll soon have a few more skeptics on our side.

The moderator also seemed to be skeptical as well, expressing doubt about the models and asking Stocker if the science indeed perhaps involves some hysteria.


German Public Television Airing “Der Super-Frost” – Asks If Warming Will Cause An Ice Age

Climate science is hopelessly confused. A few years ago we were told to expect more hurricanes, but have since gotten almost none. We were told we would get winters without snow, instead we’re now getting hit by bitter cold, snowy winters. We were told to expect an Arctic melt down, and now they are telling us to expext a new ice age.

Is it any wonder that nobody believes climate scientists anymore?

This week German NTV public television is broadcasting a show titled “Der Super Frost” – scheduled to air Wednesday evening at 11 p.m. CET. Hat-tip to Die kalte Sonne website. “Der Super Frost” just happens to be the Mega Freeze episode of the US Mega Disasters series from 2006 (see trailer below).

In the trailer, they ask if global warming will lead to a tipping to global freezing, in which case we would have to call it global cooling – which in reality climate scientists say is now global warming.

This show isn’t just some outdated theory from 2006. Once again today the notion that warming will lead to an ice age is coming back. For example last week German daily Bild here (and a host of other German media outlets) carried the story from scientist Jennifer Francis of Rutgers-University. Bild opened with:

In the Arctic it is getting warmer and warmer, the ice sheet covering the sea has reached a record minimum. Scientists fear that the winter in North America and Europe will therefore become extremely icy! Meaning: The Arctic sea is releasing more and more heat into the air – and this delivers frigid cold!

Wow! warming produces extreme cold. It really does, the scientists say. So should we be preparing for a bitter cold winter? Well, not really. You see Bild reports that these Francis added an opt-out provision to cover her tush:

However, many factors play a role, like snow cover in Siberia or also tropical influences. Thus despite less sea ice coverage, sometimes also mild and wet winters may remain – like last year. Climate scientist Francis: ‘I can only say that it will probably be a very interesting winter.’“

If that’s all you can say, then why did you tell us the rest? Is it because now, no matter what happens, you and the rest of the charlatans will be able to say your models predicted it?

If their idiotic hypothesis that a warm Arctic produces a cold northern hemisphere were true, then the opposite would have to be true. That is, when there’s lots of sea ice, as was the case 35 years ago, then North American and European winters would have to be very mild. That was not the case.

As climatologist Pat Michaels says, the hypothesis is horseshit.


Vahrenholt Buries IPCC Scientist In Debate – Here’s The Video In German

UPDATE: See debate video in German:


All Stocker had for arguments was: 1) insisting Mann’s phony hockey stick was still valid 2) claiming there’s scientific consensus, and 3) we can trust the models! All three of course have long been proven to be false.

Their science is that bad, folks. I never would have believed it. Using an old discredited science, the IPCC is really looking like a bizarre end-of-world comedy act. 

It’s clear why IPCC scientists don’t like debating – and prefer insisting that we just believe them.

There are other nuances I found entertaining, and I’ll try to bring these up today, time permitting.


MEP Roger Helmer: “Vahrenholt A Star Of The Climate Sceptic Movement…Time To Reject Climate Alarmism”

The mainstream media, and I’m sure many within Fritz Vahrenholt’s own party, have been expending huge effort to keep his message and his sceptic book Die kalte Sonne bottled up. That effort has failed. Vahrenholt is getting his message out.

Vahrenholt’s message along with the ever growing hopelessness for success we were told to expect from renewable energies is making a profound energy policy realignment inevitable. Already it’s beginning today in the UK, Germany, Spain, and Holland – to name a few. Mandatory feed-in tariffs are being massively scaled back.

This morning I was pleased to find that East Midlands MEP Roger Helmer took the time to leave a reader comment, which I now gladly present here as a post. Here’s what Roger wrote concerning Vahrenholt and UK energy policy:

He’s spoken several times in Brussels — the EU’s Heart of Darkness.  It’s a delicious irony that he has a long track record as a German green activist and a leading player in renewable energy.

Meantime here in the UK, the United Kingdom Independence Party (currently running third in the opinion polls) is preparing to launch (Sept 21st) a new Energy Policy Statement, becoming the first significant UK party explicitly to reject climate alarmism, to oppose renewables, and to propose a rational energy policy based on nuclear, gas and coal.

At Helmer’s website here he writes:

The EU is wrong on its policies on climate change and energy which are driving up energy bills, harming our industries, pushing businesses and jobs and investment offshore and forcing millions into fuel poverty. The EU ‘renewable’ energy rules will double electricity bills by 2020 and render our industries uncompetitive. Wind farms are an inefficient, inconsistent and punishingly expensive blight on our landscape which need backing up with conventional generation anyway. UKIP would scrap wind turbine subsidies and adopt a sensible energy strategy using a range of energy sources including nuclear and shale gas and coal, to free us from dependence on foreign oil and gas. By embracing gas and nuclear we could deliver the EU’s emissions targets (if you care about such things) more quickly and cheaply than the current plan, without the use of a single wind turbine!”

Climate ‘science’ does not even remotely resemble real science

One thing that needs to be viewed as a huge red flag by all citizens is the overall condescending attitude permeating through the IPCC climate science community. It’s an attitude that has nothing to do with science. Science does not progress by insisting you have the right answer from the outset, and that you are always right. It is not about stubbornly clinging to the first theory that emerges just because it’s yours or your friends find it fashionable. Science has nothing to do with excluding, altering, and filtering data you don’t agree with. And it certainly has nothing to do with shutting down open debate and the expression of alternative ideas. Sadly, all of the above ills are very deeply embedded in the corrupt culture of the IPCC “science” community.

Indeed it is high time to reject climate alarmism.

Send Roger a short message of thanks:


Vahrenholt Buries Another Climate Scientist In Debate – Claims IPCC Scientists “Have Colossally Exaggerated Warming”

UPDATE: See debate video in German: All Stocker had for arguments was: 1) insisting Mann’s phony hockey stick was still valid 2) claiming there’s scientific consensus, and 3) we can trust the models! Their science is that bad, folks. I never would have believed it. The IPCC is really looking like a comedy act.

One of the main features at this year’s Swiss Climate and Energy Summit (Bern Switzerland, 12-14 September) was a debate between IPCC leading climate scientist Prof. Thomas Stocker and renewable energy expert and chemist Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt.

Needless to say the atmosphere was electrified, with an audience of almost 400. Unfortunately there still is no video of this debate, but the online Berner Zeitung daily (BZ) of Bern wrote up a report, and yes, they too had to concede that skeptic Vahrenholt won the debate.

The BZ called Vahrenholt “rhetorically tough” and wrote he needed “only 10 seconds to warm up his argumentation machinery”.

In the article, the BZ comes across as being no fan of Vahrenholt, calling his arguments “luring” and claiming he bases his skepticism on a “mind construction which laymen have difficulty detaching themselves from”. Vahrenholt’s findings shows that the sun is at least as responsible as, if not more, than CO2 for the global warming of the last decades and that solar activity will provide us with extra decades for revamping our energy supply.

The BZ writes that Vahrenholt believes “leading scientists of the UN IPCC colossally exaggerated the dimensions of the warming in their prognoses. And with them, they have legitimised a political hysteria, which has led to a grotesque wave of subsidies.” The BZ quotes Vahrenholt:

‘We need more sense of proportion,’ and not the madness we find in countries like Germany, which ‘gets as much sunshine as Alaska’ and hyper-subsidizes photovoltaic plantations.”

The BZ writes that Vahrenholt got loud applause.

Meanwhile, warmist Thomas Stocker found it difficult to maintain his cool, calling Vahrenholt’s science “audacious” and that the stagnant global temperatures over the last (15) years “is normal for climatic warming phases.”

Clearly Vahrenholt had Stocker on the defensive. The BZ writes:

Stocker also made it clear that progress in climate science always raises new questions.”

Indeed this is true. So how can the science be settled and why do the warmist scientists go to such extremes to avoid having to face them?

The applause for Stocker, the BZ writes, was quiet.

The outcome aside, we at least have to give Stocker credit for showing up to debate in public.


Ross McKitrick And German Professor In Berlin To Present Mann’s Hockey Stick, GISS Temperature Alterations

Ross McKitrick prominent exposer of the IPCC hockey stick scandal comes to Berlin
By: W. Müller, M. Limburg (Translated/edited by NoTricksZone)

Prof. Ross McKitrick, economist and statistician of the University of Guelph (Toronto, Canada) will make a speech in the Haus der Zukunft (House of the Future) at Albrechtstraße 11 in Berlin on 17 September 2012. He is invited by the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) and the Berlin Manhattan Institute.

The main topic: What is wrong with the IPCC?

McKitrick is one of the relentless scientists (next to Steve McIntyre) who exposed the hockey stick chart by Michael Mann, which not only was adopted by the IPCC, but was also defended against all proof of the hockey stick fraud. McKitrick published evidence against it. In the IPCC Third Assessment Report –  and more discreetly in the Fourth Assessment Report -Michael Mann and the IPCC falsely claimed that the current warming was the the highest in the last 1600 years. In doing so, they eliminated the well documented Medieval Warm Period by using tricks.

In addition to Professor McKitrick, Prof. Karl-Friedrich Ewert (EIKE) will report on the retroactive alterations made to the temperature data from worldwide stations by American GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Science). These now show – after having been altered – a significant drop in earlier temperatures so that the present can appear to be warmer.

Economist and environmental expert Prof. McKitrick will take a critical view of the the UN IPCC – the basis for German climate policy and show that the current climate protection measures are not justified. McKitrick became famous worldwide through his work on the hockey stick temperature curve, which was exposed as phony. After Prof. McKitrick’s speech, Prof. Ewert will show that NASA retroactively altered important temperature data and so led to false results in climate science.

Program: Monday, 17 September 2012 18:30
Welcome statement
by Wolfgang Müller of the
Berlin Manhattan Institute and the
European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE)

Introduction of the speakers
by Steffen Hentrich
Senior Research Fellow, Friedrich-Naumann-Foundation
for Liberty

18.45 h
What is Wrong with the IPCC?
Prof. Dr. Ross McKitrick Department of Economics,
University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada

19:45 h
NASA GISS Changes Temperature Data Retroactively – Why?
Prof. em. Dr. Friedrich-Karl Ewert
University Paderborn, Pressesprecher EIKE

Followed by Q&A

Light refreshments will be served Link to the program in PDF

Link to the program on the Institutes sitee Send this invitation to someone else (link)

This is a cooperation event by the Berlin Manhattan Institute together with the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE)  and the Haus der Zukunft Berlin – International Institute for Germany – and Europe Political Educational Work Bildungsarbeit


With your full name via e-mail or Fax to: Berlin Manhattan Institute.

Email:; Fax: 030 69 20 800 39